Talk:San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mahollis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Percentages

Why dont the percentages for the ownership of the plant add to 100%? instead, they add up to 100.1%

I fixed it, SCE owns 75% as stated on their website here: http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/default.htm?goto=songs

Events section

This section suffers from the same problem that exists with public discussions of nuclear power. There is no understanding of the relative importance of any particular problem that is discovered. Anyone that has worked in an industrial enviroment is aware that there are always equipment problems. Machines break. Nuclear plants hold themselves to a nearly impossible standard and report every minor issue. Their standard though ensures that these minor problems will not develop into meltdowns. Placing this minor problem here (the Events section)is factual, but by itself misleading. I could give you dozens of other situations in the last decade that shut down the plant for minor equipment issues. The point is: they SHUT DOWN, so that they could remain safe and fix the problem. I reccomend removing this section or replacing the event with something more noteworthy. Perhaps the determination a few years back that the emergency sump was designed with too small of a strainer.

Important dates omitted

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)

Ownership

• 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)

Recent edits

Some identical edits have been made recently by User:24.43.39.93 and User:Mike B2. I wanted to discuss each of them rather than revert.

I am Mike B2 and I worked for Bechtel Power Corp. for 18 years out of their Norwalk office and have been inside of units 1, 2 and 3.

1. Why is Bechtel being changed to Bechtel Power Corp, causing a redlink?

Bechtel Power Corp. was the CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING company that designed and built the plant.

1. What is the reference for "It is being used as a spent fuel processing facility. It has a spherical containment of concrete and steel with the smallest wall being six foot thick. An additional cylindrical missile shield added later."?

Local color, and to give the reader an idea that it is not just another ordinary building.

1. Why is unsourced trivia being added about a "well endowed female clerk" and a bumper sticker?

Because it is the truth. Do you want more local color about the plant. I can provide a lot more.

This edit should be removed, and I have already done so twice. Alanraywiki (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What gives you the right to remove anything?

Mike B2 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can add and anyone can delete. See Wikipedia:Five pillars. I brought your edits to the talk page to determine a consensus for deletion and for you to explain why you think the edits should stay (which you have now done above). And local color, particularly without references, does not belong in an encyclopedia. Alanraywiki (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

encyclopedia noun a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically.

ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: modern Latin, from pseudo-Greek enkuklopaideia for enkuklios paideia ‘all-around education.’

Are you REALLY sure about what belongs in an encyclopedia or is that just your opinion?

Mike B2 (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a host of policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. I think with references the name change and the additional information about the building are good and appropriate changes. The third item, however, is just unsourced trivia. Concentrate on adding sources to the first two changes. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I will add back the first two items with a Citation needed tag. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was about to tag this article as disputed. Thank for the education on Wikipedia and how it operates. Mike B2 (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We both were wrong about SONGs Unit One. It is now a parking lot. Check it out with Google Earth at 33°22'16.93"N, 117°33'35.54"W.

From a Joni Mitchell song ... "I said, don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise, put up a parking lot"

Mike B2 (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a comment/report relevant to this discussion:

At the 5/25/11 meeting of the San Diego Chapter of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, the speaker from SONGS stated that the site of Unit 1 now contains a spent fuel processing facility which seals spent fuel in glass and stainless steel canisters. She also stated in Q&A that at this time SONGS is designed to handle 0.67g, which corresponds to the maximum credible seismic acceleration that is expected, based on existing studies. Southern California Edison filed a grant application with the California PUC to fund additional studies of a nearby fault which has come to their attention since the completion of existing studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averla (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Power plant license

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)

Time magazine reference

"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)

Controversy

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)MJR

Pronunciation

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)

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. — Quicksilver^{T @} 19:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent problems

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)

Anti-nuclear protests section

There's a ton of words in this article devoted to a protest that had all of 200 people show up. It goes into way too much detail. I'm going to try to delete some of it and make it more NPOV. Hanxu9 (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There does appear to be undue weight, and it should be reduced down to a sentence or two at most.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, as it was reliably sourced, I think it should stay. --John (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have retagged the content, there is unneeded detail of the small event. Also the reversion, removed some article improvements, as requested here in the talk page for a better image.

