Talk:Superfund

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merge back

message: 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)
thread_title: Citation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Map request

message: Are the sites that are "delisted" cleaned up, or just removed? -- Beland 19:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted means that they have determined no further action is required. See . --skew-t (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: POV Check

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge December 2010

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  History of the name? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110204074017/http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/reporting/rqover.htm to http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/reporting/rqover.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Ex post facto#United States]]? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re-title to CERCLA