# Talk:Savannah River Site

Isnt there some controvercy over this site? Does it need cleaning up or something?--x1987x 15:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a nuclear site, of course there's controversy (see Yucca Mountain).  Independent observers can't exactly verify contamination, though... and since the site is already there, developed, and in a red state, who's really going to care? --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It does need a decent amount of formatting work to make it easier to read. --AnthonyA7 04:36, 2 January 2006 (EST)

I spent about 3-4 hours yestereday cleaning up and Wikifying this article. But it still needs much more! I strongly question whether the time-line section needs to be so detailed and so lengthy ... especially the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, which have each turned into lengthy essays rather than a chronological timeline. Would anyone object if I severely trimmed those three years?? - mbeychok 02:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be better left intact.  See LANL
Thanks for your extensive edits of Sept. 19, 2006.  Please sign your name when commenting on a Talk page such as this.  All you have to do is put four tildes at the end of your comment, like this  ~~~~, and your comment will automatically be signed and dated. - mbeychok 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

After discussion with Wikipedia administrator Tom Harrison on his Talk page, I did an extensive cleanup, consolidation and shortening of the Timeline section. Although the cleanup I did is probably not perfect, I think it is more than enough to justify removing the cleanup tag on that section and I will do so. - mbeychok 21:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work. I tidied up the tenses. --Guinnog 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, - mbeychok 22:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How large is this site? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The acronym WSRC is mentioned 4 times in the article, but never defined. --205.254.147.8 (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Answer: Westinghouse Savannah River Co. I added it to the article, with a reference. Desertroad (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There should be some mention that the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility that is being built near Aiken, South Carolina is highly controversial, and highly expensive - costs could be as high as $30 billion before it is fully operational in 2040 [only $4.5 billion has been spent as of 2016. See, for example, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/us/politics/half-built-nuclear-fuel-plant-in-south-carolina-faces-test-on-its-future.html -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 03:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This needs to be seriously edited. I work at the site and this gives away to much info about what goes in there and what's stored there. People don't think before they do things. Sheesh 174.215.150.167 (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Neither the non-operational status of the reactors nor the presence of the tritium facilities and its use are classified at all. Local news often carries articles about the Tritium facilities since so many of the area's engineers are employed on site, including myself. The page about tritium also mentions the Tritium Extraction Facility and its use in hydrogen bombs. I'll revert the edit removing those details because they're an important part of understanding what is and is not still active on site. KiraLiz1 | she/her 18:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder, this chemistry-related article is covered by WP:ALUM, so we use the international spellings of the elements caesium and aluminium. John (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

It is not officially a chemistry article. Should we tag it for Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Good idea. It is not exclusively a chemistry article, but I think there's easily enough chemistry to consider this a "chemistry-related" one. Personally I think we sometimes don't make enough of the ground-breaking chemical processes involved in enriching and reprocessing nuclear materials in articles like these. Without the chemistry, no physics would be possible. John (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
 Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Savannah River Site/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 20:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)


