20 Questions for an NRC Nuclear Engineer who Responded to the Three Mile Island Crisis

in #history6 years ago

Hello everyone! My grandfather, Ebe Chandler McCabe Jr. has an extensive background in naval service as well as service for the NRC. . .


image.png Image Source: Pixabay.com, License CC0 Public Domain

Hello everyone! My grandfather, Ebe Chandler McCabe Jr. has an extensive background in naval service as well as service for the NRC. Perhaps, one of his most notable contributions was his work in limiting the damage caused by the nuclear emergency at Three Mile Island which started on March 28th, 1979 in central Pennsylvania. For those of you who don't know, the Three Mile Island emergency started when the secondary non-nuclear system began to experience failures. This was followed by a relief valve in the primary system malfunctioning and becoming stuck open. This incident lead to the escape of nuclear reactor coolants, which lead to a reactor core meltdown and 1 billion dollars worth of cleanup. This incident became one of the most prominent nuclear crises in the United States and changed public perception of nuclear power (for better or for worse).

Mr. McCabe has also written two books. The first of which, "Celtic Warrior Descendants," discusses his ancestral background; the second of which, "Sea and Shore Stories," discusses his career as a naval officer and an NRC engineer, as well as his own personal views towards several pressing issues.

Last weekend, I stayed over for the weekend with him and decided to ask him 20 questions about his career as well as the crisis at Three Mile Island. Here are those 20 questions:

20 Questions

Navy (Background)

1.) What first inspired you to apply to go to school at the Naval Academy?

My father, as a boy, wanted to go to West Point, and continually extolled the virtues of the Military Academies to me.

2.) How would you describe their curriculum and expectations? (Does it differ from that of other colleges?)

In the sciences, I'm aware of no fundamental difference. But the curriculum, when I attended, was fixed, and the only degree awarded was a B.S. in Engineering. (There are now multiple majors.) And leadership training, discipline, loyalty, and personal responsibility were far more pervasive to all aspects of matriculation at Annapolis than what I saw at the University of Delaware during the year I spent as a student there - and from what I've perceived to be the case at other colleges. Moreover, partisan politics were not tolerated at Annapolis - apolitical service to the civilian government was rigorously stressed.

3.) What would you say was the most valuable lesson you learned at the Naval Academy?

That one's goals should exceed one's reach. (A classmate, now deceased, who became a Major General, told me that.) In other words:

"It is by no means enough that an officer of the Navy should be a capable mariner. He must be that, of course, but also a great deal more. He should be as well a gentleman of liberal education, refined manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor.
He should be the soul of tact, patience, justice, firmness, kindness, and charity. No meritorious act of a subordinate should escape his attention or be left to pass without its reward, even if the reward is only a word of approval.
Conversely, he should not be blind to a single fault in any subordinate, though at the same time, he should be quick and unfailing to distinguish error from malice, thoughtlessness from incompetency, and well meant shortcomings from heedless or stupid blunder. In one word, every commander should keep constantly before him the great truth, that to be well obeyed, he must be perfectly esteemed."

--Compiled by Augustus C. Buell from letters written by John Paul Jones
I haven't (nor has anyone I know) achieved such a degree of perfection (in any field of endeavor). But though I don't recall the above being mentioned to me since graduation, and it was little mentioned at the Academy (but prominently displayed in one of the buildings - probably in the Seamanship and Navigation Department), it's an ideal worth striving for. And, substituting other occupations (e.g., astronaut, engineer, etc.) would result in an equally valid creed for organizational behavior in the discipline(s) involved. (And it's a very good standard to consider whenever one gets too full of his or her accomplishments.)

4.) How would you describe life as a commanding officer on a ship? What were your responsibilities? (Sorry for botching this question)

I was the Commanding Officer of two Naval Reserve units after my USN active service, but wasn't the Commanding Officer of a ship - though, as Acting Commanding Officer of a fleet ballistic missile submarine crew while the Captain was on leave during the between patrol training cycle, I had a taste of that experience.

