Talk:Crystal River Nuclear Plant

message: This is presently Stub Class and identified as low importance and lowest quality.
I've been beefing it up and believe it easily meets the Class C requirements, and very likely Class B with a brush-up or two.
Class C defn:
The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues. Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.
As Crystal River relates to energy, nuclear power, and Florida it is FAR more important than many articles pertaining to Florida and Energy on Wikipedia.
First off- Florida tax payers were on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars for the fiasco after already investing $500 million into the asset before the plant closure. 
The area around Crystal River was greatly impacted by the event- Property values, school tax dollars, employment, and politics.
Regarding energy; this operations, engineering and management mistake ought to receive more focus than it has for the costly errors made resulting in the loss of a valuable electric generating asset.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepsean666 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class Change 

message: I noticed that the name of the article was "Crystal River 3 Nuclear Generating Station."  The "3" represents the number of reactors currently present at the station, not to name of the plant.  I changed the name to "Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant."  I also made it nuclear power plant as apposed to nuclear generating station, as the main article of this type of power plant is called nuclear power plant and not "nuclear generating station." — NuclearVacuum 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "3" does not represent the number of reactors present (there is only one), the "3" indicates that the nuclear plant is unit number three of the five generating units at the Crystal River complex.  Units one, two, four and five are fossil fuel units.Fl295 (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The complex's states that Crystal River is the "fifth plant" on it.  Unless this a simply typo on that article's part, then I can clearly understand my mistake. — NuclearVacuum 14:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed the name 

message: News stories are the references throughout this page.
If Wikipedia makes claim to being an Encyclopedia other than a blog or gossip page then more effort is needed in supplying quality references- and quality writing.
There are inaccuracies throughout this article.
The "cracks" which are delaminations occurred to the bay walls only and not the dome which is the top of the building.
The delaminations were not caused by the workers applying too much pressure to the wall while cutting it. If that were true then why did other bay walls subsequently delaminate that were never cut into?
The report used in this article to state that is not the company's own investigation results nor third party expert commentary easily found in the Florida PSC dockets.
The steam generators could easily fit through the hatch. It's one of the few reactors that has a hatch that can pass a generator through it. 
The company chose not to go that path since it required removing obstacles inside the containment.
The company contracted to analyze the two paths laser surveyed and produced a 3D video of the generator moving into place through the equipment hatch and recommended it over cutting into the building.
The company wasn't trying to save $15 million. The cost difference between the two options was less than three million.
They were ignorant of the risk in delaminating the walls, never accounted for it, and chose schedule risks= potential time delays= money potentially more than $3 million as the main factor.
The building was successfully repaired. Other areas weren't discovered, they were created upon retentioning as other bays began to delaminate.
The company sought advice from many engineering firms- which is reported, what is not said is that they chose to ignore much of their recommendations.
Jaczko was in charge of the NRC for this debacle. His quote conflicts with the stated NRC findings that the company was not at fault.
Tighten this article up or put a headline on it that it's suspect and far from a reliable source as the documents it's based upon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepsean666 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not protected, so be bold and make the changes you suggest. :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 20:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire Article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Crystal River 3 Nuclear Power Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002131207/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.html to http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified