ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS SOLUTIONS INC. (ETSI)
Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business
(SDVOSB)
5244 South Irvington Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135
Phone 1-918-902-5730 Direct
Fax 1-1918-622-7066 Direct
EMAIL Leobyford@yahoo.com
WEB: WWW.ETSIOK.COM
January 6, 2010
RE: Tar Creek Superfund Site
Request for Bid
Scales for Repository Site and other Sites
CH2M HILL
Nicholas A. Fiscina Senior Contract Administrator
Thank you for asking me (ETSI) and sending me the information for bidding the Scales work at Tar Creek.
After reading all of the contents of the information I received and reviewing the requirements that CH2M HILL has place for doing the necessary and mandated requirements and the Scope of Work (SOW) that is included in this requested bid, I have decided to answer your requested bid for the scales for the repository site project at Tar Creek with the following response.
In the original bid that I did for the Repository site, which CH2M HILL said that my bid was technically qualified and then I (ETSI) was notified by CH2M HILL and given no explanation as to why I was no longer being considered for work at the repository site, you will notice that my bid included the scale installations and requirements that you have now requested me to bid again. You will also notice that due to the amount/volume of (stated by CH2M HILL) haul trucks that my bid included a site plan that would be able to meet the bid mandated requirements, turnaround times and decontamination requirements for haul trucks, that you are asking me to bid again and another site plan. I cannot help that the other bidders or CH2M HILL or the company that was awarded the contract did not take into account what would be required at the repository site and CH2M HILL did not take into account what I now believe to be the only workable site plan or CH2M HILL would not have to solicit bids again on something/work that I included in my original bid and according to CH2M HILL was technically qualified and now wants me to bid again. You will also notice in your current requested bid information, for the site and scales, that the necessary/mandated requirements again have many deficiencies and liabilities that a small business and especially (a SDVOSB) would have difficulties accepting and following CERCLA, meeting the ARRA of 2009 or having CH2M HILL telling them their work was not sufficient and requiring that company to do more work and at their own expense (as stated in the original bid). It is obvious to me that the company that CH2M HILL awarded the site repository contract to did not include the scales or workable site plan that I did or CH2M HILL would not be asking for bids again to do what I already proposed, planned, and submitted and CH2M HILL accepted. I have to assume that I was the only qualified bidder that covered and designed a complete and workable repository site plan and this was the only way for CH2M HILL to able to choose a company and provide information, who did not provide a complete plan, and of their (CH2M HILL) choice and CH2M HILL only needed ETSI to present to CH2M HILL a workable site plan, but you (ETSI) are no longer considered, because ETSI is not part of CH2M HILL program/club or CH2M HILL friends/good olde boys program or CH2M HILL would not be requesting a bid, from me (ETSI), who CH2M HILL says is no longer considered, for repository work, stated by your (CH2M HILL) EMAIL, that the awarded company did not include in their original bid or even consider and we need your (ETSI) expertise and complete understanding of the SOW to make the repository site work efficiently, but we (CH2M HILL) do not want you working here.
There is an old saying DUMB I MAY BE, BUT STUPID I AM NOT.
Therefore, I wish to decline to bid this requested bid for the Scales at Tar Creek.
SEMPER FI
LEO BYFORD
OWNER/CEO
ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS SOLUTIONS INC. (ETSI)
SDVOSB
Monday, January 11, 2010
LEO BYFORD
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74135
PHONE 1-918-902-5730 DIRECT
FAX 1-918-622-7066 DIRECT
Leobyford@yahoo.com
January 2, 2010
TO THE OKLAHOMA AND THE NATION
There are many that have deep concerns about the health and economy of our nation. There are some of us that have decided to make it a mission to do something about the future of this nation. It does not make any difference if you are a Democrat /Republican, if you are interested in politics or not, if you read the news paper or receive your news/information by TV or use the internet, it does not make any difference if you have a job or not. It also does not make any difference what your opinion is about global warming, whether this planet is domed or not or whether you believe hazardous material are causing health concerns for you family and your children. It does not make any difference if you like or dislike any of our elected officials. It also does not make any difference what your education levels are. Most people who have concerns about the future of this nation and their families and children and their children children or generations to come, will understand what does make a difference. For those who do or do not care what happens to their families and this nation the following facts are known and whether you believe them or not, the facts are the facts.
I will be placing on the internet; reports or letters that have been published or have been kept from the public as so the public does not know, what is and has been affecting their daily lives and the future of families, children, and this nation.
After filing another Formal Complaint with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) representing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and another Formal Complaint being swept under the rug, with Presidential approval, I wrote another letter to President Obama stating that I would be writing this letter and start posting information to the internet, letters and information that I have received from various government agencies and elected officials. Much of the letter/information has already been provided to the media and for whatever reasons the media has chosen to not publish to the public. I cannot even assume the reason, because of the health, safety and future of this Nation is at stake This posting will begin on January 6, 2010, because this is the time scheduled for another project to start at the Tar Creek Superfund Site endorsed by EPA, President Obama and various elected officials, which deals with continuous numerous violations of federal laws, misuse of stimulus funding and abuse and waste of taxpayer dollars. I will be posting list/information to the internet: information, laws, formal complaints, letters, responses and much more.
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74135
PHONE 1-918-902-5730 DIRECT
FAX 1-918-622-7066 DIRECT
Leobyford@yahoo.com
January 2, 2010
TO THE OKLAHOMA AND THE NATION
There are many that have deep concerns about the health and economy of our nation. There are some of us that have decided to make it a mission to do something about the future of this nation. It does not make any difference if you are a Democrat /Republican, if you are interested in politics or not, if you read the news paper or receive your news/information by TV or use the internet, it does not make any difference if you have a job or not. It also does not make any difference what your opinion is about global warming, whether this planet is domed or not or whether you believe hazardous material are causing health concerns for you family and your children. It does not make any difference if you like or dislike any of our elected officials. It also does not make any difference what your education levels are. Most people who have concerns about the future of this nation and their families and children and their children children or generations to come, will understand what does make a difference. For those who do or do not care what happens to their families and this nation the following facts are known and whether you believe them or not, the facts are the facts.
I will be placing on the internet; reports or letters that have been published or have been kept from the public as so the public does not know, what is and has been affecting their daily lives and the future of families, children, and this nation.
After filing another Formal Complaint with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) representing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and another Formal Complaint being swept under the rug, with Presidential approval, I wrote another letter to President Obama stating that I would be writing this letter and start posting information to the internet, letters and information that I have received from various government agencies and elected officials. Much of the letter/information has already been provided to the media and for whatever reasons the media has chosen to not publish to the public. I cannot even assume the reason, because of the health, safety and future of this Nation is at stake This posting will begin on January 6, 2010, because this is the time scheduled for another project to start at the Tar Creek Superfund Site endorsed by EPA, President Obama and various elected officials, which deals with continuous numerous violations of federal laws, misuse of stimulus funding and abuse and waste of taxpayer dollars. I will be posting list/information to the internet: information, laws, formal complaints, letters, responses and much more.
