Five-Year Review Report Fourth Five-Year Review Report for the Tar Creek Superfund Site Ottawa County, Oklahoma August 2010


Five-Year Review Report

Fourth Five-Year Review Report
for the

Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

PREPARED BY:

Region 6

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Dallas, Texas

August 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5Yr_201 0-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID# OKD980629844
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

This memorandum documents the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
performance, determinations, and approval of the Tar Creek Superfund Site (site) fourth five-year review
under Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act
(CERCLA), 42 United States Code (USC) §9621(c), as provided in the attached fourth five-year review
report.

Summary of Five-Year Review Findings

The fourth five-year review indicates that the remedial actions set forth in the decision documents for this
site continue to be implemented as planned. The following paragraphs provide an overview of the current
status for each of the operable units (OUs) as determined by the fourth five-year review, followed by a
listing of identified issues and associated recommendations.

For Operable Unit (OU) 1 (surface water/ground water), continuation of the Roubidoux Ground Water
Monitoring Program has been implemented by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) to determine the effectiveness of the well plugging program and to monitor and assess trends in
water quality of the Roubidoux aquifer as required by the OU 1 Record of Decision (ROD). Since
completion of the Remedial Action (RA) for OU1, additional abandoned Roubidoux wells have been
plugged by the ODEQ, and both the ODEQ and EPA continue to evaluate the need to plug other
abandoned Roubidoux wells, as they are identified and located, also required by the OU1 ROD. As noted
in previous five-year reviews, the volume of acid mine water discharges to Tar Creek have not decreased
significantly since construction of dikes and diversion channels under the surface water remedy for OU1.

Previous five-year reviews found that the fund balancing applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) waiver related to environmental risks related to surface water, as determined by
the OU 1 ROD, continued to be appropriate for the site. The third five-year review determined that the
conditions regarding the waiver had not substantially changed, and that although the environmental
components of the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) were not being met for Tar Creek, there
was no indication that a threat to human health existed. The third five-year review also acknowledged
that hydrologic modeling and a passive treatment pilot study (through constructed wetlands) was ongoing,
but until the results were available, a determination regarding the feasibility of using such treatment
technologies to address the environmental risks associated with surface water could not be made.

In support of the waiver, the OU1 ROD, signed on June 6, 1984 specifically stated that:

•	Fish fillet samples from the mouth of Tar Creek, the Neosho River, the Spring River, and Grand Lake
are safe for human consumption.

•	The sediments provide a long-term sink for metals that effectively removes the metals from most
biological processes.

Since the third five-year review, additional studies have been conducted. These additional studies
gathered additional data on the surface water and sediment in site streams, including Tar Creek. These
studies also gathered data from fish tissue. As a result of the fish tissue data collected, the ODEQ has
issued a revised fish consumption advisory for the Tar Creek area, including the Spring and Neosho
Rivers and Grand Lake. The advisory provides consumption guidelines separately for residents in the area
of the Tar Creek Superfund Site and for non-residents. The ODEQ states in the advisory that the advisory
does not mean fish caught in these areas are unsafe to eat, but the advisory is intended as a guideline to

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

allow residents to make informed choices regarding health and diet. The advisory is in effect an
Institutional Control (IC) put in place by the ODEQ to provide public notice that the consumption of fish
from the site potentially poses some risk to human health.

In addition, an Advanced Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) has been performed for
the Tri-State Mining District (TSMD) as a whole, which includes the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The draft
final report indicates that contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) present in surface water, sediments,
pore water, and soils within riparian and aquatic habitats posed a potential risk to ecological receptors at
the site. The Detailed Ecological Risk Assessment indicated that exposure to metals in sediments poses
moderate to high risks to benthic invertebrates at approximately 45% of the locations sampled during the
study, including portions of Tar Creek and Lytle Creek.

