Nuclear Power Neg

8/14/2019 Nuclear Power Neg

1/42

Hearn/Rentschler Page 1 of 42Arx Axiom Nuclear Power Neg 10/30/2009

Nuclear Power Neg

Topicality: ....................................................................................... 4T1: Gov already supports Nukes ......................................................................................4

B. Nuclear energy is still promoted by the government .............................................. 5C. Current government policy is to support nuclear ....................................................6T2: Nukes is energy policy ............................................................................................. 7

A. Nuclear energy is energy policy considered the cornerstone of energy policy . . .7

Disadvantages: ............................................................................... 81. Nuclear weapons created ............................................................................................. 8Shell: ................................................................................................................................ 8

Link: Nuclear plants vulnerable: mock attacks were successful, even thoughplants had prior knowledge of the mock attacks ..........................................................8Impact: Spent fuel can easily be turned into a nuclear weapon ...................................9

Extension: ........................................................................................................................ 9

Link: Nuclear power increases proliferation and al Qaeda wants a nuclear weapon . .9Link: Terrorists could attack a pool commando-style in 60 seconds .........................10Link: Current standards are not enforced on nuclear safety ...................................... 10Impact: 9/11 would have been worse if it had been nuclear: 96,000 early fatalities,308,000 injuries, 27,000 cancer deaths and $558 Billion .......................................... 11Impact: Dry casks can be ruptured by legal weapons spilling radiation ....................12Impact: Terrorists can create radiation releases with truck bombs also .................. ..13Impact: Terrorists could cause a core meltdown ....................................................... 13AT: Safeguards NRC ignores terrorism as a low-probability event ............... .......14

2. NRC overstretch/more risk of accident ......................................................................14Shell: .............................................................................................................................. 14

Link: NRC overstretched: not enough funding to keep safe while also approvingnew licenses ...............................................................................................................14Brink: NRC is already stretched thin ......................................................................... 15

Extension: ......................................................................................................................16Link: Heightened risk of nuclear accidents under affirmative plan ...........................16Link: NRC ignores its own regulations: whistleblowers are harassed or intimidated.................................................................................................................................... 16Link: NRC doesnt have enough funding now, you make it worse ...........................17AT: no accidents. This doesnt actually mean that we are safer ................................18AT: no accidentsAbsence of a disaster doesnt mean that its safe: 35 incidentssince 1979 ..................................................................................................................19

3. Terrorist attacks: Air attacks ......................................................................................20Shell: .............................................................................................................................. 20

Link: Nuclear plants stand no chance of withstanding an air attack ..........................20Impact: Air attacks on nuclear plants would create an explosion that would spreadradioactive material ....................................................................................................20

Extension: ......................................................................................................................21Link: Virtually no defense against air attacks ............................................................21

4. Terrorist attacks: Spent fuel .......................................................................................22

1


2/42


Shell: .............................................................................................................................. 22Link: Spent fuel is even more vulnerable ..................................................................22Impact: Fires at spent fuel pools: 188 sq. miles uninhabitable, 28,000 fatalities $59Billion ........................................................................................................................22

Extension: ......................................................................................................................23

Link: Spent fuel pools could easily be attacked and would release lots of radiation 23Impact: Fuel pools very dangerous 70 times worse than Chernobyl, air attacks cancreate fires ..................................................................................................................24Impact: Radiation causes death, cancer, displacement and billions of dollars ofdamage ....................................................................................................................... 25

5. Uranium mining .........................................................................................................25Shell: .............................................................................................................................. 25

Link: More NP = More mining, D to the uh ..............................................................25Impact: Billions in cleanup, water pollution and health ............................................ 25

Solvency: ...................................................................................... 261. AT: More nuclear plants .........................................................................................26

A. Not going to build new plants, already have subsidies ......................................... 26B. Government subsidies already are higher than capital put at risk ......................... 26

2. Nuclear loan guarantees ............................................................................................27A. Risk of default on loan is high, will be paid by taxpayers .................................... 27B. Wall street has six reasons not to invest in nuclear power, transfer those risks totaxpayers .................................................................................................................... 27C. AT: Nuclear plants wont default Empirically proven: NP has high fail rate .. .28D. Loan guarantees do not reduce costs and simply ignore all risks .........................28E. High risk projects have high risk of failure, precedent says they will fail .......... ..29F. Without loan guarantees market would never support these projects. Almost acertainty that taxpayer funds will be lost through defaulting loans ........................... 29

G. Market has already decided that AFF = bad, dont ignore the market ..................30H. Loan guarantees are worst case scenario for taxpayer dollars. Dont repeat thelargest managerial disaster in business history Vote neg! ......................................30

3. NRC regulations kill NP development ...................................................................... 30AT: We solve NRC failure Regulations cant be streamlined ...............................30

4. Delays ........................................................................................................................ 31A. projects is delayed/cancelled, 15/19 have delay/cost increase/utility downgrade.................................................................................................................................... 31

5. Labor shortage ........................................................................................................... 31A. Not enough nuclear graduates: 300 grads for an available 1,200 jobs ...... ...........31B. Current labor shortage is 26,000 ...........................................................................32

C. Nuclear labor force is really old. 40% will retire in 5 years. 8% are under 32 ... ..32 Advantages: ...................................................................................33

1. AT: NP solves proliferation ................................................................................... 33A. US nuclear power encourages proliferation ..........................................................33

2. AT: Pollution ............................................................................................................34A. AT: CO2Nuclear power will have the same CO2 output as other plants by 2050.................................................................................................................................... 34

2


3/42


B. AT: We must incur costs to save the environment Other cheaper options areavailable ..................................................................................................................... 34C. New tech solves: 12 energy production methods that are 40% cheaper thannuclear ........................................................................................................................35D. Nuclear Power doesnt solve global warming...................................................... 35

3. AT: Energy independence ..................................................................................... 37A. Nuclear power increases energy dependence on bad countries ............................ 374. AT: Electricity prices ......................................................................................... 38A. Nuclear reactors can only have an impact on 15% of electricity .......................... 38

5. AT: Coal = really bad, so vote aff .......................................................................... 38A. Coal vs. NP is irrelevant idea ................................................................................38B. Nuclear and coal are both really bad ..................................................................... 38C. Coal and nuclear both have really bad waste ........................................................39D. Coal and Nuclear both rely on steam power ......................................................... 39E. Nuclear and coal is 2/3 wasted ..............................................................................39

