First was a Motion to the Appellate Court:

Goodhue Wind Truth - Motion for Intervention/Request for Participation as Amicus Curiae

Next was our Petition for Rulemaking, filed yesterday as a part of our Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing Comments, and formally filed with Dr. Haar at the Public Utilities Commission.

Petition for Rulemaking

The PUC is in charge of the Wind siting rules, well, the EQB was directed by the legislature in 1995 to promulgate rules, and finally in January, 2008, the Commission finalized the siting rules for wind projects under 25 MW (and above 5 MW):

PUC Order - Siting of Wind Projects under 25 MW

And for projects 25 MW and above, they haven’t done anything, that was 17 years ago, so here we are… do we have to get a Writ of Mandamus?

WAKE UP PUC!  Time to do some wind rules!

216F.05 RULES.

The commission shall adopt rules governing the consideration of an application for a site permit for an LWECS that address the following:

(1) criteria that the commission shall use to designate LWECS sites, which must include the impact of LWECS on humans and the environment;

(2) procedures that the commission will follow in acting on an application for an LWECS;

(3) procedures for notification to the public of the application and for the conduct of a public information meeting and a public hearing on the proposed LWECS;

(4) requirements for environmental review of the LWECS;

(5) conditions in the site permit for turbine type and designs; site layout and construction; and operation and maintenance of the LWECS, including the requirement to restore, to the extent possible, the area affected by construction of the LWECS to the natural conditions that existed immediately before construction of the LWECS;

(6) revocation or suspension of a site permit when violations of the permit or other requirements occur; and

(7) payment of fees for the necessary and reasonable costs of the commission in acting on a permit application and carrying out the requirements of this chapter.

T. Boone Pickens’ AWA Goodhue AVIAN AND BAT PROTECTION PLAN was to be on the Public Utilities Commission agenda on Thursday.  That’s too soon, they just dumped hundreds of pages of info on us, and on the reviewing agencies, week before last:

AWA Goodhue Fall Migration Study

Revised AWA Goodhue Avian and Bat Protection Plan

And here’s the primary documents that caused the ruckus — the ABPP plan from hell and agency comments on it:

AVIAN AND BAT PROTECTION PLAN

USFWS Comments on AWA Goodhue’s Avian and Bat Protection Plan

DNR Comments on AWA Goodhue Avian & Bat Protection Plan

Given the specificity and many pages of comments, it’d take a bit more than a week to analyze the Comments (WHICH WERE WITHHELD BY COMMERCE FOR A WEEK AND NOT FILED UNTIL JANUARY 19!) and determine whether AWA Goodhue had properly addressed them.

I was floored by their last minute filings, and filed a Motion with the PUC to take it off the agenda:

Goodhue Wind Truth Motion for Extension

And not too long after, day or two, the PUC did indeed pull it off the agenda and didn’t reschedule:

PUC Notice of Withdrawal of Agenda Item

Order to Dismiss Goodhue Wind Truth Appeal of AWA Goodhue Certificate of Need and Site Permit

It’s based on a Supreme Court decision in 2009, when the rules changed, or rather, interpretation of the rules, making service as specified under the Administrative Procedure Act a jurisdictional issue — if a Petition for Writ is not served personally or by Certified Mail, the Appellate Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

In the Matter of the Risk Level Determination of J.M.T.

D-I-S-M-I-S-S-E-D.

Solar Flare - Washington Post/AP

Thanks to Kelly Fuller for the heads up.  A 2.206 Petition has been filed about the unsafe conditions at the Ft. Calhoun and Cooper plant.  Note that the Petitions were from July, 2011, and it takes six months for it to rise up to the Federal Register.

Here it is:

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 15 (Tuesday,
January 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 3515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government
Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1370]

[[Page 3515]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-285, License No. DPR-40; Docket No. 50-298,
License No. DPR-46; NRC-2012-0014]

Request for Action Against Omaha Public Power District
and Nebraska Public Power District

