Yucca Negative

Will Malson Yucca Mountain NEG Page 1 of 14
Yucca Mountain NEG Index (1/2)
Yucca Mountain NEG Index (1/2).....................................................................................1

Earthquakes DA ................................................................................................................3
Link an’ Brink: There’s a high likelihood of earthquakes on or around Yucca. Clinton 07 ...............3
Internal link: An earthquake would cause flooding. Cyberwest 97.....................................................3
Impact: Flooding would contaminate groundwater with nuclear waste. PCEP 05.............................3
Transportation DA.............................................................................................................4
Yucca transportation is a “potential radioactive disaster waiting to happen”; accidents would cost billions
in cleanup. Shundahai 06....................................................................................................................4
Volcanoes DA....................................................................................................................5
Link: Yucca Mountain is near an active volcanic field – nuclear volcanoes are a very real threat. New
Scientist 02..........................................................................................................................................5
Impact: We can’t take any chances – the impact that nuclear waste would have, if released from Yucca in
any way, would be no less than biosphericide. David Camarow 01....................................................5
Solvency – Storage ............................................................................................................6
We would need 9 Yuccas to hold all the waste generated in the 21st century. Spence & Loris 08......6
Yucca will be full in 4 years (2005-2009). Coplan 05.........................................................................6
AT: Solvency evidence had bad numbers...........................................................................6
CP – Subseabed Disposal (1/4)..........................................................................................7
Observation 1: CP Text............................................................................................................7
Observation 2: Solvency...........................................................................................................8
A. The technology needed was available in 1998. Hollister & Nadis 98.............................................8
B. There is plenty of room for our nuclear waste below the seabed. Hollister & Nadis 98.................8
Observation 3: Net Beneficial ..................................................................................................9
A. Subseabed disposal is permanent and in the best place possible. Hollister & Nadis 98.................9
B. The US will spend $90 billion storing waste at Yucca Mountain. Mascaro 08...............................9
C. Subseabed evaluation costs 250 million – much less than Yucca. Hollister & Nadis 98.................9
CP – Subseabed Disposal (4/4)........................................................................................10
Observation 4: Advantages....................................................................................................10
Advantage 1: Economy......................................................................................................................10
A. Suitable long-term storage of nuclear waste is critical to the development of the nuclear power industry.
Bowman 06........................................................................................................................................10
B. Boosting nuclear construction is vital to sustaining economic growth. Bowman 08.....................10
Advantage 2: Proliferation ...............................................................................................................10
B. US nuclear leadership is decreasing because of the lack of new construction. DOE 05...............10
C. Maintaining strong domestic nuclear capabilities is the linchpin of US influence over nonproliferation.
ACGNC 07........................................................................................................................................11
D. Proliferation threatens humanity's very survival. Alla Karimova 97............................................11
AT: Nuclear canisters contaminate oceans oh noes!!! .....................................................12
By the time the radioactive waste leaks to the surface it will have decayed to a level below what is found in
normal seawater. Hollister & Nadis 98 ............................................................................................12
Econ Advantage XTs.......................................................................................................13
Building new nuclear power revitalizes the economy. Zawatsky 08..................................................13
Nuclear power allows us to diversify energy, create jobs and use materials efficiently. Domenici 07 13
Proliferation Advantage XTs............................................................................................14
The U.S. is losing nuclear industry competitiveness to Russia and China. Kotek 08 ........................14
Proliferation’s end result will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. Victor Utgoff 02 . 14
Earthquakes DA
Link an’ Brink: There’s a high likelihood of earthquakes on or around Yucca. Clinton 07
Statement of Hillary Rodham Clinton Hearing: Full Committee hearing entitled, "Examination of the Licensing Process for the Yucca Mountain
Repository", October 31, 2007, http://www.yuccamountain.org/docs/clinton_103107.pdf (HEG)
I want to start by stating what the available scientific evidence makes clear: Yucca Mountain is not a safe place to store spent fuel from our nation’s nuclear
reactors. First off, Yucca Mountain is located in an area of considerable seismic activity.
There are 32 known active faults at or near
Yucca Mountain; there have been more than 600 seismic events registering above 2.5 on the Richter
scale within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain in the last 30 years. In 1992, an earthquake registering
5.6 on the Richter scale occurred just eight miles away. And just last month, it was reported that the Department
of Energy had to alter plans at the site after rock samples unexpectedly revealed a fault line underneath
the proposed location of the concrete pads where waste would cool before going into the repository.
Looking forward, scientists have predicted that an earthquake registering 6 or more on the Richter scale
is likely to occur in the next 10,000 years, given that Nevada is the third-most earthquake-prone state in the country after California and
Alaska.
Internal link: An earthquake would cause flooding. Cyberwest 97