There are two editors who have viewed the amount of content as having undue weight, and there should be a discussion as to what is due weight in this section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notiication I shall inform related wikiprojects of this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a very short article. It needs to be developed and expanded rather than have material removed from it. I will add a couple of Expand tags. Anti-nuclear issues receive wide media coverage, and so are quite notable. I will add more on another recent protest. Johnfos (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It maybe that there is an active anti-nuclear movement with events that maybe directed to the subject of this article, however it should make up a large portion of this article, nor should such a section be overtly detailed, thus giving the section undue weight. Anti-nuclear movement content that is more generalized should not be included in this article, and again, when events do occur I don't see a need for more than a summary of each event.

For instance the event which was recently added had fewer attendees than the two other events which were already included in this article, however, it is given an equal amount of content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Johnfos. --John (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

However, that shouldn't mean that the protest section should be given undue weight within the article. I agree that the article needs to be improved overall, however to make it unbalanced with overly detailed accounts of each anti-nuclear event that maybe related to the subject of this article gives that section undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Future prospects" section

Why is there an entire section devoted to the opinion of one person - most of which is POV against the nuclear industry as a whole, and only in passing about this plant? IMO his comments deserve at most a sentence somewhere in the article. Only the final sentence (about California banning new plants) is relevant to the future prospects of San Onofre. --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have copyedited the section for relevance; it is important to mention the shift from nuclear to renewables in California, and the SMUD experience provides an example to this. Freeman is a highly notable Californian utility manager and his views are valuable. Please add views of any other notable people. Johnfos (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the section doesn't belong here per WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Article's about Anti-nuclear activities and potential future in the state belong in another article, but not here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The information seems appropriate to me. Gandydancer (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? Per WP:CRYSTAL the content shouldn't be here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

My problem with the section is that 1) it is not specifically about the future of this generating station and 2) it gives undue weight to an op/ed by one person speaking in generalities (with no evidence that anyone connected with San Onofre took any notice of his opinion piece). Now if the section was about the suggestions by some that the plant should not be re-opened after its current shutdown, that would be relevant. But IMO this several paragraphs of POV stuff has little or nothing to do with the San Onofre plant which is the subject of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that only the sentence mentioning San Onofre specifically is relevant to this article. Perhaps merge that sentence into the section above it, which could be retitled "Criticism" or "Protests and criticism" - or possibly into the safety section? The rest of the info can be moved to a more appropriate article. (Nuclear power in the United States?) Dohn joe (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a "future prospects" section might be appropriate here, but it has to actually be about the likely future of this plant - not somebody spinning generalities about how California ought to get rid of nuclear energy. --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

See CRYSTAL

Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.

Creating a whole section based primarily on a single source, gives the section undue weight, and attempts to POV-push an anti-nuclear agenda.

This article should not be pro or anti anything. It should be what is verifiable to be factual.

