Talk:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Draft

This article was written from scratch

I wrote this article from scratch without any referring to the Wikipedia article of the same title. If there are any sentences that seem to have come from the Wikipedia article, then they are only coincidences.

I depended completely upon (a) my own 20 years of experience working as a consultant in the environmental protection field and (b) the many online references listed in the article. - Milton Beychok 01:59, 29 January 2008 (CST)

article organization

Would it be appropriate to place the "major laws" section above the "organization" section? I would think that most people interested in the EPA would be more interested in what it does, rather than how it is organized. The "major laws" section could be fleshed out with some description of how it enforces those laws, and perhaps some high profile cases; the "organization" section should perhaps refer to the agencies which were consolidated into the EPA, and how their duties were distributed. Anthony Argyriou 13:16, 31 January 2008 (CST)

I agree that relocating the "major laws" ahead of "organization" is a good idea and will do it immediately. However, fleshing out the two sections will take quite a bit of research ... and I may not get to it for quite some time. Perhaps, some other editors may do some of that. Regards, - Milton Beychok 14:53, 31 January 2008 (CST)

I might also add that it is difficult to flesh out most of the major laws in a few paragraphs. They really need to be written up as stand-alone articles, for example: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), and others. - Milton Beychok 15:05, 31 January 2008 (CST)

What is here is good; questions about other coverage

Let me first explain that I am coming from this from having seen the talk page correspondence about approval. As an Engineering editor, I may be able to help. That said, some caveats and comments.

What is here is quite reasonable. Simply from my own areas of working with EPA, however, I would like to see either a little more material in this articles, or links to new articles, about the areas I see increasingly significant work. I may need to read up further on how "Topic Informant" fits into all this, since that may be another hat that I wear.

For an overview, around 1980-1981, I architected EPA's first national data communications network, which gave me exposure, albeit dated, to the overall agency. I'm doing some household reorganization and moving, and was amused to find my old EPA building pass...I seemed so young at the time.

Subsequently, I have been involved with EPA emergency management work, especially with the Incident Command System/National Incident Management System/National Response Plan aspects of toxic spills, as tracked in the TOPOFF series of command post exercises. My involvement was as designer of some field hospital/laboratories that drew from TOPOFF and other ICS work. I do have assorted FEMA ICS certifications. In particular, the EPA's toxic plume model is increasingly used in near-real-time disaster planning; it was the key tool (of several) used in TOPOFF2, which was a simulation of a radiological "dirty bomb" at Boeing Field. The Department of Energy, Coast Guard, and other agencies are deferring to EPA expertise in this area; the relationship of the Coast Guard, other parts of Homeland Security, and EPA, in incidents involving toxic chemicals or radioactive contamination, is quite complex. Should the article be expanded in this area or can it be approved if it links to topic articles?

Also, I'm currently involved in proposing a niche biodiesel project, where EPA approval is the key regulatory factor for any fuel sales in the U.S., even in a not-for-profit cooperative such as we plan. Given the drive for sustainable energy an the rapidly increasing petroleum costs, this is an area that should be mentioned in the article, if not detailed.

I can take on some of these other articles, but am not sure how they relate to the EPA article approval issues. Howard C. Berkowitz 06:15, 7 June 2008 (CDT)

Howard, thanks for responding. If you believe that the article needs some new sections or subsections, please write them up here on this talk page. If you edit the article itself, then you will no longer be eligible for nominating the article for approval. But, if you write them up here, then either I or Richard Jensen can take your sections (and perhaps copy edit them or revise them somewhat to fit in with the current article's style) and add them into the article itself ... leaving you eligible to nominate the the article for approval, assuming you wish to do so. - Milton Beychok 09:23, 7 June 2008 (CDT)

Howard, if you feel that other stand-alone articles about some of the EPA programs would be useful or desirable, then go ahead and create them. We can always include them in the "Related articles" subpage of this article ... and your stand-alone articles could list this article in their "Related articles" subpages. - Milton Beychok 09:31, 7 June 2008 (CDT)

I just asked User talk:Anthony Argyriou to set up the approvals. Richard Jensen 21:07, 7 June 2008 (CDT)

I see two and possibly three areas where the article needs supplementation, even if not much more than a few paragraphs linking to other articles. One variously is incident management/disaster response/emergency response, another is economic impact of environmental regulation, and a third is a substantial research activity.

