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
E-MAIL Leobyford@yahoo.com
JANUARY 22, 2009
PRESIDENT OBAMA
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC 20500
FAX: 202-456-2461
President Obama,
Information has been sent to the office of the President, Senators, Congressman, Federal government agencies and many others. I am tried of the fraud, corruption, the violation of federal laws, the ill responsible actions of government agencies not protecting the families of America, tried of mis-using tax payer money, formal complaints with government covered up, the good olde boy program, and the list goes on.
I am a disabled veteran and my company Environmental Toxins Solutions Inc., (ETSI) is classified as a Service Disabled Veteran Own Small Business (SDVOSB). I have patent and patent pendings with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that provides permanent solutions to animal waste, chicken litter, green waste, and other waste. Also I have developed the first truly permanent solution for the Superfund Program/CERCLA. I was even awarded The ON THE BRINK award for 2007 for Oklahoma, for the first permanent solution for the superfund program.
In the first meeting with EPA one of the Project Managers (PM) she would help access a $40 million dollar grant she new of. We were very pleased with the outcome of the first meeting. After about two weeks of many phone calls and Emails, they (EPA) found out that we wanted to fix the most complex part of Tar Creek. The mine was and still is releasing thousands, if not millions of gallons of Arsenic laden water, to downstream impoundments like Grand Lake and other waters and impoundments in Eastern Oklahoma. Another meeting,EPA,which included four of our team, a Senator Staffer, EPA representatives, a representative for the people of Tar Creek (who took the attendance of the meeting). When we first walked in the meeting room a PM and another man walked out of the EPA office and we all introduced ourselves. The other man was dressed in EPA attire and introduced himself as EPA, but did not have any business cards, but that he was EPA. We were impressed that he took extensive notes during the meeting about my process and how to fix the superfund site. After the meeting was concluded, I was meeting with the team of ETSI, it was brought to our attention that this EPA person (taking notes) was not an EPA employee, but is the lead scientist for the prime contractor working for EPA at the Tar Creek Superfund Site. We filed a formal complaint with the Chairman of the EPW (Environmental and Public Works) in Washington DC. Evidently, the EPW contacted the EPA because they (EPA) requested a meeting with us. EPA apologized for their actions, for bringing in what I would call a corporate mole, and presented us with a disc that they said they spent millions of dollars on the underground mine workings and would hope that this would make up for their ill responsible actions and help define the problems they were experiencing. He (PM) also stated they (EPA) would help with a grant to start work and we (ETSI) would need to go to Colorado the following week to receive the money. Between the time to leave for the grant money, Katrina occurred. We understand the importance of a natural disaster and critical life saving responses that needed to happen, so we understood the suspension of the meeting. The people along the Gulf Coast needed immediate help and needed to come first.
I was awarded the ON THE Brink award at the Innovators of the Year for 2007 for developing the first permanent solution for the superfund program. At our awards table were several distinguished people. One of those, was a US Senator Staffer from Oklahoma. I bring this to your attention, because of the comments and statements from that night. During the awards ceremony the Senator’s Staffer told us that we have the full support of his office. This permanent innovative solution has been long overdue, especially for the people at the Tar Creek Superfund Site, those of Oklahoma, and this nation. We were told that we had to complete three steps and that if we encounter any resistance in completing those three steps, he would suppress that resistance. Since that date we have met with nothing but roadblocks. All phone calls and letters have apparently fallen on deaf ears
I have been trying to obtain the support of the EPA in proving and providing this first truly permanent solution for the nation’s number one superfund site TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE (TCSS), the national Superfund Program and have met nothing but roadblocks in the process. I have the documents to prove everything I have said and say in this and other letters and information. I have seen people saying we have money for you (both government and private (with government and political connections) just to keep me from writing letters of this nature. Government officials have been moved or removed from this site and now they (EPA) acts like nothing has ever happened and the new officials say they know nothing about the previous actions. I have a team that can resolve superfund sites,
Tar Creek is the most critical and complex superfund site in America. Some of the underground mines are as big as football fields and there are millions of gallons of Arsenic laden water being discharged to the environment every day. The mines under cut roads , houses, and many other surface structures, including rail. People are being moved in a buyout, the air borne and water discharge and leaching will go to many places, besides just this superfund site, and will not stop after the buyout. Many diseases and illness has occurred and many of those leaving will follow shorten life span path or even death. I have a permanent solution for the mines, water, chat (mining Waste), Air Borne particles and the returning of the land to a safe an useful purpose, along with creating signcant jobs and significant jobs at over 1000 locations at other superfund site in America. EPA says that it will be another 20 to 30 Years before EPA will begin to start final remediation.
Government says that there are mandated contracts of the Disabled Veterans and EPA says they gave those SDVOSB contracts to their Prime Contractors (PC). The Prime Contractors keep filling holes with untreated hazardous waste and moving hazardous waste to further contaminated areas unknown, because that is the only way they can dispose of the CERCLA waste, but the PC still receives Billions of taxpayer dollars for this illegal work operations and EPA keeps on supporting.
I know that you said you would clean up and open up government. See anything wrong with the above information. I hope that you keep your word and will do something about this very soon LIVES are at stake. Hope your family is not living like many of those here in Oklahoma and at other superfund sites across America, because if they are, I think you would be doing the same thing I am. Questioning government and informing people. If you need other information please contact me or you can GOOGLE me on the internet. I have been very vocal about TCSS, EPA, government contracts and government people.
President Obama, after listening to your inauguration speech, I feel that in order to fix corruption, you first have to know about the corruption. I have written and talked to a number of politicians,government agencies, I can assure you they do not want this information to reach you, but I know you will do something about this letter, when you receive this letter. If you should decide to investigate, I would appreciate a response ASAP if you choose to investigate. I will not release this letter to the news media, post to the internet, send to others and allow additional time for you to look into this letter, if I have a quick response. If I do not have a quick response from you to investigation, I will assume that you are not going to address this letter and the corruption.