LEO BYFORD
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74135
PHONE 1-918-902-5730 DIRECT
FAX 1-918-622-7066 DIRECT
EMAIL Leobyford@yahoo.com
RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT
Tar Creek Superfund Site
President Obama
Senator Inhofe
OIG Mr. Roderick
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson
EPA Region 6 Regional Administrator Al Armendariz
I was asked by Senator Inhofe to keep him updated about the Formal Complaint I filed December 11, 2009, concerning the Tar Creek Superfund Site and Stimulus funding. Since, I have not heard back from Senator Inhofe about my response to Senator Inhofe and copies that I sent out to many and since in Senator Inhofe letter he states that by keeping him informed with up dates and I do not know how my letters/information are being shared with Congress and the Nation, I thought that since the Senator is so busy with the Nation’s work, I would help him with by sharing my letters/information with Congress and the Nation. The easiest way I know to share my letters/information and try to get an answer to my questions and complaints is to ask the nation if anyone has answers.
Last night I was informed that the work that I was asked to bid on at Tar Creek was to start next Wednesday January 6, 2010. Since I was informed by the Prime Contractor that I was no longer being considered for this work and no reason was given by the Prime for not being considered, I have to assume that all they needed my proposal for was to provide the Prime with a workable plan that followed Federal Laws and CERCLA, since I designed and developed the first truly permanent solution for this Superfund Site, that has ever been done before and is of record with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and many others, including the EPA.
The response letters that I have received from Washington and various elected officials, seem to be remised in answering my questions and formal complaints that are of record. Since I am going to help reduce the work load of Senator Inhofe and posting on the internet letters/information, we will see if there is anyone who can answer why Washington does not want permanent solutions for Tar Creek and the Superfund Program, does not want to create hundreds of jobs, if not thousands of jobs, wants to continue violating federal laws and CERCLA, does not want to support the Disabled Veteran Companies (SDVOSB), does not want to remove a double hidden tax on every electric consumer in the Nation, does not want to save 30 to 50 percent of this nation energy needs, abuse of the stimulus (TAXPAYER) funds, does not want to clean this nation impaired waters and many other questions?
I will start posting to the internet on January 6, 2010 at the same time work starts at Tar Creek.
SEMPER FI
LEO BYFORD
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74135
PHONE 1-918-902-5730 DIRECT
FAX 1-918-622-7066 DIRECT
EMAIL Leobyford@yahoo.com
RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT
Tar Creek Superfund Site
President Obama
Senator Inhofe
OIG Mr. Roderick
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson
EPA Region 6 Regional Administrator Al Armendariz
I was asked by Senator Inhofe to keep him updated about the Formal Complaint I filed December 11, 2009, concerning the Tar Creek Superfund Site and Stimulus funding. Since, I have not heard back from Senator Inhofe about my response to Senator Inhofe and copies that I sent out to many and since in Senator Inhofe letter he states that by keeping him informed with up dates and I do not know how my letters/information are being shared with Congress and the Nation, I thought that since the Senator is so busy with the Nation’s work, I would help him with by sharing my letters/information with Congress and the Nation. The easiest way I know to share my letters/information and try to get an answer to my questions and complaints is to ask the nation if anyone has answers.
Last night I was informed that the work that I was asked to bid on at Tar Creek was to start next Wednesday January 6, 2010. Since I was informed by the Prime Contractor that I was no longer being considered for this work and no reason was given by the Prime for not being considered, I have to assume that all they needed my proposal for was to provide the Prime with a workable plan that followed Federal Laws and CERCLA, since I designed and developed the first truly permanent solution for this Superfund Site, that has ever been done before and is of record with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and many others, including the EPA.
The response letters that I have received from Washington and various elected officials, seem to be remised in answering my questions and formal complaints that are of record. Since I am going to help reduce the work load of Senator Inhofe and posting on the internet letters/information, we will see if there is anyone who can answer why Washington does not want permanent solutions for Tar Creek and the Superfund Program, does not want to create hundreds of jobs, if not thousands of jobs, wants to continue violating federal laws and CERCLA, does not want to support the Disabled Veteran Companies (SDVOSB), does not want to remove a double hidden tax on every electric consumer in the Nation, does not want to save 30 to 50 percent of this nation energy needs, abuse of the stimulus (TAXPAYER) funds, does not want to clean this nation impaired waters and many other questions?
I will start posting to the internet on January 6, 2010 at the same time work starts at Tar Creek.
SEMPER FI
LEO BYFORD
LEO BYFORD
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74135
PHONE 1-918-902-5730
FAX 1-918-622-7066
EMAIL Leobyford@yahoo.com
RE: LETTER Dated December 2, 2009
Letter received December 23, 2009
Senator Inhofe:
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to another letter and another formal complaint that I sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Lisa Jackson) and the office of the Inspector General and Inspector General for the EPA and with a copy to the President of the United States, along with copies to many others. As I have stated in this complaint and letter, that I have filed, as well as several other formal complaints filed before, it seems that there is no one in Washington or any state that cares about the environment or cares about the economy or creating jobs or small business. The response letters that I have received, not only from the President or the Whitehouse Staff, many others all saying the same response, “We appreciate your interest and your time for providing us information and we will look into the situation or we will make a note of this in our head or we will monitor the situation, keep us updated”. What an answer for anyone to give if they really had any type of concern, cared about this Nation, or cared about the federal laws and especially the President of the United States saying the same. What this does tell me, that this is politics, as usual, and who does not care about people, taxpayers or this nation, and anyone that has solutions and interest in protecting and growing this Nation, responses like this mean, leave us (Washington) alone, because WE and the Good Olde Boys have everything under control. If they have everything under control, they must not be reading letters and/or complaints like mine, the newspapers or other reports and they reside in another world, because if they did care, we would not have a Nation of unemployment at ten percent and growing and taxpayer money going to companies that continue to line their pockets, with special connections to Washington and cannot follow federal laws, including government agencies.
You mention in your letter that you do not always have time to listen or have the opportunity to listen to everyone’s ideas, concerns, and problems, even though you return to the state almost every weekend. Senator Inhofe, what does it take to gain that (YOUR) attention, when you have residents, families and children and tax payers that are in areas like Tar Creek, where hazardous materials are being discharge 24 hours a day 7 days a week and you have the EPA and the President of the United States violating Federal Laws and spending billions of taxpayers dollars on superfund sites like this with the same results after decades of work, just when do you have time? I do realize why people need to be removed from this site, but it still does not stop the hazardous discharges or prevent subsidence (cave-ins) or justified open end contracts for the Good Olde Boys to work that does not follow federal laws or protect the downstream areas from hazardous waste contamination. Senator Inhofe, how would you feel if you were told that here is a volute buyout, your water and electric is going to be stopped, and eminent domain will be used if you do not take the offer your are presented. I think you might would want to consider rereading the public meeting records/documents in Picher and what was the purpose of and why OU4 was approved by the EPA, because the buyout was not about the health of people in the Tar Creek superfund Site or Oklahoma residents or the residents within the Superfund Site, but about the EPA and the BOYS having another 25 plus years of receiving taxpayer money for work that does not follow federal laws, and then at the end of the next 25 plus years we (EPA) will decide on what to do next.