    Notice is hereby given that by petitions dated
June 26 and July 3, 2011, respectively, Thomas Saporito
(the petitioner) has requested that the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) take
escalated enforcement actions against Omaha Public
Power District, the licensee for Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit 1 (FCS), and Nebraska Public Power District, the
licensee for Cooper Nuclear Station (Cooper). The
petitions dated June 26 and July 3, 2011, are publicly
available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) under Accession Nos. ML11182B029
and ML11192A285, respectively.
    The petitioner has requested that the NRC take action
to suspend or revoke the NRC licenses granted for the
operation of nuclear power reactors and issue a notice
of violation with a proposed civil penalty against the
collectively named and each singularly named licensee
in this matter--in the amount of $500,000 for Fort
Calhoun Station and $1,000,000 for Cooper. Additionally,
the petitioner requested that the NRC issue confirmatory
orders to prohibit restart at FCS and to bring Cooper to
a ``cold shutdown'' mode of operation until such time as:
(1) The floodwaters subside to an appreciable lower level
or sea level;
(2) the licensee upgrades its flood protection
plan;
(3) the licensee repairs and enhances its current flood
protection berms; and
(4) the licensee upgrades its station blackout procedures
to meet a challenging extended loss of offsite power due
to floodwaters and other natural disasters or terrorist attacks.
    As the basis for these requests, the petitioner stated
that:
(1) The licensees' installed flood protection measures
and systems and barriers at FCS and Cooper are not
sufficient to adequately protect the nuclear reactor from
a full-meltdown scenario like that currently unfolding in
Japan; and
(2) the licensees' station blackout procedures are not
sufficient to meet a challenging extended loss of offsite
power due to flood waters and other natural disasters or
terrorist attacks.
    The requests are being treated pursuant to Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 2.206 of the
Commission's regulations. The requests have been referred
to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be
taken on these petitions within a reasonable time. The
petitioner requested an opportunity to address the Petition
Review Board (PRB). The PRB held a recorded teleconference
with the petitioner on August 29, 2011, during which the
petitioner supplemented and clarified the petitions. The
results of those discussions were considered in the PRB's
determination regarding the petitioner's requests. As a
result, the PRB acknowledged the petitioner's concerns
regarding flood protection, including station blackout
procedures, at FCS and Cooper. By letter dated January 13,
2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML120030022), the Director of the
NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denied the
petitioner's requests for immediate action. Additionally,
the PRB noted that:
(1) Natural disasters such as earthquakes and flooding,
and
(2) station blackout regulations are undergoing NRC
review as part of the lessons learned from the Fukushima
event. The PRB intends to use the results of the Fukushima
review to inform its final decision on whether to implement
the requested
actions.
    Copies of the petitions dated June 26 and July 3, 2011,
are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or
received at the NRC are accessible electronically through
ADAMS in the NRC Library at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS
should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff by
telephone at 1-(800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by
email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of January 2012.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric J. Leeds,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-1370 Filed 1-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

to be clear, there are lots and lots of bald eagles here, and there are documented golden eagles too.  USFWS has said there are no permits available for golden eagles for this project.

ABPP - that’s Avian and Bat Protection Plan:

AVIAN AND BAT PROTECTION PLAN

AWA Goodhue Fall Migration Study

U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources have filed comments on the Avian and Bat Protection Plan.  These are MUST READ Comments!

USFWS Comments on ABPP

DNR Comments on ABPP

And here is the response to my Data Request to the Board of Animal Health asking for copies of AWA Complaints to Board of Animal Health about Eagle Baiting and the reports of their investigations showing no violations found, that there is no basis for enforcement action:

Response to Data Request - Board of Animal Health

In the AWA Goodhue wind project footprint, T. Boone Pickens is at it again - the helicopters are flying today:

Does that look like 200 feet??  Is it the same one from Brainerd Helicopter Service?

Here they are by the met tower, that’s 197 feet tall,  just enough to keep under the lighting requirement, and the helicopter is just above:

Clients got the call from sheriff and utilized their phone tree to spread the word that AWA Goodhue helicopters would be flying today, notice came in at 10:00 a.m. and helicopter sighted at 10:30 a.m.  Sheriff did a good job in notifying as soon as notice came in, but come on AWA, how about letting the landowners know reasonably ahead of time, report it when you book the helicopter???  It’s not that hard!

Here it is near a communications tower - the lights are out on that tower, somebody call maintenance!

See ya Thursday!

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

The bad news is that NO ONE is addressing need, need has been presumed, despite lots of evidence in the record that the project is way way more than what is required for the claimed 55MW need, which in itself is questionable.  Silence…  Those who worked so hard to get a requirement for a Certificate of Need abdicated, zero follow through, after legislation passed to require a Certificate of Need, and it then wound its way through the PUC process, and there were NO intervenors.