SEMPER FI
LEO BYFORD
OWNER OF ETSI (SDVOSB)
I am also registered with the CCR, EPA and other agencies as a SDVOSB
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
LEO BYFORD
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
TULSA OKLAHOMA 74135
PHONE 1-918-622-6413
CELL 1-918-902-5730
FAX 1-918-622-7066
MAKE A CALL
PAGE 9
March 26, 2008
I have stated several times in the MAKE A CALL series letters that the health, safety , and environmental issues in Eastern Oklahoma are longer just about the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The Make A CALL letters were not and are not meant or written by me seeking answers for any of the questions presented in the letters from anyone reading the web site or the letters, but were presented to provide information and help in resolving the many issues of health, safety and environmental issues facing all of us in the nation and especially Oklahoma. I have tried to inform the people at superfund sites, like Tar Creek, of issues where EPA and other governmental agencies are deliberately not providing families and children protection that the federal laws provides and allows, for protecting each of us from hazardous materials and hazardous substance. Decisions that only benefit EPA and state agencies, and a selected few, by not following the federal law, is unacceptable. I am going to find out if a federal court will follow the laws, enacted by Congress and the court is suppose to be following, or if laws were enacted with two sets of standards. The old saying DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO comes to mind. To those being affect by the buyout, your issues are not with the trust authority, but with the EPA and State agencies. You can demonstrate till the world looks level, but until you start calling or writing the news media and your elected officials, the government is NOT going to provide you with what the law authorizes and provides for each of you, because you have not called their hand, as I have done or made a calls, which I have also done. Had enough, become a thorn as I have done. The superfund and the buyout are not just local issues. I would suggest contacting editors of the Tulsa World, The Oklahoman in OKC, or managers at any TV station that has connections with national news sources, then you will see results in correcting many of the issues. You are not the only families having issues with abandon mine sites or mine workings or hazardous materials. There are over 1500 hundred other locations in the United States dealing with superfund issues, where federal laws have not been enforced by government agencies and not protecting thousands of the people.
Now that ODEQ has placed and expanded a lead warning for Grand Lake, it will be interesting to see the coming results of Grand Lake property values, hope this is not the start of the Tar Creek Superfund site being expanded to include Grand Lake, Miami or possibly even Grove? Wonder why the results of the downstream lakes reports were not published? Now that GRDA has started it’s plight to gain land, whether land owners want to sell or not, what happens and where will it stop? It will be interesting to see those who have been against the buyout and not using permanent solutions, jump on the property owners on the west side of Grand Lake. If I remember correctly Senator Inhofe is one of the residents at Grand Lake, why don’t you jump on the Senator, see how many calls it will take before the Senator steps forward, knowing that he does not have your vote or your local state or federal Congressman doesn’t have your vote. I would think that those lake owners did not know that a lead warning for Grand Lake was going to be issued, or the litter and animal waste was going to be a problem for the lake or maybe signs saying DO NOT GO INTO THE WATER, COULD BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH would have been in their future. You might want to reference the impaired water list of the EPA and especially for waters in Eastern Oklahoma and what is causing the impairment. Let’s see how EPA and others will come up with a plan to spend taxpayer dollars on making new water, air, and land.
As most of you know, I have been very diligent in expressing the pollution and safety problems/issues in Eastern Oklahoma. I do appreciate the calls that have been made, demonstrating that I am not the only one that has serious concerns with issues now facing Eastern Oklahoma and the serious results from the lack of permanent results from government agencies in correcting pollution and safety issues. As I sat through the court proceedings, concerning the poultry litter, several thoughts occurred to me.
PUBLISHED TULSA WORLD LETTER TO THE EDITOR WED MARCH 26,2008
As I listen to the closing arguments in federal court concerning the chicken litter issues, I asked myself, who really wins? If the state wins, where will the litter be applied or sent to? What if it sent to the Tulsa area? What if it sent to another watershed upstream of Tulsa? What happens to the more than 15,000 jobs and other supporting industries of the poultry industry?
What happens if the poultry industry wins and is allowed to continue the practice of applying litter to the land in the watersheds, impaired or not? What happens to the impaired watersheds of Eastern Oklahoma? The EPA Environmental Protection Agency) has already declared more than 500 water impairments in our lakes and rivers and a lead warning has been issued for Grand Lake. What is next? How does a court make a ruling? Does the court follow the laws of the federal government? I would hate to be in the court’s position, because no manner what it decides, Oklahoma loses. How will the court ruling affect the growth and/or pollution in Eastern Oklahoma by industry and our tax base?
I would suggest that if there is anyone who does not understand what the court ruling means, make a call and take a minute to find out how this will have effect on your pocketbook and your family’s health.
The only winners are the attorney’s. They still get paid.
Wonder why permanent solutions did not make the news media or court?
EPA STRIKES AGAIN
You may now be asking yourself, what has this got to do with the Tar Creek Superfund Site and the Tri-State Mining District or superfund sites. The only difference in between the litter lawsuit and TAR CREEK is litter being applied to land and CHAT/ contaminated materials being applied outside the federal law requirements. The answer is very simple and briefly explained.
On February 4, 2008, I did file a federal lawsuit ( Case # 08 CV 057 CVE). I do realize that the EPA will probably have dozens of their top notch attorneys in court to face just one simple and concern person, acting PRO SE. One might be asking what is wrong with this guy, is he just nuts? I can assure you nothing is wrong with me, but I am tried of seeing families and children placed at risk and issues facing those in the buyout being violated by agencies not following the federal laws, somebody has to take a stand. I am tied of the EPA making the rules up as they go, just to fit the EPA‘s needs and the heck with the federal law. I do not know what one person can do, but it will be very interesting to hear EPA attorneys objecting to federal laws and just how far a federal judge will allow the EPA to go in continuing their evasion of the federal laws. To those reading this posting clearly understands my intentions and reasons for this lawsuit, it is really very simple. I will not say everything that will be presented in court, but I can say, now that the filing is a public document, that the EPA, government agencies, and elected officials provided many of the documents that will be presented in court and where to find the federal laws demonstrating the violations, which will ensure that I prevail in my lawsuit, that is how far above the federal law EPA thinks they are. We will find out how and why the EPA can write RODS (Record of Decisions) that do not offer or provide permanent solutions, as required by federal laws and the justification of continued pollution and safety issues. We will find out why the EPA does not want permanent solutions for the Tar Creek Superfund Site and the Tri State Mining District or other superfund sites. There are a lot of other issues the EPA will be required to address in court. Will the politicians continue to ride the fence and look for votes or take a stand against the EPA and support permanent solutions and support federal laws? Will the politicians continue to bury their heads in the sand and hope these issues will simply go away, before election time? Will the EPA continue to act above the laws of Congress and continue to ignore Congressional laws? Will the families in the buyout get a fair price for their misfortune? Will those responsible for the continued contamination of Eastern Oklahoma be allowed to go untested? Will Superfund Sites like Tar Creek be allowed to continue to contaminate for another 20 to 30 years or longer as the EPA has decided for Tar Creek (O U 4)? Will the areas now receiving the contaminated chat become a new problem? Will the court follow the laws or will EPA dictate to the courts? Will it take a federal court to force the EPA to apply permanent solutions and permanent solutions finally be put in place, as required by federal law? I can only say that I would not like to be the judge who has to make the decision. It will be very interesting, for these questions will be answered.
