***neg updates
**ssd neg updates
federalism advantage
recent ruling
This is ridiculous --- a federal appeals court just ruled to stop fees to the federal
waste fund which increases local autonomy --- that’s sufficient to solve their
internal links
NEI 12 --- Nuclear Energy Institute (“Court of Appeals Rebukes DOE on Nuclear Waste Fund Fee”,
http://www.nei.org/News-Media/Media-Room/News-Releases/Court-of-Appeals-Rebukes-DOE-on-Nuclear-Waste-Fund)//trepka
The court ordered DOE to conduct a complete reassessment of this fee within six months.
While the court did not order DOE to suspend the fee payments, the court rejected DOE’s bases for continuing
to collect the fees. The Nuclear Energy Institute’s Ellen Ginsberg, vice president, general counsel and secretary, made the
following remarks in reaction to today’s decision: “The court is unequivocal in finding DOE’s interpretation of
its legal obligation ‘unacceptable’ and rejecting DOE’s use of Yucca Mountain costs as a ‘proxy’
when the agency terminated the program .
ilaw advantage
link turn --- see ilaw disad
science diplomacy fails
Science diplomacy fails --- ag biotech proves
Jamail 7/9/14 --- Global Research Center (Dahr, “Salvadoran Farmers Successfully Oppose the Use of Monsanto
Seeds”, http://www.globalresearch.ca/salvadoran-farmers-successfully-oppose-the-use-of-monsanto-seeds/5390543)//trepka
Between 2007 and 2009, the State Department sent annual cables to ‘encourage the use of agricultural
biotechnology,’ directing every diplomatic post worldwide to ‘pursue an active biotech agenda’
that promotes agricultural biotechnology, encourages the export of biotech crops and foods and advocates for pro-biotech policies
and laws,” the report said. “The
State Department views its heavy-handed promotion of biotech
agriculture as ‘science diplomacy,’ but it is closer to corporate diplomacy on behalf of the
biotechnology industry,” the watchdog group added.
scidip high
Scidip high now --- Cuba proves
Wren 4/30/14 --- AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE
(Kathy, “Science Diplomacy Visit to Cuba Produces Historic Agreement”, http://www.aaas.org/news/science-diplomacy-visit-cubaproduces-historic-agreement)//trepka
HAVANA, CUBA — On a 90-degree morning in April, a AAAS-led group of U.S. scientists and policy experts stepped gratefully out of the tropical glare
of a Havana side street and into the elegant, 18th-century headquarters of the Cuban Academy of Sciences. As the visitors were welcomed by their
Academy hosts, it would have been impossible to guess from the warm hugs and hearty handshakes that the two groups were from countries whose
governments have been at odds for over five decades. The
meeting was the first stop for the AAAS group on its
three-day visit to Havana, where it would meet with a broad assortment of scientists and
physicians across the city in an effort to further scientific collaboration between researchers in Cuba and the United
States. The group also met with Chief of Mission of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana John Caulfield, who expressed his support for the visit. "This
trip was a wonderful opportunity to reinvigorate the long-standing friendship between U.S. and Cuban scientists and to form a more specific plan of
action," said AAAS President Gerald Fink, who is also a professor of biology at the Whitehead Institute at MIT. The
discussions that
began at the Cuban Academy of Sciences would give rise to a landmark agreement two days
later. Signed by the leaders of the Academy and AAAS, a memorandum of understanding now
outlines a plan to advance scientific cooperation by Cuban and U.S. scientists, in key areas of mutual interest to both
countries. The visiting group also included also included Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of AAAS and executive publisher of Science, Vaughan
Turekian, AAAS chief international officer, Joanne Carney, director of the AAAS Office of Government Relations, and David Shaw, AAAS treasurer and
managing partner of the Black Point Group, as well as several others who have traveled to Cuba on earlier science diplomacy visits: Peter Agre, Nobel
laureate and past president of AAAS, Mark Rasenick, professor of physiology & biophysics and psychiatry at the University of Illinois Chicago College of
Medicine, Maxmillian Angerholzer III, senior advisor and corporate secretary of the Lounsbery Foundation, and Mark Vlasic, adjunct professor of law
at Georgetown University Law Center.
prolif advantage
can’t solve
Other nations won’t model SSD --- it’s too expensive and impossible to enforce
Friedemann 11/8/13 (Alice, “Book review of “Too Hot to Touch: The Problem of High-Level Nuclear Waste””,
http://energyskeptic.com/2013/book-review-nuclear-waste-too-hot-to-touch/)//trepka
The Soviet Union was by far the biggest dumper – including 16 nuclear reactors from
submarines and much other waste as well, about twice as much as all other countries combined,
because it was cheaper and easier . After the collapse in 1991 the power was cut to aging nuclear submarines that
weren’t paying their bills, despite the consequences of what would happen if they didn’t keep their reactors cooled! So one of the
submarines began hauling potatoes to pay the electric bills. Finally in 1993, after many other incidents listed in the book, 37
nations voted to stop ocean dumping , though Greenpeace has caught the Japanese secretly
dumping wastes, but at least it’s not tolerated any longer, though hard to enforce.
Long timeframe and fast reactors make it inevitable
Ferguson 9 --- Ferguson, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology (Charles, “Testimony to
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives; Hearing on “Advancing Technology for Nuclear Fuel Recycling: What Should
Our Research, Development, and Demonstration Strategy Be?””, CFR, http://www.cfr.org/proliferation/assessment-proliferation-risks-spent-fuelreprocessing/p19648)//trepka
“Assessment of the Proliferation
Risks of Spent Fuel Reprocessing” Time is on the side of the United
States. There is no need to rush toward development and deployment of recycling of spent nuclear fuel. Based on the
foreseeable price for uranium and uranium enrichment services, this practice is presently far more expensive
than the once-through uranium fuel cycle. Nonetheless, more research is needed to determine the costs and benefits of recycling
techniques coupled with fast-neutron reactors or other types of reactor technologies. This cost versus benefit analysis would
concentrate on the capability of these technologies to help alleviate the nuclear waste management challenge. • In related
research, there is a need to better understand the safeguards challenges in the use of fast
reactors . Such reactors are dual-use in the sense that they can burn transuranic material
and can breed new plutonium . In the former operation, they could provide a needed nuclear waste management
benefit. In the latter operation, they can pose a serious proliferation threat.
no prolif now --- can’t make bomb
This scenario is scientific garbage
Lyman 12/29/13 --- CNN (Edwin, “Pyroprocessing - Integral Fast Nuclear Reactors (IFRs) – the dishonest hype”,
http://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/2013/12/page/2/)//trepka
What did “Pandora’s Promise” leave out? First, it does not clearly explain what a “fast reactor” is and how it differs from the watercooled reactors in use today. Most operating reactors use a type of fuel called “low-enriched” uranium,
which cannot be used directly to make a nuclear weapon and poses a low security risk. The
spent fuel from these water-cooled reactors contains weapon-usable plutonium as a byproduct, but it is
very hard to make into a bomb because it is mixed with uranium and highly
radioactive fission products.
no prolif now --- generic
Status quo solves prolif --- four warrants
Findlay 14 --- senior research fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom at the Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of
Government, professor at the Norman Paterson School at Carlton University in Ottowa, Canada,
and Doctorate in International Affairs (Trevor, “Beyond Nuclear Summitry: The Role of the IAEA in Nuclear Security
Diplomacy After 2016”, Belfer Center, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/beyondnuclearsummitryfullpaper.pdf)//trepka
The major achievement of the summits have been at least four-fold. First, they have brought nuclear
security to the highest possible diplomatic and political attention in key states―at head of
state and/or government level―often for the first time. Second, because heads of state or government were
involved, the summits have tended to force unity of purpose and policy on participating governments,
producing in many cases more ambitious outcomes at the widely publicized gatherings than would otherwise
have been the case.36 Such high-level attention has been sustained between summits, potentially leading to
permanent structural changes in the way that governments tackle the issue. This has been especially helpful
where national responsibil- ity for nuclear security is spread across several competing ministries and agencies. Third, the
pressure from the summit hosts and the summiteers collectively to make and keep unilateral
pledges has resulted in tangible improvements in nuclear security in a wide variety of areas.
The exclusive membership of the meetings has enhanced the degree of cohesion and the possibil- ity of
consensus on nuclear security issues, while facilitating the application of peer pressure to
constantly improve performance. Fourth, the series of meetings and attendant publicity have engendered
substantial activity and support outside governments, where little or none existed before, among civil society organizations research
institutes, and among funders.37 This includes creating
awareness of and increased political and material
support for the IAEA’s work in nuclear security.
Past 30 years empirically deny their prolif claims
Levy 8 --- Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review (Dawn, “MYTH: Recycling spent nuclear fuel increases the risk
of weapons proliferation REALITY: New recycling technologies can reduce the inventory of plutonium”,
http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v41_3_08/article11.shtml)//trepka
Governments of approximately a dozen nations possess, officially or unofficially, the
technology to
make atomic weapons from spent nuclear fuel. As described in Tom Clancy's best-seller The Sum of All Fears, one
of the greatest concerns of the international community is the possibility that such knowledge might fall into the hands of outlaw
nations and terrorist groups seeking to make a "dirty bomb" capable of spreading radioactive contamination over large urban
populations. The very real risk of weapons proliferation has contributed to a reluctance, beginning with President Jimmy
Carter's decision in 1977 to halt efforts to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, to look at other options for using and storing the byproducts of nuclear power.
no prolif now --- scidip
Science diplomacy solves prolif now
AAAS 13 --- AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (“Fifty Years
after the Cuban Missile Crisis, New Roles for S&T in Nuclear Arms Control”, http://www.aaas.org/page/fifty-years-after-cubanmissile-crisis-new-roles-st-nuclear-arms-control)//trepka
ATLANTA, Georgia—Fifty years after the Cuban missile crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, scientists and
science diplomacy are playing increasingly important roles in checking the spread of nuclear
weapons , experts said at a workshop co-organized by AAAS. While the Cold War has receded, arms control remains a
global priority, driven by fears of terrorism, nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, and lingering tensions between the United
States and Russia, said experts meeting at the Georgia Institute of Technology. They described highly sensitive and futuristic
technologies to detect nuclear weapons tests and the advance of clandestine weapons programs. And while scientists and engineers
play a central role in detection and verification, international research cooperation can also build a climate of trust that supports
arms control efforts. “In
terms of U.S. diplomacy, some of the greatest assets we have are not only in
our government agencies , but in our foundations , science associations , and other areas,” said
E. William Colglazier, science and technology adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “We’re going to have to use all of our
assets if we’re going to create a more peaceful world.” “Nuclear arms control requires painstaking diplomatic and technical work,
and the Cuban missile crisis is a clear example of that,” said Vaughan C. Turekian, director of the AAAS Center for Science
Diplomacy. “But in the aftermath of the crisis, the record is clear: Scientists and engineers from the
competing nuclear powers, through their work on treaties and other arms control initiatives,
helped to bring a peaceful end to the Cold War. Similar efforts are continuing today, with
great potential impact.”
Broad trends go neg
AAAS 13 --- AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (“Fifty Years
after the Cuban Missile Crisis, New Roles for S&T in Nuclear Arms Control”, http://www.aaas.org/page/fifty-years-after-cubanmissile-crisis-new-roles-st-nuclear-arms-control)//trepka
Some broad
signals are strongly hopeful. In all, 183 nations have signed the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which seeks to prohibit all nuclear explosions, and 157 of them have ratified it.
With the exception of two nuclear tests by North Korea since 2006, Tóth said, the world has
effectively frozen testing.
no prolif now --- ctbt
Monitoring solves
AAAS 13 --- AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (“Fifty Years
after the Cuban Missile Crisis, New Roles for S&T in Nuclear Arms Control”, http://www.aaas.org/page/fifty-years-after-cubanmissile-crisis-new-roles-st-nuclear-arms-control)//trepka
Consider the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). Its effectiveness
is based on an ever-growing
array of advanced monitoring stations and sensors —it will include 337 facilities in 89 nations when
complete—that can detect nuclear tests by reading even faint atmospheric, seismic, or acoustic signals. A key element of
the treaty’s International Monitoring System is radionuclide monitoring; from half a world away, such sensors can
detect radioactive particles and noble gases, i.e., xenon, which are associated with nuclear explosions. Emerging
technologies may create remarkably sensitive tools for detecting nuclear activity and verifying nuclear arsenals: satellite-based
instruments to read minute changes in the topography of site above a nuclear complex or testing facility, for example, or a GPS
system that can discern upheaval in the surface of the Earth caused by underground detonations.
CTBT ensures leadership and cooperation
AAAS 13 --- AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (“Fifty Years
after the Cuban Missile Crisis, New Roles for S&T in Nuclear Arms Control”, http://www.aaas.org/page/fifty-years-after-cubanmissile-crisis-new-roles-st-nuclear-arms-control)//trepka
Tracking the Red Balloon The emergence of complex online networks and social media may be creating a new realm for detecting and tracking nuclear programs, experts said at
the CTBT’s verification regime is essentially a global information
sharing system , with organizations and government bodies in dozens of nations, hosting
hundreds of monitoring facilities, all collecting and analyzing data in a collaborative effort to
monitor compliance with the treaty. Today, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency—DARPA—along with the
State Department and other federal agencies are in the forefront of efforts to assess the potential for
the Georgia Tech workshop. According to Tóth,
crowd-sourcing and social media in a wide range of applications, from finding a lost child to finding a potential weapon of mass destruction. In 2009, DARPA initiated a
challenge: Teams would compete, using social networks and other means, to identify 10 red balloons at fixed, undisclosed locations around the United States. Among 4300
entrants, an MIT team placed first by finding all 10 balloons in just under nine hours. Rose E. Gottemoeller, the acting U.S. under secretary of state for arms control and
international security, earlier this year announced a challenge focused specifically on how crowd-sourcing can support arms-control transparency. “Can innovation bring about
creative ways to prevent ‘loose nukes’ from falling into the hands of terrorists?” she asked in announcing the competition. “Can smart phone and tablet apps be created for the
purpose of aiding on-site inspectors in verifying and monitoring treaty commitments? How can we use commonly available technologies in new and creative ways to support our
The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a non-governmental organization based in Washington, D.C., has
joined with U.S. agencies, national labs, and officials from Sweden and Norway on the
Verification Pilot Project. One area of focus for this project is on data—how enormous volumes of data from social networking sites and other areas could be
arms control policy efforts?”
sifted for subtle clues or patterns that indicate activity which violates arms control agreements. The indicators might not be direct or specific—they might not reveal the exact
date for a secret nuclear test—but might point to mobilizations of personnel or materials or telling environmental changes. In July, NTI Vice President Corey Hinderstein and
Program Associate Kelsey Hartigan presented a paper, “Societal Verification: Leveraging the Information Revolution for Arms Control Verification.” At the AAAS/Georgia Tech
workshop, Hartigan said that seeking patterns in social media or other realms of data presents serious challenges, including technical, diplomatic, and privacy issues.
This data sharing also solves science diplomacy
AAAS 13 --- AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (“Fifty Years
after the Cuban Missile Crisis, New Roles for S&T in Nuclear Arms Control”, http://www.aaas.org/page/fifty-years-after-cubanmissile-crisis-new-roles-st-nuclear-arms-control)//trepka
A New Data Diplomacy? In Turekian’s view, crowd-sourcing and social media point
to a broader area of opportunity:
science diplomacy based on data. Volumes of data are so vast now, and likely to have interest
to so many nations, that agreements for sharing data—and agreements on what to keep secret—
may be crucial for 21st century diplomacy. “Science is ultimately a data-driven enterprise ,”
said Turekian, who also serves as editor of the quarterly publication Science & Diplomacy. “And so how do you work with colleagues, particularly in
countries where you have had limited interaction, on how you actually think of data, share data, trust data? “Really,
science diplomacy
is supporting not only the trust-building, writ large, that feeds into treaties…but also the very
practical piece on how countries and scientific communities begin to develop protocols for
sharing data, which I think more and more is going to be an interesting area for us.” For example,
Turekian suggested that Cuba and the United States could negotiate agreements to share data on areas such as climate change or environmental threats
in the Caribbean Basin. Scientific cooperation on such projects could, in time, help to build trust on security issues. “The distance that almost caused
nuclear catastrophe 50 years ago is also a distance where we share so many resources and interests today,” he said. “That’s where this whole issue of
science and diplomacy, and how it can help lead to peace and prosperity, is really important.” There is a human element to such diplomacy, and
Turekian, Colglazier, Tóth, and others all alluded to its importance. Track
II diplomacy—non-governmental engagement involving scientists
and their associations, for example—proved “extremely influential” in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis, Colglazier said. Today, that
experience motivates
scientist-diplomats and science organizations to engage with counterparts in
nations such as Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. Even where government-to-government
relations are difficult, eventually “there will be opportunities,” he added. “I think confidencebuilding really starts with people maintaining channels of communication.” Engaging young scientists and
cultivating their interest in international engagement is another facet of the human element. Colglazier cited the crowd-sourcing competitions at
DARPA and the State Department as important ways to tap into the innovative vision of younger scientists and engineers. If the challenges are going to
produce ideas that will be useful for verifying arms control and international agreements, he said, “it’s going from students as much as from people who
are further along in their careers.” Tóth, too, ascribed great importance to the creativity of young people. “I was thinking about the right side of the
brain,” he told students after the workshop. “There is a theory that your generation is relying more on the right side of the brain compared to the left
side… The right side is creative, it’s connecting the dots, tuning in more to the Internet and social media.” He expressed hope that such developmental
influences would prepare the “next-perts” of a new generation to solve the complex puzzles of arms control, proliferation, and peace-making. “This is
the challenge I am throwing at you, the next generation,” he said. “And the challenge is: These challenges can be taken care of. Don’t believe it can’t be
done. It is do-able.”
no prolif now --- leadership
Status quo solves research and development of nuclear reprocessing and storage -- solves leadership and prolif
Levy 8 --- Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review (Dawn, “MYTH: Recycling spent nuclear fuel increases the risk
of weapons proliferation REALITY: New recycling technologies can reduce the inventory of plutonium”,
http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v41_3_08/article11.shtml)//trepka
ORNL scientists are working with research quantities of
commercial spent nuclear fuel to develop and demonstrate new technologies for both
recycling and storage . "We are trying to develop evolutionary technologies that simultaneously
reduce proliferation concerns about separated plutonium, lower the cost of production and achieve better managed waste streams," says ORNL's Jeff
Storing what's left With funding from DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy,
Binder, senior program manager for the Coupled-End-to-End (CETE) Demonstration. At two ORNL facilities—the Irradiated Fuels Examination Laboratory and the
Radiochemical Engineering Development Center—researchers strive to improve the multiple steps associated with recycling fuel rods, from their receipt and characterization to
their chopping and processing. Volatile fission product species are removed, the fuel is dissolved in nitric acid and uranium, neptunium and plutonium are co-extracted and
We extract the plutonium along with the neptunium
and some of the uranium so that the plutonium is never isolated ," Binder says. "Co-extraction is not a
bulletproof solution, but it is a step in the right direction." Neptunium provides added proliferation
resistance benefits by emitting a strong, distinctive gamma ray that makes the material easier
to detect if diverted. Moreover, neptunium forms Pu-238 under irradiation in the reactor. The reconstituted plutonium isotopic
mix is less adaptable for weapons use. CETE researchers are motivated by the goal of linking several recycling processes. "We don't know if the
oxidized to create a solid mixed-oxide fuel pellet for powering nuclear reactors. "
process can work on an industrial scale until we connect all of the steps together," Binder says. One immediate challenge is removal of volatile fission species prior to coextraction. "We want to understand how to remove radioactive fission products like tritium, krypton and iodine from the fuel early in the process so they will not create problems
The program also addresses the controversial issue of how
best to dispose of spent fuel from commercial reactors. The Department of Energy in 1998 committed to accept spent fuel for permanent storage in
during subsequent steps in the recycling process," Binder says.
Nevada's Yucca Mountain Repository, scheduled for construction in 2013. The repository's fate resides ultimately in the hands of the next president and Congress. While the
debate over a permanent storage site remains unresolved, a growing volume of spent nuclear waste continues to be stored on site at the nation's nuclear power plants.
Recycling of spent nuclear fuel would fundamentally alter the nature of the debate. Changes
in the characteristics of the spent fuel would reduce the net volume of waste that requires permanent
storage and arguably makes storage in a repository easier and safer to manage, Binder says. Because Pu-239 has a halflife of about 24,000 years, opponents question the viability of permanent storage. "However, the long-lived isotopes could be removed, recycled and transmuted in the reactor to
shorter-lived isotopes," he explains. "Instead of putting waste in a geologic repository with the need to isolate it for 10,000 years or more, we are left with the manageable
Enthusiastic about these new
technologies, Christensen envisions a nuclear renaissance between now and 2050. By then, several factors
should make it economically worthwhile to extract the remaining energy value of spent fuel.
"We will have a huge amount of fuel value sitting in spent fuel pools," he says. "The cost of new
uranium will rise, along with the cost of enriching it. At some point reusing the fuel in your pool
will be cheaper than purchasing and enriching new uranium ore. To be prepared to recycle spent fuel by mid-century, we
problem of engineering a system designed to safely store the materials for only two to three hundred years."
have got to be doing the research today." Working with ORNL and Idaho National Laboratory, the technical integrator for the DOE program, are Argonne National Laboratory,
whose researchers conducted some early proof-of-principle chemistry, and Los Alamos National Laboratory, where development is under way on a mixed-oxide fuel that could
be used in either a thermal reactor or a fast reactor, providing flexibility in managing the resource.
prolif good
Proliferation increases deterrence and stability --- multiple experts agree
Kroenig 14 --- Associate Professor and International Relations Field Chair, Department of
Government, Georgetown University & Nonresident Senior Fellow ,Brent Scowcroft Center on
International Security, The Atlantic Council (Matthew, “The History of Proliferation Optimism: Does It Have A
Future?”, http://www.matthewkroenig.com/The%20History%20of%20Proliferation%20Optimism_Feb2014.pdf)//trepka
Contemporary Academic Writing: Proliferation optimism received what may have been its clearest articulation by Kenneth Waltz in his seminal 1981
Adelphi paper, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better.”29 In this, and subsequent works, Waltz argued that the
spread of
nuclear weapons has beneficial effects on international politics. He maintained that states, fearing a
catastrophic nuclear war, will be deterred from going to war with other nuclear armed states. As
more and more states acquire nuclear weapons, therefore, there are fewer states against which other states will be willing to wage war. The
spread of nuclear weapons, according to Waltz, leads to greater levels of international stability. Looking
to the empirical record, he argued that the introduction of nuclear weapons in 1945 coincided with
an unprecedented period of peace among the great powers. While the United States and the Soviet Union
engaged in many proxy wars in peripheral geographic regions during the Cold War, they never engaged in direct combat. And,
despite regional scuffles involving nuclear-armed states in the Middle East, South Asia, and East
Asia, none of these conflicts resulted in a major theater war. This lid on the intensity of conflict, according to Waltz, was
the direct result of the stabilizing effect of nuclear weapons. Following in the path blazed by the strategic thinkers reviewed above, Waltz argued that
the requirements for deterrence are not high. He argued that, contrary to the behavior of the Cold War superpowers, a
state need not build a large arsenal with multiple survivable delivery vehicles in order to deter
its adversaries. Rather, he claimed that a minimum deterrent posture of few nuclear weapons is
sufficient for deterrence. Indeed, he went even further, asserting that any state will be deterred even if it merely
suspects its opponent might have a few nuclear weapons because the costs of getting it wrong
are simply too high. Not even nuclear accident is a concern according to Waltz because leaders in
nuclear armed states understand that if they ever lost control of nuclear weapons, the nuclear
retaliation they could suffer in response would be catastrophic. Nuclear-armed states, therefore,
have strong incentives to maintain tight control over their nuclear weapons. Not even new nuclear states, which
lack experience managing nuclear arsenals, would ever allow nuclear weapons to be used or to fall into the wrong
hands. Following Waltz, many other scholars have subsequently advanced arguments in the proliferation
optimism school.30 Indeed, in 2012, Waltz himself argued that nuclear proliferation to Iran would not present a
serious threat because a nuclear-armed Iran could be deterred .31
meltdowns advantage
squo solves
Status quo is safe --- federal regulators agree
Herrick 7/26/14 --- VTDigger, New England News (John, “NRC says long-term dry cask storage of spent fuel
is safe”, http://www.reformer.com/state/ci_26219909/nrc-says-long-term-dry-cask-storage-spent)//trepka
VERNON -- Federal nuclear regulators
say storing spent nuclear fuel on-site indefinitely is safe. The
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission this week released a study on the environmental impacts of storing
spent nuclear fuel. The report found that dry casks designed to store spent nuclear fuel can withstand
natural disasters, and the risk of a terrorist attack is unlikely. Entergy's Vermont Yankee nuclear power
plant in Vernon is scheduled to close at the end of the year for economic reasons. The Louisiana-based company plans to store spent
fuel from the reactor in steel dry casks on site indefinitely. The environmental impacts outlined in the report focus on construction
and management activities of the storage site, such as exhaust emissions from transporting the fuel and disturbance to land when
building the storage pad. NRC spokesperson Neil Sheehan said spent fuel storage is safe because the used rods cool over time and
their radioactive isotopes decay to harmless materials. Spent nuclear fuel consists of rods no longer able to generate electricity.
There is currently no repository for the waste. However, the report does not consider the environmental impact should the dry
casks be damaged by an earthquake , flood or terrorist attack. That's "because all important
safety structures , systems , and components involved with the spent fuel storage are
designed to withstand these design basis accidents without compromising the safety functions,"
according to the report.
New regulations and new pools solves --- it’s upgrading now
ELP 11/8/13 --- Electric Light and Power (“Areva to supply spent fuel pool instrumentation to U.S. utilities”,
http://www.elp.com/articles/2013/11/areva-to-supply-spent-fuel-pool-instrumentation-to-u-s-utilities.html)//trepka
Areva won a series of contracts from U.S. utilities for the delivery of more than thirty Spent Fuel
Pool
Level Instrumentation systems. The systems meet the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
post-Fukushima requirements for spent fuel pool monitoring. One contract is for the supply of
four VEGA through-air radar spent fuel systems to South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co. The deal also includes
"development of engineering services for the installation of the systems," at the two-unit South Texas nuclear
plant.
At worse, fifty years of storage left
UCS 11 --- Union of Concerned Scientists (“Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty, and Expensive”,
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/making-nuclear-power-safer/handling-nuclear-waste/nuclear-reprocessing.html)//trepka
First, there
is no spent fuel storage crisis that warrants such a drastic change in course.
Hardened interim storage of spent fuel in dry casks is an economically viable and secure
option for at least fifty years.
at: meltdowns
Worst case scenario kills 1000 people
Negin 12 --- Director of News & Commentary, Union of Concerned Scientists (Elliot, “Wasting Time
with Nuclear Waste”, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/wasting-time-withnuclear_b_1619001.html)//trepka
Continuing to add spent
fuel to the pools compounds the risk by increasing the amount of
radioactive material that could be released into the environment. A large radioactive
release from a spent fuel pool could result in thousands of cancer deaths and hundreds of billions
of dollars in decontamination costs and economic damage, according to 2004 study in Science and Global Security, a journal
published by Princeton University.
Fukushima empirically denies the impact
Murphy 11 (Kirk, “Why Fukushima’s “spent” fuel rods will continue to catch fire”,
http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/tag/spent-fuel-rods/)//trepka
Yesterday the spent fuel rod pool at Fukushima Daiichi reactor 4 caught fire . About that time instruments at the
plant showed an exponential increase in radiation levels . After the fire was quenched, radiation levels fell. In the hour before I sat
down to write this, there was an explosion at the same spent fuel rod pool. As I write, another fire is burning there. NHK reports the radiation level – 300 to 400 milliSieverts – is so high that firefighters cannot
approach the area. NHK reports that by Monday March 14 the temperature in the spent fuel rod pool was 84 degrees C: nearly double the usual temperature. NHK reports that there aren’t temperature readings
for today: technical failure. We do know the pool temperature increased by roughly twenty degrees C per day after loss of power on Friday. And we know that water boils at 100 degrees C. The spent fuel rod pool at
reactor 4 is one of seven pools for spent fuel rods at Fukushima Daichii. These pools are designed to store the intensively radioactive fuel rods that were already used in nuclear reactors. These “used” fuel rods still
contain uranium (or in the case of fuel rods from reactor 3, they contain both uranium and plutonium from the MOX fuel used in that reactor). In addition to the uranium and plutonium, the rods also contain
other radioactive elements. These radioactive elements are created in the rods by the intense radiation around the rods when they are in the reactor core (before they are moved to the spent fuel pools). Six of the
spent fuel rod pools are (or were) located at the top of six reactor buildings. One “common pool” is at ground level in a separate building.
Each “reactor top” pool holds up to 3450
fuel rod assemblies. The common pool holds up to 6291 fuel rod assemblies. [The common pool has windows on one wall which were almost certainly destroyed by the tsunami.] Each
assembly holds sixty-three fuel rods. This means the Fukushima Daiichi plant may contain over 600,000 spent fuel rods. The fuel rods once stored atop reactor 3 may no longer be there: one of the several
we have
meltdown in the reactor vessels
explosions at the Fukushima reactors may have damaged that pool. Now that
partial
– the part of the reactor
where nuclear reactions are supposed to happen – in at least three of the Daiichi palnt’s six reactors, why bother with swimming pools for fuel rods? Simple. Even after they are no longer usable to drive nuclear
fission in the reactor vessels, the “spent” fuel rods are still highly radioactive. Part of that radioactive energy is emitted as heat. That’s no surprise: heat from radioactivity is the how the reactor core vessels
generate the heat that drives the nuclear plant’s turbines to generate electricity. The fuel rods don’t know whether they are in the core or in the pools: they keep emitting heat and radioactivity until the radioactive
material decays into non-radioactive elements. That process can take years, which is why spent fuel rods are still dangerous years after they leave the reactor core. How can we prevent the spent fuel rods from
bursting into flame once they’re out of the reactor core? The Fukushima plant – like many other reactors – keeps the rods in water, which absorbs the heat energy. But the pools – like the water in a teakettle – will
boil away unless new water is added. After the Fukushima plant lost power in Friday’s 9.0 earthquake and got hit by the tsunami, the plant was no longer able to keep the pools topped up. How long does it take the
water in spent fuel rod pools to boil down to dangerously low levels? Yesterday FDL reader MtnWoman – who worked at TMI for twelve years – told us about the 2000 Nuclear Regulatory Commission study that
looked at this very question. For boiling water reactors (BWR) such as the Fukushima reactors, the time required for spent fuel rod pool water levels to drop to dangerously low levels is about 140 hours. The NRC
study only looked at rods that had been out of reactors for six months or more: I don’t have data about how long the rods at the seven Fukushima pools have been out of reactors. Fortunately for the NRC, they
weren’t studying fuel rod pools on the upper floors of reactor buildings housing reactor core vessels that had lost adequate cooling and were in partial meltdown. This may explain why the spent fuel rod pool at
the spent fuel rod pool at reactor 4
catch fire again today? Yesterday the Institute for Energy and Enviromental Research‘s Arjun Makhijani wrote a very detailed report that answers this question. In his report he quoted
extensively from the 2006 study perfomed by the National Research Council of the National Academies. Their report tells us: Translation for laypeople: Without enough water to cover the, the fuel
rods will keep on igniting , just like trick birthday candles keep re-igniting after we blow them out. Just like trick birthday candles, the only way to put out the fuel rods is to put
them under water. That’s why even after Monday’s reactor 4 spent fuel rod fire was quenched, the spent fuel rod pool caught fire again this afternoon. Unlike trick birthday candles, the spent fuel
rods burn hot (3300 degrees F) enough so that the radioactive material in the rods is aerosolized:
reactor 4 ignited on Monday, roughly 100 hours after the quake and power loss, but before the 140 hours the NRC calculated. Why did
carried into the atmosphere in clouds of hot smoke. And unlike our trick birthday candles, the spent fuel rods in reactor building 4 are four stories off the ground – just like the other five reactor spent fuel pools at
Fukushima. And unlike our trick birthday candles, right now the radioactivity around the spent fuel rods is so high that no one can approach them to put out the fire.
Spent fuel pools already melted down in Japan --- empirically denies their impact -- it’s all hype
Phillips 12 --- Scientist, New Zealand (Jeff, “Geo-terrorism”, http://geo-terrorism.blogspot.com/2012/05/globalradio-logical-update-plagiarism.html)//trepka
HYPE , HYSTERIA and HIDDEN AGENDAS In the past two or three weeks there’s been elevated
levels of ‘news’ about Fukushima’s impending ‘threat to humanity’ , due to the
precariousness of the reactor and spent fuel pool of Building 4 . In the wake of Senator Wyden’s visit there,
Fukushima has suddenly become an ‘international problem’ and U.S. ‘national security’ issue. [CONTINUES] Mike 'perma-grin' Adams, Arnie 'three
mile' Gunderson, Michio 'doctor kook' Kaku and others seem to be keeping us informed BUT the reality is that what
they are talking
about ALREADY HAPPENED IN THE FIRST WEEK OF THE FUKUSHIMA DISASTER. With
TWO SPENT FUEL POOLS VAPOURIZED back then , THIS was the ‘nail in the coffin of humanity’ if there has
ever been one.
at: emp
There’s no motive or tech capabilities
Farley 9 --- assistant professor at the University of Kentucky’s Patterson School of Diplomacy
and International Commerce and a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (Robert, “The EMP Threat: Lots of
Hype, Little Traction”, http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/the_emp_threat_lots_of_hype_little_traction)//trepka
EMP awareness advocates have thus far failed to offer a convincing motive for why a rogue
state would use its scarce nuclear weapons in a first-strike that might not work , and that
would in any case leave the attacker open to a devastating counterattack. EMP as a secondstrike deterrent fares no better; the strategic logic of deterrence demands that any retaliatory
strike be as lethal and as secure as possible, and it is highly unlikely that any state would rely on unproven weaponry
of uncertain lethality to dissuade an attack. While terrorists may have different incentives, the road to a functional EMP
capability is much rockier for a terrorist group than a state. At a minimum, the terrorist group
would need to acquire and master the operation of a nuclear weapon and a ballistic missile, two
steps further than any known group has gone.
EMP is technologically impossible --- prefer expert consensus
Schwellenbach 11 (Nick, “Renowned Physicists Cast Doubt on Gingrich's Far-Fetched EMP”,
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/12/renowned-physicists-cast-doubt-on-gingrichs-far-fetched-emp-scenario.html)//trepka
EMP is real, but several
key details about the threat of an EMP attack—including the difficulty in
pulling it off and the amount of damage it would cause—remain in serious dispute . But you wouldn’t know
that by listening to Gingrich, who claims that a band of terrorists with a relatively small nuclear
warhead could optimize that warhead to produce EMP (something the U.S. has not
mastered ), attach that warhead to a Scud missile, launch the Scud from a freighter off the coast
of the U.S. to a point halfway across the continent, detonate it several miles up in the
atmosphere, and end modern civilization as we know it on North America. Needless to say, many
experts view this scenario as far-fetched.
Their ev is purely theoretical
Farley 9 --- assistant professor at the University of Kentucky’s Patterson School of Diplomacy
and International Commerce and a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (Robert, “The EMP Threat: Lots of
Hype, Little Traction”, http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/the_emp_threat_lots_of_hype_little_traction)//trepka
The fact that EMP is poorly researched and not well understood works in its favor as a scare tactic. Since evidence of EMP’s
allegedly lasting impact is purely theoretical , EMP awareness advocates can make outlandish
claims regarding the threat that even the smallest nuclear arsenal poses. They can also point to allegations
made by the official EMP Commission, ignoring the fact that many outside experts dispute its findings. The Niagara
conference’s emphasis on strategic and policy considerations shows that alarmist predictions about EMP attacks
serve as fodder for promotion of a larger nuclear weapons stockpile, for missile defense, and for preventive
attacks.
Even conservatives agree it will never happen
Farley 9 --- assistant professor at the University of Kentucky’s Patterson School of Diplomacy
and International Commerce and a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (Robert, “The EMP Threat: Lots of
Hype, Little Traction”, http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/the_emp_threat_lots_of_hype_little_traction)//trepka
Despite the effort that conservatives have devoted to this cause, it appears to have gained little
traction in the mainstream media. The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, and other major television
news organizations declined to cover the EMPACT conference. Indeed, even the neoconservative Weekly Standard,
which seems perpetually on the lookout for ways to plug purported existential threats to the
homeland, stayed away from Niagara. One Standard editor said in an interview with the author, “I don't
go for that EMP stuff. Kind of more interested in dangerous scenarios that might
actually happen .” [12]
EMP threat is unlikely and won’t damage the grid --- their ev is flawed
Disney 2011 --- Assistant Policy Director for the National Iranian American Council (Patrick, “The
Campaign to Terrify You About EMP”, The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/the-campaign-toterrify-you-about-emp/241971/)//trepka
As with many things in Washington, a
cottage industry of lobbyists, specialists, and ex-government
officials has come together to attest to the danger of an EMP attack. Ballistic missile defense
seems to be the panacea for this group's concern, though a generous dose of preemption and war
on terror are often prescribed as well. Congress even created a special EMP commission in 2001 to study the issue and
make recommendations to government and industry. It seems the only ones who take the time to talk about EMP publicly, however,
are those who believe it to be the paramount threat facing America. According to their warnings over the last decade, our
vulnerability worsens every day, and that vulnerability invites an attack. For example, EMPact America, the group that hosted the
conference at Niagara Falls, has been on a lobbying blitz in recent weeks to pass the SHIELD Act. The bill, which is backed by the
Congressional "EMP Caucus" (yes, such a thing exists) is intended to protect the electrical grid of the continental United States from
the effects of an EMP attack. EMPact America even produces a weekly, hour-long radio show devoted entirely to the issue, with
recent guests including former CIA Director James Woolsey and Congressman Trent Franks. What sort of response have these
warnings gotten so far? In Washington's nuclear arms control circles, where I've spent the past few months working as part of my
research on the Iranian nuclear program, they're not really taken seriously. But how can one side of a debate claim something
threatens the very fiber of U.S. civilization, without getting so much as a nod in return? Serious public figures have taken up the
cause: Congressmen, generals, scientists and strategists, all without much policy movement to show for their efforts. It may be that
a terrorist, after going through the trouble of acquiring a nuclear warhead and a missile capable
of delivering it to America's shores, would be a fool to employ the ultimate weapon in such a
cockamamie fashion. The effects of an EMP are far from universal; according to one
commissioned study, a best-case scenario would impact 70 percent of electronics, while a worst-case estimate could
be as low as 5 percent . Far better from the terrorist's perspective to deliver the bomb as it was intended, rather than hang his
hopes on a series of unpredictable events and second- or third-order consequences. After all, a nuclear bomb need not be
made any more devastating to serve a terrorist's purposes. A slightly more plausible scenario could
involve a state actor who, facing a vastly superior U.S. military massed on its border, might consider launching an EMP attack
against U.S. troops as a way of evening the playing field. Because the U.S. military is much more highly dependent on technology
than others, a rogue state facing the threat of invasion could conceivably attempt such a tactic against invading forces in the hopes
that it could damage their capabilities without incurring the totally devastating retaliation that a "regular" nuclear strike would
surely provoke. Of course, a wide-ranging EMP would knock out his own electronics as much as it would anyone else's, so even this
scenario is a bit far-fetched. But not as far-fetched as it may seem. One country's military has already come close to employing this
tactic on the battlefield: our own. In 1991, Newsweek reported that General Norman Schwarzkopf sought authorization to use a
nuclear EMP to cripple Saddam Hussein's forces at the start of the Gulf War. President George H.W. Bush nixed the plan, probably
because the U.S. isn't in the habit of launching nuclear strikes of even the non-lethal kind, but the idea was tempting enough that
this warfighter took it to his bosses for approval. The bulk of the political debate today over EMP focuses on
how disastrous it would be if the entire country's power went off all at once, which arms
control experts argue is, to put it mildly, unlikely . Even "ideas man" Gingrich boils things down to a biblical
catastrophe waiting to happen, but the reality is much more complicated. Nuclear weapons, after all, are more than enough of a
threat in their own right. Putting too much emphasis on something as unlikely as an EMP attack against the American heartland
risks distracting much-needed attention and resources away from threats that are simply more plausible. As the Republican
presidential primary heats up, Gingrich or another conservative voice may try to use the EMP "threat" as a campaign issue. So far, it
has not been much of a political winner. Of course, when it comes to the politics of national security, it's often
the loudest voice, not the most informed , that prevails.
solvency
squo solves
US-Russia collaboration solves the aff
Interfax 12/11/13 --- Interfax News Service (“Rosatom to round off spent nuclear fuel retrieval program in 2016”,
http://rbth.com/news/2013/12/11/rosatom_to_round_off_spent_nuclear_fuel_retrieval_program_in_2016_32495.html)//trepka
Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom
plans to complete a program being carried out with the
United States to retrieve spent nuclear fuel in 2016. Rosatom said in a statement that it and the
U.S. Department of Energy had entered the concluding phase of extending the agreement on
retrieving fuel produced by Russia and used by research reactors to Russia. Russia and the U.S. have
collaborated in retrieving Russian-made highly enriched fuel from other countries . The U.S., too,
has retrieved spent fuel from countries where research reactors used American highly enriched
uranium (HEU). The Russian-American program is being carried out in order to bolster nuclear
non-proliferation and involves retrieving spent fuel from 14 countries - Belarus, Bulgaria,
Hungary, Vietnam, Germany, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Libya, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Uzbekistan,
Ukraine and the Czech Republic. The program was launched in 2004 and should have been rounded off by 2010, but
fuel was retrieved after that from some countries where research reactors continue to run partly on HEU.
No prolif --- assumes spent fuel
Asisian 11/23/13 --- researcher and analyst for the Department of Defense (Njdeh, “Russia & Iran:
Strategic Alliance or Marriage of Convenience”, http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/russia-iran-strategic-alliance-or-marriage-ofconvenience)//trepka
Many people are familiar with the unfortunate history of this power plant. In recent years, it has become the subject of dispute
between Iran, Russia, and the United States. Based on the previous agreements between Iran and Russia, the Bushehr Nuclear Plant
should have been operational in 2005. However, things did not go as planned. Combined with the fact that Iran, at least for now,
does not have any plans to produce nuclear weapons, the famous National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)[xlii]
evaluation of Iranian nuclear activities marked the beginning of a new era in Russo-Iranian relations. Consequently, according to the
U.S. Congressional Research Service, “Atomstroyexport sent the first shipment of LEU fuel to Iran on December 16, 2007, and the
reactor received the last shipment near the end of January [2008]. The fuel, which is under IAEA
seal, will contain no more than 3.62% Uranium-235, according to an Atomstroyexport spokesperson.”[xliii]
Further, “the 2005 deal requires Iran to return the spent nuclear fuel to Russia. This measure was
designed to ensure that Iran will not separate plutonium from the spent fuel . Moscow also argues
that the reactor will not pose a proliferation risk because it will operate under IAEA
safeguards .”[xliv]
Uzbekistan proves
Belfer 14 --- Belfer Center @ Harvard (“U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism”,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IPNT%20Newsletter%20ENG.pdf)//trepka
Russia to Retrieve Spent Fuel from Uzbekistan The Russian government has approved a
draft agreement with the government of Uzbekistan on the one-time import of irradiated nuclear
fuel from an IIN-3M research reactor into Russia for temporary storage and processing and disposal of the
resulting radioactive waste in Russia. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a government order on
January 29th to approve the import, Interfax reported.
Nuclear cooperation and leadership high now
Lane 14 --- American Academy for the Advancement of Science (Earl, “2013 AAAS Award for Science
Diplomacy Goes to Siegfried Hecker”, http://www.aaas.org/news/2013-aaas-award-science-diplomacy-goes-siegfriedhecker)//trepka
Hecker was honored by AAAS for his "lifetime commitment to using the tools of science to address the
challenges of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism and his dedication to building bridges through science during
the period following the end of the Cold War." "For over two decades, Dr. Hecker has worked on international nuclear
security activities and fostered cooperation with the Russian nuclear laboratories to secure
and safeguard the vast stockpile of ex-Soviet fissile materials ," said AAAS Chief International Officer Vaughan Turekian. In
nominating Hecker for the award, Glenn E. Schweitzer, director of the Office for Central Europe and Eurasia at the National Academies, noted that he "has been particularly
effective in working with government officials and scientific colleagues in Russia,
Kazakhstan, and North Korea, and his activities in those countries form the basis for this nomination." He added that Hecker's "global
reach has extended far beyond those three countries," with the United States and many other nations benefitting from the international
partnerships developed by Hecker. Hecker served as director of Los Alamos from 1986 to 1997 and as a senior fellow at the lab until July 2005. He currently is a research professor in the department of
management science and engineering at Stanford University and a senior fellow at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He was co-director of the university's Center for International
Security and Cooperation from 2007 through 2012. In the early 1990s, Hecker initiated the "lab-to-lab" program to foster cooperation among nuclear weapons laboratories in the United States and the former
Soviet Union. The effort was very effective in improving the control, accounting and security of nuclear materials, Turekian said, and also provided opportunities for underemployed Russian weapons scientists
who might otherwise be tempted to transfer their expertise to other nations. In 2004, Stanford professor John Lewis asked Hecker to accompany him on a trip to North Korea. Hecker was allowed to take an
extensive tour of the Yongbyon nuclear complex and, in a conference room at Yongbyon, was permitted to hold a sample in a glass jar of what the North Koreans said was plutonium. Upon his return to the United
States, Hecker and his technical colleagues at Los Alamos were able to simulate the conditions in the North Korean conference room and conclude that the attributes of the sample in the jar were consistent with
plutonium. He reported to the U.S. government that North Korea's claim to have produced nuclear devices from reprocessed plutonium was credible. After that first trip, Hecker returned to North Korea annually
through 2010. Schweitzer wrote that Hecker's activities can be judged on two outcomes: responsible handling of nuclear materials and prevention of dangerous materials from falling into the wrong hands. "On
both counts, he scores very high on anyone's ledger," Schweitzer wrote. "In addition, his openness and respect for the views of others have won important friends for the United States around the world." Hecker, a
metallurgist, received his bachelor's and master's degrees from Case Institute of Technology and doctoral degree from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. He joined Los Alamos as a graduate
research assistant and postdoctoral fellow before returning as a technical staff member following a stint at General Motors Research. He led the laboratory's Materials Science and Technology Division and Center
for Materials Science before becoming laboratory director. His is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, AAAS, and ASM International. He is a foreign member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a
foreign member of the India Institute of Metals and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts Sciences and of the American Physical Society. In 2009 he received the Presidential Enrico Fermi Award. The AAAS
Award for Science Diplomacy (formerly the AAAS International Scientific Cooperation Award) dates to 1992. It recognizes an individual or a small group working in the scientific and engineering or foreign affairs
furthering science diplomacy
communities making an outstanding contribution to
. Renamed in 2010 by the AAAS Board of Directors, the Award consists of a plaque and
an honorarium of $5,000. The AAAS Award for Science Diplomacy will be bestowed upon Hecker during the 180th AAAS Annual Meeting in Chicago, Ill., 13-17 February 2014. A ceremony and reception will be
held in the Rouge Room of the Fairmont Chicago Hotel on Friday, 14 February at 6:15 p.m.
New facilities coming now and accept spent fuel
Platts, 13 [January, Shut reactors' spent fuel would be first at storage facility: US DOE,
http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/6018506]
With the "appropriate authorizations" from the US Congress, the Obama administration plans to have an interim
storage facility by 2021 that would have an initial focus on accepting spent fuel from shut
power reactors, the US Department of Energy said Friday in a report. The plan is included in the department's response to
recommendations the federal Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future issued nearly a year ago. The DOEappointed commission had the task of evaluating alternatives to the department's proposed repository at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which DOE abandoned in 2010, and of recommending a new national strategy on spent fuel. DOE
said in the report that the department also would move toward siting and licensing a larger
interim storage facility that would be operational by 2025 "that will have sufficient
capacity to provide flexibility in the waste-management system and allows for acceptance of
enough used fuel to reduce expected government liabilities."
Status quo solves repositories
Miller 14 --- Candidate for J.D., Washington and Lee University School of Law (Randall, “Wasting
Our Options? Revisiting the Nuclear Waste Storage Problem”,
http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Journal%20of%20Energy,%20Climate,%20and%20the%20Environment/Miller.pdf)//trepka
On January 11, 2013, the DOE announced that it plans to have “a pilot facility for the interim
storage of used fuel from shutdown reactor sites operational by 2021 ,” “a larger interim storage
facility by 2025 ,” and “a final geologic repository by 2048.”202 This announcement reflects the
Administration’s view about nuclear waste storage as detailed in the DOE’s report, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of
Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste. 203 The report revealed the DOE’s strategy for
“transporting, storing, and disposing of [spent] nuclear fuel.” 204 The DOE published this report in
response to the recommendations provided by the BRC,205 which the Secretary of Energy received on January 26, 2012.206 The
three main themes of the report include system design, consent-based facilities siting, and governance and funding.207 The subsections that follow summarize these themes.
timeframe
Can’t solve --- transport to do the subseabed disposal takes 30 years --- makes their
impacts inevitable
Negin 12 --- Director of News & Commentary, Union of Concerned Scientists (Elliot, “Wasting Time
with Nuclear Waste”, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/wasting-time-withnuclear_b_1619001.html)//trepka
Everybody out of the pool. Even under the best-case scenario, a national interim storage facility -- let alone a permanent repository - is decades away. And even
if a disposal repository opened today, it still would take more than 30
years to ship the spent fuel from nuclear plant sites, according to a 2008 Department of Energy (DOE)
estimate. That means that large quantities of spent fuel will continue to build up at reactor sites for many years to come. Today,
approximately 74,000 tons of spent fuel is stored in 77 locations in 35 states. Of that, more than 54,000 tons -- 73 percent -- is
sitting in wet pools, according to a May Congressional Research Service report.
offcase
spending link
Transfer alone costs billions
Negin 12 --- Director of News & Commentary, Union of Concerned Scientists (Elliot, “Wasting Time
with Nuclear Waste”, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/wasting-time-withnuclear_b_1619001.html)//trepka
Suing the DOE for damages. Plant owners aren't in a hurry to transfer spent fuel to casks for two reasons.
First: the cost. According to a 2003 study by expected-to-be NRC chair Allison Macfarlane, UCS Senior
Scientist Edwin Lyman and other nuclear experts, it would cost $3.5 billion to $7 billion to transfer
all the spent fuel that has been in pools for more than five years to dry casks.
politics link
Plan guarantees a fight --- ideologically divisive and no proponents
Friedemann 11/8/13 (Alice, “Book review of “Too Hot to Touch: The Problem of High-Level Nuclear Waste””,
http://energyskeptic.com/2013/book-review-nuclear-waste-too-hot-to-touch/)//trepka
there is
nowhere to put nuclear waste. Not much, if anything, is being done to find a new place, and there’s no
chance an ideologically divided Congress would agree on a new site anyhow.
After Yucca Mountain was thrown out as a nuclear waste site in 2009 after 25 years and $10 billion in studies — to help Senator Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) get re-elected in 2010 —
Meanwhile, 70, 000 ton s of spent nuclear reactor fuel and 20,000 g iant canisters of defense- related high- level radioactive w aste is sitting at 121 site s across 39
states, with anothe r 70,000 t ons on the way before nuclea r powe r plant s reach their end of life. All of this wa ste is n ow, an d for m illion s of yea rs, exposing future gene rations and is vu lnera ble t o terrorist s, tsuna mis, floods, rising se a leve ls, hu rricane s, e lectric g rid outage s, e arthquakes, t ornad oes, and other disa sters. Spent fuel pools in Ame ric a at 104 nuclear powe r plant s, have an a verage of 10 t ime s m ore radioactive fuel st ored than what wa s at Fuku shima , and alm ost no safety features such as a backup water -circulat ion syste ms and generators. About 75% of spent fuel in Ame rica is being stored in pools, many of them so full they have fou r time s the am ount they were designed to hold. The N ationa l Acade my of Sciences published a report that stated terrorists cou ld drain the wate r from spent fuel st orag e, causing the fuel rod s t o se lf -ignite and relea se large quantitie s of radioactivity , or they could stea l nuclear waste t o ma ke a (dirty) bom b. Not m akin g a choice a bout where to store nuclear wa ste is a choice. We w ill e xpose future gene rations t o million s
of years of tox ic radioactive waste s if we don’t cle an them up now. This book ha s a complete history of nuclear w aste and what t o do with it, the many issues, h ow we a rrived at doin g nothing , and has outstanding e xplanations of difficult topics across many fie lds ( i.e. nuclea r sc ien ce, geology, hyd rology, etc) , as we ll a s explainin g the even more difficult politica l and human issue s preventing u s from disposing of nuclear wa stes in a perm anent geolog ical repository. The g oal of anti-nuclea r opponent s has been to prevent a nuclear w aste site from happening so that no new nuclear p ower plants w ould be built. Many state s, such as C alif ornia, have laws again st buildin g new nuclear plants until a wa ste depository exists. The thing is, activists neve r needed to fear new reactors because the upfront costs a re so high and the payback so de la yed along w ith such high, unin sura ble lia bilit ies, that invest ors and utilitie s haven’t wan ted to build nuclea r power p lants for decades. Also, Uranium re se rves are so low there’ s on ly enough left to p ower e xisting nuclea r plants f or
a few more decade s (Tverbe rg), and perhap s le ss than that once the energy crisis hit s and the energy t o mine and crush m illion s of ton s of ore is u sed for other purposes. The only way new plant s wou ld ever get built is f or the government to bui ld them. N ot going to h appen. Ame rica has trillion s in debt , hundreds of trillion s of unfunded lia bilitie s in the future (i.e . Medicare and other progra ms) , the overall ec onom ic sy stem is $600 t rillion in de bt, and the entire econ om ic sy stem is rotten and corrupt to the core w ith no reform in sight (see my am azon Frau d & Greed: Wall St reet, Banks, & In surance book list for details). The final na il in the coffin is Fu kushima — even if the govern ment decided to nuclear powe r plant s, public opposit ion w ould be t oo h igh. N ot to ment ion the m ost dy sfunct ional Cong ress in h ist ory. W ithin the next few years (Hirsch), we w ill be on the expone ntia lly declining oil curve of Hubbert’ s Peak, and it will be too late t o m ove the waste because our prioritie s w ill be rationing oil t o ag riculture t o grow, ha rvest and distribute food,
repair e ssential infra structure, home heating and cooling, and eme rgency serv ices. Once the energy crisis hit s, even if new nuclear plant s are begun, wh ich is n ot a g iven, since the crisis is oil — e lectric ity doesn’t solve anything — building w ould proba bly st op because within the n ext ten years there are ve ry g ood odd s of anothe r nuclear disa ster: our p lants a re old and falling apart. It’s re ally bad, much worse than m ost peop le rea lize. I h ighly recom mend the 128 pa ge report by H irsch called “Nuclear Reactor Hazard s Ongoing D angers of Operating Nucle ar Technology in the 21st Century”, or my su mma ry of this paper at energyskeptic “Summa ry of G reenpeace Nuclear React or Hazard s”. I have noth ing aga inst nuclea r powe r. I don’t even see nuclear waste a s the m ost seriou s kind of waste that needs t o be dealt with. But it is outrag eous that we a re doing n othing t o protect future generat ion s, who will be bac k to livin g in the age of wood and helpless to d o anything them selve s a bout the nuclear waste we’ve generated. They’ re going to h ave enough problem s
to cope with. Another reason why it is unlike ly many nucle ar powe r plant s will be bu ilt in the future is that they would bare ly ma ke a dent in the energ y c risis. Alley point s out that to both addre ss c lim ate change AND meet the world’ s projected energy needs over the next 50 year s, we would need to build ALL OF TH ESE (Pacala): Fuel economy incre ased for 2 billion cars from 30 to 60 m ile s per ga llon Ca rbon emissions cut by 25% in bu ilding s and appliances Replace 1,400 Gigawatt coa l plants with natura l ga s plants. These NG plant s would require 4 time s as much natural ga s a s is being produced now. Capture and store 80% of CO 2 from today’ s coa l production U se 17% of all of the world’s croplands t o produce biofuels ( instead of food) Build 2,000,000 windm ills on 3% of land in America Build 900 nuclear powe r plants t o repla ce coal powe r plants (the re are a bout 450 nuclear power plant s globally now) P lutonium waste P lu tonium waste need s to be kept awa y from future terrorists and dictators for the next 30,000 years. But world -wide there’ s 490
metric ton s of separated pluton ium at m ilit ary and civ ilian sites, enough to make more than 60,000 nuclear weapon s. Pluton ium and high ly enriched uranium a re located at over 100 civilian re actor plant s. In addition , there’s 1,400 ton s of highly enriched u ranium w orld-wide. A crude nuclear bom b can be made from as little as 40 to 60 kilog ram s of U- 235, or roughly 28, 000 nuclear bombs. 30,0 00 Russian nuclea r warhead s with 100 ton s of pure weap ons- grade pluton ium have been dismantled in Texa s & Sibe ria since 1991, w ith some of this wa ste dispersed to Hanford, Savannah Rive r, L os Ala mos, and othe r DO E weapon s complexes. There’ s also a huge amount of plutonium in spent fuel from civilian nuclea r re actors piling up in the UK, France, Russia, Japan, and othe r nuclear countries. Although it w ouldn’t make as good a bomb a s the m ilita ry pluton ium, it can still m ake a bomb, and certain ly a dirty bom b. A Nat iona l Academy of Sciences (N AS) study g roup considered 30 different way s of gettin g rid of excess plutonium , and in the end sa id that
only 2 of these we re worth considerat ion ( both of which would end up in a ge ologic rep ository). The first is t o mix plutonium and uranium t ogether ( MOX), burn them in a com mercial reactor, and generate e lectricity . The re sulting waste w ould be too h ot to touch, so dange rou s n o one could get ne ar it , not even after 50. The conta iners wou ld be too la rge t o ma ke off with a s well. The second option would be to v itrify plutonium w ith highly radioactive w aste at the Hanford or Savannah R iver site s, and turn it into g iant glass logs. Some of the issues w ith this were unknown c ritica lity, if it could still be recove red some how to use in weapon s. The Russians we re very much again st this becau se they’d go to waste, inste ad of generat ing electricity a s in the first option. A pluton ium + uranium ( MOX) facility ha s been under c onstruction sin ce 2007 that’s cost $5 billion so fa r with no cu stome rs w illing t o bu rn the MOX fuel ( Becker) . Bac k in 1973 a breede r react or progra m that would u se plutonium as t he fuel used ha lf of the total U .S. energy Re sea rch and
development budget. G lenn T. Sea borg wa s it’ s m ost pa ssionate prom oter because he felt “that he had discove red a new ele ment that would be the salvation of man kind. ” He expected the USA t o get 70% of its elect ricity by the yea r 200 0 from p lutonium , and the AEC thought there’d be more than 500 breede r reactors by then, and perhap s 2,000 by 20 20. Yet at the sa me time , the New Yorke r ma gazine in 1973 pu blished an art icle a bout how anyone cou ld figure out how to m ake an atom bomb f rom uncla ssified source s if they could get plut onium to build it. Breeder reactors w ould create so much plutonium that even the Atomic Ene rgy Com mission thought en ough would be st olen t o create a blac k ma rket for it. At that time the We st Va lley re-proce ssing plant c ouldn’t account for 2-4% of their pluton ium, enough t o ma ke seve ral bom bs. P resident Jimmy C arter, a nuclear en gineer, and 21 influential scientist s, ec onom ists, and polit ician s were so w orried a bout proliferation of potentia l bom b m aterial that Ca rter stopped comme rcia l reprocessing . Pre sident
Reagan tried to reverse this by encourag ing private indu stry to ta ke over, but no companie s were w illing t o take the risk. Reag an’s Secretary of Ene rgy, a f orme r dentist , st irred up controversy when he proposed that the plutoniu m from the nuclear wa ste of utilitie s be extracted to make bombs. NR C C omm issione r Pete r Bradford wryly noted that customers w ould not like t o think that eve ry time they turned on their lights they w ere a ls o helping t o ma ke atomic bom bs. France, Russia, Japan, India , and the UK (and soon Ch ina) rep roce ss their nuclear w aste one time on ly (t oo ha rd and expensive t o do a 2nd time) . They’ve a ll created m ore MOX fuel than they can bu rn, which ha s led to increa sing stockp ile s of pluton ium (fissilem ateria ls.org). Spent nuclear fuel Nucle ar wa ste is one million time s m ore radioactive than the orig inal u ra nium fuel rod s. If left out in the air, the metal surrounding the nuclear w aste w ould me lt or self - ignite, so spent fuel must be immediately put into w ater to both cool it down and bloc k the radiat ion. After a ye ar the heat drops
99%, and five years later by anothe r factor of five, yet even then, it’ s st ill very h ot. Why you should be afra id of nuclear w aste The shorter the half-life the more radiation . So thorium- 234, w ith a half-life of 24 days, is more radioactive than uranium- 238 , with a ha lf-life of 4.5 billion years A rough rule is that the a mount rem ainin g after 10 half -lives is sm all en ough not to worry a bout. The w orst high- level w aste s are ce sium -137 and st rontiu m-90, which la st for hundreds of yea rs, with half- live s of 30 years. They’ re 10 0 million times more radioactive than u ranium. 99% of the radioactivity at the Hanford Nuclea r R ese rvation is due to these 2 isot opes a lone Ce siu m is extre mely dange rou s becau se it em its gamm a and beta radiat ion. It’s both high ly react ive and solu ble in water, and easily a bsorbed by plants and anima ls, where it goe s up the food chain. If we breathe, eat, or drink any , it bec ome s part of our stom ach, intest ines, live r, spleen, and mu scle s, where it continues t o em it harmful radiat ion. Strontium is dange rou s becau se it a lso can get int o living
organ isms, and it’s so similar t o calcium that it replace s the calcium in our bone s and teeth for ye ars, potentia lly cau sing cancer as it emit s rad iation (a s doe s radium ) After ce sium- 137 and st rontium -90 disappea r, the worst wa ste s are the 1% comprised of the transuran ics neptunium, plutonium, americium, technetium -99 (half-life 211, 100 yea rs) and iodine- 129 with a half- life of 16 million yea rs. Both technetium and iodine a re very soluble and m obile in groundwater, which m ake s then a huge lon g-term worry — for m illion s of yea rs. Curies ( millions) R adioactive Waste 3 U. S. defense waste s re lea sed into env ironment (a s of 1996) 4 Ocean dumping 50 Buried low- level waste 100 Che rnobyl ( 1986) 110 Hanford relea se s to C olum bia River 1944 -1971 80 0 Tanks at Hanford, Sa vannah Rive r, and Idaho ( as of 2006) 1,700 Ru ssian defense wa stes relea sed into the env ironment (a s of 1996) 3, 000 U ranium mine and m ill tailing s 40,000 U .S. com mercia l spent fuel ( 2010 ) If you live anywhe re near th e Hanford, Sa vannah Rive r, or Idaho National la boratory
facilitie s, y ou may w ant to read Chapter 5, wh ich are like ly to make y ou want to move a way, so this cou ld be a ve ry expensive chapter to read. L ow Level Rad ioactive Wa ste (LLRW) There’ s also quite a lot of LLRW such as u ranium mill tailing s and medica l and hospital waste s, but by far the la rge st am ount are the comp onents of nuclea r powe r plants them selves, which become rad ioact ive ove r time . These waste s used to be dumped into big trenches a ll over the country, and no record s were kept. Fina lly a decent site, Wa rd Va lley in California, wh ich was fa r from p opulated area s, whe re no wate r could carry the wa stes a way, wa s found and studied exten sive ly, but activists and polit ician s prevented it from open ing. So just like the extremely dan gerou s m illion s-of-ye ars-long wa ste sitting at hundreds of nuclear plants a round the world, low le vel wa ste that is also t oxic is also wa iting f or a safer place t o be buried. After decade s of studie s and being stopped numerous times over six different presidential admin istration s, one place wa s finally con structed for
long- lived radioact ive wa ste: a Waste Isolat ion Pilot P lant near Carlsbad. It d oes n ot take spent nuclear fuel, only wa ste a bout 1,000 times less radioact ive. This wa ste w ill last more than 10, 000 yea rs, fa r longer than any c ivilization has lasted. Why not recycle or reproce ss the spe nt fuel? It seems like such a wa ste to n ot do this, since the spent fuel st ill ha s 95% of the orig inal u ranium as we ll a s some p lut onium that’ s be ing “thrown aw ay”. But it turns out that reproce ssing is technolog ically comple x, very expensive, prone to acc idents, qu ite messy, v ery m odest sav ings of uraniu m—a bout 15 to 20%, and still doe sn’t do much for the wa ste proble m. Expensive and/or doesn’t work. One of the few plants (ne ar Buffalo New York), that reproce ssed fuel wa s shut down, and it’s e xpected to take 40 years and over $ 5 billion ( 2006 dolla rs) t o clean it up. A second plant was shut down after $64 million wa s spent because it never w orked, and after $ 250 m illion, a third plant never opened. Cause s additional waste . Reproce ssing cause s the rele ase of ga seous
radionuclides that mu st be captured, plu s a lot of tran suran ic waste – it’s pretty much a wa sh. Can only be reprocessed once. After France cre ates MOX fuel, it’s so difficult to reproce ss aga in th at it’s shipped bac k to the reprocessing fac ility f or indefin ite st orage . Fa st (Breede r) rea ctors a ren’t a silve r bu llet. We d on’t have them despite 6 2 years of resea rch, but even we f igured out how t o ma ke them w ork, you’d need 16 cycle s ove r 96 years t o get a 100-fold ma ss reduction for just one batch of fuel. We don’t know how to d o that yet, and we’d st ill be stuck wit h the worst long- lived fusion products that la st million s of years and m obile in groundwater. P resident George Bu sh tried to get a progra m to get a fa st breeder prog ram started in 2006 (GN EP), but the National Academy of Science committee w as unan imou s in rejecting th is prog ram and funding wa s gutted. Why not use F ast ( Breeder) reactors t o ma ke rem ainin g supplie s last for m illenn ia and reduce nuclear wa ste? N ot on ly would a fa st re actor burn m ore plut onium than is bred, it also conve rts the
most t oxic rema ins to shorter- lived radionuclides. But despite 62 years of re sea rch and billion s of dollars since the first react or (Z inn’s EBR -I), n ot one fa st reactor has been succeeded on a comme rcia l sca le, becau se they’re expen sive , complicated, likely t o be shut down a long t ime after the slightest malfunction, and take a long t ime to repair. The first commerc ial fa st-breeder ( Enric o-Fermi in Michigan) shut down after a part ial meltdown and other problem s. C linch River was stopped in 1983 after c ost overrun s and worry about nuclear prolife ration. C hina, India , and Russia haven’t g iven up, but they’re build ing prot otypes and experimenta l reactors, which are n ot a commerc ial level yet. Japan, F rance, and Germ any have stopped their progra ms: Japan spent $6 billion on the Monju fast- breede r but it w as shut down after ju st one year in 1995 after a sodium le ak caused a large fire . Japan tried aga in in 2010 , but an other accident shut it down. Overall the reactor ha s only gene rated electricity for one hour so fa r. After Fukush ima, it’s unlike ly Japan w ill
ever try to build a breeder reactor. Germ any spent $4 billion on their Ka lka r fast reactor, but neve r put it online. France’ s small-sca le Phenix w as shut down in 2009. And their full- scale prototype wa s shut down in 1997, after befa llin g variou s disaste rs – the sod ium coolin g sy ste m had corrosion and leaks, heavy snowfall cau sed structura l damage , and other problem s. The h ist ory of the search for nuclear wa ste disposal O rigina lly, back in 1957, it w as thought that the wa ste would only need to be stored for 600 yea rs or le ss. N o one had any idea that hundreds of thousand s of yea rs of safety w ould be ideal. And it t ook decade s for this understanding to sin k in. M. K ing Hubbert, who is credited w ith be ing the first scient ist t o go on record about Peak Oil in the United States in the 50 s, wa s on the nuclear waste storage comm ittee at the Nation al Academie s of Science (N AS). Hubbert wanted the st ora ge to be in the best possible ge ologic location, but the Atom ic Energy C omm ission fought hard for the waste s to be put in rep ositories at existing atom ic weapon s
facilitie s. The NAS committee felt strongly that no nucle ar powe r plant s shou ld be built until a safe place to put nuclear wa ste s was f ound. McC one, the head of the AEC, wh o’d tried to get 10 Caltech sc ientist s labe led as Com munists and fired when they objected to the radioactive fallout from nuclear te sting , fought to have their safe waste storage recomm endation rem oved from the ir rep ort. They’d w ritten that “none of the major site s at which radioactive wa stes a re being stored is geolog ically su ited for safe disp osa l”. The AEC suppre ssed the rep ort and disbanded the N AS c omm ittee. C omplacency & Secrecy From the st art in 1959, expert s at the national laborat ories, universit ies, and industry t old the J oint C omm ittee on Atom ic Energy that a solution to the wa ste problem wa s possible, so con gre ss dropped this a s an issue to w orry about until 1975. Also, the atomic bom b an d nuclea r bu sine ss in genera l were shrouded in secrecy, even politicians we re kept out of the loop until the 1970 s, when Senator Mu skie and others be gan a skin g se rious questions.
Some of the earlie st waste d isposa l idea s Dehuman ize a be lt across the entire 38th parallel of the Korean penin sula to p revent Communist attacks from the North, which w ould also serve as a warn ing to other nations D rop radioactive wa ste products over ene my territory Missile s with radioactive wa ste g reat enough to kill large p opulat ions in big cities Shoot radioactive w aste into space, send them to the moon Sink it in the pola r ice caps whe re the heat would m ake it melt its wa y through to the bott om of the ice sheet Bury it bene ath a rem ote island. No: p ossible seism ic activity , tsun am is, rising se a leve ls, NI MBY , etc. Deep well injection, like the oil industry does t o use salty water to d rive oil towa rd a produ cing well R ock me lting: use an underground nuclea r bom b to cre ate a cavity deep underground, fill it w ith water to c ool the waste, then the water w ould boil off and the roc ks a bove wou ld melt and seal the wa stes in Salt Bed s – the Good It wa s a ssumed that salt beds w ould be safe because the can be hundreds, even thou sands of feet thick under huge
areas. Salt dissolve s ea sily in wate r, so a thic k deposit meant that there hadn’t been groundwate r for the m illions of years needed to form them and tend to be in are as free of earth quake s. Salt is e qual t o concrete in radiat ion shield ing, pla stic en ough to se al up after a fracture , and c onducts heat better than rock which help s solve the issues of overhe ating from the nuclear w aste. Sa lt Beds – the Bad When wate r gets in very c orrosive saline brine s that m igrate t oward s heat are f ormed, which would corrode the waste c ontainers. If radionuclides e scaped, sa lt is not g ood at holding onto them, it’s like teflon. Idea lly y ou’d want to have wa ste in a kind of roc k that w as god at sorpt ion (attachment onto the mine ral surfaces), because that can delay or even stop subsurface contam inant movemen t. De spite this, the Lyon s salt beds we re almost used, until it wa s found that 26 explorat ory oil and ga s wells had been drilled th ere and w ould be ha rd to plug up, plu s 17 5,000 gallon s of water had disappea red down them during hyd raulic fracturing at a nea rby mine and no
one knew where the missing wate r was. Drawbacks t o ocean d isposa l If we wanted to put all the nuclea r wa ste into the ocean, we’d need a volume e qual to about 5% to dilute the waste to safe leve ls – an a mount of water larger than a ll the fre sh water in la kes, rive rs, groundwater, glaciers, and the polar ice caps. Escaped rad ioactive material would be eaten by plankt on and concentrated up the food chain. Ocean currents w ill ca rry e scaped contam inants long distances. A ye ar after the Bikini at oll nuclear te st, contam inated water had spread to over 1 m illion squa re m ile s. O bviously surface wate rs would be a bad choice, that’ s where the fish are. But even in the depths of the Mariana Trench, 7 miles below the surface, it wa s clea r that eventually any nucle ar wa stes dumped there w ould eventually ma ke their w ay back up to the surface. Despite these d raw backs, the United states dumped low-leve l wa ste in 87, 000 stee l drum conta iners 50 miles offshore the Californ ia coa st and the Atlantic ocean (the ma jority of them) between 1946 and 1970. Meanwhile, 14
European countries were doing this a s well. It wa sn’t until the early 1960 s that the public began to object to ocean dumping, e specially a s tox ic waste s floated to sh ore and other episode s occurred. Even France g ot int o the act and dumped quite a bit into the Mediterranean Sea. Ja cques C ousteau wa s one of the leaders of the anti-dump ing m ovement, wh ich is pa rt of what led to h is international fa me (even before he w as we ll- known for his underwater f ilm s). The So viet Un ion wa s by far the bigg est dumper – including 16 nuclear reactors from su bma rine s and much other waste a s we ll, a bout twice as much as a ll othe r countrie s combin ed, becau se it w as cheaper and ea sie r. After the collapse in 1991 the powe r wa s cut to agin g nuclear submarines that we ren’t paying their bills, de spite the conse quences of what would happen if they didn’t keep th eir reactors c ooled! So one of the su bma rine s began hauling potatoe s to pa y the electric bills. Fina lly in 1993, after many other inc idents listed in the book, 37 nat ion s voted to stop ocean dumping, though
. When
the main proponent, Charles Hollister died in 1999, the possibility of subseabed disposal
died as well. It might have been the best possible way to go, but it was never tested.
Greenpeace has caught the Japanese secret ly dumping wa stes, but at least it’s n ot tole rated any longer, th ough hard to enforc e. Seabed floor First proposed in 197 3 in the cla ys of the deep-sea floor, so even if rad ioactive partic les e scaped, they’d cling tightly to the clay . They’re the least de sired real e state on the planet The have low permea bility t o water The plast icity to seal any cracks a round a wa ste containe r Escaped contamin ants a ren’t likely to move more than a few meters even after 100, 000 yea rs P ossible p roble ms How would the heat affect wate r a nd chemical movement within the clay Organism s living in the clays might t ransport wa ste to the se afloor Strong currant s m ight carry c lay- bound rad ionuclide s to the ocean surface The risks of tran sport ing the wa stes n ot only across land but over the ocean , where accident s are e ven more likely than on land If there we re an accident, the wa stes couldn’t be retrieved In 1986 this idea w as a band oned and never tested
It's extremely sensitive in Congress
Bala 4/11/14 --- Boston College Law School, Energy Law Commons (Amal, “Sub-Seabed Burial of
Nuclear Waste: If the Disposal Method Could Succeed Technically, Could It Also Succeed Legally?”,
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2147&context=ealr)//trepka
***SNF = spent nuclear fuel
B. Laws That Could Apply to Sub-Seabed Disposal of SNF On an international level, nations
across the world remain justified in their eagerness to prohibit the dumping of SNF into the
world’s seas because high-level radioactive waste can cause severe harm to the environment
and human health.197 Congress is understandably sensitive to the disposal of radio- active waste
into America’s waters for the same reason.198
nuclear bad
nuclear declining now
Nuclear power is projected to decline --- a litany of factors means it’s not inevitable
Brown 6/27/14 --- Climate News Network (Paul, “Boom-or-Doom Riddle for Nuclear Industry”,
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/boom-or-doom_riddle_for_nuclear_industry_20140727)//trepka
Detractors of the industry say that these projections
are a pipe dream and that nuclear power will not
expand at that pace, if at all, and that solar and wind power will grow much faster to fill the energy gap.
Which projection is correct matters enormously because the world is both short of electric energy and needs to replace fossil fuels
with low carbon sources of power to save the planet from dangerous climate change. Nuclear energy and renewables
such as wind and solar are
in competition to fill the gap. The figures show that nuclear production is
currently in decline from a peak in 2006, and is now producing less than 10% of the world’s electricity needs. World solar
capacity, on the other hand, increased by 35% in 2013, and wind power by 12.5%—although, added together, they still do not
produce as much power as nuclear. All the evidence is that wind and solar will continue to grow strongly, and particularly solar,
where technological advances and quantity of production means that prices have dropped dramatically. Costs of producing energy
are hard to compare because solar is small and local and dependent on sunshine, while nuclear is large and distant and must be kept
on all the time. However, research
suggests that solar is already producing cheaper power per kilowatt
costs and time seem to be
major factors in deciding which technology will gain market share. Nuclear stations are
expensive and a long time passes before electricity is produced, making them almost
impossible to finance in a normal commercial market. Solar panels, in contrast, can be up and running in
days, and wind turbines within weeks. Historically, nuclear power plants have always been built with
government subsidy —a pattern that is continuing across the world. For example, the two countries with the largest
hour than nuclear, the costs of which have not come down. Commercial market Both
number of reactors under construction—China, with 29, and Russia, with 10—have populations with no democratic say in the
matter. Critics of the WNA figures say that while the claims for reactors planned and proposed might be
real, the chances of most of them actually being built are remote. The US is said to have five
reactors under construction, five more planned and 17 proposed—but with existing nuclear
stations closing because they cannot compete with gas on price, it is unlikely that all of
these will be completed by 2030. The UK, which has a government keen to build nuclear stations, is said to
have four stations planned and seven more proposed. The first of these stations was due to be opened by 2017, but work has
not yet been started . The earliest completion date is now expected to be 2024, and the rest will follow that. The delay in
Britain is partly because the subsidies offered to French, Chinese and Japanese companies to build the UK reactors are under
investigation by the European Commission to see if they breach competition rules. Massive subsidies Martin Forward is from the
English Lake District, where one of the four nuclear stations is planned, and runs Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive
Environment. He said: “I cannot see how nuclear has any future in Europe because of cost. Nuclear needs massive subsidies to be
financially viable, but these are currently illegal under European law, so it is unlikely that the British ones will be built. “Even if the
government can get over that hurdle, there
are many problems to overcome—for example, the designs of the
stations have to be finalised. The process could take years, by which time wind, solar and other
renewables will have expanded so much it will make nuclear redundant .”
Nuclear power is declining now
Sheldrick 7/29 --- Reuters (Aaeron, “Global nuclear power contribution falls to lowest since 1980s”,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/29/nuclear-industry-decline-idUSL4N0Q42P220140729)//trepka
(Reuters) - Atomic power's share of global electricity supply is at the lowest level since the
1980s following the shutdown of Japan's reactors after the Fukushima disaster, and may fall
further without major new plant construction. The forecast is one of the main conclusions of
the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014, a draft copy of which was passed to Reuters before general release
later on Tuesday. The report paints a bleak picture of the industry more than three years after
three reactors melted down at Tokyo Electric Power Co's Fukushima Daiichi station north of the Japanese capital
after an earthquake and tsunami. Rising costs, construction delays , public opposition
and aging fleets of reactors will make it difficult for nuclear to reverse the decline in its share of
global energy supply, even after two reactors in Japan won provisional approval to restart earlier this month. Discounting
the bulk of Japan's 48 reactors due to their long-term outage, the report said the number of operating units in the
world has fallen to 388, 50 less than the peak in 2002. Nuclear's share of global power generation
has fallen to 10.8 percent, down from a high of 17.6 percent in 1996 and the the lowest since the 1980s, it said.
The report also pointed to delays in construction projects , even in China , where the
government is strongly pushing for nuclear power to replace heavy carbon emitting coal
stations. Of the 67 reactors under construction globally as at July 2014, at least 49 were experiencing delays and
eight had been under construction for 20 years, it said. The average age of reactors has also
increased, rising to more than 28 years, while more than 170 units, or 44 percent of the total, have been operating for
more than 30 years or more. "More than 200 reactors may face shutdown in the coming two decades," Tatsujiro Suzuki, a former
Vice Chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, said in the foreword of the report. "If new construction pace does not
match the pace of shutdown, it is clear that the nuclear share will decline rapidly," Suzuki said. Renewable energy is taking
up an increasing share of the energy mix, the report said. Installed solar capacity in China topped
operating nuclear capacity, while in Spain more power was generated from wind in 2013 than
any other source, beating nuclear for the first time. The report's lead authors are industry analysts Mycle
Schneider, who is based in Paris, and London-based Antony Froggatt. Both have advised European government bodies on energy
and nuclear policy issues. In Japan, where the pro-nuclear ruling Liberal Democratic Party faces strong public opposition to restarts,
the nuclear industry won some relief when the Cabinet reversed the previous government policy of a gradual abolition of atomic
power. But it also endorsed a push for more renewables and set no targets for nuclear energy.
Trends prove
Magill 7/30 -- senior science writer for Climate Central (Bobby, “Report Paints Bleak Future for Nuclear
Power”, http://www.climatecentral.org/news/bleak-future-for-nuclear-power-17833)//trepka
The globe’s nuclear power industry is aging, plagued with high costs and construction delays ,
and generally on the decline. That’s the conclusion of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report
released Tuesday, an annual assessment of the trends in nuclear power production and the
state of nuclear reactors worldwide . While nuclear power is seen by some of the most prominent climate scientists in
the U.S. as a necessary means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation to combat climate change, most
growth in low-carbon electricity generation is in wind and solar. The World Nuclear Industry Status
Report, written by independent consultants in London and Paris with support from the German Green Party and the anti-nuclear
Rocky Mountain Institute based in Colorado, shows that nuclear power’s share in global energy production declined to 10.8 percent
in 2013, down from 17.6 percent at its peak in 1996. “The
industry has been in decline for a long time . It’s
the production of nuclear
electricity, peak was reached in 2006. For the number of nuclear reactors, peak was reached in
2002. For the share of nuclear power in global electricity generation, (peak) was reached in the middle of the 1990s. We’re talking
nothing new,” report lead author Mycle Schneider told Climate Central on Wednesday. “For
about a 20-year decline of the role of nuclear power.” The U.S. Energy Information Administration doesn’t see nuclear power
generation either growing or declining much in the next 25 years. The EIA’s latest projections show nuclear power production
remaining relatively flat through 2040, growing by 0.2 percent each year. Nuclear reactors provide about 20 percent of total U.S
electricity generation. But the new report paints a grim picture of the nuclear industry globally. The industry, whose reactors average
28.5 years old, is trying to expand, but construction is fraught with delays, the report says. Of the 69 reactors being built worldwide,
at least 49 of them, mostly in China, have encountered construction delays, some longer than a year. Nuclear power plant operating
costs are also increasing, with nuclear power generating costs jumping 16 percent over the last three years in France. Five U.S.
nuclear reactors in Vermont, California, Wisconsin and Florida have been or are scheduled to be shut down in part because of high
operating costs, the report says, with 38 other U.S. nuclear reactors in danger of closure for economic reasons. Nuclear plant
operating costs have increased worldwide to shore up reactors considered at risk following the
Fukushima Daiichi disaster after the 2011 tsunami in Japan, according to the report. Meanwhile, solar and wind
power, meanwhile, continue to gain on fossil fuels and traditional power sources. China had more solar power capacity
installed — 18 gigawatts — than nuclear power capacity in 2013, while Spain generated more power from wind than any other
source, marking the first time in history that wind has become the largest source of electricity over the course of a year for any
country, the report says.
Nuclear decline now --- our ev is predictive and cites global trends --- but the plan’s
waste disposal reverses that
Cavanaugh 7/31/14 --- Mint Press political analyst and columnist specializing in international
relations and US policy (Jeffrey, “The Slow Death Of Nuclear Power”, http://www.mintpressnews.com/slow-death-nuclearpower/194770/)//trepka
What’s more, no one has come up with a viable scheme to take care of the immense amounts
of radioactive toxic waste produced by fission reactors, and there’s certainly no scheme that would do so for the millennia required to keep such
material out of harm’s way. Current plans bandied about in both Europe and the U.S. envision entombing the waste deep underground for over 10,000 years, but so far, few communities have proven willing to
This has led to the stalling of U.S. plans for long-term storage, while
development of similar plans in Europe are behind schedule, over budget, and proceeding piecemeal, at best. Regardless of what is
host the giant waste repositories anywhere near them.
eventually done with the waste, it is guaranteed to be something that taxpayers will ultimately be on the hook for in one way or another for decades — if not centuries — to come. Fission’s extinction is on the
Thus coddled, it should come as no surprise that nuclear power became limited in scale
and scope as the 20th century wore on. Indeed, nuclear energy’s share of civilian electricity production has
remained relatively stagnant for years, and outside of China — another centrally-planned system of government support that those running French and
American reactors might find familiar and comforting — signs of a so-called nuclear renaissance once touted by industry
supporters has shown little sign of actually appearing. Indeed, commercial fission-reactor power
plants in the U.S. — just like coal — are being driven to extinction by competition from gas, wind, and
now solar power. Furthermore, this is a worldwide trend , as a recent report issued by Germany’s Green-leaning Heinrich Böll Foundation points out.
horizon
Globally, nuclear power’s worldwide share of electricity production hit its max in the mid-1990s at around 17.6 percent of all electricity produced. Since then, there has been a steady descent, contributing 10.8
percent of all electricity produced in 2013. And this isn’t just shares of a total that are falling — it’s absolute production, too. Globally, output from nuclear reactors hit an all-time high of 2,660 terawatt-hours
(TWh) in 2006 before falling to 2,359 TWh in 2013. (1 TWh is enough to power 90,000 homes.) All this is driven by the simple fact that whereas up until the late 1980s, many more nuclear power plants were
more nuclear power plants are being closed than
opened in an average year, and starting in 2000, existing plants have generally operated below
capacity due to maintenance issues or cost competition from other sources of power . Notably, gas, wind, and
being brought online in a given year than were shuttered or mothballed, that trend has flipped. Now,
solar have been the major beneficiaries of this decline, since while nuclear plants have begun to consistently operate below capacity, these cheaper alternatives have simultaneously experienced tremendous
growth. One saving grace that the industry might tout as evidence of its non-obsolescence is that the number of active, new-build construction projects is higher now than it has been since 1987. While technically
true, this “build up” is deceptive and pales in significance when compared to the mountain of new builds that came in the 1970s. Compared to what came before, current construction is a molehill next to a
mountain. Further, many projects listed as “active” are little more than paper projects, with many having been technically active for years with little to show for it. Indeed, according to the German Greens’ report:
Eight reactors have been listed as “under construction” for more than 20 years and have continually seen delays and setbacks. Of these eight, just two are likely to be hooked up to the grid in the coming years; One
Indian reactor has been similarly under construction for 12 years with no hook-up date in sight; In Taiwan, two reactor units under construction for 15 years were halted this past April due to political opposition;
At least 50 of the units listed as “under construction” have encountered construction delays — delays lasting from several months to several years; In China, ground zero for the so-called nuclear renaissance, 21 of
the 28 units under construction are experiencing delays lasting between several months and more than two years; Of the 17 remaining projects, a few have come online but many have yet to reach a targeted startup date, and may or may not face delays or cancellations in the future. The future is renewable Any way you want to slice it, the report issued by the German Greens is an impressive, devastating indictment of the
grim state of the global nuclear power industry. If not yet dead, the industry is nonetheless so gravely ill that leaving it to its own devices would surely lead to its death. Without even more state support, in other
words, the production of electricity from nuclear power plants is increasingly going to become something that is a very small, very expensive part of the global energy complex. This is because reactors are being
retired faster than they are being completed, existing fleets are aging and becoming targets for shuttering, and the global nuclear power fleet has been operating well below capacity for many years now — all while
new-build projects face delays, cost run-ups, and regulatory and market uncertainty going forward. This is happening everywhere, not just in one or two countries. Given this, it should come as no surprise that
nuclear is fast being replaced by renewables. Again, according to the report issued by the German Greens, in 2013, 32 gigawatts (GW) of wind and 37 GW of solar were added to the world’s power grids — output
equivalent to several nuclear power plants. By the end of last year, China had a total of 91 GW of wind power and 18 GW of solar capacity installed, with solar exceeding operating nuclear generation capacity for
the first time. Indeed, China added four times more solar than nuclear capacity in just the past year and actually generated more electricity in 2013 from both solar and wind than nuclear power. But the reality is
actually far worse for nuclear than that, as China generated more electricity from both wind and solar separately than nuclear as a whole. Meanwhile, Spain generated more power from wind than from any other
source, outpacing nuclear and other competitors for the first time. It also marked the first time that wind has become the largest electricity-generating source over an entire year in any country. While impressive,
this means that Spain has thus joined the list of countries that possess nuclear power and produce more electricity from renewables — excluding large hydro-power — than from nuclear power. (This is no small
This trend also isn’t going away . Solar is entering
an exponential growth path — mimicking the route electronics has taken — while wind
continues to grow not just in the U.S., but in the rest of the world as well. Renewables are
currently the second largest source of electricity for the European Union and are on a path to
overtake fossil fuels — which are declining — in the coming decades. Solar and wind as individual projects
are cheaper, quicker to bring to market, more flexible once on the market, and have none of the
devastating liability issues that nuclear carries. Worse for nuclear, though, is that renewables actually work to
reduce wholesale electricity prices in ways devastating to nuclear — and, indeed, all centralized hub-and-spoke utility models
— which requires huge amounts of steadily-priced power to remain competitive. Nuclear, then, is entering a long
twilight period of decline, and it’s difficult to see how it will emerge as a viable industry. Like the dinosaurs of old that did not realize their days
group, as it includes not just the abovementioned China, but Brazil, Germany, and Japan, too.)
were numbered, the nuclear power industry is a slow-to-adapt sector requiring a very specialized operating environment in the form of hugely expensive subsidies and an exquisitely calibrated — some would say
rigged — market to exist. Since those two pillars of the industry are crumbling, the future of fission-based nuclear power plants may very well become something only talked about — as Lewis Strauss predicted
long ago — in the history books.
at: Europe
It’s illegal in Europe
Brown 6/27/14 --- Climate News Network (Paul, “Boom-or-Doom Riddle for Nuclear Industry”,
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/boom-or-doom_riddle_for_nuclear_industry_20140727)//trepka
Martin Forward is from the English Lake District, where one of the four nuclear stations is planned, and runs Cumbrians Opposed to
a Radioactive Environment. He said: “I
cannot see how nuclear has any future in Europe because of cost .
Nuclear needs massive subsidies to be financially viable, but these are currently illegal under
European law, so it is unlikely that the British ones will be built.
biodiversity disad
links
Subseabed disposal guarantees leaks and massive spread --- their ev doesn’t
assume unique organisms, chemical movement, or currents
Friedemann 11/8/13 (Alice, “Book review of “Too Hot to Touch: The Problem of High-Level Nuclear Waste””,
http://energyskeptic.com/2013/book-review-nuclear-waste-too-hot-to-touch/)//trepka
Drawbacks to ocean disposal If we wanted to put all the nuclear waste into the ocean, we’d need a volume equal to about
5% to dilute the waste to safe levels – an amount of water larger than all the fresh water in lakes, rivers, groundwater, glaciers, and
the polar ice caps. Escaped radioactive material would be eaten by plankton and concentrated up the
food chain. Ocean currents will carry escaped contaminants long distances. A year after the
Bikini atoll nuclear test, contaminated water had spread to over 1 million square miles.
Obviously surface waters would be a bad choice, that’s where the fish are. But even in the depths of the Mariana Trench, 7
miles below the surface, it was clear that eventually any nuclear wastes dumped there would eventually
make their way back up to the surface. Despite these drawbacks, the United states dumped low-level waste in 87,000
steel drum containers 50 miles offshore the California coast and the Atlantic ocean (the majority of them) between 1946 and 1970.
Meanwhile, 14 European countries were doing this as well. It wasn’t until the early 1960s that the public began
to object to ocean dumping, especially as toxic wastes floated to shore and other episodes occurred.
Even France got into the act and dumped quite a bit into the Mediterranean Sea. Jacques Cousteau was one of the leaders of the
anti-dumping movement, which is part of what led to his international fame (even before he was well-known for his underwater
films). The Soviet Union was by far the biggest dumper – including 16 nuclear reactors from submarines and much other waste as
well, about twice as much as all other countries combined, because it was cheaper and easier. After the collapse in 1991 the power
was cut to aging nuclear submarines that weren’t paying their bills, despite the consequences of what would happen if they didn’t
keep their reactors cooled! So one of the submarines began hauling potatoes to pay the electric bills. Finally in 1993, after many
other incidents listed in the book, 37 nations voted to stop ocean dumping, though Greenpeace has caught the Japanese secretly
dumping wastes, but at least it’s not tolerated any longer, though hard to enforce. Seabed floor First proposed in 1973 in the clays of
the deep-sea floor, so even if radioactive particles escaped, they’d cling tightly to the clay. They’re the least desired real estate on the
planet The have low permeability to water The plasticity to seal any cracks around a waste container Escaped contaminants aren’t
likely to move more than a few meters even after 100,000 years Possible problems How would the heat
affect water and
chemical movement within the clay Organisms living in the clays might transport waste to
the seafloor Strong currents might carry clay-bound radionuclides to the ocean surface The
risks of transporting the wastes not only across land but over the ocean, where accidents are even more
likely than on land If there were an accident, the wastes couldn’t be retrieved In 1986 this idea was
abandoned and never tested. When the main proponent, Charles Hollister died in 1999, the possibility of subseabed
disposal died as well.
Their earthquakes warrant applies just as much to subseabed disposal
Bala 4/11/14 --- Boston College Law School, Energy Law Commons (Amal, “Sub-Seabed Burial of
Nuclear Waste: If the Disposal Method Could Succeed Technically, Could It Also Succeed Legally?”,
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2147&context=ealr)//trepka
***SNF = spent nuclear fuel
Permanent burial is another method of sub-seabed disposal and could include at least three options: (1) Shallow penetration of the seabed, (2) deep burial
through drilling, and (3) subduction involving tectonic dissipation of SNF.105 These options are not rigidly separated categories.106 They are related approaches that share
similar features and could lead to similar outcomes.107 1. Shallow Penetration of the Seabed Disposal of SNF through shallow penetration of the seabed would involve placing
waste containers several meters beneath the sediment on the ocean floor.108 Handlers of the waste could allow SNF canisters to free fall into the ocean sediment or could devise
mechanisms to implant the canisters into place.109 Heavy penetrating devices, possibly in the form of SNF containers modified to possess additional weight, would sink quickly
and gain sufficient speed to become embedded in the ocean floor upon impact.110 Scientists have also considered launching SNF in canisters similar to torpedoes into the
seabed. 111 In any variant of this option, SNF would theoretically remain buried under sediment and would not come into contact with water.112 In 1986, researchers studying
shallow penetration of the seabed achieved encouraging results in the Mediterranean Sea and were able to close the pathways created by the penetrating devices with
sediment.113 An international group of scientists conducted experiments from 1974 to 1986 that suggested that any leakage from SNF containers placed ten meters below the
seabed could conceivably remain sealed in clays and muds for millions of years.114 The thick clays on the ocean floor can resemble a slosh of creamy peanut but- ter and might
be able to seal SNF canisters tightly only a few meters beneath the surface.115 2. Deep Burial Through Drilling Scientists have considered disposing of SNF by using familiar
drilling technologies to drill bore holes deep into the seabed, place canisters of SNF inside, and pack the holes with sediment.116 Preliminary research has suggested that the risk
of radioactive contamination of the marine environment would be low, considering the significant depths that drilling could achieve as well as the thick clays on the ocean
floor.117 For example, waste handlers could dispose of SNF in holes drilled to 800 meters underneath the ocean floor, with SNF stacked in the holes up to about 300 meters
beneath the seabed.118 Corrosion- resistant containers could help seal the SNF.119 Deep burial of SNF through drilling could be advantageous because the clays on the ocean
floor have “low permeability to water, a high adsorption capacity for [radioactive waste] and a natural plasticity that enables the ooze to seal up any cracks or rifts that might
develop around a waste container.”120 SNF disposal in bore holes could be appropriate for certain radioactive material that has a long period of radioactive decay.121
Experiments have suggested that if SNF canisters in bore holes were to rupture, the radioactive material “would not migrate more than a few meters from a breached canister
after even 100,000 years” because the thick clays on the ocean floor would prevent the waste from moving.122 Deep burial through drilling in the middle of large oceanic
tectonic plates might be preferable relative to similar burial in subduction zones, or the area where two tectonic plates meet, because subduction zones can be unpredictable
zones would use the same technology as
deep burial through drilling, but waste handlers would select a location where the SNF would eventually become pulled inside the Earth.124 In
from a geological standpoint.123 3. Subduction Zones Disposal of SNF through burial in subduction
the normal subduction process that occurs deep inside the Earth, one gigantic tectonic plate
slides underneath another plate and becomes reabsorbed inside the Earth’s hot mantle.125 Specifically,
a denser part of the Earth’s crust moves underneath and toward a lighter portion of the crust, which creates underwater trenches.126 The lower plate eventually descends into
Disposal of SNF in this option would involve placing the SNF in a
trench area in a way that draws the waste inside the Earth’s mantle and effectively isolates it.128 At the outset, corrosion of waste containers might be
the Earth’s mantle and can melt in certain areas.127
minimal because most trench areas are extremely cold.129 Subduction zones remain geographically restricted in terms of access despite their presence in various locations
around the world.130 Subduction would not necessarily be feasible for every nation that produces SNF.131 Subduction areas are huge, however, and could potentially
accommodate a large amount of SNF.132 The Cascadia Subduction Zone, which runs roughly parallel to the upper West Coast of the United States, could potentially be
Attempting SNF disposal in subduction zones could be risky , however, because
such areas can be geologically unpredictable. 134
accessible to the United States for SNF disposal.133
SSD devastates marine bio-d
Bala 4/11/14 --- Boston College Law School, Energy Law Commons (Amal, “Sub-Seabed Burial of
Nuclear Waste: If the Disposal Method Could Succeed Technically, Could It Also Succeed Legally?”,
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2147&context=ealr)//trepka
***SNF = spent nuclear fuel
Problems with underwater SNF disposal as a national policy include prohibitions under U.S. law, bans
imposed by international law, and a potential for radioactive contamination of the marine
environment and coastal areas. 96
Experts agree
Parmentier 98 --- member of Greenpeace International, spokesperson at meetings of the
IMO, the London Convention, the OSPAR Commission, the Ministerial North Sea Conference,
and the Barcelona Convention (Remi, “TWENTY YEARS PROTECTING THE OCEAN FROM WASTE DUMPING”,
http://www.portaec.net/library/ocean/water/twenty_years_protecting_the_ocea.html)//trepka
Finally, in 1993, the intergovernmental panel of experts on radioactive wastes disposal at sea concluded almost a decade of work. In
their "Final and Comprehensive Statement", the experts recognised that ocean dumping differed from other
available options for radioactive waste management. They pointed out "the diffusibility of the
waste radionuclides in sea water which could result in transboundary transfer of these
radioactive materials" as well as the "comparative difficulty of monitoring radioactive
waste packages dumped at sea". For the intergovernmental experts, "the consideration of these characteristics, together
with the relative difficulty of retrieval, [was] a necessary part of any assessment of the sea
disposal option". Like Greenpeace, the overwhelming majority of contracting Parties concluded that this statement (arising
from the most detailed international assessment ever made of any radioactive waste disposal option) provided a very strong basis on
which to ban the dumping of radioactive wastes permanently, in full compliance with Article XV(2) of the London Convention.[12]
To conclude a decade of controversy, in November of 1993, the Contracting Parties to the
London Convention adopted unanimously amendments banning the dumping of industrial
wastes at sea (effective 1st January, 1996) and their incineration at sea, and by majority vote the dumping of
radioactive wastes.[13] The three amendments became legally binding on Contracting Parties to the
London Convention and the Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) on 20 February, 1994; in other words, they are law in
virtually the entire world.
The plan spills over and reverses the ban on chemical dumping
Parmentier 98 --- member of Greenpeace International, spokesperson at meetings of the
IMO, the London Convention, the OSPAR Commission, the Ministerial North Sea Conference,
and the Barcelona Convention (Remi, “TWENTY YEARS PROTECTING THE OCEAN FROM WASTE DUMPING”,
http://www.portaec.net/library/ocean/water/twenty_years_protecting_the_ocea.html)//trepka
The nuclear states feigned polite attention, but there was a lot at stake for the dumpers: if
they could get away with it, the nuclear industry would have considered that it had met its
pledge to "resolve" the nuclear waste issue before the turn of the century! Dumping Ban: Greenpeace´s persistence
began to pay off in the mid 1980s. In 1983, faced with evidence that radioactive waste dumping was increasing rather dramatically,
the Contracting Parties to the London Dumping Convention adopted a resolution calling
for a moratorium on the dumping of radioactive wastes at sea pending the outcome of a study by
a panel of experts. Essentially the call was not binding at all. The six countries who had not voted in favour
could have technically and legally continued dumping.[6] But the vote showed that ocean dumping had become too controversial. In
the UK, Greenpeace managed to convince the National Union of Seamen (NUS) and elsewhere in Europe, the International
Transport Federation (ITF), to call for a boycott by seamen and transport workers. As a result, the annual dumping programme was
called off, and 1983 became the first year of the nuclear age with officially no radioactive waste dumping operation. Two years later,
a panel of experts appointed and controlled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could not convince the Contracting
Parties. Among other considerations, the Contracting Parties found that the panel was formed almost exclusively of partial experts
who had direct interests in pursuing the ocean dumping approach. Therefore it was agreed that an intergovernmental panel of
experts with wider terms of reference would be created, and that political, economic and social issues should be included within their
deliberations. For the duration of the panel a moratorium would be instituted. [7] While the intergovernmental panel undertook its
work, between 1988 and 1993, Greenpeace was able to prompt the Contracting Parties to the London Dumping Convention to focus
more of its attention on the effects of incineration and the dumping of industrial wastes into the ocean. As was the case with
the nuclear industry, the chemical industry had found it convenient to dispose of its
wastes at sea, either by deliberate combustion in specially built vessels, or by straightforward dumping. Many of the toxic
wastes, especially the organohalogens, persist in the marine environment and bioaccumulate in the food
chain, with associated consequences for fisheries and other legitimate uses of the sea. When it had been agreed in
1978 that the deliberate incineration of toxic wastes at sea would be controlled under the London Dumping Convention,[8] it was to
be considered as an interim method of disposal only: "Incineration at sea shall in no way be interpreted as discouraging progress
towards environmentally better solutions including the development of new techniques".[9] But Ocean Combustion Services (OCS),
a company established to build and operate specially-designed combustion vessels was investing extensively, and intended to
expand this polluting practice. Perhaps even more importantly, the ocean dumping and incineration options were identified by
Slowly, but
surely, the Contracting Parties to the London Dumping Convention moved away from a
philosophy that considered the oceans to be a sink for industrial wastes, to one that now
considers that ocean dumping should be avoided, unless there is absolutely no other alternative. In other words,
within a few years, the international community´s perception of ocean dumping evolved from
considering the practice as part of the solution to it becoming part of the problem.
Greenpeace and others as primary disincentives to clean technologies and clean production methodologies.
ilaw disad
1nc
Subseabed disposal guarantees international backlash --- undermines the London
Convention
Bunn et al 97 --- Belfer Center (Matthew, and John P. Holdren; Managing Military Uranium and Plutonium
in the United States and the Former Soviet Union: Reducing Stockpiles of Excess Fissile Materials,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/166/managing_military_uranium_and_plutonium_in_the_united
_states_and_the_former_soviet_union.html)
subseabed
disposal , has long been considered by some to be a leading alternative to mined geologic repositories for the disposal
of high-level radioactive wastes (100-102); it could also be considered for the disposal of wastes incorporating
SUBSEABED DISPOSAL AND OCEAN DILUTION . . . Burial in the mud layer on the deep-ocean floor, known as
excess weapon plutonium. Large areas of the abyssal muds have been geologically stable for millions of years and are thousands of
miles from human population centers, and the properties of the mud itself would contain most radionuclides for hundreds of
thousands if not millions of years. Emplacement could be accomplished by various methods, including the dropping of appropriately
designed canisters from ships on the surface. The canisters in that case would embed themselves tens of meters down in the mud.
Most of the parties to the London Dumping Convention, however, agree that it bans dumping of
radioactive wastes not only in the oceans but also in the subocean mud; in late 1996, the parties
adopted modifications that made this prohibition explicit . Hence, this approach fails to meet
one of the sufficiency criteria in the NAS report: compliance with national and international regulations
and agreements . Such an approach would also be likely to generate overwhelming national
and international political opposition , creating large uncertainties about whether and when it could be
implemented.
Even one violation of the London Convention spills over --- extinction
Greenpeace 10 (“Oceans Victories”, http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/victories/oceans-victories/)//trepka
Without the global ocean there would be no life on Earth
we need to tackle a great
many threats to the oceans' viability and find better ways of managing their resources
. Greenpeace believes
. Bye-Bye to
Bycatch Many fisheries catch fish other than the ones that they target. Often, these unintended fish are simply thrown dead or dying back into the sea. Estimates vary as to how serious a problem "bycatch" is worldwide. To combat this wasteful problem, Greenpeace
has had many successes banning destructive fishing practices that contribute to bycatch, namely bottom trawls and driftnets. Oceans Victory Bottom trawling is a destructive way of "strip-mining" the ocean floor, harvesting the species that live there. As well as the
target fish species, this also results in bycatch of commercially unattractive animals like starfish and sponges. A single pass of a trawl removes up to 20 percent of the seafloor fauna and flora. In 2007, after four years of Greenpeace campaigning to bring an end to
deep-sea bottom trawling, an international agreement was made to protect just under 25 percent of the high seas from this incredibly destructive fishing method. Following a resolution made by the UN in 2006 representatives from countries around the world
gathered in Chile to hash out the agreement. Another destructive fishing practice, driftnets, are responsible for killing up to 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises per year. Greenpeace helped expose this indiscriminate activity, fueling public outrage. As a result a
UN moratorium on high seas large-scale driftnets was passed in 1989, followed by a worldwide ban in 1992. In 1998, the EU finally agreed to phase out driftnet fishing by its fleets in EU and international waters by the end of 2001. France, Italy, the UK and Ireland,
continued drift netting in the North-East Atlantic and Mediterranean after Japan, Taiwan and Korea stopped driftnet fishing on the high seas when the worldwide ban came into force at the end of 1992. Th is victory was the culmination of 15 years of Greenpeace
campaigning. Discontinuing the use of particularly damaging fishing methods is only half the battle. On a global level, Greenpeace's Defending the Oceans campaign is calling for the creation of numerous marine reserves. A Worldwide Ban on Large-scale Driftnets
on the High Seas In the 1980's, Greenpeace ran a high-profile campaign to expose the atrocities associated with the use of large-scale driftnets. As a result of these efforts, the United Nations invoked a moratorium on high seas large-scale driftnets in 1989, in
response to public outrage at their indiscriminate destruction to sea life. Greenpeace exposed driftnets as "walls of death" due to their ability to entangle and kill most species that swi m into them, including dolphins, sharks, seals, squids and many species of birds. In
1992, a worldwide ban was put into force. Baltic Sea: Closed for Repairs In 2004, the United Nations´ International Maritime Organization (IMO) designated the Baltic Sea as a "Particularly Sensitive Sea Area," meaning tougher restrictions on oil tankers and other
dangerous cargo vessels. This victory represents two and a half years of Greenpeace campaigning, including two members of the Rainbow Warrior crew who were locked up in a Swedish cell for two weeks, groups of volunteers who performed around the clock 3hour-on 3-hour-off watches tracking dirty ships on their way into the Baltic and activists driving flat-bottom rigid inflatable boats through the icy waters of Estonian and Latvian oil ports in winter to stop a single hulled tank er from docking. The Baltic Sea protection
status was adopted despite stiff opposition by the Russian Federation, which formed an alliance with Liberia and Panama, the two largest flags of con venience states. Flags of convenience states profit from allowing dirty industries and unsafe oil tankers to travel the
oceans practically unregulated. The Greenpeace Defending our Oceans campaign sets out to protect and preserve our oceans now and for the future by setting aside swathes of the global oceans from exploitation and controllable human pressure, allowing these areas
the respite they so desperately need for recovery and renewal. Building on a protection and recovery system established to manage land based over-exploitation, Marine Reserves are the ocean equivalent of national parks. Marine Reserves are a scientifically
developed and endorsed approach to redressing the crisis in our oceans which work alongside a range of other measures designed to ensure that the demands we make of our oceans are managed sustainably. U.S. Grocers Acknowledge Overfishing Scientists warn
that the biggest single threat to marine ecosystems today is overfishing. Giant ships using state-of-the-art fish-finding sonar can pinpoint schools of fish quickly and accurately. Our appetite for fish is exceeding the oceans' ecological limits with devastating impacts on
marine ecosystems. Fortunately, in 2010 Trader Joe’s agreed to "green-up their stores" by implementing sustainable seafood policies. Trader Joe's felt the heat from Greenpeace's mock website, www.traitorjoe.com, relentless phone calls from supporters, thoughtful
karaoke songs from shoppers and in-store demonstrations and questions to store managers from activists across the country. Also, in 2008, Greenpeace convinced S top & Shop and Giant Food to stop selling shark, orange roughy and Chilean sea bass until their
populations rebound. This victory came on the heels of our supermarket ranking report in which Greenpeace called on 20 of the top U.S. supermarket retailers to improve their seafood purchasing practices and stop selling destructively and overfished seafood.
Chilean sea bass, orange roughy, and shark were at the top of our "red list." Stop & Shop and Giant Food are owned by Amsterdam based Royal Ahold. In addition to removing these three seafood species from sale, Ahold also committed to improving the information
it gives its customers and supporting policy efforts to help our oceans. This wasn't the first time we helped call off the fishing of a species in jeopardy. In 1999, thanks in part to our efforts, Japan was ordered to stop "experimental" fishing of Southern Bluefin Tuna by
the International Law of the Sea Tribunal. In January 2010, Target announced that all their stores will stop selling farmed salmon products. This move towards greater ocean conservation is a first by a major seafood retailer. Salmon consumption in the United States
is a huge market for retailers. Salmon is second only to shrimp in seafood purchases in the United States. In another stunning win for the oceans, in February 2011, Costco agreed to remove over half of its red list seafood items, pursue better practices in aquaculture
and assume more of a leadership role in the ongoing global effort to develop a more sustainable tuna industry. However, in order to really save our oceans, we need changes made in the way the entire ocean ecosystem is managed, not just individual fish populations.
Greenpeace's Defending the Oceans campaign urges us to make sure that our actions meet the needs of current and future generations without causing harm to the environment. The Scourge of the Seas Pirate fishing - known by its less colorful name: illegal,
unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing - is a far cry from the glamour of Hollywood movies. But it is a multi-billion dollar reality for many communities that can least afford to be robbed. While it is incredibly difficult to police the high seas, Greenpeace has
contributed to plans of action to combat illegal fishing and curb the exploits. The "skull and crossbones" easily identifies fictional pirates. In contrast, real life pirates hide their identity and origin, ignore the rules and often fly "flags on convenience (FOC)." Ships will
register in foreign countries that have lax regulations when it comes to fishing. With the click of a computer mouse, for as little as $500, flags can be bought over the internet from countries like Malta, Panama, Belize, Honduras and St Vincent and the Grenadines.
Greenpeace first brought pirate fishing to the forefront of public awareness in 2000, when our ship expedition exposed pirate fishing in the Atlantic and an import ban was adopted on all bigeye tuna caught by FOC vessels. The following year, our efforts helped adopt
an "international plan of action" to combat illegal fishing in international waters. The pirates retaliated in 2003, aiming to remove Greenpeace from the International Maritime Organization, the UN body charged with regulating shipping worldwide. However , thanks
to intensive lobbying efforts by online activists around the world, the FOC states were unsuccessful. There is still work to be done when it comes to pirate fishing. Governments must outlaw flags of convenience and refuse entry to fishing and supply vessels. It is a
matter of political will to deliver the kind of enforcement that is needed to protect the marine environment and the communities that depend upon it. No Sealing Greenpeace believes in order to best protect the oceans, we must focus on the entire ecosystem.
However, sometimes a single species is targeted, and treated so brutally, that it warrants a campaign for its very survival. Such is the case with seal pups. Our controversial actions on the ice have resulted in laws to save this iconic species. Our efforts to stop seal
hunts were one of the very first Greenpeace campaigns. The bloody images of seal pups we brought to the public's attention will not be soon forgotten. Nor will the images of our activists facing down the sealers. Thanks to the public outcry, the grey seal slaughter was
stopped in Orkney Islands, Scotland in 1978. Another victory in the fight to save seals came in 1982 when the EC banned import of seal pup skins. But seals aren't the only ocean species we've helped. In 2008, we shone a spotlight on a lesser known species - the
dugong - when the Department of Defense attempted to build a new airbase smack in the middle of the dugong's home. Fortunately, a federal judge ruled in favor of the manatee's relative, citing that the DOD was in violation of the National Historic Preservation Act
for failing to consider the environmental impacts of its base. Finally, Greenpeace helped bring about a worldwide ban on whaling. Learn more about our whales campaign here. The goal of our Defending the Oceans campaign is to create marine reserves, so that all
the species found within can be safe from human harm. Commercial Whaling Banned Our work to save the whales is perhaps the most well-known Greenpeace campaign. Our tradition of physically placing activist bodies between the harpoons and the whales have
helped save the lives of whales on site and influenced worldwide laws for their protection. But our work in the water is just a fraction of our efforts to protect these amazing animals and that work continues today - 28 years after a moratorium banned commercial
whaling. In 1975, we launched our anti-whaling campaign. The stories and images we gathered helped turn public opinion against the whalers. So much so that in 1982, the International Whaling Commission issued a moratorium on commercial whaling that came
into effect in 1986. This very first whaling victory was short-lived as three countries continued to hunt whales: Norway, Iceland and Japan. Norway and Iceland flat out refused to comply with the moratorium, and Japan pretends to hunt whales in the name of
science. This would be more believable if the whale meat weren't packaged for sale in restaurants and supermarkets in Japan, and even included in school lunch programs. In 2007 Iceland finally renounced commercial whaling after admitting that there was no
market for its whale meat. As a result, our anti-whaling campaign now focuses on Japan and Norway as we challenge these governments to call off their hunts. Some highlights of our efforts include: In 1994 the Antarctic whale sanctuary, proposed by France and
supported by Greenpeace, is approved by the International Whaling Commission. In 2002 a major push by Japan and its supporters to re-introduce commercial whaling through the International Whaling Commission is thwarted. In 2004 online activists gather
50,000 signatures pledging to visit Iceland if the government would stop whaling. With a potential value of more than $60 million in tourist spending, measured against a whaling program that generated $3-4 million in profits, the pledge dramatically illustrates that
whales are worth more to Iceland alive than dead. In response, Iceland reduces plans to kill 500 minke, sei, and fin whales over two years, and instead announces a quota of only 25 minkes for the year. In 2006 our Argentine Ocean Defenders hit Nissui-the people
who run the Japanese whaling fleet-in their pockets. Our online activists convinced a major Nissui client in Argentina not to buy from a corporation involved in the killing of whales. In 2006 we bring the whaling fight home as 100,000 online activists target seafood
suppliers Gorton's, Sealord, and parent company Nissui to withdraw their active support for Japanese whaling. In 2008 for the first time ever, Japan announces a 20 percent reduction in the number of whales targeted in the Southern Ocean. Estimates suggest that
between 1925, when the first whaling factory ship was introduced, and 1975 more than 1.5 million whales were killed in total. We're doing everything in our power to stop that number from growing and allowing these species the chance to recover. Offshore Dumping
In 1995, Greenpeace activists occupied the Brent Spar oil storage facility in the North Sea. Shell, the world's then-largest oil company, planned to simply dump the 14,500 ton installation into the ocean. In what is remembered as one of the most significant
Greenpeace successes of the 1990s, the company reversed its decision and agreed to dismantle and recycle the Spar on land. Dramatic visual footage of activists being attacked with water cannons and relief teams being flown in by helicopter brought the stand-off to
a massive audience. Spontaneous protests in support of Greenpeace and against Shell broke out across Europe and the public pressure pro ved too much to bear for Shell. The events led to a historic accord, the OSPAR Convention, which banned the dumping of
offshore installations at sea in the North-East Atlantic. The Convention also agreed on the phasing-out of radioactive and toxic discharges, as proposed by Greenpeace. Long before Greenpeace succeeded in stopping the disposal of obsolete oil installations at sea, we
In 1993, the London Dumping Convention permanently banned the
dumping at sea of radioactive and industrial waste worldwide.
the Parties to the London Dumping Convention called for a
moratorium on radioactive waste dumping at sea
helped get bans in place for other toxic dumping at sea, such as:
In 1998, following at-sea actions, and submissions by Greenpeace, a world-wide ban
on incinerating organochlorine waste at sea was agreed by the London Dumping Convention. In 1983,
. As a result of Greenpeace's repeated actions against ocean dumping, this was the first year since the end of the Second
Without doubt, if the Spar had been dumped many more platforms
would have followed. There would have been little, if any, international scrutiny of
decommissioning operations and there would have been a cumulative environmental impact
way beyond that of the Spar alone
World War where officially no radioactive wastes were dumped at sea.
,
-
. Greenpeace's action, and the support of people throughout Europe, ensured that no such structures have been dumped to this day.
link
You explicitly violate international law in the short-term
Bala 4/11/14 --- Boston College Law School, Energy Law Commons (Amal, “Sub-Seabed Burial of
Nuclear Waste: If the Disposal Method Could Succeed Technically, Could It Also Succeed Legally?”,
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2147&context=ealr)//trepka
The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter
(“London Convention of 1972”) banned oceanic dumping of wastes among signatory nations when the treaty
took effect in August 1975.148 A 1996 Protocol that took effect in 2006 explicitly restricted signatory nations
from engaging in sub-seabed disposal of waste by expanding the definition of dumping to include “any storage of
wastes or other matter in the seabed and the subsoil thereof . . . .”149 Some dispute exists regarding whether the Protocol bans all
methods of sub-seabed disposal, even those options that would include an underwater repository accessible by land.150 The
United States is a party to the London Convention of 1972 and signed the amending
Protocol in 1998 , but the Senate has not ratified the Protocol.151 Parties to the 1996 Protocol (and the original
London Convention of 1972) include France, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom, which are all
major producers of SNF.152 The Protocol, which supersedes the original London Convention of 1972 entirely for member
nations, places a broad prohibition on dumping any materials into the world’s seas, with a few limited exceptions for which signatory
nations may issue permits.153 The Protocol defines seas as “all marine waters other than the internal waters of States, as well as the
seabed and the subsoil thereof . . .”154 Some commentators have expressed criticism regarding the inclusion of sub-seabed disposal
within the Protocol’s definition of dumping.155 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) also plays a
role in restrict ing underwater disposal of nuclear waste.156 UNCLOS, which entered into force in November
1994, provides that member nations “have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment” from pollution.157
UNCLOS defines pollution of the marine environment as introducing “substances or energy” that “results or is likely to result in such
deleterious effects as harm to living resources and marine life, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine activities . . . .”158
UNCLOS also requires member nations to “adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine
environment by dumping.”159 UNCLOS defines dumping to include “any deliberate disposal of wastes or
other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea.”160 UNCLOS also requires member nations to
“adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment arising from or in connection with
sea-bed activities subject to their jurisdiction,” which
could apply to sub-seabed disposal of SNF.161
UNCLOS does not explicitly mention nuclear waste in its text, but the treaty implicitly forbids underwater
dumping of SNF through its broad provisions . 162 The United States has not ratified the treaty.163 Since the
1980s, the United States has implemented many provisions of UNCLOS as national policy despite not ratifying the treaty.164
International backlash --- perceived as degrading the environment
Bala 4/11/14 --- Boston College Law School, Energy Law Commons (Amal, “Sub-Seabed Burial of
Nuclear Waste: If the Disposal Method Could Succeed Technically, Could It Also Succeed Legally?”,
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2147&context=ealr)//trepka
***SNF = spent nuclear fuel
B. Laws That Could Apply to Sub-Seabed Disposal of SNF On an international level, nations
across the world remain justified in their eagerness to prohibit the dumping of SNF into the
world’s seas because high-level radioactive waste can cause severe harm to the environment
and human health.197 Congress is understandably sensitive to the disposal of radio- active waste into America’s waters for the same reason.198
It’s banned under the London Convention
Parmentier 98 --- member of Greenpeace International, spokesperson at meetings of the
IMO, the London Convention, the OSPAR Commission, the Ministerial North Sea Conference,
and the Barcelona Convention (Remi, “TWENTY YEARS PROTECTING THE OCEAN FROM WASTE DUMPING”,
http://www.portaec.net/library/ocean/water/twenty_years_protecting_the_ocea.html)//trepka
Sub-seabed Disposal: In the early 1980s, it also became clear that the nuclear industry had never really accepted the
prohibition under the London Dumping Convention to dump high-level radioactive wastes at sea and that they wished to overturn
this decision. They recognised that radioactive waste dumping on the seabed was banned, because they had no choice. But at the
same time, they claimed that dumping under the seabed was not banned. Under the auspices of a Sub-Seabed
Disposal Working Group of the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD (the same people who were co-ordinating the dumping low- and
intermediate-level radioactive wastes in the North-East Atlantic) the UK, France, Japan, the US, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and
the Netherlands spent millions of dollars annually to develop the sub-seabed disposal option for high-level radioactive wastes:
equipped with drilling gear and/or suppository-shaped free-fall penetrators (containers which would penetrate the seabed like
armour piercing bullets) ships from these countries would shoot the high-level wastes under the seabed. In the early 1980s, research
cruises took place in the Caribbean (near Haiti and Cuba), the Eastern Atlantic (between the Canary Archipelago and Madeira
Island) and the South Pacific in order to identify future dump sites and test the free fall penetrators. Of course, none of the bordering
countries were informed, let alone consulted. A majority of countries, together with Greenpeace, pointed out that
this irreversible method was irresponsible. The interpretation that the London Dumping
Convention did not include dumping under the seabed was - at best - questionable. Similar to
dumping on the seabed, but even more so, dumping under the seabed was impossible to monitor: in the
event of leakage, the radioactive wastes would be irretrievable.
impact --- bio-d
Violation of the dumping convention devastates biodiversity --- extinction
HERMIONE 10 --- Collaborative Project funded under the European Commission's
Framework Seven Programme (“How do we use marine resources?”, http://www.eu-hermione.net/learning/oceanresources/63-how-do-we-use-marine-resources)//trepka
Waste disposal, absorption and detoxification Since
2006, disposal of waste at sea has been regulated
under the global London Dumping Convention . Now, only certain types of wastes may be dumped at sea,
including dredged material, sewage sludge, fish wastes, vessels and platforms, inert inorganic geological waste (e.g. mining waste),
natural organic material, some bulky items of steel, iron or concrete, and carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide sequestration
programmes. Waste absorption and detoxification are also important regulating services as
marine organisms store, bury and transform many waste materials through assimilation and
chemical transformation, either directly or indirectly. Oceans have a unique (though not infinite) ability to clean
up sewage, waste material and pollutants. In particular, bioturbation − the mixing of sediments on the seafloor by burrowing
organisms − and accumulation regulate the processes of decomposition and/or sequestration (e.g. by burial) of organic wastes. CO2
capture and storage One way that scientists are trying to mitigate climate change is the capture and storage of carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere. Scientists are researching ways to do this, and capturing carbon dioxide as a liquid or solid, and then storing it
under the sea is one path of research. Habitats Marine habitats, such as coral reefs, support biodiversity,
which we rely on for food (fish), medicines (from certain marine species we get painkillers and cancer drugs), tourism (e.g. fishing
and scuba diving). Nutrient cycling Nutrients are essential to life - without them, plants could not grow, and we could not survive.
Nutrient cycling is the storage, cycling and maintenance of nutrients by living organisms, and microscopic animals have a major
responsibily in this. Marine
microbial nutrient cycling is essential for primary production in the
sea (for phytoplankton and algae); without it the marine primary production ecosystem, which is the
basis for most life on Earth, would collapse .
impact --- global governance
Solves global governance --- recent iron fertilization decision proves
ETC 10 --- ETC Group (“London Convention Puts Brakes on Ocean Geoengineering”,
http://www.etcgroup.org/content/london-convention-puts-brakes-ocean-geoengineering)//trepka
“We applaud the London
Convention for addressing a major gap in global governance ,” said David
Parties
meeting here this week confirmed that large-scale ocean fertilization schemes are not
scientifically justified and they urged governments to exercise utmost caution when
considering such proposals,” said Santillo.
Santillo, of Greenpeace International’s Science Unit who attended the London Convention meeting this week. “The
Global governance solves extinction
Masciulli 11 Professor of Political Science @ St Thomas University [Joseph Masciulli, “The Governance Challenge for Global
Political and Technoscientific Leaders in an Era of Globalization and Globalizing Technologies,” Bulletin of Science, Technology &
Society February 2011 vol. 31 no. 1 pg. 3-5]
What is most to be feared is enhanced global disorder resulting from the combination of weak global
regulations ; the unforeseen destructive consequences of converging technologies and economic globalization; military
competition among the great powers; and the prevalent biases of short-term thinking held by most leaders and elites. But no
practical person would wish that such a disorder scenario come true, given all the weapons of mass destruction ( WMDs)
available now or which will surely become available in the foreseeable future. As converging
technologies united by IT,
cognitive science, nanotech nology, and robotics advance synergistically in monitored and unmonitored
laboratories, we may be blindsided by these future developments brought about by technoscientists with a variety
of good or destructive or mercenary motives. The current laudable but problematic openness about publishing scientific results on
the Internet would contribute greatly to such negative outcomes.¶ To be sure, if the global disorder-emergency scenario occurred
because of postmodern terrorism or rogue states using biological, chemical, or nuclear WMDs, or a regional war with nuclear
weapons in the Middle East or South Asia, there might well be a positive result for global governance. Such a global emergency
might unite the global great and major powers in the conviction that a global concert was necessary for their survival and planetary
survival as well. In such a global great power concert, basic rules of economic, security, and legal order would be uncompromisingly
enforced both globally and in the particular regions where they held hegemonic status. That concert scenario, however, is flawed by
the limited legitimacy of its structure based on the members having the greatest hard and soft power on planet Earth.¶ At the
base of our concerns, I would argue, are human proclivities for narrow , short-term thinking tied
to individual self-interest or corporate and national interests in decision making. For globalization, though propelled by
technologies of various kinds, “remains an essentially human phenomenon . . . and the main drivers for the establishment
and uses of disseminative systems are hardy perennials: profit, convenience, greed, relative advantage, curiosity,
demonstrations of prowess, ideological fervor, malign destructiveness.” These human drives and capacities will not disappear. Their
“manifestations now extend considerably beyond more familiarly empowered governmental, technoscientific and corporate actors to
include even individuals: terrorists, computer hackers and rogue market traders” (Whitman, 2005, p. 104).¶ In this dangerous
world, if people are to have their human dignity recognized and enjoy their human rights, above all, to life, security, a healthy
environment, and freedom,
we need new forms of comprehensive global regulation and control. Such effective
global leadership and governance with robust enforcement powers alone can adequately respond to
destructive current global problems , and prevent new ones. However, successful human adaptation and
innovation to our current complex environment through the social construction of effective global governance will be a daunting
collective task for global political and technoscientific leaders and citizens. For our global society is caught in “the whirlpool of an
accelerating process of modernization” that has for the most part “been left to its own devices” (Habermas, 2001, p. 112). We need to
progress in human adaptation to and innovation for our complex and problematical global social and natural planetary
environments through global governance. I suggest we need to begin by ending the prevalent biases of short-termism in thinking
and acting and the false values attached to the narrow self-interest of individuals, corporations, and states.¶ I agree with Stephen
Hawking that the long-term future of the human race must be in space. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in
the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. . . . There have been a number of times in the past when its survival
has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1962 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to
increase in the future. We shall need great care and judgment to negotiate them all successfully. But I’m an optimist. If we can avoid
disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space. . . . But we are entering an increasingly
dangerous period of our history. Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth,
are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill. But
our genetic code still carries the selfish and aggressive instincts that were of survival advantage in the past. . . . Our only chance of
long term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress
in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space.” (Hawking, 2010)¶
Nonetheless, to
reinvent humanity pluralistically in outer space and beyond will require securing our
one and only global society and planet Earth through effective global governance in the foreseeable future. And our
dilemma is that the enforcement powers of multilateral institutions are not likely to be
strengthened because of the competition for greater (relative, not absolute) hard and soft power by the great and
major powers . They seek their national or alliance superiority , or at least, parity, for the sake of their state’s survival
and security now. Unless the global disorder-emergency scenario was to occur soon—God forbid—the great powers will most likely,
recklessly and tragically, leave global survival and security to their longer term agendas. Pg. 4-5
impact --- regionalism
London convention also solves regional agreements
FAO 3 (“3. NOTES ON MARINE POLLUTION”, http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/ab895e/AB895E02.htm)//trepka
3.4 Regional Cooperation While the prevention of pollution from ships has to be regulated on a world
scale, there are some aspects of marine pollution which could also be dealt with on a regional
scale (particularly among States bordering a semi-enclosed sea, like the Red Sea). As regards dumping, the London
Convention expressly invites parties with common interests in protecting the marine
environment within a given geographical area to enter into regional agreements consistent
with the Convention, taking into account characteristic regional features. Another field in which regional
agreements are particularly appropriate is cooperation in case of casualties and in establishing
contingency plans for responding to pollution incidents. A regional Convention for the
conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden environment and a Protocol concerning regional
cooperation in combating pollution by oil and other harmful substances in cases of emergency
were signed in Jeddah on 14 February 1982. However, the signatories are the Arab States of the
region (Jordan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and the two Yemen) and the right to accede
to the convention and protocol is limited to the States member of the Arab League. In order to make the Jeddah Convention a true
Further
protocols could also be envisaged (e.g., with respect to dumping , land-based pollution, specially protected
zones, pollution from exploitation of the sea-bed ).
regional instrument, Eritrea could perhaps ask that the convention be amended in order to allow its participation.
korea disad
links
Plan devastates South Korean relations --- they link or they don’t solve
Manyin 6/24/14 --- Specialist in Asian Affairs (Mark, “U.S.-South Korea Relations”, Federation of American
Scientists, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41481.pdf)//trepka
One point of disagreement in the renewal process is whether South Korea will press the United States to include a provision that would allow for the
reprocessing of its spent fuel. The
South Korean government is reportedly also seeking confirmation in the renewal
agreement of its right to enrichment technology . The current U.S.-Korea nuclear cooperation agreement, as with
other standard agreements,6 requires U.S. permission before South Korea can reprocess U.S.-origin spent fuel, including spent fuel from
South Korea’s U.S.-designed reactors.7 The issue has become a sensitive one for many South Korean
officials and politicians, who see it as a matter of national sovereignty . The United States has been
reluctant to grant such permission due to concerns over the impact on negotiations with North Korea and on the nonproliferation regime overall.
Through reprocessing, spent fuel can be used to make reactor fuel or to acquire plutonium for weapons. For
many years, the United
States and South Korea have worked on joint research and development projects to
address spent fuel disposition, including joint research on pyro-processing, a type of spent fuel
reprocessing. In October 2010, the two countries began a 10- year, three-part joint research project on pyro-processing that includes joint
research and development at Idaho National Laboratory, development of international safeguards for this technology, economic viability studies, and
other advanced nuclear research including alternatives to pyro-processing for spent fuel disposal.8 (For more on the negotiations and the debate over
U.S.-ROK civilian nuclear cooperation, see the “Nuclear Energy and Non- Proliferation Cooperation” section below.)
Yes it’s about spent fuel
Manyin 6/24/14 --- Specialist in Asian Affairs (Mark, “U.S.-South Korea Relations”, Federation of American
Scientists, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41481.pdf)//trepka
For several decades, the United States has pursued a policy of limiting the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology to new
states as part of its nonproliferation policies.82 This is because enrichment and reprocessing can create new fuel or material for
nuclear weapons. Advance permission to reprocess rarely has been included in U.S. nuclear cooperation agreements,
and to date has only been granted to countries that already had the technology (such as to India, Japan, and Western Europe).
However, the
issue has become a sensitive one in the U.S.-ROK relationship. Many South Korean
officials and politicians see the United States’ rules as limiting South Korea’s national
sovereignty by requiring U.S. permission for civilian nuclear activities. This creates a dilemma
for U.S. policy as the Obama Administration has been a strong advocate of limiting the spread of fuel
cycle facilities to new states, and would prefer multilateral solutions to spent fuel disposal.
Spent fuel is the lynchpin of the relationship --- plan will be perceived as a
violation of current pyroprocessing cooperation that solves the aff
Manyin 6/24/14 --- Specialist in Asian Affairs (Mark, “U.S.-South Korea Relations”, Federation of American
Scientists, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41481.pdf)//trepka
Spent fuel disposal is a key policy issue for South Korean officials, and some see
pyroprocessing as a potential solution. While reactor-site spent fuel pools are filling up, the construction of new
spent fuel storage facilities is highly unpopular with the public. Some officials argue that in order to secure public approval for an
interim storage site, the government needs to provide a long-term plan for the spent fuel. However, some experts point out that byproducts of spent fuel reprocessing would still require long-term storage and disposal options. Other proponents of
pyroprocessing see it as a way to advance energy independence for South Korea. For
decades, the United States and South Korea have worked on joint research and development
projects to address spent fuel. In the 1990s, the two countries worked intensely on research and development on a
different fuel recycling technology (the “DUPIC” process), but this technology ultimately was not commercialized. In the past 10
years, joint research has centered on pyroprocessing. The Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) is
conducting a laboratory-scale research program on reprocessing spent fuel with an
advanced pyroprocessing technique . U.S.-South Korean bilateral research on
pyroprocessing began in 2002 under the Department of Energy’s International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (INERI). R&D work on pyroprocessing was temporarily halted by the United States in 2008, due to the proliferation sensitivity of the
technology. In an attempt to find common ground and continue bilateral research, in October 2010 the United States
and South Korea began a 10-year Joint Fuel Cycle Study on the economics, technical feasibility,
and nonproliferation implications of spent fuel disposition, including pyroprocessing. In July
2013, a new agreement on R&D technology transfer for joint pyroprocessing work in the
United States took effect as part of the Joint Fuel Cycle Study.83 While the Korean nuclear research
community argues for development of pyroprocessing technology, the level of consensus over the pyroprocessing option among
Korean government agencies, electric utilities, and the public remains uncertain. Generally, there appears to be support in South
Korea for research and development of the technology. Some analysts are concerned about the economic and technical viability of
commercializing the technology. While the R&D phase would be paid for by the government, the private sector would bear the costs
of commercialization.
At a political level, pyroprocessing may have more popularity as a symbol of
South Korean technical advancement and the possibility of energy independence. Some argue that
South Korea should have the independent ability to provide fuel and take back waste from new nuclear power countries in order to
increase its competitive edge when seeking power plant export contracts. The Park Administration is conducting a review of the
country’s spent fuel policies. Some analysts critical of the development of pyroprocessing in South Korea point to the 1992 Joint
Declaration, in which North and South Korea agreed they would not “possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment
facilities” and are concerned about the impact of South Korea’s pyroprocessing on negotiations with the North. Others emphasize
that granting permission for pyroprocessing in South Korea would contradict U.S. nonproliferation policy to halt the spread of
sensitive technologies to new states. Some observers, particularly in South Korea, point out that the United States has
given India and Japan consent to reprocess, and argue that they should be allowed to develop
this technology under safeguards.
impax
US South Korean relations is critical to combat global warming—high-tech and
role model for Asian countries
Scott Snyder, director of the Center for U.S.-Korea Policy and senior associate of Washington
programs in the International Relations program of The Asia Foundation, 04/09, Center for
Strategic and International Studies, “Pursuing A Comprehensive Vision for the U.S. South
Korean Alliance”,
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090409_snyder_pursuingcompvision_web.pdf//sb
An emerging area of cooperation in the US.-ROK relationship is climate change. South Korea
imports 97 percent of its energy needs42 and is one of the globes top ten emitters of carbon
dioxide, and therefore shares similar interests with the United States on clean development.
South Korea is a member of the Bush administration initiative on climate change, the AsiaPacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP), co-founded by Australia and the
United States in January of 2006, and including China, India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea,
to promote technology cooperation on climate and environment-related issues, including in the
areas of clean fossil energy, aluminum, coal mining, renewable energy, power generation,
cement, buildings and appliances, and steel.4* The APP has dozens of projects located across the
region, including several in Korea devoted to such research areas as the expansion of biodiesel
use, cleaner fossil energies, development of indices for renewable energies and distribution, and
solar technologies.44 There is potential for this initiative to gain in profile under the Obama
administration. The initiatives nonbinding framework for cooperation, however, is seen in some
quarters as a weak alternative to global legal agreements to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Under the Obama administration, it is likely that the United States will once again seek to play
an active role in promoting a global understanding of how to respond to the global challenges
posed by climate change issues. At the G-8 Summit in Hokkaido in July 2008, Lee Myung Bak
pledged to serve as a bridge between the United States and developing countries on future
climate change discussions. To the extent that South Korea can define a bridging role and take
concrete actions to promote cooperation on climate change issues, such an initiative would
likely be appreciated by the new administration. Seoul has recently taken promising steps
domestically toward putting the country on a path toward cleaner development: In August
2008, Lee Myung Bak put the issue high on the agenda by declaring a national vision of "low
carbon, green growth," and in early 2009, he sought to include a substantial "green" component
in the country's economic stimulus efforts, which if implemented would likely fund renewable
energy research and subsidize eco-friendly businesses. Further, the current popularity of
the concept of green growth in Korea, combined with Koreas appeal as a developmental model for several countries in greater Asia, make Korea an attractive
partner for the United States in seeking to promote bilateral or multilateral efforts
to combat global warming. To build the foundation for such cooperation, the two
governments should use the APP framework to provide strong support to existing and nascent
initiatives at the local level, such as the cross-border consortium of eco-cities envisioned by
Daejeon Green Growth Forum chairman Yang Ji-won and his collaborators in Palo Alto,
California, and elsewhere.4' Such efforts should complement the leadership-level pursuit of a
global climate treaty in the lead-up to the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December
2009.
US South Korea relations are critical to Middle east and African instability
Kurt Campbell et. al (Victor D. Cha, Lindsey Ford, Kazuyo Kato, Nirav Patel, Randy Schriver,
and Vikram J. Singh), co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for a New American
Security, 02/09, Center for New American Security, “Going Global: The Future of the U.S.South Korea Alliance”,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatel_Going%20Global_Februar
y09_0.pdf//sb
Second, as the alliance expands in scope, its crafters must strive to make the alliance an institution of intrinsic rather than just strategic value. Throughout its history, the U.S.-South Korean
alliance has been of strategic value for the United States as a bulwark against communism and
as a front line of defense for Japan. In short, it has been important to keep the ROK out
of the adversary’s hands, but beyond this utilitarian purpose, the alliance has not
had value in and of itself. As a democratic ROK plays a more significant role in the world,
one befitting a global citizen dealing with 21st-century problems, the alliance becomes
intrinsically valuable. Korea becomes a key partner not only in traditional security terms, but
also in addressing broader transnational challenges. The U.S.-ROK alliance therefore becomes
sustainable long after the North Korean threat dissipates. The third principle is to run hard — do
not coast. The crafters of the alliance must constantly push themselves to forge areas of common
cooperation that increasingly define the alliance outside of a peninsular context. One area in
which the ROK has already demonstrated the alliance’s extra peninsular context has been in the
global war on terror. South Korea played a significant role in Iraq, providing the third-largest
ground contingent, and in Afghanistan, where it provided logistics and medical support. Yet,
there are many other areas of potential growth; Korea’s proven record of peacekeeping operations in places such as East Timor and Lebanon show that Seoul can play an
increas-ingly prominent leadership role in other areas of domestic instability including
Africa, the Middle East, and the Pacific island nations. The ROK Navy can perform
important regional tasks to maintain freedom of navigation in Asian waters. Korea’s emphasis
on nuclear power makes it a major player in efforts to move countries such as China
away from carbon-based strategies to cleaner and more carbon-neutral energy
development. Additionally, Korea’s record as a responsible Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
member could become even stronger in the future through the potential leadership role that
Seoul could play in dismantling a nuclear program inherited from a collapsed Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Seoul is also seeking to enhance its global profile as a
provider of development assistance, in particular by help-ing countries make the transition into
modernity through assistance in information technology. 1 Because it has similar views on
entrepreneurial development assistance to those of the United States and Japan (versus those of
Europeans), there are opportunities for growth in everything from improving the business
climate in Indonesia to state building in Palestine.
Solves prolif
Kurt Campbell et. al (Victor D. Cha, Lindsey Ford, Kazuyo Kato, Nirav Patel, Randy Schriver,
and Vikram J. Singh), co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for a New American
Security, 02/09, Center for New American Security, “Going Global: The Future of the U.S.South Korea Alliance”,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatel_Going%20Global_Februar
y09_0.pdf//sb
South Korea has a vested national interest in curb-ing the proliferation of WMD and their
associated technologies. More than most nations, South Korea understands the
tangible threat of nuclear aggression. South Korea has historically taken a strong stance
on nonproliferation: it is a responsible member of the NPT and it complies with the Chemical
Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention. Additionally, although it is not a
formal member of PSI, South Korea has provided critical intelligence for PSI-related
interdiction operations. South Korea’s support for nonproliferation and
counterproliferation has been naturally driven by the North Korean nuclear
threat. In recent years, however, South Korea has begun to look outside of the
peninsular context to help manage the potential reemergence of nuclear politics
worldwide.
That spills over
Kurt Campbell et. al (Victor D. Cha, Lindsey Ford, Kazuyo Kato, Nirav Patel, Randy Schriver,
and Vikram J. Singh), co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for a New American
Security, 02/09, Center for New American Security, “Going Global: The Future of the U.S.South Korea Alliance”,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatel_Going%20Global_Februar
y09_0.pdf//sb
Nonproliferation is one of the most obvious areas for global alliance cooperation, as well as
being one of the top national security priori-ties for South Korea and the United States. Yet, the
immediate specter of North Korea’s nuclear program has shaded the lens through which the
United States and South Korea approach nonproliferation efforts. Washington and Seoul should
broaden the alliance’s focus on nonproliferation to include a greater emphasis on global
nonprolifera-tion initiatives. South Korea could significantly improve the opportunities for
collaboration in this area by formally joining PSI, expanding intelligence-sharing activities, and
participating in maritime interdiction efforts. The incoming U.S. administration’s desire to
broaden the scope of the initiative provides an opportunity for South Korea to reframe its
domestic debate over PSI to focus on global proliferation networks rather than merely on North
Korea.
US South Korean alliance is critical to prevent Iranian prolif and boost U.S.
Iranian relations
Kurt Campbell et. al (Victor D. Cha, Lindsey Ford, Kazuyo Kato, Nirav Patel, Randy Schriver,
and Vikram J. Singh), co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for a New American
Security, 02/09, Center for New American Security, “Going Global: The Future of the U.S.South Korea Alliance”,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatel_Going%20Global_Februar
y09_0.pdf//sb
The most recent concrete manifestation of this shift is in South Korea’s progressive nuclear
diplomatic negotiations with Iran. South Korea has an active diplomatic mission in Tehran, as
do the Iranians in Seoul. Bilateral trade between South Korea and Iran accounted for $8 billion
in 2007, a figure that is likely to increase in the coming years. 67 The ROK has been
outspoken in its opposition to Iran’s opaque nuclear program, including
supporting U.S.-led UN sanctions. Moreover, a poll released by the BBC World Service in
2008 reports that 76 percent of South Koreans believe that Iran is producing nuclear energy for
civil and military purposes. 68 In fact, South Korea is just one of three countries (out of 21 and
second to Israel) surveyed that has greater support for more stringent diplomatic and
economic sanctions, as well as possible coercive measures against Iran. 69 This
indicates a greater public recognition in South Korea of the interconnectedness of its security
with WMD proliferation. This is not to suggest that South Korea has enough leverage to compel
the Iranian government to change course (although its trade and infrastructure investments
would be useful bargaining chips), but it does show how the U.S.-ROK alliance could
provide an alternative vehicle to engage the Iranians. South Korea has unique
diplomatic access to the Iranian regime and could be a helpful intermediary in setting up meetings and dialogue with key Iranian interlocutors. This would be particularly important if the
United States decided to take steps to normalize relations with Iran.
trade disad
link
If they win their safety modeling claims --- causes a trade war and wrecks the
economy
Ringius 1 --- MIT (Lasse, “Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea”,
http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/ReferencesAndArchives/IMO_Conferences_and_Meetings/London_Convention/VariousA
rticlesAndDocumentsAboutTheLondonConvention/Documents/Ringius,%20Lasse%20%20Radioactive%20waste%20Disposal%20
at%20Sea.pdf)//trepka
While the economic implications of ocean dumping regulation were modest, but still gave rise to
concern, the potential economic costs of international environmental regulation that might
be agreed on in Stockholm caused serious concern in the United States. The economic consequences of differing
national standards jeopardized international trade. Furthermore, an international trade war seemed a real
threat as there was considerable pressure within Congress and the Nixon administration to impose countervailing duties where
other countries did not maintain stan dards comparable to U.S. standards. The U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce warned of the
possibility of a trade war in a speech on October 6, 1970: “In those cases where prices increase (to meet pollution control costs), U.S.
goods would be at a competitive disadvantage in world trade. In order to avoid a major deterioration of our
balance of payments posi tion, remedial action would be necessary. Perhaps the most desirable action
would be the setting of international pollution standards. An international convention of the world’s countries could be convened for
the purpose of reaching agreement on pollution standards. If an international agreement on pollution standards cannot be reached,
the U.S. may find it necessary to levy border taxes on imports and rebates on exports to
reflect the added production costs of pollution standards. This is obviously a less desirable solution,
because it might violate existing GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] rules and because it would be difficult to
determine the extent to which the imposition of pollution standards adds to production costs.”48 Such a trade war would
probably escalate as the environment increasingly became an issue also in Europe; the environment was
already an issue in Japan. The U.S. Department of State thus intended to use the Stockholm conference for reaching agreement on
international regulations and standards in order to protect national economic interests and avoid trade disruptions.49 Similarly, to
protect the United States’ economic inter- ests, some senators wanted the U.S. delegates to the Stockholm conference to “advocate
and support multilateral accords . . . enforceable by the United Nations or multilateral economic sanctions.”50
delay cp
Postponing for 4 years --- here’s a solvency advocate --- doesn’t link to the i-law
turns
Mlilo 13 --- NafunaTV (Nqobizitha, “NafunaTV - Interview with Tsitsi Mutendi”, http://nafuna.tv/nafunatv-interviewwith-tsitsi-mutendi-how-jewel-magazine-began/Page-2-10)//trepka
Signed the
London convention. This banned sub seabed disposal of radioactive nuclear
energy waste , at least until 2018 . After that year , and in 25 year intervals thereafter, it can be
reconsidered.
eis cp
Public input is key to solvency --- Sweden proves
Ferguson 9 --- Ferguson, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology (Charles, “Testimony to
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives; Hearing on “Advancing Technology for Nuclear Fuel Recycling: What Should
Our Research, Development, and Demonstration Strategy Be?””, CFR, http://www.cfr.org/proliferation/assessment-proliferation-risks-spent-fuelreprocessing/p19648)//trepka
Concerning lessons the United States can learn from other countries’ nuclear waste
management experience, the first lesson is that a fair political and sound scientific process
is essential for selecting a permanent repository. Sweden demonstrates the effectiveness of
examining multiple sites and gaining buy-in from the public and local governments. The second lesson is
that reprocessing, as currently practiced, does not substantially alleviate the nuclear waste management problem. However, more
research is needed to determine the costs and benefits of fast reactors for reducing transuranic waste. Any type of reprocessing will
require safe and secure waste repositories.
international cp
1nc --- cp
International actors solve the aff --- they already did research
Bala 4/11/14 --- Boston College Law School, Energy Law Commons (Amal, “Sub-Seabed Burial of
Nuclear Waste: If the Disposal Method Could Succeed Technically, Could It Also Succeed Legally?”,
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2147&context=ealr)//trepka
***SNF = spent nuclear fuel
Sub-seabed disposal is more complicated and involves at least two related methods: creating a
repository with a potential for retrieval of SNF, and permanent burial.101 Creating a repository, which Sweden
and the United Kingdom have considered, could allow for retrieval of SNF and could include
access to the repository from land.102 An advantage of such a sub-seabed repository would be an
increased ability to monitor SNF, as compared to the dumping method.103 Another
advantage could be a potential for access from land, which could allow the repository method
to avoid violating international bans against oceanic dumping, but accessing certain underwater locations by
land might be impossible.104
2nc --- solvency
pull cards from land-based cp
2nc --- solves us waste
Once one country has a repository, they will take US material --- empirics
Friedemann 11/8/13 (Alice, “Book review of “Too Hot to Touch: The Problem of High-Level Nuclear Waste””,
http://energyskeptic.com/2013/book-review-nuclear-waste-too-hot-to-touch/)//trepka
World-wide, another 270,000 tons of waste are vulnerable to terrorists, tsunamis, floods, rising sea levels,
hurricanes, electric grid outages, and other disasters. In
2001 Russian president Putin announced that any nation
could send them spent fuel for indefinite storage on Russian territory. But it isn’t likely we’d take
them up on that given our fears of nuclear proliferation and terrorist access to this material.
2nc --- sweden
Sweden solves waste disposal
Ferguson 9 --- Ferguson, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology (Charles, “Testimony to
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives; Hearing on “Advancing Technology for Nuclear Fuel Recycling: What Should
Our Research, Development, and Demonstration Strategy Be?””, CFR, http://www.cfr.org/proliferation/assessment-proliferation-risks-spent-fuelreprocessing/p19648)//trepka
No country has yet to open a permanent repository. But the country with the most promising
record of accomplishment in this area is Sweden. A couple of weeks ago, Sweden announced the
selection of its repository site but admits that the earliest the site will accept spent fuel is 2023. Sweden had
carefully evaluated three different sites and obtained widespread community and local government
involvement in the decision making process. France touts the benefits of the volume reduction of recycling in which
highly radioactive fission products are formed into a glass-like compound, which is now stored at an interim storage site. By weight
percentage, spent fuel typically consists of 95.6% uranium (with most of that being uranium-238), 3% stable or short-lived
radioactive fission products, 0.3% cesium and strontium (the primary sources of high-level radioactive waste over a few hundred
years), 0.1% long-lived iodine and technetium, 0.1% long-lived actinides (heavy radioactive elements), and 0.9% plutonium. But the
critical physical factor for a repository is the heat load. For the first several hundred years of a repository the most heat emitting
elements are the highly radioactive fission products. The benefit of a fast reactor recycling program could be the reduction or near
elimination of the longer-lived transuranic elements that are the major heat producing elements beyond several hundred years.
Specifically Finland and Sweden
WNA 13 --- World Nuclear Association (“Radioactive Waste Management”, http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/)//trepka
The process of selecting appropriate deep geological repositories is now underway in several
countries. Finland and Sweden are well advanced with plans for direct disposal of used fuel,
since their parliaments decided to proceed on the basis that it was safe, using existing technology. Both
countries have selected sites , in Sweden, after competition between two municipalities. The USA has opted for a final
repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, though this is now stalled due to political decision. There have also been
proposals for international HLW repositories in optimum geology2. (See also information page on International Nuclear Waste
Disposal Concepts.)
2nc --- solves leadership
Sending fuel to a third party country revitalizes US nuclear leadership
Ferguson 9 --- Ferguson, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology (Charles, “Testimony to
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives; Hearing on “Advancing Technology for Nuclear Fuel Recycling: What Should
Our Research, Development, and Demonstration Strategy Be?””, CFR, http://www.cfr.org/proliferation/assessment-proliferation-risks-spent-fuelreprocessing/p19648)//trepka
While the United States investigates the costs and benefits of various recycling proposals through a
research program, it has an opportunity now to exercise leadership in two waste management
areas . First, as envisioned in GNEP, the United States should offer fuel leasing services. As part of those services, it should
offer to take back spent fuel from the client countries. (Russia is offering this service to Iran’s Bushehr reactor.)
This spent fuel does not necessarily have to be sent to the United States. It could be sent
to a third party country or location that could earn money for the spent fuel storage rental
service. Spent fuel can be safely and securely stored in dry storage casks for up to 100 years. Long before
this time ends, a research program will most likely determine effective means of waste management. The spent fuel leasing
could be coupled to the second area where the United States can play a leadership role. That is,
the United States can offer technical expertise and political support in helping to establish
regional spent fuel repositories. A regional storage system would be especially helpful for countries
with smaller nuclear power programs.
land-based cp
interim storage safe
Spent fuel in dry caskets solves
Moniz 11 --- CFR (Ernest, Why We Still Need Nuclear Power”, Foreign Affairs,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136544/ernest-moniz/why-we-still-need-nuclear-power)//trepka
Fukushima awakened the American public and members of Congress to the problem of the
accumulation of radioactive spent fuel in cooling pools at reactor sites. The original plan had been to allow the spent fuel
to cool for about five years, after which it would be either disposed of underground or partly recycled. Now, the spent nuclear
fuel has nowhere to go. Many utilities have moved some of the spent fuel out of the pools and
into dry storage facilities built on site, which the NRC has judged safe for a century or so.
The dry storage facilities at Fukushima were not compromised by the earthquake and
tsunami, a sharp contrast to the problems that arose with the spent-fuel pools when cooling could not be maintained. To deal
with the immediate problem of waste building up in reactor pools, Congress should allow the Nuclear Waste Fund
to be used for moving the spent fuel accumulating in pools into dry-cask storage
units nearby . Instead of being stored near reactors, spent fuel should eventually be kept in dry casks at a
small number of consolidated sites set up by the government where the fuel could stay for a century. This
approach has several advantages. The additional cooling time would provide the Department of
Energy, or some other organization, with more flexibility in designing a geological repository. The
government would no longer have to pay utilities for not meeting the mandated schedule, and communities near reactors would be
reassured that spent fuel has a place to go. At each site, the
aging fuel would be monitored , so that any
problems that arose could be addressed. The storage facilities would keep Washington's options open as the debate
over whether spent fuel is waste or a resource works itself out. These sites should be paid for by the Nuclear
Waste Fund , a change that would require congressional approval .
Land-based disposal is comparatively better
DOE 12 (“Used Fuel Disposition Campaign Disposal Research and Development Roadmap”,
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/08/f2/UFDDisposalRDRoadmapR1.pdf)//trepka
First, the U.S. went through an extensive review of all available options
for disposal and
management during the 1970s, culminating in the 1980 Environmental Impact Statement on
Management and Disposal of Commercially Generated Radioactive Wastes (DOE/EIS-0046). This
review considered a full range of alternatives to mined geologic repositories , including
deep boreholes, sub-seabed disposal, space disposal, and ice sheet disposal. Mined repositories were the favored
option , but sub-seabed disposal and deep boreholes were retained for further consideration. Sub-seabed disposal
remained technically a promising option, but was precluded by international treaty in the 1990s. Deep boreholes
were considered to require further technological advances, and disposal programs in both the U.S. and other nations focused on
mined repositories beginning in early 1970s. The U.S. program evaluated salt, granite, shale, basalt, and volcanic tuff before focusing
exclusively on volcanic tuff at Yucca Mountain as a result of the 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act.
geologic repository safe
Geological disposal solves --- tech exists now
WNA 13 --- World Nuclear Association (“Radioactive Waste Management”, http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/)//trepka
For disposal, to ensure that no significant environmental releases occur over tens of thousands
of years, 'multiple barrier' geological disposal is planned. This immobilises the
radioactive elements in HLW and some ILW and isolates them from the biosphere. The main barriers are:
Immobilise waste in an insoluble matrix such as borosilicate glass or synthetic rock (fuel
pellets are already a very stable ceramic: UO2). Seal it inside a corrosion-resistant container, such as
stainless steel. Locate it deep underground in a stable rock structure. Surround
containers with an impermeable backfill such as bentonite clay if the repository is wet. HLW from
reprocessing must be solidified. France has two commercial plants to vitrify HLW left over from reprocessing oxide fuel,
and there are also significant plants in the UK and Belgium. The capacity of these western European plants is
2,500 canisters (1000 t) a year, and some have been operating for three decades. By mid-2009, the UK Sellafield vitrification plant
had produced it 5000th canister of vitrified HLW, representing 3000 m3 of liquor reduced to 750 m3 of glass. The plant fills about
400 canisters per year. The
Australian Synroc (synthetic rock) system is a more sophisticated way to
immobilise such waste, and this process may eventually come into commercial use for civil
wastes. (see page on Synroc). To date there has been no practical need for final HLW repositories, as surface storage for 40-50
years is first required so that heat and radioactivity can decay to levels which make handling and storage easier.
Permanent closure solves long-term security
WNA 13 --- World Nuclear Association (“Radioactive Waste Management”, http://www.world-
nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/)//trepka
A pending question is whether wastes should be emplaced so that they are readily retrievable from repositories. There are sound
reasons for keeping such options open – in particular, it is possible that future generations might consider the buried waste to be a
valuable resource. On the other hand, permanent
closure might increase long-term security of the
facility. After being buried for about 1,000 years most of the radioactivity will have decayed . The
amount of radioactivity then remaining would be similar to that of the naturally-occurring uranium ore from which it originated,
though it would be more concentrated.
interim storage locations
Tons of locations
HSN, 13 [Idaho debating nuclear waste storage, Homeland Security Newswire,
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20130211-idaho-debating-nuclear-wastestorage]
For two decades, the Yucca mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada was viewed as a long-term solution to the growing problem
of radioactive waste generated by the 104 active nuclear power generation plants in the United States. One of the Obama
administration’s first acts was to “defund” the project, in effect outing an end to it. States such as Texas, New Mexico,
and North Carolina have fashioned their own interim solution to the problem of nuclear waste
storage, and the governor of Idaho wants his state to follow these states’ example. Idaho Governor C..L. Otter’s
Leadership in Nuclear Energy (LINE) commission has conducted a study and concluded that when it
comes to nuclear energy in Idaho, a significant industrial opportunity exists. Citizens in the
state have given their opinion on the safety and environmental protection recommendations, but the study says these concerns
can be met since nuclear storage and disposal technologies have improved.
Specifically, there should be one in New Mexico --- that solves --- Energy
Department agrees
National Journal, 13 [“Nuclear Waste in the Age of Climate
Change”http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/nuclear-waste-in-the-age-of-climate-change-20130221]
Because Yucca Mountain is not on the table as long as Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader from Nevada, retains
his post, experts
have come up with another solution: creation of an interim storage site , a
the waste could be moved from power plants and sit for up to a
century awaiting construction of a final resting place. The most likely location for such a spot is near
Carlsbad, N.M., where the Energy Department already stores nuclear-weapons waste. But
government-run “halfway house,” where
from 2001 to 2012, the Senate Energy Committee was chaired consecutively by two New Mexicans—Republican Pete Domenici and
Democrat Jeff Bingaman—who didn’t relish that prospect. Now, both have retired from the Senate. And the committee’s new
chairman, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, has a very different take. For 16 years, his state was home to the Trojan nuclear-power
station, a facility that was dogged by protests from the day it was built. Trojan is now retired, but the site remains home to 34 casks
of buried nuclear waste, which Wyden and his constituents would love to see hauled out of Oregon. “This is going to be a
priority for me,” Wyden told National Journal. “It’s an issue where I think we can break
through partisan gridlock.”
geologic repository storage locations
Specifically, a New Mexican repository solves --- experts agree
Ewing 11 --- Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the
University of Michigan (Rodney, “Standards & Regulations for the Geologic Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Waste”, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/23290/ewing_brc_white_paper_final.pdf)//trepka
This paper draws on my experience as a reviewer of the scientific programs and performance
assessments of the geological repository for transuranic waste at the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant in New Mexico and the proposed repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste at Yucca Mountain
in Nevada. In addition, I have served on numerous committees of the National Research Council that have addressed many aspects
of nuclear waste management. These comments and recommendations focus on standards and regulations for licensing a geological
repository for SNF and HLW; however, I have added a brief annex on the classification of nuclear wastes. The initial classification of
the waste determines the disposal strategy: deep geological disposal vs. near surface disposal. In this paper, I present the basis for
and supporting regulations for the licensing of a geologic repository should be
generic - applicable to all potential sites. These standards and regulations should be finalized prior to the siteSite-selection should be based on a set of common-sense criteria (e.g., NRC, 1978). If during site
characterization it is discovered that the site does not meet the technical criteria, then it should be abandoned. These
criteria
should not only consider the characteristics of the site, but should also include careful
consideration of the degree to which a site can be analyzed. Unnecessary complexity can jeopardize the
-of-proof to the
fact that there are two time-scales of interest: the human time-scale that extends to some thousands of years and the geologic time-
Reasonable and robust containment at both
time scales is possible, but the type of analysis and standard-ofscale that extends to many hundreds of thousands of years.
time-scales and because the types of “proof” for each are very different, the total system analysis of performance, reduced to a single
numerical estimate of risk at some very distant time, should be abandoned. The standard should not require scientists and engineers
to complete an analysis that is at its best opaque and at its worst not believable. At the end of this paper, I have provided a short list
of references that are not meant to be comprehensive, but rather were selected because they provide an expanded discussion of some
of the critical points in this paper.
solves long-term
Interim repositories solve
Pavey, 13 [DOE touts interim storage option for spent nuclear fuel, By Rob Pavey Staff Writer Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013 11:47
AM http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2013-01-16/doe-touts-interim-storage-option-spent-nuclear-fuel]
The national dilemma over the fate of spent nuclear fuel could be resolved with interim
storage, followed by a carefully planned “geologic repository ,” according to a new report
issued by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “The Administration supports the development of a
pilot interim storage facility with an initial focus on accepting used nuclear fuel from shut-down reactor sites,” Chu said,
in an Energy Department response to recommendations from a Blue Ribbon Committee empaneled to explore new strategies. The
nation’s spent fuel inventory – more than 75,000 tons – was to be buried in a deep repository in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain until that
project was halted by the Obama administration. That material remains stored at the nation’s 104 commercial power reactors. A key
difference between future and past disposal efforts involves a greater reliance on community sentiment in areas vetted for nuclear
waste storage or spent fuel disposal. “In practical terms, this means encouraging communities to volunteer
to be considered to host a nuclear waste management facility while also allowing for the waste management
organization to approach communities that it believes can meet the siting requirements,” Chu said, noting that such facilities
would bring an economic benefit to those areas. Although Chu’s report does not mention specific locations,
Savannah River Site in South Carolina has been mentioned among areas that could be considered for a
pilot facility to demonstrate interim storage capabilities.
solves ilaw da
Geologic disposal solves and avoids the i-law turns --- the only issue is political
delays
WNA 13 --- World Nuclear Association (“Radioactive Waste Management”, http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/)//trepka
Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology which takes full responsibility
for all its
wastes and fully costs this into the product. The amount of radioactive wastes is very small relative to wastes produced by fossil
fuel electricity generation. Used nuclear fuel may be treated as a resource or simply as a waste. Nuclear wastes are neither
particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes. Safe methods for the
final disposal of high-level radioactive waste are technically proven ; the international
consensus is that this should be geological disposal. All parts of the nuclear fuel cycle produce some
radioactive waste (radwaste) and the relatively modest cost of managing and disposing of this is part of the electricity cost, i.e. it is
internalised and paid for by the electricity consumers. At
each stage of the fuel cycle there are proven
technologies to dispose of the radioactive wastes safely. For low- and intermediate-level wastes these are
mostly being implemented. For high-level wastes some countries await the accumulation of enough of it
to warrant building geological repositories; others, such as the USA, have encountered political
delays.
Empirics and nature prove geologic disposal is safe and solves international
collaboration
WNA 13 --- World Nuclear Association (“Radioactive Waste Management”, http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/)//trepka
Natural precedents for geological disposal Nature has already proven that geological isolation is
possible through several natural examples (or 'analogues'). The most significant case
occurred almost 2 billion years ago at Oklo in what is now Gabon in West Africa, where several
spontaneous nuclear reactors operated within a rich vein of uranium ore5. (At that time the
concentration of U-235 in all natural uranium was about 3%.) These natural nuclear reactors continued for
about 500,000 years before dying away. They produced all the radionuclides found in HLW,
including over 5 tonnes of fission products and 1.5 tonnes of plutonium, all of which remained
at the site and eventually decayed into non-radioactive elements. The study of such natural
phenomena is important for any assessment of geologic repositories, and is the subject of
several international research projects . However, it must be noted that the Oklo reactions proceeded because
groundwater was present as a moderator in the 'enriched' and permeable uranium ore.
at: earthquakes
Underground storage solves seismic issues
IAEA 3 --- International Atomic Energy Agency (“Storage of Spent Fuel from Power Reactors”, http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/CSPS-20-P/CSP-20/CSP-20_Part_1.pdf)//trepka
3.3. Plant layout Various issues related to the fuel pool being underground or above ground, single wall or
double wall structure were considered before taking up a decision with respect to ease of operation, time and cost of construction.
The decision was made in favour of underground fuel pool with single wall construction. See Fig. 1 for the layout of the new facility.
The plant layout is designed to take care of following aspects: • Separate vehicle air locks for trailer entry and exit; • Cask
decontamination and cask storage facility; • Cask handling in the pool; • Separate zoning of active & inactive areas. 3.4. Seismic
Seismic design Tarapur and Kalpakkam sites lie in the
seismic zone III as per the latest Indian Standard (IS- 1893: 2002) for earthquake resistant design of
structures, which is used for the design of conventional civil structures. Entire India is divided into four
design criteria & civil structure design 3.4.1.
seismic zones starting from zone II (lowest seismicity) to zone V (highest seismicity) depending on the seismicity of various areas.
The independent SFSF are designed based on the guidelines given in IAEA TECDOC-1250 [1]. These guidelines are followed for
various safety classifications of system & components for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities (NFCF). These facilities are
designed for OBE (Operating Basis Earthquake) level of earthquake . The design of pool building and
other associated building is performed by using the local soil/rock data obtained through a geotechnical investigation. A weighted
average of shear wave velocity up to a depth of 25 m below the founding level has been considered for the purpose of seismic design
and qualification of civil structures. The soil-structure interaction has been considered as per ASCE 4-98 standard. Two horizontal
and one vertical component of the site-specific OBE response spectra have been used for the design of civil structure.
at: solvency deficits
Interim storage is safe
IAEA 3 --- International Atomic Energy Agency (“Storage of Spent Fuel from Power Reactors”, http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/CSPS-20-P/CSP-20/CSP-20_Part_1.pdf)//trepka
For twelve reactor sites, licence applications for the interim storage of spent fuel elements have
been submitted to the authorities in accordance with Section 6 of the Atomic Energy Act (AtG). The storage facilities
are designed as dry storage facilities where with spent fuel elements loaded casks are placed in
new storage buildings to be constructed on site. The casks are cooled by passive air convection, which removes the
heat from the casks without any active technical systems. The leak-proof and accident-resistant casks
ensure safe enclosure as well as the necessary degree of radiation shielding and criticality
safety during both normal operation and in the case of incidents. The heat is released from the outer
surfaces of the casks into the environment by means of cooling fins. Protection against external impacts, such
earthquakes , explosions and aircraft crashes, is ensured by the thick walls of the casks.
Research and a safety case solves their solvency deficits
Ewing 11 --- Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the
University of Michigan (Rodney, “Standards & Regulations for the Geologic Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Waste”, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/23290/ewing_brc_white_paper_final.pdf)//trepka
For the geologic time-scale analysis, a “quantitative” analysis may provide insight into how
the geologic system works and how the different geologic barriers (e.g., sorption onto mineral surfaces and ground water
flow rates) interact, but the success of the geologic containment system can only be judged by
formulating a safety case, that is a compelling argument as to the fate of the radionuclides in
the repository environment over time. The use of a safety case for the long periods of geologic containment, as distinct
from a safety assessment, is a commonly used approach in other national programs and is well described in a recent NEA (2009)
publication that summarizes the different approaches taken by different countries. For the geologic time-scale, the geology would be
the primary barrier. As such, geologic time-scales are appropriate. One may also have a different point of compliance, more distant
from the repository, e.g., 10 kilometers, which would take advantage the geologic properties of the surrounding rock. It is important
to realize that over longer periods, the problem becomes simpler. At longer times, many of the problematic radionuclides will have
decayed away, and only a short list of radionuclides requires attention, such as: 135Cs, 129I, 99Tc, and actinide elements, such as U
and Pu. The safety case would examine each of the problematic radionuclides and determine their fate in the expected geologic
environment. The argument for safety would vary from element to element. One might argue that 129I would be isotopically diluted
by non-radioactive iodine in the environment, while the actinides would be examined in terms of their mobility under the expected
range of geochemical conditions. A
wide array of different sources of evidence might be cited, such as
the fate of actinides in the Oklo natural reactors over the last two billion years. The safety case
would take the form of the type science that is characteristic of the earth sciences: inference
based on other similar types of rock, careful observation of natural systems, and models
that are well-grounded in fundamental physics and chemistry. For the geologic time-scale safety case, there
would be no need to evaluate dose levels, except as illustrative examples – but not for the purpose of determining compliance.
Yes expertise --- geologists can predict long timeframe changes
Ewing 11 --- Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the
University of Michigan (Rodney, “Standards & Regulations for the Geologic Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Waste”, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/23290/ewing_brc_white_paper_final.pdf)//trepka
A risk-based standard requires the calculation not only of the geologic performance of the
repository but a calculation of the exposure to human beings. This depends critically on the future
distribution and habits of the populations that occupy the repository area. Considering that the human species spread across the
world in a period of some 50,000 years, predictions of the distribution of human beings and their habits in a million years is a
fantasy. The committee made exactly this point earlier in their discussion when they noted, “. . . there is no scientific basis for
prediction of future states, and the limit of our ability to extrapolate with reasonable confidence is measured in decades or, at most, a
In
comparison with many other fields of science, earth scientists are accustomed to dealing with
physical phenomena over long time scales. In this perspective even the longest times
considered for repository performance models are not excessive” (page 71). This is certainly true,
earth scientists routinely deal with processes that extend to the earliest history of Earth, some 4.5 billion years ago, but the models
and understanding of these very long time Earth processes are not accomplished by using methods that are similar in any way to the
proposed assessment methodology – probabilistic performance assessment. The report is sadly silent on how to deal with geologic
systems over relevant time periods. Furthermore, it is not only the physical processes that are important. One must also consider
geochemical processes.
molten salt reactor cp
New reactors solve --- they run on spent fuel
Discovery 12 --- Discovery News (“Nuclear Plant Powered by Spent Fuel”,
http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/nuclear-reactor-powered-spent-fuel-121109.htm)//trepka
An old nuclear technology is getting another look, and it could mean clean, emission-free
electricity, while at the same solving the problem of nuclear waste. It's called a molten salt reactor,
and it's an idea that dates to the late 1950s. A start-up called Transatomic Power, based in Cambridge, Mass., is working on a
newer version that uses nuclear waste as fuel. Transatomic's founders are Russ Wilcox, formerly the CEO of
E-Ink, and Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie, two MIT students. A big selling point of this design is that it would
help deal with the nuclear waste problem. The Nuclear Energy Institute says there are some 67,000 metric tons of
uranium from fuel in the United States alone. It can also be built smaller at lower costs out of modular parts.
The WAMSR can do this because unlike current reactors, it doesn't need to use enriched
uranium as fuel, and the fuel itself doubles as a coolant . No need to build this near a water source like an
ocean or river that can ultimately flood and cause damage.
Burns all the leftover fuel
Discovery 12 --- Discovery News (“Nuclear Plant Powered by Spent Fuel”,
http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/nuclear-reactor-powered-spent-fuel-121109.htm)//trepka
As the fuel is "burned," the uranium decays into other elements, including plutonium, zirconium, cesium,
xenon and iodine. Eventually,
enough other elements mix in with the uranium that the nuclear
reactions slow down, reducing the efficiency of boiling the water. The fuel is then called
"subcritical," or spent, and is put into a waste storage facility. That's where the WAMSR comes in. Spent
fuel from other reactors is dissolved in fluorine to make a molten "salt," a chemical whose
elements are bound together by their positive and negative charges. The molten salt is pumped
out of the core and into a heat exchanger, where the water is boiled to drive a turbine. Since the
heat energy is being transferred to the water, the fuel cools down. This type of reactor was first proposed as
a way of powering a bomber; in the 1960s and 70s there was one operated at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. But the nuclear
industry had settled on the light water reactors, and that became the industry standard. Small May Be Beautiful For Nuclear Power
Because the molten salt behaves like a liquid, it's easier to get it into a shape that allows for
self-sustaining reactions , Dewan said. The shape matters because to make sure that neutrons and nuclei hit
others (and sustain the fission ) it's necessary to reduce the surface area of the fuel as much as possible. A sphere is
the perfect shape, but a cylinder works as well. The fission reactions in the molten salt " burn" more of the
uranium in it, so eventually much more turns into other elements that don't stay radioactive for so long.
It’s also safer
Discovery 12 --- Discovery News (“Nuclear Plant Powered by Spent Fuel”,
http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/nuclear-reactor-powered-spent-fuel-121109.htm)//trepka
The fuel is also safer . When accidents have happened in power plants, such as at Fukushima in
Japan, it was because the cooling systems failed. At Fukushima the generators that powered the water pumps
were flooded by a tsunami. The heat built up in the reactor core until there was a meltdown. The result
was a release of hydrogen, which exploded. The WAMSR's core is "plugged" with a chunk of
solid material that is actively cooled. If that cooling fails, then the plug melts and the
molten salt drains out into a pool Once outside of the reactor vessel it will simply cool off
and eventually solidify – and since it isn't in the right shape anymore, the fission reactions won't be self-sustaining. A
failure of the cooling system power would stop the reactor, rather than leading to a meltdown.
DOE agrees
Discovery 12 --- Discovery News (“Nuclear Plant Powered by Spent Fuel”,
http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/nuclear-reactor-powered-spent-fuel-121109.htm)//trepka
Even with those obstacles, the WAMSR is still a worthwhile innovation, Sofu said. "In the 1990s the DoE
did a study of next generation designs," he said. "The molten salt reactor was one of the four or five
most promising concepts. It has a lot of advantages in fuel cycle consideration and resource utilization."
random
Heidegger updates
ontology impact
The impact is ontological damnation which outweighs a nuclear war
Zimmerman 94 (Michael, Professor + Chair of Philosophy @ Tulane, Contesting Earth’s
Future, p. 119)
Heidegger asserted that human self-assertion, combined with the eclipse of being, threatens the relation between being
and human Dasein.53 Loss of this relation would be even more dangerous than a nuclear war that
might "bring about the complete annihilation of humanity and the destruction of the earth."54 This controversial claim is
comparable to the Christian teaching that it is better to forfeit the world than to lose one's soul by losing one's relation to God.
Heidegger apparently thought along these lines: it is possible that after a nuclear war, life might once again
emerge, but it is far less likely that there will ever again occur an ontological clearing through
which such life could manifest itself. Further, since modernity's onedimensional disclosure of entities virtually denies
them any "being" at all, the loss of humanity's openness for being is already occurring.55 Modernity's background mood
is horror in the face of nihilism, which is consistent with the aim of providing material
"happiness" for everyone by reducing nature to pure energy.56 The unleashing of vast quantities of energy in
nuclear war would be equivalent to modernity's slow-motion destruction of nature: unbounded destruction would equal limitless
consumption. If humanity avoided nuclear war only to survive as contented clever animals , Heidegger
believed we
would exist in a state of ontological damnation: hell on earth, masquerading as
material paradise. Deep ecologists might agree that a world of material human comfort purchased at the price of everything
wild would not be a world worth living in, for in killing wild nature, people would be as good as dead. But most of them could not
agree that the loss of humanity's relation to being would be worse than nuclear omnicide, for it is wrong to suppose that the lives of
millions of extinct and unknown species are somehow lessened because they were never "disclosed" by humanity
Icebreakers update
Arctic conflict
--neg
Hydrographic surveying partnerships solves Arctic war
Titley and John 10 – U.S. Navy Rear Admiral and Director of Climate Change Taskforce/Policy Fellow in Office of the
Oceanographer of the Navy (David W. and Courtney C., “Arctic Security Considerations and the U.S. Navy’s Roadmap for the Arctic”
< http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e0734d9a-386e-4a2c-ba9d-86e7b290c57f/Arctic-Security-Considerations-and-the-U-S-navy-s>)
Currently there are overlapping, unresolved maritime boundary claims between the United
States and Canada, Canada and Denmark, Denmark and Norway, and Norway and Russia. At
this time, none of these disputed boundary claims pose a threat to global stability.
While the United States and Canada disagree on the location of the maritime boundary in and northward of the Beaufort Sea, the
United States considers Canada a close ally, and the dispute does not jeopardize this relationship.29 Unfortunately, the United
States is the only Arctic nation that has not joined UNCLOS, despite support from President Barack Obama and the Bush and
Clinton administrations. Because the Illulissat Declaration recognizes the law of the sea as the framework for deciding issues of
Arctic territoriality, the United States will likely find itself at a disadvantage when critical Arctic conversations occur.30 The U.S.
Navy is mindful of other international challenges and opportunities in the Arctic. There is some
concern in Japan that a renewed Arctic emphasis by the U.S. Navy may lead to a corresponding
decrease in western Pacific presence and security. Conversely, there are unique opportunities
for the U.S. Navy to develop “soft” partnerships with other nations, such as Russia
and China, on research like hydrographic surveys. While present boundary
disputes and security concerns pose no major risk to international stability and
security, the long-term potential for significant change in the Arctic must be recognized and thoroughly assessed.
--aff
See scidip fails
Oil spills
--neg
Bioremediation investment solves spills
Abboud 7/14/14 --- Founder of the Jordanian Society for Microbial Biodiversity (Nura, “The
Promise of Bioremediation”, Future Perspectives, http://www.ecomena.org/tag/advantages-of-bioremediation/)//trepka
Bioremediation has the potential to restore contaminated environments inexpensively yet
effectively . Lack of sufficient knowledge about the effect of various environmental factors on the rate and extent of
biodegradation create a source of uncertainty. It is important to point out that many field tests have not been correctly designed, well
controlled, or properly analyzed, leading to uncertainty when selecting response options. Hence, future field studies should
invest serious efforts adopting scientifically legitimate approaches and acquiring the highest
quality data possible. Moreover, a wide diversity of microbes with detoxification abilities is
waiting to be explored. The inadequate knowledge about microbes and their natural role in the environment could affect the
acceptability of their uses. The understanding of the diversity of microbial community's in petroleum
contaminated environment is essential to get a better insight into potential oil degraders and
to understand their genetics and biochemistry that will result in developing appropriate bioremediation strategies, thus,
preserving the long-term sustainability of natural terrestrial and marine ecosystems.
