Outlining My Public Argument

Introduction:

The introduction I plan on writing will most resemble the option Think About Your Situation. The reason for the recent debate is the accident that occurred last February and how it may be indicative of the safety of the WIPP. Also most of my evidence comes from the accident reports, so it would be logical to frame my introduction around the situation that has caused the debate to arise.

Body:

•  Supporting Argument: The radiological release was at a non-reportable level.
• Criticism: No radiological release should have occurred at all
• Topic sentence: Although the radiological release did introduce readioactive elements into the environment, the level of release was less than national standards for hazardous air pollutants.
• Evidence: Quote from Department of Energy accident report phase 1: "The radiological event that occurred on February 14 with the leakage past the isolation dampers was less than the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines for the public and below the limits established by the DOE and WIPP for site workers."
•  Supporting Argument: The WIPP has been modified to prevent a similar sort of release from happening in the future.
• Criticism: Why weren't these protective measures taken originally?
• Topic Sentence: Since the accident, the WIPP has been modified to be able to control any further releases from occurring.
• Evidence: Quote from WIPP Recovery plan: "On March 6, two ventilation system dampers that were known to have allowed a small amount of the radioactive material to bypass the HEPA filters were sealed with high-density foaming material."
• Supporting Argument: The workers exposed to radiation only received enough radiation as a typical chest x-ray
• Criticism: These workers should not have been exposed to any radiation at all
• Topic Sentence: Although a detectable amount of radiation was released to the environment, the exposure that the contaminated workers experienced was less than a typical chest x-ray.
• Evidence: Quote from WIPP Recovery plan: "Bioassay tests showed that 22 workers received internal contamination as a result of the release, each with a total lifetime exposure of less than 10 millirem over 50 years, which is equivalent to the exposure resulting from a chest x-ray." 

Conclusion:

I am choosing to use the Negative Consequences strategy to form my conclusion. Many people fail to realize that we need a place to store our nuclear waste. At the moment, it is being stored at local sites all across the country which is quite an environmental and health concern. We need a safe, secure place to store this waste. If we don't get continued support for the repository, then we may harm the environment and our people even more.