That being said, a short sentence on speculation is at most what I think should be included, balanced with other's speculation on continued operations, conversions to other forms of power, or whatever else can be verified.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a short article. It needs to be developed and expanded rather than have material removed from it. The anti-nuclear issues relating to San Onofre are not isolated events and receive wide media coverage and so are quite notable, and deserve adequate coverage here. The same is true of the future prospects issues. If you believe that there are significant views that have been published by reliable sources, which have not been included, then add them in. Johnfos (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Your additions to the section have helped, although IMO they still consist of too much anti-nuclear opinion, and not enough factual information about the future of the plant. I have now added a paragraph which is specifically about the plant's future, and that is what the section needs more of. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No article needs to have irrelevant material in it just to make it longer. I've removed the irrelevant info about Sacramento, as well as the part on CA's (and Minnesota's) ban on new reactors - a ban a new reactors is not relevant to San Onofre's prospects - certainly if that connection has not already directly been made by a reliable source. If something is not directly and/or explicitly related to San Onofre (as opposed to nuclear energy or California policy in general), then it's original research or synthesis as far as this article is concerned. It may well belong elsewhere in WP; but not here. The relevant info added by Johnfos and Melanie has helped improve the article, though - thank you for that. Dohn joe (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for your changes, Dohn Joe. I think we are getting closer to a neutral section which is specifically about the plant's future prospects. I for one am ready to remove the POV tag from this section, but let's wait and see if others agree. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The section itself has greatly improved, however with two LARGE sections that are primarily focused on anti-nuclear activities related to the plant, and the majority of the article not about the plant itself, I am thinking of tagging the entire article with the POV tag. Wikipedia is not a place to advocate one way or the other, and it is a shame that the article appears to have been used in such a manor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean "manner"? In any case, I think this is now resolved. --John (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the things I’ve seen in a number of NPP articles on WP is that some editors (often with engineering training) want to basically write a technical report, and don’t see social and political issues as valid things to discuss. This view is mistaken. Johnfos (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Californian transition from nuclear to renewables (and I mean all renewables -- hydro, geothermal, wind -- not just solar power) and the tangible benefits which have accrued for a number of progressive utilities, is relevant here. Individual utilities do not make decisions in a vacuum, they make them in the light of current energy policy trends. In 2011, 28% of in-state Californian electricity production came from renewables, mainly hydro; 18% came from nuclear power.Johnfos (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Calling Freeman an “anti-nuclear activist” is a violation of WP:BLP. The source says “anti-nuclear voice”, but more importantly he trained as a engineer and was general manager of SMUD. These professional credentials need to be mentioned. Johnfos (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Melanie in particular has done some good work on this article in an effort to bring some sort of balance, so it is disappointing to see the POV tag being added at the top. Johnfos (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with RCLC that there is too much anti-nuke generalizing in the article (and all kind of irrelevant stuff was being brought in, like Minnesota banning new nuclear plants for heavens sake). But I think part of the problem may be that there really aren't any loud PRO-nuke voices that we can cite for balance. --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've said several times above that "If you believe that there are significant views that have been published by reliable sources, which have not been included, then add them in", but there was very little response. So I'm inclined to agree with you Melanie that "there really aren't any loud PRO-nuke voices that we can cite for balance". I think RCLC is mistaken to say that there has been serious POV-pushing and advocacy here. If there had been then there would have been a scramble to add controversial material to the lead, to display it more prominently. This has not occurred. Johnfos (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have started a section, immediately following the "protests" section, called "Response from the industry". It needs more material, but this should help to relieve any POV concerns. I don't really like the title "response from the industry" because it is not just from the industry; I would welcome a better name for the section. --MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have renamed, it but that renaming was done boldly, and I too am wondering what is a good neutral name for the section.

There is a POV issue, when the majority of quotes from our reliable sources, are from those connected by the anti-nuclear movement. In California, due to multiple possible factors, I guess it's not PC to be pro-nuclear power, so I must imagine this may place into a factor why it's difficult to find sources that are neutral to supportive of SONGS and the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Therefore, this skews the coverage of the subject of this article. However that being said, NPOV is what should be striven for here; if this means that we use more neutral content, and not content that is supportive of the anti-nuclear movement, so be it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the two paragraphs to the future prospects section. They don't appear to be direct responses to anti-nuclear criticisms, and do discuss possible future uses of the plant. I also agree that we should continue to look for more balanced info. The past few days has already turned up some good stuff... Dohn joe (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really happy with that change. I'd like the "Future prospects" section to be factual, and put all the he-said-she-said stuff somewhere else. Right now, some of the "what should be done with the place?" comments are in Protests, where they don't really belong, and some are in Future Prospects, where they don't really belong either. And some stuff that belongs in Future Prospects is under 2012 shutdown. We just don't have a good organization or flow to the article right now.

How about a reorganization of the sections somewhat along these lines (I think the lead is fine as is):

• 1) Reactors (needs expansion, maybe rename the section Facility or something, to encompass the whole thing, its size, its capacity and impact);
• 2) Environmental risk and mitigation, with subsections Surrounding population and Safety issues;
• 3) Protests (just the ones prior to and unrelated to the current shutdown);
• 4) 2012 shutdown, with a subsection Reactions which would include the various protests, congressional comments, city council actions, proposals to replace it, demands to shut it down, etc.
• 5) Future of the plant (or this could be another subsection to 2012 shutdown)
• 6) In popular culture (if it survives), See also, etc.