### Progress template for Noleander
### Comments from Noleander
InfoBox has some  text at top that confused me:  Aiken, Allendale and Barnwell in South Carolina   Near Augusta, Georgia in United States   I had to hover my cursor over the top three links before I figured out it was a list of counties that include portions of SRS.   Of course, you're not responsible for the InfoBox template, but international readers especially may get confused.  Not a show-stopper for GA ... just pointing it out.
Link:  Tennessee Valley Authority is linked in its second occurrence, not the first.
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Section "Nuclear weapon program" has a figure:   {{#chart:Production Plutonium Hanford SRS (1947-1989).chart|data=Production Plutonium Hanford-SRS-1947-1989 (Corrected).tab}}      This chart is displayed as a giant blur in my browser (Firefox on Windows 11).  Strangely, when I Edit that section, the chart looks perfect. Probably an issue with my browser, but I thought you'd like to know.
Problem went away. Disregard. Noleander (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Images - Look absolutely stunning ... great collection!  Best I've seen since I reviewed  Cher :-)
Obligatory p vs pp:   Reed & Swanson 2006, p. 34-35.,  Reed 2010, p. 35-36., Reed 2010, p. 47-48
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
I see that it has had two names: Savannah River Site  and, before that,   Savannah River Plant. Difficult choice on how to treat that in the body text.  Since this is a general purpose encyclopedia, and since readers tend to jump around articles a lot, it may be better to use a single name thru the entire article (except those few places were the precise name is significant, e.g. when it was created, etc).  Otherwise, some readers may get the impression that the SRS and SRP are two different things.  The few readers that know it has two names are going to be subject matter experts anyway, and don't need any help :-)   Not a show-stopper for GA ... but using a single name nearly everywhere may help some readers.
It is covered in the article: "Westinghouse assumed control of the SRP on 1 April 1989, and one of its first actions was to rename the facility the "Savannah River Site".
Superfund?  I see "Superfund" in a category, but not in the body text. If it is a superfund site, that word should probably be mentioned in the "Cleanup" section.
Y It sort of did: "In 1989, the SRS was included on the National Priorities List". That's a superfund site. Made this explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Caption clarity:  NNSA's Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility under construction in 2010  Many readers are picture-centric, and focus on the pics & captions. So maybe this caption could have a couple of words indicating that the MOXFF was effectively cancelled/terminated?
Y Uh, sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Caption clarity:  In 1951, Eugene Odum of the University of Georgia, a pioneer of modern ecology, and other researchers were asked to conduct censuses of plants and animals before the nuclear production facilities began operations...  Readers will think one of the two individuals pictured is Eugene Odum.  Maybe reword to avoid confusion?  Consider something like Reserchers – such as those shown above – under the guidance of  Eugene Odum of the University of Georgia, have been performing ... 
Y Trimmed caption. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Ambiguity:  After involving the press, DOE ordered Wensil to be rehired despite lacking any legal rights.  Two ambiguities: (a) who involved the press?  DOE or Wensil?   (b) who lacked rights?   DOE or Wensil?
Y Deleted "despite lacking any legal rights". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Cite in middle of sentence:  In September,[26] as a result of the outbreak of the Korean War in June, the AEC increased the number of reactors to five, with the possibility of a sixth, power-generating, reactor.   Consider moving the [26] superscript to the end of the sentence, if appropriate, so reader's eyeballs have an easier job.
Y Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
I ran the CopyVio tool ... all green.
If the sources support it, consider a "Safety" section.  It looks like the SRS has a very good safety record, overall.  I see some incidents mentioned in the article:
 R Reactor had already sprung some leaks. It was shut down on 22 April 1964, but did not go quietly; during initial preparations, there was an unexpected power surge from 500 MW to 925 MW within 2.5 minutes. This was one of the three worst reactor incidents at the SRP.
 ... about 2.1 grams, but an incident occurred in November 1970 when an antimony-beryllium control rod melted. The cleanup took three months...
 A Congressional committee hearing in September 1988 revealed a long list of nuclear incidents at SRP and received copy of an internal report listing over thirty significant incidents at the facility
The August 1988 incident during the P reactor's startup attracted a lot of media attention...
It is a difficult editorial  decision whether to spread safety incidents out chronologically (as is) or consolidate into a single section.  Regardless: if the sources say that the safety record is above average, that should be mentioned .... somewhere.
There's a bit of safety terminology here. An "incident" is a mishap, like the ones above. An "accident" involves injury or death. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Ambiguous: On 1 January 1947, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) assumed responsibility for the research and production facilities the Army's Manhattan Project had created during World War II to make the first atomic bombs. Reader may think that the AEC was going to " to make the first atomic bombs".
Y Deleted phrase. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Idiomatic/vulgar:  An increase in plutonium production meant more reactors.  Consider "meant"  -> "required".
Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Link or definition?  The Manhattan Project relied on graphite-moderated air-cooled nuclear reactors...  Many readers will not know what "air-cooled" means in this context; in fact, I'm not even sure :-)  I looked in WP to see what it was and I see Gas-cooled reactor.  Also "gas cooled" is used in   Nuclear reactor heat removal and Graphite-moderated reactor.  Consider  either (a) link "air-cooled nuclear reactors" to  Gas-cooled reactor; or (b) change "air-cooled" to "gas-cooled" (and also link).
Y That is an error. The reactors at the Hanford Site were water-cooled. Corrected. Also: gas-colled is not air cooled. The X-10 Graphite Reactor was air-cooled. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Hanford or SRS?  The Manhattan Project relied on graphite-moderated air-cooled nuclear reactors ...  Many readers may think those Manhattan reactors were on the SRS site.  It only careful readers that will deduce that Manhattan project did not have any reactors on SRS site.  Maybe change to The Manhattan Project reactors at Hanford site  relied...
Y Changed as suggested to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Should explicitly state SRS reactor design.  When I  looked for the reactor design used in SRS: I went to the "Flexible design" section and read: The AEC initially wanted DuPont to build two heavy water cooled and moderated nuclear reactor, using highly enriched uranium as fuel. DuPont adopted a flexible design approach, ...  I'm expecting to see a clear statement of what the design is:  Boiling Water,   Liquid Sodium, Thorium, Pressurized Water, etc etc. Should have a clear statement of the design type.  Maybe it is there already and I'm blind?