6. Cost increases .............................................................................................................40

A. Ordering more plants will only increase prices ....................................................40B. Costs range from $5000 to $8000 per kW ............................................................407. Lack of supplies/cant build .......................................................................................41

A. Not enough production of parts of nuclear plants. Hard to expand production....41

Source indicts: .............................................................................. 421. Foreign Affairs ...........................................................................................................42

A. Foreign Affairs is an advocacy piece for nuclear power, ignores parts of problems.................................................................................................................................... 42

3


4/42


Topicality:

T1: Gov already supports Nukes

A. US is already using regulation streamlining and loan guarantees to increase nukes

William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Fall, 2008 Dr. Benjamin K.Sovacool is a Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia

and Globalization, part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National

University of Singapore. He is also an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the VirginiaPolytechnic Institute & State University. He has worked in advisory and research

capacities at the U.S. National Science Foundation's Electric Power Networks Efficiency

and Security Program, Virginia Tech Consortium on Energy Restructuring, Virginia

Center for Coal and Energy Research, New York State Energy Research andDevelopment Authority, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and U.S. Department

of Energy's Climate Change Technology Program. Mr. Christopher Cooper is Principal

Partner for Oomph Consulting, LLC, and the former Executive Director of the Network

for New Energy Choices (NNEC), a New York-based nonprofit interest group devoted toanalyzing utility policy and making recommendations for increasing efficiency and

expanding the use of renewable resources. At NNEC, Mr. Cooper authored numerousreports and journal articles, including the first-ever ranking and grading of state net

metering policies. Symposium Issue 1: Emission Not Accomplished: The Future of

Carbon Emissions in a Changing World: Symposium Article: Nuclear Nonsense:

Why Nuclear Power is No Answer to Climate Change and the World's Post-Kyoto Energy Challenges [Accessed viaLexis Nexis][CR]

Here in the U.S., over the past two decades, nuclear power plants have been quietly butsurely expanding their generating capacity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

("NRC") approved 2200 megawatts ("MW") of capacity upgrades to existing nuclearplants between 1988 and 1999, and nuclear facilities are seeking approval for another 842MW. n120 [*22] Following the unveiling of the Department of Energy's "NuclearPower 2010 Program," targeted at demonstrating "new regulatory processes leading to aprivate sector decision by 2005 to order new nuclear power plants for deployment in theUnited States in the 2010 timeframe," three large utilities-Exelon, Entergy, andDominion- filed early site permits for the construction of new nuclear plants in Illinois,Texas, and Virginia respectively. n121 The Energy Policy Act of 2005, as well,significantly bolstered plans for nuclear power by extending liability limits for nuclearaccidents under the Price-Anderson Act for another twenty years, authorizing theconstruction of new DOE research reactors, and establishing hefty loan and insurance

programs to make the construction of new nuclear reactors more attractive. n122 Afterpassage between 2005 and 2007, the NRC received notice of application for at leasttwenty-eight new nuclear units from a plethora of utilities and energy consortia, n123 andthirty applications for new reactor units are expected to be filed by the end of 2009.n124

4
http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?start=4&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T7742734398http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?start=4&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T7742734398


5/42


B. Nuclear energy is still promoted by the government

Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 2007 2008 Richard Sieg practices in the

following areas of law: Environmental, Land Use and Natural Resources; Litigation Law

School: Vermont Law School, J.D., 2008 College: North Carolina State University, B.S.,

Aerospace Engineering, 1986 Member: American Bar Association (Environment,

Energy, and Resources Section); North Carolina Bar Association (Environment, Energyand Natural Resources Law Section). A CALL TO MINIMIZE THE USE OF NUCLEAR

POWER IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY [Accessed viaLexis Nexis][CR]

Rumors of the death of the nuclear-power industry are greatly exaggerated. The BushAdministration's 2007 budget provided $ 250 million for the Global Nuclear EnergyPartnership, and U.S. energy policy continues to include nuclear power as a cornerstone.n1 Nuclear power currently provides about one-fifth of the nation's power from 103active [*306] plants. n2 The technology is advertised as a clean, cheap, and stableenergy source. n3 On a global scale, 435 commercial nuclear power plants wereoperational as of June 2007, and France and Lithuania rely on nuclear power for about

three quarters of their electricity. n4 However, any analysis of nuclear power mustinclude an evaluation of the economics behind the technology and the real risksassociated with it--nuclear proliferation and plant safety. These are especially importantin the evaluation of risks globally.

5
http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7544712546&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7544712552&cisb=22_T7544712550&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=308668&docNo=7http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7544712546&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7544712552&cisb=22_T7544712550&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=308668&docNo=7


6/42


C. Current government policy is to support nuclear

William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Fall, 2008 Dr. Benjamin K.

Sovacool is a Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asiaand Globalization, part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National

University of Singapore. He is also an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the VirginiaPolytechnic Institute & State University. He has worked in advisory and researchcapacities at the U.S. National Science Foundation's Electric Power Networks Efficiency

and Security Program, Virginia Tech Consortium on Energy Restructuring, Virginia

Center for Coal and Energy Research, New York State Energy Research andDevelopment Authority, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and U.S. Department




expanding the use of renewable resources. At NNEC, Mr. Cooper authored numerous

reports and journal articles, including the first-ever ranking and grading of state netmetering policies. Symposium Issue 1: Emission Not Accomplished: The Future of

Carbon Emissions in a Changing World: Symposium Article: Nuclear Nonsense:

Why Nuclear Power is No Answer to Climate Change and the World's Post-Kyoto Energy Challenges [Accessed viaLexis Nexis][CR]

Almost everywhere one looks today, politicians, pundits and prognosticators all declarenuclear power as a safe and carbon-free source of electricity, a viable response to globalclimate change in a carbon-constrained world. Jacques Foos, Director of the NuclearScience Laboratory and a professor at the Conservatoire des Arts et Metier in France,writes "No More Nuclear Energy? A Lost Fight Before It Even Starts!" n3 "Daniel Gross

states in Newsweek that 'nuclear power plants are the obvious fix for global warming andU.S. oil dependence.'" n4 Echoing such faith, the [*3] Economist proclaimed in 2005that if oil and gas prices continue to rise, nuclear power plants are "[t]he shape of thingsto come." n5 Pulitzer Prize winning historian Richard Rhodes has recently written that"[n]uclear power is environmentally safe, practical, and affordable. It is not the problem-it is one of the best solutions." n6

