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


-------