Talk:Three Mile Island accident/Archive 2

Xe-131 is stable
"Noble gases such as xenon 131 (a byproduct of the decay of radioactive iodine) made up the bulk of the release of radioactive materials from TMI-2,.."

The problem with this statement is that while Xe-131 is indeed the result of I-131 decay, Xe-131 is a stable isotope. I believe that radioactive noble gases were released at TMI, but they consisted primarily of Kr-85. The Wikipedia article on Kr-85 says that TMI-2 released about 50,000 Ci of Kr-85, so I'm pretty sure (but not certain) that the text should be changed to say this. Karn (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct. The Rogovin report says the release was primarily "'noble' (chemically inert) gases, xenon and krypton" that emit "both beta and gamma rays." Clearly this is not Xenon 131. It also says, "During the course of the accident, approximately 2.5 million curies of radioactive noble gases and 15 curies of radioiodines were released." I'll change the article to quote Rogovin.--RichardMathews (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing timeline

 * From "sound an alarm at 4:11 a.m." on, we have a quite precise timeline of the events. But when did SCRAM occur in the first place ? At 3:59 ? 4:00 ? 4:01 ? 4:02 ? 4:05 ? Teofilo talk  12:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Human Factors
In the second paragraph of the Human factors – confusion over valve status section, this sentence:

"The design of the PORV indicator light was fundamentally flawed, because it implied that the PORV was shut when it went dark."

Usually, an indicator lamp on a control panel has some sort of annotation to tell observers what the lamp means. Usually this is some sort of text or image that attaches meaning to the lamp -- the indicators on your car's instrument cluster for example. For completeness, this paragraph should include the PORV lamp's annotation. Anyone know what that annotation is (was)? -- Trappist the monk (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You have a point. The article more or less explained the PORV indicator light was simply in parallel with the PORV coil, so the PORV indicator light only indicated power to the PORV coil. It did not directly measure the PORV position. If the PORV stuck in one position, the operators wouldn't know that by looking at the PORV indicator light. I'd have to look it up, but the PORV indicator light basically showed something like PORV CLOSED or PORV OPEN. So the operators looking at it had unreliable information. More can also be said about the unreliable water level indicators. 172.163.121.246 (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)BG


 * Ah, the metaphorical light glimmers a bit. Your comment about the indicator lamp being in parallel with the solenoid coil is not part of the article.  Similarly unclear is the purpose of the solenoid.  I would guess that it is supposed to open the PORV.  The WP  PORV article makes no mention of the solenoid's function.  So that leads me to another question: What is the function of the solenoid on the PORV in the TMI design? -- Trappist the monk (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's common for nuclear plants to use safety features where power failure causes them to trigger, see the control rod article for an example. The solenoid would not only open the valve but also keep it from closing, which the valve would do in the open position in the absence of power. This would prevent leakage of coolant in the event of a power failure. So a dark light should have meant the valve was closed, but the valve was physically stuck. No indicator of the actual physical state of the valve existed, so the dark light made the operators think it closed. --192.5.110.4 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I completely and wholly understand what we speculate that the lamp should have meant.  My question still stands: On the control panel, what was the annotation associated with the PORV lamp?  My memory of the reactor control panel in maneuvering on my boat, lo these many years ago, is that every gauge, switch, knob, lamp, had an annotation stating what it was or meant (I wasn't a nuke so my familiarity with the RCP is necessarily limited). I would expect that civilian rector controls were similarly annotated. I think that the article should state (if it is possible) what the PORV lamp annotation was so that the article text forms a more complete picture.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the solenoid would open the PORV. This is a decent article but it could be a great article with additions like the one you suggest.