6


7/42


T2: Nukes is energy policy

A. Nuclear energy is energy policy considered the cornerstone of energy

policy

Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 2007 2008 Richard Sieg practices in thefollowing areas of law: Environmental, Land Use and Natural Resources; Litigation Law





Rumors of the death of the nuclear-power industry are greatly exaggerated. The BushAdministration's 2007 budget provided $ 250 million for the Global Nuclear EnergyPartnership, and U.S. energy policy continues to include nuclear power as a cornerstone.

n1 Nuclear power currently provides about one-fifth of the nation's power from 103active [*306] plants. n2 The technology is advertised as a clean, cheap, and stableenergy source. n3 On a global scale, 435 commercial nuclear power plants wereoperational as of June 2007, and France and Lithuania rely on nuclear power for aboutthree quarters of their electricity. n4 However, any analysis of nuclear power mustinclude an evaluation of the economics behind the technology and the real risksassociated with it--nuclear proliferation and plant safety. These are especially importantin the evaluation of risks globally.

7


8/42


Disadvantages:

1. Nuclear weapons created

Shell:

Link: Nuclear plants vulnerable: mock attacks were successful, even

though plants had prior knowledge of the mock attacks

UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs Fall, 2007 Amanda Mott JD

candidate at Vermont Law School, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law junior staffmember. SHOULD THE THREAT OF A TERRORIST ATTACK ON A NUCLEAR

POWER PLANT BE CONSIDERED UNDER NEPA REVIEW? [Accessed viaLexis

Nexis][CR]

Security at nuclear plant sites is insufficient to defend against air, water or ground

attacks. n65 Concern about the risk of an attack has increased with the release ofinformation that Al Qaeda, in contemplation of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,had planned to include a nuclear power plant in these assaults on the United States. n66Ahmed Ressam, the terrorist convicted [*342] in the attempt to bomb the Los AngelesInternational Airport, admitted that "a terrorist training camp linked to Osama bin Ladenconsiders power plants a primary target." n67 Nuclear power plant containment structureswere not built to endure attacks by airliners such as those used in the September 11, 2001attacks. n68 They are also vulnerable to commando style ground attacks and truckbombs. n69 Computer networks at nuclear plants and the electricity grid are additional,and very real, targets. n70 The NRC, before September 2001, staged mock attacks atvarious nuclear power plants once every eight years, but has now increased the frequency

to once every three years. n71 Security guards failed more than half of the mock attacks,although the plants were warned months in advance that these tests would take place. n72The NRC issued an order in April 2003 requiring all nuclear power plant operators tomeet the requirements of the supplemental Design Basis Threat ("DBT"), which changedthe type of threats and attacks the plants had to prevent. n73 In November 2004, the NRCimplemented a redesigned mock test program incorporating experience and lessonslearned since September 11, 2001. n74 Results of the redesigned program are addressedin the updated DBT rule, but still do not require a plant to implement extra protectionagainst air attacks. n75

8
http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6


9/42


Impact: Spent fuel can easily be turned into a nuclear weapon


following areas of law: Environmental, Land Use and Natural Resources; Litigation LawSchool: Vermont Law School, J.D., 2008 College: North Carolina State University, B.S.,

Aerospace Engineering, 1986 Member: American Bar Association (Environment,Energy, and Resources Section); North Carolina Bar Association (Environment, Energyand Natural Resources Law Section). A CALL TO MINIMIZE THE USE OF NUCLEAR


Spent uranium fuel may be "reprocessed" to separate the plutonium from the waste fuel,n13 and only a small amount of plutonium is needed to [*308] create a nuclear weapon.n14 Because of this, which states should possess reprocessing technology is a divisiveissue. n15 "There is no disagreement among the United States, Britain and France thatreprocessing plants in non-nuclear-weapon states should be discouraged . . . . There isdisagreement among us, however, over whether provision of plutonium services forexport helps the effort to contain proliferation." n16

Extension:

Link: Nuclear power increases proliferation and al Qaeda wants a nuclear

weapon

Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 2007 2008 Richard Sieg practices in thefollowing areas of law: Environmental, Land Use and Natural Resources; Litigation Law


Aerospace Engineering, 1986 Member: American Bar Association (Environment,Energy, and Resources Section); North Carolina Bar Association (Environment, Energy

and Natural Resources Law Section). A CALL TO MINIMIZE THE USE OF NUCLEAR


There is an obvious relationship between the expansion of nuclear power and the risk ofproliferation--the more nuclear power expands, the more opportunities are available fordiversion of nuclear material for non-peaceful uses. However, if the internationalcommunity allows certain states to use a technology, it is inequitable to restrict its use byothers. Once the power of the atom is harnessed by a country, it may be for peaceful ornon-peaceful use. Within that country, the risks of proliferation from energy sources n55may arise from the transportation, storage, and use of uranium, plutonium, or spent fuel.n56 Unlike other forms of waste, nuclear waste will linger in permanent storage forhundreds of thousands of years, n57 and these wastes may be diverted for non-peaceful

uses. In recent years, the desire to directly acquire nuclear weapons has expanded to non-state groups such as al Qaeda. n58 "While concern over catastrophic accidents and long-term waste management are perhaps better known, the largest single vulnerabilityassociated with the expansion of nuclear power is likely to be its potential connection tothe proliferation of nuclear weapons." n59 The risks in managing nuclear technology arenumerous and significant, and with respect to power generation, these vulnerabilities areincreased dramatically as technology is shared internationally. Understandably, the globalcommunity relies on the framework of international law to manage these risks.

9
http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7544712546&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7544712552&cisb=22_T7544712550&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=308668&docNo=7http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7544712546&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7544712552&cisb=22_T7544712550&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=308668&docNo=7http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7544712546&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7544712552&cisb=22_T7544712550&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=308668&docNo=7http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7544712546&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7544712552&cisb=22_T7544712550&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=308668&docNo=7


10/42


Link: Terrorists could attack a pool commando-style in 60 seconds

Fritsch et al. 2004 Albert J. Fritsch co-founder of the Center for Science in the Public

Interest (DC) and Appalachia - Science in the Public Interest Arthur H. Purcell, Ph.D. is

an environmental management and policy specialist, based in Los Angeles. He has

served as a member of the Presidents Science Policy Task Force and Presidents

Commission on Scholars, and of the Senior Staff of the Presidents Commission on theAccident at Three Mile Island. and Mary Byrd Davis Ph.D. has had some twenty-five

years of experience as an organizer, researcher, and writer on peace and environmentalissues. 2004 CRITICAL HOUR: THREE MILE ISLAND, THE NUCLEAR LEGACY,

AND NATIONAL SECURITY http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdf[CR]

Pools are even vulnerable to commando-style terrorists on the ground. Certain pools areonly fifty yards from the double fence around the plant. According to a handbook issuedby Sandia National Laboratories, a terrorist could get through the fence line and enter asecured building in under 60 seconds. Based on interviews with security guards andmembers of military Special Forces, the Project on Government Oversight has stated, A

certain type of explosive, which a terrorist could carry on his back, would allow him toblow a sizeable hole in the reinforced concrete bottom or wall of the spent fuel pool. Forabove-ground pools, a certain kind of explosive could even be launched from outside thefence line into the side of the pool [Brian 2002].

