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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Section 104(e) letter was nominated for deletion. The discussion 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 this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Category | The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 11, 2016. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cathycoeur, AnnakarenR.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) 11:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Should we set up a list of Superfund sites, with information about each one? Chadlupkes 04:58, 21 January 2006 (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)
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.[3]" 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)
Are the sites that are "delisted" cleaned up, or just removed? -- Beland 19:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The introduction claims 1240 sites. The Last line of the entry states over 1300. Does anyone know which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armenite ( talk • contribs)
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 142.205.213.254 ( 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)
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)
IUrangerb ( talk) 05:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)IUrangerb
So where did the name "Superfund" come from? (That's what I came here to find out, therefore it should be in the article! Probably.)- David Gerard ( talk) 18:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved as per Wikipedia naming policy at WP:NAMING. Users confused about whether Superfund is a government law/program or a superhero would do well to read the very first sentence of the article. ( non-admin closure) Red Slash 16:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Superfund → ? – "Superfund"? Really? When is this ever precise? (end of rant) I don't think this title reflects the current article content that describe the bill, officially called "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980". I would like to vote for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act" or CERCLA, but I'm torn. Nevertheless, I would assume that "Superfund" be a parody of Superman. Also, this title was used as an example for " Obamacare" rename request. WP:NC-GAL doesn't say much about names of legislations except commonality of any name, so I'll leave suggestions to you. George Ho ( talk) 05:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved, opposes not countered (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 15:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Superfund →
Superfund Act of 1980 – While "Superfund" clearly is the common name of the federal trust that was created and subsequently managed under the provision of this act, a "Superfund" is a fund and not an act. I'm reading the word "superfund" in the legal text as a keyword rather than a proper shortname, and
quite
some
reliable
sources
agree with my notion, referring to CERCLA as the "Superfund Act". Following several later amendments and a number of, often eponymous, state laws, the act however isn't anymore unambiguously described without adding the year.
Note that I'm absolutely in favor of having a separate article on the genesis and history of the "Superfund" since its 1980 inception, that could perfectly be titled "Superfund" without any disambiguator. Until then,
Superfund may even redirect here, as long as the article is correctly named. --
PanchoS (
talk) 04:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Superfund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Since polluters can be required to fund remediation of pollution events that occurred before CERCLA was passed, does it count as a retroactive law as laid out in that article? I realise that would not be unconstitutional where only civil violations occurred, but anyway if so, it should be mentioned in both articles. Arlo James Barnes 03:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I'm going to pull this lever again, it's my first time on this page and I was surprised to be directed here when I searched for CERCLA. Superfund should be re-titled to CERCLA and Superfund be a re-direct to CERCLA. Superfund is part of an amendment (1986) to CERCLA, not in the OG 1980 act, and despite the public's limited understanding that if it is superfund it must be serious, it's disingenuous to not correct the public's understanding of CERCLA. Superfund is a small part of CERCLA and implies funding, and there's a whole lot to understand about it. I won't go into the implications of this limited understanding when applying CERCLA on the ground. Let's educate the public rather than keep them in a tunnel of limited understanding. (this is my first time using Talk, apologies if I've missed anything) WesternYew ( talk) 15:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)WesternYew