This paper does not have an author and is merely a report that discusses the overall topics of all superfund projects in 2004. Since the EPA published this and it’s being reported on by another source, there may be some bias in the wording maybe downplaying some failures and exaggerating on some of the positive effects. The strengths in this article is the data that was given, as well as addition of a potentially responsible party section in the report discusses how much companies actually paid to clean the site. Its weakness lies in the fact that some crucial point may have been left out. This information supports my thesis because I stated that the Gowanus Canal might not be sustainable because of the large amount of money that’s funded into it. In the data chart, potentially responsible parties paid for a pretty small amount of the total amount that was spent by other agencies combined. Because of the relevance in this article, this is a great source for my paper.
“EPA Publishes First Superfund Annual Report.” Hazardous Waste Consultant 24.2 (2006): 2.16-2.19. Business Source Complete. Web. 19 Oct. 2012.
http://ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=20193702&site=ehost-live
Looks like it could be useful for context – i.e. how many superfund sites are there in the U.S.? How much is spent on them per year, etc.