You Can Still Make a Call.
Leo Byford
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
TULSA OKLAHOMA 74135
PHONE 1-918-622-6413
CELL 1-918-902-5730
FAX 1-918-622-7066
MAKE A CALL
PAGE 9
March 26, 2008
I have stated several times in the MAKE A CALL series letters that the health, safety , and environmental issues in Eastern Oklahoma are longer just about the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The Make A CALL letters were not and are not meant or written by me seeking answers for any of the questions presented in the letters from anyone reading the web site or the letters, but were presented to provide information and help in resolving the many issues of health, safety and environmental issues facing all of us in the nation and especially Oklahoma. I have tried to inform the people at superfund sites, like Tar Creek, of issues where EPA and other governmental agencies are deliberately not providing families and children protection that the federal laws provides and allows, for protecting each of us from hazardous materials and hazardous substance. Decisions that only benefit EPA and state agencies, and a selected few, by not following the federal law, is unacceptable. I am going to find out if a federal court will follow the laws, enacted by Congress and the court is suppose to be following, or if laws were enacted with two sets of standards. The old saying DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO comes to mind. To those being affect by the buyout, your issues are not with the trust authority, but with the EPA and State agencies. You can demonstrate till the world looks level, but until you start calling or writing the news media and your elected officials, the government is NOT going to provide you with what the law authorizes and provides for each of you, because you have not called their hand, as I have done or made a calls, which I have also done. Had enough, become a thorn as I have done. The superfund and the buyout are not just local issues. I would suggest contacting editors of the Tulsa World, The Oklahoman in OKC, or managers at any TV station that has connections with national news sources, then you will see results in correcting many of the issues. You are not the only families having issues with abandon mine sites or mine workings or hazardous materials. There are over 1500 hundred other locations in the United States dealing with superfund issues, where federal laws have not been enforced by government agencies and not protecting thousands of the people.
Now that ODEQ has placed and expanded a lead warning for Grand Lake, it will be interesting to see the coming results of Grand Lake property values, hope this is not the start of the Tar Creek Superfund site being expanded to include Grand Lake, Miami or possibly even Grove? Wonder why the results of the downstream lakes reports were not published? Now that GRDA has started it’s plight to gain land, whether land owners want to sell or not, what happens and where will it stop? It will be interesting to see those who have been against the buyout and not using permanent solutions, jump on the property owners on the west side of Grand Lake. If I remember correctly Senator Inhofe is one of the residents at Grand Lake, why don’t you jump on the Senator, see how many calls it will take before the Senator steps forward, knowing that he does not have your vote or your local state or federal Congressman doesn’t have your vote. I would think that those lake owners did not know that a lead warning for Grand Lake was going to be issued, or the litter and animal waste was going to be a problem for the lake or maybe signs saying DO NOT GO INTO THE WATER, COULD BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH would have been in their future. You might want to reference the impaired water list of the EPA and especially for waters in Eastern Oklahoma and what is causing the impairment. Let’s see how EPA and others will come up with a plan to spend taxpayer dollars on making new water, air, and land.
As most of you know, I have been very diligent in expressing the pollution and safety problems/issues in Eastern Oklahoma. I do appreciate the calls that have been made, demonstrating that I am not the only one that has serious concerns with issues now facing Eastern Oklahoma and the serious results from the lack of permanent results from government agencies in correcting pollution and safety issues. As I sat through the court proceedings, concerning the poultry litter, several thoughts occurred to me.
PUBLISHED TULSA WORLD LETTER TO THE EDITOR WED MARCH 26,2008
As I listen to the closing arguments in federal court concerning the chicken litter issues, I asked myself, who really wins? If the state wins, where will the litter be applied or sent to? What if it sent to the Tulsa area? What if it sent to another watershed upstream of Tulsa? What happens to the more than 15,000 jobs and other supporting industries of the poultry industry?
What happens if the poultry industry wins and is allowed to continue the practice of applying litter to the land in the watersheds, impaired or not? What happens to the impaired watersheds of Eastern Oklahoma? The EPA Environmental Protection Agency) has already declared more than 500 water impairments in our lakes and rivers and a lead warning has been issued for Grand Lake. What is next? How does a court make a ruling? Does the court follow the laws of the federal government? I would hate to be in the court’s position, because no manner what it decides, Oklahoma loses. How will the court ruling affect the growth and/or pollution in Eastern Oklahoma by industry and our tax base?
I would suggest that if there is anyone who does not understand what the court ruling means, make a call and take a minute to find out how this will have effect on your pocketbook and your family’s health.
The only winners are the attorney’s. They still get paid.
Wonder why permanent solutions did not make the news media or court?
EPA STRIKES AGAIN
You may now be asking yourself, what has this got to do with the Tar Creek Superfund Site and the Tri-State Mining District or superfund sites. The only difference in between the litter lawsuit and TAR CREEK is litter being applied to land and CHAT/ contaminated materials being applied outside the federal law requirements. The answer is very simple and briefly explained.
On February 4, 2008, I did file a federal lawsuit ( Case # 08 CV 057 CVE). I do realize that the EPA will probably have dozens of their top notch attorneys in court to face just one simple and concern person, acting PRO SE. One might be asking what is wrong with this guy, is he just nuts? I can assure you nothing is wrong with me, but I am tried of seeing families and children placed at risk and issues facing those in the buyout being violated by agencies not following the federal laws, somebody has to take a stand. I am tied of the EPA making the rules up as they go, just to fit the EPA‘s needs and the heck with the federal law. I do not know what one person can do, but it will be very interesting to hear EPA attorneys objecting to federal laws and just how far a federal judge will allow the EPA to go in continuing their evasion of the federal laws. To those reading this posting clearly understands my intentions and reasons for this lawsuit, it is really very simple. I will not say everything that will be presented in court, but I can say, now that the filing is a public document, that the EPA, government agencies, and elected officials provided many of the documents that will be presented in court and where to find the federal laws demonstrating the violations, which will ensure that I prevail in my lawsuit, that is how far above the federal law EPA thinks they are. We will find out how and why the EPA can write RODS (Record of Decisions) that do not offer or provide permanent solutions, as required by federal laws and the justification of continued pollution and safety issues. We will find out why the EPA does not want permanent solutions for the Tar Creek Superfund Site and the Tri State Mining District or other superfund sites. There are a lot of other issues the EPA will be required to address in court. Will the politicians continue to ride the fence and look for votes or take a stand against the EPA and support permanent solutions and support federal laws? Will the politicians continue to bury their heads in the sand and hope these issues will simply go away, before election time? Will the EPA continue to act above the laws of Congress and continue to ignore Congressional laws? Will the families in the buyout get a fair price for their misfortune? Will those responsible for the continued contamination of Eastern Oklahoma be allowed to go untested? Will Superfund Sites like Tar Creek be allowed to continue to contaminate for another 20 to 30 years or longer as the EPA has decided for Tar Creek (O U 4)? Will the areas now receiving the contaminated chat become a new problem? Will the court follow the laws or will EPA dictate to the courts? Will it take a federal court to force the EPA to apply permanent solutions and permanent solutions finally be put in place, as required by federal law? I can only say that I would not like to be the judge who has to make the decision. It will be very interesting, for these questions will be answered.
You Can Still Make a Call.
Leo Byford
Saturday, November 22, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS SOLUTIONS INC.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Environmental Toxins Solutions Inc., better known as ETSI, is tasked with the development, application and completion of solutions for the permanent abatement of extremely large scale and complex environmental issues. ETSI has developed proprietary processes and specializes in using those methods and the hazardous materials, which currently requires coordinated management under various Federal, State, or Tribal authorities to construct a permanent resolution. ETSI, by incorporating those hazardous materials into a single unique product can simultaneously resolve multiple long standing environmental problems, which regulators and industry have been wrestling with for several decades. ETSI’s goal is to provide final and permanent solutions for hazardous materials, but perhaps more importantly, to use designed permanent solutions to protect human health and the environment without increasing ongoing “temporary “actions by regulatory entities.
ETSI’s patents and processes fall into two major categories; The first process is for INORGANIC hazardous materials. The largest and most difficult problem that Federal, State ,Tribal and industry faces is dealing with mining waste generated from decades of metals mining across the US. The mountainous volumes of mine and mill waste have proven to be a very unique and difficult problem to resolve. ETSI’s process incorporates mine and mill waste into a feed stock for a unique product that can be returned to abandon or depleted mine workings. Several environmental issues are addressed simultaneously. The hazardous materials are encapsulated in a proprietary processed product, which eliminates leaching. Upon returning ETSI’s product into mine workings it solidifies, to structurally eliminate subsidence events and as an added benefit eliminates pathways for movement of acidic mine water. A significant benefit for the contaminated surface footprint is remediation, with the land being returned to productive use.
The second process is for ORGANIC materials, particularly, but not limited to animal waste. ETSI has a process which takes waste materials, for example chicken waste or waste treatment sludge, and by using a proprietary blending method is able to eliminate exposure to the potentially adverse human health hazards contained in waste materials and converts this waste into a recycled blended product, which is marketable and also a beneficial soil amendment. Other environmental processes are in stages of R&D and are on schedule to become available to resolve more serious hazardous materials issues.
To address these unique and massive environmental concerns, various seasoned professional industry veterans have joined the team. The ETSI team includes judicial, science, waste management, environmental project management, manufacturing and construction professionals.
LEO BYFORD PHONE : 1-918-902-5730 DIRECT
OWNER OF ETSI SDVOSB (Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Environmental Toxins Solutions Inc., better known as ETSI, is tasked with the development, application and completion of solutions for the permanent abatement of extremely large scale and complex environmental issues. ETSI has developed proprietary processes and specializes in using those methods and the hazardous materials, which currently requires coordinated management under various Federal, State, or Tribal authorities to construct a permanent resolution. ETSI, by incorporating those hazardous materials into a single unique product can simultaneously resolve multiple long standing environmental problems, which regulators and industry have been wrestling with for several decades. ETSI’s goal is to provide final and permanent solutions for hazardous materials, but perhaps more importantly, to use designed permanent solutions to protect human health and the environment without increasing ongoing “temporary “actions by regulatory entities.
ETSI’s patents and processes fall into two major categories; The first process is for INORGANIC hazardous materials. The largest and most difficult problem that Federal, State ,Tribal and industry faces is dealing with mining waste generated from decades of metals mining across the US. The mountainous volumes of mine and mill waste have proven to be a very unique and difficult problem to resolve. ETSI’s process incorporates mine and mill waste into a feed stock for a unique product that can be returned to abandon or depleted mine workings. Several environmental issues are addressed simultaneously. The hazardous materials are encapsulated in a proprietary processed product, which eliminates leaching. Upon returning ETSI’s product into mine workings it solidifies, to structurally eliminate subsidence events and as an added benefit eliminates pathways for movement of acidic mine water. A significant benefit for the contaminated surface footprint is remediation, with the land being returned to productive use.
The second process is for ORGANIC materials, particularly, but not limited to animal waste. ETSI has a process which takes waste materials, for example chicken waste or waste treatment sludge, and by using a proprietary blending method is able to eliminate exposure to the potentially adverse human health hazards contained in waste materials and converts this waste into a recycled blended product, which is marketable and also a beneficial soil amendment. Other environmental processes are in stages of R&D and are on schedule to become available to resolve more serious hazardous materials issues.
To address these unique and massive environmental concerns, various seasoned professional industry veterans have joined the team. The ETSI team includes judicial, science, waste management, environmental project management, manufacturing and construction professionals.
LEO BYFORD PHONE : 1-918-902-5730 DIRECT
OWNER OF ETSI SDVOSB (Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business)
Media Release
For immediate release June 26. 2008
ETSI, Environmental Toxins Solutions Inc. is extremely pleased to announce its selection by completing working agreements for the ST. LOUIS 4 site, which is privately owned and located within the Tar Creek Superfund Site to prove its proprietary innovative processes of simultaneously eliminating localized site-specific subsidence risk and permanently reducing the hazardous wastes’ footprints associated with former abandoned mining activities. The government agencies that have refused to allow us to prove what the private industry is capable of doing and told us that if we wanted to prove this innovative or any new innovative technology we would have to do so in the private sector, well EPA, USACE (United States Army Corps Of Engineers), ODEQ (Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality) here we are, doing what you said cannot be done.
After searching and reviewing many sites and records associated with this superfund site and having to find a site that would satisfy and qualify all of the requirements ETSI needed to prove this technology and also had to be privately owned, because of inept attitude of governmental agencies. The site had to have materials needed to prove this process, have roads that were undercut, which could possibility cave in, had to have rail that was under cut and also possibly collapsing. I do not know at this time if the railroad is interested in recovering all of their rail line, this is their decision and as well as the responsible parties responsible for securing the hiways and roads by preventing collapses. This site allows us to provide a proven permanent solution to many unsafe conditions and stop the continuous spreading of hazardous materials to the environmen and families of the State Of Oklahoma. After witnessing many failed attempts of EPA and other governmental agencies to secure this superfund’s site and allowing the recontamination of the environment in their failed attempts, we are going to find about what the poultry industry has stated and defined as FALSE SCIENCE and how it has applied to the superfund program. We invited those who are interested in proving what FALSE SCIENCE is to step forward. This project will provide the basis of who is not protecting the families, children and the environment and who has caused hundreds of millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars to be used unwisely and endangered families and children.