The article should also go more into the steam-bubble/water mixture. It was at TMI that that this mixture and its dramatic consequences were discovered: erroneous water level readings, water ejection, pump cavitation, and a steam bubble in the pressure vessel. The lack of knowledge of this mixture was one of the basic causes of the accident. 172.130.57.210 (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC) BG

I thought that the sentence was clear enough, and did not understand the "clarification needed (see talk)" annotation. But, yes, the addition of the label on the indicator, if it can be discovered, would be a contribution. We assume it would say "valve position", whereas it should have said "value energized", or some such. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC))


 * For what it says, yeah, the sentence is clear enough. But it left me wondering what the designers did to make the indicator lamp ambiguous enough that the operators could misinterpret its true meaning.  These people are, after all, highly trained, intelligent folk.  I don't think we can make any assumptions about the lamp's annotation in the same way that we can't make assumptions about the lamp's color - yet another unknown.  Nor should we speculate. -- Trappist the monk (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Back then the meaning of a lit bulb next to a control switch on a panel or the meaning of an annunciator window was not always clear. For example, a light may have indicated that a solenoid was energized to open a valve like a PORV, but that doesn't necessarily mean the valve, in fact, opened (it might have been stuck closed). Conversely, the light going out (indicating the solenoid was no longer energized) does not necessarily mean the valve closed if it was stuck open. For additional confidence in the actual state of a valve you would rely on position switches that actuate based on the position of the valve stem (which are still not guarantees since it is possible the valve stem may have separated from the disk). In addition, the control switches on the panels were not necessarily arranged in an intuitive, human-factored way that allowed an operator to tell at a glance whether the necessary valves had repositioned and pumps had started to provide the safety function. Improving human factors in control rooms was yet another outcome of TMI. -- (UTC)Blubbaloo (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2011


 * Moved Blubbaloo signature to what I hope was the correct place. Before I did this, the Human Factors section had been disappeared. -- Trappist the monk (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Trappist's question DOES bear some merit, as some may not understand the nature of the lamp, due to the valve sticking. The indicator in question only is lit when the solenoid coil is energized, which should open the valve. The solenoid de-energizing would then have a mechanism, typically a spring, that closes the valve. The light is off, but IS the valve truly closed? Under normal conditions, yes. That day, no, the valve failed to close for unknown reasons (at least, I've found no indications of the cause of the failure.) Think of a car with a low oil level indicator light. If the light is on, your engine needs oil. If it's off, NORMALLY, the oil level is acceptable, but if the bulb or sender failed, you'd get no indication and have a seized engine. That is one of the reasons of the lamp test when you start your car, so that you can notice if an indicator bulb failed. In the case of TMI-2, were there flow sensors at the output of the PORV valve, a simple OR detection could be applied or even better, NAND test for a secondary valve failure indicator. But then, one can have sensors to monitor sensors ad-absurdium...Wzrd1 (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What was the date again?
Was it March 28 or March 29? The opening of the article reads March 28, but very soon afterward the incident started on March 29... just a typo, I hope. 174.78.181.2 (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Eric


 * The NRC site states 28 March. Please feel free to fix any typos you find. Ckruschke (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Anecdotal evidence
Does anecdotal evidence belong in an encyclopedia article? The whole point of the category 'anecdotal evidence' is that it is unreliable evidence. The fact that someone someone said something doesn't make it evidence. MarkinBoston (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't specifically site the location of the anecdotal info, but I agree in principle and have been trying to cut this nonsense out of the page. Unfortunately a certain population of the country attaches a vast amount of anecdotal information to Three Mile Island and its aftermath so its hard to wade throught the garbage to extract the actual facts. Ckruschke (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Under Health Effects and Epidemiology: "Anecdotal evidence also records effects on the region's wildlife.[49] For example, according to one anti-nuclear activist, Harvey Wasserman, the fallout caused "a plague of death and disease among the area's wild animals and farm livestock"," MarkinBoston (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This article has been stable for many months with hundreds of thousands of views. It is an important WP article and should not be changed at the whim of a couple of editors when thousands of other readers have been satisfied with the present information. Gandydancer (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand this whole Wikipedia concept. MarkinBoston (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Whim? So since the general public has ignored unproven anecdotal information, that makes it all accepted fact? You can't really believe that... Ckruschke (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of "anecdotal information". The term does not suggest that such information is an accepted fact.  Also, keep in mind that many readers of this article have far more knowledge than the general public - note the two posts above or look back at the many posts made after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Gandydancer (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Going Solid
In the third section "Consequences of stuck valve", it would be cool with an explanation as to what the expression "going solid" meant and why it would be so dangerous. Or at least a link to where this information could be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.203.4 (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is info: ''About 2 1/2 minutes after the HPI pumps began working, Frederick shut one down and reduced the flow of the second to less than 100 gallons per minute. The falling pressure, coupled with a constant reactor coolant temperature after HPI came on, should have clearly alerted the operators that TMI-2 had suffered a LOCA, and safety required they maintain high pressure injection. "The rapidly increasing pressurizer level at the onset of the accident led me to believe that the high pressure injection was excessive, and that we were soon going to have a solid system," Frederick later told the Commission.''

