Legalectric

The DOE is hosting a meeting on “consent-based” nuclear waste siting?  Who are stakeholders?  What does it take to become a “stakeholder?”  Who has legitimate authority to give consent for storing nuclear waste?  Who would agree?  And who would agree and on whose behalf, i.e., City of Red Wing, Goodhue County agreeing on behalf of those of us living here?  AAAAAAAAACK!?!?!  And given how the Minnesota legislature has dealt with nuclear waste, mandating siting “in Goodhue County.”

DOE Meeting

Thursday, July 21 from 5-9 p.m.

Hilton – 1001 Marquette

Minneapolis

From the south, hop on light rail at Ft. Snelling, and transfer or hoof it down to 10th & Marquette.

If you can’t make the meeting, check the Invitation for Public Comment in the Federal Register and email Comments to consentbasedsiting@hq.doe.gov by July 31, 2016.

Info available online at energy.gov/consentbasedsiting and the DOE’s informational booklet.

From the DOE:

The purpose of the consent-based siting public meeting is to hear from the public and interested stakeholders on what matters to you as the Department of Energy moves forward in developing a consent-based process for siting the facilities needed to manage spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The agenda includes a presentation from the Department of Energy’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, John Kotek. Mr. Kotek will discuss the nuclear energy activities that have brought us to this point, as well as describe the Department’s vision for an integrated waste management system and the need for a consent-based approach to siting. This presentation will be followed by a panel session with several experts providing diverse perspectives on the primary issues that need to be resolved in the design and implementation of a consent-based process. Participants will then have the opportunity to comment or ask questions to the Department and the panelists.

Following this session, there will be facilitated small group discussions on a variety of topics related to consent-based siting and integrated waste management. These small group discussions will provide the opportunity for participants to engage more closely on topics of interest to them. The Department intends for these small group discussions to be frank and open sessions on key topics that will inform the design of a consent-based process. The consent-based process will in turn serve as a framework for working with potential host communities in the future.

The agenda also includes a public comment period and two open houses with poster sessions before and after the formal meeting. The open house sessions provide participants with an opportunity to engage in less formal discussions with the Department and other meeting attendees.

This has been in the news a lot lately due to the Missouri Attorney General’s release of reports that are part of a lawsuit against the owners of the landfill, Republic Services, which, the AG states has “poisoned its neighbors’ groundwater and vegetation.”  Great… just great…  What I get out of this is that the fire’s movement towards the nuclear waste is a concern, but there are already significant problems in the here and now to deal with.

Site Q on the map above is right by the Candlewood Inn hotel that I stay at during BaronFest, held at the home of a friend in Maryland Heights just south of the bottom center of this map.  Here’s Kady, settled into the hotel:

The reports released are pretty disturbing.  Here are some maps from the Westlake Landfill Tree Core Analysis – Burken/Usman showing elevated U-235 in tree core samples:

And here’s a similar map for Thorium, but note this concentration is to the north:

And from the same report, check out these carcinogens in the core samples:

And from the Field Inspection Reports – Stark, visible leachate outbreak — it’s clearly not contained:

The primary documents from the Missouri Attorney General’s site:

• West Lake Landfill Organic Pollutant Phytoforensic Assessment – Burken
• Westlake Landfill Phytoforensic Assessment using Gamma Spectroscopy – Usman
• Westlake Landfill Tree Core Analysis – Burken/Usman
• Bridgeton Sanitary Landfill Groundwater Investigation – Price/Wronkiewicz
• Subsurface Self Sustaining Reaction Incident – Sperling/Abedini
• Bridgeton Sanitary Landfill Incident – Thalhamer
• Field Inspection Reports – Stark
• Bridgeton Landfill Downwind Odor Assessment – Wright
• Feasibility Study – Groundwater Remediation – Hemmen

That’s Prairie Island Nuclear Generation Plant behind Kenya…

Two nuclear issues in today’s news, one at Prairie Island and one at Monticello.

Prairie Island in the Beagle:

Prairie Island Unit 2 safely shut down; operators investigating fire alarm

And in the STrib:

At Monticello, it seems there are recurring security problems, in the St. Cloud Times:

Feds continue stepped-up oversight of Monticello plant

And in the STrib:

After listening to his testimony today before Minnesota’s Senate Environment and Energy Committee…

Video (weird write up, omitted the most important witness!!!), see 10:06:

*Lifting Moratorium on New Nuclear Power Plants

Arjun Makhijani – Minnesota Senate E and E Committee 03-03-2015

… we got another dose when Dr. Makhijani graced us with his presence at Fiesta Mexicana, with tales of Nuclear Waste Confidence that lit up every burn-up and zircaloy cladding wonk around the tables!  It’s really depressing stuff, so it was better to discuss this dreadful and so unbelievable nuclear situation in a dedicated misery-loves-company group.

In his testimony, he’d brought up the dangers of moving forward with nuclear plans where there is “Construction Work in Progress” for utilities to recoup funds spent on construction long before it is in-service, if ever, as is happening with the Vogtle plant.  So I took a stroll through our statutes, long familiar with our 2005 Construction Work in Progress give-away to Xcel on transmission, and found that, sure enough, it is an option for Minnesota utilities:

Minn. Stat. 216B.16, Subd. 6a. Construction work in progress.

To the extent that construction work in progress is included in the rate base, the commission shall determine in its discretion whether and to what extent the income used in determining the actual return on the public utility property shall include an allowance for funds used during construction, considering the following factors:

(1) the magnitude of the construction work in progress as a percentage of the net investment rate base;

(2) the impact on cash flow and the utility’s capital costs;

(3) the effect on consumer rates;

(4) whether it confers a present benefit upon an identifiable class or classes of customers; and

(5) whether it is of a short-term nature or will be imminently useful in the provision of utility service.

Xcel did finally come out and admitted their support for removal of the nuclear moratorium.  When considered in light of their e21_Initiative_Phase_I_Report_2014, there’s a trajectory that I see, and wish I didn’t: Xcel could build a new nuclear plant on the ratepayers dime and sell it on the market using their new transmission that we’re paying for, making Minnesota an electricity exporter!

Tonight, we discussed the Nuclear Waste Confidence decision, which is a “No-Confidence” decision, the word “confidence” has been removed from NRC lexicon.  Well, there is that other meaning of “confidence” to consider…

So on that happy note, I’ll have mango margaroodie dreams about the Pt. Beach cask explosion and the current task of changing the seals on those 20 year old TN-40 casks!

Here’s Dr. Arjun Makhijani’s Powerpoint from this afternoon:

Arjun Makhijani draft slides for Minnesota Senate E and E Committee 03-03-2015

12 noon!  Nuclear Senate bills!  Tune in to the Senate Webcast – Environment and Energy Committee

Flash Media
Windows Media – Closed captioned 

12 p.m. – Live Senate Environment and Energy Committee

Agenda:
S.F. 306 (Kiffmeyer) Nuclear power plant certificate of need issuance prohibition elimination (for discussion only and consideration for possible inclusion in omnibus energy bill).
S.F. 536 (Anderson, B.) Monticello new nuclear-powered electric generating unit construction authorization (for discussion only and consideration for possible inclusion in omnibus energy bill).