Cyberwest Magazine, "Earthquake could cause flooding of Yucca Mountain repository", © Cyberwest Magazine Inc. September 2, 1997,
http://www.cyberwest.com/cw14/14scwst2.html (HEG)
An earthquake in the vicinity of the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain could cause
groundwater to surge up into the storage area, according to a new study by two University of Colorado
at Boulder geophysicists. The safety of the proposed Nevada site has been debated for more than 10 years, primarily due to concerns about
earthquakes and groundwater. Now it appears that one of those concerns could lead to a problem with the other. In a study published in Environmental
Geology, physics research associates John B. Davies and Charles Archambeau present their conclusions on what might happen if a significant earthquake
Using computer
struck the Yucca Mountain area. It is the first study to assess the impact of an earthquake on the area's groundwater levels.
modeling based on geological data, historical quakes and results from about 20 test wells, they showed
that a magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake could raise the water table between 450-750 feet at the storage site.
Because the repository would be only 600 to 800 feet above the present water table, "flooding could be
expected to occur," they write.
Impact: Flooding would contaminate groundwater with nuclear waste. PCEP 05

Public Citizen’s Energy Program, “Yucca Mountain and Nuclear Waste”, January 2005, http://www.citizen.org/documents/YuccaBackgrounder05.pdf (HEG)
Earthquakes and Volcanic Activity Yucca Mountain is also not an area of geologic stability. Nevada ranks third in the nation for current seismic activity
(see maps below). Yucca Mountain itself is crisscrossed by 33 fault lines and is nicknamed “Serpent Swimming West” by the Western Shoshone Indian
nation due to its constant movement. Since 1976, there have been more than 600 seismic events of a magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile radius of
Yucca Mountain. In fact, Yucca Mountain is bound on the east and west by fault lines (Ghost Dance and Solitario Canyon, respectively). In 1992, an
earthquake with a magnitude of 5.6 caused damage to a DOE field office building in the area. Despite all of this evidence, the DOE has said it considers it
unlikely that an earthquake will strike the region. The risk of an earthquake is concerning, however, because one could put the surface facility at risk, which
is planned to hold up to 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel during waste emplacement. Further, some scientists
believe that a significant rise
in groundwater levels could occur as the result of an earthquake, possibly flooding the repository. This
type of event could compromise the integrity of the nuclear waste containers and contaminate the
groundwater beneath Yucca Mountain.
Transportation DA
Yucca transportation is a “potential radioactive disaster waiting to happen”; accidents would cost
billions in cleanup. Shundahai 06
Shundahai Network [formed at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site in 1994, by a council of long-term nuclear disarmament activists], “Nuclear Free Great
Basin”, September 29, 2006, http://www.shundahai.org/Nuclear_Free_Great_Basin_Index.htm (HEG)
Accidents will occur. Even the Department of Energy predicts that between 70-350 accidents and over 1000
incidents involving will happen during the decades of shipments to the Great Basin. Current reports show
that even the release of a small fraction of the contents of a nuclear waste cask during an accident could
contaminate 42 square miles and if it occurs in a city (which is the greatest likelihood) require over $9.5
billion per square mile to clean up. Knowing this, the nuclear industry has lobbied to create laws exempting them from any liability once
the nuclear waste has left the reactor. It will be the U.S. taxpayers who will be paying the huge cleanup costs.Over 1/3 of
our nation's populations lives near these radioactive highway routes threatened by these accidents waiting to happen. For cities like Las Vegas and Salt Lake
all of these shipments would pass close to schools, businesses and homes with
City the danger is even greater, as
hundreds of thousands exposed to the potential radioactive disaster waiting to happen.It is time to stand up for
Environmental Justice and a sound nuclear waste policy. Indigenous People - from the thousands of native uranium miners to tribal communities suffering
from radioactive contamination from nuclear weapons and energy testing and development - have borne the brunt of the entire nuclear chain.It is time to end
the nuclear racism of our government and nuclear energy industry. It is time for a NUCLEAR FREE GREAT BASIN!
Volcanoes DA
Link: Yucca Mountain is near an active volcanic field – nuclear volcanoes are a very real threat.
New Scientist 02
New Scientist, 2002 (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523571.300-yucca-mountain-could-
become-nuclear-volcano.html) (HEG)
