Harveer Singh Niteesh Kuchakulla 7th period Forensics Mr. Regier Codename: AransilWastewater Treatment Plants 1AC

Humans are the main cause of pollution in the ocean, and the world desperately needs new sources of energy that can replace fossil fuels. My partner and I have decided wastewater treatment plants are best suited to solve these problems. Therefore we affirm the resolution: the United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth's oceans. Now lets dive into the plan.

Contention I, Significance, the harms in the status quo

A. The United States is a major source of pollution Rapaport, Dave. Published March 2010 Sewage Pollution in Pacific Island Countries and How to Prevent it Executive Summary Center for Clean Development 1227 W. 10th AvenueEugene, Oregon USA Accessed December 11, 2014Sewage is the most significant source of marine pollution in the Pacific region. Nearly every Pacific island nation has identified critical environmental and public health problems resulting from the disposal of human excrement. These have included algae blooms and eutrophication in lagoons, dying reefs, contaminated drinking water wells and outbreaks of gastrointestinal disease and cholera. The causes of this pollution include overflowing latrines and privies, water seal toilets, septic systems, sewage treatment plants as well as the complete lack of sanitation facilities in some places. Globally, sewage is a major component of marine pollution from land-based activities, which account for roughly three-fourths of all pollutants entering the world's oceans. Land-based sources of marine pollution are contributing to an alarming decline in the health of the world's marine ecosystems and their ability to provide for human needs. Sewage along with other forms of pollution from land-based activities is blamed for the decline and collapse of fisheries and tourism, and represent a severe threat to public health in various regions around the world.

B. Marine ecosystems are negatively impacted by sewage pollution dumped into the ocean.Rapaport, Dave Published March 2010 Sewage Pollution in Pacific Island Countries and How to Prevent it Executive Summary Center for Clean Development 1227 W. 10th AvenueEugene, Oregon USA Accessed December 11, 2014The flow of nutrients carried by sewage and other sources, has severe impacts on the marine environment, particularly coastal areas. In a marine ecosystem, microscopic organisms provide food for aquatic plants as they decompose dead organic matter and consume oxygen in the process. The plants in turn provide oxygen back into the ecosystem as they grow through photosynthesis. The introduction of excess levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and other nutrients from sewage throws off this balance by causing a rise in the population of oxygen consuming microorganisms, increasing the biological oxygen demand, or BOD. The increased BOD depletes oxygen faster than it can be replenished by the aquatic plants, resulting in a severely depleted level of oxygen, suffocating many animals which need oxygen in order to survive. The decay of these organisms in turn leads to even greater demand for oxygen and thus feeds a vicious cycle of spiraling BOD and anoxic waters. The population of phytoplankton surge as the organisms which would normally keep them in check die-off, resulting in vast algae blooms. This phenomenon, known as eutrophication, renders the area unfit to support the marine life which would normally be found there.

C.The world is rapidly running out of fossil fuels."The End Of Fossil Fuels." - Our Green Energy. Ecotricity.co.uk. N.p., n.d. Web. Accessed February 11, 2015. .Clearly fossil fuel reserves are finite - it's only a matter of when they run out. Globally every year we currently consume the equivalent of over 11 billion tonnes of oil in fossil fuels. Crude oil reserves are vanishing at the rate of 4 billion tonnes a year. If we carry on at this rate without any increase for our growing population or aspirations, our known oil deposits will be gone by 2052. Well still have gas left, and coal too. But if we increase gas production to fill the energy gap left by oil, then those reserves will only give us an additional eight years, taking us to 2060. But the rate at which the world consumes fossil fuels is not standing still, it is increasing as the world's population increases and as living standards rise in parts of the world that until recently had consumed very little energy. Fossil fuels will therefore run out earlier. Its often claimed that we have enough coal to last hundreds of years. But if we step up production to fill the gap left through depleting our oil and gas reserves, the coal deposits we know about will only give us enough energy to take us as far as 2088. And lets not even think of the carbon dioxide emissions from burning all that coal.

