Jump to content

Talk:United States Environmental Protection Agency/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comments

I removed "as long as it does not interfere with economic interests" from the description of the EPA's mission in the first sentence of the article. No explanation was given by the contributor of this recent addition. In fact, the EPA's mission statement, found on the agency's own "About EPA" webpage, does not contain this qualifier. In addition, neither "economic" nor any other form of the word can be found anywhere on the "About EPA" webpage. See http://www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htm --ChicagoJason 19:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To do:

  1. Describe the criteria the EPA uses for banning pollutants.
  2. Give examples of pollutants banned by these criteria.
  3. Is carbon dioxide a "pollutant"?
Carbon dioxide is not directly regulated by the USEPA, as it is considered benign by the US goverment. However, they do indirectly regulate carbon dioxide emissions through the enforcement of energy efficiency standards, including their voluntary energy star certification program. All their efficiency standards and absolutely everything they are doing in regards to CO2 is in the US Climate Action Report at their webpage. It is worth noting that the California state goverment does plan to regulate CO2 through CARB, although the federal goverment unsuccessfully challenged their authority to do so. --Lack Thereof 03:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at United States Environmental Protection Agency? At least several states have their own EPA's and I'm sure other nations also have their own. --mav 05:10, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with mav - the page should read United States Environmental Protection Agency.

I also agree, there is for instance Queensland EPA to which this would apply. I'm going to move it. Lankiveil 12:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Controversy section needed!

There should be a controversy section to this wiki page. I mean a green agency whose head is installed by Dubya is as efficient in protecting Mother Earth as the FCC would be under the directorate of Goebbels.

  • What about the recent controversy regarding allowing testing of pollutants on mentally handicapped children and orphans? It should at least be addressed briefly if it's still an issue. Rōnin 10:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I added a lengthy remark accusing the EPA of following a political and anti-scientific agenda. But perhaps you wanted more about right-wing bias than about left-wing bias? --Wing Nut 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

new article: Timeline

hey EPA editors -- I created a new article quite a while ago, and since then haven't had a chance to follow up: Timeline of major US environmental and occupational health regulation. Please take a look and add/subtract/modify at your pleasure. I would ask that you please read the talk page first for a description of why I chose that name, and what I intended for the article. thanks! bikeable (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

DDT Section

A friend of mine at the EPA, when shown the article, called it dishonest and a misrepresentation. I have reworked that section so as to not be inflammatory, and so that it represents DDT's ban as being about ecosystems, not human health. Talk page if you have questions. --\/\/slack (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Balance of coverage

The current version of the article does not do a good job explaining the diversity of programs the EPA has, instead discussing only a select few and leaving the reader to guess that the "related legislation" section means they also have other areas of responsibility. -- Beland 18:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization Plan No. 3

DBrnstn asked in an edit summary, What was the law passed that established the EPA? Should be listed, and perhaps hyperlinked. I created a stub for Reorganization Plan No. 3 and linked it from this article. Feel free to expand on it. bikeable (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references

THe Simpsons Movie centres on the EPA. Whether or not other cultural references to the EPA can be found, one good question emerges: should the article have a Cultural references section? IMHO it should, but I'm not doing anything until we get a bit of consensus. 85.92.173.186 06:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree Wartime2 23:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. The reference to EPA was not particularly meaningful. At most it deserves a sentence, but this article shouldn't become full of random "cultural references". bikeable (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a reference, especially because the DVD includes a message from EPA saying that they are not in fact incompetent. 68.183.182.60 (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

He like to eat leaves in EPA in US.

He like to eat leaves in EPA in US.

This line is is the article. Vandalism? 81.105.245.251 04:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Review of air quality standards POV check. Policymakers that have minimal scientific knowledge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.110.231 (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC) On July 9, 1970, citing rising concerns over environmental protection and conservation, President Richard Nixon transmitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the United States Congress by executive order, creating the EPA as a single, independent agency from a number of smaller arms of different federal agencies. Prior to the establishment of the EPA, the federal government was not structured to comprehensively regulate environmental pollutants.On July 9, 1970, citing rising concerns over environmental protection and conservation, President Richard Nixon transmitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the United States Congress by executive order, creating the EPA as a single, independent agency from a number of smaller arms of different federal agencies. Prior to the establishment of the EPA, the federal government was not structured to comprehensively regulate environmental pollutants.On July 9, 1970, citing rising concerns over environmental protection and conservation, President Richard Nixon transmitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the United States Congress by executive order, creating the EPA as a single, independent agency from a number of smaller arms of different federal agencies. Prior to the establishment of the EPA, the federal government was not structured to comprehensively regulate environmental pollutants.On July 9, 1970, citing rising concerns over environmental protection and conservation, President Richard Nixon transmitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the United States Congress by executive order, creating the EPA as a single, independent agency from a number of smaller arms of different federal agencies. Prior to the establishment of the EPA, the federal government was not structured to comprehensively regulate environmental pollutants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.129.192 (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Redo Air Standards Review Sections

Reference 8 requires a subscription and the summary text is misleading at best. 68.93.134.68 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Related legislation" can be reduced

The newly-created environmental policy of the United States has some significant overlap with this article, and most of the "Related legislation" section could be deleted or greatly reduced. johnpseudo 23:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Company influence of EPA?

