drycasks20040405

Thanks to a reporter (THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!), I’ve got the recently release Sandia report:

Granite Disposal of U.S. High-Level Radioactive Waste – Sandia National Laboratories

This was released in August 2011.  It’s making the rounds now.

Here’s the part that really scares me, right there on the first page:

Unlike the safety analyses for disposal in salt, shale/clay, or deep boreholes, the safety analysis for a mined granite repository depends largely on waste package preservation. In crystalline rock, waste packages are preserved by the high mechanical stability of the excavations, the diffusive barrier of the buffer, and favorable chemical conditions. The buffer is preserved by low groundwater fluxes, favorable chemical conditions, backfill, and the rigid confines of the host rock. An added advantage of a mined granite repository is that waste packages would be fairly easy to retrieve, should retrievability be an important objective.

Yes, it’s on page one (do I even want to read past page one? NOOOOO).  What’s scary about that?  Well, back in “Nuclear Waste Daze” representing Florence Township,  I learned more than I wanted to know about “waste package preservation,” specifically a lot about weld flaws, about loading “ignition events”because they hadn’t considered the impacts of zinc and boric acid:

On May 28, 1996, a hydrogen gas ignition occurred during the welding of the shield lid on a ventilated storage cask (VSC-24) multi-assembly sealed basket (MSB).  The gas ignition displaced the shield lid (weighing about 2898 kilograms [6390 pounds]), leaving it in place but tipped at a slight angle, with one edge about 7.6 centimeters [3 inches] higher than normal.

The loaded VSC-24 multi-assembly transfer cask (MTC), a shielded lifting device used to transfer the MSB loaded with spent fuel to the ventilated concrete cask, had been placed in the cask decontamination work area in the auxiliary building.  Approximately 114 liters [30 gallons] of borated spent fuel pool water had been drained from the MSB to facilitate welding of the shield lid, creating an air space below the lid.  The hydrogen gas ignition occurred during the initiation of the shield lid welding, approximately 11 hours after the loaded MTC had been removed from the spent fuel storage pool.

And then there’s the inability to unload a cask once it’s been loaded and used for storage for a while.  for a Three Stooges HILARIOUS (if the truth wasn’t so scary) report on trying to unload a cask, “oops, an assembly is warped, oops, got stuck pulling out, oops, what to do, oops, let’s just ram it back in and put the cover on” at INEL:

INEL Report – Failed attempt to unload TN-24P

three-stooges

The possibility of revival of the notion of storing nuclear waste in the Minnesota granite, and granite anywhere, is more than I want to think about.

Here’s a fun video with some shots that Northern States Power showed us back in the NSP sponsored “Task Force” prior to their application(we’re talking late 1994-early 1995 here), to show us how safe casks are:

Homer, you work at a nuclear plant – what do you think?

screamhomer

breaktime

That’s “my” Prairie Island nuclear generating plant in the background, just upwards of Ken’s hinder.  This was taken at Lock & Dam #3 back when she chased tennis balls and still had a black muzzle.  As you read this keep in mind that I live on a bluff directly downwind and down stream from the two nuclear reactors at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, and in Delaware, directly across the Delaware River from three nuclear reactors at the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear generating plants.  I moved here both because I could afford it and because it gave me standing in any nuclear proceeding.

I read with horror news of  Rep. Bill Hilty’s amendment eliminating the moratorium on new nuclear generating plants that passed in a House Ominous Bill this week.  WHAT ARE THESE YAHOOS THINKING?  The Senate already approved it, and now the House… and I just can’t see Pawlenty doing anything but signing it with glee.

(sudden feeling of ice picks going through temples… buried in brain… electricity applied…)

AAAAAAAAGH!

Is this the “price” of the rollback of exemptions of utilities from eminent domain laws?  Is it an attempt to look like they’re repealing it when “conditions” mean it won’t happen? (like those that said Obama really doesn’t mean what he’s saying about coal gasification or transmission, he knows better)  Is it more of the same deal-making that took the Renewable Development Fund away from PrairIe Island Indian Community, or the enviro sell-outs that gave us the 2005 Transmission bill?  Minnesota’s second nuclear waste storage facility at Monticello, now two piles piling with no plan in sight, PERMANENT?