''A solid system is one in which the entire reactor and its cooling system, including the pressurizer, are filled with water. The operators had been taught to keep the system from "going solid" - -a condition that would make controlling the pressure within the reactor coolant system more difficult and that might damage the system. The operators followed this line of reasoning, oblivious for over 4 hours to a far greater threat -- that the loss of water from the system could result in uncovering the core.''

Here is the source: http://www.tmia.com/wednesday It would be good to add some info. I don't have time right now. Gandydancer (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Into phrase PR Wiki doctoring -- Doublespeak
the introphrase seems to be doctored -- "It was the worst accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant history,[1] and resulted in the release of small amounts of radioactive gases and radioactive iodine into the environment."

small?? amounts ?? -- if your read it your completely irritated -- worst incident vs small amount release ?? the irritation is so bad that at first one starts to classify the incident as minor and when read on the minor becomes a major, nearly "worst case" incident

it once read -- " It was the most significant accident in the history of the USA commercial nuclear power generating industry, resulting in the release of up to 481 PBq (13 million curies) of radioactive gases, and less than 740 GBq (20 curies) of the particularly dangerous iodine-131. "

in my opinion it should read something like -- "It was the most significant accident in the history of the USA commercial nuclear power generating industry, resulting in the release of radioactive gases and water (containing the particularly dangerous iodine-131) into the environment."

(only an educated person knows what the quantities signify -- better would be the 10^X notation, but in the end it is just distracting (1 curie being huge like 1 tesla) -- and to use __no__ amount quantifiers like "small" -- especially in the light of the "5 year investigation" which seems to me to be a bit of a "smear out over time" campaign)

Ebricca (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't that sort of the point, that even the worst nuclear accident in US history only released a very small amount of radiation? The economic and public relations tolls were much higher than the essentially non-existent health consequences. Buddy431 (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed - the information here is black and white - it wasn't as big a deal as the hysterical crowd wants us to think. The point is that the press and the anti-nuke crowd blew this up into a huge thing when it wasn't really warranted. To change the wording to state otherwise would be inserting a non-NPOV. Ckruschke (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * what is a 'small' amount? although it's true that most readers won't understand penta becquerels or even curies, without quantification a term like 'small' or 'large' is meaningless. And small is especially meaningless when the National Academy of Sciences' BEIR Committee has consistently found for 3 decades that there is no safe amount.Nonukes (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. So what's your point? No one is saying that the 3 Mile Island incident made people healthier. However, the notion that 3 Mile was this gigantic catastrophe is not true and the facts and studies over the past 35 yrs hold this out. Ckruschke (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Misleading and poor analysis of the medical evidence on the effects of the accident
The article errors in reporting that no cases of disease/cancer can be attributed to the accident. The author of the article refers only to studies done too soon after the accident to discover cancer effects, for example, and neglects the fact that the sited studies have been widely critiques for methodological deficiencies (e.g., see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469856/). See, for example, the following studies that show increased rates of disease:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469835/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1638153/ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1097/MLG.0b013e3181613ad2/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

For more general discussion of the literature on cancer risks to children residing near nuclear plants (N = 103 sites) see: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/AEOH.58.2.74-82#.UecZcG3fJEs

For dis-confirming evidence see on the Three Mile Island-cancer link see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241392/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.72.24 (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Worst Nuclear accident in US History?
The claim that this was the worst nuclear accident in US history ignores the Church Rock incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Rock_uranium_mill_spill) which spilled 1,000 tons of solid nuclear waste and 93 million gallons of liquid nuclear waste. The Three Mile Island entry notes that 40,000 gallons of radio active waste was emitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.72.24 (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Predicted fatality rate should be in lede[lead] of article
Why was there no mention to the cost to human health in the lede[lead]? It did not result in a single fatality. http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/Energy/NuclearPower.pdf


 * Agree - added 1/2 a sentence near the end of the lede. Ckruschke (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Intro section is long
The intro section seems a bit long. Can we put some of it into a section? Merge some more paragraphs? RJFJR (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I took a crack at shortening the lede. Hopefully this edits helps summarize things come concisely.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

china syndrome
would it be alright to note the coincidental creepiness of a character in the film stating that the fictional accident could affect an area the size of Pennsylvania? PurpleChez (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source other than the film? Gandydancer (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

But did Three Mile Island Kill People by causing a Switch Away from Nuclear Power? (OR)
If you add in the effects of the reduction in the global use of nuclear power and the corresponding rise in the use of fossil fuels especially coal then the total killed indirectly by Three Mile Island (and later Chernobyl) could be in the region of maybe 3 to 10 million people. (OR) Of course the blame for these should really be settled on the anti-nuclear lobby and the fossil fuel industry. (The irony that by blocking nuclear power Greenpeace and other protest groups might have killed millions of people.)

The calculation is based on an extrapolation and a WHO estimate of numbers of people killed by air pollution each year of some 1 to 2 million each year. - I am not completely sure how the estimates should be added up, and have come across several different figures that disagree with each other (there is a little confusion over outside pollution and inside pollution). A full year by year graph from the 1970's would make things far more precise. Two sources - Air_pollution, and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23315781 though the primary is the WHO. I'm sure with more expertise someone could do far more accurate estimates of the total numbers killed by pollution from fossil fuels and by the blocking of nuclear power. Lucien86 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It takes a very extreme political mindset to go from air pollution, to wanting to blame Greenpeace for millions of deaths! Please note that Wikipedia talk pages are not a blog. --Nigelj (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that a crucial part of the estimate was not included - that some 30 to 50 million people have died (worldwide) from air pollution since 1979. A large percentage of these are because of the burning of coal and oil and things like diesel.


 * Is my point is an extreme position? For decades Greenpeace have draped themselves in a flag of peace all while carrying out a vicious propaganda campaign against any form of nuclear power or research. Their tactics use the finest tools of black propaganda - badgering, lying, exaggeration, scare stories, all focused on creating panic. Put the pieces together and there is substantial evidence that their campaign has indirectly killed millions of people. - The point is that even pretty small numbers of deaths from air pollution make their arguments entirely spurious.


 * I am aware that Wikipedia talk pages are not a blog, but the problem is that Wikipedia is still pretty poorly designed in some ways and there are no proper talk or blog pages. Lucien86 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is intentional poor design—Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. We don't allow original research, so we don't need to have blogspace to support it. —  Reatlas  (talk)  09:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not original research. See http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197 .73.2.136.228 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't you think I don't know this. Its not about original thought anyway, its about any kind of debate at all. I would describe myself as a pretty heavy user of Wikipedia and I've noticed lately that there are a lot of pages where the last talk post is 1, 2, 4, 5 years old, and very often the page itself is equally out of date. On so many of these dead pages the last posts are from people asking questions that never get answered - the whole purpose is to answer peoples questions. Wikipedia wanted to be more like a traditional encyclopedia but the result is that it is dying as an interactive community, and half the encyclopedia is a hall of empty rooms.. Lucien86 (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Since when was there a policy saying debate is not allowed? No original research is just meant to ensure that content relies on experts and professionals who know what they're talking about rather than any random person with a computer and internet access. Here's a list of pages where editors are asking for more discussion and opinion. The reference desk and the teahouse exist specifically to help answer questions posed by people. Granted, Wikipedia might not have enough active, knowledgeable users to monitor and respond to every single question on every single one of the 4.3 million pages, but it's not because we try to suppress debate. —  Reatlas  (talk)  13:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is the problem in a nugget, how is the casual user to know about the Teahouse or the reference desk or even what they are called. They look for a button on the page where they have a problem and the only one they find is the talk page. A lot of the time it is the right place because the right experts for the subject are right there, and questions about a subject do offer potential paths to improve articles. I do understand the need for a no OR policy in an encyclopedia. Lucien86 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

First photo caption, foot coverings
I worked at Hanford Nuclear Reservation at the time this happened. I believe the foot coverings in the photo are the same as the ones we wore. As I recall, they were not plastic, but more of a paper covering. I think we called them "booties." The caption states: "Of course, dust-borne radioactive isotopes would be a risk to not just their shoes, but especially their clothing. The "plastic bags" were more than likely to prevent the spilled radiation from entering their feet." The risk was not to the shoes, but for contamination of the shoes, which would then need to be disposed of without booties. The paper was cheaper to dispose of than the shoes. The clothes and hands would need to be prevented from making any contact, in this state of semi-protected dress. It is interesting the the only person with pants properly tucked in was Carter.