Your opinions/comments/revisions solicited! --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Trivia section

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)

Restart application - October 2012

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. — Quicksilver^{T @} 19:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

Call for criminal investigation by Senator Barbara Boxer: section added, deleted, reverted back

I have added sourced material in a new section regarding an extremely serious matter: a call by Senator Barbara Boxer of California for the U.S. Department of Justice to criminally investigate the events leading up to Southern California Edison's installment of steam generators whose prematurely worn steam tubes have closed the SONGS facility since January of 2012. The section and some of the content have been deleted, and I have reverted the deletion. I ask both in my edit summaries and here that the material not be edit-warred over, and that we instead discuss the material on the merits and seek consensus. Thanks. Jusdafax 19:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me state the reasoning why the content was added is improperly weighted through what I stated in my policy/guideline based change:

reduced content per WP:UNDUE and moved to appropriate section, reworded to meet WP:NPOV; this article need not devolve into an WP:ATTACKPAGE regarding its subject

By restoring the content, I was accused of edit warring, which is uncivil, fails to assume good faith of my reduction of the material (while keeping all the new reliable sources which were added), and itself violates WP:BRD. The undue weighted content was added boldly, by reducing the content I did so without mentioning WP:BRD, although IMHO it applies. Therefore, beginnings of what can devolve into an edit war could be said, with the restoration and the edit summary that accuses me of starting one.

I could remove a lot of the content added per WP:BURDEN if I so wished due to lack of inline citations

In May, 2013 Boxer asked that the United States Justice Department investigate possible malfeasance by Edison officials, and released a 2004 letter by an Edison executive that expressed worries that the new steam generators, which though similar, would not be "like for like" replacements and could lead to the same kind of potential "disastrous" issues that in fact led to the plant's shutdown in 2012.
In making the request, Boxer's statement said "This correspondence leads me to believe that Edison intentionally misled the public and regulators in order to avoid a full safety review and public hearing in connection with its redesign of the plant. ...Given this new information, it is clear to me that in order for this nuclear plant to even be considered for a restart in the future all investigations must be completed and a full license amendment and public hearing process must be required."

However, I wont for the sake of starting a discussion, and while this discussion is active, I ask others to not edit the content until consensus can be determined.

Furthemore, I can clearly argue that adding the undue weight content is a matter of WP:RECENTISM, while further unbalancing this article into an WP:ATTACKPAGE of the subject rather than treating it neutrally.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I will notify appropriate Wikiprojects of this discussion per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think something about this should be in the article, maybe a sentence or two. It is relevant. But I think the paragraph proposed above, complete with extended quotations from Boxer, gives undue weight to what is basically just one member of Congress calling for an investigation. I also think making this into a whole section of its own is very much overkill; I would favor reducing it to a paragraph under "2012 shutdown". If there is an investigation, obviously it should be reported on as additional coverage becomes available, but for now, TMI. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is what I did, without removing any of the RSs, until it was reverted, as I have shown in the diffs provided in my reply.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I will refrain at this time from addressing various comments made so far in favor of hearing from fresh viewpoints, except to note that Boxer is hardly, in my view, "basically just one member of Congress." Not only has Boxer been involved in this matter as a California Senator for at least a year, but to quote from her WP article: "Boxer is the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the chair of the Select Committee on Ethics, making her the only senator to preside over two committees simultaneously." In other words, she has a lot of clout in areas that are relevant. Jusdafax 22:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

...and if that clout has the effect of actually causing a criminal investigation to be launched (which can only be done by the Justice Department, not a congressional committee), then we can expand the information, or more likely open a new section at that time. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. Prosecution is up to the executive, not the legislative (blabber-mouth), branch. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because Sen. Boxer is a head of this or that committee, or a Senator from California, does not mean what comes from her, should be given undue weight over other content. If the committee were to have a hearing on the subject, then that maybe relevant to the article, and the content should be neutrally worded and presented in as summarized matter as possible; but in this case Sen. Boxer is just throwing out accusations, anyone can do that at that doesn't mean anything. If we just allow additions of accusations left, center, and right, it can do harm, see what happened to Richard Jewell.

