Legalectric

Here it is:

In the Matter of the Application of Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, for a Certificate of Need and a Routing Permit for the Proposed Line 3 Replacement Project in Minnesota from the North Dakota Border to the Wisconsin Border.

Oh here we go again! I’ve been rummaging through files, trying to go paperless, don’t cha know (before the back half of the house falls over) and for some reason kept my dry cask files. I figure I’m one of the few people on earth who have all this … info… yeah, that’s it, information.

So far, not much in the docket:

There’s this thing about the TN-40 casks that I learned way back when, at the first NSP “Task Force” meeting in December, 1994. TN-40s have aluminum seals.

Seals need to be replaced. That was established way back when in 1994. While learning about the cask parts, I was fresh off a trip to CA, was making $$ to open my Farmington office, and those trailer seals are always leaking, so while sitting around waiting for a load, I got in the habit of taking the hub cap off, scraping it down, and putting a ring of bright silicon in there, putting the hub back on, and filling it up with gear oil. So these seals, I ask, when do the need to be replaced? Per NSP, they need to be replaced every 20 years. Well, at that meeting, we also learned that there was no unloading procedure/protocol! And how does one replace a seal without unloading it, or at least taking the cap off… in the pool, right?

About seals (note this is for a TN-68, but you get the idea), it’s not rocket science, only nuclear waste, 4 & 5 are the seals, with seal alternatives below at the end:

Have any of the TN-40 seals been replaced? They’ve been loaded for over 20 years now. Inquiring minds need to know.

Have any of the casks been unloaded? They’ll need to be unloaded to put the assemblies in another cask. Remember the 3 Stooges unloading of the TN-29P at INEL?

Commerce-DER refers to a 2009 proceeding to allow use of TransNuclear transportation frame to transport TN-40s so they’d never need to be unloaded prior to transport. What’s changed that they want to do this now? More capital expense to get a good ROI as part of their new business plan?

From TN, here’s the details on that transport option:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1002/ML100210335.pdf

I can’t think of a worse idea than putting casks containing embrittled and fragile old spent-fuel assemblies, and dumping them on their sides, putting the container thing around, popping on a train, and rolling down the tracks to who knows where.

Details? Can’t get there from here:

Environmentally friendly seal options:

This is going to take forever, but here we go! A work in progress, posting as I get them formatted.

FYI, folks this IS public information — each petition has this displayed in CAPITAL LETTERS above the signature spaces:

Here’s the caption that’s on each petition — also note that the person signing is to be the one filling it out — and clearly that often did not happen that way. See examples below following the petitions:

Petitions Filed May 10, 2021:

(Some of the May 10, 2021 Ward 3 Norton MIA, will post soon!)

Irregularities – Petitions filed May 10, 2021:

Petitions filed May 24, 2021 – supplement May 10, 2021 Petitions

Irregularities – Petitions filed May 24, 2021

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The May 10, 2021 Ward 3 Norton file MIA, will post when I get it.

There’s a problem that really sticks out in Ward 4, but seems in all groups of Petitions… I’ve only taken a quick scan, distracting while combining and reducing files. What’s obvious is that while the petitions clearly state, “ALL INFORMATION MUST BE FILLED IN BY PERSON(S) SIGNING THE PETITION UNLESS DISABILITY PREVENTS PERSON(S) FROM DOING SO,” many lines are filled out by the same person, NOT the persons signing the petition.

Each person turning in a bunch of petitions sign an affidavit, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY:

Yet here are examples where it looks like one person filled in some, or all, of the lines:

The “Recall City Hall” committee so screwed up the Petitions to recall Wards 1 & 2’s Dean Hove that they were all returned with this missive:

So now they have to start all over from zero, and yesterday, a new Petition was filed for certification:

AND, there’s a gathering tonight, at a CHURCH, to start the Petition drive, info posted on Shelley Pohlman’s (a/k/a Rena Marsh, etc.) Red Wing Minnesota News page:

“Bureaucrats paid by the City of Red Wing found technical reasons to reject the first petition, signed by hundreds of citizens, to recall Council member Dean Hove for participating in secret meetings in violation of Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law.” That’s not why!!! You’ll also find this false statement on the “Recall City Hall” page. Ummmmm… right. Let’s just keep that bs going…

… nevermind that they didn’t use the Certified petition when collecting signatures to recall Hove. Good grief — is this so hard to understand? The Hove petitions were not done as legally required!!

So tonight, head on down to the New River church. Let’s see if they’ll train the folks soliciting signatures not to lie and misrepresent the reasons for the recall. Look at the Recall City Hall site!!! SNORT! The Recall petitions are not about firing Pohlman… it has nothing to do with “lower taxes.” Let’s be clear this time folks, here’s your rationale (click for larger version):

Maybe Shelley will even put up the ENTIRE certified petition this time, rather than this half-assed snippet from earlier times (linked too!):

Maybe Shelley will even move up these 250 words to the TOP of the Recall City Hall page? Feature it up front so the world can read? Naaaaah, that would be too honest.

It’s in, filed. Now it’s time for a nap.