|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Superfund article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Section 104(e) letter was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 17 November 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Superfund. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
List of superfunds
Should we set up a list of Superfund sites, with information about each one? Chadlupkes 04:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with that, though it should definetly be in a seperate page (with a link to it from here, and a small paragraph describing it, of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 12:23, April 24, 2006
- Well, there are over a thousand of of them, and looking at the list, many of them aren't really noteworthy (example: ENVIROCHEM CORP. ZIONSVILLE, IN). I think a category for existing sites would be appropriate. A full list would be silly. A list of noteworthy Superfund sites, including major sucesses should be included on this page. Cacophony 05:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- There are at least five, or more, sites listed in the List of Superfund sites whose articles make no mention whatsoever of any contamination of the site; or in fact even their Superfund status. Most of these are airports or former and current military bases. This has the effect of making the individual articles seem like propaganda. Why are government-owned facilities the ones 'protected' in this way? Even if the nature of the contamination is unknown, if the list is accurate it would seem the bare minimum requirement for basic honesty would be to have ANY Superfund site's article make some metion of its status as a Superfund site. If the list itself is inaccurate, this should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Should the List of Superfund sites in the United States be merged into the Implementation section of this site? It seems that the list may be a content fork, and it only directs people to the individual state sites. See this peer review for more info. Cmcnicoll (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Another option is merging the U.S. list into National Priorities List, which may make more sense if the state lists only have NPL sites. However, the state lists also contain Superfund Alternative sites and other Superfund sites that are addressed through CERCLA, but are not on the NPL. Cmcnicoll (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The citation to the comment, "Congress provided the oil industry an exemption of liability for the cleanup of petroleum in return for a fee on petroleum products to fund cleanups of other toxic substances." does not provide any support any support for the assertion of this statement. I hope there will be no objection in removing the sentence until a suitable citation can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slade1411 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be interesting to have the sites plotted onto a national map, even if there is not a list of all 1000+ in the encyclopedia. (That can be left to external sites.) -- Beland 19:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- If anyone wants to take this on, the data needed is freely available at http://www.nationalatlas.gov/. Kmusser 19:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a map of all current, proposed and deleted sites in the contiguous 48 states. --skew-t (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Are the sites that are "delisted" cleaned up, or just removed? -- Beland 19:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted means that they have determined no further action is required. See . --skew-t (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I've added this tag based on the statements with regard to the Regan administration and Rita being described only as a former employee of a company that produced toxic waste, as well as the later statements regarding Clinton reforms: supported as better by who? Blocked by Republicans relevant?
I went with the Check tag only as some of this may just need a little clean up - e.g. Rita even ended up charged over her actions while at the EPA. I don't have the expertise to sort all of this out (I'm not even American) but partisan shots take away from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Statements with regard to the Reagan administration and Rita are simply fact, certainly not "partisan shots." The statement concerning who supported the Clinton reforms has been added. That these reforms were blocked is certainly relevant and again, it's only fact to say who blocked them. The article is not the place to go into the reasons why, which may or may not have been persuasive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speonjosh (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but, stuff like this especially needs to be referenced (and in an encyclopedic tone). I'm did some cleanup & removed the POV tag -- Lateg (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Merge December 2010
Agradman created a bunch of articles (Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation, Source control action, Superfund reportable quantity, Section 106 order, Orphan share, Section 104(e) letter, Remedial action plan, Remedial response, Nonbinding allocation of responsibility, Hazard Ranking System, CERCLIS) that are basically definitions of terms relevant to the Superfund process. I think these should be made into redirects, and the content merged into the Superfund article. Cmcnicoll (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. They are definitions that do not justify a standalone article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Agreed - they do not justify standalone articles but further explanation would be a great resource for understanding more about this topic.
History of the name?
- A helpful anon has answered on my talk page! "My understanding is that the funding collected under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was deemed the "superfund" because the idea was that these new funds would pay for environmental clean up in situations where no responsible party could be found to do the clean up. "Superfund to the rescue," if you will. For example, perhaps an abandoned land fill with lots of industrial waste from many sources, no operator to be found, and maybe all the records destroyed. At the time of the initial legislation, most stake holders thought that Superfund paid clean ups would be the norm. In practice, three decades later, many (most?) clean ups are actually paid for by "responsible" parties. I would imagine EPA's history office would have some source material documenting this. This is a personal opinion, not necessarily the opinion of my employer, USEPA." So all we need now is a citable source ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)