HUMBOLDT AND THE ATOMIC AGE Caitlin McCollum-Martinez Introduction to Cultural Geography Spring, 2018 Abstract: This historical geography analyzed the paradoxes of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant through use of historical documents produced by the local community and PG&E. An analysis of discourse around nuclear energy production on a national and more local level showed the driving reasons for the evolution of the landscape. The bright, innovative, and progressive atomic age brought about many changes to the United States. America’s outlook on nuclear energy, facilitated by the U.S. government and PG&E, influenced Humboldt County and provided fertile ground for the construction of the nation’s first wholly private nuclear power plant. Changes in the discourse lead to the ultimate removal of the nuclear facility from the landscape, resulting in the image seen today. Acknowledgements: Special thanks to my peers in GEOG 311 (Fall 2016) and Matthew Derrick for help with the early drafts of this essay.
Transcript
HUMBOLDT AND THE ATOMIC AGE
Caitlin McCollum-Martinez
Introduction to Cultural Geography
Spring, 2018
Abstract: This historical geography analyzed the paradoxes of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant through use of historical documents produced by the local community and PG&E. An analysis of discourse around nuclear energy production on a national and more local level showed the driving reasons for the evolution of the landscape. The bright, innovative, and progressive atomic age brought about many changes to the United States. America’s outlook on nuclear energy, facilitated by the U.S. government and PG&E, influenced Humboldt County and provided fertile ground for the construction of the nation’s first wholly private nuclear power plant. Changes in the discourse lead to the ultimate removal of the nuclear facility from the landscape, resulting in the image seen today. Acknowledgements: Special thanks to my peers in GEOG 311 (Fall 2016) and Matthew Derrick for help with the early drafts of this essay.
Humboldt and the Atomic Age
Along the Humboldt Bay in Northern California sits the small town of King Salmon.
Lining canals that connect to the bay are weatherworn homes with either a boat out front or some
type of nautical décor. The one main road that connects the town to the U.S. 101 bisects the open
pastures that surround King Salmon. In juxtaposition to the quaint fishing village is the Pacific
Gas & Electric (PG&E) facility that serves Humboldt County. The Humboldt Bay Power Plant
(HBPP), also known as the Humboldt Bay Generating Station, is roughly the same size as the
entirety of King Salmon and looms over the town, partly shrouded in trees and foliage (see figure
1). Looking at the image we see today, there are few clues that reveal the historical significance
of this landscape, however this unpresuming bluff along the Humboldt Bay used to contain the
nation’s “first privately-owned, constructed, and maintained nuclear power plant in the United
States built to provide utility customers with electricity” (Root et al. 2013, 45). The HBPP is
strategically placed across from the mouth of the bay, which reveals the landscape’s relation to
production and function (Mitchell 2008, 34). The proximity to the open ocean allowed for
tankers to more easily deliver fuel to the HBPP and for the fishermen of King Salmon to reach
their fishing grounds with ease. Additionally, the abundance of cool ocean water facilitated
steam production-- the means of producing energy-- at the HBPP (Root et al. 2013, 33). The
selection of this landscape by the fishermen of King Salmon and the executives at PG&E is
logical when considering the functions of these landscapes. However, there is a less outwardly
apparent reason for the addition of a nuclear power plant to this landscape in 1963. The
conditions that led to the construction of the nuclear facility at King Salmon and its ultimate
decommission reflect the national sentiment towards nuclear power, which was cultivated by the
U.S. government and private companies. The U.S. government facilitated positive opinions about
nuclear energy after World
War II and these national
ideals permeated throughout
Humboldt County, where they
were further reinforced by
PG&E. Years following the
construction of the HBPP,
suspicion towards nuclear
energy rose and led to the
questioning of the safety of nuclear power. This change in the national discourse coupled with
the questionable placement of the HBPP in a seismic zone led to its removal from the landscape
resulting in the image seen today.
While the population of Humboldt County in the 1950s and 1960s was growing rapidly,
this did not solely lead to the development of this landscape. Like much of the country in the
years after WWII, Humboldt County's population began growing rapidly and in turn began
demanding more power. Before the construction of the HBPP, the county relied on outside
energy sources or small steam plants that depended on the waste produced by lumber mills (Root
et al. 2013, 3). Although the timber industry was thriving in Humboldt County at the time, these
small plants were not enough producing enough energy and PG&E’s plant provided a more local
and reliable source of electricity (Oswald 1971, 23). PG&E began building the plant's first fossil
fuel powered steam-generating unit (Unit 1) in 1955 (Root et al. 2013, 35). Shortly after the
completion of Unit 1 in 1958, another unit (Unit 2) was constructed (Root et al. 2013, 35). At
this time Humboldt County's population was growing at a rate of roughly 51 percent, a rate that
Fountain Papers Vol. 24, 175). They responded by writing a letter to the author of the article
giving an exhaustive list of reasons why Eureka was a fit place for the location of the atomic
plant. They cited the “thriving” population of 25,000 people and the 125,000,000 board feet of
lumber shipped annually from the “deep water harbor” that is Humboldt Bay (Susie Baker
Fountain Papers Vol. 24, 175). Furthering their argument, they highlighted how the planned site
was already “a modern power plant with a capacity of 100,000 kilowatts,” how Humboldt was
home to “150 industrial plants,” and a further laundry list of statistics about other lumber
exported by the region and commercial fishing statistics (Susie Baker Fountain Papers Vol. 24,
175). The Chamber of Commerce and Board of Trade of Eureka went on to offer to provide
TIME Magazine with “descriptive literature so that [they] may become better acquainted with
the facts” of Humboldt County (Susie Baker Fountain Papers Vol. 24, 175). This defensive
response to the characterization of the landscape highlights the community’s almost desperate
desire to be home to a nuclear plant. TIME Magazine replied to the letter of “enthusiastic
endorsement” stating that they were “well aware that Eureka and Humboldt County [were]
thriving, bustling, and forward-looking, [and boasted] enviable natural and human resources,” in
a tone that felt undeniably condescending (Susie Baker Fountain Papers Vol. 24, 175). With
abundant industry and a thriving post-war population, Humboldt County felt it was the logical
choice for PG&E's nuclear plant. As Bob Rowen, a former HBPP employee and resident of
Eureka, recalls: “probably most people during that time, [he] too, came to believe nuclear power
was America’s energy source of the future” (Rowen 2015, 8). PG&E, in their self-published
book on the history of the HBPP, describes how the plant was dedicated to “the service of the
public [and] to the advancement of the atomic age” (Root et al. 2013, 67). Making promises that
the plant would bring growth and prosperity to California “in years to come” (Root et al. 2013,
68). These themes associated with the technology of nuclear energy production, in turn, helped
carve out this landscape by creating a community that undeniably desired the presence of a
nuclear facility (Lewis 1979, 24).
These themes peddled by the government ran so deeply that Humboldt County welcomed
the nuclear reactor despite the dangerous position of the plant. In 1976, the nuclear plant closed
for refueling and during a routine inspection, a geologist discovered the nuclear reactor happened
to be situated just 300 feet from a major fault line (Tam 2011 and Savage 2015). PG&E and the
surrounding community were plenty aware that earthquakes occurred in Eureka prior to the
construction of Unit 3. It is common knowledge that "Eureka is known for frequent earthquakes"
as well as occasional tsunamis, a result of the presence of a megathrust fault and three
converging tectonic plates just offshore (Rowen 2015, 10 and Dengler 2017). The discovery of
the proximity of the fault line caused Unit 3 to be immediately closed and it sat dormant until
1983 when PG&E announced the decommissioning of the plant (Humboldt Bay Power Plant,
PGE.com). PG&E has not clarified their reasoning for situating the plant in a known seismic
zone, but it is important to ask why they were able to get away with it. What allowed for this
landscape to be the location of a nuclear reactor despite its environmentally disadvantageous
location? As noted by Mitchell in New Axioms for Reading the Landscape: Paying Attention to
Political Economy and Social Justice, “no landscape is local” (Mitchell 2008, 38). Many sites of
nuclear facilities are in seismic locations and some that were not safe enough to continue
operating continued to do so anyway. The sentiments that helped facilitate the establishment of
the commercial nuclear plant in Humboldt County were present throughout the nation and the
world.
These strong feelings were cultivated to distract from the inherent dangers of nuclear
energy. In addition to nationwide methods of promoting nuclear energy, the U.S. government
and energy companies had more local methods to create positive outlooks on nuclear energy
production. Kate Brown, in her book Plutopia, describes the methods used by government-
owned nuclear facilities during WWII to produce better workers that would not worry about or
care enough to become aware of the safety risks associated with nuclear products. The U.S.
government used community-building to keep workers motivated to continue their work,
creating whole towns ideal for the nuclear family. The U.S. government was more concerned
with the state of schools in these nuclear communities than the safety of the plants, often
spending seven times more money on the education of plant workers' children than the
management of toxic nuclear waste (Brown 2013, 170). The nuclear plant at King Salmon also
participated in similar community-building activities in order to create a positive public opinion
on nuclear energy in Humboldt County. PG&E held winter dances for employees and their
families, created a company softball team, and promoted nuclear energy through education in
local elementary schools (HBPP Memory Book). PG&E released promotional images to further
associate nuclear energy with safety and knowledge, including those staging elementary school
students in an outdoor classroom in the shadow of Unit 3 (Root et al. 2013, “Promoting Nuclear
Safety”). Despite the efforts of the government and PG&E people became more suspicious about
the safety of nuclear energy production as more information about the technology became
apparent.
Unit 3 remained closed and was eventually removed from the landscape because the
people of Humboldt County became suspicious of nuclear energy. Questions about the safety of
nuclear energy and its effects on Americans’ health made citizens more wary of the technology
and these feelings were also present in Humboldt County (Blackwood 2017). The discourse
around nuclear energy began to change and locals became suspicious of PG&E’s activities.