What I’m hearing about this from various little birdies….

vulture-eating

… is NOT encouraging — ooooohhhhhhh do I have a headache…

… apparently NO ONE OBJECTED!

NO ONE OBJECTED?!?!?!?!

screamhomer

AAAAAAAAGH!

Here’s the bill as it is on the Senate site:

SF 2971

Here’s how Rep. Bill Hilty, Chair of House Energy, amended it:

Hilty, Faust, Norton and Obermueller moved to amend S. F. No. 2971, the third engrossment, as amended, as follows:

Page 4, after line 11, insert:

“Sec. 4.  [216B.1695] NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; COST RECOVERY.

(a) The commission may not allow any of the following costs attributable to the construction of a nuclear generating plant begun after July 1, 2010, to be recovered from Minnesota ratepayers until the plant begins operating at a monthly load capacity factor of at least 85 percent:

(1) planning, design, safety, environmental, or engineering studies undertaken prior to construction; or

(2) the costs of obtaining regulatory approval, including permits, licenses and any other approval required prior to construction from federal, state and local authorities.

(b) The commission may not allow any of the following costs attributable to the construction of a nuclear generating plant begun after July 1, 2010, to be recovered from Minnesota ratepayers:

Journal of the House – 98th Day – Thursday, May 6, 2010 – Top of Page 11584

(1) any construction costs exceeding the projected construction cost of the generating plant and any ancillary facility constructed by the utility to temporarily or permanently store nuclear waste generated by the plant, as identified in the utility’s certificate of need application submitted under section 216B.243;

(2) the costs of insuring the plant against accidents that exceed the cost of insurance for a fossil fuel plant of equivalent capacity; or

(3) contributions from the plant to provide and maintain local fire protection and emergency services to the plant in case of an accident.

(c) Except for regulatory costs of state agencies, no revenues from taxes or fees imposed by the state of Minnesota may be used to pay for any portion of the preconstruction, construction, maintenance, or operating costs of a nuclear generating plant, or to assume any financial risk associated with an accidental release of radioactivity from the generating plant or an ancillary facility constructed by the utility that owns the generating plant to temporarily or permanently store nuclear waste generated by the plant.

Sec. 5.  Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 216B.243, subdivision 3b, is amended to read:

 Subd. 3b.  Nuclear power plant; new construction prohibited; relicensing.  (a) The commission may not issue a certificate of need for the construction of a new nuclear-powered electric generating plant provided that the certificate of need application contains a separate estimate of preconstruction and construction costs that does not include any of the costs identified in section 216B.1695, paragraphs (a) and (b).

(b) Any certificate of need for additional storage of spent nuclear fuel for a facility seeking a license extension shall address the impacts of continued operations over the period for which approval is sought.”

Renumber the sections in sequence and correct the internal references

Amend the title accordingly.

Way below is the list of yeas and nays, do send each of them a missive:

MEMBERS OF MINNESOTA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The ones who voted against it are the strangest set of bedfellows!  But KUDOS TO THEM!

If you click on this to look at the whole back and forth with amendments, scroll to p. 11579 to start.  Here’s the vote:

S. F. No. 2971, A bill for an act relating to energy; making technical changes and modifying provisions related to utility report filings, hydrogen energy projects, weatherization programs, high-voltage transmission lines, public utility commission assessments, and utility metering for supportive housing; removing obsolete and redundant language; authorizing individuals and entities to take certain easements in agricultural land; providing for certain reporting requirements; providing for wind and solar easements; amending Minnesota Statutes 2008, sections 16E.15, subdivision 2; 117.225; 216B.16, by adding a subdivision; 216B.241, subdivision 2; 216B.812, subdivision 2; 216C.264; 216E.03, subdivision 7; 216E.18, subdivision 3; 326B.106, subdivision 12; 500.221, subdivisions 2, 4;
Journal of the House – 98th Day – Thursday, May 6, 2010 – Top of Page 11596

Minnesota Statutes 2009 Supplement, section 117.189; Laws 2008, chapter 296, article 1, section 25; repealing Minnesota Statutes 2008, sections 216C.19, subdivisions 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20; 216C.262; Minnesota Statutes 2009 Supplement, section 216C.19, subdivision 17.