Upon leaving, they would have had a detector passed over them. If contaminated (like I was once), the scrubbing in a shower could be severe.Cs222265 (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Cs222265 (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Three Mile Island accident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150111194337/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/minutes-to-meltdown-three-mile-island-1092/Overviewixzz1H5xu6iP2 to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/minutes-to-meltdown-three-mile-island-1092/Overviewixzz1H5xu6iP2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090815015736/http://thebulletin.org:80/web-edition/features/behind-the-scenes-of-three-mile-island to http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/behind-the-scenes-of-three-mile-island

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Cooling water
I am removing this referenced information for two reasons. Firstly, it is out of place (and I couldn't find a better place for it). It appears at the bottom of the paragraph describing the radiation consequences following the description of the melted down core. It seems like a vast anti-climax after that. Secondly, it is the sort of statement which is very hard to interpret for the reader. What is the meaning of the fact that the coolant water (which never got out of the containment) is "frothy and yellow", or that it measured "1250 rems"? What does it measure during normal operations? Was that per cubic meter? It leaves lots of questions unanswered for no gain in understanding. I'm not overly enthused by the reference, either. The authors are plainly listed on the Amazon page, but missing from the reference, and neither one is a nuclear engineer or physicist. What does it means that Amazon is selling hardbound copies for $.01? SkoreKeep (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Three Mile Island accident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xdJzcqby?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.touchoilandgas.com%2Febooks%2FA1ioj0%2Feandpvol7iss2%2Fresources%2F134.htm to http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/sptopics/tmi/whathappened.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.facingsouth.org/2009/04/investigation-revelations-about-three-mile-island-disaster-raise-doubts-over-nuclear-plant-s
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.southernstudies.org/images/sitepieces/ThompsonTMIassessment.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100517022024/http://fairewinds.com:80/content/who-we-are to http://fairewinds.com/content/who-we-are

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"The Cleanup of Three Mile Island Unit 2 - A Technical History: 1979 to 1990" - worth mentioning
I think this report, titled The Cleanup of Three Mile Island Unit 2, A Technical History: 1979 to 1990 is worth mentioning in the cleanup section, because it shows drastically the "optimism" during all 13 years of the cleanup phase, as is reported on page 8-1: "A persistent optimism existed that the damage beyond the known areas was not as bad as some estimates would have it. In fact,it was worse." and (p.8-3) "GEND-007 predicted three potential damage scenarios: Minimum, Reference, and Maximum. The actual condition of the core was generally equal to or greater than the maximum damage estimate, although the fact that it exceeded the estimate was not established until 1985." as well as "The uncertainty ... and the unfounded hope that damage was minimal were the major shortcomings of all defuelling planning." --User:Haraldmmueller 14:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Cost division
Cleanup started in August 1979, and officially ended in December 1993, with a total cleanup cost of about $1 billion, paid for by ???.

I was not able to resolve this quickly.

GPU collected $560 million in insurance as a result of the TMI accident. The Company's insurers have paid over $55 million in health, economic and evacuation claims since March 1979.
 * Legal History of Three Mile Island — 2009
 * 1979

But it doesn't track this back to clean-up costs, and I'm guessing that there was a substantial public subsidy, not the least of which would have been making the expertise and facilities of the Idaho National Laboratory generally available, at far below private sector terms. &mdash; MaxEnt 21:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You can find some info on page 85 in "Bonnie A. Osif, Anthony J. Baratta, Thomas W. Conkling. TMI 25 Years Later: The Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant Accident and Its Impact ISBN 0-271-02383-X". Cite: "Most of the funding was provided by GPU itself ($367 million), insurance payments ($306 million), other nuclear utilities ($171 million), the federal government ($76 million), and state taxes from New Jersey and Pennsylvania ($42 million)." Orderic (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)