Legalectric

Ya’d think that with all the jawing about public participation and open and transparent process that Intervention for affected parties would be a given, that people on the ground could participate in the process… well, I certainly don’t take that for granted because the reality is a long ways from the hype. Today we get to address, among other things, Intervention of mncoalgasplant.com in the Excelsior PPA docket before the PUC. For the Excelsior filings, go to mncoalgasplant.com and scroll down. Here are their filings since the application.

Our Intervention Petition: Download file

Their Objection to our Intervention: Download file

They rely on a prior Denial of Intervention in an unrelated EQB siting docket some time ago, and are saying that the denial was because the Petitioner did not demonstrate why non-party status was insufficient. They also complain that there are no members of the group identified — and that’s not a requirement for Intervention. This, when Micheletti announces at public meetings that he will not take questions from me because I represent people up there?!?!? Uh-huh, right…

And here’s my Response: Download file
Response to Objection – Attachment A: Download file

Response to Objection – Attachment B: Download file

What Excelsior must not have known, in citing the SW MN EQB Siting Denial, was that it was my Petition that was denied. I had submitted the Petition to Intervene after being denied participation as a non-party at the hearing, shut out completely, so I got out my computer on the spot and drafted the Petition and turned it in. Nevermind that prior to that hearing I had been given assurances that I’d be able to participate as a party, and though locals would get priority, there was no one clamoring to be heard, no line of citizens wanting to comment who might be shut out if I was questioning witnesses — it was a farce, participation was not possible, the ALJ would not allow it. Because non-party participation had already been attempted and was not possible, it makes no sense to have to demonstrate why non-party participation was not sufficient — the record reflects that! Not a good move, Excelsior!

Scenic Hwy 7, just west of Mesaba’s preferred site

Jobs at what cost?

Grand Rapids Herald-Review

Darrell White
Bovey

Asbestos discovered at nuclear plant

Red Wing Republican Eagle

Published Thursday, May 11, 2006

Site officials announced Wednesday that asbestos was found last week in Prairie Island nuclear plant Unit 1â??s gasket material during work for equipment modification. Site management suspended work on the project amid concerns over the potentially cancer-causing material, according to a release from Nuclear Management Co.

The nuclear plant is the midst of a refueling outage.

The air, NMC officials said, immediately was monitored and tested according to Minnesota Clean Air requirements. While the results were â??well belowâ? regulatory limits, NMC officials said additional testing on surfaces by a certified lab indicated detectable levels of asbestos on some surfaces in the immediate area. Trained asbestos workers were performing a complete cleanup of the affected area.

Officials from the company said it and its contractor are taking precautionary actions for any employee with a concern for potential exposure. This includes offering an optional asbestos exposure examination in accordance with federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines.

NMC operates the Xcel Energy-owned Prairie Island plant.

Prevailed on the mold house… whew! It’s been a long week…

.

Prairie Island radioactive release was just one week after the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster (above).

The NRC report of the 5/3 release says “approximately 100 workers” and NOT 12.

Here’s the NRC report on the radiation release at Prairie Island:

Morning Report for May 5, 2006

Headquarters Daily Report
* REGION III

Airborne Radioactivity Released Into Containment Building During Outage Work
Licensee/Facility:

NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT CO.
Prairie Island 1
WELCH, Minnesota
Dockets: 05000282
[1] W-2-LP

MR Number: 3-2006-0006
Date: 05/03/2006

Resident Inspector Notified

Discussion:

The licensee inadvertently released airborne radioactive contaminants into the Containment Building in preparation or planned work in the Unit-1 steam generators during its refueling outage. Steam generators were not properly vented during removal of the generator man-ways in preparation for nozzle dam installation. Consequently, gaseous contaminants within the steam generators were exhausted directly into the Containment Building atmosphere. The Containment Building was evacuated until radiological conditions were restored approximately 12-hours later through the containment building atmosphere cleanup system. There was no radiological release to the environment. Approximately 100 workers present in the Containment Building were externally contaminated and had small intakes of radioactive material composed principally of radioiodines. Preliminary results show that radiation doses from the intakes were less than one percent of applicable regulatory limits. Workers were decontaminated to remove external contamination prior to being released from the plant.

Regional Action: Two Region III Radiation Specialists will review the circumstances and the radiological consequences of the incident during an onsite inspection the week of May 8, 2006.

Accession Numbers:
Accession No ML061250255
Accession Date 05/02/06

Contacts:
Name SLAWINSKI, WAYNE J
Office Abbrev R3
Phone No (630) 829-9820
E-Mail WJS2@nrc.gov

=========================================================================================

I found notice of this radioactive release first in the Red Wing Republican Eagle. But that report said 12 workers. Then I saw the STrib’s story, which said 100, and was buried in “Science & Technology.” And then the StPPP report which said 100. Now it’s 110 in the Red Wing paper. Anne Jacobson, the Editor, was the reporter on this. She was a reporter back in “Nuclear Waste Daze” and unlike her Editor predecessor, I found her credible and trustworthy. I seriously doubt she’d report over 100 affected workers as “12.” So where did this number come from? The incident occurred LAST WEEK, so I would think that Xcel would know how many workers were affected, to what degree, and what was done a week ago! Where did that 12 number come from?

Here’s how it’s explained in the Red Wing paper:

About 110 workers at the Prairie Island nuclear plant were exposed to low levels of radiation last week, Nuclear Management Co. said Tuesday. A dozen of those received slightly higher exposure than the others — about the equivalent of a dental X-ray.

But after that, this story follows, and it’s hard to do other than snort. I ask you, is this reassuring? (bold emphasis added)

Public would be informed if risk of radiation existed, inspector says

Jen Cullen Red Wing Republican Eagle
Published Wednesday, May 10, 2006

If there was an event at Prairie Island nuclear plant the public needed to know about, they’d be informed.

And probably from a number of sources, said Duane Karjala, one of the plant’s resident Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors.

“I live in Red Wing so I’m protecting my own family, my own home,” he said. “One of NRC’s guiding principals is openness. We want to make sure we protect the health and safety of the public and make sure the information is available to them.”

There are four emergency levels at the plant (from lowest to highest): unusual event, alert, site emergency and general emergency.

Last week’s radiation exposure fell below the lowest of those emergency levels, Karjala said.

Any incident that falls within those levels would lead to a prompt notification of state and local officials.

The plant has various reporting periods depending on the severity of incidents or emergency situations. For example, Karjala said a “very severe” incident would have to be reported to proper officials within one hour.

A public information center would also be set up and the press would be briefed whenever possible, he added.

So what exactly is considered an unusual event at the nuclear plant? (unusual event = lowest category)

Karjala gave a few examples: The failure of a piece of safety equipment. Release of radiation â?? above regulated amounts â?? outside the plant.

A general emergency would be declared if there was damage to the plant’s reactor core, among other things.

Karjala understands how last week’s incident can put people on edge. But he urges the public to let plant workers and inspectors like himself do their jobs.

“We’re watching everything that’s going on and can recognize the incidents that are serious,” he said. “The word radiation naturally raises fear in people if they don’t understand the word.”

More information about the NRC can be found at www.nrc.org. Karjala also said he or Prairie Island’s other resident inspector, John Adams, can answer questions about safety from the public.

Both inspectors can be reached at (651) 388-8209.