Actions like this stated above, does not justify why Washington does not want to create jobs or protect our environment, when you have solutions already designed that will do just what this State, Superfund Sites and federal programs need and mandated by Congress and can be applied through out the nation. Want a building block, all you have to do is look in your backyard and you will find people and companies like me and people asking for elected officials to support the small business and especially the SDVOSB, and yet when we sent letters or file formal complaints we get response letters stating “We will make a note of this in our HEAD”. Want to set a standard and transparency for the Nation, don’t just monitor the situation as you stated, but do something about it. Want to show the Nation what Oklahoma has to offer or the small business or the Service Disabled Veteran Small Business (SDVOSB) has to offer, do what you said several years ago, when I presented to you the first truly permanent solution for the Superfund Program and received an Innovator Award and several nominations for this process/product at MIT for this process. Want hundreds of jobs to be created and improve our environment and economy at the same time, let this SDVOSB, with you leading and the State of Oklahoma give Washington a lesson about innovation and put Oklahoma as the Leader of innovation and economy recovery. If President Obama and Washington can GIVE billions of taxpayer dollars to companies that continue to abuse and violate federal laws, companies that cannot follow stimulus guidelines, companies that could care less about jobs or the environment and all they care about is the MONEY, WHY do we not show them what a company and a state can do, that does care about the environment and jobs, especially shovel ready jobs? Why do we not show the country what the Service Disabled Veteran Small Business (SDVOSB) is really about and what we can do? I realize that many in this country and many in Washington do not care about Veterans and especially the Disabled Veterans (EPA Region 6 has proved this many times over), but let us do what we do best, protect this nation, create jobs, and move this Nation forward. I can assure you that we can do better than the experts in Washington.
Senator Inhofe, I am curious as to how my sharing my letters and formal complaints, with you, is shared with Congress and in turn the nation, as you stated in your response letter. I am also curious why you will continue to monitor the situation I outlined in my letter, when I have sent other copies and letters/complaints to you about these same issues. I would think that instead of monitoring the situation, you would want to stop the continues hazardous waste discharges, create hundreds of jobs for Oklahoma, support correcting taxpayer abuse, correcting the uncontrolled waste of taxpayer dollars, support the Disabled Veterans and their businesses, correcting issues of the stimulus package, that is currently in progress, correct violations of federal laws and demonstrate to the President and the Nation that we (including you) can do something about the environment, taxpayer abuse, health issues and put this nation back on the road to recovery. One other thing I can assure you nobody wants my opinion about Global Warming, because Global Warming Issue is not about saving this planet.
SEMPER FI
LEO BYFORD
OWNER/CEO
Environmental Toxins Solutions Inc. (ETSI)
A SDVOSB
Patent Owner and Holder
CC: MANY
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74135
PHONE 1-918-902-5730
FAX 1-918-622-7066
EMAIL Leobyford@yahoo.com
RE: LETTER Dated December 2, 2009
Letter received December 23, 2009
Senator Inhofe:
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to another letter and another formal complaint that I sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Lisa Jackson) and the office of the Inspector General and Inspector General for the EPA and with a copy to the President of the United States, along with copies to many others. As I have stated in this complaint and letter, that I have filed, as well as several other formal complaints filed before, it seems that there is no one in Washington or any state that cares about the environment or cares about the economy or creating jobs or small business. The response letters that I have received, not only from the President or the Whitehouse Staff, many others all saying the same response, “We appreciate your interest and your time for providing us information and we will look into the situation or we will make a note of this in our head or we will monitor the situation, keep us updated”. What an answer for anyone to give if they really had any type of concern, cared about this Nation, or cared about the federal laws and especially the President of the United States saying the same. What this does tell me, that this is politics, as usual, and who does not care about people, taxpayers or this nation, and anyone that has solutions and interest in protecting and growing this Nation, responses like this mean, leave us (Washington) alone, because WE and the Good Olde Boys have everything under control. If they have everything under control, they must not be reading letters and/or complaints like mine, the newspapers or other reports and they reside in another world, because if they did care, we would not have a Nation of unemployment at ten percent and growing and taxpayer money going to companies that continue to line their pockets, with special connections to Washington and cannot follow federal laws, including government agencies.
You mention in your letter that you do not always have time to listen or have the opportunity to listen to everyone’s ideas, concerns, and problems, even though you return to the state almost every weekend. Senator Inhofe, what does it take to gain that (YOUR) attention, when you have residents, families and children and tax payers that are in areas like Tar Creek, where hazardous materials are being discharge 24 hours a day 7 days a week and you have the EPA and the President of the United States violating Federal Laws and spending billions of taxpayers dollars on superfund sites like this with the same results after decades of work, just when do you have time? I do realize why people need to be removed from this site, but it still does not stop the hazardous discharges or prevent subsidence (cave-ins) or justified open end contracts for the Good Olde Boys to work that does not follow federal laws or protect the downstream areas from hazardous waste contamination. Senator Inhofe, how would you feel if you were told that here is a volute buyout, your water and electric is going to be stopped, and eminent domain will be used if you do not take the offer your are presented. I think you might would want to consider rereading the public meeting records/documents in Picher and what was the purpose of and why OU4 was approved by the EPA, because the buyout was not about the health of people in the Tar Creek superfund Site or Oklahoma residents or the residents within the Superfund Site, but about the EPA and the BOYS having another 25 plus years of receiving taxpayer money for work that does not follow federal laws, and then at the end of the next 25 plus years we (EPA) will decide on what to do next.
Actions like this stated above, does not justify why Washington does not want to create jobs or protect our environment, when you have solutions already designed that will do just what this State, Superfund Sites and federal programs need and mandated by Congress and can be applied through out the nation. Want a building block, all you have to do is look in your backyard and you will find people and companies like me and people asking for elected officials to support the small business and especially the SDVOSB, and yet when we sent letters or file formal complaints we get response letters stating “We will make a note of this in our HEAD”. Want to set a standard and transparency for the Nation, don’t just monitor the situation as you stated, but do something about it. Want to show the Nation what Oklahoma has to offer or the small business or the Service Disabled Veteran Small Business (SDVOSB) has to offer, do what you said several years ago, when I presented to you the first truly permanent solution for the Superfund Program and received an Innovator Award and several nominations for this process/product at MIT for this process. Want hundreds of jobs to be created and improve our environment and economy at the same time, let this SDVOSB, with you leading and the State of Oklahoma give Washington a lesson about innovation and put Oklahoma as the Leader of innovation and economy recovery. If President Obama and Washington can GIVE billions of taxpayer dollars to companies that continue to abuse and violate federal laws, companies that cannot follow stimulus guidelines, companies that could care less about jobs or the environment and all they care about is the MONEY, WHY do we not show them what a company and a state can do, that does care about the environment and jobs, especially shovel ready jobs? Why do we not show the country what the Service Disabled Veteran Small Business (SDVOSB) is really about and what we can do? I realize that many in this country and many in Washington do not care about Veterans and especially the Disabled Veterans (EPA Region 6 has proved this many times over), but let us do what we do best, protect this nation, create jobs, and move this Nation forward. I can assure you that we can do better than the experts in Washington.
Senator Inhofe, I am curious as to how my sharing my letters and formal complaints, with you, is shared with Congress and in turn the nation, as you stated in your response letter. I am also curious why you will continue to monitor the situation I outlined in my letter, when I have sent other copies and letters/complaints to you about these same issues. I would think that instead of monitoring the situation, you would want to stop the continues hazardous waste discharges, create hundreds of jobs for Oklahoma, support correcting taxpayer abuse, correcting the uncontrolled waste of taxpayer dollars, support the Disabled Veterans and their businesses, correcting issues of the stimulus package, that is currently in progress, correct violations of federal laws and demonstrate to the President and the Nation that we (including you) can do something about the environment, taxpayer abuse, health issues and put this nation back on the road to recovery. One other thing I can assure you nobody wants my opinion about Global Warming, because Global Warming Issue is not about saving this planet.
SEMPER FI
LEO BYFORD
OWNER/CEO
Environmental Toxins Solutions Inc. (ETSI)
A SDVOSB
Patent Owner and Holder
CC: MANY
Saturday, January 9, 2010
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
Leobyford@yahoo.com
February 3, 2009
EPA
Mr. Bob Polin
Special Assistant
Phone 202-564-4724
Fax 202-501-1428
RE: President Obama
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson
Mr. Don Maddox
Sir:
I received a letter (Dated Jan 30, 2009) from EPA Region 6 in referenced to the faxes that I sent to President Obama and the EPA Administrator Jackson. After receiving this letter I called the Administrator Jackson office and talked with Mr. Maddox, he suggestion that I write to you and provide you with the enclosed faxes that I have sent for your review and a response.
I have received letters from Region 6 like this before and nothing ever happens or my requests is just simplify ignored. I would think that if you read the enclosed information you will see the seriousness and my determination to provide permanent solutions for the superfund program. I am tried of the corruption, the runaround of Region 6, and what their prime contractors are doing and their deliberate permanent attitude of avoiding the federal laws and endorcing the good olde boy program. A formal complaint was filed with the Environment and Public Works (EPW) and I have as of yet ever heard anything from the EPW. My only conclusion is that the formal complaint has been covered up. I would think that the EPA approving and supplying their prime contractor lead scientist to a meeting and dressing hin in EPA attire and introducing him as an employee of the EPA (I would consider a Corp MOLE) to gather information on how to fix the nation’s number one superfund site with a designed permanent solution would be investigated. I would think that a statement by EPA saying that they would shut my company down, if I started a pilot project at the Tar Creek Superfund Site to prove and provide this Nations first permanent solution for the Superfund program. I would think that since my Company (Environment Toxins Solutions Inc.) (ETSI), is listed as a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) and the Region 6 person in charged of this program sends me a letter stating that I can bid and go to a site in Northern America, in another Region, to work would supports the attitude of Region 6 and also support the statement that Region 6 has given all of the mandated contracts (SDVOSB) to their prime contractors. I would think that since Senator Inhofe staff at the EPW confirmed the receipt of the Formal Complaint, you would be able to get a copy of the formal complain and see the action taken. I would think that if you read the BEVILL Act you will also discover just some of the federal laws that EPA is violating and why the EPA Region 6 placed the CHAT RULE and volates the second step of mandated CERCLA requirements. I would think that the current buyout ($60 Plus Million of taxpayer dollars) at Tar Creek (which the people needed to happen years ago) and then turn the land over to the Indians after the buyout is completed, still in the same condition and not corrected, uninhabitable with the same hazardous and dangerous conditions, who by the way, the Indians refused permanent solutions, would not be in the best interest of the taxpayer or in accordance with CERCLA/Superfund Program would be investigated.
If you need additional information please call or write because I have volumes of information and recorded meetings and other documents, with the USACE, EPA, Elected officials representatives and the team of ETSI. I can also be GOOGLE on the internet and you will find other information including Patent and Patent pending published information.
LOOKING FOR TO YOUR RESPONSE
SEMPER FI
LEO BYFORD
OWNER OF ETSI (SDVOSB)
CC: President Obama
EPA Administrator Jackson
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74135
PHONE 1-918-622-6413
CELL 1-918-902-5730 DIRECT
FAX 1-918-622-7066 DIRECT
Leobyford@yahoo.com
February 3, 2009
EPA
Mr. Bob Polin
Special Assistant
Phone 202-564-4724
Fax 202-501-1428
RE: President Obama
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson
Mr. Don Maddox
Sir:
I received a letter (Dated Jan 30, 2009) from EPA Region 6 in referenced to the faxes that I sent to President Obama and the EPA Administrator Jackson. After receiving this letter I called the Administrator Jackson office and talked with Mr. Maddox, he suggestion that I write to you and provide you with the enclosed faxes that I have sent for your review and a response.
I have received letters from Region 6 like this before and nothing ever happens or my requests is just simplify ignored. I would think that if you read the enclosed information you will see the seriousness and my determination to provide permanent solutions for the superfund program. I am tried of the corruption, the runaround of Region 6, and what their prime contractors are doing and their deliberate permanent attitude of avoiding the federal laws and endorcing the good olde boy program. A formal complaint was filed with the Environment and Public Works (EPW) and I have as of yet ever heard anything from the EPW. My only conclusion is that the formal complaint has been covered up. I would think that the EPA approving and supplying their prime contractor lead scientist to a meeting and dressing hin in EPA attire and introducing him as an employee of the EPA (I would consider a Corp MOLE) to gather information on how to fix the nation’s number one superfund site with a designed permanent solution would be investigated. I would think that a statement by EPA saying that they would shut my company down, if I started a pilot project at the Tar Creek Superfund Site to prove and provide this Nations first permanent solution for the Superfund program. I would think that since my Company (Environment Toxins Solutions Inc.) (ETSI), is listed as a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) and the Region 6 person in charged of this program sends me a letter stating that I can bid and go to a site in Northern America, in another Region, to work would supports the attitude of Region 6 and also support the statement that Region 6 has given all of the mandated contracts (SDVOSB) to their prime contractors. I would think that since Senator Inhofe staff at the EPW confirmed the receipt of the Formal Complaint, you would be able to get a copy of the formal complain and see the action taken. I would think that if you read the BEVILL Act you will also discover just some of the federal laws that EPA is violating and why the EPA Region 6 placed the CHAT RULE and volates the second step of mandated CERCLA requirements. I would think that the current buyout ($60 Plus Million of taxpayer dollars) at Tar Creek (which the people needed to happen years ago) and then turn the land over to the Indians after the buyout is completed, still in the same condition and not corrected, uninhabitable with the same hazardous and dangerous conditions, who by the way, the Indians refused permanent solutions, would not be in the best interest of the taxpayer or in accordance with CERCLA/Superfund Program would be investigated.
If you need additional information please call or write because I have volumes of information and recorded meetings and other documents, with the USACE, EPA, Elected officials representatives and the team of ETSI. I can also be GOOGLE on the internet and you will find other information including Patent and Patent pending published information.
LOOKING FOR TO YOUR RESPONSE
SEMPER FI
LEO BYFORD
OWNER OF ETSI (SDVOSB)
CC: President Obama
EPA Administrator Jackson
I will be posting letters and communications from the whitehouse and several other government agencies including several/many elected officals. If you have any doubts about why we are in the current stage of job loss or environmental mess, I would hope that this will help many of you that have contacted me, about the problems and issues that we are currently experience.
39348 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 18, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
that no worker shall be permitted in any area that
can adversely affect them when demolition
operations are being performed.
assumed that such buildings would be
demolished once every 30 years, based
on the Internal Revenue Service
allowable straight-line depreciation for
non-residential real property of 31.5
years. The Agency determined that
demolition practices, as noted by the
National Association of Demolition
Contractors, would generally generate
dusts for periods rarely in excess of 20–
30 minutes when buildings are
imploded. Furthermore, the Agency has
reviewed the fugitive dust demolition
regulations in Oklahoma, Missouri, and
Kansas and found that building
demolition requires a general fugitive
dust permit that mandates that
demolition related dusts be contained
within the property line (most often
through the use of water sprays). Based
on this information, the Agency
concludes that dusts from the
demolition of nonresidential buildings
with chat contained in PCC are not
likely to present a significant threat to
human health.
