00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 EPA REGION 6 TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT 4 PUBLIC MEETING PICHER-CARDIN HIGH SCHOOL 715 WEST A STREET PICHER, OKLAHOMA 74360 AUGUST 28, 2007, REPORTED BY: LINDA FISHER, CSR-RPR SUSAN WALDRON: I think we're going to go ahead and get started. Can everybody hear me okay? No? Is that better? Okay, I just have to stand a little closer. Okay. Good evening, everyone. I'm Susan Waldron. I know many of you and many of you know me but normally you see me on behalf of the Lead Poisoning Prevention Program at the Ottawa County Health Department. But tonight I'm here to kind of open up this meeting and introduce everyone and act as a facilitator. And I thank you all for coming tonight. Let me just tell you that what my role is tonight as moderator is to maintain order. Well, we're not going to need that. We have orderly people, an orderly place so order is already maintained; we've got that one covered. Make sure the agenda is followed. Did everyone get an agenda when you came in? If not, there's some on the table in the front or you can hold your hand up, and maybe someone will bring you one. And to keep the meeting and the flow of the meeting and the comments moving in a timely manner. Okay. So when you came in and if you signed in, you saw there were little cards there. Tonight's issues are that we're going to talk about and make comments on the OU 4 chat removal. So if you want to make a comment tonight and you want to come up and make a public comment at one of these mikes, then please fill out a card. Okay? It doesn't matter which 9229059 ------- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 color they are, they're both the same. But fill out a card so that we can document your comments tonight. Okay, I'm also to make sure that the needs of the court reporter are met. This is the court reporter right here, Linda Fisher. And Linda is from Frank Peterson Court Reporters, and her role is to develop an official record of tonight's meeting. And that includes everything that's said, all the comments that are made. So I just want to reiterate that tonight is about making comments, it's really not about a dialogue back and forth. It's not a place for you to get your questions -- it's not a question-and-answer session, but it's a public comment period. So in order to start the meeting, I think we should start with prayer. And Reverend Joe Don Olds is here from Cardin First Baptist Church. And he'll lead us in prayer. (Opening prayer.) SUSAN WALDRON: Okay. Now I'm going to turn the meeting over to Sam Coleman. Sam is the Division Director of EPA's Region 6 in Dallas. MR. COLEMAN: Good evening. I want to thank everybody for coming out tonight to this very important meeting. First, I want to make sure that we recognize some of our very distinguished guests that are with us tonight. First, I want to recognize the Honorable Sam Freeman, the mayor of Picher if he's -- hold up his hand. Yes, okay, I see him back here. We have our county commissioner John Clark. Okay. And then we have several folks representing other elected officials. We have Blue Halsey from Senator Inhofe's office. I didn't see -- Oh, I see Blue. Okay. Brant Kale representing Congressman Boren. Okay. Thank you. And then I have Tim Kent, who is representing Chairman Barry from the Quapaw Tribe. Okay, thank you. Do we have any other tribal representatives here? Do y'all want to introduce yourselves? I don't -- I didn't get everybody's name. MS. WELCH: Cathleen Welch. I work for the Wyandotte Nation. MR. COLEMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: Jason White from Cherokee Nation. MR. COLEMAN: Okay. Thank you. I really appreciate everyone being here, those who you are representing. And we are very happy to be here. The purpose of our meeting is to listen to your comments. We have been working on our proposed plan, it seems like, forever. And it probably seems to you like it's been a very long time before anyone would explain a holistic approach, how we were going to solve many of the environmental problems that exist here, the chat piles and other things. But what we'd like to do tonight is to have a fairly short presentation about what the plan is about. ------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Many of you have received, either in the mail or tonight, fax sheets or other documents that identify the plan, talk a lot about in a text format but you'll see the -- some of the authors of our documents here tonight and they will be able to explain what the plan is all about. Before I go any further and use up more time, I would like to make sure that I also introduce some of the authors and folks that have worked on this. First, I'd like all of the ODEQ representatives to stand. They're not authors but they're our partners. We have a number of folks from ODEQ. We have a couple of representatives from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We have one. Okay, Bob. And then I would like the -- my team that came down with me from EPA, all of the folks that we have that's been working on this project. And we have a couple of -- Janetta, go ahead and hold your hand up. Over here. Now, these folks are here tonight really to listen and receive comments. The presentations are going to be fairly short and brief. I've already almost exceeded my time but I'm going to just kind of rush through and tell you all the other things that's going to happen. We do have the -- all of the documents available at our repository. And I'll have to look down to get this. It's at the Miami Public Library, 200 North Main Street in Miami, Oklahoma. So if you want to go by and look at all of the documents associated with Operable Unit 4, you can do that. We also will have a public availability session tomorrow morning starting at ten o'clock -- nine o'clock. Okay, nine a.m. at the Picher Housing Authority. And I don't have an address for that. Do you? Everybody knows where it is? Okay, fine. And my technical team will be over there and they will be able to answer many of the questions that you might have. And finally, while -- when we initially issued the proposed plan, we said the public comment period was going to end at the end of this month. Many folks have requested an additional 30 days to offer comments. So the last couple of days ago we did announce in the paper that the public comment period has been extended through the end of September. So you will have an opportunity tonight. You have additional, an additional month to submit public comments through the mail. I think we have -- in some of your packets, there's a preprinted form that you can write your comments on or type them in and then mail them to the address that's on the back of the form. So I think that's -- that's all that I have. And I am going to introduce John -- oh, okay. All right. I'm going to introduce John Meyer. Oh, I'm introducing Ursula? URSULA LENNOX: I'm first. MR. COLEMAN: Okay. I'm introducing Ursula Lennox who is one of the remedial project managers for ------- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 the site. URSULA LENNOX: Thank you, Sam. Good evening. As Sam has said, I'm Ursula Lennox and I'm one of the project managers assigned to Operable Unit 4. Operable Unit 4 is the reason why you are here tonight, to provide us comments as Sam has said. As Sam has said, the purpose of our meeting this evening is to collect your comments on the proposed plan that, hopefully, you've had the opportunity to review and to see the protocol and the standards that we've used to develop the plan that you have before you. But before my counterpart, John Meyer, comes up and provides you all with the details of the multiple components that exist of this proposed plan, I would like to just take a brief moment, if you will allow me, to give you a little taste of the history that we've done thus far. You know that this site is a massive site and it's been around for a number of years. If you think about the time of when the mining operations ceased to the