Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[1]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[1]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[1]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-07 20:19:14.999
	1	+2016-12-07 20:19:14.0

Caselist.CitesClass[1]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,65 @@
	1	+Fusion CP
	2	+Their banning of nuclear reactors destroys any chance for innovation~-~-~-~- Hybrid fusion-fission reactors solve all the problems – zero chance of accidents
	3	+Pedraza 12
	4	+Jorge Morales Pedraza, consultant on international affairs, ambassador to the IAEA for 26 yrs, degree in math and economy sciences, former professor, Energy Science, Engineering and Technology : Nuclear Power: Current and Future Role in the World Electricity Generation : Current and Future Role in the World Electricity Generation, New York.
	5	+
	6	+The nuclear fusion has been the power ideal for more than half century, but the problems that have being impeding until now the use of this type of energy for electricity production are not been solved in a satisfactory manner and for this reason, the use of fusion technology for the generation of electricity is not yet ready to be used commercially and will not so at least until 2050. According with several experts‘ opinions, it is expected that nuclear fusion will not be available for the production of electricity before 2050. The USA, that reduced significantly basic research in nuclear fusion some years ago, has now announced that the Laboratory Lawrence Livermore has begun fusion tests on May 2009. The tests will be extended until 2012 and the objective of it is to demonstrate that it is possible to generate thermonuclear energy. Why takes so long time to obtain specific results in this field. The answer is the following: The physics of the fusion is very difficult and the technology that there is to develop to prove the physical theoretical principles experimentally is also very complex and expensive, and all this demands long time‖, assures Mr. Diaz the Blonde, head of Investigation and Development of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in California, USA. According to Diaz of the Blonde, ―we hoped that a power gain of the order of a factor of 10 takes place. But this is not sufficient, which causes that it is precise a mixed system fusion and fission, a concept that already formulated Andrei Sakharov. It is a very interesting alternative and it allows closing the cycle of the nuclear energy of a very safe form, since the part of the fission is not the normal one (it requires a critical mass of nuclear fuel neither uranium enrichment nor reprocessing of the radioactive waste), reason why the probability of a accident like the Chernobyl one is zero. The hybrids of fusion and fission can be a power alternative from 2025. These characteristics, plus the fact that in our concept the power gains are enormous and very high amounts of electricity of base without emitting CO 2 can be produced, allow us to think that this will be a very interesting thing in the midterm‖. According to the calculations of Diaz of the Blonde, at least 10 more years are needed to construct the prototype of a commercial plant that generates energy using the fusion technology. However, there is a great expectation in using hybrids of fusion and fission technologies to produce energy and this could be ready in the second quarter of the 21 th century. In the opinion of Diaz of the Blonde, the power model of the future must be mixed, with combinations of sources, including the improvement of the current renewable energies systems and the advance in the use of the fusion and the fission technologies. The scientist community is conscious of the distrusts that the nuclear energy provoke between the public opinion and, for this reason, the concept of fusion-fission by confinement has tremendous advantages and could allows us to think about the possibility of expanding the nuclear energy in a safe form in the future reducing the volume of radioactive waste volume.