Ship Captains (Commanding Officers) of yore literally had the power of life and death over crew members. And when I was on my first submarine duty, the Captain remarked about the changes that had occurred since Admiral Dewey fought a war with his entire operation order being: Proceed to the vicinity of Manilla Bay, Philippines, and protect American interests there. Exercise at Gunnery enroute. (The actual operation order was a few words longer and different - but carried the same message about the granting of operational discretion to field commanders - or ship's Captains.)

Today, modern communications and values have substantially reduce the powers of ship's Captains (and field commanders), but a Captain's role remains very prestigious and powerful. And classified submarine operations, though conducted under a huge amount of direction, are largely conducted without micromanagement from afar.

The Captain's role is to carry out the ship's mission - safely. The crew's role is to carry out the Captain's orders. Their careers, and promotions, are dependent on the Captain's assessments of their performance (a task delegated, in part, to the officers and petty officers who contribute their assessments of the crew members under them). And, because the Captain's ability to carry out his duties properly requires the full support of the crew, the crew's training, welfare, and morale also are among his primary responsibilities.

The standard of performance for a ship's Captain in the U.S. Navy is very high. An example of the consequence of error is that, if a ship runs aground or collides with another ship, the Captain is held responsible (even if he was asleep at the time) and can expect to never get another promotion or command. So being a ship's Captain typically involves long days and little sleep - with the physical aspect being as demanding as the requirement for professional competence.

5.) How did you decide to move to submarines?

I had been interested in submarines since I was a little boy playing with a model that was supposed to submerge and then surface itself in the bathtub. (It readily submerged but didn't surface.) And the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) had made submarining vastly more important. But the trigger for my submission of an application for submarine training was being the First Lieutenant on a destroyer that had anchored in Hampton Roads Harbor in Norfolk - because the high wind made trying to moor alongside the pier too risky. As I was standing on the foc'sle (forecastle) in charge of the Anchor Detail, a submarine took advantage of its minimal above-water area and the consequent relative invulnerability to being offset by the wind, scooted by our anchorage, went quickly up to its pier-side berth, moored, put its brow over, and the crew went on liberty. We moored several hours later, well after dark, and well after the lovely young lady I had a date with concluded that she had been stood up and never wanted to see or hear from me again. But it took two applications and another year of destroyer duty for me before I was ordered to submarine school.

6.) What were the differences in responsibilities as an officer on a ship vs a submarine?

The basic responsibilities were the same, but spread out among fewer officers (and crew). And the standard of performance and qualification was higher among submariners. (Submariner scuttlebutt was that submariners came from the top 10% of the Navy, but even if that wasn't an exaggeration, four-fifths of the top 10% of the Navy wasn't in submarines.)

7.) How would you describe riding in a submarine to someone who has never done it?

It's more confining than being aboard a surface ship. But the camaraderie is higher, the food is better, it's mostly "indoors" with a controlled climate, and getting sunburned is no worry. Also, after getting used to being submerged, it's a better life, albeit more dangerous.

8.) What would you consider to be your most significant career accomplishment?

Being the Executive Officer of a fleet Ballistic Missile submarine and responsible to the Captain for the training and performance of the ship's crew, and the performance of the ship's equipment (i.e., for correcting everything that went wrong) during the about one year of post-overhaul shakedown training operations (with a ship's grade of about 92.5) and two operational patrols - while developing and overseeing my successful program for achieving a major increase in the crew's advancement in rate (promotions).

NRC

1.) How did you come to decide to become an officer in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)?

After working for almost two years as a Nuclear Controls Engineering Section Manager for a subsidiary of a firm that designed commercial nuclear power plants, I saw that no more nuclear power plant orders were coming in. So I reluctantly started looking for other employment, and was interviewed and hired by the Director of the Region 1 Field Inspection and Enforcement Office of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). That part of the AEC became the NRC.

