We often advocate taking risks in our blogging and coaching. You have no chance as an intermediate team against an experienced team through “straight refutation” that they are ready for and has failed dozens of times. Sometimes you need to try the hail mary and it either works or falls on its face. You also get to try out new arguments, which stretches your mind and strategies even if you lose!

We also advocate that you use your brain, not your brief. The below example is to illustrate what that looks like. (photo by epSos.de)

The scene: McPeak/Shipsey prepping for semifinals and finals if they have to go neg. No briefs anyone has are really going to work against the teams still there. Mind you McPeak/Shipsey had just in quarters been neg and unanimously won against a case that had lost once the entire year (beating it on theory, with community judges there)–they know they need something off the wall, sensible, and clever all at once.

Here’s what we came up with on Coal Ash. Look at how sketchy it is compared to the rest of what you prepare the whole year. But also realize this important fact: 95% of the strategy is brainwork, not “outresearching” the opponents. The only research here really is just reading the exact government document in question.

TOPICALITY – THE POLICY IS IN PROCESS

1.     Topicality Standard: Agency must be Congress. If it’s executive-level, then it’s negative ground because it’s not a significant reform and it’s not policy.

2.     Violation: EPA is currently assessing rules for coal ash and has authority

3.     Impacts:

a.     Resolution not needed – we don’t have to reform EP to get the change. EPA already has authority – ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ALREADY WORKS! “under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)”

b.     Negative ground used – Status Quo’s actor is sub-policy executive agencies and that’s who can do this plan

c.      Status Quo defense impossible – it isn’t KNOWN. This eliminates uniqueness for all disadvantages. See how the aff has skewed this debate? The ONLY disadvantage we can actually run is to “let the processes work” – we can’t insert any actual content.

4.     Alternative: Propose policies in a static, rather than dynamic environment

[SOURCE (the proposed rule): ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 257, 261, 264, 265, 268, 271 and 302 [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640; FRL- ] RIN – 2050-AE81

HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF SPECIAL WASTES; DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS FROM ELECTRIC UTILITIES AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccr-rule-prop.pdf]

“SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is proposing to regulate for the first time, coal combustion residuals (CCRs) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to address the risks from the disposal of CCRs generated from the combustion of coal at electric utilities and independent power producers. However, the Agency is considering two options in this proposal and, thus, is proposing two alternative regulations. Under the first proposal, EPA would reverse its August 1993 and May 2000 Bevill Regulatory Determinations regarding coal combustion residuals (CCRs) and list these residuals as special wastes subject to regulation under subtitle C of RCRA, when they are destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments. Under the second proposal, EPA would leave the Bevill determination in place and regulate disposal of such materials under subtitle D of RCRA by issuing national minimum criteria. Under both alternatives EPA is proposing to establish dam safety requirements to address the structural integrity of surface impoundments to prevent catastrophic releases. EPA is not proposing to change the May 2000 Regulatory Determination for beneficially used CCRs, which are currently exempt from the hazardous waste regulations under Section 3001(b)(3)(A) of RCRA. However, EPA is clarifying this determination and seeking comment on potential refinements for certain beneficial uses. EPA is also not proposing to address the placement of CCRs in mines, or non-minefill uses of CCRs at coal mine sites in this action.”

TOPICALITY 2: DEPT OF INTERIOR is proper authority (see cards later on)

 

GAP INHERENCY:

We are following the steps of the status quo laid out to address the issue.

1. Problem Identified. 2. Rule researched. 3. Rules proposed (May 4). 4. Industry comment (now). [5. Final rule (90 days from May 4). 6. Work with DOI to issue mining specific rules]

Impacts:

1)    Signfiicance – The harms are not embedded in the Status Quo

2) Inherency – Environmental Policy is presently handling the issue

3) Moving Target – You can’t vote to change environmental policy while it is in the process of changing; how is that an argument that it is flawed, while EP is working?