	7	+
	8	+Mutual Exclusivity~-~-- You can’t both ban nuclear power and have nuclear reactors~-~-- it’s impossible~-~-~-~- thus the negative is better
	9	+Education CP
	10	+Education and professional mobility initiatives solve safety and security
	11	+IEA 15 "Technology Roadmap: Nuclear Energy." IEA Technology Roadmaps (n.d.): n. pag. 2015. Web. 8 Aug. 2016
	12	+In parallel to an increased globalisation of the nuclear industry, there has been an increase in the internationalisation of RandD. This is to a large extent due to decreasing RandD budgets at national levels, which encourages research organisations to pool resources, share experimental facilities and carry out projects at the international level. There are a number of international and bilateral initiatives focused on collaborative research, education, training and knowledge management, including the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform in the European Union, which gathers industry, research and academia, or the Generation IV International Forum, which provides a framework for international RandD on Gen IV systems. The NEA itself provides support to international projects such as code validation benchmarks or safety-related experiments. The global nuclear industry is acutely aware of the need to ensure a high level of nuclear skills development in existing and newcomer countries and has well-developed training programmes that are shared across countries, providing an important source of nuclear training. In addition, global partnerships such as the World Nuclear University (WNU) and the European Nuclear Education Network (ENEN) have been developed to enhance international education and training for the development of nuclear energy. WNU was created in 2003 with the support of the IAEA, OECD/NEA, WANO and WNA to provide global guidance on preparing the future generation of nuclear industry leaders and to enhance nuclear education worldwide. WNU activities include the Summer Institute (a six-week intensive course for future nuclear leaders), the Radiation Technologies School (a two-week course for future leaders in the radiation and radioisotope field) and a one-week course focused on key issues in the nuclear industry today. These courses are offered in host countries where significant interest exists for the development of nuclear energy8. Training events are held in partnership with other organisations and trainers come from industry, government and academia. The WNA provides administrative support to the WNU. To date, almost 900 professionals have attended the Summer Institute, while 200 have attended the Radiation Technologies School and approximately 6 000 have benefited from the one-week training courses. Mobility of nuclear literate workers across borders will be particularly important both in terms of providing sufficient specialised nuclear workers (such as nuclear engineers and welders) as well as facilitating a transfer of expertise to newcomer countries. The UK skills passport and French ticketing system provide a good basis for developing mutual recognition of qualifications from one country to another and help to support workforce mobility.
	13	+
	14	+Prolif CP
	15	+Implement the following regulations to stop nuclear proliferation
	16	+Rauf 03 Tariq Rauf, Head of the Verification and Security Policy Coordination Office at the International Atomic Energy Agency, “PROLIFERATION RESISTANCE: POLITICAL FACTORS,” International Conference held in Vienna, organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency, June 23, 2003
	17	+The following extrinsic measures, inter alia, were identified: ʊ States’ commitments, obligations and policies with regard to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. These measures would include all relevant legal instruments, such as the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. Although these treaties do not form an insurmountable barrier to proliferation, verification activities by the IAEA have overwhelmingly guaranteed compliance. In the case of the NPT, only once has a party made use of its right to withdraw from the Treaty. In addition, such legal commitments provide for continuity in the international non-proliferation regime by transcending government changes in States party to the Treaty. Nevertheless, it should be noted that many of these measures work best as long as conditions remain static. History has shown that many of the non-proliferation policies of States and arrangements between States may change over time. National export control legislation and co-operative arrangements, particularly those that limit nuclear energy use to peaceful purposes, constitute efficient extrinsic measures. The Zangger Committee, for instance, has developed common understandings concerning the interpretation and implementation of Article III.2 of the NPT, which regulates the provision of special material and equipment to States. In the same way, the Zangger Committee and the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group have established, through their “trigger lists”, export control principles designed to minimize the proliferation risk of nuclear exports. ʊ Agreements between exporting and importing States to limit the use of nuclear energy systems to agreed purposes. This could be supported by an agreement between exporting and importing States that guarantees supplies of nuclear fuel or services. These measures include (1) bilateral arrangements for supply and return of nuclear fuel and other components of a nuclear energy system; (2) bilateral agreements governing the reexport of a nuclear energy system or its components by an importer; and (3) guarantees by a nuclear exporter of commercially attractive