Link: Current standards are not enforced on nuclear safety

Gronlund et al. December 2007 Lisbeth Gronlund is co-director and senior scientist of

the UCS Global Security Program. David Lochbaum is director of the nuclear safetyproject in the UCS Global Security Program. Edwin Lyman is a senior staff scientist in

the UCS Global Security Program. Union of Concerned Scientists Nuclear power in a

warming world Assessing the Risks, Addressing the Challenges

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf[CR]

The United States has strong nuclear power safety standards, but serious safetyproblems continue to arise at U.S. nuclear power plants because the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) is not adequately enforcing the existing standards. The NRCs poorsafety culture is the biggest barrier to consistently effective oversight, and Congressshould require the NRC to bring in managers from outside the agency to rectify thisproblem.

10
http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf


11/42


Impact: 9/11 would have been worse if it had been nuclear: 96,000 early

fatalities, 308,000 injuries, 27,000 cancer deaths and $558 Billion

Fritsch et al. 2004 Albert J. Fritsch co-founder of the Center for Science in the PublicInterest (DC) and Appalachia - Science in the Public Interest Arthur H. Purcell, Ph.D. is

an environmental management and policy specialist, based in Los Angeles. He hasserved as a member of the Presidents Science Policy Task Force and PresidentsCommission on Scholars, and of the Senior Staff of the Presidents Commission on the

Accident at Three Mile Island. and Mary Byrd Davis Ph.D. has had some twenty-five

years of experience as an organizer, researcher, and writer on peace and environmental

issues. 2004 CRITICAL HOUR: THREE MILE ISLAND, THE NUCLEAR LEGACY,AND NATIONAL SECURITY http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdf[CR]

The events of September 11, 2001, should have put an end to any notion that nuclearreactors are a safe source of energy. As has often been noted in the media, the jet planes thatattacked the World Trade Center flew over the Indian Point nuclear power plant on their way

to their target. Indian Point is only twenty four miles north of New York City. The attack onthe World Trade Center was catastrophic. Had the terrorists, however, chosen to attack IndianPoint instead, the result would have been far greater devastation. According to a report bySandia National Laboratory under contract to the NRC, a core meltdown that released all ofthe radioactivity in the two reactors could lead to a total of up to 96,000 early fatalities,308,000 early injuries, 27,000 deaths from cancer, and $558 billion in damages (1980dollars) [Riccio 2001]. Such facts have apparently not influenced the Bush administration.

11
http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdfhttp://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdf


12/42


Impact: Dry casks can be ruptured by legal weapons spilling radiation


Interest (DC) and Appalachia - Science in the Public Interest Arthur H. Purcell, Ph.D. isan environmental management and policy specialist, based in Los Angeles. He has

served as a member of the Presidents Science Policy Task Force and PresidentsCommission on Scholars, and of the Senior Staff of the Presidents Commission on theAccident at Three Mile Island. and Mary Byrd Davis Ph.D. has had some twenty-five



When fuel storage pools become full, utilities store fuel outside in dry casks sitting onconcrete pads. About twenty commercial nuclear plants have dry storage casks. The casksare generally a more secure means of storing fuel than pools, because they rely on passivecooling by radiation and air convection rather than on active cooling by water and pumps

[WISE-Paris 2001]. However, at some plants the dry casks are line-of-sight visiblefrom open access areas or inside unguarded chain link fences. According to the Union ofConcerned Scientists, explosives or weapons that are available on the black market or, insome cases, available legally inside the United States could cause the casks to bepenetrated resulting in the release of large amounts of radiation. [Union of ConcernedScientists 2001]. The Energy Information Administration has removed from its Web sitethe statistics on the quantities of irradiated fuel at each specific nuclear plant, tacitadmission that the stored fuel poses a problem. This was confirmed in a report on YuccaMountain on CBSs 60 Minutes, October 26, 2003, when Secretary of Energy SpencerAbraham was quoted as stating, We need to find a permanent storage facility forirradiated fuel. And without doing that, well have not only environmental challenges,

but we, I think [sic] it will undermine our energy security and our national security.

12


13/42


Impact: Terrorists can create radiation releases with truck bombs also



served as a member of the Presidents Science Policy Task Force and PresidentsCommission on Scholars, and of the Senior Staff of the Presidents Commission on theAccident at Three Mile Island. and Mary Byrd Davis Ph.D. has had some twenty-five



Truck bombs are another possible means of attack. According to a report by SandiaNational Laboratory, the truck would not have to enter the site to cause catastrophicdamage (at least not given the site boundaries of 2001). A carefully placed truck bombcould destroy essential equipment within a plant from outside a plants property and thus

cause a radiation release. Boats are a source of danger, particularly for plants on largebodies of water. Terrorists might approach a plant by boat with the intent of storming itsdefenses or simply of clogging the plants intake valve to cut off the water supply orintroducing volatile chemicals into the plants cooling system [Pasternak 2001].

Impact: Terrorists could cause a core meltdown


the UCS Global Security Program. David Lochbaum is director of the nuclear safety

project in the UCS Global Security Program. Edwin Lyman is a senior staff scientist in


warming world Assessing the Risks, Addressing the Challengeshttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-

world.pdf[CR]

If a team of well-trained terrorists forcibly entered a nuclear power plant, it coulddisable safety systems within a matter of minutes, and do enough damage to cause ameltdown of the core, failure of the containment structure, and a large release ofradiation. Such an attack could contaminate large regions for thousands of years,producing higher cancer rates and billions of dollars in associated costs.

