Legalectric

That’s Ken, hanging out at Lock & Dam #3, and if you look way in the background, over her butt, there’s the Prairie Island plant… this was back when her snout was still black…

UPDATE ON XCEL ENERGY’S PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR UPRATE & DRY CASK STORAGE DOCKETS

FINAL EIS AVAILABLE HERE

COMMENT UNTIL 8/21/09

Comments on the adequacy of the Final EIS will be accepted until Friday, August, 21, 2009.  Comments should be sent by e-mail or U.S. mail to:

Bill Storm, Project Manager
Minnesota Dept. of Commerce
85 7th Place East, Suite 500
St. Paul, MN 55101-2198

email: bill.storm@state.mn.us

*************************************************

This just in from Kristen Eide-Tollefson, a succinct & concise update on where this docket is at and a “TO DO” list to weigh in on this mess.  I’ve not kept up, though I was invited in to the first Prehearing Conference, I was so frustrated by the two Citizen Advisory Task Force meetings, plus CapX 2020 ramped up, so I crossed that right off my list.  But living with this nuclear reactor (and I get one in Port Penn too, Salem & Hope Creek are right across the river), well, it just won’t go away, SOOOOOOO, here’s what’s up from Kristen:

All:

Here is a link to the official notice for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Prairie Island.

If you did not get a hardcopy you can:

1. view it on line at the link – FEIS HERE

2. view it at the libraries identified in the link
3. call or e-mail Bill Storm to have a copy sent or picked up. bill.storm@state.mn 651-296-9535,

Good news!

We have an unexpected opportunity to comment on the Final EIS. This was not expected.  But public hearings revealed that the communities felt that the EIS did not adequately reflect the impacts, issues, and concerns that they hoped would be developed in the EIS.  So there will be a comment period!

Comments are due August 21st. They should be sent to bill.storm@state.mn.us

More good news!
1. OES staff has put all non-edit changes in BOLD in the document. This radically reduces the time needed to ‘scan’ for changes that you wish to comment on.

2. A new section has been added — section 3 — which specifically addresses PUBLIC COMMENTS that were received on the draft EIS and in public hearings. This is a major requirement of the final EIS, that it adequately respond to and address public comments.

Comments are due August 21st. You may send any kind of comment about the “adequacy of the EIS”.

Below find 4 key purposes of Environmental Review with some questions that might help you frame or target your comments.

1. Identifying, evaluating potential impacts: Will the EIS be adequate — as a resource and analysis — for decision makers to make these major decisions about:

a. Part 1 – Certificate of need for UPRATE (running the plant with hotter fuel to increase capacity) ,

b. Part 2- Expanding dry cask storage (and extending operations, or relicensing – which is not possible without agreement from MN to store waste on site indefinately)

Does it provide sufficient information and analysis to allow decisionmakers to calculate and balance the cost and benefits of the proposed project, or project alternatives?

2. Response to public comments: Did the OES staff respond adequately to YOUR comments/ public comments/ community concerns — Review part 3 of the Final EIS.

3.  Social/Economic impacts:  Does the Final EIS adequately describe and evaluate social and economic issues and impacts to the communities?   Does it provide sufficient information and analysis to allow decisionmakers to calculate and balance the cost and benefits of the proposed project, or project alternatives?

4. Comparing alternatives: Does the Final EIS adequately describe, evaluate and compare:

a. The impacts of the proposed projects to both natural and socio-economic resources and ecosystems
b. Alternatives to the proposed project
c. (For the legally minded) Compatiblility with state policy and legal precedent

5. Mitigation: Part of an environmental impact statement is to consider what steps could be taken to “mitigate” the natural and socio-economic system impacts of a proposed project — and safeguard important resources. Does the EIS adequately consider  “mitigations”. Does it reflect public/community concerns and suggestions for safeguarding resources and reducing impacts identified in the task force, public hearing and comment processes.

Any Questions about process or content?

Bill Storm wrote Part 1 of the EIS on the uprate
Ray Kirsch is our Public Advisor for OES — He wrote the part of the EIS on dry cask storage. ray.kirsch@state.mn.us 651-296-7588
Mike Kaluzniak is the PUC staff public advisor. “Mike Kaluzniak” <Mike.Kaluzniak@state.mn.us>,
Deborah Pile  is the staff manager 651-297-2375 at OES deborah.pile@state.mn.us
Bob Cupit is PUC staff manager bob.cupit@state.mn.us  651-201-2255

COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EIS

Comments on the adequacy of the Final EIS will be accepted until Friday, August, 21, 2009. Comments should be sent by e-mail or U.S. mail to:

Bill Storm, Project Manager
Minnesota Dept. of Commerce
85 7th Place East, Suite 500
St. Paul, MN 55101-2198
email: bill.storm@state.mn.us