None of the above! The SRS reactors were heavy water reactors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Diagram?  Can the article include a schematic illustration of a SRS reactor design?  Even if it is only applicable to one of the reactors?  Even if it is generic?
Do you want a design of the reactor or a floor plan of the building? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Both would be nice, but if I had to pick one, I suppose the building floor plan ... a lay reader would like to see "control room" and stuff like that.  Noleander (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Y Added a diagram of the rector process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
The article needs a clear, prominent paragraph that defines what the purpose of the SRS was, and what the SRS produced.  Containing facts such as:   (a)  Both plutonium & tritium are required for (US-designed) H-bombs; (b) The SRS produced  a lot of plutonium   and also a lot of tritium. and also what the SRS did not do:   (c) none of the SRS material was used to produce fission/atomic bombs; and (d) none of the SRS plutonium was used  for  generating electricity in a nuclear power plant ... neither civilian power plants, nor navy/sub reactors.  [If I've got the  blue facts wrong, this suggestion still applies]   Such overview/motivation info belongs in the Lead, IMHO.  Or, if you can't stand it there, I suppose in the "Flexible design" section?   Or a new subsection that is a sibling of "Flexible design" section?
In the lead: "The site was built during the 1950s to produce plutonium and tritium for nuclear weapons."
* The correct answer is (b). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
I apologize for not being more clear.  I was saying that the article should have a paragraph summarzing the purpose & motivation of SRS, including (assuming they are accurate) all four points (a), (b), (c), and (d) ... and any other important purpose/motivation information.
If the Lead is already too packed for that, then perhaps in the "Background" or "Flexible design" section?
In the lead: "The site was built during the 1950s to produce plutonium and tritium for nuclear weapons." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Regarding points (c) and (d), although it may seem strange to say what the facility did not do,  some lay readers might think "SRS made nuclear stuff like they use at Diablo Canyon" (highly enriched vs not);  or "SRS made stuff for bombs like US dropped at end of WWII" ... nothing wrong with anticipating such misunderstandings and saying what the SRS is not.   Noleander (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
I mean that (b) is the only one that was correct. (a) You can build H-bombs without plutonium or tritium; (c) SRS plutonium was used in fission bombs; (d) some SRS plutonium went into MOX and thence into civilian power plants. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time grasping what the major components of SRS are, and which are still operational ... there was/is a lot going on at SRS.  In section "Nuclear arms race" is a nice table named "Reactor construction and completion" that lists five reactors, all shut down by 1988.  And later the article mentions the "Heavy Water Components Test Reactor" which was operating until 2010. And there is the "Major facilities and operations" section which  has some major activities, though none appear to be reactors.    Is it possible to give  readers a summary of the big pieces of SRS?  Perhaps extend the "Reactor construction and completion" table by adding rows for some other major SRS facilities, in particular those that are still operating  ... that way the rightmost column would tell readers which are still active.
All the reactors have been shut down. Lead says: "A major focus is cleanup activities related to work done in the past for American nuclear buildup. Currently none of the reactors on-site are operating, although two of the reactor buildings are being used to consolidate and store nuclear materials." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Spelling:  Decommissiong and environmental remediation
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
There is a bit of confusion surrounding if the site is active or not: on the one hand, there is a section "Decommissioning and environmental remediation" which says  the decommissioning of nuclear facilities and the environmental remediation of contaminated areas became imperative by the end of the 1980s. but later the article says there is  an active "Isotope production program" and also they're building a new  Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility (SRPPF) to produce at least 50 war reserve plutonium pits ....  Suggest reword "Decommissioning and environmental remediation"  section title to be more precise. Perhaps Decommissioning  of the reactors" or something like that.
Y Changed as suggested. Updated the projected completion date to say that it is 2032. Back in the 1950s they could build a reactor in just two years but now it takes twelve to build a facility like the SRPPF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Title case vs. Sentence case for source title:  [not a GA issue] I've seen FA reviewers  insist that all source titles must follow a single case rule (either  Title case or Sentence case).  Not a show stopper for GA, but I thought I'd mention it, since this article uses both.
Wording ...of helium-3, a highly coveted isotope of helium...  "highly coveted" doesn't seem like the best (in an encyclopedia sense) phrase here.  Maybe "valuable, yet scarce, ..." or "important, yet rare, ..."
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Caption improvement? Borosilicate glass is mixed with the waste, heated in a melted until molten, and poured into stainless steel canisters to harden. Not clear where the glass is in the photo. Maybe add words to caption to indicate:  (a) the disks on the floor are covering molds that the molten glass mixture was poured into to harden?   Or  (b) are the disks simply the top of  holes that permanently store the cylinders after they are hardened?
Y (a) Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Captions name minor individuals:  Seems odd to name non-notable individuals in photos: SRNL postdoc Maria Kriz works on ... and  Senior Scientist Wendy Kuhne collects ...   Looks like wording from a SRS press release.  Consider removing the names from the captions.
Wendy W. Kuhne may be notable, although she does not yet have an article. I created articles on a couple of other scientists mentioned in the article as I went along. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Some captions are full sentences, and MOS:CAPFRAG says they should end in period.  E.g. In 1956, Clyde Cowan (right) and Frederick Reines (left) came ... of the neutrino  and Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean unloads ... on the Ocean of Storms
Y Added full stops. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
"Alt" text for images:  I don't think it is required for GA, but some images could benefit from alt text (for FA).
FA does not require ALT text either. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Wording:   ...and ceased definitely in 1988 ...  Peculiar wording.  Consider ... and ceased in 1988... or ...and ceased indefinitely in 1988 ...
Y Deleted "definitely". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: That's all I got right now.  It is a great article, on an interesting topic!  Ping me after you've processed the above items (note that many of them are optional suggestions), and I'll make a final pass thru the article. Noleander (talk)   20:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Article looks great now .... hope to see it in the FA nomination queue some day. Noleander (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)