Premier Debate 2016 September/October ld brief

AFF—US

Decomissioning Module

Plan Text: The USFG should prohibit the production of nuclear power by ceasing all upgrade and new plant construction licenses.

Lovins 13 [Amory; (2013) The economics of a US civilian nuclear phase-out, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 69:2, 44-65, DOI: 10.1177/0096340213478000] [Premier]

Using the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 2012”2013 Information Digest report on current plant licenses and generation capacity, this path assumes that no further uprates will be approved or further licenses renewed. It assumes completion of the four new units mentioned above, plus two Tennessee Valley 52 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 69(2) Downloaded by [University of Minnesota Libraries, Twin Cities] at 21:17 08 August 2016 Authority units that began construction in 1972 and 1974. . Transform. The entire US nuclear fleet would retire by 2050 as all plants are closed at age 60 and the final 2 gigawatts are retired in 2050.

It’s topical-gradual decommissioning is normal means-we obviously can’t just cold stop reactors

Plan uniquely solves-avoids massive costs

Lovins 13 [Amory; (2013) The economics of a US civilian nuclear phase-out, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 69:2, 44-65, DOI: 10.1177/0096340213478000] [Premier]

Phasing out existing nuclear plants as just sketched could potentially avoid many costs. Some of those costs will exceed historic averages if aging effects, not yet fully understood, prove real. Subject to that uncertainty, not running nuclear plants can avoid fuel purchases, routine operation and maintenance costs, major repairs or retrofits (net capital additions), and paying to relicense plants not yet approved to run for an extra 20 years. Phase-out also proportionately reduces waste-management burdens 32 and somewhat reduces decommissioning costs (but may increase their present value by incurring them sooner). Figure 3 summarizes these potential gross savings, which total on the order of $0.4 trillion to $0.5 trillion.

A2 States CP

Previous cases demonstrate the principle of federal preemption in nuke energy policy – CP is unconstitutional

Henderson 80

George B. II, lawyer, The Nuclear Choice: Are Health and Safety Issues Pre-empted? 8 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 821 (1980), lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol8/iss4/5 [Premier]

Aside from the procedural problems of duplicative hearings, the impact on state authority of the NRC's licensing activities has been mainly in the area of health and safety. Ever since the enactment of the 1954 Act, the AEC and its successor, the NRC have been consistent in their position that the Atomic Energy Act preempts any and all state regulation in matters concerned with radiation hazards.42 This position was affirmed in the oft-cited case, Northern States Power Co. v. State of Minnesota,48 where it was held that states are pre-empted from setting radioactive emmisions standards that are more stringent than those set by the AEC.44 The scope of this decision has been the subject of extensive commentary. Some, limiting its holding to the context of design, safety, and emmisions standards, find support for a narrow view of preemption. U Others cite the decision in support of the view that a state may not prohibit nuclear power if its underlying purpose is arguably to protect against" radiation hazards. 48 The Northern States decision is a classic example of how a case can be cited as authority for either a proposition based on a narrow reading of the case or one based on a broad reading. At the outset of the opinion Judge Matthes states that "the sole issue to be determined is whether the federal government, through the United States Atomic Energy Commission ... , [has] exclusive authority to regulate the radioactive waste releases from nuclear power plants so as to preclude Minnesota from exercising any regulatory authority over the release of such discharges .... "47 Later, however, he states his broader conclusion that "Congress intended federal occupancy of regulations over all radiation hazards except where jurisdiction was expressly ceded to the states . . . . "48

Northern States has become the starting point of analysis in subsequent pre-emption cases arising under the Atomic Energy Act, and a number of decisions have further refined its holding. In cases where a state or local government has attempted to regulate the operation of an existing nuclear plant, courts have uniformly applied the pre-emption doctrine to invalidate the attempted regulation.49 Since Northern States, only two cases have squarely dealt with situations where a state has asserted some form of regulatory control prior to the construction of a nuclear power plant. In Marshall v. Consumers Power Co., ao the plaintiff sought a declaration of rights that the defendant's proposed power plant would constitute a common law nuisance because of the steam fog and icing that would result from the plant's cooling towers. The court held that the claim was not barred by federal pre-emption because it involved matters not concerned with regulation of radiation hazards. al The court stated: The license granted by the AEC is merely a permit to construct a power plant, not a federal order to do so. Therefore, a state which, pursuant to its Atomic Energy Act power to regulate nonradioactive hazards, stopped a power company from operating until it met reasonable state standards or abated a nuisance under state law could not be frustrating a federal mandate.1II However, in a subsequent part of the opinion, the court stated: "[i]f [abatement] measures made the construction of a nuclear plant impossible, they could not be required. In such a case, the Federal interest would prevent state action from absolutely prohibiting the construction of nuclear power plants within its boundaries. "&3