As owner of ETSI, Patent owner, holder, and inventor, site preparation and preliminary imaging should begin in the following weeks. Local employment opportunities are expected to be available and hiring announcements will be first placed in the local area media, as I have promised in several public Meetings, following assessment of the imaging results and testing results of this site will follow. We are extremely pleased to have secured this site to employ and prove our innovative processes, but more importantly to establish this significant break through technology as an officially benchmarked and globally recognized precedent for use within this Superfund site and possibly at the more than 1,200 other U.S. Superfund sites left abandoned with hazardous wastes, which are adversely impacting air and water quality throughout this country.
This pilot project is a major breakthrough in a very difficult and extremely complex environmental arena controlled by government agencies, which encompasses numerous overlapping federal and state “responsible parties” and their partners who have systematically made attempts for decades to temporarily or partially patch the problems or ignore both of these problems, the Law and viable permanent solutions, which have been offered in numerous presentations over the past several years. The EPA and their partners are still continually trying to duplicate our processes and by doing so, has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and have deliberately allowed the continued exposure and disbursement of hazardous materials to families and children, that the public is succumbing to at many superfund sites and government control sites throughout this nation.
I would like to express by deepest appreciation to the following for their support in bringing this first privately developed business solution and providing the first truly permanent solution to many of the contaminated and hazardous conditions that exist not only at this Superfund Site , but also many other locations.
The outstanding team of ETSI.
Senator Jim Inhofe
Congressman Dan Boren
The Journal Record in Oklahoma City for sponsoring the Innovator of the Year Awards and each of their associated sponsors in their decision to award me an ON THE BRINK AWARD
Nominations for several awards at MIT (Mass. Institute Of Technology)
The Oklahoma Inventors Congress (OIC) and the President of OIC Mr. Dan Hoffman along with the sponsorship of OCAST provided to OIC.
Last but the most important sponsor of all is my wife LAURA. Without her support and constant reminder of just how important this innovative technology is to our family, neighbors, associates, State of Oklahoma and this Nation, this historic event is, I would not be standing here today.
Finally, I would like to also say that this is the first of several announcements that are forthcoming which will have major impact on the daily lives of each of us, especially in the energy field and environment. This is a day that many government agencies have tried to prevent and have done everything they can to do so. Who knows how far these government agencies will go to prevent its success. We will see.
Leo Byford
Inventor
Patent Holder and Owner of ETSI
For immediate release June 26. 2008
ETSI, Environmental Toxins Solutions Inc. is extremely pleased to announce its selection by completing working agreements for the ST. LOUIS 4 site, which is privately owned and located within the Tar Creek Superfund Site to prove its proprietary innovative processes of simultaneously eliminating localized site-specific subsidence risk and permanently reducing the hazardous wastes’ footprints associated with former abandoned mining activities. The government agencies that have refused to allow us to prove what the private industry is capable of doing and told us that if we wanted to prove this innovative or any new innovative technology we would have to do so in the private sector, well EPA, USACE (United States Army Corps Of Engineers), ODEQ (Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality) here we are, doing what you said cannot be done.
After searching and reviewing many sites and records associated with this superfund site and having to find a site that would satisfy and qualify all of the requirements ETSI needed to prove this technology and also had to be privately owned, because of inept attitude of governmental agencies. The site had to have materials needed to prove this process, have roads that were undercut, which could possibility cave in, had to have rail that was under cut and also possibly collapsing. I do not know at this time if the railroad is interested in recovering all of their rail line, this is their decision and as well as the responsible parties responsible for securing the hiways and roads by preventing collapses. This site allows us to provide a proven permanent solution to many unsafe conditions and stop the continuous spreading of hazardous materials to the environmen and families of the State Of Oklahoma. After witnessing many failed attempts of EPA and other governmental agencies to secure this superfund’s site and allowing the recontamination of the environment in their failed attempts, we are going to find about what the poultry industry has stated and defined as FALSE SCIENCE and how it has applied to the superfund program. We invited those who are interested in proving what FALSE SCIENCE is to step forward. This project will provide the basis of who is not protecting the families, children and the environment and who has caused hundreds of millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars to be used unwisely and endangered families and children.
As owner of ETSI, Patent owner, holder, and inventor, site preparation and preliminary imaging should begin in the following weeks. Local employment opportunities are expected to be available and hiring announcements will be first placed in the local area media, as I have promised in several public Meetings, following assessment of the imaging results and testing results of this site will follow. We are extremely pleased to have secured this site to employ and prove our innovative processes, but more importantly to establish this significant break through technology as an officially benchmarked and globally recognized precedent for use within this Superfund site and possibly at the more than 1,200 other U.S. Superfund sites left abandoned with hazardous wastes, which are adversely impacting air and water quality throughout this country.
This pilot project is a major breakthrough in a very difficult and extremely complex environmental arena controlled by government agencies, which encompasses numerous overlapping federal and state “responsible parties” and their partners who have systematically made attempts for decades to temporarily or partially patch the problems or ignore both of these problems, the Law and viable permanent solutions, which have been offered in numerous presentations over the past several years. The EPA and their partners are still continually trying to duplicate our processes and by doing so, has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and have deliberately allowed the continued exposure and disbursement of hazardous materials to families and children, that the public is succumbing to at many superfund sites and government control sites throughout this nation.
I would like to express by deepest appreciation to the following for their support in bringing this first privately developed business solution and providing the first truly permanent solution to many of the contaminated and hazardous conditions that exist not only at this Superfund Site , but also many other locations.
The outstanding team of ETSI.
Senator Jim Inhofe
Congressman Dan Boren
The Journal Record in Oklahoma City for sponsoring the Innovator of the Year Awards and each of their associated sponsors in their decision to award me an ON THE BRINK AWARD
Nominations for several awards at MIT (Mass. Institute Of Technology)
The Oklahoma Inventors Congress (OIC) and the President of OIC Mr. Dan Hoffman along with the sponsorship of OCAST provided to OIC.
Last but the most important sponsor of all is my wife LAURA. Without her support and constant reminder of just how important this innovative technology is to our family, neighbors, associates, State of Oklahoma and this Nation, this historic event is, I would not be standing here today.
Finally, I would like to also say that this is the first of several announcements that are forthcoming which will have major impact on the daily lives of each of us, especially in the energy field and environment. This is a day that many government agencies have tried to prevent and have done everything they can to do so. Who knows how far these government agencies will go to prevent its success. We will see.
