Talk:Millstone Nuclear Power Plant

Connecticut High‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Start‑class Low‑importance

	Energy portal 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 articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Controversy

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffhanger407 (talk • contribs)

I agree, the new section makes more sense. Markvs88 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Controversy section

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)[reply]

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)

POV tag

The article mentions several awards and praise for Millstone, which is fine. But there has also been a lot of controversy and criticism about Millstone over the years as the links below show. (There are also government documents available, but I haven't bothered to link those.) Clearly the article needs to discuss this controversy in order to remain neutral.

Until this situation is resolved I'm adding a POV tag. I'm also adding a Moresources tag as there is a lot of unsourced info in the article. -- Johnfos (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are all good articles. Everything that was in the controversy section before that I removed was not representative of anything notable. Instead of the POV tag, why not add the info to the article? Cliffhanger407 (talk • contribs)

It's a deal. Just give me a few days to draft something. But in the meantime I think it would be good to find more sources to support the content we have, or else remove a lot of the unsourced stuff. Johnfos (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've really read through the articles now and my only complaint is going to be with Nancy Burton. She seems to be a one woman operation, the Connecticut Coalition against Millstone, which I've read several statements from and they all seem to be from Burton. She makes a lot of statements that are either WP:Unverifiable or flat-out false. Sure, it may be cited in a news article, but my opinion is this: If one person says "the sky is falling" and the news cites them, does that mean that this person's opinion should be listed on the Earth page as a criticism? I don't think it should. Where there are large groups protesting, or verifiable facts, I think that meets the threshold of what should be included in the article. Cliffhanger407 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the apparent reluctance to discuss the views of Burton and the Connecticut Coalition against Millstone, or to remove unsourced information from the article, the tags should stay in place for now. Johnfos (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reluctance to discuss the views of Burton and the Connecticut Coalition against Millstone, it's an aversion to having Burton and the coalition listed in the article itself. There are plenty of large nuclear groups in the articles you listed. Burton was disbarred for claiming to represent people (in a court of law) when she didn't and alleging gender bias when the courts found none. You've not disputed any of my claims or given a reason why she should be included. Also there's no reluctance to remove unsourced information from the article, you haven't listed anything you think is unsourced!

I can't read your mind, and I think I'm being very reasonable here, I just don't think that a fringe lunatic's views merit a position on Wikipedia. The problems at Millstone 1, or if UCS says something (no matter how much I may disagree with them), can stay because they're groups with notability which make verifiable statements. The tags can stay until you add your information. I will remove Burton unless you can provide a legitimate reason why she should be included. I've provided several words about why I think she shouldn't. If you want content removed, you should either a) remove it yourself, or b) explain what you think should be removed. I'm happy to work with you rather than against you, and I'm very confused why you think I'm "reluctant". Cliffhanger407 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this article should discuss the 1992 issue raised by senior engineer George Galatis re the improper refueling of Millstone Unit 1. [1] It deserves more than just a See Also to George. Since that problem involved several plants, it could be discussed briefly with a link - if any other article covers the very dangerous practice uncovered at Millstone. Twang (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond POV - this is an ad.

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)[reply]

Naming - Millstone Nuclear Power Plant or Millstone Nuclear Power Station?

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

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Outage

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)[reply]