EPA fires scientist after request by company. [1] Brian Pearson (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Brian Pearson

Aircraft Drinking Water Rule

This item was deleted from the Water legislation section. A rule is not legislation; it's a regulation issued by EPA. This article does not have a list of EPA regulations, nor do I recommend creating one here (EPA has issued thousands of rules). This drinking water-related proposed rule could be added to the Safe Drinking Water Act article, or a new article could be created. I preserve the deleted text here for such possible uses.

2008 - Aircraft Drinking Water Rule, proposed on March 28, 2008 /ref/ http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/index.php/47/airplane-water/ CleanBeta /ref/

Moreau1 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Add information

I suggest add information about the EPA Office of Environmental Justice and the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program.--Nukeless 14:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are more programs and grant programs in EPA, such as Watershed central. There should at least be a sentence with a general explaination that there are more--Soundthebugle (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

suggested addition to the controversy section

PETA recently sent me a letter claiming the EPA does cruel, useless experiments on animals. Should this be added to the "controversy" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Web wonder (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of a letter from PETA, no. A fundraising/advocacy letter from an advocacy group would not be considered a reliable source. Additionally, it demonstrates a pretty clear bias. "Cruel" and "useless" are fairly loaded terms, and are inherently subjective. If this was something you were interested in, I would suggest looking for information from credible sources. However, I don't think this is something that would pass the notability test.Jbower47 (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Move request

A discussion is underway at Talk:EPA (disambiguation)#Requested move which would move that article to EPA, which currently redirects here.--Aervanath (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Environmental monitoring

I have been trying to fill a gaping hole in Wikipedia by creating and writing most of Environmental monitoring and Freshwater environmental quality parameters‎ (which probably needs to change to Environmental quality control parameters). On the assumption that those watching this page may either be working for the EPA or have an interest in it, I would appreciate other editors contributing knowledge and references. Many thanks  Velela  Velela Talk   11:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

soapbox - Barriers to Enforcing Environmental Justice

If it's notable "Barriers to Enforcing Environmental Justice" could be a topic by itself rather its opinions overwhelming this topic. Tedickey (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS in Washington D.C.

Earlier today I added the following link to the Environmental Protection Agency article in the external links section. NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS in Washington D.C.

I am confused why the link was removed. I think that a link to the National Headquarters for the Environmental Protection Agency Union in Washington D.C. has a rightful home in the external links section of the Environmental Protection Agency's article for many obvious reasons. Please explain why the link was removed.71.90.171.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC). Hereherer (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link that was removed

  • [nteu280 (this url has been blacklisted and amended to allow archiving) NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS in Washington D.C.]Hereherer (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a self-promotional site whose purpose isn't really topical here (unless you can find reliable third-party sources which corroborate their statements, to develop a paragraph on the two). Tedickey (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What? I don not understand your reasoning behind calling the NTEU EPA Union National Headquarters site a self promotional site whose purpose isn't really topical on the EPA's article. And what do reliable third-party sources which corroborate their statements to develop a paragraph on the two have to do with it? I do not agree with you this needs to be mitigated properly as to not start a edit war. You did not discus with me or leave any reasoning the first time you deleted my entry. Thank you for responding this time. Please do not start a edit war and be respectful of the wikipedia's purpose.Hereherer (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Its site certainly doesn't promote anyone's interests except for their own. I pointed out that they make statements about themselves (for instance the ones that say in effect that without them, the EPA wouldn't be doing what it was chartered to do), and that unless there's some reliable source, it's nontopical. Do spend the time to look for third-party sources; without that, your edits appear to be advertising Tedickey (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. Please give time to respond to your requests without deleting the entry again like you did the first time without any reasoning. You added a spam link to the end of the entry I made without notice to me. Please do not hurry or rush the discussion of this just because you do not want the link I added on the page. Hereherer (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)01:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)01:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with what you have said. Proper discussion and dispute resolution needs to take place before action is taken to delete the entry I made. Please give me time to respond to your requests. 71.90.171.86 (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Proper discussion of the link that I added needs no happen before action is taken like adding spam links to the end of a link that I added. Removed that spam link. This is a article about the EPA and the EPA National Headquarters in Washington D.C. would not exist without the EPA. Not just a link to the EPA Union National Headquarters website is needed at the end of the EPA article. I think it would be better to have a entire section in the article about EPA the EPA Union Headquarters in Washington D.C.. And again please do not rush this discussion and delete the entry that I made without first allowing proper discussion and resolution to take place.Hereherer (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable. See Wikipedia:Notability. Also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. WP is not a directory or collection of random information. Unless the union does something actually worth mentioning in this article like announcing a strike and shutting down the entire EPA, it merits no mention in Wikipedia, like the vast majority of unions. In contrast, the air traffic controllers' union is notable because they actually launched a strike and got themselves fired. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree - promotional claims on the union's webpage can be disregarded unless we find that there's substantial neutral third-party sources. They're sort of questionable since they're preempting EPA's charter by stating in so many words that EPA wouldn't be doing their job because the union did it for them. Tedickey (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Union, National Headquarters Office in Washington D.C. is not random to the Environmental Protection Agency and I think we both can agree on that. You said that if the Union does something worth mentioning then the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Union National Headquarters could be mentioned in this article. A few points come to mind on that as follows:

This article is a encyclopedia article about the United States Environmental Protection Agency and for it to be a complete well rounded informative article it should contain information about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Union National Headquarters in Washington D.C.. It should contain this information regardless if the Union has done something worth mentioning or not.

If the article is to be a fully informed well rounded encyclopedia article about the United States Environmental Protection Agency then article needs to include information about them. The fact that such a EPA organization exists in the first place is enough warrantable justification on it's own to include information about them in this encyclopedia article if the article is to be a fully informed well rounded encyclopedia article

Peoples point of view of the significance of the notability of action taken by them will vary from person to person. Because of the possible variable interpretations of the significance of the notability of actions taken by them it is not a justly argument to decide on weather to exclude or include them in the encyclopedia article about the EPA. For example some people may tend to agree with the actions taken by the EPA Union and they would might be more accepting and willing to include them in the encyclopedia article while those with opposing views would not want to include them.

The encyclopedia article should be unbiased and have the information in a subjective informative manner. Not including a description and information about the EPA Union National Headquarters in Washington D.C. in the EPA article equates to censorship.Hereherer (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the link belongs. External links should be directly relevant to the article. This link is indirectly relevant. The website this links to, discusses an organization that represents people who work for the EPA, it does not discuss the EPA. I see no reason for it to be in the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 12:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
To expand on what I said above, the pertinent guideline that cover this discussion is Wikipedia:External links. The important point to remember is that links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. We shouldn't be linking to things just because it is available. The links should be adding something to the article. In the links to be avoided section #13 says that links that are only indirectly related to the subject of the article should be avoided. This link does not discuss the EPA at all, it discusses an organization that represents people that work for the EPA. If an article is created about the National Treasury Employees Union then a See also would be appropriate but this link does not belong in the article, it does not add to the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hereherer already tried to create a topic for NTEU/EPA and it was deleted. Tedickey (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I missed that earlier. I think that explains a little more about the push to keep the link in the page. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. (I don't see a useful pattern in the fluoridation edits...) Tedickey (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
NTEU 280 certainly should be mentioned in the EPA article. Treating it like random graffiti is simply absurd. NTEU 280 represents EPA’s researchers, and strives to reduce politically-motivated interface in their scientific work. This is obviously relevant to an article about EPA, particularly since the article includes criticism. The “Barriers to enforcing environmental justice” section is also crucial to understanding that EPA’s failings did not occur in a vacuum, but were the result of a protracted, well-organized assault on EPA’s authority by a succession of administrations determined to promote growth at any cost. The best-known example is Bush II’s administration, which not only gutted EPA but blatantly suppressed its findings to the point of public scandal. The many consequences include EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gases until it was forced to do so by the U.S. Supreme Court (Mass v. EPA, 2007). It is uncertain how quickly and to what degree EPA will recover its previous effectiveness. This recovery is crucial given the stunning urgency of climate change and the large extent to which U.S. policy affects worldwide mitigation efforts. NTEU 280 plays an important role in the struggle to revive EPA, not only by protecting scientists and their work, but by asking the right questions, such as “How can empowering and protecting science and scientists in federal agencies help not just America but the world survive these challenges? How can government institutions employ science in a new and better way that will allow our collective intellect to bring us through to a future worth living instead of a new Dark Age?”[1] I would not have discovered the importance of NTEU 280 were in not for this talk page. Hiding this connection does a great disservice to those Wikipedia users interested in understanding EPA’s strategy for what has already become the greatest environmental crisis humans have ever faced. Victimofleisure (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC) [1] Protecting Federal Sector Scientists; NTEU Speech On Scientific Integrity by J. William Hirzy, Ph.D., July 11, 2008
The point you're making is that this topic should reflect the special interests of NTEU and its members. Perhaps if there's enough reliable sources (aside from primary sources...), a topic could be written for NTEU itself. TEDickey (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually my point is that the NTEU 280’s criticisms of EPA are relevant because they substantiate and contextualize points that are already included in the article. It’s well-known that the results of EPA studies on climate change were watered down or entirely suppressed by the Bush II administration, and possibly by also the Obama administration [1]. This is especially topical since EPA lost Mass vs. EPA and is being forced against its will to regulate greenhouse gasses as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The issue is already mentioned in the EPA article, in the "Controversies" section, under "Global Warming." Until very recently the EPA maintained an official climate change policy of skepticism and foot-dragging despite the vehement public objections of its own scientists. The article presents this scandal as if it occurred in a vacuum, but in fact it flowed predictably from a long-standing conscious decision to favor economic growth over sound science. In Herbert Needleman’s words, "For far too long in the federal sector, science and the policies flowing from it, have been held hostage to the ethos of commerce." [2] NTEU 280 is uniquely qualified to be a primary source for "Barriers to enforcing environmental justice" because its membership includes the very scientists whose research was and continues to be altered and suppressed. [1] Suppressed EPA scientist breaks silence, speaks on Fox News, Washington Examiner, 6/29/09 [2] Needleman HL (2008) The Case of Deborah Rice: Who Is the Environmental Protection Agency Protecting? Victimofleisure (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Summarizing your comment, NTEU requires a website to promote its interests, and you feel this is a good place to start. TEDickey (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I said no such thing. The word "summarize" implies some relationship between the summary and the thing summarized. One possible summary might read: The "Barriers to enforcing environmental justice" section contributes valuable criticism of EPA to the article, and since by virtue of its membership NTEU 280 constitutes a crucial primary source for those criticisms, its web site should be linked to the article. Do you disagree with this statement? If so please provide substantive counterarguments instead of merely putting words in my mouth.Victimofleisure (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
You have a lot of words, certainly, and are making no other points than as I noted in my summary TEDickey (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I am with TEDickey on this. To make a relevant comparison, the article on the Environment Agency, which describes the English and Welsh body for environmental protection; which has around 13,000 employees so not that much smaller than the EPA; has no mention of union representation because it is not in any way germane to the subject. As a union member I would expect to see an article about my Union - which does indeed exist - but it would be wholly inappropriate to bundle a particular branch and its activities in with the Environment Agency article. I would agree that the EPA could have done a much more environmentally protective job, and I was also agree that the political climate in the USA does seem to be more harmful to the local and world environment than in many other developed countries, and I can further accept that the Union may have pressed this point. Well, I would have expected them to, but it doesn't make them encyclopaedic within this article. I can see no merit in the argument.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
In reference to the above comment, it's certainly germane, in the discussion of an organization, to mention that it has a union. That is an aspect of that organization. If you're referencing their page solely to say "EPA has a union" I don't see why that would not be allowable. This is different from expressing the union's viewpoint by directly linking their site.Jbower47 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a Fact that the EPA has a union and that information should be included in the article. Evidently someone has put the EPA Union's website on the Wikipedia blacklist so it can not be added to the article. The website is NTEU280 . org Why the EPA has a union for it's employees and the history of the union should be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.225.39 (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly - if the union itself is notable, there could be a WP:NPOV topic on it, for which a see-also would be useful. The union's website is easily demonstrated to be promotional, very far from NPOV, as evidenced by the comments made by its supporters on this discussion page. As usual, the topic should use mostly third-party sources TEDickey (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this conversation still going on? The EPA union site does not belong on the EPA page per WP:ELNO, period. It is promotional and indirectly related. You don't go to General Motor's Wikipedia entry and see links to the UAW homepage. The fact that the employees of a business are unionized does not make the union notable with regards to the business itself. There must be further criteria for notability or relevance. I am removing the most recent re-addition of the union's external link. Please stop adding it unless some notability criteria can be supplied. Bdc101 (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If the EPA union employees cannot provide any further notability criteria, their website will continue to be removed from the external links. This link is not appropriate per Wikipedia's external links policy (WP:EL) unless substantial notability can be proved. Adding the link back in without providing said criteria will be treated as advertising and vandalism. Bdc101 (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Move request

A discussion is underway at Talk:EPA (disambiguation)#Requested move (second nomination) which would move that article to EPA, which currently redirects here. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry presidential campaign 2012 and Texas air quality

E.P.A. Is Longtime Favorite Target for Perry by John M. Broder and Kate Galbraith in September 29, 2011 NYT, regarding Rick Perry related to the Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012.

99.119.128.249 (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Why the GOP Is Going After the EPA

"Republican lawmakers aim to cut back or even abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, even though it pays for itself. " Why the GOP Is Going After the EPA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.46.251 (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this related to black carbon? 99.35.15.199 (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

potential resource WSJ

The Hidden Toll of Traffic Jams "Scientists Increasingly Link Vehicle Exhaust With Brain-Cell Damage, Higher Rates of Autism" November 8, 2011 by Robert Lee Hotz in the Wall Street Journal. See Traffic congestion, potential Fossil-fuel phase-out, fossil fuels, and Internal combustion engine; along with Planetary boundaries. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Vehicle exhaust 99.181.135.155 (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Resources

GOP freshmen return, resume effort to roll back regulations by Alan Gomez and Fredreka Schouten, USA Today ... excerpt

Other measures teed up for rapid action include efforts to roll back rules on emissions from coal-fired power plants and other environmental regulations that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor recently slammed as "costly bureaucratic handcuffs … upon business people who want to create jobs." On Friday, President Obama decided not to raise the federal ozone standards for air pollution, saying, "I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover." ... "Everywhere I go, I hear about some kind of regulatory issue," added Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va. He's behind a bipartisan measure that would delay EPA air-pollution rules for thousands of industrial boilers. EPA officials say the new standards will save 2,600 lives a year, avert 4,100 heart attacks and 42,000 asthma attacks. ... Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, called the Republican push "more about partisan ideology than jobs."

64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And related "Do environmental regulations kill jobs?" A Debate Arises on Job Creation and Environment by Motoko Rich and John Broder, published: September 4, 2011 in NYT. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

See related discussion on Talk:Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and potentially on Talk:Tea Party movement # Get the Energy Sector off the Dole 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This might be more generally related: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0916/For-job-creation-is-government-a-help-or-hindrance 141.218.36.50 (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is a better link; For job creation, is government a help or hindrance? "The dueling job-creation plans that President Obama and GOP figures have rolled out are feeding into a broader debate about what role the US government should play in the economy." by Mark Trumbull, September 16, 2011 in The Christian Science Monitor. 99.109.126.73 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Another, later Is the EPA really a 'jobs killer'? "For Republicans, the EPA ranks up there with the IRS as one of the most-reviled agencies in Washington, calling it a 'jobs killer.' The record of the Obama EPA, though, is more nuanced." by Mark Clayton, CSM, November 22, 2011 99.181.141.143 (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


List of EPA administrators

I've been reading through all of the Independent Agencies attached to the US executive branch, and the branches of the EOP, and most have a section like this which really simplifies research. I'm wondering if it should be split into two columns, or maybe have the pictures removed. Then it wouldn't take so much space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.5.151.246 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest splitting off the list into a separate article. That would be even better. There's been such a recommendation posted in the article since October 2010. Moreau1 (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

potential WSJ resource, regarding Law enforcement agency

99.181.137.218 (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/e-p-a-announces-mercury-limits/ December 21, 2011, 2:00 pm E.P.A. Issues Limits on Mercury Emissions by John M. Broder

See related Climate change policy of the United States 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Saw this on Talk:Energy policy of the United States#potential resource_2, which appears related ... Would EPA air-pollution rules lead to massive blackouts? Feds weigh in. "Energy-industry groups said that new EPA air-pollution rules could threaten the reliability of the American power grid. The Energy Department countered that claim with its own report Thursday." by Mark Clayton csmonitor.com December 1, 2011
99.181.132.91 (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal resources

  • The Coal Age Nears Its End DECEMBER 23, 2011 by Rebecca Smith, (page B1 & B2 in print) excerpt ...

    Their owners cite a raft of new air-pollution regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, including a rule released Wednesday that limits mercury and other emissions, for the shut-downs. But energy experts say there is an even bigger reason coal plants are losing out: cheap and abundant natural gas, which is booming thanks to a surge in production from shale-rock formations in the U.S.

  • Upgrade Costs Doom Older Plants DECEMBER 23, 2011, excerpt ...

    The EPA is working on more rules that will affect coal-burners like Beckjord, including one intended to prevent coal-ash toxins from polluting water supplies. Beckjord's site near the Ohio River holds so much coal waste that if it were possible to stack it all on a one-acre lot, the pile would rise 1,750 feet in the air, or to a level three times as tall as the Washington Monument. Duke says it doesn't yet know what it will do with the waste when Beckjord closes.

99.190.85.17 (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource

Regarding United States Environmental Protection Agency#Mercury emissions E.P.A. Issues Limits on Mercury Emissions by John M. Broder December 21, 2011, 2:00 PM New York Times “By cutting emissions that are linked to developmental disorders and respiratory illnesses like asthma, these standards represent a major victory for clean air and public health,” the agency’s director says.

99.190.86.5 (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal resource

EPA Sets Cuts in Plant Emissions; Reductions in Pollutant Discharges Rile Many Utilities, Manufacturers 22.December.2011 by Ryan Tracy and Deborah Solomon; excerpt ...

The Obama administration, eager to shore up environmental support ahead of the 2012 presidential election, moved ahead with an air quality rule that drew swift criticism from utilities, manufacturers, and Republican lawmakers. The rule would require deep cuts in emissions of mercury, acid gases and soot from coal-fired power plants and is likely to help reshape the industry as companies turn off old plants and decide whether to clean up existing ones or switch to cleaner-burning fuels such as natural gas. It will cost about $9.6 billion annually to implement but will provide substantially more in health benefits each year, including ...

99.190.86.5 (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

EPA acts to make air cleaner; New rules force oil-, coal-fired power plants to lower pollutants periling health, December 22, 2011 by Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; excerpt ...

Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a coalition of utilities that lobbies on electric power issues in Washington, D.C., and Steve Miller, president and chief executive officer of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said the EPA's rules will increase the cost of power, cause job losses, and have few health benefits.

99.181.153.29 (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is more ... A Coal-Fired Plant That Is Eager for U.S. Rules by MATTHEW L. WALD published New York Times January 5, 2012; excerpt ...

The company, Constellation Energy, says it is an issue of fairness. A little more than two years ago, it completed an $885 million installation that has vastly reduced emissions from two giant coal-burning units at its Brandon Shores plant here, within view of the city’s downtown office towers.

99.190.80.182 (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal resource

Justices Appear Likely to Blunt EPA Tool 10.January.2012 by Jess Bravin

See Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why was this "Greenhouse gas emissions" section removed?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution under the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”) for the first time on January 2, 2011. Standards for mobile sources have been established pursuant to Section 202 of the CAA, and GHGs from stationary sources are controlled under the authority of Part C of Title I of the Act. See the page Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act for further information. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no indication in the text that it is controversial. Lacking that, it should be removed, since it does not add to the section TEDickey (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Made Special:Contributions/216.250.156.66 contribution visible. Good catch! Special:Contributions/159.1.15.87 was section blanking, Special:Contributions/Tedickey. 99.35.12.74 (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Removed. It shouldn't there in the article, and I really don't think it belongs anywhere in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no concesus for that Arthur. What is your reason, as this is very newsworthy and important. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "concesus", there appears to be one anonymous editor disputing the inclusion of some relatively benign text in the "Controversies" section with more than one other editor who haven't been informed what the point is TEDickey (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Awkward wording, also obfuscates Nixon role as having created the EPA by executive order

The administrative tool of an "executive order" is a significant one for the president. The current intro for this article seems to be spinning the creation of the EPA into something different. The EPA was established by Nixon's executive order. I've already made the one very minor change, removing the awkward wording. I'll make sure we still have a link to the other wiki article describing the order. However, there are some other questionable aspects of the intro that remain and I'd like other editors to comment.

  1. "was proposed by President Richard Nixon" - this phrase should be removed. The actual history is that Nixon created it by executive order.
  2. "order was ratified by committee hearings" this phrase should be removed. What could possibly be the context of "ratified" here? Congress writes laws, the President can veto them. Congress does not ratify an executive order. This is nonsensical and / or misleading.

Of course, if anyone can relate references to substantiate either assertion as they now appear, from a reliable source then please add such to this discussion.

--Knowsetfree (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Importance Assessment - Low

I disagree with the recent assessment of this article as of low importance for the Wikiproject Environment. Regardless of agreement or disagreement of the actions of the US EPA, there is no doubt the subject of this article is important, not just to the US, but to the entire globe. I would like to see a consensus to raise the importance of this article to a high level of importance. Also, simply because this article is about a US federal agency does not a priori make it a US centric article. WVhybrid (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the reason this was rated "low" was because the agency does a piss poor job of protecting the environment. Perhaps they should change the name to Industry Protection Agency. And, not a word about neonicotinoids (their latest failure) in this article. Along with the FDA, they are both embarrassments. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Train wreck...

This has got to be one of the worst WP articles I've ever read. The history section reads like a high school paper that deserved an "F". None of it is referenced. It would be a good one for a new editor to take on as a project. There is some info here: [2] Gandydancer (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


I think the list of legislation is a particularly weak part of this article. One improvement could be to move this list in to the article List of United States federal environmental statutes and leave a link in it's place. I may try to work on making that move as my next wiki project. Any opinions would be welcome. WVhybrid (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


It's pretty bad. The "Controversy" section reads like a "Criticisms" section, and seems to have a Michael Moore style to it. Not encyclopedic. --Lacarids (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo of the headquarters renaming ceremony

I tried to attend the headquarters renaming ceremony with camera in hand but I was told that I was not on the list. I had contacted the press office before hand, showed up at the South entrance, and was told I could not attend because I was not on the list. It would have been a great picture but alas to no avail. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you intended to blow the building up with your camera...I suppose we're both on some sort of list now... Gandydancer (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Please justify reversion

Tom, please justify your reversion of the of section on collusion. In what way are E&E 'not neutural' and why is an allegation of so serious a nature not notable? Since the whole import of the allegation is one of non-neutrality by the EPA, you seem to be accusing E&E of the same offence which they have exposed, as if that somehow exonerates the EPA. Which of course it does not. Verifiable evidence is verifiable evidence, regardless of the neutrality or otherwise of the source. --Anteaus (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

