SCIENTECH's IssueAlert
Today's IssueAlert Sponsors:   	
[IMAGE]  SCIENTECH is currently interviewing 1,500 utilities on CIS/CRM and customer care in the United States and Canada to determine:      The leading software providers  Drivers of utility technology decisions  Analysis of license sales versus ASP sales  New market opportunities  Growing/shrinking software markets    Download a sample prospectus for an introduction to this new survey at: http://secure.scientech.com/specialpages/Multi_Client.asp  and  contact Jon Brock at 505-244-7607 for more details.	
[IMAGE] [IMAGE][IMAGE]   Electric Power System & Natural Gas System Maps are available from SCIENTECH, Inc.  Click here for full descriptions and prices of Electric   and Gas  Maps.	


[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
October 25, 2001 
NRC Approves Yucca Mountain as Nuclear Waste Site 
By Will McNamara
Director, Electric Industry Analysis 

[IMAGE]
[News item from Reuters] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) signed off on a plan to build an underground dump in Nevada's Yucca Mountain to hold radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power plants. Yet another step in a long approval process, the NRC approved a site suitability study submitted by the Department of Energy (DOE). The Bush administration must still submit that plan for congressional approval. The DOE in August gave a favorable safety assessment to the proposed project, which may face an uphill battle on Capitol Hill. It is heavily opposed by Democrat Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the new Senate assistant majority leader. 
Analysis: This is a major step toward establishing Yucca Mountain as the nation's repository for spent nuclear fuel, but the NRC approval of the site could be blocked by the pending vote in Congress. Since Sept. 11, new security issues certainly have been unearthed that may give legislators in Washington, D.C. pause, and support ongoing efforts to block the site. Nevertheless, after a decade of study, planning commissions and public debate, the NRC vote clearly represents the strongest endorsement of the Yucca Mountain site and could very well be an indication of how federal policymakers will side on the issue.  
For background, since the dawn of the nuclear age one generally accepted belief is that the most feasible and safest way to dispose of highly radioactive materials is to store them deep underground. From this starting point, the United States passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 and charged the DOE with finding an appropriate spot in which radioactive materials could be stored. From the beginning, it was understood that the NRC would need to give approval to the location selected by the DOE and that congressional approval would also be necessary. In 1983, the DOE selected nine locations in six states for consideration as possible depositories, and at that time President Reagan approved only three of the nine locations for intensive scientific study (known as site characterization). The three locations were: Hanford, Wash.; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Yucca Mountain, Nev. In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and directed the DOE to only study Yucca Mountain as a suitable location, based on the finding from the earlier report. In other words, since that time no other location besides Yucca Mountain has even been considered as a potential repository for nuclear waste in the United States. 
The issue is critical because storage capacity for the waste from nuclear energy and weapons has become increasingly limited. The Bush administration's national energy plan, released last April, demonstrated strong support for the use of nuclear power as a supplement to more traditional fuel sources. Thus, the amount of nuclear waste in the country could increase considerably in the near future, and the location of an acceptable repository has become a top priority for the federal government.  
What makes Yucca Mountain the preferred location? According to the vast amount of research compiled over the last decade, there are several characteristics that arguably make Yucca Mountain the most appropriate repository site: it is a remote location and a long distance from a large population (100 miles from Las Vegas); it is located in a very dry climate, with less than six inches of water per year; and, the location offers an extremely deep water table (800 to 1,000 feet below the level of the potential repository). In addition, Yucca Mountain is located on federal land near the Nellis Air Force Range and the Nevada Test Site, where atomic-bomb tests once took place. Thus, it is considered a very secure area. Based on these characteristics, over the last 14 years scientists have generally concluded that Yucca Mountain is capable of isolating spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.  
Under the evolving plan, the site reportedly would store underground thousands of tons of radioactive materials from the nation's nuclear plants for an estimated 10,000 years.  Yucca Mountain originally was scheduled to be used as the repository by 1998, but a delay in feasibility studies caused that date to be extended several times. It is presently expected that, assuming the site gains all the necessary approvals, Yucca Mountain would be used as a repository starting in 2010. 
However, while scientists may have been generally in agreement, reaching consensus among the other involved parties has been more difficult. From a federal perspective, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have supported the use of Yucca Mountain as a national repository. This belief has been shared by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. However, Nevada state leaders have demonstrated fierce resistance toward the use of Yucca Mountain for the storage of nuclear waste, which has caused state / federal conflicts for the last several years. Specifically, Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn and the Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa have said that they are opposed to using Yucca Mountain as a repository and reportedly believe that the entire issue should be put onto the back burner indefinitely, considering the recent national events.  
Water permits became one major conflict between state and federal officials. In fact, the federal government sued Nevada after the state refused to issue water permits that Yucca Mountain would need to operate. Nevada had granted water rights to the federal government, but only for the study purposes and not the actual use of the site. The issue is still working itself through various courts. The latest word is that an appeals panel said a federal court should decide the case because the proposed dumpsite is authorized under federal law.  
Those who oppose using Yucca Mountain as a repository have consistently outlined their concerns in public meetings. Basically, the top concern is that the radiation from the nuclear waste could seep through groundwater and into the aboveground environment. Yucca Mountain is reportedly located near a fault line, which has exacerbated concerns that the ground covering the potential repository could be subject to shifting. The location of Yucca Mountain, while touted as an advantage for proponents of the plan, has also been used by opponents as an argument against the plan. Specifically, opponents say that Yucca Mountain is too close to a commercial air corridor (located about 11 miles away), and that a large number of military flights routinely cross over the site. 
In addition, the events of Sept. 11 certainly have heightened concerns about potential targets for terrorist activity, and despite reassurances from scientists that the site is secure, opponents believe that no site would be attack-proof. Another concern is the actual transport of nuclear waste from various locations across the country to the proposed site at Yucca Mountain. The federal government reportedly claimed that it would not be responsible for the actual transport of nuclear materials to the Yucca Mountain site because the transportation would be handled by private companies.  Critics of the plan say that this creates an unacceptable vulnerability for the country.  
The next step will be for Energy Secretary Abraham to review all of the previously obtained material and make a recommendation to President Bush about whether or not the federal government should proceed with using the Yucca Mountain site. All indications have suggested that Secretary Abraham will side with scientists that Yucca Mountain is an appropriate site and, after nearly two decades of study, the pros of using this site outweigh the potential risks.  
Regardless of the ultimate decision, action on nuclear waste is necessary. The sources vary on their estimates of how much highly radioactive material waste exists in the United States. However, if we take the range of estimates, it would equate to a football field ranging from 15 to 20 feet deep. That estimate takes into account all high-level nuclear waste generated in the United States since the start of a nuclear program in the 1950s. Compared to other hazardous materials, the amount of nuclear waste generated per year is very small. In the United States, all of the nuclear plants produce about 30,000 tons of spent fuel a year, whereas 300 million tons of chemical waste are generated per year. 