Here’s the PUC’s deliberation:

AUDIO - Hiawatha begins at 16:50

It seems to end before they’re done, and there’s a note that complete audio will be posted later, so check back.  Right now there’s about 45 minutes and it ends as they’re going through exceptions to the ALJ report, a prelude to the ultimate vote.

Here’s the report in theSTrib:

Xcel told to bury new power lines across south Minneapolis

Article by: STEVE BRANDT , Star Tribune
Updated: January 12, 2012 - 11:15 PM

PUC decision protects south Minneapolis greenway, but doesn’t say how to cover extra $13.6 million cost.

++++++++

A state board Thursday ordered that new high-voltage power lines across the heart of south Minneapolis be buried underground but deferred the question of who should pay the extra $13.6 million cost.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ordered that the twin 115-kilovolt lines requested by Xcel Energy be deemed necessary but said they should be buried under E. 28th Street.

That’s a victory for the city and a number of neighborhood representatives. They argued that an alternative route that would run lines overhead or underground along the bike-pedestrian corridor was too disruptive. “It’s a huge victory, said Soren Jensen, staff chief for the Midtown Greenway Coalition.

But the precedent-setting question of who pays will require a separate proceeding that will last several months and determine whether all Xcel customers in Minnesota will help bear the cost of burying the lines or just those in Minneapolis.

The city argued that all Xcel customers should pay because the factors arguing for burying the route are so compelling that any other route, including the greenway, would be unreasonable. Burial of the lines, the city said, should thus be considered a standard cost, borne by all customers, rather than a special accommodation whose extra costs should accrue only to Minneapolis residents. Xcel agreed with that wider-cost impact.

But the PUC wasn’t ready to make that precedent-setting decision now, telling Xcel to file its views in 30 days in a proceeding that will give other potentially affected parties a chance to comment.

“There is no precedent case just like this,” said attorney James Strommen, who argued on behalf of suburban cities in support of the city position. “The standard is not always overhead in all cases, in our view.”

At the PUC’s request, Xcel generated estimates of the amounts needed to pay off the extra cost of the buried lines. To do so in the standard five years, the per customer cost would be $12 if spread statewide, and $83.40 if levied only within Minneapolis.

Xcel estimates that the lines and two new substations at either end, at Hiawatha and Oakland Avenues, will cost $42 million. The utility will refine those costs as it does final engineering for the project; it plans to break ground later this year and start operations in 2014.

Xcel argued that since 2006, electrical demand has exceeded its capacity to reliably provide service to customers in the south Minneapolis area. Opponents argued that Xcel has further plans to bisect south Minneapolis with transmission lines, has overestimated demand and should substitute conservation measures.

The utility originally proposed that the lines be built within the Midtown corridor paralleling Lake Street somewhere between E. 31st Street and E. 26th Street. It said that a greenway route would be cheapest but that option quickly drew opposition from the recreation lobby.

The PUC’s decision largely followed the recommendations 15 months ago of Administrative Law Judge Beverly Jones Heydinger. She cited a 1993 court decision protecting the downtown Minneapolis Armory to find that reasons of cost, convenience and efficiency aren’t sufficient to impair a protected historic district such as the greenway trench and its bridges when alternatives exist.

Not bad for an amateur!

Tried some ciabatta, let the sponge go a little too long but it came out great — must be beginner’s luck.  At this ripe age, I decided that it’s time to learn to bake bread, never have before, and I don’t know why.  Must be nesting, trying to get the kitchen in the “new” house together.  Or maybe it’s just time to make some dough…

It appears Tom Micheletti, Excelsior Energy, is having another bad day.  The Air Permit for the Mesaba Energy Project was rejected by the MPCA as incomplete, modeling not approved, the list goes on and on…  Yes, that’s “our” Mesaba, the coal gasification power plant that can’t get a Power Purchase Agreement if its life depended on it, and yes, its life does depend on it.

MPCA Letter - Mesaba App Incomplete - Dec 30 2011

Air Quality - Criteria Pollutant Modeling - Checklist

Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Not approved

Thank you, Air Quality at the MPCA,  for making my day!

Earthquake in Youngstown, Ohio, the epicenter just a hop, skip and a jump from the D&L Injection Well, pictured above.