E&E are absolutely "not neutral" because they are the American Tradition Institute - "part of a broader network of groups with close ties to energy interests that have long fought greenhouse gas regulation" - under a different name: "The American Tradition Institute’s foray into the Virginia case marks the expansion of a controversial group already known for its fierce advocacy on behalf of oil, gas and coal interests in Western states.The American Tradition Institute was launched in Colorado in February 2009 as the nonprofit Western Tradition Institute, changing its name to ATI last year. WTI, in turn, was a spinoff of the Western Tradition Partnership (WTP) -- a 501(c)(4) political advocacy group backed by energy interests."[3] See also this report from The Guardian which names Horner as the director of the "ultra-conservative" group's environmental law centre: "Rightwing US thinktank uses FoI laws to pursue climate scientists". Keri (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If there is any merit to E&E's claims, this will no doubt play out in multiple, reliable, 3rd-party sources, at which point the inclusion of the claims can be revisited. Keri (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as EE's position goes, as a legal firm they are permitted to accept finance from corporate interests, provided that they do not accept remuneration from both sides of an adversarial case. There is therefore nothing illegal or improper about their being supported by fossil fuel interests. The EPA on the other hand is a government body, and such is bound by rules which forbid it to engage in negotiations with organisations which stand to benefit from its policymaking. Thus if the EPA is indeed colluding with renewable energy promoters to shape legislation for their benefit, then this is both unethical, and illegal.
As for EE's claims 'playing out' that will not happen if accessories to the alleged malpractice succeed in silencing their voice.
From the above it is perfectly clear that your objections are ideological in nature rather than factual, in that you believe the use of fossil fuels to be bad regardless of legal status, and the promotion of renewables to be legitimate even when that promotion is done by illegal methods. I would therefore point out that the promotion of an ideology by way of selective edits, etc is against Wikipedia rules.--Anteaus (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. I seem to recall E&E were saying something similar in September last year - and the EPA's rebuttal was that E&E had cherry picked a handful of consultations from some 5,000 such consultations with various groups across a wide spectrum of opinion. If this claim by E&E turns out to demonstrate illegal activity I'm sure it will be reported as such in multiple, reliable 3rd party sources.
  2. My objections are far from ideological; they are because E&E is a very well-known ultra-conservative advocacy group, and therefore not by any measure "neutral"; they are also possibly WP:FRINGE.
  3. I have not mentioned my own personal beliefs viz fossil fuels, renewables, or my personal "ideology" in these matters. You are acting with bad faith and bordering on ad hominem. Keri (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Keri, you were not the one who deleted my edit, and you didn't have to chip in. If you do so though, you must expect to be criticised for supporting the deleter. You are also missing my point, which is that I don't care what pigeonhole you put EE in, they are presenting a well-reasoned argument with reliable references. That is ALL that matters. If the material is properly and reliably referenced, then it is suitable for Wikipedia. I might add that by contrast there are countless Wikipedia pages relating to renewable energy on which almost all cites are to renewables vendor advertising material, and none of which verify the claims made for the product in the slightest way whatsoever. How come that doesn't get deleted for violating Wiki rules on unsubstantiated self-promoting material? Pot, kettle, black. --Anteaus (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Anteaus, please check WP policy re sources. Your source is not acceptable. Gandydancer (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Whether I deleted the edit or not is immaterial: this is how we find consensus. And by doing so I don't expect - and shouldn't expect - to be "criticised for supporting the deleter". I expect to be involved in a discussion based around WP's policies and guidelines, not based around whether I do or do not support renewable energies. As for your whataboutery concerning other articles, it is completely irrelevant to this article and this discussion. WP:SOFIXIT applies. With regard to "pigeonholing" E&E, you are missing the point: they are not a neutral, reliable 3rd party source. Keri (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

To DO list,

I have added this page to my to o list, right after Love Canal. I'll be finishing up ediitng of this. within 3 weeks. Winterysteppe (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States Environmental Protection Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Environmental Protection Agency. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete/out of date information under "Trump controversy"

The page does not mention anything about the current administration's freeze on EPA funding, which would be useful to include in the section on Trump-related controversy. More information would probably also be helpful detailing statements made by Trump, his campaign and his transition team regarding context instead of only mentioning the restriction on social media. I also think that the quote about the controversy being "overblown" could use some more neutrality (other sources?) and better framing. Agoetz (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant or unimportant sections, lack of neutrality

The long, disjointed lists of programs, offices and controversies distract from the content of the article particularly as a result of their length relative to the rest of the article and their placement before other more relevant sections. There also seems to be poor categorizing between "programs" and "controversies" such as criticism of the EPA's efficacy at addressing environmental justice issues in the "programs" section despite this not being an actual EPA program. Some of the listed controversies and programs are also framed in very one-sided ways and could use much more neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agoetz (talk • contribs) 05:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Agoetz; could you specify what controversies are not neutral and in what way? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on United States Environmental Protection Agency. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Collusion with Monsanto section

My addition was removed with this reasoning: (Undo edit warring of content failing to gain traction on other pages (and against the intent of GMO's 1RR restriction). Please follow WP:BRD for edits not gaining consensus. WP:NPOV is also far from a new "rule", and this edit had multiple issues.)

In the first place, it appears to me that if anyone was doing edit warring it was Kingofaces43 and not I. This addition is not biased and is a perfectly appropriate issue to include in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

First, please remember that you've been notified already about expectations in this DS subject. That's all the more I'll comment on editor behavior. On the content, part of the problem we've been discussing as other pages you're inserting similar content is that an ongoing lawsuit generally isn't reliable for much more than the fact there is a lawsuit. Claimants will often try to stretch claims as well has have valid ones, so you really need the court to weight that. That especially applies when you opposing sides both with financial interests in play. Often times, newspapers will reiterate the claims, but that is not sufficient for WP:WEIGHT. The same would apply if we were instead showcasing primarily Monsanto's arguments against someone else in another case.
What's specific to this iteration were the major NPOV issues though. It shouldn't come as any surprise that collusion is often a WP:WEASEL word and requires very definite sourcing. It's highly concerning that nothing mentioning collusion was even in the sources, which makes it a rather poor violation of WP:OR and WP:BLP as well. It's one thing for an official to contact an interested party and tell them the direction the official is looking to go on a topic (which generally does not meet WEIGHT) compared to actual collusion, but it's another for us as editors to fill in the gaps with our own narrative and leading language to insinuate collusion. This kind of information needs to be sourced.
Past the main issue, the NYT, primarily Danny Hakim's writing, does not have a reputation for fact checking or appropriate scope on agricultural issues based on comments by multiple academics and others in the agriculture.[4]. A similar case goes for the Guardian where that one also needs to be used with caution on agricultural related topics whenever GMOs and pesticides come up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Your position that we do not use information on lawsuits till a decision is achieved is not accurate. See for example the BP spill page or the Chevron article.

