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

It’s out today, Dan Gunderson at MPR has done an extensive piece on the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission “investigation” of wind turbine noise and health impacts, looking at, per the PUC:

The Commission is gathering information to determine if current permit conditions on setbacks remain appropriate and reasonable.

PUC – Notice WITH SERVICE LIST

Here’s the audio — full text is way below:

What concerns me is that, again, they only gave notice of this docket to the wind industry, and not the people intervening or commenting in PUC wind dockets who raised this issue in the first place, and my comment on that to the PUC, urging them t expand the Notice:

Overland Comments – Request for Broader Distribution of Notice

To see the PUC’s wind turbine setback docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us, click “eDockets” on lower right, and search for docket 09-845.

And here’s the MPR piece in writing:

Wind turbine noise concerns prompt investigation

by Dan Gunderson, Minnesota Public Radio

August 4, 2009

Valley City, ND — Wind farms are rapidly expanding across the Midwest, and a growing number of residents who live near the wind turbines are complaining about noise.

In Minnesota, those complaints prompted the Public Utilities Commission to investigate.

When Dennis and Cathryn Stillings chose a place to retire, they were looking for solitude and quiet. So a couple of years ago, they bought a farmstead in the rolling hills of eastern North Dakota.

Soon after they moved in, dozens of wind turbines sprouted in a neighbor’s nearby field.

Dennis Stillings said he wasn’t bothered at first because he supported wind energy and he was told the turbines were quiet, no louder than 55 decibels.

“Which is about the same level as your refrigerator running, or the same level as my conversation right now,” Stillings said. “Well, if I was holding a conversation with someone in my living room and someone in the corner was sitting there going bop, bop, bop at 55 decibels, it would drive me nuts and I’d kick him out.”
Larger view
Wind turbines

The Stillings said what bothers them is the pulsating, low-frequency sound. They say it’s like a giant dishwasher, or a helicopter in the distance. Cathryn Stillings said there’s no escaping the sound and that she’s having trouble sleeping.

“It’s a duller sound in the house but it’s still out there,” she said. “You can hear it through the walls. It just kind of gets in your bones.”

The Stillings’ complaints are similar to cases popping up around the country in the past couple of years, as wind farm expansion moves closer to populated areas. Complaints include headaches, dizziness and trouble sleeping.

In Minnesota, a handful of groups have organized to demand tougher regulation. They want the state to require more distance between wind turbines and homes. A report by the Minnesota Department of Health concluded there are potential health concerns.
Read the rest of this entry »

Carleton’s wind turbine goes up (this photo may have been taken by Jonathan Larson, Bruce Anderson or ??? and not moi).

YEAAAAAAAAAA – The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is going to address the concerns that many groups and individuals have raised about wind turbines, particularly the setbacks required to protect the health and safety of those living nearby.  First, the Minnesota Department of Health release a white paper:

MN Dept of Health – Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines

Now, following up on that, the PUC has issued notice of a comment period to address “PermitConditions on Setbacks and the Minnesota Department of Health Environmental Health Division’s White Paper on Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines.”  And here’s their notice — LOOK AT WHO IS ON THE SERVICE LIST, LOOK AT WHAT SERVICE LISTS THEY USED:

PUC – Notice of Comment Period 7-21-09

PUC – Notice WITH SERVICE LIST

The service list used are the ones for 04-1616, a docket regarding multi-state tracking and trading system for Renewable Energy Credits; and  03-869, a docket for electric utilities subject to Minn. Stat. 216B.1691.  Yup, that really gets it out there, doesn’t it… and the service lists for Bent Tree, Kenyon Wind, Clay County, New Ulm Utilities were NOT used… hence my first comment to be filed!

Overland Comments – Request for Broader Distribution of Notice

It’s very good that  they’ve opened this docket, that they even did that White Paper on Public Health Impacts of wind turbines, BUT that they’re only giving notice of this docket to industry parties is problematic to say the least.  Let’s do it right, PUC!

Remember “Think Globally, Act Locally” — the bumper sticker and the practice?

Now we’ve got the wind industry winding people up to do just the opposite!  This is a study released recently, looking to power the world on Midwest wind:

Global Potential for Wind Generated Electricity

They’re assuming land turbines at 2.5 MW which is nearly twice the size of typical land turbines.  They’re also saying that this could be done with turbines running even at a 20% capacity factor, which I do think makes sense.  But that makes sense when it’s near load, doesn’t make any sense when long transmission lines, with lots of transmission losses.  So powering the world by this limited geographic area does not make sense.

Here are Comments filed (that we know of, likely there are more) in the Bent Tree wind project docket at PUC before Steve Mihalchick, ALJ:

Safe Wind in Freeborn County

Safe Wind – Comment – Line by Line Permit Conditions

Safe Wind Comment – Prohibition of Confidentiality Clause in Landowner Contracts

Safe Wind – Exhibit A – Landowner Contract with Confidentiality Clause

Safe Wind – Exhibit B – Landowner Guidelines-Michigan State

Safe Wind – Exhibit B – Windustry Lease Flyer

Safe Wind – Exhibit C – Daily Republic Article

Safe Wind – Exhibit D – North Dakota House bill 1509

Wisconsin Power & Light

Wisconsin Power & Light – Comments – Narrative

Wisconsin Power & Light – Comment – MAPS

Wisconsin Power & Light – Comments – Misc. Exhibits

To see all the Public Hearing Comments and Exhibits, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click on blue “eDockets” button, then search for dockets 07-1425 and/or 08-573.