HERE IS SOMETHING YOU WILL NOT SEE IN THE MEDIA OR EPA REPORTS AND THEY ALL HAVE THIS


LEO BYFORD
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74135
PHONE 1-918-622-6413
CELL 1-918-902-5730 DIRECT
FAX 1-918-622-7066 DIRECT
JUNE 8, 2009
RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT
EPA Region 7
Contract Award # EP-S7-09-02
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
Deputy General
Mr. Bill Roderick
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. (2410T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Phone 1-202-566-2391
Fax 1-202-566-2549
Mr. Roderick,
Major problems facing our country—a foundering economy, a changing climate, a growing concern over the health and safety of families and children, government agencies that have an attitude of doing business as usual is acceptable and it is OK to not follow or ignore Congressional laws and seem to be confused to what the purpose of The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Labiality Act (CERCLA) is, commonly know as Superfund, is unacceptable. As a father, husband, grand-father, a great grand father and a Marine (Disabled), the obligation falls to citizens to bring to the Government’s attention and the public attention to de-faults and complaints of which are doing harm to citizens, wasting millions of tax dollars and not creating jobs and obligating citizens to do everything taxpayers and citizens can do following the laws to correct those faults and protect others, when government fails or simply ignores to follow Congressional Laws. One of the disturbing issues in this complaint is the fact that President Obama has told the nation before he was installed in the office of the President of the Unites States and after he took the Oath of the President’s office and along with the new Administrator Jackson stating that they wanted to create new jobs, green jobs and have New and Innovative Technology, energy products. I thought that since Region Six wrote to me stating that I needed to take new innovative technology developed for the Superfund Program and private industry, to take this technology to another market and NOT TO EPA, EPA is not interested. I thought that this was just a Regional Six (6) problem/issue, but after bidding a project (creating this complaint) in Region Seven (7) of the EPA, I can now see that it is not just Region 6, but maybe a national issue or maybe this is what they (EPA) has been instructed to do. We have already witnessed how EPA handles/handled one superfund (where this new technology will work) and how EPA has destroyed several towns, including many families, because of EPA not following the Federal laws and has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars. If you do not believe this, just have Region 6 provide you with just one successful pilot project that has been done in the last 20 plus years at the Tar Creek Superfund Site.
President Obama has stated and promised many times that he will provide citizens change in government and have an open and transparent government. We have placed our trust in the President and Congress to protect us from those who choose to not follow the federal laws or just choose to not care what federal laws says. The President placed at the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Lisa Jackson, which I was in hope that the President made a wise choice, but either the President made a poor choice, the EPA Administrator is just like the last one, or the EPA employees just do not care what the Congressional laws states and provides or what the President or the Administrator says about their promise to the people. I do not make the above statements lightly or unjustified. I think the question now becomes; Who does the nation trust now or believe in, if we are told one thing by our leaders and the federal laws says something else? I do not know how many people understand and know how the EPA reports to government officials, but for those who do not know the EPA reports directly to the President of the United States and Congress authorized the President to have direct control of the EPA and its decisions.
In the OIG Web site OIG states a complaint is to provide as much information and detail as I can, here is some of that information. Since I am limited on pages I can submit to the OIG in a complaint, I have tried to keep this complaint and information as short as possible.