Contention II, Inherency, the barrier in the status quo

A. The United States will not enact plans against ocean pollution.Fred Rucker, The Politics of Ocean Pollution: The Third Law of the Sea Conference and International Structures for Environmental Protection, 1 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 283 (1977), lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu Accessed December 11, 2014

While some form of action is required to control marine pollution, most nations or regional organizations will not respond to this need by instituting effective pollution control programs. The United States has traditionally looked upon the ocean's resources as a "free good." The oceans are a resource which may be employed for discharge of wastes by individual states without any cost to those states. Thus, the economic costs of water pollution damage to the ocean environment are "externalized. In other words, the economic activities of the political unit generate effects which are external to it, the international community suffers the harm created by the polluter at no cost to the polluter. Such external costs are not taken into account when most nations decide whether and how much to pollute. It is only to the international community as a whole that pollution control is advantageous for it is that community which suffers damage. Even in the international community, pollution control only becomes economically advantageous when the levels of pollution become so destructive that their costs to that community outweigh the costs of abatement. Because of this external nature of pollution costs and the diseconomies of abatement for the polluter, most nations will not institute strict controls. John Hargrave explains this process which he labels as the" commons effect". "Acquisitive, self-interested and one fears myopic nations control the land masses bordered by the oceans. Anyone of these nations may well understand . . . that the continued introduction of waste may eventually wreak havoc on the ocean eco-system. And yet, if that nation pays the price of stopping its own practices, the ocean may nevertheless continue to be subject to the same threat from its use as a sink from other nations. . . .". Thus, a nation gains little from the costs expended to control pollution so that an economic disincentive to control pollution exists. In addition to this external nature of pollution costs, states recognize that if they employ funds to control pollution, other nations will gain an economic advantage since the costs of pollution control must be rejected in the costs of goods produced.

B. Federal funding for the oceans is dwindling while costs are increasing.McClain, 2014 Craig, Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center and editor @ Deep Sea News, We Need an Ocean NASA Now Pt. 1, 10/16/14, Accessed December 11, 2014

Our nation faces a pivotal moment in our involvement of the oceans. The most remote regions of the deep oceans should be more accessible now than ever due to engineering and technological advances. What limits our advances of the oceans is not imagination or technology but funding. We as a society started to make a choice: to deprioritize ocean exploration and science. In general, science in the U.S. is poorly funded; while the total number of dollars spent here is large, we only rank 6th in world in the proportion of gross domestic product invested into research. The outlook for ocean science is even bleaker. In many cases, funding of marine science, energy, and exploration, especially for the deep sea, are at historical lows. In others, funding remains stagnant, despite rising costs of equipment and personnel. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a committee comprised of leading ocean scientists, policy makers, and former U.S. secretaries and congressmen, gave the grade of D- to funding of ocean science in the U.S. Recently the Obama Administration proposed to cut the National Undersea Research Program (NURP) within NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a move supported by the Senate. In NOAAs own words, NOAA determined that NURP was a lower-priority function within its portfolio of research activities. Yet, NURP is one of the main suppliers of funding and equipment for ocean exploration, including both submersibles at the Hawaiian Underwater Research Laboratory and the underwater habitat Aquarius. This cut has come despite an overall request for a 3.1% increase in funding for NOAA. Cutting NURP saves a meager $4,000,000 or 1/10 of NOAAs budget and 1,675 times less than we spend on the Afghan war in just one month. One of the main reasons NOAA argues for cutting funding of NURP is that other avenues of Federal funding for such activities might be pursued. However, other avenues are fading as well. Some funding for ocean exploration is still available through NOAAs Ocean Exploration Program. However, the Office of Ocean Exploration, the division that contains NURP, took the second biggest cut of all programs (-16.5%) and is down 33% since 2009. Likewise, U.S. Naval funding for basic research has also diminished. The other main source of funding for deep-sea science in the U.S. is the National Science Foundation which primarily supports biological research through the Biological Oceanography Program. Funding for science within this program has diminished leading it to, fund larger but fewer grants. This trend most likely reflects the ever increasing costs of personnel, equipment, and consumables which only larger projects can support. Indeed, compared to rising fuel costs, a necessity for oceanographic vessels, NSF funds do not stretch as far as even a decade ago. Shrinking funds and high fuel costs have also taken their toll on The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) which operates the U.S. public research fleet. Over the last decade, only 80% of available ship days were supported through funding. Over the last two years the gap has increasingly widened, and over the last ten years operations costs increased steadily at 5% annually. With an estimated shortfall of $12 million, the only solution is to reduce the U.S. research fleet size. Currently this is expected to be a total of 6 vessels that are near retirement, but there is no plan of replacing these lost ships. The situation in the U.S. contrasts greatly with other countries. The budget for the Japanese Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) continues to increase, although much less so in recent years. The 2007 operating budget for the smaller JAMSTEC was $527 million, over $100 million dollars more than the 2013 proposed NOAA budget. Likewise, China is increasing funding to ocean science over the next five years and has recently succeeded in building a new deep-sea research and exploration submersible, the Jiaolong. The only deep submersible still operating in the US is the DSV Alvin, originally built in 1968.