Even if chat metal levels do not trigger
OSHA requirements, however, other
OSHA controls would still be utilized to
address worker health risks from
exposure to fine particulates, which
indirectly addresses the issues
associated with chat. In particular,
demolition of concrete structures is
known to produce extremely fine
particles of crystalline silica. Breathing
crystalline silica dust can lead to
silicosis, a commonly known health
hazard which has been associated
historically with the inhalation of silicacontaining
dusts. Silicosis is a lung
disease which can be progressive and
disabling; it can lead to death. The
OSHA standards for exposure to dust,
(29 CFR 1926.55) prohibit employee
exposure to any material at
concentrations above those specified in
the ‘‘Threshold Limit Values of
Airborne Contaminants for 1970.’’
OSHA has established for crystalline
silica dust a Permissible Exposure Level
which is the maximum amount to
which workers may be exposed during
an 8-hour work shift. NIOSH has
recommended an exposure limit of 0.05
mg/m3 as a time-weighted average for
up to a 10-hour workday during a 40-
hour workweek. Although the Agency
has no reason to believe that chat
contained in PCC would increase the
levels of fine particulates, including
crystalline silica, we believe the OSHA/
NIOSH standards will provide adequate
protection to workers from potential
exposure.
OSHA has also established worker
health and safety standards specific to
building demolition in 29 CFR 1926
Subpart T. These standards require an
engineering survey of the building prior
to demolition to identify any risks and
implementation of project wide dust
controls. The standards also require
compliance with NIOSH respirable dust
standards which essentially require the
use of respirators, if standards noted in
29 CFR 1910 are exceeded. Based on the
Agency’s review of the OSHA standards,
we conclude that these regulations
provide adequate protection to onsite
demolition workers.
One of the Peer Reviewers noted that
NIOSH and OSHA standards may not
apply to county or State highway
workers and that those safeguards
would not actually protect workers
potentially exposed to dusts during
milling or demolition. The Agency has
reviewed State and Federal worker
health and safety laws as they apply to
demolition, and does not agree that
there is insufficient regulatory
protection of workers. The commenter
also noted that existing regulations are
not being enforced. While the Agency
has not been able to determine whether
this allegation is accurate, it is beyond
the scope of this effort to determine
whether these regulations are being
enforced by the states or others.
(5) The Risk From the Generation of
Chat Fines During Processing Was Not
Evaluated
The peer review commenters noted
that the rule should include criteria
addressing the handling and disposal of
chat fines resulting from the wet sizing
of chat. First, the Agency would note
that this final rule does not require that
the raw chat be washed or sized prior
to being used. Therefore, any fines that
are generated would not be the result of
this rule. Nevertheless, the Agency
evaluated the risks from exposure to
fines from chat washing facilities during
Superfund Site investigations at the
NPL Sites in the Tri-State Mining
District. The information we have shows
that fines may release metals into the
environment. However, the release of
these metals can be effectively
controlled by EPA through its oversight
authority of the Tar Creek Superfund
site. In addition, we believe that most
chat washing will continue to be
conducted at the two known
commercial chat washing facilities
located within the Superfund Sites.
However, to the extent that other chat
washing facilities become operational,
we also believe that they will be
adequately controlled based on our
review of the air and water regulations
in Oklahoma, Missouri and Kansas. (See
Section III for a discussion of EPA’s
evaluation of the states regulatory
programs to control air and water
releases at asphalt plants, PCC plants
and chat washing facilities.)
(6) Ecological Risks
The peer review commenters noted
that there should be a more
comprehensive analysis of the
ecological risks from chat use.
Environmental quality information
presented in several studies indicated
that damages to streams had been
documented for the Tri-State Mining
Area; however, these studies did not
address encapsulated chat uses, but
were from multiple sources of
contamination associated with lead and
zinc mining, including subsurface
sources (flooded mine shafts), surface
sources (chat piles, tailing sites), and
smelting operations. SPLP analyses for
chat encapsulated in hot mix asphalt
(OU, 2005) shows that zinc
concentrations, when detected, were
below EPA’s National Recommended
Water Quality Criteria (http://
www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/
wqcriteria.html) for the protection of
aquatic life. This study did not find
detectable levels of lead or cadmium in
any leachate using the SPLP method.
We do not foresee that environmental
conditions could occur where metals
from chat used in transportation
projects, that are funded, in whole or in
part, using Federal funds, would reach
surface waters at levels of concern either
through run-off to nearby soils, which
would have subsequent attenuation
before reaching surface waters, or via
the groundwater pathway, which would
have additional attenuation and dilution
in groundwater before reaching nearby
receiving waters.
B. What Are the Economic Impacts?
This Part summarizes projected cost
impacts, economic impacts, and benefits
associated with this final rule. A brief
market profile is first discussed,
followed by specification of the
economic baseline. Costs and economic
impacts are next discussed. These
estimates are presented on an
annualized basis. Finally, this Part
presents a qualitative discussion of
potential benefits associated with this
final rule.
1. Chat Market Profile
Chat is a byproduct of mining and
milling operations that has been
exempted from regulation as a
‘‘hazardous waste’’ under Subtitle C of
VerDate Aug<31>2005 10:08 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM 18JYR1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
that no worker shall be permitted in any area that
can adversely affect them when demolition
operations are being performed.
assumed that such buildings would be
demolished once every 30 years, based
on the Internal Revenue Service
allowable straight-line depreciation for
non-residential real property of 31.5
years. The Agency determined that
demolition practices, as noted by the
National Association of Demolition
Contractors, would generally generate
dusts for periods rarely in excess of 20–
30 minutes when buildings are
imploded. Furthermore, the Agency has
reviewed the fugitive dust demolition
regulations in Oklahoma, Missouri, and
Kansas and found that building
demolition requires a general fugitive
dust permit that mandates that
demolition related dusts be contained
within the property line (most often
through the use of water sprays). Based
on this information, the Agency
concludes that dusts from the
demolition of nonresidential buildings
with chat contained in PCC are not
likely to present a significant threat to
human health.
Even if chat metal levels do not trigger
OSHA requirements, however, other
OSHA controls would still be utilized to
address worker health risks from
exposure to fine particulates, which
indirectly addresses the issues
associated with chat. In particular,
demolition of concrete structures is
known to produce extremely fine
particles of crystalline silica. Breathing
crystalline silica dust can lead to
silicosis, a commonly known health
hazard which has been associated
historically with the inhalation of silicacontaining
dusts. Silicosis is a lung
disease which can be progressive and
disabling; it can lead to death. The
OSHA standards for exposure to dust,
(29 CFR 1926.55) prohibit employee
exposure to any material at
concentrations above those specified in
the ‘‘Threshold Limit Values of
Airborne Contaminants for 1970.’’
OSHA has established for crystalline
silica dust a Permissible Exposure Level
which is the maximum amount to
which workers may be exposed during
an 8-hour work shift. NIOSH has
recommended an exposure limit of 0.05
mg/m3 as a time-weighted average for
up to a 10-hour workday during a 40-
hour workweek. Although the Agency
has no reason to believe that chat
contained in PCC would increase the
levels of fine particulates, including
crystalline silica, we believe the OSHA/
NIOSH standards will provide adequate
protection to workers from potential
exposure.
OSHA has also established worker
health and safety standards specific to
building demolition in 29 CFR 1926
Subpart T. These standards require an
engineering survey of the building prior
to demolition to identify any risks and
implementation of project wide dust
controls. The standards also require
compliance with NIOSH respirable dust
standards which essentially require the
use of respirators, if standards noted in
29 CFR 1910 are exceeded. Based on the
Agency’s review of the OSHA standards,
we conclude that these regulations
provide adequate protection to onsite
demolition workers.