If A volcano ever erupted beneath the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada it
could cause a devastating explosion that sent high-level nuclear waste spewing into the atmosphere.
Yucca Mountain lies about 145 kilometres north-west of Las Vegas, within an active volcanic field. An
eruption at the site is considered extremely unlikely, but it is possible. There are six craters within 20
kilometres of the site, including Lathrop Wells volcano, which formed by eruptions just 80,000 years
ago. A study in 2000 estimated that there was a 1 in 1000 chance of an eruption at the site during the
10,000 years it will take for the radioactivity of the waste stored there to dissipate. And a recent report
suggests that a more active cluster of volcanoes 100 kilometres to the north could be an even bigger
threat
Impact: We can’t take any chances – the impact that nuclear waste would have, if released from
Yucca in any way, would be no less than biosphericide. David Camarow 01
David Camarow, “Yucca Mountain: Time To Think The Unthinkable”,
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-energy/issues/yucca-mountain/yucca-mountain-
testimony-comarow_2001-12-08.htm (HEG)
None of that is impossible, and therefore none of that is unthinkable. We are not talking about the short-
term or even long-term economic prosperity of Las Vegas. We are talking about nothing less than the
survival of the human race. Lest you dismiss this as just more fanatic hyperbole, let this be a reality
check: Yucca Mountain will hold all of the high level nuclear waste ever produced from every nuclear
power plant in the US - with about 10% additional defense waste -- some 77,000 tons. The danger of
getting it here aside for a moment, the amount of radioactivity and energy to be stored in one place,
under that relatively tiny little bump in the desert is easily enough to contaminate and sterilize the entire
biosphere. Is that unthinkable? No. If it is possible, it is thinkable. When you are talking about these
types of risks, risks that can endanger entire segments of our population, let alone the entire earth, then
the risk analysis must go into higher gear. It is not enough to merely calculate the risks as "extremely
low" - because there is no "low enough" when the consequences are so cataclysmic. We accept certain
risks, which are relatively high - 50,000 traffic deaths per year for example. But, as terrible as those
deaths and injuries are, they do not imperil our culture, our nation or the survival of the human race. We
are less willing to accept such risks when the consequences happen all at once -- plane crashes for
example. That is our human nature. We are willing to spend much more to lower the risk of death in
groups than chronic deaths spread out over time and space. As a people, as caretakers for future people,
we cannot create unnecessary catastrophic risks like biosphericide, the agonizing death of billions.
Solvency – Storage
We would need 9 Yuccas to hold all the waste generated in the 21st century. Spence & Loris 08
Jack Spencer [Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at the Heritage Foundation] & Nicolas Loris [Research Assistant in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation], The Backgrounder, No. 2131, "Yucca Mountain Remains Critical to Spent Nuclear Fuel
Management", page 3, Published by the Heritage Foundation, May 1, 2008, https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/13493/bg_2131.pdf
(HEG)
Yucca Is Not Enough The United States has approximately 56,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste stored at over 100 sites in 39 states.2 Furthermore,
America’s 104 commercial nuclear reactors are producing approximately 2,000 tons of spent fuel annually. The first problem with Yucca Mountain is that
the applicable statute artificially constrains Yucca’s capacity to 70,000 tons of waste. This was decided nearly three decades ago when most believed that
nuclear power had little future in the U.S., but with nuclear power likely to expand in coming years— perhaps dramatically—the current program for
managing America’s nuclear waste is infeasible. The actual capacity of Yucca Mountain is much larger. Numerous bills have been offered in recent years to
repeal the artificial 70,000-ton capacity restraint and replace it with a more scientifically cal- culated cap.3 The
Department of Energy
believes that the Yucca repository could safely hold 120,000 tons of waste.4 Some believe the capacity
is even greater. According to the Department of Energy, the expanded capacity of Yucca Mountain
would likely be adequate to hold all of the spent nuclear fuel produced by currently operating
reactors.5 Yet even with the expanded capacity, Yucca Mountain could not hold all of America’s spent
fuel if the U.S. adds nuclear capacity. According to one analysis, assuming 1.8 percent growth in
America’s nuclear capacity after 2010, the U.S. would fill a 120,000-ton Yucca by 2030. At this growth
rate, the U.S. would need nine Yucca Mountains by the end of the 21st century.6
Yucca will be full in 4 years (2005-2009). Coplan 05