present time, you've had multiple agencies to come into your community, present various plans to you or various proposals to address the various concerns that have plagued your area. In a lot of instances, they have been successful but because of the massive quantity and the volume and the size of the site, maybe those changes haven't been made. Well, what is different from that process? EPA was part of that process of one of those many agencies that have come into your community offering solutions to rectify various problems. What is the difference tonight? Tonight the proposal that you have before you, as Sam has said earlier this evening, represents a collaborative effort with the multiple stakeholders that he had stand before you. Now, why do we do that? It's recognized that no one particular agency has the solution to all of the massive multiple problems that exist at this site. So what's the best approach to this? It is to utilize the expertise, the existing data, the existing knowledge that exists in your state by the various state agencies, tribal agencies as well as federal government agencies. And that's what you see in that plan that you've reviewed. Now, would this plan address all of the problems? No. Will it be a component to the bigger problems that exist in providing a portion of the solution? The answer is yes. Now, before we presented that plan to you, a lot of energy and a lot of effort and a lot of coordinations with those stakeholders did take place. A lot of pilot studies were done to ensure that the actions that you see before you in that plan will work. Now, what are we looking at? We're trying to be comprehensive. We're trying to be effective. We're trying to assure the common thread that's shared by all ------- 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 of the agencies that it is protective of human health and the environment. We believe that that plan does accomplish that. Through the cooperative effort with all of the stakeholders, I think that it represents the buy-in, for the most part, of all of them. Does it satisfy all of the concerns raised by the agencies that we interacted with? No. But I can assure you, if you look at all of the different criteria that governs each different agency, we abide by our criteria, we've met our criteria. But it was enhanced through the experience of those stakeholders that have provided their feedback to us. Now, having said that, is our process complete? The answer is no. The answer is no because why? We need your feedback. We need your participation. Just as EPA had performed the collaborative effort with those multiple stakeholders, and it is hoped that it will continue on in the future, we hope to have that established with you. It doesn't just stop or end tonight, it will continue throughout the SuperFund process. So in conclusion or summarizing the points that I want to present to you, is will this remedy satisfy all parties? No. Will it protect human health and the environment, be practical and realistic in its application? Yes. Will it restore vital land that is wastelands right now into more productive uses? Yes. So with that, will the process be short? No. Just as this process has been lengthy that you all have endured for multiple years now, it will continue because of the massiveness of this site. Will it be done in a short period of time? No. It will take time. But just as we've collaborated with the stakeholders, let's hope that you all will collaborate with us and collectively together, even though we represent one piece of the bigger picture, if all entities involved under their proper authority in their jurisdiction abided by their laws and regulations that they must be governed by do their part, one day we will achieve a holistic solution for the site. So having said that, I'm going to now turn it over to John so he can present to you the components of the remedy. And I will end by saying that I look forward to not only hearing -- or EPA looks forward to hearing and receiving your comments but working with you as a partner throughout the SuperFund process. Thank you. MR. COLEMAN: I did forget to do one thing. Shirley, could you stand up? Shirley Augustson (phonetic) is our representative from our Office of Environmental Justice and Tribal Affairs. Their director Jonathan Hook, couldn't be with us tonight but I wanted to make sure that I recognized Shirley who works with many of the folks up here, the tribes and others, her office does. So I wanted to make sure that they got recognition. John. ------- 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 JOHN MEYER: As Ursula mentioned, what we're going to focus on tonight is what we call Operable Unit 4 at the Tar Creek site. And Operable Unit 4 was specifically designed to look at the chat piles in the mine and the millways. There have been other operable units that we've implemented at Tar Creek, for example, Operable Unit 2 is the one that dealt mainly with the residential yards. Operable Unit 1 dealt mainly with surface water and groundwater. We're going to be focusing on the chat piles, the mine and the millways. And there's typically three types of areas that I'll probably talk about tonight. We'll mention chat piles, chat bases which were just essentially former chat piles and then the tailings ponds. And then this figure that you see in the brown here, this is the areas that we've identified that have one of those three in it, a pile, a base or a pond. And if you pushed all of these together, they would take up about six and a half square miles. So Ursula mentioned the massiveness of this project. You guys know this; you see it every day. There's also about 47 million cubic yards of material that we need to address as part of Operable Unit 4. I'm going to give just kind of an overview of the preferred alternative. There's a lot of very detailed components of this, a lot of very fine pieces. And I'm just really going to focus on the major components of our preferred alternative. Right at the top of the list is chat processing. We think this is a vital piece of implementing the solution for Operable Unit 4. There's a tremendous amount of material that's there in chat piles. We know that it has an economic and a commercial use that's going on today. We want that to continue it. For those areas that contain chat that may not be commercially viable, we're going to have a plan to go in and remove the chat from these areas, maybe make it to a point where it can be commercially viable, or we have other options for dealing with that. And we will deal with that. It's kind of in two different areas and two different phases, the first being the outlying areas. And if you read the proposed plan, we'll use this term "distal areas". This is the outlying areas from the center of the site, just a different term for that. Another component is stream reclamation. Principally, what's this is going to entail is there are areas mainly in Tar Creek and in Lytle Creek where a lot of the chat has actually entered into the stream. If you look at Tar Creek north of Douthit Road, it's almost all chat. Our remedy will address the mine and the millways that has entered into the streams. The tailings ponds that are present at the site are part of the remedy. The tailings ponds take up a very large area, over 800 acres, and contain about 10 million ------- 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 cubic yards of waste. The remedy that we are proposing will address these tailings ponds. We have calculated the cost of the remedy currently at $172 million. We're going to break up the implementation of the alternatives at Operable Unit 4 into two different phases, each about 10 years. And the reason that we want to do this is because we want to prioritize certain areas of the site for cleanup. Under the Phase I, we want to immediately start addressing the chat that's in these outlying and distal areas. And this is kind of a continuation, I suppose, of the Oklahoma plan to try to address things from the outside in, to try to free up as much land