One of the Peer Reviewers noted that
NIOSH and OSHA standards may not
apply to county or State highway
workers and that those safeguards
would not actually protect workers
potentially exposed to dusts during
milling or demolition. The Agency has
reviewed State and Federal worker
health and safety laws as they apply to
demolition, and does not agree that
there is insufficient regulatory
protection of workers. The commenter
also noted that existing regulations are
not being enforced. While the Agency
has not been able to determine whether
this allegation is accurate, it is beyond
the scope of this effort to determine
whether these regulations are being
enforced by the states or others.
(5) The Risk From the Generation of
Chat Fines During Processing Was Not
Evaluated
The peer review commenters noted
that the rule should include criteria
addressing the handling and disposal of
chat fines resulting from the wet sizing
of chat. First, the Agency would note
that this final rule does not require that
the raw chat be washed or sized prior
to being used. Therefore, any fines that
are generated would not be the result of
this rule. Nevertheless, the Agency
evaluated the risks from exposure to
fines from chat washing facilities during
Superfund Site investigations at the
NPL Sites in the Tri-State Mining
District. The information we have shows
that fines may release metals into the
environment. However, the release of
these metals can be effectively
controlled by EPA through its oversight
authority of the Tar Creek Superfund
site. In addition, we believe that most
chat washing will continue to be
conducted at the two known
commercial chat washing facilities
located within the Superfund Sites.
However, to the extent that other chat
washing facilities become operational,
we also believe that they will be
adequately controlled based on our
review of the air and water regulations
in Oklahoma, Missouri and Kansas. (See
Section III for a discussion of EPA’s
evaluation of the states regulatory
programs to control air and water
releases at asphalt plants, PCC plants
and chat washing facilities.)
(6) Ecological Risks
The peer review commenters noted
that there should be a more
comprehensive analysis of the
ecological risks from chat use.
Environmental quality information
presented in several studies indicated
that damages to streams had been
documented for the Tri-State Mining
Area; however, these studies did not
address encapsulated chat uses, but
were from multiple sources of
contamination associated with lead and
zinc mining, including subsurface
sources (flooded mine shafts), surface
sources (chat piles, tailing sites), and
smelting operations. SPLP analyses for
chat encapsulated in hot mix asphalt
(OU, 2005) shows that zinc
concentrations, when detected, were
below EPA’s National Recommended
Water Quality Criteria (http://
www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/
wqcriteria.html) for the protection of
aquatic life. This study did not find
detectable levels of lead or cadmium in
any leachate using the SPLP method.
We do not foresee that environmental
conditions could occur where metals
from chat used in transportation
projects, that are funded, in whole or in
part, using Federal funds, would reach
surface waters at levels of concern either
through run-off to nearby soils, which
would have subsequent attenuation
before reaching surface waters, or via
the groundwater pathway, which would
have additional attenuation and dilution
in groundwater before reaching nearby
receiving waters.
B. What Are the Economic Impacts?
This Part summarizes projected cost
impacts, economic impacts, and benefits
associated with this final rule. A brief
market profile is first discussed,
followed by specification of the
economic baseline. Costs and economic
impacts are next discussed. These
estimates are presented on an
annualized basis. Finally, this Part
presents a qualitative discussion of
potential benefits associated with this
final rule.
1. Chat Market Profile
Chat is a byproduct of mining and
milling operations that has been
exempted from regulation as a
‘‘hazardous waste’’ under Subtitle C of
VerDate Aug<31>2005 10:08 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM 18JYR1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
processing wastes, rather than beneficiation wastes.
The September 1, 1989 final rulemaking also points out differences between extraction/ beneficiation wastes and mineral processing wastes (emphasis added):
In considering the functional distinctions between beneficiation and processing using both heat and acid, EPA has examined both the range of actual practices employed, and the types of waste streams that are generated by these operations in various mineral commodity sectors. In a general sense, the lines that the Agency has drawn between beneficiation and processing parallel the common sense differences that can be observed between beneficiation and processing wastes generated using other types of mineral exploitation techniques. Most beneficiation processes, at least those immediately upstream from the initial processing operation in a production sequence, generate high volume solid waste streams that are essentially earthen in character. Despite the fact that valuable constituents have been removed, the remaining material is often physically and chemically similar to the material (ore or mineral) that entered the operation, except that particle size reduction has often occurred. Processing operations, in contrast, generate waste streams that generally bear little or no resemblance to the materials that entered the operation (with the arguable exception of smelting slags). These operations most often destroy the physical structure of the mineral, producing product and waste streams that are not earthen in character.
This common sense distinction is reflected in EPA's definitions of beneficiation and processing operations using heat and acid. The beneficiation operations (e.g., calcining, dissolution, roasting in preparation for leaching) produce wastes, where applicable, that are essentially earthen and of relatively high volume. The processing operations (e.g., smelting, acid or alkaline digestion), on the other hand, produce wastes that are not earthen, bear little resemblance to the materials that entered the operation, and are of relatively lower volume.
The Agency recently (April 1998) issued two finalized collections of damage cases involving extraction/beneficiation and mineral processing wastes: Human Health and Environmental Damages from Mining and Mineral Processing Wastes and Damage Cases and Environmental Releases from Mines and Mineral Processing Sites.
Top of page
What are the Lines Between Beneficiation and Mineral Processing?
EPA uses the terms "extraction," "beneficiation," and "mineral processing" to describe the sequence of events needed to produce a saleable mineral.
- - The concentration of the mineral commodity increases because impurities are removed as the operations progress from extraction through beneficiation to mineral processing.
What is a Primary Ore or Mineral?
It is important to establish whether primary mineral production takes place at the facility. The exclusion does not apply to secondary production of mineral commodities. Wastes from scrap recycling, metals recovery from flue dust, and similar activities have always been subject to Subtitle C regulation if these wastes exhibit hazardous characteristics or are listed hazardous wastes.
---Primary mineral production operations are defined as those using at least 50 percent ores, minerals, or beneficiated ores or minerals on an annual basis as the feedstock providing the mineral value.
---The exclusion does not extend to downstream chemical manufacturing, fabrication, or other activities that use a saleable commodity as the primary raw material, even it these activities occur at the same facility. (see 54 FR 36616, September 1, 1989)
The initial stages of mining (i.e., extraction and beneficiation) produce relatively earthen-like large volume and low hazard wastes.
Beneficiation operations typically serve to separate and concentrate the mineral values from waste material, remove impurities, or prepare the ore for further refinement.
Processing operations, in contrast, generally follow beneficiation and serve to change the concentrated mineral into a more useful chemical form. This is often done by using heat or chemical reactions to change the physical/chemical composition of the mineral and produce relatively low volume, high hazard wastes.
It is critical to determine at what point mineral processing first occurs because all operations following that initial processing operation will be considered processing. Any waste generated downstream from the initial mineral processing step loses the exemption unless it is on the list of the special 20 mineral processing wastes eligible for the Bevill exclusion. 4
Wastes falling on the beneficiation side of the line retain the exemption, while wastes on the mineral processing side, except for 20 "special wastes", fall within Subtitle C jurisdiction.
The September 1, 1989 final rulemaking also points out differences between extraction/ beneficiation wastes and mineral processing wastes (emphasis added):
In considering the functional distinctions between beneficiation and processing using both heat and acid, EPA has examined both the range of actual practices employed, and the types of waste streams that are generated by these operations in various mineral commodity sectors. In a general sense, the lines that the Agency has drawn between beneficiation and processing parallel the common sense differences that can be observed between beneficiation and processing wastes generated using other types of mineral exploitation techniques. Most beneficiation processes, at least those immediately upstream from the initial processing operation in a production sequence, generate high volume solid waste streams that are essentially earthen in character. Despite the fact that valuable constituents have been removed, the remaining material is often physically and chemically similar to the material (ore or mineral) that entered the operation, except that particle size reduction has often occurred. Processing operations, in contrast, generate waste streams that generally bear little or no resemblance to the materials that entered the operation (with the arguable exception of smelting slags). These operations most often destroy the physical structure of the mineral, producing product and waste streams that are not earthen in character.