Leo Byford
Inventor
Patent Holder and Owner of ETSI
Friday, November 21, 2008
LEO BYFORD
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74135
PHONE 1-918-622-6413
CELL 1-918-902-5730
FAX 1-918-622-7066
APRIL 9, 2008
RE: SUPERFUND
EPA
FEDERAL LAWSUIT
CHAIRMAN OF THE EPW
SENATOR BARBARA BOXER
Senator,
I have been writing a series of letters concerning the Tar Creek Superfund Site and other superfund site not only here, but also in other states. After developing the first truly permanent solution for superfund sites like the Tar Creek Superfund Site and others like Tar Creek I decided to start informing taxpayers and families and that is the purpose of the MAKE A CALL series of letters. Most of the letters have been posted to the internet and to the TAR CREEK PICHER AND SURROUNDING TOWNS web site and I have had several postings in the TULSA WORLD newspaper. I thought that since I have not received any answers to the questions that I have sent to you answered, that I would take the time to Fax you just a couple of the letters that have been posted. I am in the process of writing the next page of the letters, but I did not want to published this until I gave you the opportunity of responding to this communication. The letters that I am sending will speak for themselves and I can assure you that I can proven everything that I have written.
I will state again in this letter that the only thing I have ever asked of the EPA is to be allowed to prove my process at the Tar Creek Superfund Site and the pilot project will be a cost free project to government and I would like to have a continued contract to complete the permanent closing of superfund sites where my permanent process can be applied. I do realize that the EPA does not plan to fix the superfund site here in Oklahoma and I think it is a disgrace to the taxpayer and the country that EPA has been allowed to continue the practice of not applying permanent solution at many of the superfund sites as required by federal law.
Sincerely,
LEO BYFORD
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74135
PHONE 1-918-622-6413
CELL 1-918-902-5730
FAX 1-918-622-7066
APRIL 9, 2008
RE: SUPERFUND
EPA
FEDERAL LAWSUIT
CHAIRMAN OF THE EPW
SENATOR BARBARA BOXER
Senator,
I have been writing a series of letters concerning the Tar Creek Superfund Site and other superfund site not only here, but also in other states. After developing the first truly permanent solution for superfund sites like the Tar Creek Superfund Site and others like Tar Creek I decided to start informing taxpayers and families and that is the purpose of the MAKE A CALL series of letters. Most of the letters have been posted to the internet and to the TAR CREEK PICHER AND SURROUNDING TOWNS web site and I have had several postings in the TULSA WORLD newspaper. I thought that since I have not received any answers to the questions that I have sent to you answered, that I would take the time to Fax you just a couple of the letters that have been posted. I am in the process of writing the next page of the letters, but I did not want to published this until I gave you the opportunity of responding to this communication. The letters that I am sending will speak for themselves and I can assure you that I can proven everything that I have written.
I will state again in this letter that the only thing I have ever asked of the EPA is to be allowed to prove my process at the Tar Creek Superfund Site and the pilot project will be a cost free project to government and I would like to have a continued contract to complete the permanent closing of superfund sites where my permanent process can be applied. I do realize that the EPA does not plan to fix the superfund site here in Oklahoma and I think it is a disgrace to the taxpayer and the country that EPA has been allowed to continue the practice of not applying permanent solution at many of the superfund sites as required by federal law.
Sincerely,
LEO BYFORD
LEO BYFORD
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74135
PHONE 1-918-622 6413
CELL 12-918-902-5730
FAX 1-918-622-7066
October 15, 2008
RE: Public Notice
Miami News Record
September 25, 2008
Assessment plan for Tar Creek
Public Comment
Ms. Suzanne Dugging
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
9014 East 21st Service
Tulsa, OK. 74129
Fax 1-918-581-7467
Phone 1-918-581-7458
I am somewhat confused at the report Published in the New Record by Fish and Wildlife. I would like to ask for answers to the following questions and that this plan be tabled until these answers are provided.
1. Since the inception of this superfund there has never been a permanent solution applied at Tar Creek, would any of the actions in your plan apply permanent solutions as required by federal law?
2. Since the EPA has jurisdiction over the environment and has never applied any permanent solutions and has allowed the continued discharge of hazardous materials from this superfund site, will EPA be held accountable as a PRP or not following the federal laws as mandated by CERCLA and Congress?
3. Are the owners of the chat Piles going to be held responsible as a PRP or will the owners of the hazardous material be excluded from this action plan and if they are excluded why?
4. Why does this plan not address the levels of ARSENIC, since government test reflects high levels being discharged?
5. How can anyone assess damages from anyone when the EPA has not corrected the problems and want to allow another twenty 25 years for this discharges from this superfund to continue and having negative results on fish and wildlife?
6. Why was this Public Notice not Published to any of the Downstream communities that have interest in fish and wildlife? Tulsa receives water from the downstream event and many has some type of interest in Grand Lake?
7. Since the owners of Hazardous materials are receiving compensation from sales of untreated hazardous materials being sold for public use, why does you plan omit these owners from your plan.
8. How will your plan stop the discharges being done at Tar Creek?
9. When will any monies recovered from this assessments be applied to improve fish and wildlife?
10. Why does your Public Notice not include the names of the Trustees and the Tar Creek Trustee Council and contact information?
Leo Byford
5244 South Irvington Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74135
PHONE 1-918-622 6413
CELL 12-918-902-5730
FAX 1-918-622-7066
October 15, 2008
RE: Public Notice
Miami News Record
September 25, 2008
Assessment plan for Tar Creek
Public Comment
Ms. Suzanne Dugging
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
9014 East 21st Service
Tulsa, OK. 74129
Fax 1-918-581-7467
Phone 1-918-581-7458
I am somewhat confused at the report Published in the New Record by Fish and Wildlife. I would like to ask for answers to the following questions and that this plan be tabled until these answers are provided.
1. Since the inception of this superfund there has never been a permanent solution applied at Tar Creek, would any of the actions in your plan apply permanent solutions as required by federal law?
2. Since the EPA has jurisdiction over the environment and has never applied any permanent solutions and has allowed the continued discharge of hazardous materials from this superfund site, will EPA be held accountable as a PRP or not following the federal laws as mandated by CERCLA and Congress?
3. Are the owners of the chat Piles going to be held responsible as a PRP or will the owners of the hazardous material be excluded from this action plan and if they are excluded why?
4. Why does this plan not address the levels of ARSENIC, since government test reflects high levels being discharged?
5. How can anyone assess damages from anyone when the EPA has not corrected the problems and want to allow another twenty 25 years for this discharges from this superfund to continue and having negative results on fish and wildlife?
6. Why was this Public Notice not Published to any of the Downstream communities that have interest in fish and wildlife? Tulsa receives water from the downstream event and many has some type of interest in Grand Lake?
7. Since the owners of Hazardous materials are receiving compensation from sales of untreated hazardous materials being sold for public use, why does you plan omit these owners from your plan.
8. How will your plan stop the discharges being done at Tar Creek?
9. When will any monies recovered from this assessments be applied to improve fish and wildlife?
10. Why does your Public Notice not include the names of the Trustees and the Tar Creek Trustee Council and contact information?
Leo Byford
5244 South Irvington Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135
Thursday, November 20, 2008
MAKE A CALL
LEO BYFORD
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
PHONE 1-918-622-6413
CELL 1-918-902-5730
FAX 1-918-622-7066
FERRUARY 22, 2008
MAKE A CALL
PAGE 7
What a day in history for superfund sites and for the families and children living within the Tar Creek Super Fund Site. I would like to congratulate Senator Inhofe for his efforts of making this day happen. I do not know if what I have done with statements/letters or at the public meeting August 28, 2007, or the Federal Lawsuit that I have filed, if this has made any difference with the EPA deciding to finally support the buyout or doing what the laws says or what should have been done since this superfund site was established or if this was what Senator Inhofe needed to make this happen. If the lawsuit was needed to bring EPA to the decision to support the buyout and the lawsuit was needed to accomplish what the Senator Inhofe has been trying to do, I was glad to help. I am not trying to steal Senator Inhofe thunder, my issues are with the EPA and the laws that Congress has in place to protect each of us from contaminated materials, superfund sites, correcting Tar Creek and the Tri State Mining District, not with Senator Inhofe, but it would be nice if I had his support.
In my heart, I believe that this was the only way EPA could go into Federal Court, without having EGG on their face. I would call this damage control by EPA. I am not trying to take credit or take anything away from Senator Inhofe. I do think it is very interesting that since the EPA has been served with a Federal Lawsuit, addressing many issues and violations at Tar Creek, that this announcement and support, that has now taken place, the EPA is now trying to be good guys. I also think it is interesting that I no longer have access to the home page or any of the other EPA web sites through the internet. This lawsuit is not going away, nor am I. If any one has any doubts about the long arm of government, take a lesson. We are going to find out just how far government will go to stop this lawsuit, what control government has over the media and our courts and why. Ask yourself why none of the MAKE A CALL letters have never made the news media, they do have copies. I have said many times this is no longer just about Tar Creek and the buyout, but about protecting the families and children from hazardous materials at superfund sites. This is about what one person in Federal Court taking a position of demonstrating and proving what the Congressional laws says and what EPA is suppose to be doing (or should I say not doing) under federal laws. This is also about using innovative technology to permanently closing many Superfund sites (as EPA stated in the ROD for O U 4), saving valuable tax dollars and most importantly preventing the dangerous health effects on families and children from superfund sites and mine workings. This is about the EPA not wanting permanent solutions for superfund sites. I was taught as a Marine, to defend this country (whether the enemy is domestic or foreign) and the people, if this is another contribution I have to do to defending this country, well so be it. All that I have ever asked of EPA and other government agencies is for the opportunity to prove and provide my technology at Tar Creek and then continue to correct superfund sites issues, where applicable.
The media forget to tell one extremely important part of the so call master plan( as stated by Region 6 Administrator Richard Greene) for the commitment to permanently clean up Tar Creek. The tentative proposal (O U 4) is now called a Record of Decision (ROD) by EPA. The only difference between the tentative proposal and the now official O U 4 ROD is the support of the buyout by EPA to fund the buyout, whether the lawsuit brought this to a head or not, I do not know. It also does not make sense to me as why the EPA is willing to ask and to continue, for a total of 60 plus years of remediation, a total (possibly more) of $317 (estimated reports) millions of taxpayer dollars, on solutions that do not offer any permanent solutions (required by law) and this superfund site still not be taken off the NPL at the end of 60 plus years. What is really sad, this is not the only superfund site with issues and health concerns. What happens after the additional time EPA is saying they now need? If you any questions about the these statements read the ROD, issues about O U 4 and the job security for EPA and their Prime contractors, counting the waste of taxpayer money, all one has to do is read the now official O U 4 ROD. I did not expect to have a bonus of materials to present in my federal lawsuit.
I would also like to say that the announcement of the O U 4 ROD was a very special and pleasant surprise. I do not under stand why ETSI was mention, since I as an individual made the statements and no one else spoke about LAURA‘S MIX. I understand why the EPA is trying to make this a corporate issue and not an individual issue. I do understand the statement made in the ROD that I do not have proven documents for LAURA’S MIX. I do not understand why the mole, done by EPA, that was placed in EPA meetings, to gather secret and designed information was not mention or addressed as you said you would do and would be addressed in the ROD announcement. I would have thought that with all the meetings and communications with EPA, EPA would have come to the conclusion and understanding what site specific means. In case you (EPA) do not understand what site specific means, it means for a specific location. Since, there is not another superfund site location in the United States with the same issues, the same amount of toxic water, the same depths and size of mine workings it would be impossible to have proven documents to satisfy the EPA on the site specific formulations ( what works at one site may not work exactly the same at another and the formulation will have to be adjusted at each specific site) for a site location. This is one of the reasons why the Cost Free Pilot Project was offered to all of the agencies. It is really very simple, if LAURA’S MIX performs as designed, then we all can stand tall, but if LAURA’S MIX falls short of designed specifications, the only person that goes home with their tail between their legs is me and taxpayers do not take another hit to their pockets. The federal lawsuit would have not been filed, because I do know ( stated as comments from EPA representatives stating that and comments in meetings, with EPA, also stating that it is against the law to allow me to do a cost free pilot project at Tar Creek) how to correct the issues of superfund sites like Tar Creek and hazardous materials conditions and subsidence issues and a team of professionals supporting me, that can correct any problems that might arise instantly, not taking years of research and studies as demonstrated by EPA, it would not take 60 plus years to close this superfund as suggested by EPA (ROD for O U 4). I am not one of the good olde boys, I am one person who wants to improve the health and safety and the environment, provide jobs, to a very depress economy, improve living conditions and save valuable natural resources in Oklahoma and maybe the nation and put a stop to the madness. As far as I am concerned another 20 to 30 years, is unacceptable to me to start closing the Tar Creek Superfund Site, as stated in O U 4, when other options are available, also stated in the ROD for O U 4. It also seems to me that with the millions and millions of taxpayer dollars that have been spent at the Tar Creek superfund site, one would have thought that the EPA would have discovered or applied and would have produced ONE permanent solution. To those taxpayers and those effected by superfund sites, I would suggest that you, as an individual, read the laws as I have done, those who are having issues with the buyout please do the same. Then you will see why the media and the EPA has kept this information from you and the purpose for the MAKE A CALL letters and the Federal Lawsuit, you will find many of the answers, as I have done.