Karl S. Coplan [Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law], “The Intercivilizational Inequities of Nuclear Power Weighed Against the
Intergenerational Inequities of Carbon Based Energy”, II. WASTE EXTERNALITIES OF NUCLEAR POWER, B. Current Disposition of Nuclear Waste, 1.
Yucca Mountain Deep Geological Repository, Pages 238-239, Pace University, School of Law Pace Law Faculty Publications, FORDHAM
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWREVIEW [VOL. XVII], 17 Fordham Envtl. L. Rev. 238 2005-2006 (HEG)
Nevertheless, the question of whether, when, and should Yucca Mountain open as a high-level nuclear waste repository is somewhat academic to the
question of long term disposal of the wastes from ongoing nuclear energy production. Yucca Mountain is even more irrelevant to the question of disposal
of wastes generated by increased nuclear generation capacity constructed as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is because, as designed,
Yucca Mountain will barely have the capacity to accept all of the civilian nuclear waste that has already
been generated and is sitting in limbo at nuclear power plant sites and it has no reserve capacity.68 The
statutory capacity of Yucca Mountain is 70,000 metric tons of high level nuclear waste.69 Ten percent of this capacity is reserved for military
As of 2003, there were already 50,000 metric tons of
nuclear wastes, leaving 63,000 metric tons o f capacity. 70
civilian nuclear waste in this country awaiting a disposal site, and we are generating an additional 2,000
metric tons per year.71 At that rate, the entire capacity of Yucca Mountain would be used by the
year 2009 - before any possible opening date ofthe facility.72
AT: Solvency evidence had bad numbers.
1. We would need 9 Yuccas to hold all the waste generated in the 21st century.
a) this evidence said 120k tons. That’s just half of the numbers aff claimed – so we would need
4.5 yuccas – round up for reality, 5 yuccas.
2. Yucca will be full in 4 years (2005-2009).

a) this evidence said 70k tons. Multiply it by 3.6 to get 250k, multiply 4 by 3.56, you get 14.3
years. Yucca will be full in 14.3 years.
CP – Subseabed Disposal (1/4)

Observation 1: CP Text
Agency & Enforcement: Congress, the President, the Dept. of Energy, and the Justice Department.
Mandates: The USFG should stop all activities related to Yucca Mountain development and instead
pursue subseabed disposal for nuclear waste.
Funding: Yucca’s existing funding process, the Nuclear Waste Fund.
Timeline: Work to achieve the mandates will begin immediately.
…And the Negative team reserves the right to clarify as needed.

Observation 2: Solvency
A. The technology needed was available in 1998. Hollister & Nadis 98

Charles D. Hollister Dean of Graduate Studies and Senior Scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts] & Steven Nadis
[former staff researcher for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Former research fellow at MIT and a consultant to the World Resources Institute and the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution], Copyright © 1993-2009 Scientific American, Inc. “Burial of Radioactive Waste under the Seabed”, January 1998;
Scientific American Magazine (HEG)
disposal would not be in the oceans, per se, but rather in the sediments below.
It is also important to note that
Placing nuclear waste canisters hundreds of meters underneath the floor of the deep ocean (which is, itself,
some five or so kilometers below the sea surface) could be accomplished using standard deepsea drilling techniques. The
next step— backfilling to seal and pack the boreholes— is also a routine practice. This technology has
proved itself through decades of use by the petroleum industry to probe the continental shelves and,
more recently, by members of the Ocean Drilling Program, an international consortium of scientific
researchers, to explore deeper locales. We envision a specialized team of drillers creating boreholes in the abyssal muds and clays at
carefully selected locations. These cylindrical shafts, some tens to hundreds of meters deep, would probably be spaced several hundred meters apart to allow
for easy maneuvering. Individual canisters, housing plutonium or other radioactive wastes, would then be lowered by cable into the holes. The canisters
would be stacked vertically but separated by 20 or more meters of mud, which could be pumped into the hole after each canister was emplaced.
B. There is plenty of room for our nuclear waste below the seabed. Hollister & Nadis 98
As part of the international program, scientists extracted core samples of the seabed and made
preliminary environmental observations at about half a dozen sites in the northern Atlantic and Pacific
oceans. The collected sediments showed an uninterrupted history of geologic tranquillity over the past 50 to 100 million years. And there is no
reason to believe that these particular sites are extraordinary. On the contrary, thousands of cores from
other midplate locations since examined as part of the Ocean Drilling Program indicate that the
sediments that were studied originally are typical of the abyssal clays that cover nearly 20 percent of the
earth. So one thing is clear: although other factors may militate against subseabed disposal, it will not be constrained by
a lack of space.