Under the U.S. National Response Framework (formerly the National Response Plan) [policy level, with National Incident Management System (NIMS) at the operational level, EPA is the lead Federal coordinating agency (a term of art) for several classes of incident. For others, DHS/FEMA, possibly DHS/Coast Guard, or FBI may be the coordinating agency with EPA being both a direct support agency and also a coordinator of scientific response. I make no argument that the rules are complex, as, for example, EPA sending its Radiological Emergency Response Team(s) for an actual contamination incident, with Energy and possibly military in support. If there is a threatened nuclear or radiological incident, DOE's Nuclear Emergency Search Teams go in first. A variety of agencies and laboratories produce toxic plume models, but EPA was the main guide in the TOPOFF command post exercises, with weather and remote viewing people in support.

Under the economics, the effect of EPA on the availability and cost of fuels, and to some extent vehicles, cannot be overemphasized. In working with biodiesel, I'm learning that EPA is the agency that will or will not approve our proposals (or at least allow us to supply fuel, even to cooperative members). Howard C. Berkowitz 09:30, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

Howard, as I said before, please write whatever additional paragraphs or sections that you feel are needed and present them on this Talk page so that either Richard Jensen or I can then copy edit them and put them into the article ... leaving you free to nominate the article for approval, if you so desire.

I worked for and against the EPA for over thirty years, but it was all in the EPA's regulatory areas of air pollution and wastewater treatment. I just don't have the expertise that you have in the field of the EPA's incident management/emergence response or knowledge about their research activities. So please go ahead with your writeups. Thanks, - Milton Beychok 10:59, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

Rename?

Hi, did you all want this moved to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? J. Noel Chiappa 05:25, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

Noel, if you will look at the official seal of the EPA which is at the top right of this article, it can be seen that they call themselves the United States Environmental Protection Agency. That seal is on their main website at http://www.epa.gov. So for the time being, at least, I think we should not change the article name. I know that this is being discussed currently on the forums and we should wait until that discussion shakes out and reaches a consensus.

Meanwhile, I will make sure that we have redirects for "U.S. EPA", "U.S.A. EPA" and "EPA". - Milton Beychok 10:44, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

the official name of the agency has always been "Environmental Protection Agency" see Nixon's 1970 message to Congress; it was created by Nixon's executive order and not by any act of Congress. see history The U.S. is a disambiguation term and is not part of the name. The agency on its web site calls itself the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I suggest this is the place to discuss the name of this specific article, as the forums discuss very general issues that affect hundreds of articles). Richard Jensen 11:47, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

Richard, since you are the historian expert among us, I would agree that the name be changed to "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency". If that is okay by you, then I will ask Noel Chiappa to make the name change for us. Are you agreeable with that? - Milton Beychok 12:55, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

Richard, now you have confused me. Just above you said The agency on its web site calls itself the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and I agreed that name was okay by me. But then you revised the name to just the Environmental Protection Agency without any further ado or cooperative discussion. Would you please explain? Thanks, Milton Beychok 15:42, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

my apologies for the confusion. The official name of the agency is "Environmental Protection Agency," and that is used on all official documents. There are other state and European agencies with the same name so it uses the informal term "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency" on its website. I agree we should use "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency" as the CZ article title. Inside our article we can call it Environmental Protection Agency or EPA and no one will get confused with the agencies in Sweden or Montenegro or California.Richard Jensen 21:14, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

That's done. I just left a message on Noel Chiappa's Talk page asking him to rename the article U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and to move the entire cluster (subpages, Metadata page, Aproval page) to that new name. Thanks again for your cooperation. Milton Beychok 22:17, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

Approval

I agree with Milton that we can get the approval process started. The approved article can then be expanded--there's a lot more to say and we have some experts on board who can get the job done. Richard Jensen 01:19, 9 June 2008 (CDT)

APPROVED Version 1.0

Approval complete! It includes one copyedit placed after the approved version. --D. Matt Innis 08:54, 17 June 2008 (CDT)

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

Congratulations, and moving forward

First, congratulations to all! This is a mildly nostalgic article, as I recently found, while going through boxes of books, a 28-year-old EPA building pass. I was so young...

I'm quite willing to start an article about EPA's emergency roles. Question: how familiar are people, working on the environmental material, with the National Response Framework/Plan, Incident Command System, and Nationa Incident Management System? Would it be preferable to have those as background first, to give the policy and management context for the technical emergency actions?

Howard C. Berkowitz 10:48, 17 June 2008 (CDT)

Howard suggests a great article. I suggest it be separate...eventually there will be numerous articles related to EPA. Richard Jensen 15:14, 17 June 2008 (CDT)

Title (again)

I suggest United States Environmental Protection Agency, which is what it says on their seal and at the top of the official website. It seems the legal name is just 'Environmental Protection Agency' but that the EPA commonly adds 'United States' as a form of disambiguation. That would also make Environmental Protection Agency (United States) a possibility. There is an earlier discussion about this above under Rename?. John Stephenson 17:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)