as early as possible. Also in Phase I, to remove the chat out of the streams. As long as the chat stays in the streams, it acts as a continuing source of contamination to the waterway, the earlier that we get it out of the stream, the faster the streams can recover. And the tailings ponds are an important piece of the first phase of the work. We would like to address that in the first 10 years. And we would do that either through excavating the tailings ponds and injecting them back into the mine workings or where that is not feasible, to cover them in place. Then in the second 10 years, or Phase II, it would focus on the remaining chat. If we have addressed all the chat in the outlying or the distal areas, then we can start focusing on nonmarketable chat that's left in the center of the site. And the whole idea here is again is that where chat is present, it has an economic value and it's being processed, we want that to continue and we're going to encourage that. We have to make some assumptions about how fast that can occur, though. And we know roughly what the rate of the current chat processing is. We believe that in the future that that could get better. And we've made that assumption. In the second 10-year phase, we're going to start reevaluating that. We're going to really look at okay, is chat being processed at the rate that we had anticipated. If it is, great, we're going to continue on. If it's happening faster, that's even better. If it's not, we're going to have to reevaluate because we want to try to achieve our goal of a 20-year time frame. And then finally, as part of Phase II, for areas that are going to contain chat permanently, then there will be certain repositories or certain covered ponds and we'll have to implement a long-term institutional control to ensure that that material stays safe. I mentioned that chat processing is a big component. If you don't mind, I'm actually going to go ahead and go through the whole thing and then we'll do the comments and questions. Thanks. Chat processing is a big component of our remedy. And the reason is because there is such a tremendous ------- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 volume of material at the site. And we believe with chat processing and commercial utilization of the chat, that we can eliminate about three-fourths of the material that's out there. That is a tremendous help. There isn't enough money to implement or remedy for all of the material as it sits there today. So the more material that can be commercially used, the more likely it is that we will be able to have a long-term solution at the site. Last month EPA finalized a chat use rule that basically formalized protective uses of chat. You know, obviously for many years, the chat has been sold and used for a variety of purposes, some good, some not so good. What this rule did is it established, you know, permitted uses for the chat. And principally, that's going to be using it in asphalt roads. And that had been going on for a long time but this formalized it, made it a rule making by EPA and will hopefully encourage more market use of the chat. This is a figure just to show you where these outlying or these distal areas are. You know, as the name implies, it's areas outside the core of the site or mainly outside of the town of Picher. The reason that we would like to start addressing these first, is usually that these are some of the locations of the smaller piles. It's very spread out. It takes up the majority of the area at the site and they're located in different water sheds. They're not necessarily in the Tar Creek watershed. So by addressing these first, for example, if we address all of the chat piles that are along Elm Creek, it's something that we think we can do in a relatively short amount of time and have a very large impact if we can remove a hundred percent of the material, for example, in the Elm Creek watershed and allow Elm Creek to fully recover. We know that we can't immediately remove a hundred percent of the material in the Tar Creek watershed and that's going to have to be a longer term process. So that's -- that's kind of the thought and the concept behind doing these distal areas first, these outlying areas. We think that we can get a large gain quicker and allow a lot of land to be put back into productive uses. This is just an example of one of the chat piles that is in one of the outlying areas. They're typically smaller. A lot of them also have chat bases. For example, maybe the chat had already been removed for some commercial uses and there's a base left behind and it's no longer commercially viable. What we're proposing to do in these areas is that we just simply come in, we excavate the remaining material at the site, we remove it from the site, we'll excavate down to a native soil layer. What we have found is that when you excavate down to the native soil, that you can get to mere background levels of the metals, the ------- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 001 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 levels of metals that were there before the mining began. That area would then be reclaimed by tilling. The whole idea here is that we want it to support grass, vegetation and look, you know, like it was as a native area. The stream reclamation component as the preferred alternative, as I mentioned, is mainly geared towards addressing where we have chat in the streams themselves. There are long segments along Tar Creek and some in Lytle Creek where there's nothing at the base of the creek but chat. We know that that's not healthy for the stream. We want to come in there, remove the chat, either put it back into an adjacent pile, because a lot of times there's a pile that's simply just spilled into the creek, if we can pull it back into the pile, we will. Like the figure shows here on the right, we can implement some sort of engineering controls in the interim, for example, if there is a large pile next to the creek. We don't want to just take the chat out of the creek, throw it back up on the pile and the next time it rains, it rolls back down into the creek. We would have to implement some sort of engineering controls there, a berm or some sheet piling, to keep in back in the pile until that pile could be commercially used. The tailings pond remediation component of the alternative is probably going to be one of the more challenging. It takes up a large area. I mentioned it's over 800 acres of land and about nine million cubic yards. And in some areas, we believe, for example, the one on the top left, you know, some of the ponds are, where they're vegetated, you can't even tell that there's a pond there when you go out there. But they continue to act as a source of contamination. We would propose in certain areas that we go in and actually excavate out the old tailings, slurry them up and inject them back into the mine workings. And this is one of the pilot studies that I had worked on and that's what the picture is on the bottom. With this piece of equipment, we excavate out some of the tailings, put them in this equipment, mix it with water, slurried it up and inject it back into the mine workings. It is a -- it's a process that we have looked at very extensively. We have collected a lot of data about this. We understand that it could be even controversial to take that material and put it back into the mine workings because of the potential it could cause further harm. We understand that. We have studied it very well. We have developed a comfort level with it to the point that we would like to include it as part of our remedy. However, before we would implement this on a full scale, we're going to work with our partners to do additional studies. We want to make sure that before we would implement this, that we are not going to cause any further harm. There is a great benefit to taking this material and permanently removing it from the surface, ------- 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 but we want to ensure that we're not just simply causing