Elisa Young in Youngstown sent me this link this morning, noting that “on this Diane Rehm segment the industry specifically states on the air that earthquakes of 2.0 or less (like they can control an earthquake in progress) are beneficial to the drilling company because it shows them the fracking is working.    …but fracking and injection don’t induce seismic activity in Ohio…  “  The section on earthquakes starts at 28:12.

DIANE REHM SHOW - Dec.19, 2011

NEW CONCERNS OVER HYDRAULIC FRACKING

If you don’t have a copy yet, if you haven’t read it,  get with it, learn about gas migration and earthquakes, errrrr… seismic events  (copies are getting harder to find, price is going up, but I’m glad because it means that people are paying attention and reading this MUST READ book):

Khilyuk’s Gas Migration: Events Preceding Earthquakes

Earthquakes have becoming more and more common in Ohio, as in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and yes, there is a trend, a connection, and it’s GAS.  In this Youngstown, OH case, it’s related to injecting fracking waste into the ground near a fault.  How on earth did they get a permit to do this, anyone with half a brain would know that if you’re pumping in, there is bound to be a response!

Ohio’s “Are you ready for an earthquake?” page!

OHIO EARTHQUAKES FROM 2010 TO PRESENT

Here’s a sample, from the Columbus Dispatch:

State links quakes to work on wells

By  Joe Vardon
The Columbus Dispatch Sunday January 1, 2012 11:34 AM

The Kasich administration has put a temporary stop to the disposal of waste from oil and natural-gas drilling in wells within a 5-mile radius of a particular Youngstown well — a well believed to be the cause of 11 earthquakes since March, including a 4.0 quake that struck around 3 p.m. yesterday.

Officials from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources think that waste pumped into the Youngstown-area well, referred to as Northstar No. 1, has been seeping into a previously unknown fault line in eastern Ohio, causing the seismic activity. The moratorium, issued yesterday by Jim Zehringer, the Natural Resources Department’s director, affects four other injection wells.

“The 5-mile radius, we were told by our geologists, is an adequate buffer zone” for the fault line, Zehringer said. “There are four other wells, none of them active, but we’re not going to allow any activity to take place in these wells.”

Michael Hansen, of the Ohio Seismic Network, said that even though Northstar No. 1 was shut down Friday, there is still potential for more quakes, although the magnitude of yesterday’s quake may have relieved some of the pressure near the fault line.

There are 177 injection wells throughout the state. Zehringer and other officials, speaking on a New Year’s Eve conference call, said the single Youngstown well is the only one of its kind that’s been related to seismic activity since the state started using them in the 1970s.

Kasich officials also stressed that the months-long shaking in Youngstown is not a result of hydraulic fracking — a procedure used to extract oil and gas out of rock formations such as the Marcellus and Utica shale. Discoveries of oil and gas in the shale rock in eastern Ohio has sparked hopes for an economic boon in the state’s Appalachian region.

State Rep. Robert F. Hagan, D-Youngstown, called for a statewide moratorium on injection wells. Hagan said he asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to intervene because of the possibility of another quake.

“We don’t want to overreact,” said Zehringer, who suggested that a wider moratorium in well activity “could devastate the economic livelihood of thousands of Ohioans.”

The magnitude 4.0 quake that struck yesterday afternoon in McDonald, outside Youngstown, is the largest of the 11 quakes that originated there, Hansen said.

Residents said a boom accompanied the shaking yesterday. Sheriff’s dispatchers from several counties in the area said there were no immediate reports of damage.

Rick Simmers, chief of oil and gas management for the ODNR, said a daily average of about 5,000 42-gallon barrels of brine water — a byproduct of oil and gas drilling — were pumped into the well, down to 9,200 feet. He said a majority of the water comes from Pennsylvania wells.

Gov. John Kasich, who is vacationing with his family in Florida for the holidays, was in constant contact with Zehringer and other senior staff members throughout the day yesterday, communications director Scott Milburn said. “The governor directed director Zehringer to put public health and safety first and to make a response that is reasonable and appropriate and based on science,” Milburn said.

The well’s owner, Northstar Disposal Services LLC, which agreed to stop injecting brine into the well on Friday, applied for and received licensing under the Strickland administration, Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols said. The No. 1 well has been active since December, 2010, according to Nichols.

Information from The Plain Dealer was included in this story.