Talk:Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

}}

General Article Improvements[edit]

I've found and watchlisted this starter article, which can be fairly easily expanded. Since I may not get to it very efficiently, here's some suggestions to anyone who passes through:

The article reference structure needs some fixing, and an entry should be put in the WP article List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents#1970s, to note the 1978 generator dryout incident, which is notable per the NRC source.

There are numerous apparently reliable sources (Sacramento Bee, etc) readily available through online search that describe the maintenance and safety failures that occurred at the plant (many of which were not publicized until years later).

Separately and similarly, there are also sources online that discuss how the plant was not economical, never reached its planned level of productivity, and led to the huge increases in utility bills to SMUD's customers that sources indicate likely prompted the successful ballot initiative which ultimately closed the plant (rather than or at least in addition to emergency incidents and safety concerns). Steveozone (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some article somewhere mentions that the contractor was Bechtel, along with other pertinent information that should be included. Personally, I worked on this monstrosity when I was in college as a summer job and in my opinion it was a clusterfuck of the first order. Wastrel Way (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"operator"?[edit]

Is SMUD truly the "operator" of this thing? It is NOT operational anymore. They are charged with keeping the area safe for recreational and presumably other uses, but is "operation" truly the correct term for this since it isn't operating as what it was designed to be. 2600:1004:B16D:C243:4CD3:E8C8:7183:9BCC (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]