13
http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf


14/42


AT: Safeguards NRC ignores terrorism as a low-probability event


the UCS Global Security Program. David Lochbaum is director of the nuclear safetyproject in the UCS Global Security Program. Edwin Lyman is a senior staff scientist in

the UCS Global Security Program. Union of Concerned Scientists Nuclear power in awarming world Assessing the Risks, Addressing the Challengeshttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-

world.pdf[CR]

One underlying problem is that the risk of sabotage and terrorist attack has never fitcomfortably into the NRCs regulatory framework, which focuses on preventingaccidents. The NRC bases its approach to security on the presumption thatlikecatastrophic accidentsterrorist attacks are low-probability events. And the NRCmaintains that a catastrophic accident is very unlikely to occur because multiple safetysystems would have to fail simultaneously, and that the probability of that happening is

very low. However, this logic fails when one considers deliberate damage.

2. NRC overstretch/more risk of accident

Shell:

Link: NRC overstretched: not enough funding to keep safe while also

approving new licenses




the UCS Global Security Program. Union of Concerned Scientists Nuclear power in awarming world Assessing the Risks, Addressing the Challenges

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-

world.pdf[CR]

Congress continues to pressure the NRC to cut its budget, so it spends fewer resourceson overseeing safety. The NRC does not have enough funding to fulfill its mandate toensure safety while also responding to applications to extend the licenses of existingreactors and license new ones.

14
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf


15/42


Brink: NRC is already stretched thin

Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law 2004 Arjun Makhijani President of

the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Maryland.SYMPOSIUM: Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor

Way to Meet Energy Needs [Accessed viaLexis Nexis][CR]

The proliferation implications of building so many plants and supplying them with fuelare stupendous. Inspecting them, enriching the uranium, ensuring that materials are notdiverted into weapons programs would present challenges that would make today'sproliferation concerns look like the proverbial Sunday school picnic. We already haveconfrontations between the United States and other countries over alleged nuclearweapons aspirations from far more modest programs involving a handful of power plants.The risk of losing a city once in a while to nuclear bombs should be an unacceptable partof an energy strategy. Similarly, it would be difficult to inspect, regulate and maintainsuch a vast number of plants properly. Even the U.S. regulatory system is currently under

considerable strain. In fact, oversight and safety are deteriorating. There [*67] havebeen unexpected leaks and severe corrosion problems missed by inadequate regulation.Nuclear power plant owners are operating their plants at very high capacity factors,churning out profits, while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows them to servicesome safety backup equipment while the power plants are still running. n16 That makesno sense from a safety point of view. Backup systems are there in case the normalsystems break down. If a break down occurs while the back system is being maintained,it will not be available in case of emergency.

15
http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7742734398&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7742736912&cisb=22_T7742736911&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=166550&docNo=1http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7742734398&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7742736912&cisb=22_T7742736911&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=166550&docNo=1http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7742734398&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7742736912&cisb=22_T7742736911&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=166550&docNo=1


16/42


Extension:

Link: Heightened risk of nuclear accidents under affirmative plan






The more nuclear power plants, the higher the risk of nuclear accidents. As recognizedby the Kemeny Commission, which investigated the cause of Three Mile Island (TMI)accident, there is a strong tie between nuclear accidents and public acceptance of thetechnology. "We are convinced that, unless . . . industry and [the NRC] undergo

fundamental changes, they will over time totally destroy public confidence and, hence,they will be responsible for the elimination of nuclear power as a viable source ofenergy." n343 The industry claims that the safety record for nuclear power plants isoutstanding, which is true compared to a less hazardous industry. However, this logicobscures the catastrophic potential of a nuclear accident. In addition to being relativelysafe, so far the industry has been exceedingly lucky. Whether an accident is caused byfaulty design, aging equipment, operator error, or outright negligence, the outcome maybe the same. The expansion of nuclear power increases the likelihood that a seriousaccident could occur.

Link: NRC ignores its own regulations: whistleblowers are harassed or

intimidatedGronlund et al. December 2007 Lisbeth Gronlund is co-director and senior scientist of



the UCS Global Security Program. Union of Concerned Scientists Nuclear power in awarming world Assessing the Risks, Addressing the Challenges


world.pdf[CR]

The poor safety culture at the NRC manifests itself in several ways. The agency hasfailed to implement its own findings on how to avoid safety problems at U.S. reactors. It

has failed to enforce its own regulations, with the result that safety problems haveremained unresolved for years at reactors that have continued to operate. And it hasinappropriately emphasized adhering to schedules rather than ensuring safety. Asignificant number of NRC staff members have reported feeling unable to raise safetyconcerns without fear of retaliation, and a large percentage of those staff members saythey have suffered harassment or intimidation.

16
http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7544712546&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7544712552&cisb=22_T7544712550&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=308668&docNo=7http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7544712546&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7544712552&cisb=22_T7544712550&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=308668&docNo=7http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf


17/42


Link: NRC doesnt have enough funding now, you make it worse






world.pdf[CR]

Despite the numerous problems noted above, Congress continues to pressure the NRC tocut budgets and streamline regulations rather than improve oversight. Indeed, except for amodest funding increase after 9/11 to handle new security demands, such as revisingsecurity rules and increasing the frequency of security inspections, the agencys budgetand staffing levels have steadily declined since 1993. Until 1998 that decline seemedwarranted, as the agency has not licensed a nuclear plant since 1996, and a number ofplants have permanently closed. However, in 1999 budget constraints led the NRC to cut

back on the number of inspectors assigned full-time to monitor operating nuclear powerplants. Congress has also failed to account for the growing number of applications fromowners to renew licenses for existing plants, and the agencys expanding efforts toevaluate designs for more advanced reactors.

17
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf


18/42


AT: no accidents. This doesnt actually mean that we are safer



Aerospace Engineering, 1986 Member: American Bar Association (Environment,Energy, and Resources Section); North Carolina Bar Association (Environment, Energyand Natural Resources Law Section). A CALL TO MINIMIZE THE USE OF NUCLEAR


During the lifecycle of a nuclear power plant, the risk of a catastrophic accident followsa function some call the "bathtub curve." n344 The bathtub curve predicts high failurerisks during the "break-in phase" and the "wear-out phase," with relatively lower risksduring a relatively stable "middle life [*351] phase." n345 The break-in phase representsthe early years where inexperience, previously undetected vulnerabilities, manufacturingdefects, material imperfections and poor workmanship result in a higher failure rate. n346

Fermil, Three Mile Island-2, St. Laurent, Browns Ferry, the Sodium ResearchExperiment, Chernobyl Unit 4 and the Idaho SL-1 reactor are among the worst failuresoccurring in this phase. n347 During this phase, the failure rate declines until it reaches anear-constant rate. n348 The middle life phase represents the "useful lifetime" of a plant,with the lower failure rate attributed to improvements in equipment design and a betteroperational understanding of the technology. n349 A recent near miss at the Davis-Bessenuclear plant is a prime example of the type of safety issues that arise during this phase.n350 After a certain point, the failure rate will begin to increase again as the productenters its wear-out phase. n351 This stage is gaining analytical significance as manyplants built a generation ago reach the end of their license periods and receive licenseextensions. In addition, the older plants appear to be susceptible to greater failures.

