[ RadSafe ] Overcoming America's nuclear power phobia

[John Andrews]

With respect to Rancho Seco, I recall that there was a decision point at 
that plant on whether to change out the steam generators.  The plant was 
a Babcock & Wilcox plant with once-through steam generators.  The change 
out would, of course, be very expensive.  Since those days, steam 
generator replacement has been refined and fine tuned and can now be 
done at lower costs and with much reduced radiation exposures 
(Westinghouse, anyway).

SMUD, a municipal utility, not a private corporation, had to decide to 
make the change.  The hue and cry went up by the team of Hayden and 
Fonda (yes, Jane!) and the result was a local referendum on closure of 
the plant.  The anti-nucs won.  The plant was closed forthwith.  
Programs were ended and people were laid off.  Seems that they still had 
a license, however, and the NRC suggested emphatically that they 
continue the required monitoring programs.  That's how I got to work 
there supporting the environmental monitoring program and listening to 
Rush Limbaugh who had just begun his broadcast career in Sacramento.

John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee


John Jacobus wrote:

>According to this site, 
>http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html
>
>"The 913 MW Pressurized Water Reactor at the Rancho
>Seco Nuclear Power Plant, located about 25 miles south
>of Sacramento, is owned by the Sacramento Municipal
>Utility District in and was operation from April 1975
>to June 7, 1989. It was closed by public referendum."
>
>Of course, there are no economic indicators in this
>information.  Is it possible the company, the SMUD,
>did not intend to fight the referendum, and was going
>to "pull the plug" anyway?  
>
>Anyone know more about this issue?
>
>--- BLHamrick at aol.com wrote:
>  
>
>> 
>>In a message dated 5/11/2005 8:50:35 A.M. Pacific
>>Standard Time,  
>>crispy_bird at yahoo.com writes:
>>
>>Do you  think that a utility would not build any
>>plant
>>because of anti-nuclear  protest? 
>>
>>
>>My recollection could be wrong, but I believe this
>>is precisely why the  
>>Rancho Seco plant near Sacramento was never fully
>>operational.  I believe  it was 
>>fueled and went through low-power testing, but the
>>anti-nuclear  contingency 
>>in California prevented its full operation.
>> 
>>I would not underestimate the political power of
>>those opposed to nuclear  
>>power generation, and by extension all things
>>radioactive.
>> 
>>Barbara
>>
>>    
>>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++
>"Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought."
>Hugh Blair, 1783
>
>-- John
>John Jacobus, MS
>Certified Health Physicist
>e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
>radsafe at radlab.nl
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>  
>