Now lets discuss the actual plan to be implemented.Plan Text:

Plank 1, Mandates: The United States federal government will increase its development of the oceans by building wastewater treatment (WWTP) plants along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts where most sewage, industrial waste, and other pollution occurs.

Plank 2, Funding: The United States will redirect 625 million dollars ($22.67 million/ plant) from fossil fuel subsidies beginning at the start of FY 2015 ( 1.2% cut of the current amount of 52 billion) towards this plan which will cover all costs such as: capital costs, project development costs, running costs, and training costs.

Plank 3, Enforcement: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE)

Plank 4, Legislative Intent: The affirmative reserves the right for clarification and requests that all off-case positions be run in the first negative constructive for reasons of fair debate.

Contention III, Solvency

A. Wastewater water plants clean water that enters the oceans through natural biological processes.Columbia Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Published 2014, /www.gocolumbiamo.com City of Columbia Public Works, Department Water Environment Federation. Accessed December 11, 2014

Wastewater treatment plants remove solids, from everything from rags and plastics to sand and smaller particles found in wastewater; reduce organic matter and pollutants--naturally occurring helpful bacteria and other microorganisms consume organic matter in wastewater and are then separated from the water; and, restore oxygen--the treatment process ensures that the water put back into our rivers or oceans have enough oxygen to support life. The wastewater comes from: Homes--human and household wastes from toilets, sinks, baths, dishwashers, garbage grinders, clothes washers and drains, industry, schools, and businesses--chemical and other wastes from factories, food-service operations, school activities, hospitals, shopping centers, etc. Storm Water Infiltration and Inflow from Runoff and Groundwater--water that enters the sanitary sewer system during a storm, as well as groundwater that enters through cracks in sewers. The City of Columbia has one set of sewers for wastewater from homes and businesses (sanitary sewers) and a separate system for storm water runoff. On the average, each person in the U.S. contributes 50-100 gallons of wastewater every day. If you include industrial and commercial water uses, the per person usage of water is as high as 150 gallons per day. How does our wastewater treatment plant work? The 16 million gallons per day (average) entering the facility is conveyed by over 635 miles of interceptor sewers, varying in size from 8 inches to 72 inches in diameter. The Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Section is responsible for the maintenance and repair of all public sewer mains and manholes. The type of wastewater treatment used in the Columbia Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant is called the complete-mix activated sludge process. This is a biological process in which naturally occurring living microorganisms (bacteria, protozoa, tiny plants and animals) are maintained at a very high population level. They quickly consume the dissolved and suspended material carried over from the primary treatment of the incoming wastewater as a source of food. This process promotes the formation of biological masses that clump together by adhesion and settle to the bottom forming "sludge."By cleaning water waste water treatment plants solve for the negative health effects linked to pollutants.

B. Wastewater treatment plants solve for damaged marine ecosystems including dead zones (eutrophication).Fennell, Christina Published November 13, 2013 Dead Zones: In the Problem Lies the Solution Innovations in Research and Development. Doc file. Accessed December 11, 2014

Considerable effort from government, private institutions, and environmental activists has been taken to encourage remediation projects designed to mitigate the growing dead zones in the ocean. It has been shown that alleviation of hypoxia will require the removal of excess phosphorus in the affected waters. Remediation through nutrient and agricultural runoff reduction has been implemented for over 50 years with minimal success due to enforcement issues. Alternatively, large scale engineering projects operating within the marine environment are considered one of the most attractive options because they are often far less expensive, and offer much more rapid results than nutrient reduction plans. Although current remediation projects are considered novel, they provide a solution that do not create another environmental problem as a consequence. Some researchers have proposed that remediation of dead zones will not be successful without the removal of excess phosphorus and nitrogen within the hypoxic zones. It has been tested that treatment of the oceans dead zones could be modeled after a modern waste water treatment plant, using filtration and biological processing to disperse pollutants, in this case the targeted pollutant being the excess nutrients. This method is very successful in small scale models within contained units, but has yet to be implemented as solution due to size of the project and the resources needed. Any other method of remediation would require a minimal consequential effect due to the nature of the problem.. By solving for the excess nutrients and other pollutants, waste water treatment plants are solving for damaged marine ecosystems that have been negatively affected by pollutants.

