Legalectric

Last night was the in-person scoping meeting regarding Xcel Energy‘s application for additional casks at its Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant. You can find the Xcel application and appendices here:

More Nuclear Waste Casks at PINGP?

There was a virtual hearing on Wednesday, and then this live one today, with a 200% increase in participants yesterday –SNORT — just three people commented. Public participation is so difficult to make happen.

Scoping means what? They’re asking for comments:

And it’s important to weigh in — if you don’t, well, you’re responsible and only our comments can influence the result. SHOW UP! SPEAK UP!!

For example, three of the City of Red Wing’s elected officials showed up, and all three are “my” representatives, and not one of them made a comment. What’s the point of showing up? The City keeps harping on how dependent they are on Xcel for the utility personal property tax revenue, but no comment on what the addition of another 20 years of casks would mean for the City’s coffers, no comment that they want the casks because of the increase in tax revenue. I’m presuming they want it, but maybe they know nothing about utility personal property tax? One I can see with a reason not to comment would be Ron Goggin, who is “retired” employee at PINGP, though is continuing there as a contractor.

For elected officials to show up, and not say anything, how is this representing us? Should they have SOMETHING to say, SOME comment, some concern, some question, to register about what should be reviewed in the EIS? Cost, safety, transportation out of PINGP, SOMETHING! But noooooo, nope, nada, N-O-T-H-I-N-G!

So what did I have to say? Well, lots… including:

• I’d misread the STrib article “The real cause of Xcel’s lengthy Prairie Island nuclear outage: Workers drilled through cables“ and thought it was the “evacuation” plan that was inadequate, but NO, it was EXCAVATION plan! GAACK!
• That the NRC has jurisdiction over most things nuclear, EXCEPT COST. The state has jurisdiction over cost issues, so that is the thing that should be focused on in this Certificate of Need proceeding. And there are a LOT of cost issues. As far as environmental review goes, the EIS is to address socio-economic issues.
• Cost? Utility personal property tax. What are County, City, and School District receiving now, or, say, in the last 5 years, each. What will approval of additional casks add to that utility personal property tax that means revenue for the County, City, and School District?
• This is a Part 72 application, separate from the PINGP’s Part 50 license. If this is approved and there are more casks, or even “just” the casks now loaded or in the plant, what happens if they shut down for some reason or other? What happens to the nuclear waste?
• Xcel included in its application App-I_Nuclear-Leave-Behind-Report-20242-203189-09 Download. It’s “Exhibit M” in the IRP, PUC Docket 23-67. It looks at system (transmission) impacts of retiring Monticello, Prairie Island, and Monticello and Prairie Island.
• In 2002, together with the natural gas replacement plan for Prairie Island, MISO performed review of RFPs for replacement power on the transmission system, both this, and the scenario above should be considered:

• Socio-economic costs include lobbying costs. In other jurisdictions, utilities are prohibited from recovering lobbying/promotional/PR costs from us ratepayers. Here, nope. SO, what has Xcel spent on lobbing costs in 2023 and 2024 for this cask addition, in Red Wing and other jurisdictions (Xcel was before the Red Wing City Council about the IRP and casks on February 26.
• IF THE COMMISSION AGREES TO THIS ADDITION OF CASKS, IT LOCKS US INTO LONG TERM GENERATION OF NUCLEAR WASTE, WASTE WHICH MUST BE DEALT WITH. But that’s not all, it will commit us to dealing with decommissioning, which means ordering more casks and emptying fuel assemblies out the reactors and the pool, the pool water, securing transportation and making that happen, replacing the casks that aren’t transportable or acceptable at the “indeterminate” storage facility (the 2 in Texas and New Mexico of which Xcel was depending on are now declared unconstitutional, and that’s in the courts for a while, a long while) with ones that are, and repackaging them, all the contaminated equipment, cost of building a transport facility and cost of transferring to train cars, cost of shipping (if there’s a shipper that will accept nuclear waste and get the job done) — that’s a lot of cost. The Commission needs to be mindful of what approval of additional casks means beyond “additional casks,” what that decision would commit us to, and make a fully knowledgeable and responsible decision.
• Things change — it’s premature to make a decision now when there is storage available until 2033. Why spend this money now, why commit us NOW, as above, to such extreme costs going forward. It’s irresponsible to dive into these long term costs NOW. Xcel plans to submit a relicensing proposal to the NRC in 2026, an expects it to be approved in 2028. That’s 5 years before they need it. If it takes 2 years for the NRC, and a year for Minnesota, why apply earlier than 2030, or even 2029? Who know what will change, what new technology will emerge?

That said, written scoping comments are due May 9, 2024. WRITE THE “24-68” DOCKET NUMBER ON COMMENTS! File comments in one of these ways: