Yucca Mountain 2 -1ac

Reagan Cerisano & Rachell Smith 1AC: Case for Yucca Mountain “The public desires energy that is clean, safe, and affordable, and nuclear energy can meet all three of these criteria. Managing spent nuclear fuel has been a political sticking point for the advancement of nuclear energy in the United States. Yucca Mountain is crucial to resolving the issue of spent nuclear fuel”1 Unfortunately, because of some governmental policies, this is not possible. This why my partner and I stand resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy. OBSERVATION 1. We offer the following DEFINITIONS: Environmental Policy - Environmental law that establishes federal energy policy, sets goals, and provides means for carrying out the policy. A national policy for the purpose of encouraging productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality. - The California Energy Commission, Glossary of Liquid Natural Gas Related Terms and Definitions Copyright © 1994-2009 California Energy Commission, All Rights Reserved State of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor, Last Modified: June 19, 2008 Significant: “having or likely to have influence or effect” (Merriam-Webster Online Dict., 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significant) Reform: “to put or change into an improved form or condition” (Merriam-Webster Online Dict., 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform) OBSERVATION 2. INHERENCY: A. Funding for Yucca Mountain has been drastically cut. William La Jeunesse [reporter for FOX news, a graduate of Syracuse University and earned his MBA from UCLA], November 04, 2009, “Tracking Your Taxes: The High Price of Nuclear Waste,” published by Fox News

1

Jack Spencer & Nicolas Loris May 1, ‘08 Jack Spencer and Nicolas Loris, “Yucca Mountain Remains Critical to Spent Nuclear Fuel Management,” May 1, 2008, published by the Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2131.cfm

“After 30 years, five presidents and $13 billion dollars, the Obama administration is pulling the plug on Yucca Mountain, the federal government's proposed storage facility for America's nuclear waste. For a candidate who said he wanted to get politics out of science, critics find the president's decision hypocritical and shortsighted, at a time when nuclear energy is making a comeback. "They have no solution to the problem. They've taken tens of billions of dollars from rate-payers and now they are talking about scraping the whole thing," said Leslie Paige of Citizens Against Government Waste. For 2010, the administration dramatically reduced Yucca Mountain's budget, just enough, a spokesperson said, to answer questions from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu told Congress earlier this year that Yucca Mountain is "not an option," and a spokesperson for the Nevada Facility told Fox News that the site is closed.”

B. There is no nuclear waste reprocessing program currently in use in the United States, even though the technology is available. Jack Spencer [Bachelor's degree in international politics from Frostburg State University and master's degree from the University of Limerick in Ireland.] and Nicolas Loris [Bachelor's degree in economics, finance and political science at Albright. Working on a master's degree in economics from George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.],, “Yucca Mountain Remains Critical to Spent Nuclear Fuel Management,” Published by the Heritage foundation, May 1, 2008 “The current U.S. policy is to dispose of all spent fuel permanently. This is a monumental waste of resources. To create power, reactor fuel must contain 3 percent to 5 percent enriched fissionable uranium (U-235). Once the enriched fuel falls below that level, the fuel must be replaced. Yet this "spent" fuel generally retains about 95 percent of its original content, and that uranium, along with other byproducts in the spent fuel, can be recovered and "recycled." Many technologies exist to recover and recycle different parts of the spent fuel. The French have been successful in commercializing a process. They remove the uranium and plutonium and fabricate new fuel. Using this method, America's 56,000 tons of spent fuel contains roughly enough fuel to power every U.S. household for 12 years.” OBSERVATION 3. HARMS: A.

Vast amounts of nuclear waste are stored across the country.

William La Jeunesse [reporter for FOX news, a graduate of Syracuse University and earned his MBA from UCLA], November 04, 2009, “Tracking Your Taxes: The High Price of Nuclear Waste,” published by Fox News “But what made for good campaign politics in Nevada leaves the U.S. with nowhere to store a growing stockpile of radioactive waste. Roughly 70,000 tons of waste sits in temporary pools and dry storage canisters in 100 reactor sites around the U.S. -- each one requiring an army of guards and millions in electronic surveillance.” B. Impact: If there is no place to store nuclear waste, nuclear waste could harm the environment and the population.

Study published by Department of Energy, October 2007, “Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,” “There could be large public health and environmental consequences under the No-Action Alternative if there were no effective institutional control, causing storage facilities and containers to deteriorate and radioactive contaminants from the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to enter the environment. In such circumstances, there would be widespread contamination at the 72 commercial and 5 DOE sites across the United States, with resulting human health impacts.” C. Nuclear waste was expected to be moved off-site…but it’s not. Plants face the possibility of filling their cooling pools. Jack Spencer [Bachelor's degree in international politics from Frostburg State University and master's degree from the University of Limerick in Ireland.] and Nicolas Loris [Bachelor's degree in economics, finance and political science at Albright. Working on a master's degree in economics from George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.], “Yucca Mountain Remains Critical to Spent Nuclear Fuel Management,” Published by the Heritage foundation, May 1, 2008 “This is a problem in the United States, where plants were built with spent fuel pools under the assumption that the spent fuel rods would be removed and stored off-site. However, the politics of Yucca Mountain has prevented the U.S. from executing its spent fuel management strategy as planned. U.S. plants are facing the real possibility of filling their cooling pools. Interim storage should be an option in the U.S. as part of a comprehensive spent fuel management regime along with permanent geologic storage and recycling.” What basically this piece of evidence is stating, is that the US government was expected to move nuclear waste off of these nuclear plants. However, now that the government is not, cooling pools are filling, which, as we saw previously in Harm B, can in fact harm the populace. This is why we, in Observation 4: OBSERVATION 4. We offer the following PLAN to be implemented by any necessary legal means: 1. Agency & Enforcement: The United States Federal Government, the President, and any other necessary Federal agencies. 2. Mandates to be implemented immediately: a. Create a nuclear waste reprocessing and interim storage programs. b. Restore funding to Yucca Mountain so that it can be opened for nuclear waste disposal of current wastes and for the future amount of high-level waste left after fuel reprocessing. c.Expand capacity of nuclear storage in Yucca Mountain to 120,000 tons. d. Enable transportation for the nuclear waste to be taken to the repository.

3. Funding: Normal means 4. All affirmative team speeches have legislative intent for the purpose of clarifying the plan. OBSERVATION 5. SOLVENCY: A.

The opening of Yucca Mountain would lead to cleaner energy

Jack Spencer [Bachelor's degree in international politics from Frostburg State University and master's degree from the University of Limerick in Ireland.] and Garrett Murch [Deputy Director of House Relations for the Heritage Foundation], June 9, 2008, “Road to Clean Air Runs Through Yucca Mountain,” published by the Heritage Foundation http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed060908c.cfm “But there are ways to reduce greenhouse gases without wrecking the economy. Nuclear energy, for one, affordably can meet growing energy demand without emitting pollution or carbon dioxide. But politicians, led by those from Nevada, are standing in the way. A major obstacle to commencing the nuclear renaissance remains the failure to open the nation's repository for spent nuclear fuel at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Yucca is more than a decade behind schedule. Even if it were given a green light today, it would remain about a decade from opening. Delaying Yucca has unintended consequences for Nevada and the nation. Opposition to Yucca has made

building nuclear plants much more difficult. By hamstringing America's energy options, obstructionist politicians are forcing fossil fuel plant construction when utilities might have chosen to build emissions-free nuclear. But the past is past. Opening Yucca now would lead to a cleaner future.” B. A geologic repository, such as Yucca Mountain, is necessary for the success of nuclear power. Jack Spencer and Nicolas Loris [creds in previous article], July 20, 2009, “Nuclear Waste: Do Not Rule Out Yucca Mountain Just Yet, Says House of Representatives,” published by the Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2131.cfm (RC) “In every scenario, a geologic repository is critical to the long-term success of nuclear power in the United States. The reality is that some of the byproducts of nuclear fission will last a long time, necessitating a place where they can be safely stored. Yucca Mountain could be adequate for that purpose.” Now today we have seen that: Harms: 1. There is a large amount of dangerous NW stored across the country. a. Impact: NW under the status quo has the real possibility of harming the people and environment. 2. Nuclear power plants might be overloaded with nuclear waste.

Sovlency: 1. Opening Yucca -> Cleaner energy. 2. Even with a very beneficial nuclear waste reprocessing program, Yucca still is necessary for the success of nuclear power. This is why I strongly urge you to open Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste disposal and .