MAKE A CALL

LEO BYFORD
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
PHONE 1-918-622-6413
CELL 1-918-902-5730
FAX 1-918-622-7066
FERRUARY 22, 2008
MAKE A CALL
PAGE 7
What a day in history for superfund sites and for the families and children living within the Tar Creek Super Fund Site. I would like to congratulate Senator Inhofe for his efforts of making this day happen. I do not know if what I have done with statements/letters or at the public meeting August 28, 2007, or the Federal Lawsuit that I have filed, if this has made any difference with the EPA deciding to finally support the buyout or doing what the laws says or what should have been done since this superfund site was established or if this was what Senator Inhofe needed to make this happen. If the lawsuit was needed to bring EPA to the decision to support the buyout and the lawsuit was needed to accomplish what the Senator Inhofe has been trying to do, I was glad to help. I am not trying to steal Senator Inhofe thunder, my issues are with the EPA and the laws that Congress has in place to protect each of us from contaminated materials, superfund sites, correcting Tar Creek and the Tri State Mining District, not with Senator Inhofe, but it would be nice if I had his support.
In my heart, I believe that this was the only way EPA could go into Federal Court, without having EGG on their face. I would call this damage control by EPA. I am not trying to take credit or take anything away from Senator Inhofe. I do think it is very interesting that since the EPA has been served with a Federal Lawsuit, addressing many issues and violations at Tar Creek, that this announcement and support, that has now taken place, the EPA is now trying to be good guys. I also think it is interesting that I no longer have access to the home page or any of the other EPA web sites through the internet. This lawsuit is not going away, nor am I. If any one has any doubts about the long arm of government, take a lesson. We are going to find out just how far government will go to stop this lawsuit, what control government has over the media and our courts and why. Ask yourself why none of the MAKE A CALL letters have never made the news media, they do have copies. I have said many times this is no longer just about Tar Creek and the buyout, but about protecting the families and children from hazardous materials at superfund sites. This is about what one person in Federal Court taking a position of demonstrating and proving what the Congressional laws says and what EPA is suppose to be doing (or should I say not doing) under federal laws. This is also about using innovative technology to permanently closing many Superfund sites (as EPA stated in the ROD for O U 4), saving valuable tax dollars and most importantly preventing the dangerous health effects on families and children from superfund sites and mine workings. This is about the EPA not wanting permanent solutions for superfund sites. I was taught as a Marine, to defend this country (whether the enemy is domestic or foreign) and the people, if this is another contribution I have to do to defending this country, well so be it. All that I have ever asked of EPA and other government agencies is for the opportunity to prove and provide my technology at Tar Creek and then continue to correct superfund sites issues, where applicable.
The media forget to tell one extremely important part of the so call master plan( as stated by Region 6 Administrator Richard Greene) for the commitment to permanently clean up Tar Creek. The tentative proposal (O U 4) is now called a Record of Decision (ROD) by EPA. The only difference between the tentative proposal and the now official O U 4 ROD is the support of the buyout by EPA to fund the buyout, whether the lawsuit brought this to a head or not, I do not know. It also does not make sense to me as why the EPA is willing to ask and to continue, for a total of 60 plus years of remediation, a total (possibly more) of $317 (estimated reports) millions of taxpayer dollars, on solutions that do not offer any permanent solutions (required by law) and this superfund site still not be taken off the NPL at the end of 60 plus years. What is really sad, this is not the only superfund site with issues and health concerns. What happens after the additional time EPA is saying they now need? If you any questions about the these statements read the ROD, issues about O U 4 and the job security for EPA and their Prime contractors, counting the waste of taxpayer money, all one has to do is read the now official O U 4 ROD. I did not expect to have a bonus of materials to present in my federal lawsuit.
I would also like to say that the announcement of the O U 4 ROD was a very special and pleasant surprise. I do not under stand why ETSI was mention, since I as an individual made the statements and no one else spoke about LAURA‘S MIX. I understand why the EPA is trying to make this a corporate issue and not an individual issue. I do understand the statement made in the ROD that I do not have proven documents for LAURA’S MIX. I do not understand why the mole, done by EPA, that was placed in EPA meetings, to gather secret and designed information was not mention or addressed as you said you would do and would be addressed in the ROD announcement. I would have thought that with all the meetings and communications with EPA, EPA would have come to the conclusion and understanding what site specific means. In case you (EPA) do not understand what site specific means, it means for a specific location. Since, there is not another superfund site location in the United States with the same issues, the same amount of toxic water, the same depths and size of mine workings it would be impossible to have proven documents to satisfy the EPA on the site specific formulations ( what works at one site may not work exactly the same at another and the formulation will have to be adjusted at each specific site) for a site location. This is one of the reasons why the Cost Free Pilot Project was offered to all of the agencies. It is really very simple, if LAURA’S MIX performs as designed, then we all can stand tall, but if LAURA’S MIX falls short of designed specifications, the only person that goes home with their tail between their legs is me and taxpayers do not take another hit to their pockets. The federal lawsuit would have not been filed, because I do know ( stated as comments from EPA representatives stating that and comments in meetings, with EPA, also stating that it is against the law to allow me to do a cost free pilot project at Tar Creek) how to correct the issues of superfund sites like Tar Creek and hazardous materials conditions and subsidence issues and a team of professionals supporting me, that can correct any problems that might arise instantly, not taking years of research and studies as demonstrated by EPA, it would not take 60 plus years to close this superfund as suggested by EPA (ROD for O U 4). I am not one of the good olde boys, I am one person who wants to improve the health and safety and the environment, provide jobs, to a very depress economy, improve living conditions and save valuable natural resources in Oklahoma and maybe the nation and put a stop to the madness. As far as I am concerned another 20 to 30 years, is unacceptable to me to start closing the Tar Creek Superfund Site, as stated in O U 4, when other options are available, also stated in the ROD for O U 4. It also seems to me that with the millions and millions of taxpayer dollars that have been spent at the Tar Creek superfund site, one would have thought that the EPA would have discovered or applied and would have produced ONE permanent solution. To those taxpayers and those effected by superfund sites, I would suggest that you, as an individual, read the laws as I have done, those who are having issues with the buyout please do the same. Then you will see why the media and the EPA has kept this information from you and the purpose for the MAKE A CALL letters and the Federal Lawsuit, you will find many of the answers, as I have done.