"[W]hile the number of events is decreasing, their severity increases, with the near missesgetting nearer to disaster." n352 Thus, while the nuclear-power industry has experienceda period of relative stability, this by no means indicates that a future catastrophe isbecoming less likely.

18


19/42


AT: no accidentsAbsence of a disaster doesnt mean that its safe: 35

incidents since 1979

Gronlund et al. December 2007 Lisbeth Gronlund is co-director and senior scientist ofthe UCS Global Security Program. David Lochbaum is director of the nuclear safety

project in the UCS Global Security Program. Edwin Lyman is a senior staff scientist inthe UCS Global Security Program. Union of Concerned Scientists Nuclear power in awarming world Assessing the Risks, Addressing the Challenges


world.pdf[CR]

A serious nuclear power accident has not occurred in the United States since 1979, whenthe Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania experienced a partial core meltdown.However, the absence of serious accidents does not necessarily indicate that safetymeasures and oversight are adequate. Since 1979, there have been 35 instances in whichindividual reactors have shut down to restore safety standards, and the owner has taken a

year or more to address dozens or even hundreds of equipment impairments that hadaccumulated over a period of years. The most recent such shutdown occurred in 2002.These year-plus closures indicate that the NRC has been doing a poor job of regulatingthe safety of power reactors. An effective regulator would be neither unaware norpassively tolerant of safety problems so extensive that a year or more is needed to fixthem.

19


20/42


3. Terrorist attacks: Air attacks

Shell:

Link: Nuclear plants stand no chance of withstanding an air attackFritsch et al. 2004 Albert J. Fritsch co-founder of the Center for Science in the Public


served as a member of the Presidents Science Policy Task Force and Presidents

Commission on Scholars, and of the Senior Staff of the Presidents Commission on the

Accident at Three Mile Island. and Mary Byrd Davis Ph.D. has had some twenty-fiveyears of experience as an organizer, researcher, and writer on peace and environmental

issues. 2004 CRITICAL HOUR: THREE MILE ISLAND, THE NUCLEAR LEGACY,


Both the IAEA and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), responding toquestions from the public, have admitted that plant containment structures were not builtto withstand attacks by airliners such as Boeing 757s or 767s [Rahir 2001; Long 2001]. Infact, a report published in 1974 in Nuclear Safety found that certain containmentstructures had no chance of withstanding a direct hit by a plane weighing more than 6.25tons. The planes that struck the World Trade Center weighed 150 tons [Bivens 2001].The actions of governments at various levels immediately after September 11 underlinedthe fact that the terrorist threat is real. Security measures for US plants, thoughinsufficient, included patrols by the National Guard and the Coast Guard, the closing ofroads, and a moratorium on flights by general aviation near specified nuclear sites.

Impact: Air attacks on nuclear plants would create an explosion that wouldspread radioactive material

UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs Fall, 2007 Amanda Mott JD

candidate at Vermont Law School, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law junior staff

member. SHOULD THE THREAT OF A TERRORIST ATTACK ON A NUCLEARPOWER PLANT BE CONSIDERED UNDER NEPA REVIEW? [Accessed viaLexis

Nexis][CR]

Nuclear power plants have been recognized as vulnerable to terrorist attacks. n51 Thesestructures were built to withstand extreme weather events, but air attacks were notconsidered in the design plans. n52 As was previously mentioned, the NRC continues tobelieve nuclear power plants should not be required to implement protection from air

attacks. n53 However, an airliner crashing into a nuclear reactor could penetrate thestructure leading to a severe explosion releasing large amounts of radioactive material.n54

20
http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdfhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdfhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6


21/42


Extension:

Link: Virtually no defense against air attacks




years of experience as an organizer, researcher, and writer on peace and environmentalissues. 2004 CRITICAL HOUR: THREE MILE ISLAND, THE NUCLEAR LEGACY,


Nuclear plants are vulnerable to attacks by numerous means. According to GordonThompson of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge,Massachusetts, who has been studying the industry for twenty-five years, the highest

risk mode of attack is that demonstrated on September 11 - airplanes [Gordon 2003].Jetliners and smaller planes carrying explosives are both a danger. Whether or not a smallplane could penetrate a containment structure, it could penetrate the building housing astorage pool [Kranes 2002]. Targeting a fuel pool would obviously be more difficult thanhitting the World Trade Center. However, a commercial airline pilot or a terrorist withsome training in a commercial aircraft could do it [Stoller 2003]. A general aviationplane, loaded with explosives, would have high accuracy of delivery, high expectationof success and [face] essentially no defense [Gordon 2003]. The US government hasput into effect elaborate safety measures to prevent the hijacking of jetliners. However,according to a study by USA Today, thousands of airports are within 60 miles of plantsand aircraft based at many of these airports are largely unguarded and could reach a

nuclear site within minutes [Stoller 2003]. A study by the NRC itself, concluded beforethe September 11 attack, stated that half of all airplanes are big enough to penetrate areinforced concrete wall that is five feet thick [Gordon 2003].