supplies of fresh fuel and waste management services over the life-cycle of the nuclear energy system, thus reducing the need of the importer to develop indigenous enrichment or reprocessing technologies. Several countries have laws and regulations that limit the spread of sensitive knowledge or prevent the export of such knowledge and of sensitive equipment and materials in case certain conditions are not met. Many States do not export unless the recipient country has indeed accepted full scope safeguards. ʊ Commercial, legal or institutional arrangements that control access to nuclear material and nuclear energy systems. These measures could include (1) the existence of a legal framework to ensure that operators of nuclear energy systems are subject to specific requirements governing the use of those systems and associated materials; (2) common legal provisions to be incorporated in all contracts involving nuclear energy systems; and (3) multi-national ownership, management or control of nuclear energy systems. ʊ The application of IAEA verification and, as appropriate, regional, bilateral and national measures. These measures include the application of safeguards, for the detection – and deterrence – of diversion or undeclared production of nuclear material. The Agency’s verification activities under the NPT are based on the comprehensive safeguards agreements that follow the INFCIRC/153 model agreement. Additional legal authority allowing the IAEA to implement further verification measures is conferred by the additional protocols to the safeguards agreements. The Agency’s strengthened safeguards system has a confidence-building function that strongly contributes to proliferation resistance. Naturally, for a verification system to be efficient and therefore credible, it requires adequate funding, technical competence and, as noted in the INPRO Report, an adequate number of sensitive and reliable measurement instruments and sensors. ʊ Legal and institutional arrangements to address violations of nuclear non-proliferation or peaceful-use undertakings. These measures could include (1) a credible system of reporting verification conclusions in a timely manner; (2) reliable institutional arrangements for bringing evidence of violations before the international community; and (3) the existence of an effective international response mechanism. 3. CONCLUSION The extrinsic measures mentioned above would be greatly complemented by intrinsic proliferation resistance features. Whereas the possibility of applying safeguards to and controlling exports of future nuclear energy systems will continue to play an important part – it is unlikely that we will have a fully proliferation-resistant system based only on extrinsic features. Thus, the development and implementation of intrinsic features should be encouraged. Proliferation resistance measures, both intrinsic and extrinsic, could help ensure that future nuclear energy systems will continue to be an unattractive means to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapon programme, thus guaranteeing that lack of trust does not result in technologydenial. The benefits of enhancing proliferation resistance are not limited to the field of international security; by facilitating the access of developing States to nuclear technologies, proliferation resistance also could play a fundamental role in the field of development. Finally, to ensure the widest possible acceptance and support for the concepts, principles and technologies for proliferation resistance, it is essential that “proliferation resistant” technologies be developed in as transparent and inclusive a manner, and as co-operatively, as possible.
	18	+
	19	+SMR PIC
	20	+Plan Text: Ban all nuclear production except for small modular reactors (SMRs); solves their offense.
	21	+IEA 15 "Technology Roadmap: Nuclear Energy." IEA Technology Roadmaps (n.d.): n. pag. 2015. Web. 8 Aug. 2016
	22	+Small modular reactors (SMRs) could extend the market for nuclear energy by providing power to smaller grid systems or isolated markets where larger nuclear plants are not suitable. The modular nature of these designs may also help to address financing barriers.
	23	+SMRs key to nuclear power in developing countries-overcomes financing barriers
	24	+IEA 15 "Technology Roadmap: Nuclear Energy." IEA Technology Roadmaps (n.d.): n. pag. 2015. Web. 8 Aug. 2016
	25	+Given large upfront capital requirements, the financing of nuclear power plants (NPPs) is a major hurdle for most countries. The large size of Generation III (Gen III) nuclear reactors, typically in the range of 1 000-1 700 megawatts (MW), could limit the number of countries in which nuclear power is an option – the usual “rule of thumb” is that a nuclear reactor or any other single generating unit in an electric system should not represent more than 10 of the size of the grid. Smaller reactors such as small modular reactors (SMRs) could target countries or regions with less developed electric grids.
	26	+SMRs save the industry
	27	+IEA 15 "Technology Roadmap: Nuclear Energy." IEA Technology Roadmaps (n.d.): n. pag. 2015. Web. 8 Aug. 2016
	28	+There is strong interest in the United States to redevelop its nuclear industry, and particular attention has been focused in recent years by the US Department of Energy on the development of SMRs. SMRs could potentially replace coal-fired power plants that will need to shut down because of new, strict regulations on air pollution from the Environmental Protection Agency. Recently, however, the outlook for the deployment of SMRs has been revised, with some leading SMR design companies reducing developing efforts since no near term deployment is expected in the United States.