A little background for those who may or may not understand CERCLA /The Superfund Program:
U.S. House of Representatives U.S.C -Title 42 Chapter 103 provides the laws for CERCLA. In the CERCLA overview it states that there is only two types of actions that can be done at a CERCLA site and listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). First stated is that Short - term removals may be taken to address releases (CERCLA 101(22) or threatened releases requiring prompt responses. Second states that Long - term remedial response action, that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers associated with releases (including LEACHING) or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not life threating. In the CERCLA Evaluation Criteria in the second step (Compliance with ARAR’s) of the Threshold Criteria it states, Alternatives that do not protect human health and the environment (CERCLA states under the term environment what environment is) or that do not comply with the ARAR’s (ARAR’s are the standards that the EPA sets for any type of remediation, these standard also have to comply with CERCLA laws 40 CFR 300.5) are eliminated from further consideration. These steps are written in a certain order as to prevent a suggested remedy from going to the next step of the Nine Step CERCLA process, that does not comply with Congressional laws including CERCLA laws and rules. You will also find in a Record of Decision (ROD) in the EPA cleanup process as to what the EPA has approved and is suppose to be following and also complies with Congressional and CERCLA laws. In the Development and Screening Alternatives, you will find in the Second step, EPA is suppose to identify potential treatment, resource recovery, and containment technologies that will satisfy the site and EPA objectives. In the Site reuse/redevelopment section of the EPA Cleanup process it states that the EPA’s goal is to make sure that at every cleanup site, the Agency and its partners have an effective process and the necessary tools and information to fully explore future uses, before the cleanup remedy is implemented. It also states that it gives the EPA the best opportunity for communities to productively use sites following cleanup. The TERM Remedial action refers to long-term permanent cleanups of CERCLA sites. In 40 CFR in the Feasibility Study (FS) is states that the Agency (EPA) must identify potential treatment and assemble technologies into alternatives and perform detailed analysis of alternatives. In 40 CFR it also provides other Congressional laws pertaining to CERCLA and what EPA is suppose and required/mandated to be following.
I am enclosing emails from EPA Region 7. You will notice that I am also the highest bidder. There were many factors that cause this high bid, because of major concerns that were not answered by EPA. I had asked for a mine map of the sites. EPA said that they did not have one. One of the reasons for this map is to know if there were any undercuts/mine workings under the Spring River, since the sites were next to the Spring River. My concern was since subsidence can be cause from materials collapsing , erosion, Capping or seismic activity or heavy loads created by machinery on the surface, or in the case of the most recent subsidence event, a above ground swimming pool in Joplin Missouri in a backyard, what happens if I cause a subsidence event under the Spring River or right next to the Spring River and I cause a detour of the Spring River to flow into abandon mine workings, that I do not have any idea where the mine workings goes to or connects to, what if it cannot be fixed to reestablish the river contour or flow, think the EPA, State of Kansas, the EPA Administrator, or the President will just say OOPS? These mines are decades old and the EPA has already stated the dangers of working at these sites and the existing subsidence pits already at these sites. In CERCLA and Congressional Law it says all solutions are to be permanent, CAPPING and DEED restrictions are not permanent. CERCLA does not allow for the permanence of a suggested remedy that is not permanent, but permanent solutions following Congressional and CERCLA laws. Capping allows leaching into the environment and Deed Restrictions do not return land back to a useful purpose, therefore neither are permanent. In the solicitation it says that EPA wants to haul contaminated waste material to another CERCLA site 12 miles away. CERCLA says that you cannot remove hazardous waste material from a CERCLA site. CERCLA says that any hazardous material has to be treated before disposal, you cannot just pushing hazardous waste into a hole and cover that waste over,(as EPA has done for years and continues to do and is solicited in this proposal). CERCLA says what a site consist of and the boundaries of that site, CERCLA does not allow for hazardous materials to be remove from a site to another site. The solicitation requested a plan to be submitted by the contractor and how the contractor will do the job. The ROD (Record of Decision) and the O U (Operable Unit) decision is suppose to provide/mandates the remedy and how it is to be applied. You will see that my company not only bid this solicitation following the Congressional law and CERCLA, but was the only company that offer permanent solutions that address the concerns of the solicitation, and also provided those permanent solutions (following Congressional and CERCLA Laws) at no extra cost to EPA. You will notice in the solicitation