You are on page 1of 4

Christos Dimoulis, Eveready

End Federal Superfund: Neg

End Federal Superfund: Neg
1. SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY 1.1. Federal Superfund uses best Available Science 1.2. New and innovated tech being developed 2. ALTERNATE CAUSALITY: 2.1. Alt Causality: Lack of money 2.2. Slow cleanup completely natural and explainable 3. POLLUTER PAYS 3.1. Federal EPA can make the polluter pay 4. MYTHS AND FACTS: 4.1. Myth: SF sites take too long to complete 4.2. Myth: SF doesn’t clean up many sights 4.3. Myth: Huge costs 4.4. Myth: Legal disputes delay cleanups. 4.5. Myth: EPA aid hurts State SF programs

1. SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY 1.1. Federal Superfund uses best Available Science USEPA, “A Citizen's Guide to the Superfund Program”Last updated 3/2/10, http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/guide.htm EPA's Superfund Program is the most aggressive hazardous waste cleanup program in the world. Everyday, Superfund managers are involved in critical decisions that affect public health and the environment. They use the best available science to determine risks at sites. New and innovative technologies are being developed to help achieve faster and less expensive ways to cleanup sites. And, where possible, old hazardous waste sites are being restored to productive use. Millions of people have been protected by Superfund cleanup actions. The Superfund Program has one ultimate goal: to protect the YOUR health and YOUR environment. 1.2. New and innovated tech being developed USEPA, “A Citizen's Guide to the Superfund Program”Last updated 3/2/10, http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/guide.htm EPA's Superfund Program is the most aggressive hazardous waste cleanup program in the world. Everyday, Superfund managers are involved in critical decisions that affect public health and the environment. They use the best available science to determine risks at sites. New and innovative 1 of 4

Christos Dimoulis, Eveready

End Federal Superfund: Neg

technologies are being developed to help achieve faster and less expensive ways to cleanup sites. And, where possible, old hazardous waste sites are being restored to productive use. Millions of people have been protected by Superfund cleanup actions. The Superfund Program has one ultimate goal: to protect the YOUR health and YOUR environment. 2. ALTERNATE CAUSES: 2.1. Alt Causality: Lack of money Jaoquin Sapien, (Joaquin Sapien was a reporter for The Center for Public Integrity from 2005 until earlier this year. He was the lead reporter on a year-long investigative project on “Superfund’s Toxic Legacy,” which just received the Sigma Delta Chi Award for excellence in non-deadline online independent reporting from the Society of Professional Journalists. Before joining CPI he wrote for Environmental Media Services.), Society of Environmental Journalists, “A Federal Superfund Site Near You May Hold a Great Story”, January 15, 2009, http://www.sej.org/publications/pollution/a-federal-superfund-site-near-you-mayhold-a-great-story Is your site being cleaned up? If not, what is the holdup? If so, who is in charge of the cleanup?We found that dozens of Superfund sites lingered on a waiting list to be cleaned up, but it took years for them to get the necessary funding. In fact, the Superfund program is in such dire financial straits that EPA officials told us that they have had to delay needed work at some hazardous sites, use money left over from other cleanups — which itself is dwindling — and resort to cheap, less effective fixes. 2.2. Slow cleanup completely natural and explainable Great Lakes Article: “New York Struggles With Superfund Problems” May 5, 2002, http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/ny/510superfund.htm "The most important parts of the program - the pace of the cleanup and the principle that the polluter must pay - are now under attack," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who chairs the Senate subcommittee that oversees the program. Bush administration officials counter by saying that the slowdown is happening naturally. Many of the easier Superfund sites got cleaned up first, leaving the more difficult and time-consuming ones yet to do, said Marianne Lamont Horinko, the Environmental Protection Agency official who oversees the program. 3. POLLUTERS PAY 3.1. Federal EPA can make the polluter pay USEPA, “A Citizen's Guide to the Superfund Program”Last updated 3/2/10, http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/guide.htm

2 of 4

Christos Dimoulis, Eveready

End Federal Superfund: Neg

Superfund Cleanup is either paid for by the parties responsible for contamination or by the Superfund Trust Fund. Under the Superfund law, EPA is able to make those companies and individuals responsible for contamination at a Superfund site perform, and pay for, the cleanup work at the site. EPA negotiates with the responsible parties to get them to pay for the plans and the work that has to be done to clean up the site. If an agreement cannot be reached, EPA issues orders to responsible parties to make them clean up the site under EPA supervision. EPA may also use Superfund Trust Fund money to pay for cleanup costs, then attempt to get the money back through legal action. 4. MYTHS AND FACTS: 4.1. Myth: SF sites take too long to complete USEPA, The Facts Speak for Themselves: A Fundamentally Different Superfund Program, 1996, www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/pdfs/sf_fact4.pdf FACT: In an effort to speed the pace of cleanups, EPA is implementing the “presumptive remedies” reform at Superfund sites, which, when fully implemented, could cut study times in half. Presumptive remedies help streamline removal actions, site studies, and cleanups; reduce the cost and time required to clean up similar types of sites; and ensure consistency in remedy selection. 4.2. Myth: SF doesn’t clean up many sights USEPA, The Facts Speak for Themselves: A Fundamentally Different Superfund Program, 1996, www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/pdfs/sf_fact4.pdf Including rapid cleanups, EPA is responsible for over 4,500 successful cleanups at Superfund sites across the country since the program’s inception. EPA has used its rapid action cleanup authority to accomplish many accelerated cleanups at time-critical hazardous waste sites. To date, approximately 3,800 emergency actions at over 2,990 Superfund sites (and approximately 700 long-term cleanup actions) across the nation have been completed. These actions accelerate the overall cleanup process by quickly addressing significant and imminent threats to the public health and environment. In recent years, EPA has implemented reforms which streamline this process. 4.3. Myth: Huge costs USEPA, The Facts Speak for Themselves: A Fundamentally Different Superfund Program, 1996, www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/pdfs/sf_fact4.pdf (short version) FACT: The average cost of Superfund cleanup construction projects has been reduced by $1.2 to $1.6 million per project by EPA’s efforts to improve the Superfund program. (long version) For the years following passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and prior to full implementation of Administrative Reforms, the average Superfund cleanup construction project cost (one indicator of program costs) decreased by $1.2 to $1.6 million per project over the last two fiscal years. This indicator has dropped over the past two fiscal years to $10.0 million. 3 of 4

Christos Dimoulis, Eveready

End Federal Superfund: Neg

It is important to note that these savings still reflect cleanups which are protective, and continue the mandate for “permanence” and treatment of waste, as described in the current Superfund law. All of the administrative initiatives, when fully implemented, will continue to contribute substantially to program improvements and further reductions in cleanup costs. 4.4. Myth: Legal disputes delay cleanups. USEPA, The Facts Speak for Themselves: A Fundamentally Different Superfund Program, 1996, www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/pdfs/sf_fact4.pdf Although Superfund has been criticized for the numbers of lawyers involved, Superfund has been able to keep the lawyers out of the clean up pipeline. When addressing human health and environmental concerns at Superfund sites, attorneys have very little impact on the pace of cleanups and cannot delay cleanup actions. CERCLA’s current bar of judicial review prevents parties from suing to stop work at a site or having a court review EPA’s cleanup decision until much later in the process. EPA can thus concentrate on cleanups, rather than defending endless lawsuits. Also, under §113 of CERCLA, when the EPA compels one or more PRPs to clean up a site, the PRPs are prohibited from challenging EPA’s actions in court until later in the process — although PRPs are not prevented from suing each other for contribution. These third party contribution lawsuits must, however, take place on a parallel track to the site cleanup. Thus, cleanup of a site is not delayed due to third party contribution lawsuits. 4.5. Myth: EPA aid hurts State SF programs USEPA, The Facts Speak for Themselves: A Fundamentally Different Superfund Program, 1996, www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/pdfs/sf_fact4.pdf EPA recognizes the important role that State environmental agencies have in encouraging economic redevelopment of brown-fields. Administrator Browner supports legislation that encourages the development of State-run voluntary cleanup programs. Indeed, State voluntary cleanup programs have succeeded in encouraging private party cleanup of lesser contaminated properties and these programs augment the Federal funding of pilots. EPA also plans to provide $10 million in FY1997 to further encourage the development of these State programs.

4 of 4