another problem. In certain instances, we don't think we will be able to excavate and inject all of the material in any one pond. It could be that there's other material that's already been placed on top of the pond or just other technical considerations. In those instances, we would look at simply covering up those ponds, adding an additional layer of soil on the top, revegetating the surface, shoring up the berms if there's any problems with the berms from the pond, and containing that material in place. Sam told you it was just going to be a quick overview. Like Ursula mentioned, you know, there's a lot of components to this remedy. It's spread out over a very large area. It's very likely that one of these ponds or piles or bases is very close to where you live and we understand that each of these would impact you in different ways and we need to hear your comments and your concerns. We've spent a lot of time technically studying it but that doesn't always give us your side of the story. So we look forward to hearing your comments tonight. SUSAN WALDRON: Okay. All that having been said, when you signed in tonight, you were asked if you wanted to make comments. And if so, to fill out a comment card. Am I going to get those? Okay. So what we're going to do is I'm going to take those in the order that they were received. And when I call your name, if you would come up to the microphone right here in the center, or there's also one on the other side over there. And please state your name first before you make your comments because, like I said before, Linda, who is doing all the reporting here, is going to need to get your name down as well as all your comments. And so we definitely need you to come up to the microphone. And we definitely need you to state your name, first. Okay? If you have not yet filled out a card but you want to fill out a card, raise your hand and someone will bring you a card. Or if you have one filled out that you've not turned in, then you can hold that up as well and we'll come and get it. In addition, for those people who want to make a comment but do not want to make a comment tonight here, you can send your comments written. And that's -- the address is on the agenda that you received when you first came in. So you do not have to necessarily make comments tonight. You can make comments tonight and you can mail comments in as well. So either way. So just make sure that the court reporter hears your name and that she reads your question or that you make your comment so that we can all hear it. As I'm looking at how many we have here, we're going to try to limit the comment period for each person to two or three ------- 24 25 002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 002 1 2 minutes. So when I call your name and you come up to the microphone, if I come back over to the microphone and kind of wave at you, that means your time is about up. Okay? Anybody have any questions? Okay. Ready to get started? Okay. Kenneth Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: I guess -- my name is Kenneth Anderson. And to put it in a nutshell, I don't think Phase IV is going to work or at least quick enough that any of us in this room will see it. One time they said it would be 250. Did you catch my name? I'm pretty loud anyway. Anyway, I just don't think -- hauling this chat to other parts of anywhere is a risky business at best. You're just spreading it outside of the 40 square miles. John said it in the tail end of his presentation that I think, and the studies show, that the economic selling of this chat isn't that effective. I mean, if you could put it in a truck and haul it off just as fast as you can, that would be one thing. But you can't do that. You can't take it out there and stockpile it somewhere. You've got to have it sold when it leaves this place because of all the certificates and paperwork and everything and then that runs into a lot of money. I think I figured up it would be about $5,000 alone over a 20-year -- I mean, $5 million alone just in paperwork. I think one study was that if it was -- I think it was 75 million tons of chat, it would take 250 box cars -- I mean, 250 trains with 100 box cars of chat 20 years to move the chat out of this area. So there again, I don't think your 20-year outlook is feasible if you're going to haul it in trucks. And it's not selling that quick. I mean, it's getting -- I don't know -- I can't state you figures but where I'm from, I deal with contractors and other people and they say they're not going to take the responsibility and not use the chat. I'll settle at that. SUSAN WALDRON: Thank you. Okay, Leo Byford. LEO BYFORD: Leo Byford. Before we start, I'd like to have a little extra time, if it's possible. SUSAN WALDRON: You need extra time? LEO BYFORD: Yes, I do. SUSAN WALDRON: Okay. How much extra time? LEO BYFORD: Probably about 10 minutes. SUSAN WALDRON: I don't think we can do that. If you want to wait until the end, you know, we might have a little bit of extra time but we have quite a few to get through here. LEO BYFORD: Well, let me -- let me just -- let me do this. I'll read until you tell me I -- you tell me when my time is up and then I'll take it from there. SUSAN WALDRON: Okay. ------- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LEO BYFORD: Okay? My name is Leo Byford from Tulsa, Oklahoma. After devoting many hours of reading this reference plan as the proposed next step for the Tar Creek SuperFund remediation, and as the inventor and owner of a new technology and also an award-winning technology which has previously and formerly been proposed and presented to the EPA administration, the following is offered as a substitute for the record for the consideration within the public comment period concerning the Tar Creek Superfund site and tentative proposed OU 4 and other SuperFund sites that are applicable. It is extremely difficult to stand here tonight because of the disappointments and frustrations of having to deal with government agencies that have put their own interests first instead of the people's interest that they are supposed to be protecting and taxpayers are supporting. Any government agency that would ignore and deliberately bring to meetings one of their prime contractors blatantly disguised as one of their own just to get proprietary information and subsequently trying to duplicate that technology is unacceptable. Unacceptable. After receiving written communication from that prime contractor's legal department stating that they have not infringed on my patent pending application "because patent has not been issued yet", from that response I can only assume that all that was needed was the undisclosed proprietary information to allow each of them the total control of SuperFund sites throughout the United States and to succeed at the many failed attempts they have tried to do to duplicate this proprietary information and process and application. It makes me have questions of what type of people are we representing -- are they representing of our government and their motives and their character. The following comments has to be said in this meeting concerning SuperFund sites and the OU tentative proposal. My name is Leo Byford. I happen to be the owner of Environmental Toxins Solutions, Inc. ETSI is also on the approved vendor's list with the EPA for the Katrina event. I am the inventor and patent holder and owner of animal waste, level 2 sludge, green waste, paper waste and some other waste products. In addition, I have other patent pending process that offers permanent solutions, permanent that are on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. These solutions resolve old decades of concerns with mine subsidence, lead and hazardous materials at SuperFund sites. SUSAN WALDRON: Okay, I'm going to — LEO BYFORD: That's it. SUSAN WALDRON: Thank you. Mark Osborn. MARK OSBORN: Good evening, everyone. I am the Vice Chairman of the Lead Impacted Communities Relocation Trust. And tonight we had a meeting and ------- 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 