Correction to 10/24 IssueAlert on Dynegy vs. Enron: 
EnronOnline has recorded transactions that exceed $590 billion in notional value. The word "billion" was inadvertently omitted from yesterday's article. 


An archive list of previous IssueAlerts is available atwww.scientech.com 

We encourage our readers to contact us with their comments.  We look forward to hearing from you. Nancy Spring    Reach thousands of utility analysts and decision makers every day. Your company can schedule a sponsorship of IssueAlert by contacting Jane Pelz  . Advertising opportunities are also available on our Website. 	
  Our staff is comprised of leading energy experts with diverse  backgrounds in utility generation, transmission & distribution,  retail markets, new technologies, I/T, renewable energy, regulatory affairs,  community relations and international issues. Contact consulting@scientech.com   or call Nancy Spring at 1-505-244-7613.   	
SCIENTECH is pleased to provide you with your free,  daily IssueAlert. Let us know if we can help you with  in-depth analyses or any other SCIENTECH information  products. If you would like to refer a colleague to receive our free,  daily IssueAlerts, please reply to this e-mail and include  their full name and e-mail address or register directly on our site.    If you no longer wish to receive this daily e-mail, and you are currently a registered subscriber to IssueAlert via SCIENTECH's website,  please visit  http://secure.scientech.com/account/  to unsubscribe.  Otherwise, please send an e-mail to  to IssueAlert , with "Delete IA Subscription" in the subject line. 	
SCIENTECH's IssueAlerts(SM) are compiled based on the  independent analysis of SCIENTECH consultants. The opinions expressed in  SCIENTECH's IssueAlerts are not intended to predict financial performance  of companies discussed, or to be the basis for investment decisions of any  kind. SCIENTECH's sole purpose in publishing its IssueAlerts is to offer  an independent perspective regarding the key events occurring in the  energy industry, based on its long-standing reputation as an expert on  energy issues.     Copyright 2001. SCIENTECH, Inc. All rights  reserved.