C. Anaerobic digestion of wastewater sludge produces energy from the pollution taken into the plant. {note: Digesters are part of the plant not a separate plant}Wong, Shutsu, Published July 2011Tapping the Energy Potential of Municipal Wastewater Treatment: Anaerobic Digestion and Combined Heat and Power in Massachusetts Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection/ http://www.mass.gov/ Accessed December 11, 2014 < http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/water/priorities/chp-11.pdf>

Through a process called anaerobic digestion (AD), organic solids can be broken down to produce biogas, a methane rich byproduct that is usable for energy generation.When applied at municipal wastewater treatment facilities, an existing waste stream can be converted into renewable energy through a combined heat and power system (CHP).If additional organic waste streams are diverted to these facilities to supplement municipal wastewater solids, even greater efficiencies and energy potential can be attained for energy generation onsite and resale to the grid.Such a program leads to environmental benefits from methane capture, renewable energy generation, and organic waste volume reduction.Furthermore, facilities can reduce their operational costs associated with energy consumption and waste disposal while generating revenue from processing additional waste streams.This paper establishes the merits and benefits of these technologies, the existing conditions at state wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and the potential for a renewable energy strategy that focuses on WWTPs as resource recovery centers.Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) present an untapped source of renewable energy.Within the millions of gallons of wastewater that pass through these plants in any given day are hundreds of tons of bio solids.When anaerobically digested, those bio solids generate biogas which can be anywhere from 60 to 70 percent methane.(Natural gas that is typically purchased from the grid for use onsite is methane.)If captured, that biogas can fuel an onsite combined heat and power generation system, thus, creating a renewable energy source.In fact, contained within the wastewater is ten times more energy than there is necessary to treat that water. As of June 2011, only six of 133 municipal WWTPs in Massachusetts utilize anaerobic digestion, and of those six, only three are using or in the process of installing a CHP system to generate renewable energy onsite. In addition to the environmental benefit of renewable energy, onsite generation also has economic incentives.Where energy can be captured from existing byproducts such as sludge, less energy must be purchased from the grid and less sludge must be transported for processing offsite (either for land application, to a landfill or to another company for further processing).Onsite energy generation also promotes energy independence and helps to insulate municipal plants from electricity and gas price fluctuations.At present, the cost of wastewater and water utilities are generally 3060 percent of a citys energy bill, making it economically advantageous for municipalities to adopt these technologies to minimize the impact of these utilities on their limited budgets.Treating millions of gallons of wastewater containing bio solids, these Massachusetts WWTPs are processing a potential fuel every day, and more often than not, that fuel simply passes through the plant and goes to landfill.This study aims to encourage the installation of systems that can harness that energy for productive use instead of allowing it to go to waste.The typical wastewater treatment process begins with the piping of water from the sewer system to the treatment plant.There, settling and thickening processes remove mud, grit and water, creating a dewatered sludge.That remaining sludge and water mixture is then treated to remove chemicals (some facilities may use advanced treatment processes) and is subsequently prepared for transportation to an offsite landfill, incinerator, or composter.Alternatively, that sludge can also be stabilized and prepared for soil amendment and land application.If added, the process of AD would follow the settling and thickening steps and could serve as a sludge stabilization method.With AD, sludge is instead piped into digesters where, in the absence of oxygen and with constant mixing and heating, naturally occurring microorganisms break down waste solids, producing methane, carbon dioxide and several other trace gases in the process.Due to its high methane concentration of 60 to 70 percent,3 that gas, often called biogas, can be captured and flared or productively used for energy generation.To harness the energy contained in biogas, the gas can be cleaned, compressed and burned in a boiler, generating heat for maintaining digester temperatures and onsite heating.In conjunction with a CHP system, the gas can also be used to produce electricity.