21


22/42


4. Terrorist attacks: Spent fuel

Shell:

Link: Spent fuel is even more vulnerableUCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs Fall, 2007 Amanda Mott JD

candidate at Vermont Law School, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law junior staffmember. SHOULD THE THREAT OF A TERRORIST ATTACK ON A NUCLEAR

POWER PLANT BE CONSIDERED UNDER NEPA REVIEW? [Accessed viaLexis

Nexis][CR]

[*341] Although nuclear reactors are vulnerable to attack, spent fuel pools are evenmore susceptible. n55 Radioactive "spent" nuclear fuel is "removed from the reactor coreafter it can no longer efficiently sustain a nuclear chain reaction." n56 This spent fuel isstored in one of two places: (1) pools of water in the reactor building or (2) dry casks in

another place on the plant grounds. n57

Impact: Fires at spent fuel pools: 188 sq. miles uninhabitable, 28,000 fatalities

$59 Billion

UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs Fall, 2007 Amanda Mott JDcandidate at Vermont Law School, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law junior staff

member. SHOULD THE THREAT OF A TERRORIST ATTACK ON A NUCLEAR

POWER PLANT BE CONSIDERED UNDER NEPA REVIEW? [Accessed viaLexisNexis][CR]

Because the fuel is stored outside of the containment structure, concern about the

vulnerability of the spent fuel to a terrorist attack has increased. n58 Spent fuel pools atplants with PWRs are located in fuel handling buildings, at or slightly below groundlevel. n59 At plants with BWRs, the pools are at the reactor building, well above ground.n60 A severe fire in an irradiated fuel pool could render 188 square miles uninhabitable,result in nearly 28,000 cancer fatalities, and inflict up to $ 59 billion in damages. n61

22
http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7545140974&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7545140988&cisb=22_T7545140987&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=165640&docNo=6


23/42


Extension:

Link: Spent fuel pools could easily be attacked and would release lots of

radiation





world.pdf[CR]

Unlike reactors, the pools used to store spent fuel at reactor sites are not protected bycontainment buildings, and thus are attractive targets for terrorist attacks. Such attackscould lead to the release of large amounts of dangerous radioactive materials into the

environment.

23


24/42


Impact: Fuel pools very dangerous 70 times worse than Chernobyl, air

attacks can create fires






An even greater danger than the reactor itself is the pools of water in which utilitiesstore irradiated fuel that they have removed from their reactors. Daniel Hirsch, writing inthe Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, states, A typical nuclear power plant contains

within its core about 1,000 times the long-lived radioactivity released by the Hiroshimabomb. The spent fuel pools at nuclear power plants typically contain some multiple ofthat - several Chernobyls worth [Hirsch 2002]. An unclassified study by BrookhavenNational Laboratory released in 1997 found that a severe fire in an irradiated fuel poolcould make 188 square miles uninhabitable, cause up to 28,000 cancer fatalities, andwreak $59 billion in damages [POGO 2002]. The findings are conservative. Frank vonHippel of Princeton reports that the radioactive plume from a pool fire could contaminateeight to 70 times as much land as that impacted by the Chernobyl accident and causehundreds of billions of dollars of damage [Process Engineering 2003]. The NRC report ofOctober 2000 that studied the effects of accidents at spent fuel pools found that a fireresulting from a plane crash could result in the release of 50-100% of the volatile

radionuclides in the pool [Large and Schneider, 2000, p. 10]. These would include 20-50million curies of cesium-137, an isotope which has a thirty-year half life, emitspenetrating gamma radiation and is absorbed in the food chain as if it were potassium[Alvarez 2002, p. 46].

24


25/42


Impact: Radiation causes death, cancer, displacement and billions of dollars

of damage


project in the UCS Global Security Program. Edwin Lyman is a senior staff scientist inthe UCS Global Security Program. Union of Concerned Scientists Nuclear power in awarming world Assessing the Risks, Addressing the Challenges


world.pdf[CR]

An operating nuclear power plant contains a large amount of radioactive material, andan accident that results in the release of this material could cause significant harm topeople and the environment. People exposed to high levels of radiation will die or sufferother health consequences within days or weeks. Lower radiation levels can cause celldamage that will eventually lead to cancer, which may not appear for years or even

decades. People may need to be permanently evacuated from areas contaminated withradiation. The costs of evacuation and environmental remediation, and those of the lossof usable land, could be enormous. Radioactivity released by a severe accident could leadto the death of tens of thousands of people, injure many thousands of others, contaminatelarge areas of land, and cost billions of dollars.

5. Uranium mining

Shell:

Link: More NP = More mining, D to the uh

Impact: Billions in cleanup, water pollution and health

Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law 2004 Arjun Makhijani President ofthe Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Maryland.

SYMPOSIUM: Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor

Way to Meet Energy Needs [Accessed viaLexis Nexis][CR]

The West knows the costs of uranium fuel well. This is especially so in the ColoradoPlateau, which is dotted with about two hundred million tons of radioactive mill tailingsn6 and possibly a comparable amount of uranium mine waste. These wastes have injuredhealth, polluted precious water supplies, and resulted in billions of dollars in clean-up

costs. n7 And the liabilities will extend into the future for tens of thousands of years. Thehalf-life of thorium-230, the radionuclide that drives the radioactivity content of milltailings, is about 75,000 years. Thorium-230 decays into radium-226, which has a half-life of 1,600 years. n8

25
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7742734398&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7742736912&cisb=22_T7742736911&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=166550&docNo=1http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7742734398&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7742736912&cisb=22_T7742736911&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=166550&docNo=1http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdfhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7742734398&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7742736912&cisb=22_T7742736911&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=166550&docNo=1


26/42


Solvency:

1. AT: More nuclear plants

A. Not going to build new plants, already have subsidies

William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Fall, 2008 Dr. Benjamin K.Sovacool is a Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia

and Globalization, part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National

University of Singapore. He is also an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the VirginiaPolytechnic Institute & State University. He has worked in advisory and research

capacities at the U.S. National Science Foundation's Electric Power Networks Efficiency

and Security Program, Virginia Tech Consortium on Energy Restructuring, VirginiaCenter for Coal and Energy Research, New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and U.S. Department




expanding the use of renewable resources. At NNEC, Mr. Cooper authored numerousreports and journal articles, including the first-ever ranking and grading of state net

metering policies. Symposium Issue 1: Emission Not Accomplished: The Future of

Carbon Emissions in a Changing World: Symposium Article: Nuclear Nonsense:Why Nuclear Power is No Answer to Climate Change and the World's Post-

Kyoto Energy Challenges [Accessed viaLexis Nexis][CR]

