Xcel Energy signed up for time before the Red Wing City Council at last night’s meeting. The entirety of their packet is here:

Xcel started off their part of the meeting with… well… this powerpoint:

And in that 7C Attachment was Xcel Energy’s “responses” to questions posed by the City in its Scoping Comments for the Supplemental EIS, which they did not go over!! Dig this:

Note this admission that Xcel has no intention of “REPLACING” the TN-40 casks with its yet to be identified new cask. First, regarding their failure to ID the cask, they state that they selected the TN-40s in 1989, SIX YEARS prior to the first loading of a dry cask! They don’t answer question #1 — UNRESPONSIVE!

So do you mean to say, Xcel, that though “TN-40s were selected in 1989,” SIX YEARS BEFORE THEY WERE FIRST LOADED, that you cannot identify at this time what cask you are proposing to use? Right…

Now, as to replacing the existing, loaded, TN-40 casks, here’s what Xcel has to say:

Has spent fuel ever been removed from a TN-40 and put into another cask?

Xcel Energy’s presentation starts right about here, at 23:25. Note that at he says that RW’s Comments were on the SEIS, but no, they were SCOPING comments (25:54):

Xcel’s Kapitz says that he was in charge of the initial Dry Cask Storage ISFSI (was he also in charge of the Florence Township ISFSI application to state and NRC?).

Note at 31:14, “ONE of your residents has a concern” that there’s a state law that PUC shall order casks. FYI, it’s not just moi! I’m honored, but… just NO!

Xcel’s Kapitz also misstates, misrepresents, the point of the statute. Let’s be clear here — the point of Minn. Stat. 116C.776 was as one point of assurance that the ISFSI was not PERMANENT! 1994 was 27 years ago…

My comments on nuclear waste (and then the resignation of our 2nd Ward Councilcritter) start at about 50:06:

I’ll need to post this 7C Attachment on the Public Utilities Commission site for public viewing!

Leave a Reply