For these reasons we urge the judge to affirm.

2AC Advantage Extensions

A. Energy from anaerobic digestion could potentially power the entire United States with excess energy to spare.Craig, Johnson, Published January 25, 2013. Anaerobic Digestion: the future of the United States, Environmental Protective Agency.gov. Accessed October 25, 2014.

Estimates of the electricity that could potentially be generated by anaerobic digestion and of the average energy have been calculated for the contiguous United States. The estimates are based on published waste pollution resource data. If just 50 percent of the waste generated each year in the U.S. that was turned to the ocean was anaerobically digested, enough electricity would be generated to power the entire United States and still have enough power to fulfill Cubas energy needs. Anaerobic digestion plants are the way the future is going and fossil fuels wont be around for much longer. Technology under development today will be capable of producing electricity economically from many polluted coastal regions of the country. The amount of energy theoretically available for use has been estimated at as much as twice the current U.S. energy consumption. AD plants could be in high demand in the future, and it would be beneficial to implement them now.

B. The byproducts of the digestion process can be used as fertilizer.Kirk, Dana, Published April 2, 2012. Michigan State University and M. Charles Gould, Bioenergy Educator, Michigan State University Extension. Uses of Solids and By-Products of Anaerobic Digestion Accessed October 26, 2014

Undigested biomass (referred to as digestate solids, fiber or biofiber) contained in the effluent (digestate) of anaerobic digesters provides opportunities for value-added byproducts. Organic fertilizer, livestock bedding, compost, fuel pellets, and construction material (medium density fiberboard and fiber/plastic composite materials) are a few examples of value-added byproducts that could be created from digestate solids. Solids can be extracted from the digestate using solid-liquid separation technologies such as slope screens, rotary drum thickeners and screw-press separators. Common solid-liquid equipment can produce digestate solids with a moisture content of 18 to 30%. The volume and the moisture content of the separated solids will vary depending on the technology used. Digestate solids are high in fiber, consisting mainly of fibrous undigested organic material (lignin and cellulose), microbial biomass, animal hair, and nutrients. During the anaerobic digestion process, nutrients contained in the feedstock are mineralized. Mineralized nutrients are easily used by a crop. Digestate solids contain higher concentrations of plant-available nitrogen and phosphorus compared to as-excreted manure, according to research. The high carbon content of digestate solids adds organic matter to the soil and improves the water holding capacity of the soil. Actual nutrient content of digestate solids will vary depending on feedstocks, digester type, management, and solid-liquid separation technology. Digestate solids as a fertilizer source can be used as separated (wet), blended with other materials and composted or dried and pelletized.

C. The digester plants could payoff initial investment in eight years and generate profit.Wong, Shutsu, Published July 2011Tapping the Energy Potential of Municipal Wastewater Treatment: Anaerobic Digestion and Combined Heat and Power in Massachusetts Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection/ http://www.mass.gov/ Accessed December 11, 2014 < http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/water/priorities/chp-11.pdf>Next is a case study in Pittsfield, MA, made possible through a Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (now the Clean Energy Center) grant for its initial feasibility study (approximately $40,000) and $16 million in stimulus grants through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), where $1.67 million went towards the AD and CHP system.This funding enabled an upgrade of its existing digesters and the installation of a new CHP system, three 65kW micro turbines.With the installation of the new CHP system, the facility is anticipating that 29 percent of its total energy needs can be generated on site.Through its feasibility study and funding, Pittsfield worked with SEA consultants to also explore the potential of incorporating fats oils and grease (FOG) into its system to maximize biogas and energy production.Most notable about this project, the projections for this project demonstrate the potential for positive cash flow for the facility even in the first year.Pittsfield invested $1.67 million in SRF funding for the project.With an estimated energy savings of $206,000 each year, simple payback would occur in 8 years.Looking on a cash flow basis, assuming a ten year loan and incorporating their anticipated renewable energy credits, Pittsfield has over $66,000 in cash flow within the first year.(See calculations below.)These cash flows do not even incorporate other costs savings such as reduced sludge disposal costs.That said, AD and CHP has the potential to help municipalities with their bottom lines and can make even more sense if other organic waste streams are considered to help boost energy generation!