Some were concerned when PG&E erected a meteorological weather-monitoring tower close to
the power plant; starting rumors that it was put in place to measure radiation leaking from the
reactor (Susie Baker Fountain Papers Vol. 24, 179). Bob Rowen, when he was working at the
HBPP, claims he was reprimanded and later terminated by PG&E in 1970 for raising questions
about the safety of the nuclear reactor and the materials used in the containment of nuclear waste
(Rowen 2015, 29). These concerns led the Humboldt County Grand Jury to recommend the AEC
“increase surveillance of the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Plant” (Rowen 2015, 30). However, the
AEC was later abolished due to insufficient regulation of reactor safety and radiation protection
in the U.S. (Rowen 2015, 18). The nuclear plant was removed from the landscape several years
after its closing due to increased pressure from civilians. National and global nuclear disasters
greatly increased the anti-nuclear discourse in America and ultimately Humboldt County. In
1979, the nation witnessed the Three Mile Island Disaster, which was the biggest nuclear
accident at that point in history (Blackwood 2017). This disaster did not change public opinion
on nuclear energy much, but it did make Americans question the technology (Blackwood 2017).
Around the same time a local anti-nuclear movement, the Redwood Alliance, grew in Humboldt
and prevented the attempted reopening of the plant by PG&E (Tam 2011). There is still concern
today among citizens in Humboldt County over the nuclear material still stored at King Salmon.
Events such as the Fukushima Disaster in Japan create renewed concern among citizens in the
United States about the safety of nuclear power (Blackwood 2017). Some in Humboldt County
feared a similar event at the HBPP due to the location of the plant near a fault line, even though
it is unlikely (Tam 2011).
America’s outlook on nuclear energy helped to shape the landscape at King Salmon.
From the initial associations with innovation and progress that brought the nuclear reactor Unit 3
online to the suspicion and fear that led to its removal from the landscape. The U.S. government
promoted positive opinions on nuclear energy after World War II and these ideals influenced
Humboldt County and created fertile ground for PG&E to construct its nuclear facility. PG&E
distracted people from the plant's location in a seismic zone with community-building activities,
like those used by the U.S. government. Often a major change in the appearance of a landscape
indicates a major change in the national culture that produced that landscape (Lewis 1976, 15).
As the ideals of nuclear energy were shrouded in doubt, Humboldt’s opinion of nuclear energy
changed causing Unit 3 to be erased from the landscape. While the landscape does not show this
deep history, it is just beneath the surface, along with the nuclear waste produced during Unit 3’s
operation.
Bibliography
Blackwood, Thomas. 2017. “U.S. Public Opinion of Nuclear Energy in the Wake of Three Mile Island.” Stanford, February 24. Accessed April 10, 2018. http:// large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/blackwood1/
Brown, Kate. 2013. Plutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities, and the Great Soviet and
American Plutonium Disasters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Dengler, Lori. 2017. "Not My Fault: The megathrust earthquake cycle." Times Standard:
May 24. Accessed October 13, 2016. https://www2.humboldt.edu/kamome/ sites/default/files/5_24_2017_plafker.pdf
"Humboldt Bay Power Plant." PG&E. Accessed October 13, 2016. https://www.pge.com/
Lewis, Pierce F. 1976. "Axioms of the Landscape: Some Guides to the American Scene." Jae 30, no. 1 (1976): 6. doi:10.2307/1424390. Mitchell, Don. 2008. "New Axioms for Reading the Landscape: Paying Attention to
Political Economy and Social Justice." In Political Economies of Landscape Change, edited by J.L. Wescoat and D.M. Johnston, 29-50. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5849-3_2
Oswald, Daniel D. 1971. “California’s Forest Industries – Prospects for the Future.”
U.S. Forest Service. June 1. Accessed April 10, 2018. Root, Garret, Rand Herbert, and Stephanie Cimino. 2013. From Sawdust to Uranium:
The History of Electrical Power Generation in Humboldt County and Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Humboldt Bay Power Plant, 1883-2019. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Humboldt County Coll, 3rd flr-Humboldt Room (Non-Circulating) Call Number:TK1344.C2 R66 2013
Rowen, Bob. 2015. My Humboldt Diary: A True Story of Betrayal of the Public Trust.
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Kindle. Savage, J. A. 2016. "Humboldt Bay Radioactivists." North Coast Journal, August 20.
Accessed October 13, 2016. http://www.northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog/ archives/2015/08/20/humboldt-bay-radioactivists.
Vol. 24 Page 179 HUMCO F868 H8 F597 and MF2638 Untitled newspaper clipping, depicting the Humboldt Bay Power Plant and caption.
Tam, Donna. 2011. "Officials Say Humboldt Bay Power Plant Fears Unwarranted;
Japan's Nuclear Disaster Spooks Residents about Decommissioned Power Plant." Times Standard: March 26. Accessed October 13, 2016. http:// www.times-standard.com/article/zz/20110326/NEWS/110324834.
"Time Mag Out on Limb For Calling Eureka Shore 'Barren Coast’." Susie Baker