Regarding your decision, based on one Forbes article, that the NYT is not an acceptable source for fact checking or appropriate scope on agricultural issues, of course one always tries to use good faith but in this case it is very difficult. You say, "the NYT, primarily Danny Hakim's writing, does not have a reputation for fact checking or appropriate scope on agricultural issues based on comments by multiple academics and others in the agriculture." And you offer an opinion piece written by to back this statement.

Here are a few things we know about her: "In 2017, Forbes deleted several articles co-bylined by Senapathy and Henry I. Miller, a Hoover Institution fellow, following revelations that Monsanto ghostwrote an article Miller published under his own name in Forbes. Forbes also removed at least one of Senapathy’s solo pieces, an Aug. 17 article about transparency."[5]

Looking at author Kavin Senapathy's opinion piece in Forbes entitled,"Experts Slam New York Times Hack Job On GMOs" and looking at the experts that she uses to base her opinion on we find:

  • Kevin Folta, chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida, began to correspond regularly with executives at Monsanto in early 2013. He soon teamed up with the company and other industry representatives to defend their genetically engineered crop technologies as they lobbied Congress and other government authorities. [6]
  • Henry I. Miller The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. It was later removed.[7]
  • Dr. Andrew Kniss Associate professor of weed biology and ecology, writes at the Weed Control Freaks blog.
  • Dr. Jayson Lusk who wrote a criticism of the NYT article written by Hakim on his blog.

You also claim that the Guardian is not an acceptable source. You give no information on why this might be reasonable. If you continue to object to these sources I will need to take this issue to our RS help page. Gandydancer (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we weight expert opinion when the question of reliable sources come up. Senapathy is well known for directly addressing WP:FRINGE aspects in agricultural science as well those being cited such as as Folta and Kniss. Again, trying to paint BLP's, especially independent experts, as colluding with a company is extremely concerning (especially the irony in also citing something like USRTK) as you are doing on the talk page as well now. As for the rest, I never said completed lawsuits cannot be used as sources. Please be more wary about further BLP violations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I struck the RTK site, however I think that it's fair to note that you removed the HUffpost/Gillam information that I added to the glyphosate article in part because "Gilliam shouldn't have been even considered since she markets books on Roundup and cancer" and yet you now suggest that Senapathy, who comes from the other side of the GMO debate fence, is so good that she can, in one Forbes article, make a case against the NYT that is so strong that it can convince Wikipedia editors that the NYT is not a credible source for our agricultural issues. As for your extreme concern that I am "trying to paint BLP's, especially independent experts, as colluding with a company, that is not something that I am doing, the EPA Jess Rowland/Monsanto emails are well-documented and have been covered by numerous news article. Yes, it does make Jess Rowland look bad but sometimes that happens. For example, looking back at our BP article I found this information from this source: [8]. That was, incidently a couple of years before the final settlement. No editor suggested that WP does not include lawsuit information till a settlement has been reached and there were hundreds of eyes on the BP article. So yes, you are correct, you never said completed lawsuits cannot be used as sources, but you have been saying for years that Monsanto lawsuits can't be in our Monsanto articles till the lawsuit is settled. Gandydancer (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Environmental Protection Agency. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Related legislation" section

This section is unnecessarily long and confusing. EPA has no lead role in any of the "Land" statutes listed, and has a limited role in the cited "Endangered species" statutes. Some of the laws listed are merely amendments to previous laws. It's not necessary to list all the amendments here--and there have been many other amendments which are not currently listed. The amendments can (or should) be found in their respective articles. Additionally, two of the "Other" laws are major EPA programs: FIFRA (pesticides) and TSCA (chemical manufacturing/usage); those should be placed in a new subsection. I plan to revise the section to focus on the statutes where EPA has major responsibilities: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, Superfund, etc. Moreau1 (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Moreau1 (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Independent

Some editor in Aug 2019 placed a "Dubious" Wikipedia tag next to the phrase "independent agency" in the first sentence. But that tag is an error.

The phrase "independent agency" is a Wikipedia link to an article that explains that in the context of the United States Federal government it is a technical term with a legal definition that differs from the meaning in other contexts. The phrase "independent agency" in the context of the article, by law, means agencies that exist outside the Federal Executive Departments which are those headed by a Secretary, or outside the Executive Office of the President.[1]

Thus that phrase is not "dubious" because it states a factual matter of United States Federal Law, and not an opinion of the editor about the relationship of the agency to the Executive Branch. Nick Beeson (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

preview page problem

The preview pages for the EPA page have a problem. See for example: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt I don't know how to investigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.15.57 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ Shane, Peter, Merrill, Richard; Mashaw, Jerry (2003), Administrative Law: The American Public Law Process pp.228-29, Thomson-West: ISBN 978-0-314-14425-6 "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-07-16. Retrieved 2009-02-01.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency/Archive_1&oldid=1223961405"