Talk:Millstone Nuclear Power Plant

message: I have no problem with there being a controversy section, but the 4/17 event is not controversy. If it caused controversy, there needs to be more discussion in the article. Rather than remove it outright, I put it in its own section. Discussion? Cliffhanger407 15:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the new section makes more sense. Markvs88 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: On the Nancy Burton information, I'd like some real discussion about whether this is notable and therefore belongs in the article at all. I read the dismissal of Burton's Writ of Error Markvs88 posted recently, and find a couple things of note. First, all the links to the story have magically vanished. Secondly, her coalition, as far as I can tell, is a one woman operation. Third, the website for the "coalition" gives no real credible information. I am removing all information about the coalition under this pretense. I have no problem with criticism of the nuclear industry, but Wikipedia would no more report on frivolous lawsuits against a celebrity, so why is it notable now? The CT court decision was to allow her right to sue, not anything else. I would very much value other opinions though. Cliffhanger407 (talk) 17:43, 11 June, 2010 (UTC)
:I was going to revert the point by the anonymous user about her disbarment, but a quick search led me to that article so I posted it. I have no opinion on the matter. Markvs88 (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I'm still a bit conflicted on the issue, but when comparing this controversy section to the one on Indian Point Energy Center, it's just not even close to the same magnitude. Indian Point has articles with viable links and government documents, this one seemed like a one man marching band opposing the plant. Cliffhanger407 18:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Controversy section

message: Obviously written by someone with Dominion's interest in mind.   This article should be redone and balanced.
Anyone who lived near millstone (as I did) is acutely aware that the 96 shutdown wasn't an 'equipment failure.'   The incompetence and arrogance of management there was ON THE COVER OF TIME MAGAZINE.  (For crying out loud) : 
 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984206,00.html
The NRC shut that reactor down, specifically citing incompetence and arrogance on the part of management.  I believe this step is unprecedented in the history of nuclear power in the USA.
I won't update the article; I left wikipedia a long time ago.   But for someone with time (and faith in wikipedia), here's the NRC stuff : 
management arrogance :  http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/1996/96-154.html
final shutdown : http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/millstone-3.pdf
Note especially the lines : 
"
The best that can be said about the Millstone outage is that it triggered much-needed changes in the nuclear power industry and the NRC’s oversight program—more changes, in fact, than any event other than the Three Mile Island accident.
Millstone illustrated the dilemma faced by the NRC when a company ignores its warnings. For years, the 
NRC had issued violations and fines to NU for problems at Millstone, and NU paid the fines, made empty 
promises about fixing the problems, and continued operating Millstone.
"
That's no equipment failure.   
This article is corporate propaganda.   You may as write an article describing Enron as "a ground-breaking energy broker which restructured after some accounting anomalies and now retains significant stake in various energy concerns."
Bluntly, it's bullshit.
(updated) CeilingCrash (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyond POV - this is an ad. 

message: There is some benefit to consistency between the page name here and how it's referred to in the article text. There is no need for consistency with other articles for different sites.  So what is the name of this site?  For clarity, I think it's reasonable for our article to add "nuclear", but "plant" vs. "station" should follow WP:COMMONNAME.
;Millstone Power Station
*https://www.dom.com/corporate/what-we-do/electricity/generation/nuclear/millstone-power-station
*http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/mill2.html
* http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/reference/tech_papers/2005-dadonna-nuclear-reactor-shutdown.pdf
* http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Leaking-Valve-Causes-Emergency-Declaration-at-Waterford-Power-Station-330571441.html
; Millstone Power Reactor Facility
* http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/millstone-unit-1.html
; Millstone Power Plant
* Wikipedia, the top result for this form
* http://wtnh.com/2014/08/13/safety-violations-found-at-millstone-power-plant/
*https://prezi.com/upp_fsjvlf5x/millstone-power-plant-vs-seabrook-power-plant/ (self-published)
Accordingly, I think this should rename to "Power Station" throughout, page name and article content.  Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming - [[Millstone Nuclear Power Plant]] or [[Millstone Nuclear Power Station]]? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Millstone 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/20090514073255/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-gen/1996/95-077i.pdf to http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-gen/1996/95-077i.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002000000/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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Millstone 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/20050510055506/http://www.nukeworker.com/pictures/thumbnails81.html to http://www.nukeworker.com/pictures/thumbnails81.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Millstone 2 has been offline since starting a refueling outage in April, 2023. Millstone 3 reported a trip to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in early June, 2023, and has been offline since. There has been nothing published about either outage, other than the one event report to NRC. Hopefully at some point there will be official reports about why the refeuling has taken more than twice as long as normal and why unit 3 tripped. 121a0012 (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2023 Outage