2.) What was your job as a nuclear engineer?

Initially, inspecting commercial nuclear power plants under construction for conformance to federal safety requirements, followed by inspecting plants during preoperational testing and power operation - and then as a Section Chief supervising region-based inspectors, and then resident (onsite) inspectors, and then Security Inspectors. I was also the Chief of the NRC Region 1 Field Inspection Office at Three Mile Island during the first few months of recovery from its nuclear accident.

3.) How long did you work at the NRC?

About 22 years

4.) Could you describe the crisis at Three Mile Island?

In a nutshell, superior safety design produced a complacency that led to overlooking/ignoring the significance of precursors to the loss of reactor coolant accident that produced a reactor core meltdown. That accident's hazard was overplayed and sensationalized by a media that lacked understanding of the safeguards against radiation injury to the public and plant workers. There were no radiation overdoses and no deaths resulted, but the accident cost a billion dollars and ended the operation of a valuable source of electricity. Subsequent improvements in operator training have produced a substantive additional barrier to recurrence, but public fear has not been allayed.

5.) How did you first learn about the crisis at Three-Mile Island?

I was sitting in my office in the NRC Region 1 offices, reviewing my section's inspection reports. My boss' secretary came in and said that there was a nuclear power plant emergency and I should go to the Emergency Response Center, where the Branch Chief and the Section Chief for the plant had been for several hours. I asked if they had called for me. She said no. I said that, if they need me, they will. About an hour later, they did - and I relieved the cognizant section chief, who was dispatched to the site. About suppertime, I was sent home to get a few hours sleep and return at midnight to man the Emergency Response Center overnight. In the morning, I briefed the Regional Office staff on the status of the accident, saying that the cause and extent of the problem was still undefined but I thought there had been a loss of coolant accident. Then I went home to grab a few hours sleep and was dispatched to the site, arriving late in the afternoon to relieve the cognizant section chief, who had gone sleepless and was exhausted. And I remained there, in charge of the Region 1 office onsite, for about three months.

6.) What were your responsibilities at Three-Mile Island?

Overseeing the Regional Office operational and radiation safety inspection of Three Mile Island, in support of the NRC Headquarters Onsite Response Office that was established a couple of days after the accident.

7.) What were your most prevalent fears during the event?

My fear was for public panic and the danger that entailed. I also knew that there was a potential for the core meltdown to cause a breach of the reactor vessel. But if it did, I also knew that the Containment Building had been designed and tested to prove that it could withstand and contain the worst case reactor accident - which this wasn't yet - and that this accident was going to cost a fortune but the conservative evacuation of the nearby populace by Governor Thornburgh had set the wheels in motion for further evacuations if that became necessary. But the reactor core temperature had stopped rising and was very, very slowly dropping, so the hazard was contained and lessening.

8.) How would you describe the work environment in a nuclear power plant? (I.E. Is it safer than most jobs or more dangerous than most?)

It's safer than most industrial environments - because the fear of radiation has resulted in more, and more stringently enforced, safeguards.

9.) How do you feel about stereotypes against nuclear power?

The public suffers primarily from fear of the unknown - and lacks knowledge of the difference between atomic bombs and nuclear power - the very great danger of the bomb being nonetheless overblown and the far lesser danger of nuclear power not being understood.

10.) What would you say was your greatest accomplishment during your time with the NRC?

Perhaps my stint at Three Mile Island, but others could have done that, so perhaps it was my simple, dogged effort to get the excessive legalese of inspection reports cast aside and replaced by prominently highlighting the safety aspects of inspection findings. It also may have been neither of those but the cumulative effect of constant emphasis on safety.

11.) Were you involved in any other potentially dangerous nuclear incidents?