DOI + EPA ARE WORKING ON A MINING SOLUTION

[SOURCE (the proposed rule): ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 257, 261, 264, 265, 268, 271 and 302 [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640; FRL- ] RIN – 2050-AE81

HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF SPECIAL WASTES; DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS FROM ELECTRIC UTILITIES AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccr-rule-prop.pdf]

“The proposed rule would apply to all coal combustion residuals (CCRs) generated by electric utilities and independent power producers. However, this proposed rule does not address the placement of CCRs in minefills. The U. S. Department of Interior (DOI) and EPA will address the management of CCRs in minefills in a separate regulatory action(s), consistent with the approach recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, recognizing the expertise of DOI’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement in this area.[1] In addition, under either alternative proposal, EPA is not proposing to affect the current status of coal combustion residuals that are beneficially used.[2] (See section IV. D for further details on proposed clarifications of beneficial use.) CCRs from non-utility boilers burning coal are not included within today’s proposed rule. EPA will decide on an appropriate action for these wastes after completing this rulemaking effort.”

NYT, May 4, 2010, “E.P.A.’s Plan to Regulate Coal Ash Draws Criticism”, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/us/05coal.html?src=mv

 

“The Environmental Protection Agency issued a long-awaited proposal Tuesday to regulate coal ash, the toxic byproduct of burning coal to produce power. But the agency deferred a decision on whether to treat it as hazardous waste, drawing criticism from environmentalists who had hoped for a stronger stance.

Instead, the agency offered two alternatives, one that would regulate coal ash under strict hazardous-waste rules, and a weaker and less expensive option that would regulate it under the same framework that governs household garbage. The agency will choose between the options sometime after a 90-day comment period. Either proposal would represent the first time that coal ash, which contains arsenic, mercury and other toxic substances, has been federally regulated, Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, said in a conference call. “Both proposals reflect a major step forward at the national level in reducing the risk of improper coal ash disposal,” Ms. Jackson said.”

 

REASONS TO PREFER

1. Advice from industry and all agencies over a period of time vs. Aff plan: immediate decision from judges with no review

[SOURCE (the proposed rule): ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 257, 261, 264, 265, 268, 271 and 302 [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640; FRL- ] RIN – 2050-AE81

HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF SPECIAL WASTES; DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS FROM ELECTRIC UTILITIES AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccr-rule-prop.pdf]

“In developing these proposed regulations for structural integrity of CCR impoundments, EPA sought advice from the federal agencies charged with managing the safety of dams in the United States. Many agencies in the federal government are charged with dam safety, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Department of Interior (DOI),and the Department of Labor (DOL), MSHA.”

2. Known Costs – The EPA must assess actual costs under their proposed rule. The aff team doesn’t assess costs.

3. Don’t embarrass Lisa Curtis…?

4. Companies are researching comments…?

EXTENSIONS:

1. What does “beneficial use” mean

[SOURCE (the proposed rule): ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 257, 261, 264, 265, 268, 271 and 302 [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640; FRL- ] RIN – 2050-AE81

HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF SPECIAL WASTES; DISPOSAL OF COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS FROM ELECTRIC UTILITIES AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccr-rule-prop.pdf]

“Beneficial Use of Coal Combustion Products (CCPs) means the use of CCPs that provides a functional benefit; replaces the use of an alternative material, conserving natural resources thatwould otherwise need to be obtained through practices such as extraction; and meets relevant product specifications and regulatory standards (where these are available). CCPs that are used in excess quantities (e.g., the field-applications of FGD gypsum in amounts that exceed scientifically-supported quantities required for enhancing soil properties and/or crop yields), placed as fill in sand and gravel pits, or used in large scale fill projects, such as for restructuring the landscape, are excluded from this definition.”

---

[1] The National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Mine Placement of Coal Combustion Wastes stated: “The committee believes that OSM and its SMCRA state partners should take the lead in developing new national standards for CCR use in mines because the framework is in place to deal with mine-related issues.” National Academy of Sciences.            Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines; The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006.

[Note: Footnote in original source]

[2] The NRC committee recommended “that secondary uses of CCRs that pose minimal risks to human health and the environment be strongly encouraged.” Ibid