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 only worsened the disparity by lavishing the nuclearindustry with expensive new subsidies, including $ 13 billion worth of loan guarantees

covering up to 80% of project costs; $ 3 billion in R&D; $ 2 billion of insurance againstdelays, amounting to, ironically, taxpayers footing the bill even for legitimate oppositionto nuclear projects in their communities; $ 1.3 billion in tax breaks for decommissioning;an extra 1.8 /kWh in operating subsidies for the first eight years a nuclear plant is inoperation, equivalent to about $ 842 per installed kW; funding for licensing;compensation for project delays for the first six reactors to be developed; and limitedliability for accidents, capped at $ 10.9 billion. n300 These subsidies are in addition tonumerous other benefits the nuclear industry already enjoys: "free offsite security, . . . nosubstantive public participation or judicial review of licensing," and payments tooperators to store waste. n301 The subsidy established by the Price-Anderson Act, whichpractically charges taxpayers for liability insurance against nuclear accidents that could

kill them, alone is possibly estimated to be worth more than twice the entire DOE R&Dbudget. n302

B. Government subsidies already are higher than capital put at risk

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 With Particular Emphasis on Economic

Issues Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclearpolicy based in Paris. He founded the Energy Information Agency WISE-Paris in 1983

26


27/42


and directed it until 2003. Antony Froggatt works as independent European energyconsultant based in London. Since 1997 Antony has worked as a freelance researcher

and writer on energy and nuclear policy issues in the EU and neighboring states. Steve

Thomas is Professor for energy policy at the Public Services International Research Unit

(PSIRU), University of Greenwich, where he has been senior researcher since 2001. Mr.

Thomas holds a BSc (honors) degree in Chemistry from Bristol University and has beenworking in energy policy analysis since 1976. Doug Koplow founded Earth Track in

1999 to more effectively integrate information on energy subsidies.http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/weltstatusbericht0908.pdf[CR]

In the USA, nearly 30 separate subsidy programs are available to new reactors. In total,subsidies to new reactors in the USA are likely to exceed the private capital put at risk. InEurope, there are discussions about putting guarantees on the carbon price that nuclearplants would receive in the European Union emissions trading scheme of course, if theprice was guaranteed, it would not be a market.

2. Nuclear loan guarantees

A. Risk of default on loan is high, will be paid by taxpayers

Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law 2004 Arjun Makhijani President of

the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Maryland.

SYMPOSIUM: Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a PoorWay to Meet Energy Needs [Accessed viaLexis Nexis][CR]

In the United States, where Wall Street has had a big say in whether and what kind ofpower plants get built, investors are not willing to put up money for nuclear plants. Nonehave been ordered since 1978. While nuclear companies say they want to order such

plants, in practice they appear to want the government to provide loan guarantees. ACongressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of proposed U.S. government loanguarantees for new nuclear power plants said that the "CBO considers the risk of defaulton such a loan guarantee to be very high" and that if the power plant were complete "weexpect it would financially default soon after beginning operations ... ." n24 That doesn'tnecessarily mean the plants would shut down - just that the taxpayers would wind uppaying for much of the nuclear generated electricity.

B. Wall street has six reasons not to invest in nuclear power, transfer those

risks to taxpayers

Mark Cooper Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis Institute for Energy and theEnvironment Vermont Law School November 2009 ALL RISK, NO REWARD FOR

TAXPAYERS AND RATEPAYERS THE ECONOMICS OF SUBSIDIZING THENUCLEAR RENAISSANCE WITH

LOAN GUARANTEES AND CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRESS

http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/110309cooperreport.pdf[CR]

27
http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/weltstatusbericht0908.pdfhttp://www.nirs.org/neconomics/weltstatusbericht0908.pdfhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7742734398&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7742736912&cisb=22_T7742736911&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=166550&docNo=1http://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7742734398&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7742736912&cisb=22_T7742736911&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=166550&docNo=1http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/110309cooperreport.pdfhttp://www.nirs.org/neconomics/weltstatusbericht0908.pdfhttp://www.lexisnexis.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7742734398&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7742736912&cisb=22_T7742736911&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=166550&docNo=1http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/110309cooperreport.pdf


28/42


The high risk of new nuclear reactors has led Wall Street firms to indicate that it will bedifficult, if not impossible, to sell bonds to support these projects in capital markets.14Wall Street has also indicated that it will lower the bond ratings of the utilitiesundertaking these projects.15 The same factors that have led Wall Street to refuse tofinance reactors and to lower the ratings of utilities that are trying to build them are the

very reasons that taxpayers and ratepayers may suffer substantial net loses if they areforced to foot the bill for new nuclear reactors. As shown in Figure II-1, Wall Street andeconomic analysts identify six basic types of risk that are of concern in the nuclearreactor industry at present: technology risk, policy risk, regulatory risk, marketplace risk,execution risk and financial risk. Technology, policy and regulatory risks tend to be themost basic factors that can affect both the marketplace and the execution risks of theprojects. While the risk factors tend to influence one another, they each have distinctcauses and consequences. All of the risks feed into the financial risk, which is theultimate concern of Wall Street analysts in rating the utilities that propose to undertakethese projects and industry consultants that advise utilities about investment projects.

C. AT: Nuclear plants wont default Empirically proven: NP has high fail

rate

Mark Cooper Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis Institute for Energy and the

Environment Vermont Law School November 2009 ALL RISK, NO REWARD FORTAXPAYERS AND RATEPAYERS THE ECONOMICS OF SUBSIDIZING THE

NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE WITH

LOAN GUARANTEES AND CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRESShttp://www.nirs.org/neconomics/110309cooperreport.pdf[CR]

The historical experience in the nuclear industry also deserves mention.17 The industry

made similar bet the farm decisions in the face of adverse circumstances in the 1970sand 1980s and the results were disastrous for the industry and consumers with half thereactors originally ordered cancelled or abandoned and the remainder suffering severecost overruns. A combination of risks similar to those we observe today created afinancial disaster for utilities and a rate shock for consumers.

D. Loan guarantees do not reduce costs and simply ignore all risks

Mark Cooper Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis Institute for Energy and theEnvironment Vermont Law School November 2009 ALL RISK, NO REWARD FOR

TAXPAYERS AND RATEPAYERS THE ECONOMICS OF SUBSIDIZING THE

NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE WITHLOAN GUARANTEES AND CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRESS

http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/110309cooperreport.pdf[CR]

Advocates of loan guarantees and construction work in progress claim that thesesubsidies lower the financing costs of nuclear reactors and are good for consumers, but infact, what they do is shift the risk from shareholders to taxpayers and ratepayers. The riskis not lowered or eliminated. Any benefits from lowering of financing costs are swamped

28
http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/110309cooperreport.pdfhttp://www.nirs.org/neconomics/110309cooperreport.pdfhttp://www.nirs.org/neconomics/110309cooperreport.pdfhttp://www.nirs.org/neco

Documents

Nuclear Power Neg