NRC Approves Yucca Mountain as Nuclear Waste Site ,
 SCIENTECH's IssueAlert
Today's IssueAlert Sponsors:   =09
[IMAGE]  SCIENTECH is currently interviewing 1,500 utilities on CIS/CRM and=
 customer care in the United States and Canada to determine:      The leadi=
ng software providers  Drivers of utility technology decisions  Analysis of=
 license sales versus ASP sales  New market opportunities  Growing/shrinkin=
g software markets    Download a sample prospectus for an introduction to t=
his new survey at: http://secure.scientech.com/specialpages/Multi_Client.as=
p  and  contact Jon Brock at 505-244-7607 for more details.=09
[IMAGE] [IMAGE][IMAGE]   Electric Power System & Natural Gas System Maps ar=
e available from SCIENTECH, Inc.  Click here for full descriptions and pric=
es of Electric   and Gas  Maps.=09


[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
October 25, 2001=20
NRC Approves Yucca Mountain as Nuclear Waste Site=20
By Will McNamara
Director, Electric Industry Analysis=20

[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 lon=
g approval process, the NRC approved a site suitability study submitted by =
the Department of Energy (DOE). The Bush administration must still submit t=
hat plan for congressional approval. The DOE in August gave a favorable saf=
ety 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.=20
Analysis: This is a major step toward establishing Yucca Mountain as the na=
tion'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 secur=
ity issues certainly have been unearthed that may give legislators in Washi=
ngton, D.C. pause, and support ongoing efforts to block the site. Neverthel=
ess, after a decade of study, planning commissions and public debate, the N=
RC 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. =20
For background, since the dawn of the nuclear age one generally accepted be=
lief is that the most feasible and safest way to dispose of highly radioact=
ive materials is to store them deep underground. From this starting point, =
the United States passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 and charged t=
he DOE with finding an appropriate spot in which radioactive materials coul=
d 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 s=
cientific 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 onl=
y study Yucca Mountain as a suitable location, based on the finding from th=
e earlier report. In other words, since that time no other location besides=
 Yucca Mountain has even been considered as a potential repository for nucl=
ear waste in the United States.=20
The issue is critical because storage capacity for the waste from nuclear e=
nergy and weapons has become increasingly limited. The Bush administration'=
s national energy plan, released last April, demonstrated strong support fo=
r the use of nuclear power as a supplement to more traditional fuel sources=
. Thus, the amount of nuclear waste in the country could increase considera=
bly in the near future, and the location of an acceptable repository has be=
come a top priority for the federal government. =20
What makes Yucca Mountain the preferred location? According to the vast amo=
unt of research compiled over the last decade, there are several characteri=
stics that arguably make Yucca Mountain the most appropriate repository sit=
e: 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 w=
ater 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 pl=
ace. Thus, it is considered a very secure area. Based on these characterist=
ics, over the last 14 years scientists have generally concluded that Yucca =
Mountain is capable of isolating spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioact=
ive waste. =20
Under the evolving plan, the site reportedly would store underground thousa=
nds of tons of radioactive materials from the nation's nuclear plants for a=
n estimated 10,000 years.  Yucca Mountain originally was scheduled to be us=
ed as the repository by 1998, but a delay in feasibility studies caused tha=
t date to be extended several times. It is presently expected that, assumin=
g the site gains all the necessary approvals, Yucca Mountain would be used =
as a repository starting in 2010.=20
However, while scientists may have been generally in agreement, reaching co=
nsensus among the other involved parties has been more difficult. From a fe=
deral perspective, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have supported =
the use of Yucca Mountain as a national repository. This belief has been sh=
ared by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. However, Nevada state leaders hav=
e demonstrated fierce resistance toward the use of Yucca Mountain for the s=
torage of nuclear waste, which has caused state / federal conflicts for the=
 last several years. Specifically, Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn and the Nevada A=
ttorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa have said that they are opposed to usi=
ng Yucca Mountain as a repository and reportedly believe that the entire is=
sue should be put onto the back burner indefinitely, considering the recent=
 national events. =20
Water permits became one major conflict between state and federal officials=
. In fact, the federal government sued Nevada after the state refused to is=
sue water permits that Yucca Mountain would need to operate. Nevada had gra=
nted water rights to the federal government, but only for the study purpose=
s and not the actual use of the site. The issue is still working itself thr=
ough various courts. The latest word is that an appeals panel said a federa=
l court should decide the case because the proposed dumpsite is authorized =
under federal law. =20
Those who oppose using Yucca Mountain as a repository have consistently out=
lined their concerns in public meetings. Basically, the top concern is that=
 the radiation from the nuclear waste could seep through groundwater and in=
to the aboveground environment. Yucca Mountain is reportedly located near a=
 fault line, which has exacerbated concerns that the ground covering the po=
tential repository could be subject to shifting. The location of Yucca Moun=
tain, while touted as an advantage for proponents of the plan, has also bee=
n used by opponents as an argument against the plan. Specifically, opponent=
s say that Yucca Mountain is too close to a commercial air corridor (locate=
d about 11 miles away), and that a large number of military flights routine=
ly cross over the site.=20
In addition, the events of Sept. 11 certainly have heightened concerns abou=
t potential targets for terrorist activity, and despite reassurances from s=
cientists 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 Mountai=
n. The federal government reportedly claimed that it would not be responsib=
le 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 co=
untry. =20
The next step will be for Energy Secretary Abraham to review all of the pre=
viously 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 s=
ide with scientists that Yucca Mountain is an appropriate site and, after n=
early two decades of study, the pros of using this site outweigh the potent=
ial risks. =20
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 estima=
tes, it would equate to a football field ranging from 15 to 20 feet deep. T=
hat estimate takes into account all high-level nuclear waste generated in t=
he United States since the start of a nuclear program in the 1950s. Compare=
d to other hazardous materials, the amount of nuclear waste generated per y=
ear 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 chemica=
l waste are generated per year.=20

