Talk:San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

message: 1) When did construction begin?
2) When was construction completed?
3) When did the plant begin operating?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.77.180 (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Important dates omitted

message: * SCE: "The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is jointly owned by Southern California Edison (SCE) (78.21%), San Diego Gas & Electric (20%), and the city of Riverside (1.79%)."
* Edison Int'l: "Southern California Edison 75%, San Diego Gas & Electric 20%, The cities of Riverside and Anaheim own the remaining interests"
* DoE: "The ownership set up is as follows: Edison International (75.1 percent), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (20 percent), Anaheim Public Utilities Department (3.2 percent), and the Riverside Utilities Department (1.8 percent)."
—WWoods (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: If the license expires for the power plant expires in 2222,how many years will it be until it expires again? Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power plant license 

message: "The July 12, 1982 edition of Time (magazine) states, "The firm Bechtel was further embarrassed in 1977, when it installed a 420-ton nuclear-reactor vessel backwards" at San Onofre"
This needs to be located somewhere else on the page.  It disrupts the continuity of the paragraph where it is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.86.253 (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time magazine reference 

message: It appears to me that now that the plant is in the news ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42354473/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/42336304 ) in a very controversial situation, that a controversy section should be edited.  Basically, the plant is under lawsuit for squashing whistleblowers on safety issues.  In light of the Japanese meltdowns, it is now recieving a good deal more media attention.  72.66.253.132 (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: What is the correct pronunciation of San Onofre (especially the part "Onofre")? Since this is not obvious for non-native English speakers, this would certainly be a useful information for the article.--SiriusB (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a Spanish name, and Spanish words are pronounced phonetically, as spelled, in most cases.  It's approximately "sahn oh-no-fray" in this case. — QuicksilverT @ 19:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: May be a long hot summer here in SoCal -- just announced that the two operating units of San Onofre have been shut down, likely for a long time. "Investigators are currently trying to determine why tubes carrying hot, pressurized, radioactive water inside the relatively new steam generators at San Onofre, are deteriorating at a dangerous and unusual rate." ( http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/03/22/5205/san-onofre/ ) Opus131 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent problems 

message: I have tagged the In popular culture section. If anybody wants to keep any of the trivia, let's ensure it is referenced to valid third-party references in, say, the next week. --John (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: News is just beginning to come out that the operators of San Onofre are applying to restart Unit 2.  The actual cause of the steam generator tube failures has apparently been traced to dynamic instability, i.e., vibration, which allowed adjacent tubes to rub together, causing holes to appear.  This sounds far more reasonable than the earlier reports of theories that the alloy used to fabricate the tubes was incorrect.  The "2012 Shutdown" section needs to be amended to downplay the earlier Fairewinds Associates report blaming alloys and highlight the true cause of the failures. — QuicksilverT @ 19:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the Fairewinds Associates report may have been given undue weight in the section, and the section should be updated with this information about the application to restart unit 2.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restart application - October 2012 

message: The current order of sections does not make a lot of sense. "2012 shutdown" comes after "Safety issues" and before "Environmental risk and mitigation"; then comes "Anti-nuclear protests", and then "Plant closure". Clearly the "shutdown" and "closure" sections should be together, and the "Safety issues" and "Environmental risk" sections should be together. I solicit opinions about which should come first. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'd go for rough time order, with "2012 shutdown" and "Plant closure" toward the end (but before the dubious "In popular culture"). Rwendland (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Melanie, just noticed article usage has rocketed to near 5000/day recently, so I did the section move I suggested.  Ordinarily I would have been polite and left it to you, but you're right that the current order is senseless so urgent temp fix seemed best.  If you prefer a different order, please change my choice.  Rwendland (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. You're right that viewership is way up right now so we shouldn't dawdle with improvements. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the section and subsection headings slightly and moved some paragraphs around. I think the article has a much more logical flow now. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of sections 

message: The lead paragraph says, without attribution, "Upgrades designed to last 20 years were made to the reactor units in 2009 and 2010 at a cost of approximately $2.1 billion." The sourced paragraph I just added says that the cost of the new steam generators was $671 million. Should the $2.1 billion figure be removed, or is it talking about some broader project than just the new steam generators? If that's the case, can we find a source to support it? --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have another source that says it was $670 million, so I think we should remove the unsourced $2.1 billion claim. $2.1 billion is fairly implausible, as that whould be getting on for half the cost of a new NPP to likely extend 2 plants somewhere from 10 to 30 years. Given the out-of-service tima and risks the economics of that would be fairly marginal. Rwendland (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the second opinion. I took it out. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of the steam generator replacements 

message: "however, both reactors had to be shut down in January 2012 due to premature wear found on over 3,000 tubes in the recently replaced steam generators."
This statement is grammatically somewhat obscure.   Was the unexpected wear found in the original ( 25 year old ) heat exchangers removed from the reactor,   or in the new ones ?Tallewang (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -  I have improved the wording to make it clear that the 3,000 prematurely worn tubes were in fact in the newer units. Jusdafax  03:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscure statement 

message: Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
- Yes. From what I can tell, each fact is referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. Furthermore, the references cited are publications from reputable sources such as the LA Times, the NRC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
-Yes. I clicked through many of the citations and the links do work. The article seems to do a good job of summarizing the information that is found in the references without plagiarizing or paraphrasing.
Mahollis (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIki evaluation questions 

message: Perhaps the content could be restructured into an "incidents" section / timeline.
https://sanonofresafety.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/ml18332a357.pdf
rhyre (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. As several sections above indicate, there have been past disagreements regarding this article, but that was years ago before the plant was closed under a cloud. The crickets you hear since you posted are instructive. So, the document you link to is just shy of 40 pages, a deep read, but indicates troubling issues regarding the storage of dangerous nuclear waste. Googling “San Onofre nuclear waste” leads to a number of disturbing articles. I started with this L.A. Times piece from August 2018, but there are others that are more recent regarding issues in recent months. Update? Badly needed. I’ve added a bit to get it started. Jusdafax (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 developments (NRC notices) need to be added