This common sense distinction is reflected in EPA's definitions of beneficiation and processing operations using heat and acid. The beneficiation operations (e.g., calcining, dissolution, roasting in preparation for leaching) produce wastes, where applicable, that are essentially earthen and of relatively high volume. The processing operations (e.g., smelting, acid or alkaline digestion), on the other hand, produce wastes that are not earthen, bear little resemblance to the materials that entered the operation, and are of relatively lower volume.
The Agency recently (April 1998) issued two finalized collections of damage cases involving extraction/beneficiation and mineral processing wastes: Human Health and Environmental Damages from Mining and Mineral Processing Wastes and Damage Cases and Environmental Releases from Mines and Mineral Processing Sites.
Top of page
What are the Lines Between Beneficiation and Mineral Processing?
EPA uses the terms "extraction," "beneficiation," and "mineral processing" to describe the sequence of events needed to produce a saleable mineral.
- - The concentration of the mineral commodity increases because impurities are removed as the operations progress from extraction through beneficiation to mineral processing.
What is a Primary Ore or Mineral?
It is important to establish whether primary mineral production takes place at the facility. The exclusion does not apply to secondary production of mineral commodities. Wastes from scrap recycling, metals recovery from flue dust, and similar activities have always been subject to Subtitle C regulation if these wastes exhibit hazardous characteristics or are listed hazardous wastes.
---Primary mineral production operations are defined as those using at least 50 percent ores, minerals, or beneficiated ores or minerals on an annual basis as the feedstock providing the mineral value.
---The exclusion does not extend to downstream chemical manufacturing, fabrication, or other activities that use a saleable commodity as the primary raw material, even it these activities occur at the same facility. (see 54 FR 36616, September 1, 1989)
The initial stages of mining (i.e., extraction and beneficiation) produce relatively earthen-like large volume and low hazard wastes.
Beneficiation operations typically serve to separate and concentrate the mineral values from waste material, remove impurities, or prepare the ore for further refinement.
Processing operations, in contrast, generally follow beneficiation and serve to change the concentrated mineral into a more useful chemical form. This is often done by using heat or chemical reactions to change the physical/chemical composition of the mineral and produce relatively low volume, high hazard wastes.
It is critical to determine at what point mineral processing first occurs because all operations following that initial processing operation will be considered processing. Any waste generated downstream from the initial mineral processing step loses the exemption unless it is on the list of the special 20 mineral processing wastes eligible for the Bevill exclusion. 4
Wastes falling on the beneficiation side of the line retain the exemption, while wastes on the mineral processing side, except for 20 "special wastes", fall within Subtitle C jurisdiction.
What is the Definition of Mineral Processing?
The Agency discusses the definition of mineral processing in the September 1, 1989 rulemaking (54 FR 36592).
For purposes of this rule, mineral processing wastes are generated by operations downstream of beneficiation and originate from a mineral processing operation as defined by the following elements:
Excluded Bevill wastes must be solid wastes as defined by EPA.
Excluded solid wastes must be uniquely associated with mineral industry operations
Excluded solid wastes must originate from mineral processing operations that possess all of the following attributes:
Follow beneficiation of an ore or mineral (if applicable);
Serve to remove the desired product from an ore or mineral, or from a beneficiated ore or mineral, or enhance the characteristics of ores or minerals, or beneficiated ores or minerals;
Use mineral-value feedstocks that are comprised of less than 50 percent scrap materials;
Produce either a final mineral product or an intermediate to the final product; and
Do not combine the product with another material that is not an ore or mineral, or beneficiated ore or mineral (e.g., alloying), do not involve fabrication or other manufacturing activities, and do not involve further processing of a marketable product of mineral processing.
Residuals from treatment of excluded mineral processing wastes must be historically or presently generated and must meet the high volume and low hazard criteria in order to retain excluded status.
Processing operations generally follow beneficiation and include techniques that often destroy the ore or mineral, such as smelting, electrolytic refining, and acid attack or digestion. EPA also wishes to emphasize that operations following the initial "processing" step in the production sequence are also considered processing operations, irrespective of whether they involve only the techniques defined above as beneficiation. Therefore, solid wastes arising from such operations are considered mineral processing wastes, rather than beneficiation wastes.
The Agency discusses the definition of mineral processing in the September 1, 1989 rulemaking (54 FR 36592).
For purposes of this rule, mineral processing wastes are generated by operations downstream of beneficiation and originate from a mineral processing operation as defined by the following elements:
Excluded Bevill wastes must be solid wastes as defined by EPA.
Excluded solid wastes must be uniquely associated with mineral industry operations
Excluded solid wastes must originate from mineral processing operations that possess all of the following attributes:
Follow beneficiation of an ore or mineral (if applicable);
Serve to remove the desired product from an ore or mineral, or from a beneficiated ore or mineral, or enhance the characteristics of ores or minerals, or beneficiated ores or minerals;
Use mineral-value feedstocks that are comprised of less than 50 percent scrap materials;
Produce either a final mineral product or an intermediate to the final product; and
Do not combine the product with another material that is not an ore or mineral, or beneficiated ore or mineral (e.g., alloying), do not involve fabrication or other manufacturing activities, and do not involve further processing of a marketable product of mineral processing.
Residuals from treatment of excluded mineral processing wastes must be historically or presently generated and must meet the high volume and low hazard criteria in order to retain excluded status.
Processing operations generally follow beneficiation and include techniques that often destroy the ore or mineral, such as smelting, electrolytic refining, and acid attack or digestion. EPA also wishes to emphasize that operations following the initial "processing" step in the production sequence are also considered processing operations, irrespective of whether they involve only the techniques defined above as beneficiation. Therefore, solid wastes arising from such operations are considered mineral processing wastes, rather than beneficiation wastes.
Exclusion as it applied to mineral processing wastes to include only "large volume, low hazard" wastes.
This rulemaking process was completed with the publication of final rules on September 1, 1989 (54 FR 36592) and January 23, 1990 (55 FR 2322) which defined the scope of the exclusion.
In July 1990, EPA completed the required Report to Congress on Mineral Processing Waste. This report studied 20 specific mineral processing wastes based on volume and hazard criteria.
EPA did not complete the regulatory determination within the six month statutory deadline. As a result, the Environmental Defense Fund filed a new RCRA citizen's suit.
EPA satisfied the decree by publishing a final rule and regulatory determination on June 13, 1991. This rule exempted the 20 mineral processing wastes.
The "special 20" mineral processing wastes, as listed at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7), are:
Slag from primary copper processing
Slag from primary lead processing
Red and brown muds from bauxite refining
Phosphogypsum from phosphoric acid production
Slag from elemental phosphorus production
Gasifier ash from coal gasification
Process wastewater from coal gasification
Calcium sulfate wastewater treatment plant sludge from primary copper processing
Slag tailings from primary copper processing
Fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric acid production
Process wastewater from hydrofluoric acid production
Air pollution control dust/ sludge from iron blast furnaces
Iron blast furnace slag
Treated residue from roasting/ leaching of chrome ore
Process wastewater from primary magnesium processing by the anhydrous process
Process wastewater from phosphoric acid production
Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth furnace air pollution control dust/sludge from carbon steel production
Chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production
Slag from primary zinc processing
These 20 mineral processing waste streams are exempt from regulation under RCRA Subtitle C
This rulemaking process was completed with the publication of final rules on September 1, 1989 (54 FR 36592) and January 23, 1990 (55 FR 2322) which defined the scope of the exclusion.