	29	+SMRs save money; adoption is on the brink-legislative action now key
	30	+IEA 15 "Technology Roadmap: Nuclear Energy." IEA Technology Roadmaps (n.d.): n. pag. 2015. Web. 8 Aug. 2016
	31	+SMRs could perform a useful niche role as they can be constructed in regions or countries that have small grid systems that cannot support larger NPPs, or they can address specific nonelectric applications such as district heating or desalination. However, the economics of SMRs have yet to be proven. Interest in SMRs is driven both by the need to reduce the impact of capital costs and to provide power and heat in small or off-grid systems. For some SMR designs, the use of passive safety systems also represents an attractive feature, allowing, for example, decay heat removal in the case of accidents without the need for operator intervention. The creation of a market for SMRs will first require successful deployment of FOAK reactors in the vendor’s country before other countries will consider deploying the technology. Unless governments and industry work together in the next decade to accelerate the deployment of the first SMR prototypes that can demonstrate the benefits of modular design and construction, the market potential of SMRs may not be realised in the short to medium term.
	32	+SMR tech in the US is ready-it’s question of bringing it to the market-it replaces dirty coal plants
	33	+IEA 15 "Technology Roadmap: Nuclear Energy." IEA Technology Roadmaps (n.d.): n. pag. 2015. Web. 8 Aug. 2016
	34	+The United States has had a very active SMR programme over the last years. Its objective is to accelerate the timelines for the commercialisation and deployment of these technologies by developing certification and licensing requirements for US-based SMR projects through cost-sharing agreements with industry partners, as well as to resolve generic SMR issues. SMRs in the United States could replace coal-fired power plants that do not meet newly released emissions regulations. Two SMR technologies have been selected so far by the DOE, Babcock and Wilcox’s (BandW) mPower design and Nuscale’s SMR design. Though industry was hoping to find customers for near-term deployment of their SMR designs, it seems that customers in the United States are not yet ready for SMR technology. BandW has reduced the scale of the mPower development programme, while Westinghouse, which also developed an SMR design, is concentrating its development efforts on the AP1000 design.
	35	+
	36	+
	37	+MSR CP
	38	+
	39	+Thus, the Counter Plan Text: Insert Country ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power except for molten salt reactors.
	40	+Molten salt reactors are enjoying a renaissance and are much better than current nuclear technologies
	41	+Martin 16 Richard Martin is the senior editor for energy at MIT Technology Review. My book Coal Wars: The Future of Energy and The Fate of the Planet was published in April 2015 by Palgrave Macmillan. August , 2016 “Fail-Safe Nuclear Power”https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power/
	42	+
	43	+Given unprecedented access to the inner workings of China’s advanced nuclear RandD program, I was witnessing a new nuclear technology being born. Through the virtual reactor snaked an intricate system of pipes carrying the fluid that makes this system special: a molten salt that cools the reactor and carries heat to drive a turbine and make electricity. At least in theory, this type of reactor can’t suffer the kind of catastrophic failure that happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima, making unnecessary the expensive and redundant safety systems that have driven up the cost of conventional reactors. What’s more, the new plants should produce little waste and might even eat up existing nuclear waste. They could run on uranium, which powers 99 percent of the nuclear power plants in the world, or they could eventually run on thorium, which is cleaner and more abundant. The ultimate goal of the Shanghai Institute: to build a molten-salt reactor that could replace the 1970s-era technology in today’s nuclear power plants and help wean China off the coal that fouls the air of Shanghai and Beijing, ushering in an era of cheap, abundant, zero-carbon energy. Over the next two decades China hopes to build the world’s largest nuclear power industry. Plans include as many as 30 new conventional nuclear plants (in addition to the 34 reactors operating today) as well as a variety of next-generation reactors, including thorium molten-salt reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (which, like molten-salt reactors, are both highly efficient and inherently safe), and sodium-cooled fast reactors (which can consume spent fuel from conventional reactors to make electricity). Chinese planners want not only to dramatically expand the country’s domestic nuclear capacity but also to become the world’s leading supplier of nuclear reactors and components, a prospect that many Western observers find alarming.
