He has an article in which he gives an explanation of what happened at TMI in his own words. Being a nerd for this stuff and having read the report of the president's commission (which he claims to have been on) I was... shocked to say the least.
Its hard to imagine he was actually on the same committee as the people who wrote the report. His explanation had elements that mirrored the report. For instance, there was a particular warning light discussed in both. But what function the light served in the plant, its behavior during the crisis, the operators' response to it, or its overall role in the incident, on these Crigley was dead wrong.
I suspect he got assigned to the president's commission for political reasons, or because he was a 'public media personality,' but that he actually contributed nothing. He remembers an indicator light because he sat there dumbfounded in the meeting where the smart people on the committee discussed it. He then incorporated that into his incredibly child-like and incorrect mental model of what happened.
Suffice to say, regardless of his experience on the TMI president's commission, his understanding of nuclear power is even more comically incorrect than his understanding of computers.