In July 1990, EPA completed the required Report to Congress on Mineral Processing Waste. This report studied 20 specific mineral processing wastes based on volume and hazard criteria.
EPA did not complete the regulatory determination within the six month statutory deadline. As a result, the Environmental Defense Fund filed a new RCRA citizen's suit.
EPA satisfied the decree by publishing a final rule and regulatory determination on June 13, 1991. This rule exempted the 20 mineral processing wastes.
The "special 20" mineral processing wastes, as listed at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7), are:
Slag from primary copper processing
Slag from primary lead processing
Red and brown muds from bauxite refining
Phosphogypsum from phosphoric acid production
Slag from elemental phosphorus production
Gasifier ash from coal gasification
Process wastewater from coal gasification
Calcium sulfate wastewater treatment plant sludge from primary copper processing
Slag tailings from primary copper processing
Fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric acid production
Process wastewater from hydrofluoric acid production
Air pollution control dust/ sludge from iron blast furnaces
Iron blast furnace slag
Treated residue from roasting/ leaching of chrome ore
Process wastewater from primary magnesium processing by the anhydrous process
Process wastewater from phosphoric acid production
Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth furnace air pollution control dust/sludge from carbon steel production
Chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production
Slag from primary zinc processing
These 20 mineral processing waste streams are exempt from regulation under RCRA Subtitle C
What are the Basic Steps in Making Bevill Determinations?
Note: The answers to these questions should not be used to make formal determinations of the status of how wastes at a particular facility are regulated under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7). Such opinions should be secured from the RCRA authorized state or the EPA Regional office.
Determine whether the material is considered a solid waste under RCRA.
Determine whether the facility is using a primary ore or mineral to produce a final or intermediate product and also whether less than 50 percent of the feedstocks on an annual basis are from secondary sources.
Establish whether the material and the operation that generates it are uniquely associated with mineral production.
Determine where in the sequence of operations beneficiation ends and mineral processing begins.
If the material is a mineral processing waste, determine whether it is one of the 20 special wastes from mineral processing.
This analytical sequence will result in one of three outcomes:
the material is not a solid waste and therefore not subject to RCRA;
the material is a solid waste but is exempt from RCRA Subtitle C because of the Mining Waste Exclusion; or
the material is a solid waste that is not exempt from RCRA Subtitle C and is subject to regulation as a hazardous waste if it is a listed or characteristic hazardous waste.
Top of page
Please refer to the Bevill Amendment Issues Training page for additional information.
Note: The answers to these questions should not be used to make formal determinations of the status of how wastes at a particular facility are regulated under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7). Such opinions should be secured from the RCRA authorized state or the EPA Regional office.
Determine whether the material is considered a solid waste under RCRA.
Determine whether the facility is using a primary ore or mineral to produce a final or intermediate product and also whether less than 50 percent of the feedstocks on an annual basis are from secondary sources.
Establish whether the material and the operation that generates it are uniquely associated with mineral production.
Determine where in the sequence of operations beneficiation ends and mineral processing begins.
If the material is a mineral processing waste, determine whether it is one of the 20 special wastes from mineral processing.
This analytical sequence will result in one of three outcomes:
the material is not a solid waste and therefore not subject to RCRA;
the material is a solid waste but is exempt from RCRA Subtitle C because of the Mining Waste Exclusion; or
the material is a solid waste that is not exempt from RCRA Subtitle C and is subject to regulation as a hazardous waste if it is a listed or characteristic hazardous waste.
Top of page
Please refer to the Bevill Amendment Issues Training page for additional information.
What is the Definition of Mineral Processing?
Note: The answers to these questions should not be used to make formal determinations of the status of how wastes at a particular facility are regulated under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7). Such opinions should be secured from the RCRA authorized state or the EPA Regional office.
The Agency discusses the definition of mineral processing in the September 1, 1989 rulemaking (54 FR 36592).For purposes of this rule, mineral processing wastes are generated by operations downstream of beneficiation and originate from a mineral processing operation as defined by the following elements:
Excluded Bevill wastes must be solid wastes as defined by EPA.
Excluded solid wastes must be uniquely associated with mineral industry operations
Excluded solid wastes must originate from mineral processing operations that possess all of the following attributes:
Follow beneficiation of an ore or mineral (if applicable);
Serve to remove the desired product from an ore or mineral, or from a beneficiated ore or mineral, or enhance the characteristics of ores or minerals, or beneficiated ores or minerals;
Use mineral-value feedstocks that are comprised of less than 50 percent scrap materials;
Produce either a final mineral product or an intermediate to the final product; and
Do not combine the product with another material that is not an ore or mineral, or beneficiated ore or mineral (e.g., alloying), do not involve fabrication or other manufacturing activities, and do not involve further processing of a marketable product of mineral processing.
Residuals from treatment of excluded mineral processing wastes must be historically or presently generated and must meet the high volume and low hazard criteria in order to retain excluded status.
Processing operations generally follow beneficiation and include techniques that often destroy the ore or mineral, such as smelting, electrolytic refining, and acid attack or digestion. EPA also wishes to emphasize that operations following the initial "processing" step in the production sequence are also considered processing operations, irrespective of whether they involve only the techniques defined above as beneficiation. Therefore, solid wastes arising from such operations are considered mineral processing wastes, rather than beneficiation wastes.
Note: The answers to these questions should not be used to make formal determinations of the status of how wastes at a particular facility are regulated under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7). Such opinions should be secured from the RCRA authorized state or the EPA Regional office.
The Agency discusses the definition of mineral processing in the September 1, 1989 rulemaking (54 FR 36592).For purposes of this rule, mineral processing wastes are generated by operations downstream of beneficiation and originate from a mineral processing operation as defined by the following elements:
Excluded Bevill wastes must be solid wastes as defined by EPA.
Excluded solid wastes must be uniquely associated with mineral industry operations
Excluded solid wastes must originate from mineral processing operations that possess all of the following attributes:
Follow beneficiation of an ore or mineral (if applicable);
Serve to remove the desired product from an ore or mineral, or from a beneficiated ore or mineral, or enhance the characteristics of ores or minerals, or beneficiated ores or minerals;
Use mineral-value feedstocks that are comprised of less than 50 percent scrap materials;
Produce either a final mineral product or an intermediate to the final product; and
Do not combine the product with another material that is not an ore or mineral, or beneficiated ore or mineral (e.g., alloying), do not involve fabrication or other manufacturing activities, and do not involve further processing of a marketable product of mineral processing.
Residuals from treatment of excluded mineral processing wastes must be historically or presently generated and must meet the high volume and low hazard criteria in order to retain excluded status.
Processing operations generally follow beneficiation and include techniques that often destroy the ore or mineral, such as smelting, electrolytic refining, and acid attack or digestion. EPA also wishes to emphasize that operations following the initial "processing" step in the production sequence are also considered processing operations, irrespective of whether they involve only the techniques defined above as beneficiation. Therefore, solid wastes arising from such operations are considered mineral processing wastes, rather than beneficiation wastes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)