The bill was read for the third time, as amended, and placed upon its final passage.

The question was taken on the passage of the bill and the roll was called.  There were 86 yeas and 43 nays as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative were:

Abeler
Anderson, S.
Anzelc
Atkins
Beard
Benson
Bigham
Bly
Brown
Brynaert
Bunn
Carlson
Cornish
Dill
Dittrich
Doty
Eken
Faust
Fritz
Gardner
Hansen
Haws
Hayden
Hilstrom
Hilty
Hosch
Howes
Huntley
Jackson
Johnson
Juhnke
Kahn
Kalin
Kath
Kelly
Knuth
Koenen
Laine
Lanning
Lenczewski
Liebling
Lieder
Lillie
Loeffler
Loon
Mahoney
Marquart
Masin
McFarlane
McNamara
Morgan
Morrow
Murdock
Murphy, E.
Murphy, M.
Nelson
Newton
Nornes
Norton
Obermueller
Olin
Otremba
Pelowski
Persell
Peterson
Poppe
Reinert
Rosenthal
Rukavina
Ruud
Sailer
Scalze
Sertich
Simon
Slawik
Slocum
Solberg
Sterner
Swails
Thao
Thissen
Tillberry
Ward
Welti
Westrom
Spk. Kelliher

Those who voted in the negative were:

Anderson, B.
Anderson, P.
Brod
Buesgens
Champion
Clark
Davids
Davnie
Dean
Demmer
Dettmer
Doepke
Downey
Eastlund
Falk
Garofalo
Gottwalt
Greiling
Gunther
Hamilton
Hausman
Holberg
Hoppe
Hornstein
Hortman
Kiffmeyer
Kohls
Mack
Magnus
Mariani
Mullery
Paymar
Peppin
Sanders
Scott
Seifert
Severson
Shimanski
Torkelson
Urdahl
Wagenius
Winkler
Zellers

I got a call yesterday that reminded me that I’d forgotten to post this.  Hope to see some good coverage — this is an important step in an important decision because it commits us to how many more years of nuclear and nuclear waste?!!??!  Is this where we want to be?  Literally… this plant is in “my” town and my bluff faces the plant, immediately down river and down wind.

The ALJ’s Recommendation for the Prairie Island uprate and dry cask expansion is out — no surprises here:

Prairie Island – ALJ’s Recommendation

We’ll see what the PUC has to say.  The legislature has the option of nixing any PUC decision, but I’m not holding my breath.

Still in transit…

September 7th, 2009

Tomorrow is the Legislative Energy Commission on TRANSMISSION

TUESDAY, September 8, 2009
12:00 PM
Legislative Energy Commission
Room: Room 123 State Capitol
Chairs: Rep. Bill Hilty, Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon
Agenda: Transmission

I’m dead last on the agenda… again… and hope it’s not another set up for another “Hilty Jilty.”

And we’re still in transit.  Sometimes it’s a long way between here:

salemi

and there:

prairie-island-nuclear-plant

Or there and here… whatever…

It’s a beautiful foggy morning in Coulee Country!

Remember Xcel isn’t too happy about the City of Red Wing intervening?  See “Xcel not a happy camper” from last month.

Maybe it’s because Red Wing has a stake in this, as host to Xcel’s Prairie Island nuclear generating plant.

Here we see that in Information Requests in the Prairie Island uprate and dry cask docket at the PUC, the City of Red Wing is asking the right questions:

Information Requests 19-29

Here’s a couple that I find extremely amusing, starting with IR-21:

ir21

or this one… IR-22:

ir22

and IR-23:

ir23

and IR-24:

ir24

Yes, we are having fun now.

I wonder… will they give the City of Red Wing a copy of EPRI’s “The TN-24P PWR Spent-Fuel Storage Cask: Testing and Analyses” report?  That’s EPRI report NP-5128.  Let’s see the results of that “Three Stooges” INEL unloading attempt where the assembly got stuck half out, half in, and wouldn’t move… HILARIOUS, I’ve never seen such a rip-snortin’ report, hard to read between the lines without busting a gut!