A2 Reactors Old

U.S. reactors are constantly getting updated – increased output proves

Schneider et al 11

Mycle – consultant and project coordinator, Antony Frogatt – consultant, Steve Thomas – prof of energy policy @ Greenwich University, “Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World 25 Years After the Chernobyl Accident” World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010-11, http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/2011MSC-WorldNuclearReport-V3.pdf [Premier]

The United States has more operating nuclear power plants than any other country in the world, with 104 commercial reactors providing 20.2 percent of U.S. electricity in 2009 (down from a maximum of 22.5 percent in 1995). Although the country is home to a large number of operating reactors, the number of cancelled projects—138 units—is even larger. It now has been 38 years (since October 1973) since a new order has been placed that has not subsequently been cancelled. The last reactor to be completed—in 1996—was Watts Bar 1, near Spring City, Tennessee, and in October 2007 the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) announced that it had chosen to complete the two-thirds-built 1.2 GW Watts Bar 2 reactor for $2.5 billion. Construction had originally started in 1972 but was frozen in 1985 and abandoned in 1994. Construction has restarted and is now expected to take until 2012 to finish the reactor. Watts Bar 1 was one of the most expensive units of the U.S. nuclear program and took 23 years to complete. Despite the failure so far to build more reactors, the U.S. nuclear power industry remains highly successful in two main areas: increased output from existing reactors and plant life extensions. Due to changes in the operating regimes and increased attention to reactor performance, the energy availability of U.S. reactors has increased significantly from 56 percent in the 1980s to 90 percent in 2009. As a result, along with new capacity coming on line and reactor uprates, the output from U.S. reactors has tripled over this period. The lack of new reactor orders means that over 40 percent of U.S. reactors will have operated for at least 40 years by 2015. Originally it was envisaged that these reactors would operate for a maximum of 40 years; however, projects are being developed and implemented to allow reactors to operate for up to 60 years. As of February 2011, 61 U.S. nuclear reactors had been granted a life-extension license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); another 21 applications are under review and some 14 have submitted letters of intent covering a period up to 2017

Gen IV UQ

Gen IV reactors coming now – pressures

Pedraza 12

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. [Premier]

The Department of Energy has recently initiated a Generation IV programme to develop innovative and new commercial nuclear power reactor designs by 2040. Why the development of new nuclear power reactors designs is so important? According with recent estimates, it is expected that the total US electricity consumption will increase another 20% to 30%, at least, over the next ten years. The power to satisfy the increase demand of energy has to come from somewhere. Neither solar, wind, hydroelectric nor other available alternatives energy sources in the market will provide the necessary additional energy supply to satisfy the foresee increase in energy demand in the USA in the future. The only technology that could decisively reduce the current level of US carbon emissions to the atmosphere in the near term and could satisfy the foresee increase in the energy demand is the nuclear technology that uses uranium as a fuel. Uranium is emission-free and is available in several countries located in stable political regions. It is time, due to economic, ecological and geopolitical reasons, that the US politicians adopt a decision to promote the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity in the country in the future.

Tax Credits UQ

New nuke power coming now – USFG increased tax credits and insurance

Pedraza 12

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. [Premier]

It is important to note that there are some initiatives that have been adopted by the US government to encourage the power industry to consider the construction of new nuclear power plants in the coming decades. Some of these initiatives have been described in previous paragraphs. Other initiatives have been adopted with the same purpose. One of these initiatives provided by the Energy Policy Act, is the adoption of the so-called Nuclear Production Tax Credit. Through this initiative a US$1.8 cents/kWh tax credit for up to 6 000 MW of new nuclear power capacity for the first eight years of operation, up to US$125 million annually per 1 000 MW, is offered by the US authorities to the utilities that request a license construction for a new nuclear power plant. An eligible nuclear power reactor under this initiative must be entered into service before January 1, 2021. Another initiative to reduce cost and avoid unnecessary delays in the construction and in the beginning of the operation of new nuclear power plants, is the adoption of the so-called Regulatory Risk Insurance. Continuing concern over potential regulatory delays, despite the streamlined licensing system now available in the country described in previous paragraphs, prompted Congress to include an insurance system that would cover some of the principal and interest on debt and extra costs incurred in purchasing replacement power because of licensing delays. The first two new nuclear power reactors licensed by NRC that meet other criteria established by DOE could be reimbursed for all such costs, up to US$500 million apiece, whereas each of the next four newly licensed reactors could receive 50% reimbursement of up to US$250 million. (Parker and Holt, 2007)