You are on page 1of 8

Will Malson Delta_FC 2NC Page 1 of 8

Roadmap is DAs, Solvency, CP. 1NR is all K.

Word count is 1956.

DA – Earthquakes

1. He conceded my link – the earthquakes. All he contested was the impact. I’ll add on to that now:

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, (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’s bad kids. PCEP 05

Public Citizen’s Energy Program, “Yucca Mountain and Nuclear Waste”, January 2005, (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.

“That is an awesome staircase. Where did you get it?” “Valley Furniture.” “Don’t get smart with me.”
Will Malson Delta_FC 2NC Page 2 of 8

DA – Transportation (btw, I’m not sure why I forgot to split these up in the 1NC.)

1. All he addresses are my impacts. That means I have an unquestioned internal link to accidents –
cross-apply my impact, which he never addressed: Yucca transportation is a “potential radioactive
disaster waiting to happen”; accidents would cost billions in cleanup. Conceded.

“That is an awesome staircase. Where did you get it?” “Valley Furniture.” “Don’t get smart with me.”
Will Malson Delta_FC 2NC Page 3 of 8

Solvency – storage.

All he says is that his storage numbers are wrong, and doesn’t do any actual refutation. So, I’ll go point
by point and show you exactly how much storage capacity we’ll have.

1. Suitable long-term storage of nuclear waste is critical to the development of the nuclear power
a) Conceded. Why does that matter, you ask? Because that means I get all the awesome
advantages of nuclear power, which I will of course elaborate on now: (2 main reasons)

Econ (1/3) 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, (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.

Econ (2/3) 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, (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.

Econ (3/3) 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

“That is an awesome staircase. Where did you get it?” “Valley Furniture.” “Don’t get smart with me.”
Will Malson Delta_FC 2NC Page 4 of 8

raw materials.

Prolif (1/5) 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 –
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?
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.

(2/5) 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, (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.

Prolif (3/5) 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
9-10, May 2007, (HEG)

“That is an awesome staircase. Where did you get it?” “Valley Furniture.” “Don’t get smart with me.”
Will Malson Delta_FC 2NC Page 5 of 8

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.



2. 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

“That is an awesome staircase. Where did you get it?” “Valley Furniture.” “Don’t get smart with me.”
Will Malson Delta_FC 2NC Page 6 of 8

4.5 yuccas – round up for reality, 5 yuccas.

3. 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 – Seabed Disposal

“That is an awesome staircase. Where did you get it?” “Valley Furniture.” “Don’t get smart with me.”
Will Malson Delta_FC 2NC Page 7 of 8

1. Underground ain’t better. Cross-apply my 1NC; all of these were conceded:

a) Seabed evaluation costs 250 million – much less than Yucca. MUCH less than Yucca:

The US will spend billions 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.

b) The technology needed was available in 1998.

c) There is plenty of room for our nuclear waste below the seabed.

2. His evidence only said there was a scientific consensus about underground. That’s disprovable
for several reasons:
a) Everything in point #1 above.
b) Everything under Observation 5 in the 1NC:
i] Subseabed disposal is permanent and in the best place possible
ii] By the time the radioactive waste leaks to the surface it will have decayed to a level
below what is found in normal seawater.

3. Utilities:

a) False. The counterplan allows for new industry to fill the gap between nuclear provider and

b) No threshold – aff’s shown no numbers on how this would significantly affect the companies.

c) No link – his appeal to the 1Ac fails; he’s shown no internal link to high prices.

4. Econ:

a) His own evidence works against him: “The courts in separate cases have said the government
was required to find a safe and suitable place for the waste, and that if none was available, the
government would have to pay the utilities damages.” We have a new place. With this alone, he
loses his internal link to Nyquist.

b) Non-unique – we’ve spent billions with the bailout and stimulus already.

c) No threshold – we’re in debt to China for billions of dollars, aff has no idea how much more
it’ll take for collapse to happen

d) Counterplan is a turning point to the disad – my plan allows for new industry to take hold

“That is an awesome staircase. Where did you get it?” “Valley Furniture.” “Don’t get smart with me.”
Will Malson Delta_FC 2NC Page 8 of 8

from the ground up; artificial stimulation via regulation.

e) Calculate the spending out 50 years:

i] The maximum possible cost by not passing aff plan is 25 billion.
ii] Yucca, when compared to subseabed disposal, costs 89 billion.
iii] That’s a difference of 64 billion dollars, in neg’s favor. Not doing Yucca costs much

f) Factor in politics; potential lawsuits exist against DOING Yucca:

Everyone involved (except the fed) pretty much hates Yucca. NIRS 02
“Harassment of Yucca Mountain whistleblowers”, published by WISE/NIRS Nuclear Monitor on December 6, 2002, (HEG)

COURT BATTLES AGAINST YUCCA MOUNTAIN The New York Times reported on 3 December that the State of Nevada, Clark
County and the City of Las Vegas have filed yet another lawsuit against the U.S. Dept. of Energy's (DOE)
Yucca Mountain Project. The brief argues that Yucca does not live up to regulations requiring natural geological features to adequately isolate
radiation from the environment for 10,000 years. It cites DOE predictions that if man-made containers leak, radiation will enter the biosphere, primarily
through flowing groundwater. Such leakage would raise radiation doses six times above permissible levels after just a thousand years, and 67 times
permissible doses after 3,000 years.

5. Perm:

a) Net Beneficial. That’s what my cp is – I avoid environmental racism, the k, the disad, the
solvency, and at the most I have those 2 disads on my back. Your options are, aff, who does
yucca, and my cp, or me, who does yucca. He links to lotsa bad stuff, I don’t. Oh, and all those
awesome advantages of econ and prolif, too, that he doesn’t get.

b) Aff perms illegitimate – creates multiple worlds:

i] Hurts the quality of policy comparison and prevents in-depth debate and education
because we have to debate our own cp, or the option of doing something with the cp.
ii] Inconsistent advocacies – kills clash and education by allowing them to advocacy
shift; we expected a prima facie case.

c) Counter-perm – do the counterplan and have all the Yucca-fund money at standby to be used
only for Subseabed purposes.

d) And, neg perms are legitimate –

i] Benefits quality of policy comparison and bolsters in-depth debate and education
because we now have the option of reforming our competitive policy. Encourages clash
and further contrast.
ii] No PF burden on neg – Aff has to be prima facie but we get to test their advocacy any
way we want.

“That is an awesome staircase. Where did you get it?” “Valley Furniture.” “Don’t get smart with me.”