5244 SOUTH IRVINGTON PLACE
PHONE 1-918-622-6413
CELL 1-918-902-5730
FAX 1-918-622-7066
FERRUARY 22, 2008
MAKE A CALL
PAGE 7
What a day in history for superfund sites and for the families and children living within the Tar Creek Super Fund Site. I would like to congratulate Senator Inhofe for his efforts of making this day happen. I do not know if what I have done with statements/letters or at the public meeting August 28, 2007, or the Federal Lawsuit that I have filed, if this has made any difference with the EPA deciding to finally support the buyout or doing what the laws says or what should have been done since this superfund site was established or if this was what Senator Inhofe needed to make this happen. If the lawsuit was needed to bring EPA to the decision to support the buyout and the lawsuit was needed to accomplish what the Senator Inhofe has been trying to do, I was glad to help. I am not trying to steal Senator Inhofe thunder, my issues are with the EPA and the laws that Congress has in place to protect each of us from contaminated materials, superfund sites, correcting Tar Creek and the Tri State Mining District, not with Senator Inhofe, but it would be nice if I had his support.
In my heart, I believe that this was the only way EPA could go into Federal Court, without having EGG on their face. I would call this damage control by EPA. I am not trying to take credit or take anything away from Senator Inhofe. I do think it is very interesting that since the EPA has been served with a Federal Lawsuit, addressing many issues and violations at Tar Creek, that this announcement and support, that has now taken place, the EPA is now trying to be good guys. I also think it is interesting that I no longer have access to the home page or any of the other EPA web sites through the internet. This lawsuit is not going away, nor am I. If any one has any doubts about the long arm of government, take a lesson. We are going to find out just how far government will go to stop this lawsuit, what control government has over the media and our courts and why. Ask yourself why none of the MAKE A CALL letters have never made the news media, they do have copies. I have said many times this is no longer just about Tar Creek and the buyout, but about protecting the families and children from hazardous materials at superfund sites. This is about what one person in Federal Court taking a position of demonstrating and proving what the Congressional laws says and what EPA is suppose to be doing (or should I say not doing) under federal laws. This is also about using innovative technology to permanently closing many Superfund sites (as EPA stated in the ROD for O U 4), saving valuable tax dollars and most importantly preventing the dangerous health effects on families and children from superfund sites and mine workings. This is about the EPA not wanting permanent solutions for superfund sites. I was taught as a Marine, to defend this country (whether the enemy is domestic or foreign) and the people, if this is another contribution I have to do to defending this country, well so be it. All that I have ever asked of EPA and other government agencies is for the opportunity to prove and provide my technology at Tar Creek and then continue to correct superfund sites issues, where applicable.
The media forget to tell one extremely important part of the so call master plan( as stated by Region 6 Administrator Richard Greene) for the commitment to permanently clean up Tar Creek. The tentative proposal (O U 4) is now called a Record of Decision (ROD) by EPA. The only difference between the tentative proposal and the now official O U 4 ROD is the support of the buyout by EPA to fund the buyout, whether the lawsuit brought this to a head or not, I do not know. It also does not make sense to me as why the EPA is willing to ask and to continue, for a total of 60 plus years of remediation, a total (possibly more) of $317 (estimated reports) millions of taxpayer dollars, on solutions that do not offer any permanent solutions (required by law) and this superfund site still not be taken off the NPL at the end of 60 plus years. What is really sad, this is not the only superfund site with issues and health concerns. What happens after the additional time EPA is saying they now need? If you any questions about the these statements read the ROD, issues about O U 4 and the job security for EPA and their Prime contractors, counting the waste of taxpayer money, all one has to do is read the now official O U 4 ROD. I did not expect to have a bonus of materials to present in my federal lawsuit.
I would also like to say that the announcement of the O U 4 ROD was a very special and pleasant surprise. I do not under stand why ETSI was mention, since I as an individual made the statements and no one else spoke about LAURA‘S MIX. I understand why the EPA is trying to make this a corporate issue and not an individual issue. I do understand the statement made in the ROD that I do not have proven documents for LAURA’S MIX. I do not understand why the mole, done by EPA, that was placed in EPA meetings, to gather secret and designed information was not mention or addressed as you said you would do and would be addressed in the ROD announcement. I would have thought that with all the meetings and communications with EPA, EPA would have come to the conclusion and understanding what site specific means. In case you (EPA) do not understand what site specific means, it means for a specific location. Since, there is not another superfund site location in the United States with the same issues, the same amount of toxic water, the same depths and size of mine workings it would be impossible to have proven documents to satisfy the EPA on the site specific formulations ( what works at one site may not work exactly the same at another and the formulation will have to be adjusted at each specific site) for a site location. This is one of the reasons why the Cost Free Pilot Project was offered to all of the agencies. It is really very simple, if LAURA’S MIX performs as designed, then we all can stand tall, but if LAURA’S MIX falls short of designed specifications, the only person that goes home with their tail between their legs is me and taxpayers do not take another hit to their pockets. The federal lawsuit would have not been filed, because I do know ( stated as comments from EPA representatives stating that and comments in meetings, with EPA, also stating that it is against the law to allow me to do a cost free pilot project at Tar Creek) how to correct the issues of superfund sites like Tar Creek and hazardous materials conditions and subsidence issues and a team of professionals supporting me, that can correct any problems that might arise instantly, not taking years of research and studies as demonstrated by EPA, it would not take 60 plus years to close this superfund as suggested by EPA (ROD for O U 4). I am not one of the good olde boys, I am one person who wants to improve the health and safety and the environment, provide jobs, to a very depress economy, improve living conditions and save valuable natural resources in Oklahoma and maybe the nation and put a stop to the madness. As far as I am concerned another 20 to 30 years, is unacceptable to me to start closing the Tar Creek Superfund Site, as stated in O U 4, when other options are available, also stated in the ROD for O U 4. It also seems to me that with the millions and millions of taxpayer dollars that have been spent at the Tar Creek superfund site, one would have thought that the EPA would have discovered or applied and would have produced ONE permanent solution. To those taxpayers and those effected by superfund sites, I would suggest that you, as an individual, read the laws as I have done, those who are having issues with the buyout please do the same. Then you will see why the media and the EPA has kept this information from you and the purpose for the MAKE A CALL letters and the Federal Lawsuit, you will find many of the answers, as I have done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)