Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[15]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[15]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,21 +1,0 @@
1		-==1NC- CP==
2		-CP Text: '''''' should develop long-term geological nuclear waste repositories and enter into a consent-based decision-making process with indigenous communities for siting nuclear waste management facilities.
3		-Orr 15 Franklin (Under Secretary for Science and Energy) "Finding Long-Term Solutions for Nuclear Waste" December 21 2015 Department of Energy http://www.energy.gov/articles/finding-long-term-solutions-nuclear-waste
4		-Today, the Department of Energy is taking a critical step toward the development of a consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities as part of a strategy for the long-term storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The launch of our consent-based siting initiative represents an important step toward addressing this nuclear waste management challenge, so that we can continue to benefit from nuclear technologies. Today’s step forward follows Secretary Moniz’s announcement in March 2015 that DOE would move forward with the development of a separate repository for defense waste. What is a consent-based siting process, and why is it needed? In short, it is a way to ensure that communities, tribes sand states, as partners, are comfortable with the location of future storage and disposal facilities before they are constructed. We will be developing a detailed plan for this process in the coming year, and we need your help..
5		-
6		-Solves case – waste depositories minimize negative effects while giving communities a say.
7		-Orr 15 Franklin (Under Secretary for Science and Energy) "Finding Long-Term Solutions for Nuclear Waste" December 21 2015 Department of Energy http://www.energy.gov/articles/finding-long-term-solutions-nuclear-waste
8		-Our strategy for managing both spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste is laid out in a strategy document from 2013, which was based on recommendations from President Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC). The Strategy outlines a need for a pilot interim storage facility, a larger interim storage facility, and long-term geologic repositories. To support each of these elements of an integrated waste management system, the Strategy also emphasizes the importance of a consent-based approach to siting waste storage and disposal facilities throughout the decision making process. The first step for commercial spent fuel begins with developing a pilot interim storage facility that will mainly accept used nuclear fuel from reactors that have already been shut down. The purpose of a pilot facility is to begin the process of accepting spent fuel from utilities, while also developing and perfecting protocols and procedures for transportation and storage of nuclear waste. It is our goal that throughout the process of developing a pilot interim facility that the Department of Energy builds trust with all of the local communities involved. Beyond the pilot-scale facility, the Administration also supports the development of a larger interim storage facility with more capacity and capabilities. Even after a long-term geologic repository is operational, interim storage would provide key benefits for waste management. This could include serving as a packaging facility for waste prior to shipment to a long-term repository. The final piece of the Administration’s Strategy is moving toward one or more long-term geologic repositories for both spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. According to consensus in the scientific community, geological repositories—which would store nuclear material deep within the earth’s surface in safe, scientifically proven locations—represent the safest and most cost-effective method for permanently disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Full implementation of this strategy will take time. Today’s action brings us a step closer to that goal, and the Department of Energy is seeking the help of all Americans to develop a fair and effective approach to consent-based siting. Your input will inform the design of a consent-based siting process, which will serve as a framework for collaborating with interested host communities across the country. We want to hear from you, so please respond to our Invitation for Public Comment, which will be published in the Federal Register in the coming days. You can also attend one of our public meetings taking place across the country throughout 2016. Finally, you can send emails with comments or concerns to the Department of Energy at consentbasedsiting@hq.doe.gov. Please also visit our website at energy.gov/consentbasedsiting to learn more about our activities and find opportunities to participate. Nuclear technology has been a key contributor to America’s energy and security for generations. With the world moving more aggressively toward a low-carbon energy mix to stave off the worst effects of climate change, nuclear power will continue to be a key part of our nation’s strategy to reduce emissions while meeting Americans’ energy needs. The launch of our consent-based siting effort will help ensure that it does so while also protecting our citizens, communities, and the environment — now and in the future.
9		-
10		-Geological depositories solve the entire aff
11		-Leon et al 1 Cynthia Picot (Nuclear Energy Agency Chief of Cabinet, Head of the Central Secretariat, External Relations and Public Affairs), Hans Riotte (Head of the Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management Division at the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). Holds a PhD in nuclear physics), and Jorge Lang-Lenton Leon (Director of Communication, ENRESA), "Sustainable solutions for radioactive waste", OECD Observer, 2001, http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/531/Sustainable'solutions'for'radioactive'waste.html
12		-
13		-Nuclear power does not produce polluting combustion gases. So, like renewable energy sources, it could play a key role in helping to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and in tackling global warming, especially as electricity demand rises in the years ahead. Public faith in nuclear energy took a knock from the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, but as plant safety has improved such risks have greatly diminished. Currently, the perceived problem with nuclear energy from an environmental point of view is how to manage its radioactive waste. Solutions do exist, in particular the technique of burying the waste deep below the ground in engineered facilities, known as geological disposal. The challenge is to convince the public of its safety and reliability. Radioactive waste is an inevitable by-product of the application of ionising radiation, whether it be in nuclear medicine (for diagnosis and treatment), industrial applications (for example, for finding new sources of petroleum or producing plastics), agricultural applications (notably for the conservation of