--aff
see biodiversity bad wave 3 or destroy the oceans file
Trade
--neg
That solves trade leadership
Riley and Miller 13 --- Senior Policy Analyst in Trade Policy AND Ambassador (Bryan and Terry,
“2013 Index of Economic Freedom: No Boost in Trade Freedom”, Center for International Trade and Economics (CITE), The
Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/2013-index-of-economic-freedom-no-boost-in-trade-freedom)//trepka
How the U.S. Can Show Trade Leadership Whatever the outcome of the presidential election on November 6, the
United States can take several practical steps to encourage trade freedom. The
United States should encourage other
countries’ efforts to reduce trade barriers , including African countries’ proposed CFTA. U.S.
programs, such as laid out in the Generalized System of Preferences, African Growth and Opportunity Act, and the Andean Trade
Preference Act, promote mutually beneficial trade and growth. These programs should be expanded to include more
categories of imports and extended on a long-term basis. In recent years, the United States has
remained on the sidelines while other countries have aggressively moved forward with trade deals modeled on U.S. agreements, such
as NAFTA. The Administration should get back in the game by exploring multilateral opportunities to reduce trade barriers in the
Pacific, in the Western Hemisphere, across the Atlantic, and anywhere else it can find willing partners. Negotiation of a free trade
agreement between the United States and the European Union would be a positive step.[16] However, the United States
need not wait for long and uncertain negotiations to reduce its own self-destructive trade
barriers. Congress can take the first steps by: Eliminating tariffs on imported shoes and clothing.
These tariffs, which have been called America’s most regressive tax, cost Americans billions of dollars per year.[17] Eliminating
restrictions on sugar imports. Sugar tariffs are the modern version of the Molasses and Sugar Acts, which contributed to
the American Revolution. They should be as offensive to lawmakers today as they were to colonists in the 1700s. Eliminating
job-killing anti-dumping laws. These laws reduce competition and increase the price of inputs
for U.S. producers.[18] At the very least, the government should conduct a cost–benefit analysis before considering any new
anti-dumping duties. Eliminating “Buy American” laws. Requirements for governments at the state, local, and federal
levels to use domestically produced products when lower-priced imports are available increase government spending, leading to
higher taxes or larger budget deficits. They also indirectly limit opportunities for competitive U.S.
companies to sell their products to other governments. Eliminating the Merchant Marine Act of 1920
(Jones Act) and the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886. These laws require ships moving from one U.S.
port to another to be U.S.-made and U.S.-crewed, thereby artificially increasing cargo
transportation costs.
Remote sensing update
Disease
--neg
WHO funding solves disease
Hachigan 9 (Nina, Senior Fellow at American Progress. Based in Los Angeles, “WHO Can Stop
an Epidemic, http://www.good.is/post/who-can-stop-an-epidemic/ January 19, 2009)
According to the New York Times, this season’s particular flu virus doesn’t respond—at all—to the
standard flu medicine, Tamiflu. I admit to shivering when I hear medical experts saying things like “It’s quite shocking”
and “We’ve never lost an antimicrobial this fast. It blew me away.” Thirty six thousand Americans die every year from the flu, so it’s
no joke. But the last paragraph of the Times piece is particularly chilling: “And while seasonal flu is relatively mild, the Tamiflu
resistance could transfer onto the H5N1 bird flu circulating in Asia and Egypt, which has killed millions of birds and about 250
people since 2003.” That is disturbing because the LA Times reports last week that, after a two-year lull, avian flu is back and killing
people again. In the past, pandemic health experts have warned that this “H5N1″ avian flu virus could well become transmissible
from human to human, and then we’d be in big trouble. The flu from the turn of the 20th century, also an avian flu, killed the
percentage equivalent today of two million Americans. Its victims turned blue and coughed up blood In response to the outbreaks of
avian flu, public health agencies around the world have been stockpiling Tamiflu. So the idea of an avian flu virus that cannot be
treated with Tamiflu is, well…yikes. All of this makes me wonder why the World Health Organization is virtually unheard of in the
U.S (and it has only 1,203 fans on Facebook compared to, say, over 600,000 fans for Red Bull). The WHO tracks global
epidemics like avian flu and another nightmare pathogen, Ebola. It also more or less eradicated
polio and helps developing countries with their healthcare systems. The rules are that if there is
an outbreak of contagious disease in your country, you have to share samples of the virus with
the WHO That way, the WHO can get scientists to track and analyze the bug (and ideally
develop a vaccine), and it can help coordinate a response among public health officials to
prevent the spread. No other group can do this—if Washington asked for those samples, many
countries would refuse. The WHO is an encouraging, and too rare, example of countries getting
over their differences to solve a common problem. The WHO is underfunded and needs reform, but it
stands between us and some lethal future pandemic. President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and
Obama’s pick for healthcare czar—Senator Tom Daschle—should be sure to support it, talk it up and push to
make it as effective an organization as it can be.
--aff
Empirically denied --- H5N1
Hachigan 9 (Nina, Senior Fellow at American Progress. Based in Los Angeles, “WHO Can Stop
an Epidemic, http://www.good.is/post/who-can-stop-an-epidemic/ January 19, 2009)
I admit to shivering when I hear medical experts saying things like “It’s quite shocking” and “We’ve never lost an antimicrobial this
fast. It blew me away.” Thirty six thousand Americans die every year from the flu, so it’s no joke. But the last paragraph of the Times
piece is particularly chilling: “And while seasonal flu is relatively mild, the Tamiflu resistance could transfer onto the H5N1 bird flu
circulating in Asia and Egypt, which has killed millions of birds and about 250 people since 2003.” That is disturbing because the LA
Times reports last week that, after a two-year lull, avian flu is back and killing people again. In the past, pandemic health
experts have warned that this “H5N1″ avian flu virus could well become transmissible from
human to human, and then we’d be in big trouble. The flu from the turn of the 20th century, also an avian flu, killed the
percentage equivalent today of two million Americans. Its victims turned blue and coughed up blood In response to the
outbreaks of avian flu, public health agencies around the world have been stockpiling Tamiflu. So
the idea of an avian flu virus that cannot be treated with Tamiflu is, well…yikes. All of this makes me wonder why the World
Health Organization is virtually unheard of in the U.S (and it has only 1,203 fans on Facebook compared to,
say, over 600,000 fans for Red Bull).
Auvs update
REM
--neg
Solves REMs
Grasso 12/23/13 --- Specialist in Defense Acquisition
(Valerie, “Rare Earth Elements in National Defense:
Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress”, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41744.pdf)//trepka
S. 4031, the Rare Earths Supply-Chain Technology and Resources Transformation Act of 2010 S. 4031 was introduced by then-
Senator Evan Bayh on December 15, 2010, and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The bill would
have promoted exploration
and development of a domestic supply of rare earths , and
reestablished a U.S. competitive rare earth supply chain for rare earths in the United States
and in the countries of foreign allies.
Domestic supply and refining is sufficient
Manchin 14 --- West Virginia Senator (Joe, “Senators Manchin, Blunt Introduce Bill To Encourage Domestic
Production Of Rare Earth Minerals, Boost U.S. Jobs & Innovation”,
http://www.manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/2/senators-manchin-blunt-introduce-bill-to-encourage-domesticproduction-of-rare-earth-minerals-boost-u-s-jobs-innovation)//trepka
“By
encouraging the domestic production and refinement of rare earth minerals, we can reduce
dependency on other countries, encourage job creation and economic development here in the U.S.,
and strengthen our nation’s military capabilities,” Blunt said. “I’m pleased to partner with Senator Manchin on this
our
bipartisan legislation as we work to bring back the rare earth industry to the U.S.” Rare earth minerals are used in some of our
military’s most strategic assets and are critical to the production of many high-tech goods and products used by the energy and
defense industries. However, China has effectively put global competitors out of business, diverted advanced rare earth technology
through its own borders, and gained greater control over the global rare earth mineral industry by using price manipulation and
supply distortion at strategic moments. The bipartisan National Rare Earth Cooperative Act grants private rare earth
suppliers and end-users with an opportunity to jointly set up a rare earth refining cooperative in
America. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), rare earth elements are
located in the Pea Ridge iron-ore mine in Washington County, Mo. Missouri also has a long mining
history in various minerals, including some of the largest sources of lead deposits in the country.
LNG update
Energy independence
---neg
Tax credit solves dependence
Hartman 4/29/14 (Kirsten, “Braley: Wind Energy is Good for Iowa, Critical to America’s Energy Independence”,
http://www.rcreader.com/news-releases/braley-wind-energy-is-good-for-iowa-critical-to-americas-energy-independence/)//trepka
As you know, last year Members of Congress came together to pass the American Taxpayer Relief Act and preserve critical policies
that benefit the American taxpayer, support our economy, and create jobs. Included in this bill was an extension of the tax credit for
wind production projects, which in 2012 directly supported 80,700 jobs across our nation and more than 6,000 in my home state of
Iowa. As you work to craft a tax-extension package to address expired provisions, I ask that you support the preservation of the
production tax credit for renewable energy, including wind. Preservation of the production tax credit would
allow businesses to make critical investments in our nation’s energy infrastructure. MidAmerican, for
instance, is making an investment of $1.9 billion to build a 448-turbine energy project across the state of Iowa – increasing
clean energy production and creating jobs. Unfortunately, investors and manufacturers are once
again dealing with the expiration of this credit – a credit that historically drives $15 billion a
year on average in private investments into the U.S. economy. The benefits of this industry –
local investment, domestic jobs, and energy independence – are exactly what Congress
should prioritize. As the House continues to address expiring provisions, I urge you to preserve the production tax credit and
the promise it holds for our nation’s future.
--aff
Increases the deficit
Schredder 5/14/14 --- Benzinga Staff Writer (Spencer, “R&D Tax Credit Passed In The House, Faces Challenges
Ahead”, http://www.benzinga.com/general/politics/14/05/4551473/r-d-tax-credit-passed-in-the-house-faces-challengesahead)//trepka
A concern on the left side of the isle, including President Obama, is that the
bill provides no way to pay for these
tax breaks. The Congressional Budget Office reports that through 2024, the bill would add $156 billion to the
national debt . In a statement from the White House, the president supported the theory of creating a permanent tax
credit for R&D, but due to the lack of a budgetary offset, disapproved of the passage of H.R. 4438, threatening to veto the
bill.
Manufacturing
--neg
Tax credit solves manufacturing
Schredder 5/14/14 --- Benzinga Staff Writer (Spencer, “R&D Tax Credit Passed In The House, Faces Challenges
Ahead”, http://www.benzinga.com/general/politics/14/05/4551473/r-d-tax-credit-passed-in-the-house-faces-challengesahead)//trepka
On Friday, May 9, to the chagrin of the Obama Administration, the United States House of
Representatives overwhelmingly approved the American Research and Competitiveness Act
of 2014. The bipartisan effort (274 yay vs 131 nay) has been deemed a ‘job creator,’ with backers alleging that
this tax credit has the potential to make the United States a global leader in developing
technologies . The act (H.R. 4438) permanently applies a tax break for companies that are
conducting research and development in the U.S., and simplifies the way the way credits are calculated. A similar
U.S. business tax credit was enacted in 1981, but the provisions expired at the end of 2013, so this bill expands on the past program.
Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) Vice President of Global Public Policy Peter Cleveland penned an op-ed on the importance of this bill, stating
that “Three quarters of Intel’s advanced manufacturing and R&D is done in the United States,
while more than three quarters of our revenue is generated overseas,” stressing the importance
of R&D expansion to ensure America's future technological advancement and
economic growth. Cleveland also touched on the job creation that could come from the bill’s passage, saying that
the bill allows companies to “hire the innovators of tomorrow,” and that “investment in R&D
creates opportunities for students and generates high wage research jobs.” According to
Strategy&, Intel is one of the long time top-spenders in regard to R&D, spending the most of any U.S. firm in 2013, with over $10.1
billion. Other U.S. based R&D leaders in 2013 include Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) with $9.8 billion, Merck (NYSE: MRK) with $8.2
billion, Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) with $7.9 billion and Johnson and Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) with $7.7 billion. A concern on the left side of
the isle, including President Obama, is that the bill provides no way to pay for these tax breaks. The Congressional Budget Office
reports that through 2024, the bill would add $156 billion to the national debt. In a statement from the White House, the president
supported the theory of creating a permanent tax credit for R&D, but due to the lack of a budgetary offset, disapproved of the
passage of H.R. 4438, threatening to veto the bill. The bill is backed by Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, and
will now move to the senate for consideration. There
place.
is no available time-table for when the vote will take
--aff
Increases the deficit
Schredder 5/14/14 --- Benzinga Staff Writer (Spencer, “R&D Tax Credit Passed In The House, Faces Challenges
Ahead”, http://www.benzinga.com/general/politics/14/05/4551473/r-d-tax-credit-passed-in-the-house-faces-challengesahead)//trepka
A concern on the left side of the isle, including President Obama, is that the
bill provides no way to pay for these
tax breaks. The Congressional Budget Office reports that through 2024, the bill would add $156 billion to the
national debt . In a statement from the White House, the president supported the theory of creating a permanent tax
credit for R&D, but due to the lack of a budgetary offset, disapproved of the passage of H.R. 4438, threatening to veto the
bill.
at: warming turn
The UK proves low gas prices don’t decrease renewables investment
Ward 6/5/14 --- Member of Parliament for Bradford East (David, “Concerns on planning consent and the
search for Shale Gas”, http://davidward.org.uk/en/article/2014/846645/concerns-on-planning-consent-and-the-search-for-shalegas)//trepka
There is understandable concern about hydraulic fracturing or 'fracking'. It's a relatively new technology here in the UK and it's to be expected that some
people are worried about how it could impact upon them and their local communities. I thought it would be helpful to set out the current situation, as well as what the Coalition Government is considering,
shale gas is unlikely to revolutionise the UK energy market or meet all of our
energy needs but it would be irresponsible to rule out its use altogether. Gas produces around a quarter of our
particularly in light of the proposals announced in the Queen's Speech. Realistically,
electricity and so shale gas could make a contribution to our future energy needs by reducing our dependence on expensive, imported gas, which is forecast to increase substantially over the coming decade due to
the forecast decline in North Sea gas production. We will need gas for decades to come as we continue to decarbonise the electricity sector, taking more coal off the system and moving to renewables, We also know
that concentrating on home-grown sources of energy is better for reducing our carbon footprint and that the shale gas industry could support around 74,000 jobs. In the United States, shale gas has played a major
reducing the USA's carbon footprint by replacing much dirtier coal and has enhanced energy security. This isn't about stripping people's rights or letting fracking companies drill wherever they like. Ed Davey, the
Lib Dem Energy Secretary, has been clear that fracking can only take place under very strict conditions. The safeguards we've established mean that a system of seismic monitoring will be in place before, during
and after any fracking process. A thorough review will be carried out prior to fracking activity in order to assess possible seismic risks, and a 'traffic-light' system will be established which will allow operations to be
paused if higher than expected levels of seismic activity are found. We have also ensured we have the toughest environmental protections in place and have learnt the lessons for the U.S. shale industry.
Communities which host fracking sites will be able to share in the benefits and the industry is committed to a package. For example, at exploration stage, communities could be given benefits worth £100,000 for
every well site and 1% of production revenues will be given to the local community. The current consultation on access rights looks to boost this compensation by adding an additional one off £20,000 payment for
each horizontal well drilled underground. At the moment, any company wishing to drill for oil or gas must negotiate rights of access with every landowner living above the underground drilling area, despite the
works taking place far beneath the surface. The process of identification of suitable ground and negotiating with the landowner can be very lengthy and there isn't a standard process for this. The landowner can
also request any terms in return for access, giving a single landowner the power to delay or stop a development, regardless of how others in their community feel about it. This is a problem that hampers green
energy such as geothermal exploration too. The current process is time consuming, uncertain and costly. If a landowner refuses access, in the case of geothermal energy that project cannot continue as planned,
however for oil and gas, the operator, can refer the case to a court to establish whether compulsory acquisition of ancillary rights should be granted. Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary Ed Davey has insisted that
the Government consults on this issue and that process started in May. The consultation looks at granting underground access to land 300 metres below the surface to companies exploring or extracting oil, gas or
geothermal energy. To put that into some context, the deepest tube station on the London Underground network is around 60 metres below the surface. The horizontal extensions used in fracking are actually
more likely to be at depths of over a mile below the surface and be just millimetres in diameter. Any change to the law is entirely dependent on the outcome of our consultation, which I think is the right approach
The Coalition
Government's policy on shale gas in no way detracts from our work to increase the amount of
renewable energy we produce and use. Liberal Democrats are delivering in Government and the UK is now the number one
country for offshore wind investment. We're also one of the most attractive countries for renewables investment overall. Electricity
produced from renewables has nearly doubled since 2010 and we are on track to exceed our
renewables targets.
to take. This is an emotive area, and it's vital people have their say. I strongly encourage you and anyone else who's interested to respond so your views are taken into account.
Aquarius update
Space col
--neg
Mars Direct paves the way for space col
HMNS4/29/14 --- Director of Houston Museum of Natural Science (“Looking to move? Try Mars!
Robert Zubrin on the fast track to colonizing Mars”, http://blog.hmns.org/2014/04/looking-to-move-try-mars-robert-zubrin-onthe-fast-track-to-colonizing-mars/)//trepka
In July 1989, on the 20th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing, President George H.W. Bush called for America to renew its
pioneering push into space with the establishment of a permanent lunar base and a series of human missions to Mars. Almost 25
years later, these goals still seem like pipe dreams to many Americans. However, as the nation debates how to proceed
with human space exploration, a human mission to Mars must still be on the table. While many
have said that such an endeavor would be excessively costly and take decades to complete, a small team at Martin Marietta drew
up a daring plan that could sharply cut costs and send a group of American astronauts to the Red
Planet within ten years. The plan, known as Mars Direct , has attracted both international
attention and broad controversy. Mars Direct is a sustained humans-to-Mars plan, advocating a
minimalist, live-off-the-land approach to exploring the planet Mars. It allows for maximum
results with minimum investment. Using existing launch technology and making use of the
Martian atmosphere to generate rocket fuel, extracting water from the Martian soil and
eventually using the abundant mineral resources of the Red Planet for construction purposes, the
plan drastically lowers the amount of material which must be launched from Earth to Mars. Thus, it
sidesteps the primary stumbling block to space exploration, and rapidly accelerates the
timetable for human exploration of the solar system.
--aff
Artificial gravity system means Mars Direct fails
Boswell 14 --- speaker at the International Space Development Conference (David, “Some thoughts on
Mars Direct”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/65/2)//trepka
Reconsider the artificial gravity system To combat the effects of
weightlessness during the voyage, the Mars
Direct plan proposes to create a ship that rotates to create artificial gravity for the crew. This system
would be created by tethering the ship to the spent upper stage and then spinning these two parts around their center of gravity. By
doing this it is possible to simulate Martian gravity for the crew on the way to Mars and back. Minimizing the amount of
weightlessness the crew needs to experience would certainly help them adapt to the situation more easily when they reach their
destination. The risk of 6 months of weightlessness is well known to us. The risks involved in relying on a never
before used artificial gravity system are unknown and are potentially much greater. There is little doubt that
a system like this could be built, but is it worth adding a brand new and untested system to the
mission to offset the effects of weightlessness? Both the trip to Mars and the trip back take 180 days with the orbits used in the
Mars Direct plan. This is almost the same time each expedition crew spends on board the ISS. Station crews are able to readapt to
Earth’s gravity after their stay in space, so after a trip of a similar duration it can be assumed the crew will be able to adapt to gravity
on Mars.
Asteroids
--neg
Nuclear launch solves asteroid deflection
Lamb 13 --- senior writer (Robert, “Top 10 Ways to Stop an Asteroid”, http://news.discovery.com/space/asteroids-
meteors-meteorites/top-10-asteroid-deflection-130130.htm)//trepka
If Hollywood hasn't hammered this into you enough by now, here's one more reminder: A giant asteroid slamming into Earth is a
bad thing. After all, how many dinosaurs have you heard reminiscing about the K-T boundary extinction event? The catalyst for the
mass extinction of the human race could be hurtling toward Earth right now. In fact, many scientists would guarantee it.
Fortunately, we
already have at least 10 rough game plans on how to deal with the threat of near earth
asteroids (NEAs). Sorry, movie fans, but none of them involve Bruce Willis. Makes sense, doesn't it? If the universe is going to
play hardball, then we should pull out our big guns as well: nuclear weapons. The idea of sending a nuclear gift basket
isn't to destroy the incoming asteroid, but rather to deflect it. Otherwise a wayward space rock could be
transformed into cosmic buckshot, with all that deadly debris still headed on a crash course with our tiny little world. Perhaps
surprisingly, a blast's intense radiation -- not unadulterated force -- might get the job done. Such energy
would vaporize a section of the asteroid's surface, causing it to eject surface material into space like countless tiny rockets.
--aff
Nuclear deflection fails
Syala et al 13 (Megan; David S.P. Dearbornb; Peter H. Schultza, “Limits on the use of nuclear explosives for asteroid
deflection”, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576512004031)//trepka
Recent studies by the US National Research Council identify nuclear explosives as the only
current technology able to deflect large asteroids (those exceeding 500 m in diameter) or to mitigate impacts of
smaller bodies when the warning time is short. Previous work predicts that either a standoff burst or a very low-yield surface burst is
easily capable of deflecting a large (1 km) asteroid without fragmentation. Alternatively, large near-surface or just sub-surface bursts
can sufficiently disrupt and disperse smaller bodies (300 m) to ensure that large fractions (in excess of 99.99%) miss the Earth
entirely. Even for very short warning times (less than a month), more than 99.5% of a body′s mass can be deflected off of an Earthbound trajectory. However, successfully deflecting a small body, while avoiding fragmentation, becomes
a challenging problem when the required kinetic energy increment is a substantial
fraction of the body′s potential. This paper addresses the challenge of preventing the production of substantial lowspeed debris while deflecting small bodies with an impulsive method.
Death Cult Answers
Body counts good
CHERNUS 2003 (Ira, Prof of Religious Studies at UC Boulder, “Bring Back the Body Count,”
April 1, http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0401-12.htm)
"We don't do body counts," says America's soldier-in-chief, Tommy Franks. That's a damn
shame. During the Vietnam war, the body count was served up every day on the evening news.
While Americans ate dinner, they watched a graphic visual scorecard: how many Americans had
died that day, how many South Vietnamese, and how many Communists. At the time, it seemed
the height of dehumanized violence. Compared to Tommy Franks' new way of war, though, the
old way looks very humane indeed. True, the body count turned human beings into abstract
numbers. But it required soldiers to say to the world, "Look everyone. I killed human beings
today. This is exactly how many I killed. I am obliged to count each and every one." It demanded
that the killers look at what they had done, think about it (however briefly), and acknowledge
their deed. It was a way of taking responsibility. Today's killers avoid that responsibility. They
perpetuate the fiction so many Americans want to believe-that no real people die in war, that it's
just an exciting video game. It's not merely the dead who disappear; it's the act of killing itself.
When the victim's family holds up a picture, U.S. soldiers or journalists can simply reply "Who's
that? We have no record of such a person. In fact, we have no records at all. We kill and move
on. No time to keep records. No inclination. No reason." This is not just a matter of new
technology. There was plenty of long-distance impersonal killing in Vietnam too. But back then,
the U.S. military at least went through the motions of going in to see what they had done. True,
the investigations were often cursory and the numbers often fictional. No matter how inaccurate
the numbers were, though, the message to the public every day was that each body should be
counted. At some level, at least, each individual life seemed to matter. The difference between
Vietnam and Iraq lies partly in overall strategy. In Vietnam, there was no territory to be
conquered and occupied. If U.S. forces seized an area, they knew that sooner or later the Viet
Cong would take it back. The only way to measure "victory" was by killing more of them than
they killed of us. In Iraq, the goal is control of place. U.S. forces can "take" Basra or Nassiriya
and call it a victory, without ever thinking about how many Iraqis had to be killed in the process.
So the body count matters less. However, the end of body counts can not be explained simply by
the difference in strategy. The old-fashioned body counts disappeared during the first war
against Iraq, when the goal was still defined by territory: pushing Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. So
It's much more likely that "we don't do body counts" because Vietnam proved how embarrassing
they could be. As the U.S. public turned against that war, the body count became a symbol of
everything that was inhumane and irrational about that war. The Pentagon fears that the same
might happen if the Iraq war bogs down. How much simpler to deny the inhumanity and
irrationality of war by denying the obvious fact of slaughter. What I fear is a world where
thousands can be killed and no one is responsible, where deaths are erased from history as soon
as they happen. The body count was more than an act of responsibility. It was a permanent
record. It made each death a historical fact. You can go back and graph those Vietnam deaths
from day to day, month to month, year to year. That turns the victims into nameless, faceless
abstractions. But it least it confirms for ever and ever that they lived and died, because someone
took the time to kill and count them. In Iraq, it is as if the killing never happened. When a
human being's death is erased from history, so is their life. Life and death together vanish
without a trace. The body count has one other virtue. It is enemy soldiers, not civilians, who are
officially counted. Antiwar activists rightly warn about civilian slaughter and watch the toll rise
at www.iraqbodycount.org. It is easy to forget that the vast majority of Iraqi dead and wounded
will be soldiers. Most of them were pressed into service, either by brute force or economic
necessity. As the whole world has been telling us for months, there is no good reason for this
war, no good reason for those hapless Iraqi foot-soldiers to die. They are victims of brutalityinflicted by their own government and by ours-just as much as the civilians. They deserve just as
much to be counted So let us bring back the body count. If we must kill, let us kill as one human
being to another, recognizing the full humanity of our victims. Without a body count, our nation
becomes more of a robotic killing machine. As we dehumanize Iraqis, we slip even further into
our own dehumanization. Let us bring back the body count. if only to recover our own sense of
responsibility to the world's people, to history, to our own humanity.