At this rate, it is far too soon to add that much weight. If it comes time that there is criminal prosecution of SCE, that should be a subsection within the 2012 event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks like consensus to trim the information. Further, I note that four days later there does not appear to have been any follow-up or reaction to Boxer's call that I can find, thus decreasing its apparent notability/significance. I will go ahead and remove the new section and instead put a paragraph into the section 2012 Shutdown. --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The plant closure raises some issues

Indeed, MelanieN. Per today's headline news, the troubled plant is now history and will be decommissioned. Is that enough "reaction" for you? Was it just a coincidence that the decision to shut it down permanently came only days after Boxer's high-profile demand for a criminal investigation? I suggest it is this Talk page "consensus" to remove the section I added, based on a very few people and after only a very few days, that carries little weight. Senator Boxer made another tough statement today regarding the need to investigate the loss of a substantial chunk of money, and post closure, there are going to be a lot of hard questions regarding decision process that led to the botched replacement generators. I also would point out how my section was edited down to a fragment, and Senator Boxer identified as just "Boxer." Really, is that encyclopedic? While the possibility exists, I suppose, that this is an oversight, rightly or wrongly it strains my good faith and indeed appears to be an attempt to minimize and marginalize the information I added and trivialize the source, which the few commenters derided as seen in the section above. A lot of Wikipedia readers came to this article today, and they deserved better than to read what is here. For shame! The article itself now needs a complete rewrite, which I have now begun, and perhaps the closure will add some badly needed perspective to those who, in my view, abuse the terms "undue weight" and "notability." Jusdafax 07:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I note your recent change of most parts of the article to past tense, and I think that is justified by the recent announcement. As for the conversion of your section to a paragraph, "consensus" may have been weak since only four people commented - but since three of the editors felt that Boxer's call for a criminal investigation was worthy of mention while you were the ONLY one who felt it was a huge deal, you did not have consensus on your side. As noted, if a real criminal investigation should be started in the future, it will then need a prominent place in this article, but at this point there is no such investigation and no-one else has echoed Boxer's call for one.

Is that enough "reaction" for you? Was it just a coincidence that the decision to shut it down permanently came only days after Boxer's high-profile demand for a criminal investigation? You are free to believe there is a connection between Boxer's call for an investigation and the timing of the shutdown, if you wish, but that is just your opinion and as such has no place in this article.

Senator Boxer identified as just "Boxer." Really, is that encyclopedic? Yes, it is. Per Manual of Style practice both here and in most standard stylebooks, a person is identified by title and full name on first mention, and by last name only on all subsequent mentions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll pass over your comment about "my opinion" and look into your MOS observation later. In my view, you moved too fast with too few !votes my to establish a solid consensus. The article was then read by numerous people post-closure before it could be rewritten, a task these !voters were apparently unwilling to undertake. The section was valid and well-sourced, and the !votes were based on deriding the source, a seated United States Senator who had been looking into the plant issues closely, with derogatory comments. That should have been discounted. I look forward to working with you on the article, which I see you have begun on as well. Jusdafax 17:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I must say that MelanieN has been the most neutral of editors here, and I would like to take the time to remind the editor above that Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs and not here to advocate certain opinions. MelanieN is right about MOS and has been at this for quite sometime, so I would defer to the editor's expertise.

I have been unable to devote the time necessary to update this article due to increase time consumed by Real life. As time becomes available I will return to actively editing this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Order of sections

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Melanie, I've created some sub-sections in the shutdown/closure sections. It's not ideal, somewhat loose sub-sections. Please rv if you don't like it. Rwendland (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good start: I think the merger and reordering are a big improvement. Some tweaking remains to be done perhaps, but the challenge now, I feel, is to flesh out the article with more reactions to the closure from a wider group, and examine the question of how much ratepayers are going to be asked for to pay for it, as well as the investigations and other issues that will go with decommissioning a large nuclear facility, such as the longer-term storing of the waste. Jusdafax 06:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

