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 where 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)