approved a letter to be sent as our comments on OU 4. So I'm going to take a few minutes and read this. "It is with profound disappointment that the Lead Impacted Communities Relocation Trust has learned of the decision by the EPA to omit funding for the voluntary relocation of the residents of the Tar Creek SuperFund site and its current proposal for OU 4. To do so continues to ignore the greatest risk to public health and safety, subsidence risk that presents itself to the population. Buried in the decision to select the currently proposed remedy is the assumption that the EPA can make Picher, Cardin and Hockerville safe places for people to live by yard remediation to be followed by chat removal. New information contained in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Picher Mining Field Northeast Oklahoma Subsidence Risk Evaluation has shown this to be untrue. While you may not have the statutory authority to evaluate or remediate subsidence risk, the statutory authority does not require you to exclude relevant information inherent to the dangers of the site in your decision-making process. This is an important differentiation. And to continue to do so constitutes a policy by the EPA of deliberate and purposeful ignorance. Included in your interim policy on the use of permanent relocation is the referencing of CERCLA. In this reference, you note it grants specific, or excuse me, grants explicit authority to conduct permanent relocations and that such may be justified or is necessary to protect human health and the environment. Your policy further notes generally the primary reasons for conducting a permanent relocation would be to address an immediate risk to human health where an engineering solution is not readily available. This is clearly the case in relation to the subsidence risk at the site. The assumption that the EPA can make the site a safe place for people to live without investing the estimated billions of dollars to have the Corps of Engineers fully evaluate subsidence risk and then alleviate it, appears to make all other options but relocation a moot point. To continue the current EPA policies equivalent to the rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic after all have become aware that this ship is sinking only further damages the EPA's credibility. Furthermore, your evaluation of the voluntary buyout using the mechanism developed by the State of Oklahoma in the form of the trust is incorrect both in cost and time analysis. Removal of the chat and fines can be done much more cheaply with the population removed. In addition, you have overestimated the cost of the buyout. With the buyout already a third of the way completed, the cost will obviously be less than you have predicted, particularly as we are exempted from the ------- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Uniform Relocation Act. And finally, with the trust mechanisms currently in place, it is unlikely that we will need three years to complete the process. We would beg the EPA that it reconsider its plans for OU 4. With the people removed, the entire project can be reevaluated. We would suggest the list of priorities should start with public safety and health and subsequent to buyout should be refocused to limit environmental damage to the watershed. In this setting, there would be pressure to push chat sales past economic realities and the process of chat removal and the permanent storage of fines can be explored at a safe, rational and commercially viable pace. By its stubborn insistence to ignore information pertinent to the site, the EPA has managed to produce a recommendation that has been found to be unsatisfactory by the citizens of Picher, Cardin and Hockerville, the ODEQ, the affected tribes, the State of Oklahoma and this trust. The acceptance of the remedies selected by the EPA requires deliberate ignorance and the abdication of reason. This is a situation we sincerely hope does not come to pass. Thank you very much. SUSAN WALDRON: Thank you. Next is Suzie Stone. SUZIE STONE: I am Suzie Stone. I have a business here in town. We have a house here that we moved out of five years ago and we have a church. And I am so disappointed with the EPA. When did selling chat become more important than people? These people might not look like your neighbor but they are my neighbor. Their health and their welfare matters to me. They are a part of this country. I am a part of this country. You have spent so much money remediating yards when the people in their homes were saying, "Please, stop. Please, stop." You spent up to $92,000 to dig dirt out of one yard and put other dirt in it, to have the houses mold and mildewed and their health taken away from them. And now you propose to move chat. And in your little paper, you talk about the economic status of chat, being able to sell chat. Well, what about people? Are people not more important than the selling of chat? Mark read a letter and we all agreed to it tonight. It states completely what we would like to say to you all if we had the ability to say it. People are more important than your selling the chat. People are what make up our government. People are what make up our nation. When you quit caring about their health and their welfare and their well-being, then you are just putting money in your own pockets and not caring about them at all. SUSAN WALDRON: Next is Lloyd Stone. No? Okay. Sam Freeman, Mayor, City of Picher. SAM FREEMAN: My name is Ernest Freeman. I'm the Mayor of the City of Picher. Everyone here knows me ------- 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 by Sam. I've been the mayor here for quite awhile, and went through a lot of EPA work here starting back in ' 82 with the OU 1 plan to clean up Tar Creek. We're 25 years later, been through OU 2, the yard remediation that I feel was a great failure. They cleaned up the lead but they left several things like Suzie says, the mold, the drainage problems, water under the houses. You know, it's just been one fiasco after another. And in my opinion, OU Operable 4 Unit may work, you know, over 20 or 30 years, but the people here now don't have time to wait for that. And what we would like to see, and I think it's unified, is for Option 5 to be in place first, spend about 30 million of that 172 and get the people out of here, you know, in a reasonable amount of time. And the tools are there. You have in your own paperwork an option to use a permanent buyout, permanent relocation that was put in place in 1995 and it has never been used. And this is the number 1 SuperFund site in the United States. And I think this would be a prime place and a prime time to use those tools. Thank you. SUSAN WALDRON: Windy Clevenger. WINDY CLEVENGER: My name is Windy Clevenger. My husband is Charles Clevenger. And he is on the trust. But he has not seen this letter, he does not know this. I did not talk with him. And I was not at the trust meeting when this letter was formed. It has been said that over $120 million has been designated for the Tar Creek cleanup. Wonderful. This place really does need to be cleaned up. However, aren't we putting the cart before the horse here? I realize trees, dirt, rocks, water, et cetera, are all important but are they more important than the people who live and work in this area and help pay your salary? How is it the government has enough money to work on the landscape but is not willing to help the people escape this toxic waste area? EPA stands for Environmental Protection Agency, but it seems to me we first need to form the PPA, People's Protection Agency. Why not make the lives, health and well-being of people, real live people, who have hopes, dreams and needs who work, play and worship, and are the lifeblood of every community, the primary focus of the government's efforts? How is it we can spend millions on the planet but not on the very people who the planet is here for. Your statement says "clean up Tar Creek and protect the people." The greatest protection you can provide the current residents of this community is the opportunity to relocate through the federal buyout already in progress. Why not put the millions of dollars toward completing the government project that is in progress, then come and work on the land. It's already been proven that remediation of the ------- 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 yards is a complete waste of money so why spend another dime on it? The water here is awful. Sometimes it comes out of the faucets looking orange because there's so much contamination and residue in it. To fix the water, you would have to find another source well and lay completely new lines to every home and business. That is not even feasible here because of the volatility of this area already. We are at risk for subsidence. You can change everything you want on the surface, try to find some decent water. But the bottom line is this area is subject to cave in. And all of your landscaping efforts, along with the $120 million will go right down the tube. Why not invest in people. Use the funds to finish the relocation of the folks who want to get off this ground then do what you can with what's left to take care of the other things. This all comes down to one word: Priorities. What is the government's priority for the Tar Creek area, cleanup or people? SUSAN WALDRON: John C. Mott. JOHN MOTT: Is there anybody here that don't know who I am? Okay. Sam, I didn't work on the fire department for 20 years with you for nothing. I've been working on Tar Creek since Day 1. I worked as a guide to take the EPA and the Water Resources Board to all the areas in the 40 square miles. And I was a guide for six months as a volunteer. Then I was gone on a hunting trip one time and they wanted me to do some -- help them and they couldn't find me. So they put me under contract where they could keep me here to work, help them. And I was under contract for about 12 years for -- the EPA was paying the bill and the Water Resources Board was furnishing the -- is who I worked for. And I can vouch that Dr. Osborn, Sam Freeman and these other two ladies here were talking straight. They knew what they were talking about. We need to take care of the people first. And the EPA can sit in their offices in Dallas and wait till we get out of here. And when we get out of here, they can come in here and play in their chat and do what they want to, build their sand castles or whatever they want to do with it. So that's all I can say is I just vouch for the people that were ahead of me that they know what they're talking about and I can back them up. That's all. SUSAN WALDRON: Theodora Berry. She left? J.D. Strong. J.D. STRONG: Hi. I'm J.D. Strong with the Environment's Office here in Oklahoma. I debated whether or not I was going to make any comments but I think in light of some of the comments made early in the meeting and to the press and so forth earlier in the day today, it's important that the state stress on the record that all of the collaboration and so forth that went on ------- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 between EPA and the state and tribes and other stakeholders in developing this plan does not have the support of the state at this point. And it will not until it includes buyout as we have stressed for the past year as we have been invited to work with the EPA and try to develop a plan, a reasonable and logical plan for OU 4 . But to date, obviously, it does not include what we think is the most important component of the remediation plan and that is to get the folks out of harm's way first and then take care of the environmental issues that need to be remediated later. And so we will continue to provide comments in writing thoroughly to EPA as we have over the past year in trying to get a remediation project that we support. But the state is not going to concur in EPA's preferred alternative for this site, once again, until EPA does not ignore the most important aspect and issue at the site which is the human health aspect. This being the highest hazard rating site in the nation and one of the very few SuperFund sites where you actually have documented measurable human health impact, it is definitely unique and definitely one where EPA's authority to relocate and its policy and guidance on relocation, which is allowed under CERCLA, be employed if any SuperFund site in the nation is deserving of that. And so I wanted to make sure that everybody was aware of that. And then again, we will be providing additional comments obviously in writing before the comment deadline. Thank you. SUSAN WALDRON: Richard Adams. RICHARD ADAMS: I don't think I'm going to be as popular as everybody else tonight. Basically, what I would like to ask for the EPA is to consider that there is chat that meets residential standards today, that it meets play areas for children that are set up today and that number is 400 parts per million. And I would like for the EPA to consider exempting chat that meets that regulation out of the proposal that they're doing. And by doing that, there's a major difference between unprocessed chat and washed chat. And 400 parts per million is not just a level for residents, it's a level that is used for a child's play area. So these standards already exist today. And I would say for the chat that applies to that and falls under that 400 parts per million, that it be exempt from this process. Thank you. SUSAN WALDRON: Mike Sexton. MIKE SEXTON: My name is Mike Sexton. I'm a lifelong resident of this area and I really don't have much in the way of comments. I just have a question: Is there anyone here opposed to the buyout? Okay, thank you. SUSAN WALDRON: Okay. So I have used all the cards that I have. Anyone else have one for comment that wants to make comment? Okay. Then that's the end of the ------- 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 comment period. JOHN MOTT: I've got to say something else. Something has come up since. This is John Mott again. Back in '81 the Water Resources Board was trying to get this area put under the EPA and to get the EPA funding. And we tried, filled out our application, and we sent it to the EPA and six months, they couldn't understand what we were trying to do. And we had a problem. They didn't understand reading and writing, I guess. So we had a Congressional hearing in Tulsa. And they had the meeting in Tulsa. The Congressman came in and it was a Congressional hearing. And after that hearing, the EPA kind of got in line. So I'm proposing that everybody here call their -- or talk to their Congressman and their senators and let's get a Congressional hearing in here. And then tell them what the EPA is trying to do and let's see if our Congressman and our senators are with them. Now, that's -- I'm -- I'm starting a political uprising. And I want everybody to think about that. Call your senator and your Congressman and let's -- let's get a Congressional hearing here in Picher, Oklahoma, and we'll find out what the EPA is going to do. Thank you. SUSAN WALDRON: I gave Mr. Mott three more minutes. Actually, he only took two. And so I'm going to give Mr. Byford three more minutes. LEO BYFORD: I want to make this pretty simple. The State of Oklahoma, with one of their supporting agencies, gave me an award called On the Brink at one of the meetings in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It was for the design mix of what I call Laura's Mix which has a patent pending. Several -- and that's the reason why I made that opening statement that I did because it's been tried to -- it's been tried numerous times to be duplicated up here by agencies and they failed at it. It's pretty simple. Also under the law, CERCLA law, there is only two types of actions that can be responded to on a CERCLA SuperFund site, just two, not three, not four. This is what Congress passed. One of them is for the immediate and removal of any hazardous material or substance from that site that would cause immediate health or endangerment to the public. The second one is -- and this is a great big one; this is the reason why Tar Creek is so important what y'all have been doing up here -- you've had 25 years to get a permanent solution. The second part of CERCLA says, Congressional intent, the only application that can be done within a SuperFund site is permanent solutions. The word is "permanent." You have an opportunity here to take all this chat, all the mill pond, scrap that thing, put them all back into the mines in a structural compound, a structural compound. You don't need to haul anything anywhere. Do it all right here. I've got the patent pending on it. ------- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 It's the same thing that EPA and several others have been trying to duplicate. You ain't got it done yet and that's okay, maybe you will. I don't know. But right now, it's available. And I've already made this offer to the state. I've made this offer to EPA, not three times but four times I have made this offer. And I'm going to say it again. I will pay for the pilot project to prove this technology here at Tar Creek. It doesn't cost the state anything. It doesn't cost you folks anything. It doesn't cost anybody anything except us, only one. If it works, fine. If it doesn't work, fine. It hasn't cost you a dime and EPA has refused it every time I've offered it. This is a permanent solution that will qualify under CERCLA Congressional intent law. It ain't hauling all this stuff out of here. It's fixing the land and restoring it. And until you restore the mine workings, you're not going to fix Tar Creek. You can haul all this chat off all you want. But when this thing starts caving in, it's history. It's very simple. I've got one more thing to say and then I'll shut up. I made that offer to the state. I'm going to extend this offer right here and now and if you're copying this down. I happen to be the owner of Environmental Toxin Solutions. This area up here is a total disaster repressed, depressed, whatever kind of area you would like to proclaim it. You have some other ones north of you. What I will do right now, once I can get into a contract with EPA to do this pilot project and once it is proven, the first priority of work will come from these communities. I don't care if you're trained or not. I will provide the training and the necessary documents to get work. The second part of that is whoever is on the surrounding areas, if they want to go to work, let's put them to work. And we can get this thing calmed down. SUSAN WALDRON: Thank you. LEO BYFORD: Thank you. SUSAN WALDRON: Okay. I'm going to turn the meeting back over to Mr. Coleman. MR. COLEMAN: Thank you very much. I really appreciate everybody's patience and the very respectful way in which you provided your comments. I'm going to actually ask one other question because did anybody actually have any questions about the components of the plan? I don't think so, but I -- that's on my list of things to say. LEO BYFORD: I've got one. Where's the word "permanent," "permanent solution"? MR. COLEMAN: Well, I think — LEO BYFORD: Where's the word "permanent"? MR. COLEMAN: I think that's a great comment to add for the record. And we can respond to that one in ------- 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 writing. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Wouldn't the question of relocation in and out of the plan be pertinent to the plan itself, instead of a list of different options? It's about choosing the right plan, right? And so the comments have been asking you to change from Plan 4 to Plan 5. MR. COLEMAN: Exactly. I think that the plan, as it says now, essentially says that we have not chosen to include relocation at this time. But it also leaves the door open for considering relocation if there's additional information that makes it appropriate and something that we can justify. And that process is ongoing and under way. So when we get to the end of that process, we will have to come back and inform everyone of what any additional information. I think tonight is one of those opportunities for us to collect additional information that will have a bearing on our final decision. So I'm going to -- KENNETH ANDERSON: Sir, would you say something about -- there's a paragraph, or a couple of paragraphs, about the liability in this plan. Who is going to be liable for -- after it hauls out of here and it gets out of here, who is going to be liable if it pollutes some other area and whatever? I think that's in the plan. And some people will be and some people won't. I didn't really quite understand that. MR. COLEMAN: Okay. I will — I'll try to explain that. But I'm not sure who the right person, Wrenn or someone back here might be able to help me on this one. What, essentially, we are proposing at this point is if a purchaser of chat uses the chat in accordance with the chat rule, they follow the guidelines and best management practices contained in the chat rule and there is also a fact sheet that is an accompanying document that provides some additional information, then we do not believe that there will be any future liability or problems with that chat. If they do not follow the guidance that's in the chat rule, then they are assuming that liability themselves. Is that the part you're talking about? KENNETH ANDERSON: Yes. You're saying that if you mess up on one of your tests and it goes ahead and pollutes something or don't work as you have planned, we can't sue you, we can't sue anyway. But yes, that pretty well explains it. MR. COLEMAN: Okay. Thank you. KENNETH ANDERSON: And we're not liable if they mess up. MR. COLEMAN: If they follow the best management practices. KENNETH ANDERSON: And if the EPA, ODEQ messes up, they're not liable. Isn't that what you're saying? MR. COLEMAN: I don't think we're saying the same thing but we might be. ------- 22 23 24 25 004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 004 KENNETH ANDERSON: Well, if I follow all your rules and it don't work because some of your tests and stuff was inconclusive and you went ahead on the policy side and some of your tests didn't get a response, so you went on the positive side, and you go ahead and spread this out over the country side and something happens, following your rules, we can't hold the EPA or DEQ or whoever responsible. Isn't that what you're saying? MR. COLEMAN: No, I'm saying that the chat purchasers, we're not -- KENNETH ANDERSON: That's what I'm saying. MR. COLEMAN: No, you're saying the EPA. I'm saying the chat purchasers. There's a difference. We're not purchasing anything. KENNETH ANDERSON: You're setting the rules, though. MR. COLEMAN: Okay. KENNETH ANDERSON: If I follow the rules to the letter of what you say, right, understand that? MR. COLEMAN: I got that part. KENNETH ANDERSON: Down to covered trucks and whatever, and something happens out here and it don't work and it still pollutes, and I come up here and there's all kinds of millings down this turnpike -- it was blacktop at one time, now it's millings back on top of the ground -- the EPA won't be responsible even though I follow your rules? MR. COLEMAN: That is not what I said. KENNETH ANDERSON: Well, that's interpretation, isn't it? MR. COLEMAN: No, I don't think that -- let me try to say it one more time and then we'll -- we can move on. If a person follows the chat rules, the best management practices and the information that we provided on the best uses of chat, the appropriate uses of chat, the person who purchases the chat is the person who is saying we're not going to pursue. We're not -- we're not trying to get out of any EPA responsibility for the future. That's not -- that's not our issue. The issue is the people that purchase the chat is the only liability protection or discussion that we have. EPA's liability is established more by Congress and so we will always have some part of liability. KENNETH ANDERSON: Some answer. I'm done. MR. COLEMAN: Okay. Well, this lady over here. KIM GOSNEY: What you're saying is the relocation is not a priority in this plan. So what you're telling us is -- oh, Kim Gosney. I'm a resident of Picher. SUSAN WALDRON: Kim, last name? KIM GOSNEY: Gosney. SUSAN WALDRON: How do you spell it? KIM GOSNEY: G-O-S-N-E-Y. So what you're ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 004 1 2 3 4 5 telling us is our lives are not important in this plan, is that what you're saying. MR. COLEMAN: No, ma'am. KIM GOSNEY: The relocation is not a priority. MR. COLEMAN: No, what I said was the proposal that we have now -- KIM GOSNEY: Does not include relocation? MR. COLEMAN: -- does not include relocation at this time. What we're doing is gathering information. We have not made a decision. The proposal is a proposal. The proposal is not a decision. So we are collecting information from you. And the information that we collect from you, along with other information, we have a public comment period. We don't know what all comments we're going to receive. All of that has to be considered before a final decision is made. KIM GOSNEY: If that first plan takes 10 years, how many people do you think in this room is going to be left in 10 years and what's going to happen to us in 10 years? What if we cave in in 10 years? MR. COLEMAN: Well, I don't — I actually don't have an answer for that. We can only look at the information that's been presented to us. I think that tonight we've gotten a lot of very good information about the public's concern about relocation. And I think we're going to consider that. KIM GOSNEY: Why don't you consider us as a community, our lives. Consider that. MR. COLEMAN: Okay. Thank you. CANDY CRITES: I have kind of three things to say. I'm Candy Crites. And I live in Cardin. SUSAN WALDRON: Crites? How do you spell that? CANDY CRITES: C-R-I-T-E-S. SUSAN WALDRON: Thank you. CANDY CRITES: According to the people you said would buy the gravel, are you going to make them sign a waiver before they buy it that holds us not liable for it? And the other one is you said you wanted information. I told the EPA, the gentlemen that came down from Washington, I told them I would give them two years when they started this remediation. I said in two years or less I said what you have dug up and recovered I said is going to come back up to the surface. They came back to my house over in Cardin in two years, stood in my yard and admitted what I told them was the truth. They had to redo those yards once again. What you will be doing, if you don't help with this relocation -- you can't put a band aid on a cancer. A cancer is within, not on the surface. You have to treat within. The people have to be taken out of here because if not, there's a lot of things that's happening here already. We've lost people after people in this -- these towns. We are looking for help. We're not looking for ------- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 excuses. MR. COLEMAN: Okay, thank you. I'm going to summarize what many of the comments that I've heard. I think that at the absolute top of the list is that EPA should consider relocation as part of our remedy. And we've heard that from the individual citizens. We've heard it from the Mayor of Picher, we've heard it from the State of Oklahoma, we've heard it from the relocation trust. I guess we've heard it from everybody. Is there anybody I've missed? That -- we're going to take that to heart. Well, I'll just leave it at that. The only other things that really I heard -- I heard a discussion about a potential patent infringement. I'm hoping that those comments are submitted in writing for the record so we can evaluate that. I heard about there's concern about some of the hauling and I also heard one comment that we might want to consider exempting some uses of chat if the levels are below 400 parts per million. But in summary, I think the overwhelming comment that we've heard is that we should consider relocation. That's something that we're definitely going to think about and consider. As I mentioned earlier, we have not made any final decisions. I want to remind folks that I will have my technical team at the Picher Housing Authority tomorrow morning if folks want to come by and ask them any other questions. We can probably stick around for a few minutes here if folks have some other questions they have for us. But I don't really have anything else unless there are any other comments. JOHN CLARK: I'm the County Commissioner up here in the Northern District. As I've gone over some of the proposals for OU 4, I see some interesting content that you guys are looking at. I've got pros and cons about some of the different things that you guys are looking at. But I'm posed with questions from my constituents on a daily basis. And I know you've heard this over and over again tonight. And I just want to reiterate again that the -- those that would -- those that choose to leave here, they would like to be given top priority to be considered before that you consider implementing any of your corrections in OU 4. Once again, I think some of the things you are considering are -- are I think, very viable options. But here again, please take these people that want to leave, please take them into consideration first. Thanks. MR. COLEMAN: Thank you. CATHLEEN WELCH: My name is Cathleen Welch. I work for the Wyandotte Tribe but I'm speaking as a citizen. And that is, also when you talk about putting fines and things back into the water and you say we're going to do hydrologic studies and everything, you know, we were put on this earth, God put us on this earth to be ------- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 caretakers of this earth. And along the way, somewhere along the line, this community got failed in that project. And so now lives are being torn apart, their health is at risk, their family lives, what they know. And what they own is pretty much down the tube. When you talk about putting things in the water, you can't replace the water either. So, and I don't believe when you tell me that if you put it in these mine workings, it's not going to affect the water in the aquifers because it will. And whether it be 10 years down the road, 50 years down the road, whatever, should this earth still be here at that time, it's going to make an effect. So think before you start just saying you're going to put things back in the mine. Because, yes, it -- it will make an affect on the water, too. And our body is made up mainly of water. And that is for a reason. And you start putting things into the water and you're going to start affecting everybody's health, too. Not just the people of Picher because I really do feel sorry for Picher and Cardin and Hockerville. These people put their lives here. They love this land. And now it's desecrated and that's a terrible shame. And we need to figure out a way to help them out first and then go from there on what you're going to do about -- so the rest of the people will not be contaminated, too, by putting things in the mine workings and impacting the waters. Thank you. SUSAN WALDRON: Okay. I just want to end tonight by saying thank you so much for being here tonight. I also just want to make a comment that 10 or 11 years ago actually, 1996, was the first time I came to a public meeting here. And there was a handful of people that were here. And that handful of people didn't really understand the process. We've learned a lot over the last 11 years, haven't we? And I just want to encourage you all that tonight's comment period went very, very well. But I also encourage you to write to the EPA and document your comments that you've made tonight. And he, Mr. Coleman, when he stood up here said we would welcome any additional information you can provide. And they mean that. And that's part of the process. And like I said, we've learned a lot about the process over these years. So let's take advantage of it now. And you can send your comments in to EPA as well as talk to someone tomorrow when they have their availability session. Thank you so much for the way that it all went smoothly tonight. And I appreciate you. Thank you. (The meeting was adjourned.) ------- 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------- |