NRC inspection is for violation of safety requirements and for identification of safety hazards and/or unsafe conditions. That makes NRC findings involve potentially dangerous conditions (as do automobile accidents). And, in addition to Three Mile Island, I was directly involved in many inspection findings that required corrective action, but none of those resulted in an immediate hazard to the public. (If they had, the NRC would have shut down the plant.)

12.) You lived near the Limerick (nuclear) power plant for many years. Did you have any fears living so close to a nuclear power plant?

None at all.

Sources

Mr. McCabe's Books

Closing

Thank you for reading this! This style of article is one that I have seen several authors utilize. I am thinking about doing other 20 questions with some of the other people I know. Also, a huge thank you to my grandfather for answering these questions! His answers were really interesting to read. I would highly recommend reading his books (listed and linked above) if you are interested in other interesting stories from his career as well as his heritage. Anyway, I will see you for the weekly7 on Sunday (I have to shift in preparation for the school year). Have a nice weekend!

Also remember to check for: My weekly 7 post, As well as my composer birthday posts (Note) In order to encourage meaningful feedback on the platform, I will check comment trails of users who leave superficial comments (ie "Awesome post," or "Upvoted.") and will mute any users who exhibit a pattern of leaving "spammy" comments.

Sort:  

You lived near the Limerick (nuclear) power plant for many years

Ah wow! I biked there from Philly last April.

Was the ballistic missile submarine your grandfather commanded as an executive officer retrofitted for a nuclear payload?

I wonder if your grandpa has any insights into liquid flouride thorium reactors. I listened to a podcast a little while back that extolled their potential virtues.

I sent him your comment and he emailed this back:

I may not understand the one about whether a fleet ballistic missile (FBM) submarine can be retrofitted for a nuclear payload. But there are two nuclear aspects to a U.S. fleet ballistic missile submarine - the nuclear power plant used to provide the energy needed to propel and provide electricity for the ship - and the ballistic missiles that can accurately deliver nuclear bombs onto targets thousands of miles away. Some of the FBM submarines that were in service when I was on active duty were later converted to non-FBM service, and no doubt could have been converted back. I cannot speak authoritatively on that, but think that would have been highly impractical as well as inconsistent with our country's arms reduction commitments.

There is a very impressive Wikipedia article on liquid fluoride thorium reactor technology. (You may want to recommend it to the questioner.) The potential advantages are enormous, but so are the challenges. The only "insight" that I can offer is:

Light water reactor power plants turn nuclear-generated heat into usable electrical and mechanical power using the steam cycle, an about 200-year old technology that advanced to replacing steam engines with steam turbines about a hundred years ago. The as-described liquid fluoride thorium reactor technology doesn't utilize so well-proven, well-developed a technology. (I tend to think of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor technology as somewhat akin to the automotive technology that preceded Henry Ford's first cars.) That doesn't at all mean that modern engineering cannot make liquid fluoride thorium reactors practical and economic, but advocates of implementing new technologies typically underestimate the technical barriers that must be surmounted, the cost of doing that can be incredible, and surmounting technology barriers can involve very time-consuming development of new technologies. A huge number of promising ventures fail because of unforeseen and insurmountable (at the time) obstacles, and whether or not any individual one will prove to be suitable is highly speculative. Moreover, "nuclear" is a button-pushing word that escalates opposition to everything it's associated with.

Wow! Thanks a ton.

I may not understand the one about whether a fleet ballistic missile (FBM) submarine can be retrofitted for a nuclear payload.

It sounds like your grandfather was operating submarines that could launch nuclear bombs! Wow, that is a hefty responsibility. I am sure they favor only the highly skilled for this position.

Interesting to hear his take on LFTRs and how the technology is still in its infancy. I hope the general distaste of the word "nuclear" does not cause the potential of this energy source to be overlooked.

Wow what a fascinating thing to share with the world! That's really cool that you could take your grandfather's experience and turn it into something like this for the rest of us to read and enjoy. Also very cool that you are following in his footsteps as a writer.

