This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
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." — NuclearVacuum19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — NuclearVacuum14:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article refers to the delamination (crack) being in the dome. However, the delamination occurred on the side of the wall in between 2 buttresses. The Reactor Building Dome is the top of the containment. Article wasn't updated as I have no reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.85.8.33 (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Entire Article
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's inaccuracies throughout this article.
Who could produce such rubbish and project it as authoritative?
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 it cracked much more.
The company sought advice from many engineering firms- which is reported, what is not said is that they chose to ignore much of the 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.