foodstuffs), or of course the production of electricity. The radioactive waste produced by the latter represents less than 1 of the total toxic wastes generated in those countries that use nuclear energy to generate electricity, but at the same time this waste has the highest levels of radioactivity. In most OECD countries, all short-lived, low- and intermediate-level nuclear wastes, whatever their source, are disposed of using surface or under-ground repositories that are safe for people and the environment during the time that these wastes maintain their radioactivity. These wastes, representing some 90 of total radio-active waste, are conditioned and stored in facilities isolated from the environment by specially engineered barriers. Long-lived and high-level waste, on the other hand, is first deposited in temporary storage facilities, under strict safety conditions, for several decades. It is then usually envisaged that the waste will be placed in a final disposal facility. There is no immediate economic, technical or environmental need to speed up the construction of final disposal facilities for radioactive waste. But from a sustainable development perspective – and if we do not want to pass the burden of finding a permanent solution on to future generations – temporary storage is clearly not a satisfactory solution. The long-term solution currently preferred by specialists consists of placing the waste in a deep (500 metres below the surface) and stable geological setting, such as granite, clay, tuff and salt formations that have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years. The aim is to ensure that such wastes will remain undisturbed for the few thousand years needed for their levels of radioactivity to decline to the point where they no longer represent a danger to present or future generations. The concept of deep geological disposal is more than 40 years old, and the technology for building and operating such repositories is now mature enough for deployment. As a general rule, the natural security afforded by the chosen geological formation is enhanced by additional precautionary measures. The wastes are immobilised in an insoluble form, in blocks of glass for example, and then placed inside corrosion-resistant containers; spaces between waste packages are filled with highly pure, impermeable clay; and the repository may be strengthened by means of concrete structures. These successive barriers are mutually reinforcing and together ensure that wastes can be contained over the very long term. The waste can be recovered during the initial phase of the repository, and also during subsequent phases, albeit at increased cost. This provides freedom of choice to future generations to change waste management strategies if they wish. Repositories are designed so that no radioactivity reaches the Earth's surface. Following the precautionary principle, environmental impact assessments spanning 10,000 years analyse worst-case scenarios, including geological and climate changes and inadvertent human intrusion. The assessments maintain that even under those conditions, the impact on the environment and mankind would be less than current regulatory limits, which in turn are lower than natural background radiation. The safety of geological disposal has been demonstrated in nature. Until about two thousand million years ago a natural reactor moderated by natural currents of water operated inter-mittently for millions of years at a uranium ore deposit beneath Gabon in Africa. Throughout that time the material produced during the nuclear fission reaction hardly moved from its original location. The first man-made geological disposal facility for long-lived waste started operation in New Mexico, USA in March 1999 and will provide industrial experience. Another partial solution is to reduce the mass of long-lived, high-level waste using a technique known as partitioning and transmutation (PandT). This involves isolating the transuranic elements and long-lived radionuclides in the waste and aims at transforming most of them by neutron bombardment into other non-radioactive elements or into elements with shorter half-lives. Some countries are investigating this option but it has not yet been fully developed and it is not clear whether it will become available on an industrial scale. This is because in addition to being very costly, PandT makes fuel handling and reprocessing more difficult, with potential implications for safety. Cost is an important issue in radioactive waste management as related to sustainable development. If the nuclear industry did not set aside adequate funds, a large financial burden associated with plant dismantling and radioactive waste disposal would be passed on. In OECD countries, the costs of dismantling nuclear power plants and of managing long-lived wastes are already included in electricity generating costs and billed to end consumers; in other words, they are internalised. Although quite high in absolute terms, these costs represent a small proportion – less than 5 – of the total cost of nuclear power generation. Deep geological disposal allows present generations to progress without leaving burdens for those of the future, but a main weakness is that although the concept is technically sound, it is rarely socially or politically accepted. The issue is not so much about information provision as understanding the mechanisms that govern the social perceptions of risk. There are many factors that affect such perceptions, such as familiarity with the technology, the degree of uncertainty, the level of control, concern for the consequences, the degree of credibility of the institutions, the decision-making process and the ideas and values of the community in which people live
14		-
15		-Solves case but better—tribes are demanding waste facilities not removal of waste altogether.
16		-UBM 7: United Business Media, 2007. PR Newswire, "Minnesota Indian Tribe Calls on Congress to Solve Nuclear Waste Crisis Before Embracing New Era of Nuclear Power", 2007, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/minnesota-indian-tribe-calls-on-congress-to-solve-nuclear-waste-crisis-before-embracing-new-era-of-nuclear-power-58984012.html)
17		-WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A Minnesota Indian tribe ... million from Minnesotans.