Great post, you've got a new follower!

thanks for give us the historical news

I have but now found this discussion, and belatedly comment despite it's age due to what I believe is the continuing relevance of the matter. I wholeheartedly commend your grandfather, and such men, as strive to be excellent in every way providing service to humanity.

However, I must lament the institutions and predatory psychopaths that have intercepted such noble and dedicated service that should inure to society and the free people that comprise it. It is also unfortunate that instead of correctly characterizing the public fear of the existential nature of the potential of nuclear accidents reactors of legacy designs necessarily featured, your grandfather described that fear as merely 'the unknown'. The fact is that though a million reactors not fail, and produce power safely for a thousand years, when one slips through the cracks of probability to catastrophically fail - which he properly points out the Three Mile Island accident was not of catastrophic result - all of that felicity and benefit will be utterly destroyed and rendered moot in the absolute destruction of the ability of life to survive in the radioactive wasteland actual catastrophic failure will produce for tens of thousands of years.

This is not a fear of the unknown, but a fear of utter destruction and death that is an actual possibility of the specific technology legacy reactors feature. Molten salt reactors are inherently proof from this existential catastrophic danger, since failure produces cessation of reaction as the salt freezes. Fear of that newer technology might be factually characterized as fear of the unknown, but not the fear of the radioactive hellstorm legacy reactors featured. That's instead the fear of genocide and absolute destruction, not merely unknown possibilities.

The susceptibility of institutions, even those staffed and effected by men as dedicated and competent as your grandfather, to covert domination and control by psychopaths, is an inevitable consequence of the inhumanity of 'legal persons', and that feature shared by psychopaths that creates that susceptibility. Throughout history, we see that institutions such as government, the Mafia, and multinational corporations have been surreptitiously controlled by psychopaths to the detriment of society in fundamental and disatrous ways.

It is now a matter of public record that Roosevelt knew beforehand of the impending attack of the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, yet deliberately allowed it to effect it's full and deadly harm on Americans under his command. This is not the fault of the Navy, or the highly honorable and dedicated men who died under his command. It is a feature of inhumane institutions and their susceptibility to psychopathic control sought by such predators to aggrandize themselves, and caring not at all what costs others might pay for their aggrandizement. While an almost unending litany of identical predatory crimes against humanity can be provided here, I do not believe that is necessary for students of history, nor potentially of benefit in the event of disagreement. No fact or truth could convince one unwilling to change their mind regarding the inhumanity of institutions in the face of that one proof already provided.

I hope that the men and women of good character that today serve the professional military of our free people will come to grasp this particular fact that is critical to their ability to serve their families, communities, and nation: since 1973 testosterone of Western men has been reduced by more than 60%. The corrupt institutions controlled by rapine psychopaths that today deploy our professional military to effect their predation across the world have targeted the very professionals they depend on to secure the assets of the world for chemical castration. Our soldiers are just as medically harmed as civilians in this sinister and diabolical plot to create a fertile royalty of the psychopathic class of banksters that controls our institutions, the Mafia, extranational corporations, and the USG itself, and those soldiers are critical assets in the scheme to castrate themselves.

I cannot believe that the men and women of extraordinary character and dedication to service to their free people would continue to prosecute that ongoing existential threat to their very species, and themselves particularly, did they actually grasp it's reality and ongoing affects. The ruthless and pathological leaders the professional military have undertaken to serve sacrificially for the good of mankind, are instead of providing that good and free society, castrating humanity in order that the banksters might be deified in a world rendered but infertile drones by disrupting the endocrine function of humanity through chemical pollution.

I hope that these facts are apprehended with all possible dispatch by the men on the ground necessary to do the dirty work of psychopaths, who cannot themselves wield the weapons of war to enforce their ascension to the godhood they imagine themselves to be. The good men who serve will not serve to castrate themselves, and the fact of their ongoing castration is provable by examination of the literature not trumpeted by the media for obvious reasons.

Thanks!