Legalectric

The Monticello DEIS for the Dry Cask Storage Certificate of Need is out for Comment — no hurry, Comments are due March 3, 2006.

Public Meetings:

February 2 in Monticello (specifics to be announced)
February 16 in Metro (specifics to be announced, probably PUC meeting room)

Here’s the DEIS from the PUC website: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Here’re the general rules that they’re supposed to follow, what they’re supposed to include: EIS Rules

More importantly, here’s the EQB Scoping Decision, what must be there per the EQB which no longer has authority. READ THIS SCOPING DECISION, then, COMPARE with the DEIS!

If you’re looking at the DEIS, you might note that the docket number in the link is wrong, so if you want to get to the “agency formerly known as the EQB” docket, here’s the link: Monticello Docket

If you want to look at the PUC Docket, it’s E002/CN-05-123, and it’s easy to get there from here.
First click here to get “eDockets”
Then type in “05” for the year, and “123” for Docket No.
Ta-da! You’re there. You’ll note you can’t get there without a Docket No., and it’s hard to get the Docket No. unless you have piles and piles of papers lying around with E002/CN-05-123 on them.

Here’s the Monticello pool:

Points to note in the DEIS, well, it’s mostly things that aren’t there.

Costs – there is no cost basis for alternative analysis, much less analysis

Benefits – nothing on benefits at all. No indication of impact of this plant and storage on community.

Alternative Generation analysis – incorporates cost assumptions of CoN, but no specifics here and no direct references or links. Narrative analysis is a bunch of conclusory statements, not analysis, and again, no direct references or links, no details.

… sigh… what’s it going to take to get a serious analysis?
============================================================

While digging around for something on NRC pre-emption, I found this:

Policy Issue, Notation Vote, September 20, 2005

What’s interesting about this is that Pawlenty wanted to enter into an agreement for the state to take over certain limited regulation of things nuclear, nothing big like nuclear plants. As they were doing their background, NRC staffers were alerted to a bunch of laws in the state of Minnesota that improperly, impermissibly intrude on NRC turf. And that’s no small potatoes, NRC pre-empts everything associated with nuclear except for one little area reserved for the state: ECONOMICS!

Here are the specifics that they are concerned about:

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats.
(At this Internet site see the following Mn. Stats.
115.069,116C.705 through 116C.83, 216B.1691, 216B.243, 216B.2421 through 216B.2423, and Minnesota Regulations 4410.4300 and 4410.4400) and history of law at:
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/prairieisland.asp
and
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/nucxcel.pdf.

Anyway, the NRC did go ahead with the Agreement, saying that this stuff that they found was separate from the Agreement, compartmentalizing, but the Team Leader had a very specific and eloquent outraged hissy fit, Appendix B, Attachment 4, starts on pdf p. 68, It’s a fascinating read, a look down the dragon’s throat, summarized at the end:

The actions by the State are in direct conflict with the Act, the NWPA, and the NRCâ??s regulatory
program (e.g. the NRC issued Prairie Island operating license) for the following reasons: (1)
Absent an Agreement, a State cannot regulate activities involving byproduct, source, and
special nuclear materials, including the setting of dose limits for an ISFSI. Minnesota had no
Agreement when the dose limit was established. (2) Even with an Agreement, States cannot
regulate ISFSIs because it is preempted to the Federal Government by both the Act and the
NWPA. (3) The Stateâ??s actions are in direct conflict with NRC regulations in 10 CFR 8.4, 72,
and 150, which indicate that a State cannot regulate these activities. (4) The Stateâ??s action
conflict with the responsibilities Congress gave to NRC in the NWPA, which directed the
Commission to encourage and expedite the effective use of spent fuel pool storage at civilian
Nuclear Power Plants, including the use of reracking, fuel compaction, transshipments and if
needed, the addition of new storage capacity. The law also directed the Commission as a part
of its regulation of spent fuel storage to: (a) protect public health and safety, and the
environment; (b) consider economic impacts; (c) ensure continued operation of the reactor;
(d) apply any applicable laws; (e) consider the public views of persons near facility; and
(f) develop regulations on spent fuel storage, which resulted in 10 CFR Part 72, which provide
an adequate level of protection. (5) The application of two concurrent radiation dose standards
to the same facility by a State and the NRC is dual regulation and is not in concert with §274 of
the Act.

Is anyone paying attention to this??? I’ve been met with blank stares when I challenge Minn. Stat. 116C.76 as beyond state authority, not something we can enforce. And the NRC says it’s a whole lot more than that…

This issue isn’t going to disappear!

Be sure to join us at the Edina Library tonight:

Energy Policy & Public Participation: Monticello Nuclear Reactor.

Xcel Energy wants to re-license the Monticello Nuclear Reactor.

Is this the legacy we want to leave our kids and future generations?

Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Time: 7:00-8:45
Location: Southdale Library, 7001 York Avenue Edina MN

Featured Speakers:

Carol A. Overland and Ken Pentel

Join us and learn why your participation matters.
======================================================

Today Wendy Wilde “went nuclear” on Air America 950 and opened her door and microphone to me, and Ken, my Ken-pup that is, well… Ken Pentel too by phone! Wendy’s what some people would call a “dog nut” and graciously insisted Kenya join us — after a few tense talky moments and two bananas, she made herself comfortable on the white leather couch as only an 80 pound German Shepherd can.

Nuclear reactor licensing — nuclear waste — WHATEVER ARE THEY THINKING?

Only three House members voted against the Prairie Island Bill that authorized additional nuclear waste at Prairie Island, Minnesota’s 2nd nuclear waste storage facility at Monticello, relicensing of both plants… and the Mesaba power plant… it is insane, the legislature is delusional to approve this continuation of nuclear generation. There’s really no other words for it. There’s no way to deal with nuclear waste, and it isn’t just going to go away, it’s with us for how many thousand generations?

Here’s the basic info on Monticello relicensing and dry cask storage, quick before I hit the road again:

NRC
To get an idea what can be included in the NRC?s EIS scope, click here for the EQB scope.

Here?s Xcel?s (Nuclear Management Company?s) relicensing application for the NRC.

PUC
Here?s the Xcel application to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for a Certificate of Need for dry cask storage of nuclear waste on the shores of the Mississippi River.

And here is the supplement to the Certificate of Need application.

FILE COMMENTS IN THE NRC DOCKET! IT?S EASY!!

NRC ? DUE NEXT WEEK ? email to MonticelloEIS@nrc.gov or by mail in time to be received by August 2:

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch
Division of Administrative Services
Office of Administration
Mailstop T-6D 59
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Energy Policy & Public Participation: Monticello Nuclear Reactor.

Xcel Energy wants to re-license the Monticello Nuclear Reactor.

Is this the legacy we want to leave our kids and future generations?

Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Time: 7:00-8:45
Location: Southdale Library, 7001 York Avenue Edina MN

Featured Speakers:

Carol A. Overland and Ken Pentel

XCEL Energy plans to:
1. Renew the license for the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant, so it can operate 20 more years.(2010-2030)
2. Add a new dry cask storage facility for Monticello nuclear waste

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is soliciting comments until August 2, 2005 on the scope of environmental review.

Join us and learn why your participation matters.

Also, learn about:
* The 1993-4 debate over dry cask storage at Prairie Island
* The Prairie Island expansion of storage in 2003

–Carol A. Overland, a utility regulatory attorney who represents Intervenors in transmission and nuclear issues. Overland represented Florence Township in its four-year battle over nuclear waste storage.

–Ken Pentel, a community activist who served on the Steering Committee for the Prairie Island Coalition from 1993-4. Pentel was the Green Party Candidate for Governor in 1998 & 2002; Pentel called for the phase-out of the Monticello and Prairie Island Nuclear Reactors.

(From MPR, that’s Pentel on the left, Pawlenty on the right, duh!)

This non-partisan event is free & open to the public. Sponsored by the Green Party of Edina and Saint Louis Park Greens. For information call Julie Risser 952-927-7538.

FYI – Here’s the GPMN Statement on Storing Nuclear Waste at Prarie Island

Waste storage meeting draws light attendance. (Monticello)

It?s scary ? a utility can apply to state agencies to store high level nuclear waste in Monticello, in Wright County, in a community on a site on a river and as the article above notes, at the Environmental Quality Board public meeting, only four people were not from either the applicant or a state agency!

This morning I met with Joan Marshman, one of Florence Township’s Supervisors, she’s been on the town board over ten years now, and she and John Wurst, now Chair, were on the Board when the township went through it’s own struggle with NSP’s nuclear waste starting in 1995. I represented the Township on nuclear waste issues. It looks as though the utility hasn’t learned much, because they’re proposing upgrading a 69kV line to 345kV — one that goes right over “Site P,” and John Wurst’s farm — the site chosen for nuclear waste! It also goes right through Mississippi Jewel, an “exclusive” golf course community in Lake City (p. 2 and 27, map of transmission line).

Anyway, Joan and I are both concerned about a nuclear waste ISFSI going in upstream from our river communities. Xcel?s Certificate of Need Application was filed with the PUC, Docket E002/CN-05-123 and there were only four Initial Comments and two Reply Comments filed! Here’s what PUC Staff had to say about completeness of Xcel?s Certificate of Need application to the PUC.

April 7, 2005, the PUC made the determination that the application was substantially complete and referred it to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a hearing (Docket No. 2500 16407). That hearing begins May 9th, before Steve Mihalchick, Administrative Law Judge. For more info on how to participate, check the Contested Case Guide, and contact the Docket Coordinator (612) 341-7448.

Comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement are due April 13, 2005 – THIS WEDNESDAY!
Xcel’s EQB Monticello Nuclear Waste Dry Cask Storage Application is on the EQB website.
John Wachtler is the EQB’s project manager handling this application. 651-296-2096.
Quick, read the Draft EIS scope and email John your comments.