18		-WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A Minnesota Indian tribe today urged a Senate panel to deliver on a promise to move the nation's nuclear waste to a safe, secure facility before allowing the United States to revisit nuclear power as a preferred energy source. The Prairie Island Indian Community offered its comments during the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's hearing on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project. The tribe is among the closest communities in the country to a temporary nuclear waste site, located just 600 yards from more than 20 large containment units of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel. Prairie Island is just one of thousands of communities in 39 different states located in close proximity to a temporary nuclear waste facility. There are presently 121 temporary nuclear waste storage sites scattered across the United States. "The federal government must fulfill its obligation under the National Nuclear Waste Storage Act and subsequent acts of Congress to solve the waste disposal problem and move the nation's nuclear waste to a safe and secure facility," the tribe stated in its testimony. "Developing a safe, permanent storage facility for spent nuclear fuel is critical to the health and welfare of the millions of Americans who currently live near temporary nuclear waste storage sites." Twenty-five years after Congress passed the National Nuclear Waste Storage Act and mandated the establishment of an underground repository, the future of the nation's nuclear waste disposal program remains in doubt. In 2002, Congress approved Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the site for the nation's first permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste but some Congressional leaders are now calling for the project to be abandoned. Meanwhile, despite the uncertainty surrounding the nation's waste disposal program, new nuclear power plants are being proposed throughout the country. "Lost in the debate over Yucca Mountain are the communities that bear the burden of the federal government's inaction and failure to solve the nation's nuclear waste problem," the tribe commented. "The indefinite storage of high-level nuclear waste at 121 different locations in 39 states poses a serious threat to national security and puts at risk more than 169 million Americans currently living within 75 miles of these temporary storage facilities." Prairie Island told the committee that storage at Yucca Mountain, a remote, militarily-secure site designed to permanently store the nation's high-level nuclear waste is a safer alternative to leaving nuclear waste under varying levels of security at multiple locations, near communities, rivers, and other natural resources. "Until or unless the federal government solves its nuclear waste problem, it is simply irresponsible to allow the construction of new nuclear power plants anywhere in the United States," the tribe stated in its testimony. To date, American ratepayers have contributed more than $28 billion to the national Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for a national storage site. This includes $470 million from Minnesotans.
19		-Consent is key—their large scale political approach silences the voices of native communites which makes true liberation impossible
20		-Alfred and Corntassel:
21		-or Manuel and Posluns, the Fourth World is founded on active relationships with the spiritual and cultural heritage embedded in the words and patterns of thought and behaviour left to us by our ancestors. The legacies of their struggles to be Indigenous form the imperatives of our contemporary struggles to regenerate authentic Indigenous existences. A Fourth World theory asserting Indigenous laws on Indigenous lands highlights the sites of ongoing state–nation conflicts while reaffirming the spiritual and cultural nature of the struggle. This is not simply another taxonomy relating Indigenous realities in a theoretical way to the so-called First, Second and Third Worlds, but a recognition of a spiritual ‘struggle to enter the Fourth World’ and to decode state motivations as they invade under the ‘mantle of liberation and development’.37 The Canadian historian Anthony Hall describes this as a battle against the ‘empire of possessive individualism’ and the ‘militarization of space’: ‘the idea of the Fourth World provides a kind of broad ideological umbrella to cover the changing coalitions of pluralistic resistance aimed at preventing the monocultural transformation of the entire planet . . .’38 While the concepts of peoplehood and the Fourth World undoubtedly provide solid bases for thinking about strategies of resurgence, the question remains: how can these be put into practice? In Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America, the Cherokee sociologist Eva Marie Garroutte discusses the concept of ‘Radical Indigenism’ ~~is~~ as a process of pursuing scholarship that is grounded in Indigenous community goals and which ‘follows the path laid down in the models of inquiry traditional to their tribal community’.39 This intellectual strategy entails utilizing all of the talents of the people inside and within a community to begin a process of regeneration. The larger process of regeneration, as with the outwardly focused process of decolonization, also begins with the self. It is a self- conscious kind of traditionalism that is the central process in the ‘reconstruction of traditional communities’ based on the original teachings and orienting values of Indigenous peoples.40 Colonialism corrupted the relationship between original peoples and the Settlers, and it eventually led to the corruption of Indigenous cultures and communities too. But our discussion thus far has, we hope, illustrated the fact that decolonization and regeneration are not at root collective and institutional processes. They are shifts in thinking and action that emanate from recommitments and reorientations at the level of the self that, over time and through proper organization, manifest as broad social and political movements to challenge state agendas and authorities. To a large extent, institutional approaches to making meaningful change in the lives of Indigenous people have not led to what we understand as decolonization and regeneration; rather they have further embedded Indigenous people in the colonial institutions they set out to challenge. This paradoxical outcome of struggle is because of the logical inconsistencies at the core of the institutional approaches. Current approaches to confronting the problem of contemporary colonialism ignore the wisdom of the teachings of our ancestors reflected in such concepts as Peoplehood and the Fourth World. They are, in a basic way, building not on a spiritual and cultural foundation provided to us as the heritage of our nations, but on the weakened and severely damaged cultural and spiritual and social results of colonialism. Purported decolonization and watered-down cultural restoration processes that accept the premises and realities of our colonized existences as their starting point are inherently flawed and doomed to fail. They attempt to reconstitute strong nations on the foundations of enervated, dispirited and decultured people. That is the honest and brutal reality; and that is the fundamental illogic of our contemporary struggle.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-10-15 10:56:34.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Jesus Caro

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Acton Boxborough JW

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-5

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Lexington Weiler Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-SEPTOCT- Consent Repository CP

Tournament

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