Observation 3: Net Beneficial
A. Subseabed disposal is permanent and in the best place possible. Hollister & Nadis 98
Scientific American Magazine (HEG) (seriously…read the whole card. It’s worth it.)
On the floor of the deep oceans, poised in the middle of the larger tectonic plates, lie vast mudflats that
might appear, at first glance, to constitute some of the least valuable real estate on the planet. The rocky
crust underlying these "abyssal plains" is blanketed by a sedimentary layer, hundreds of meters thick,
composed of clays that resemble dark chocolate and have the consistency of peanut butter. Bereft of
plant life and sparsely populated with fauna, these regions are relatively unproductive from a biological
standpoint and largely devoid of mineral wealth. Yet they may prove to be of tremendous worth,
offering a solution to two problems that have bedeviled humankind since the dawn of the nuclear age:
these neglected suboceanic formations might provide a permanent resting place for high-level
radioactive wastes and a burial ground for the radioactive materials removed from nuclear bombs.
Although the disposal of radioactive wastes and the sequestering of material from nuclear weapons pose
different challenges and exigencies, the two tasks could have a common solution: burial below the
seabed.
B. The US will spend $90 billion storing waste at Yucca Mountain. Mascaro 08
Lisa Mascaro, “Yucca Mountain Price Tag”, Las Vegas Sun, July 15 2008 (HEG)
The new price tag for building and operating Yucca Mountain is estimated to be $90 billion, the Energy
Department said today, providing the first real snapshot of lifespan costs after Congress has repeatedly pleaded for an updated financial picture. The
estimate is $19 billion higher than previous rough estimates provided last year for the nation's nuclear waste dump about a 1 1/2- hour drive outside of Las
Vegas. Energy Department project director Edward Sproat said the higher costs come from inflationary adjustments to today's dollars, design changes and
increases in the amount of waste and time it takes to entomb it. The repository would be open for 100 years.
C. Subseabed evaluation costs 250 million – much less than Yucca. Hollister & Nadis 98
The overall cost of a concerted program to evaluate subseabed disposal might reach
All Eggs in One Basket
$250 million—admittedly a large sum for an oceanographic research endeavor. But it is a relatively modest price to pay
considering the immense benefits that could result. (As a point of comparison, about $2 billion has
already been spent on site evaluation at Yucca Mountain, and another billion or two will probably be
needed to complete further studies and secure regulatory approval. No actual construction, save for
exploratory tunneling, has yet begun.) Yet no nation seems eager to invest in any research at all on subseabed disposal, despite the fact
that it has never been seriously challenged on technical or scientific grounds. For example, a 1994 report by the National Academy of Sciences that reviewed
disposal options for excess weapons plutonium called subseabed disposal “the leading alternative to mined geologic repositories” and judged implementation
to be “potentially quick and moderate to low cost.” But the academy panel stopped short of recommending the approach because of the anticipated
difficulties in gaining public acceptance and possible conflicts with international law.

Observation 4: Advantages
Advantage 1: Economy
A. Suitable long-term storage of nuclear waste is critical to the development of the nuclear power
industry. Bowman 06
Admiral Frank L. "Skip" Bowman [President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute], U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee
on Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety, Published at the Nuclear Energy Institute, September 14, 2006,
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/bowmanss2610extended (HEG)
Congress Should Enhance the Government’s Used Fuel Stewardship In order to fully realize the benefits of nuclear power,
the United States must have a credible, long-term
and to address legitimate questions in the government’s used fuel stewardship,
program to manage used nuclear fuel. This program should integrate a number of essential components,
including: the centralized disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev. advanced proliferation-proof, fuel processing and fuel
fabrication facilities and advanced reactors designed to extract the maximum possible energy from used nuclear fuel, and reduce the radiotoxicity
and volume of the waste by-products requiring permanent isolation in the repository interim storage facilities until the centralized disposal facility is
operational, co-located with the advanced fuel processing and recycling facilities. Used nuclear fuel is stored safely today at nuclear plant sites, either in pool
storage or in dry casks. That said, however, it is absolutely essential to public and state policymaker confidence that the federal government identify and
develop sites for centralized interim storage, ideally linked to future reprocessing facilities, and begin the process of moving used nuclear fuel to these
interim storage facilities. Further delays in federal receipt and movement of used nuclear fuel and defense waste products could cost taxpayers over $1
billion per year.
B. Boosting nuclear construction is vital to sustaining economic growth. Bowman 08