Correction to 10/24 IssueAlert on Dynegy vs. Enron:=20
EnronOnline has recorded transactions that exceed $590 billion in notional =
value. The word "billion" was inadvertently omitted from yesterday's articl=
e.=20


An archive list of previous IssueAlerts is available atwww.scientech.com=20

We encourage our readers to contact us with their comments.  We look forwar=
d to hearing from you. Nancy Spring    Reach thousands of utility analysts =
and decision makers every day. Your company can schedule a sponsorship of I=
ssueAlert by contacting Jane Pelz  . Advertising opportunities are also ava=
ilable on our Website. =09
  Our staff is comprised of leading energy experts with diverse  background=
s in utility generation, transmission & distribution,  retail markets, new =
technologies, I/T, renewable energy, regulatory affairs,  community relatio=
ns and international issues. Contact consulting@scientech.com   or call Nan=
cy Spring at 1-505-244-7613.   =09
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 i=
nformation  products. If you would like to refer a colleague to receive our=
 free,  daily IssueAlerts, please reply to this e-mail and include  their f=
ull 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 registere=
d subscriber to IssueAlert via SCIENTECH's website,  please visit  http://s=
ecure.scientech.com/account/  to unsubscribe.  Otherwise, please send an e-=
mail to  to IssueAlert , with "Delete IA Subscription" in the subject line.=
 =09
SCIENTECH's IssueAlerts(SM) are compiled based on the  independent analysis=
 of SCIENTECH consultants. The opinions expressed in  SCIENTECH's IssueAler=
ts are not intended to predict financial performance  of companies discusse=
d, or to be the basis for investment decisions of any  kind. SCIENTECH's so=
le purpose in publishing its IssueAlerts is to offer  an independent perspe=
ctive 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.=09
issuealerthtml@listserv.scientech.com