	44	+
	45	+He continues:
	46	+
	47	+Today, though, as climate change accelerates and government officials and scientists seek a nuclear technology without the expensive problems that have stalled the conventional version, molten salt is enjoying a renaissance. Companies such as Terrestrial Energy, Transatomic Power, Moltex, and Flibe Energy are vying to develop new molten-salt reactors. Research programs on various forms of the technology are under way at universities and institutes in Japan, France, Russia, and the United States, in addition to the one at the Shanghai Institute. Besides the work going into developing solid-fuel reactors that are cooled by molten salt (like the one I toured virtually in Shanghai), there are even more radical designs that also use radioactive materials dissolved in molten salt as the fuel (as Weinberg’s experiment did).
	48	+
	49	+
	50	+Molten salt reactors are both cheaper than renewables and stop nuclear accidents like Chernobyl
	51	+ Martin 16 Richard Martin is the senior editor for energy at MIT Technology Review. My book Coal Wars: The Future of Energy and The Fate of the Planet was published in April 2015 by Palgrave Macmillan. August , 2016 “Fail-Safe Nuclear Power” https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power/
	52	+
	53	+
	54	+Like all nuclear plants, molten-salt reactors excite atoms in a radioactive material to create a controlled chain reaction. The reaction unleashes heat that boils water, creating steam that drives a turbine to generate electricity. Solid-fuel reactors cooled with molten salt can run at higher temperatures than conventional reactors, making them more efficient, and they operate at atmospheric pressures—meaning they do not require expensive vessels of the sort that ruptured at Chernobyl. Molten-salt reactors that use liquid fuel have an even more attractive advantage: when the temperature in the core reaches a certain threshold, the liquid expands, which slows the nuclear reactions and lets the core cool. To take advantage of this property, the reactor is built like a bathtub, with a drain plug in the bottom; if the temperature in the core gets too high, the plug melts and the fuel drains into a shielded tank, typically underground, where it is stored safely as it cools. These reactors should be able to tap more of the energy available in radioactive material than conventional ones do. That means they should dramatically reduce the amount of nuclear waste that must be handled and stored. Because they don’t require huge containment structures and need less fuel to produce the same amount of electricity, these reactors are more compact than today’s nuclear plants. They could be mass-produced, in factories, and combined in arrays to form larger power plants. All of that should make them cheaper to build. Unlike wind and solar, which have gotten far less expensive over time, nuclear plants have become much more so. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the inflation-adjusted cost of building a nuclear plant rose from $1,500 per kilowatt of capacity in the early 1960s to more than $4,000 a kilowatt by the mid-1970s. In its latest calculation, in 2013, the EIA found that the figure had risen to more than $5,500—more expensive than a solar power plant or onshore wind farm, and far more than a natural-gas plant. That up-front cost is amplified by the large size of the reactors; at the average cited by the EIA, a one-gigawatt plant would cost $5.5 billion, a risky investment for any company. Those up-front costs are balanced by the fact that nuclear plants are relatively cheap to operate: at new plants the levelized cost of electricity, which measures the cost of power generated over the lifetime of the plant, is $95 per megawatt-hour, according to the EIA—comparable to the cost of electricity from coal-fired plants, and less than solar power ($125 a megawatt-hour). Still, natural-gas plants are far cheaper to build, and the cost of the electricity they produce ($75 a megawatt-hour, according to the EIA) is also lower. Tightening regulations on carbon emissions makes nuclear more attractive, but lowering the cost of construction is critical to the future of zero-carbon nuclear power.