Testimony for the Record, Frank L. Bowman [President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute], Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Energy and Air Quality, U.S. House of Representatives, June 19, 2008,
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2008_speeches_and_testimony/june_19_2008 (HEG)
But construction of these new nuclear plants will have other benefits too. At the peak of construction, a nuclear plant will employ 2300 skilled workers and,
New nuclear plant construction will also lead to new
on completion, approximately 700 workers to operate and maintain the plant.
investment in the supply chain–in new manufacturing facilities to produce pumps, valves, pipe,
electrical cable and other equipment and components. That will create more jobs, new opportunities and
higher economic growth, and allow the United States to reclaim economic opportunity that has moved
overseas over the last several decades.
Advantage 2: Proliferation
A. (same as above)
B. US nuclear leadership is decreasing because of the lack of new construction. DOE 05

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, U.S. Department of Energy, "MOVING FORWARD WITH NUCLEAR POWER: ISSUES AND KEY FACTORS", Final
Report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Nuclear Energy Task Force, Page “4-5”, January 10, 2005,
http://www.seab.energy.gov/publications/NETF_Final_Draft_0105.pdf (HEG)
Central to meeting U.S. non-proliferation goals is U.S. leadership in the very business it created. But
American leadership in the commercial international field is seriously threatened, reducing our leverage
with the rest of the nuclear world. In the early years, Russia and the United States together controlled almost 90 percent of the global trade
in peaceful nuclear products and services. Today, although the United States has a healthy and thriving domestic nuclear electricity generating structure, the
rest of the U.S. nuclear enterprise is almost out of business. As early as 1976, President Ford’s administration lamented the fact that the U.S. share (and
control) of the global trade in nuclear materials, hardware, and services had dwindled to 50 percent. Several countries have slowly weaned themselves of any
need for U.S. support, goods, or services. Virtually all U.S. fuel and hardware vendors have been absorbed into foreign corporations. By 1996, 15 other
countries had developed partial or complete nuclear fuel cycle capabilities with limited, or no, U.S. or Russian involvement. Some of these countries (e.g.,
Japan, China, South Korea, Argentina, India, and Brazil) could become very competitive nuclear suppliers to the next growth era. Some have already
established an independent multilateral cooperative network. China, for example, has developed indigenous cradle-to-grave capabilities. This means that
other nations will reap the benefits of supplying nuclear goods and services to support the
industrialization of developing nations and global energy demand and, by default, will have the capacity
to define the character of the future global nuclear infrastructure. The facts suggest that we could move into a new nuclear
era that involves little or no participation by, or benefit to, the United States. Other countries have announced aggressive growth
plans for commercial nuclear power and will move ahead swiftly, with or without the United States. If it
appears to them that we do not intend to participate in keeping nuclear power as a key energy
technology, those countries might decide to develop fuel cycle technologies and material- handling
policies that meet lower non-proliferation standards. The influence of the United States will be respected
in this sphere only to the extent that we participate in the development and deployment of nuclear
technologies in the future.
C. Maintaining strong domestic nuclear capabilities is the linchpin of US influence over