that any water pumped or to be removed from any subsidence pit is to be discharged back to the land upstream of this site. What person in their right mind, wants to recontamination the land or spread hazardous contaminates to uncontaminated land or cause contaminated water to return to their work site and work in a hazardous and contaminated mud hole or be discharged to the Spring River.. You will notice that the solicitation requires the contractor to set a grid system and survey the sites and test the entire grid system/site to see how deep the contamination is and established the boundaries, because the information EPA provides was not correct or inclusive and stated by EPA. You will notice that equipment restrictions and work area restrictions were applied by EPA You will notice the restrictions of removing trees and vegetation. Another big concern in the solicitation was the Base year and option years, EPA says that they have to right to not extend the base year. What happens if the EPA exercises this clause. I think that you will find in any business the major cost is start up in the first year. EPA also does not have a mobilization clause. If you cause damage to the roads or haul or sites and do not remove any materials you place at the site the numbers are not in the contractor favor and your work also has to be warranted. You just went into the hole and the way the economy, fuel, and materials is now and with the EPA requiring the bid price to be done in three parts (A base price, option 1 and option 2 years) there is a chance that EPA will not do the option years and the contractor will only be paid for the base year, with no adjustments. I ask if this solicitation could be altered or changed to included permanent solutions and provide adjustments for the many unknown questions and variables in the solicitation, which EPA could not provide in the solicitation, the answer was NO, nor was the Clean Water Act addressed in the solicitation, especially with the sites being next to the Spring River, I would have thought this would be a significant concern. I could have bid this as the awarded company did and the other bidders did and probably got the award. I know this because this is what he (bidder) told me after the bid opening at the EPA office and that he had done other bids before and this is the way EPA works, he just wish that he had the expertise I have and my team. I think that if you look at the other bidders you will discover the same. I am not a grade and haul company, I can do this work, but my mission is to find and correct Superfund and hazardous waste sites with permanent solutions.
Mr. Roderick, you can look at this complaint as reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in EPA programs or you can apply all of them to this award. If you need any other information or cannot retrieved this information from Region 7 or Region 6, just let me know. I have file formal complaints before with EPA, OIG, and EPW and have seen them covered up and complaints go unanswered, therefore I will fax a copy of this formal complaint to the CC list and maybe someone will address this complaint. I send a copy of these letters and complaints to various people and agencies because a some point in time someone will decide that enough is enough and start protecting families and children from those who ignore the Federal laws.
A brief follow up to statements made at the start of this complaint. Mr. Roderick if the OIG really has interest in the programs of EPA why do you not include the Formal Complaint I filed before in this complaint, about the Superfund Fund at Tar Creek?Want to talk about Change in government, transparency, open government, abuse or fraud and governments control of the media. Do a follow up on that complaint, just to refresh the OIG memory. I filed a formal complaint (which was covered up) about why EPA in Region Six (6) is allowing and endorsing families co-existing with hazardous materials, why EPA endorses many owners of hazardous materials to sell and transferred Hazardous materials from the superfund, why EPA has relieved many owners as a Responsible Party for hazardous materials and takes no action against them, why Operable Unit 4 was rejected at a public meeting ( the ROD public meeting) by all and how the EPA gained the support to passed O U 4 for Tar Creek, how the EPA tried to steal proprietary information for permanent solutions for the Superfund program from me, why it took the rejection of O U 4 at the public meeting for EPA to endorse a buyout, by the way this buyout is not about hazardous materials, but about subsidence (which should have been done years ago), why the EPA does not want permanent solutions for the Superfund Program, you can read this formal complaint at the Washington D.C. office of the EPA, OIG, EPW, and many other government offices I sent copies to. Now maybe you will understand why the hearing problems I received in the Marine Corps, in some ways allowed this Disabled Veteran, to read the massive amounts of information understanding what others do not understand and what Congressional laws states and says.
Really want to talk about what the President and Administrator Jackson has stated and I guess we will see what the OIG is going to do.
SEMPER FI
　
LEO BYFORD
OWNER OF ETSI (Environmental Toxins Solutions Inc.)
SDVOSB (Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business)
PATENT OWNER
INVENTOR
CC: President Obama
Administrator Lisa Jackson
Senator Inhofe
Many others
　
　
.