	55	+
	56	+CP Text: The United States should,
	57	+-Require the use of the disparate impact model in court for cases on environmental racism
	58	+and
	59	+-Establish civilian review boards made up of minority community members to review hazardous waste siting, and plant construction, facilities
	60	+The CP Solves- it shifts the burden of proof on corporation and polluters, allowing minorities to get the justice they deserve
	61	+ Ulezalka 07 (Tara Ulezalka, http://www.temple.edu/law/tjstel/2007/spring/v26no1-Ulezalka.pdf Race and Waste: The Quest for Environmental Justice )
	62	+The residents of Chester may already have begun the best approach to finding a solution to environmental injustice. Because minorities possess less political clout, they need to find a way to have their voices heard early in the game, before the court gets involved. Instead of waiting until the state grants a permit for a waste facility siting, those in opposition need to attend the hearings and meetings early when the state is first deciding whether or not to grant the permit. Residents of Chester have begun to use this option by going into DEP hearings and letting those involved know that they do not agree with the siting of waste facilities in their town. By successfully organizing and empowering the residents of Chester into action, Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL) has been sending a strong message to any waste company that if they intend to come into their community, information about the company’s compliance history, suspect dealings and the truth on how they disrupt the community will come out. While residents of Chester have begun this process, it needs to be expanded nationwide, as the problem of environmental injustice is a national problem, not a localized one. Proposed solutions to the impregnably high evidentiary bar faced by environmental racism plaintiffs have also included the adoption of a disparate impact model.132 Under this model, the plaintiff would bear the burden of proving that the challenged siting decision would result in a disproportionate burden on a minority community as compared to a white community.133 Once this showing is made, the burden would shift to the defendant who would be given the opportunity to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence with a showing that the decision was an “environmental necessity.”134 The burden would then shift back to the plaintiff to provide alternative equally environmentally suitable sites, which the defendant again can rebut by a showing that the challenged site was necessary to safely dispense with hazardous materials.135 If the defendant is able to show and then prove the "environmental necessity" element, then the challenged facility will be allowed to be built in the plaintiff's community despite the disparate impact, which will result.136 This model theoretically lowers the evidentiary bar for environmental racism plaintiffs in that they could potentially win relief without a "smoking gun" document proving discriminatory intent. However, the problem of actually proving a disparate impact remains. Cases such as Bean demonstrate this difficulty. On the other hand, with a disparate impact model in effect, the plaintiffs in East-Bibb and R.I.S.E. may have obtained the relief they were seeking, because in both cases the strongest evidence produced was that of the existence of a disparate impact.137 It seems as if the disparate impact model remains the most promising solution available. Before it can be successful, however, authorities at the state and federal level must work together. As it currently stands, most states, when considering the suitability of a proposed site, perform some measure of an environmental impact review to determine the effects the proposed facility would have on the community and environment in which it is being built.138 (69-70)
	63	+Establishing review boards solves future harms and can rollback existing environmental discrimination
	64	+ Ulezalka 07 (Tara Ulezalka, http://www.temple.edu/law/tjstel/2007/spring/v26no1-Ulezalka.pdf Race and Waste: The Quest for Environmental Justice )
	65	+State governments should declare as an objective the eradication of race-based inequalities in the burdens of hazardous waste facilities. States are inadequately addressing distributional equity. States will have to combine the approaches currently in effect and make a direct effort to take into account the racial and socioeconomic characteristics of potential hazardous waste sites.146 Site designation would best address the question of equity from the state’s perspective. This approach would allow the relevant state agency to assess the current distribution of hazardous waste facilities and determine whether minority communities are particularly affected. If so, the agency can use racial makeup as a criterion when compiling a short list of potential sites. But this alone will not succeed. Chosen communities, such as Chester, will obviously oppose the site. Therefore, states should also use the super review approach.147 Using the later approach and at the same time giving responsibility to a state agency rather than a developer to designate sites will eliminate one primary criticism of the super review approach: the cost-conscious developer choosing sites. The creation of a special siting board to facilitate communication and information between the state and the locale may minimize opposition. A state dedicated to ameliorating the disparate impact on minorities could first create a permanent agency or board.148 This board would be responsible for selecting an inventory of candidate sites for commercial hazardous waste facilities. The number of sites placed on the inventory would depend both on the amount of waste generated and the number of environmentally suitable sites. When evaluating sites, the board should assess environmental suitability,149 economic feasibility, risks and effects for local residents, adverse effects on agriculture and natural resources,150 and whether the locale is already burdened by environmental hazards. If the board finds that a number of sites equally satisfy the above criteria, it should take into consideration the racial and socioeconomic makeup of the potential candidate sites. If existing commercial hazardous waste facilities are sited disproportionately in minority communities, the board can remove sites that are predominantly minority from the inventory. This model would ensure that, while protecting environmental considerations, minority communities are not disparately burdened by hazardous waste sites.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-07 20:19:17.236

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Any

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Any

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Quads

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Appleton East Moorhead Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPOCT- all CPs

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Any