nonproliferation. ACGNC 07
A White Paper Presented by the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, "THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE
AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY", 2. THE BASIC PHILOSOPHIES UNDERPINNING THE GLOBAL NONPROLIFERATION REGIME, Pages
9-10, May 2007, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf (HEG)
Historically, the ability of the U.S. to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons has stemmed from many factors, not least of which has been the political,
military and economic power that the US has exercised in international affairs.The U.S. has used many tools to promote its nonproliferation objectives.
One important instrument that the U.S. has employed for decades in building the international
nonproliferation system has been its ability to provide nuclear fuel, nuclear power plants and fuel cycle services to
countries on a reliable and stable basis, under strict nonproliferation controls and conditions. In the early days
of the nuclear era, the U.S. essentially had a monopoly in the nuclear fuel supply market. This capability, among others, allowed the U.S. to promote the
widespread acceptance of nonproliferation norms and restraints, including international safeguards and physical protection measures, and, most notably, the
NPT. The United States concluded agreements for cooperation in peaceful nuclear energy with other states, which require strict safeguards, physical
the strength of U.S. civil nuclear capabilities
protection and other nonproliferation controls on their civil nuclear programs. Moreover,
gave it an important seat at the international table, not only in negotiating the norms that should govern
the conduct of civil nuclear power programs to protect against their misuse or diversion to nuclear
weapons, but also in shaping the key elements of the global nonproliferation regime. In addition
domestic U.S. nuclear programs have enabled the United States to make important contributions to
achieving technical improvements in international safeguards, physical protection, and nuclear detection
systems. However, the challenges now confronting the international nonproliferation regime come at a
time when the U.S. commercial share of the global nuclear market has declined and when there are
serious concerns about the health of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure.
D. Proliferation threatens humanity's very survival. Alla Karimova 97

Karmova, Alla, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Uzbekistan, Possibilities of a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone Creation in Central Asia, 1997,
http://www.uspid.dsi.unimi.it/proceed/cast97/karimova.html (HEG)
Proliferation of nuclear weapons on the planet is the major thread to the survival of humanity. Nuclear
weapons are able to destroy not only what has been created by mankind throughout the past, but the very
life on earth. In the epoch of nuclear disarmament it is necessary to work out a new world conception based on the principles of refraining from the
threat or use of force, as well as of respect of every nation's right to self-determination: social, political and ideological, rejecting a policy aimed at the
domination of one by another.
AT: Nuclear canisters contaminate oceans oh noes!!!
By the time the radioactive waste leaks to the surface it will have decayed to a level below what is
found in normal seawater. Hollister & Nadis 98
for disposal within Yucca Mountain, the waste canisters themselves would last a few thousand
As is the case
years at most. Under the seabed, however, the muddy clays, which cling tenaciously to plutonium and many other radioactive
elements, would prevent these substances from seeping into the waters above. Experiments conducted as
part of an international research program concluded that plutonium (and other transuranic elements)
buried in the clays would not migrate more than a few meters from a breached canister after even
100,000 years. The rates of migration for uranium and some other radioactive waste elements need yet to be properly determined. Still, their
burial several tens to 100 meters or more into the sediments would most likely buy enough time for the
radioactivity of all the waste either to decay or to dissipate to levels below those found naturally in
seawater. The Seabed Working Group, as the now defunct research program was called, consisted of 200 investigators from 10 countries. Led by the
U.S. and sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the project ran from 1976 to 1986 at a
total cost of about $120 million. This program was an outgrowth of a smaller effort at Sandia National Laboratories that was initiated in response to a
suggestion by one of the authors (Hollister), who conceived of the idea of subseabed disposal in 1973.
Econ Advantage XTs
Building new nuclear power revitalizes the economy. Zawatsky 08

Jay Zawatsky [chief executive officer of havePower, LLC.], "Inside Track: Going Nuclear on Energy", Copyright © 2006 The National Interest, April 9,
2008, http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=17332 (HEG)
We need to increase the