POV Concern

This article reads like a victory piece of environmentalists over nuclear power in Souther California, as such I will be tagging this article until it meets WP:NEU. A large portion of this article is dedicated to environmental groups efforts to shut down the plant, while verified, IMHO is given undue weight and can be better summarized.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

yeah

i read many pools who wanted the plant to operate. and in any case the best cause are the lower prices of gas that caused the shutdown. crystal river 3 go offline for so 4 years before to shutdown, now only 1 year and reactors shuts, and problems were only about a piece that can be changed "easely".--Dwalin (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Pull tag - I'll pass over the comment just above and say that I strongly disagree with your tag, RCLC. I'd say the history of "efforts" to shut the plant, which you admit are "verified," has a considerable amount of bearing on the eventual shutdown and belongs right where it is. I ask for community consensus on removing your tag at once, which is specious and harmful to Wikipedia given that the article has substantial numbers of readers. You are also free to edit the article yourself, of course, in the interests of removing your tag. Frankly, it's a smear, in my view, of hard-working volunteer editors who have labored hard to produce this well-sourced article and I also find that your opening comment in this section seems to be a clear indication of your own POV. Instead of tagging, I challenge you to identify areas you think should be cut out, like the Senator Boxer quote you removed today without seeking consensus. The quote which you have deleted read "In making the request for a possible criminal investigation, Boxer's statement said "This correspondence leads me to believe that Edison intentionally misled the public and regulators in order to avoid a full safety review and public hearing in connection with its redesign of the plant." In my view this goes to the heart of the last decade of problems that led to the shutdown. I have to assume this is this is an example of the kind of deletion of sourced material that you advocate in order to pass your standards? Jusdafax 12:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • i work on it:wiki, and many thin language speack are difficoult for me to understand. my edit on en:wiki are few as you can see. explain better about me, please--Dwalin (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the article as well, so please do not make this a personal attack upon myself. For instance the position of Sen. Boxer, IMHO can be stated in a more summarized manor, rather than including a lengthy direct quote. IMHO, there are sections of the article that can be better summarized, in order to neutralize the article; this article shouldn't over emphasis anti-nuclear activists, and environmentalists, efforts in the decision which lead to SCE deciding to stop their effort at restarting the subject of this article. May I remind that this article must follow WP:NOTSOAPBOX & WP:NEU, and even though this article has received increased traffic, that is no reason to not call out issues that this article may have.

Most of the content regarding the 2012 shutdown could be better summarized, IMHO; and since this is a controversial topic, I would rather tag the article, and us (real life of course taking a priority (we all gotta pay bills, etc.)) work towards consensus wording rather than what has occurred in the past.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hold it - let's not make this talk page into a nukes-vs.-non-nukes soapbox. The issue here is the article and how to improve it. RCLC, I don't agree with your characterization of the article as a "victory piece" by the anti-nuke side and I am going to remove your tag. I think the article is neutral or fairly close to neutral, and it is our job to make sure it stays that way.

@RCLC, I disagreed with you about the Boxer sentence and I have put it back. I think she is entitled to a single sentence in her own words explaining why she said what she did. I do agree that now that the plant is closed, some details that earlier seemed important could now be condensed or removed. For example, the sentence about who toured the plant in the early days of the shutdown now seems to me to be superfluous, and the "nuclear protests" material could be trimmed. (Update: I have trimmed it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC))

@Jusdafax, you have called for "more reaction" to the closing of the plant. At this point I think the space devoted to reaction is sufficient, but if other major players comment we could add their comments. By "major players" I don't mean predictable and little-reported comments from pressure groups on either side; I mean people or groups whose views actually hold influence and whose comments got significant coverage.

@Dwalin, thank you for your comments. There is no connection between the shutdown and the price of gas. The main problem was the ruling by the regulatory agency. It became clear that reopening would be a long and costly process, and Edison apparently decided to cut their losses. Edison had said earlier they would shut it down if they couldn't reopen it at 70% capacity. When the regulatory agency said they could not reopen at 70% capacity, Edison shut it down within the month. (Note: Discussion continued on my talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)) --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Cost of the steam generator replacements

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)

I have another source that says it was $670 million,[1] 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)

Thanks for the second opinion. I took it out. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Obscure statement

"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)

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)

WIki evaluation questions

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)

2018 developments (NRC notices) need to be added

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)

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)