|
|
Enron Mail |
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
|