So that solves the trade deficit, the energy deficit and the environmental issue. But what about the budget deficit? Easy:
capacity of the nuclear plants and secure them against terrorist attack. We need to build the electrolyzers and compressors to be placed at
every service station in America, to convert water into compressed hydrogen to fuel cars and trucks. We need to increase the capacity of the power-
transmission lines to deliver the larger supply of electricity to the service stations. We need to build the plug-in hybrids and the appliances for rapid
recharging.All of this building and manufacturing adds wages and profits to the economy. The nuclear
facilities are built here, with American labor and American equipment. The electric transmission lines
are built here, with American labor and equipment. The electrolyzers and compressors and plug-in hybrids should be built here,
with American labor and equipment. And these are high-wage positions in engineering, construction and
manufacturing. The added wages and profits mean substantially higher income tax collections (without
raising tax rates). On the expense side of the ledger, military spending, to maintain the forward posture of our forces to keep the oil flowing to our
country, could be reduced substantially. Increased revenue and reduced spending. That’s the sweet sound of deficit reduction that you’re hearing.
Nuclear power allows us to diversify energy, create jobs and use materials efficiently. Domenici 07
Senator Pete Domenici, "A brighter tomorrow: fulfilling the promise of nuclear energy",Page 184, Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,
January 25, 2007, ISBN-10: 0742541894, ISBN-13: 978-0742541894 (HEG)
To meet unanticipated commercial and geopolitical challenges, America's energy should come from
diverse sources. A diverse supply of energy is a strategic and economic imperative for the United States,
and indeed, for all nations. We are only too well aware of the difficulties placed on the exercise of our foreign
policy due to our dependence on imported oil. Our chemical industry is hamstrung as well. There are no substitutes for petroleum
feedstocks, and the fertilizer industry is increasingly hurt by rising natural gas prices. The recent high level of natural gas prices is
slowing the rate of economic recovery and job growth. Diversifying the sources of electricity generation,
for example, with nuclear power generation can free up fossil fuels for uses that have no other
substitutes, such as for petrochemicals, re- sulting in a cleaner environment, more U.S. jobs, and more efficient uses of
raw materials.
Proliferation Advantage XTs
The U.S. is losing nuclear industry competitiveness to Russia and China. Kotek 08
John Kotek [manager of nuclear programs, Washington Policy & Analysis, Inc.], “Hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House
International Relations Committee Subject: U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy: Policies and Technical Capabilities”, 2008
you've got several countries that have been very aggressively pursuing nuclear energy
MR. KOTEK: Well,
development –REP. ROHRABACHER: sure. MR. KOTEK: -- and of course, you know, France is on the top of everyone's list for 75 (percent) or 80
percent of their electricity. And the Japanese have been very active. They get about 30 (percent), 35 percent of their electricity from nuclear. South Korea
has an active --REP. ROHRABACHER: But you -- I want to dwell on that data. It's something I don't think many of us have understood because of the
Japanese anti-nuclear position on so many -- on weapons -- in the weapons area, that the Japanese actually have moved forward and they are producing
electricity. In fact, the high-pressure gas reactor is working in Japan. REP. BERMAN: And with North Korea doing what they're doing, how long with the
Japanese anti-nuclear position be an anti-nuclear position? REP. ROHRABACHER: Correct. MR. KOTEK: You've got, of course, Russia.
Russia is
largely dependent on nuclear energy. They are being very aggressive in their attempts to restore their
competitive position. And then, of course, China is trying to grow their domestic nuclear energy program. And
one of the things that the Chinese tend to insist on when you go -- when a foreign company comes in
and builds the plant in their country, there is quite a bit of technology transfer, so that they can bootstrap
their way up and become a supply country, not an importing or a receiving country. So those are some of the major countries that are
out there, but there are others as well who have aims on becoming nuclear suppliers around the world.
Proliferation’s end result will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. Victor Utgoff 02
Victor Utgoff, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, SURVIVAL, Fall, 2002, p. 87-90
In sum,
widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that
Unless nuclear
such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand.
proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the
late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even
be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the
bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

Yucca Negative

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Yucca Negative

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Will Malson Yucca Mountain NEG Page 1 of 14

Yucca Mountain NEG Index (1/2)

Yucca Mountain NEG Index (1/2).....................................................................................1

Internal link: An earthquake would cause flooding. Cyberwest 97

Impact: Flooding would contaminate groundwater with nuclear waste. PCEP 05

Yucca will be full in 4 years (2005-2009). Coplan 05

AT: Solvency evidence had bad numbers.

2. Yucca will be full in 4 years (2005-2009).

CP – Subseabed Disposal (1/4)

CP – Subseabed Disposal (2/4)

A. The technology needed was available in 1998. Hollister & Nadis 98

CP – Subseabed Disposal (3/4)

CP – Subseabed Disposal (4/4)

B. Boosting nuclear construction is vital to sustaining economic growth. Bowman 08

B. US nuclear leadership is decreasing because of the lack of new construction. DOE 05

C. Maintaining strong domestic nuclear capabilities is the linchpin of US influence over

D. Proliferation threatens humanity's very survival. Alla Karimova 97

AT: Nuclear canisters contaminate oceans oh noes!!!

Econ Advantage XTs

Building new nuclear power revitalizes the economy. Zawatsky 08

We need to increase the

Proliferation Advantage XTs

Вам также может понравиться