In 1985, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) lowered the designated beneficial uses for Tar
Creek due to irreversible man-made impacts associated with the past mining activities. These designated
beneficial uses, still in effect, are habitat limited fishery and secondary recreation water body. The
secondary recreation water body designation allows for uses where ingestion of water is not anticipated
(e.g., boating, fishing, or wading). Based on data collected since the third five-year review, however, the
OWQS associated with these designated uses are not being met in Tar Creek. In particular, the pH
standard and the numerical criteria for toxic substances (e.g., heavy metals) which apply to all fishery
classifications, including habitat-limited fisheries, are not being met. Investigations of the surface water
and sediment performed under OU5 in local streams found that surface water in Tar Creek exceeded the
chronic threshold values for fish and wildlife propagation of the OWQS for cadmium, lead, and zinc.

Zinc concentrations in surface water exceeded the acute threshold values for fish and wildlife
propagation.

Finally, the passive treatment pilot study (through constructed wetlands) being conducted under the
Oklahoma Plan for Tar Creek by Oklahoma University is still ongoing. This system was constructed to
treat the mine water discharges located southeast of Commerce. As noted above, the third five-year
review found that until the results of this study were available, a determination regarding the feasibility of
using passive treatment technology to address the environmental risks associated with surface water could
not be made. Initial construction costs do not appear to be prohibitive, although long-term operations and
maintenance costs are not yet available for this system. When the results of this effort are available, an
evaluation and determination on the feasibility of passive treatment technology to address the risks
associated with surface water will be made. An engineered remedy for OU1 may be cost effective at
addressing environmental risks posed by surface water at the site.

In summary, some of the exposure assumptions and the potential risks posed to human health and the
environment for surface water and sediments at the site, as stated in the OU 1 ROD and summarized
above, are no longer valid. Recent fish tissue data collected by ODEQ demonstrate that potential risks to
human health exist through consumption of fish caught from Tar Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers,
and Grand Lake. Metals contained within site sediments are biologically available and pose risks to
ecological receptors. The concentrations of site-related contaminants in Tar Creek surface water continue
to exceed the OWQS. The narrative and numerical criteria in the OWQS are designed to maintain and
protect the beneficial surface water use classification of "Fish and Wildlife Propagation". Under the
OWQS there are numerical "Toxic Substance" concentration limits for surface water with both "acute"
and "chronic" standards listed. Under 785 OAC 45 OWQS, "acute toxicity" means the surface water
concentration of a toxic substance is such that it means greater than or equal to 50% lethality to
appropriate test organisms in a test sample. Under those same standards, "chronic toxicity" means the
surface water concentration of a toxic substance is such that there is a statistically significant difference
(at the 95% confidence level) between longer-term survival and/or reproduction or growth of the
appropriate test organisms in a test sample and a control. Teratogenicity and mutagenicity are considered
to be effects of chronic toxicity. In Tar Creek, Lytle Creek, and Elm Creek at the Tar Creek Site, EPA

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

found that cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in surface water samples exceed the OWQS chronic
toxicity standard, and zinc concentrations also exceed the acute toxicity standard. Finally, initial
construction costs for the constructed passive wetland southeast of Commerce are considered reasonable
and may indicate that such a system could be an economically feasible engineered remedy for surface
water at the site. For these reasons, in this fourth five-year review, the fund balancing ARARs waiver
included in the OU1 ROD may no longer be appropriate and should be reevaluated.

The OU2 ROD, signed on August 27, 1997 required residential yard and High Access Area (HAA)
remediation has been completed in Picher, Quapaw, Cardin and North Miami. Required remediation
activities are ongoing in Miami, Commerce, and other areas of Ottawa County where chat has been
found. In addition, the footprints of buildings demolished as part of the Lead Impacted Communities
Relocation Assistance Trust (LICRAT) buy-out under OU4 remain to be addressed under OU2.

OU3, regarding abandoned laboratory chemicals at the former Eagle-Picher Office Complex, located in
Cardin, Oklahoma, was addressed through a removal response action. No further action is necessary.

The ROD for OU4 (chat piles, other mine and mill waste, and smelter waste) was signed in February
2008 (during the fourth five-year review period). OU4 addresses the undeveloped rural and urban areas
of the site where mine and mill residues and smelter wastes have been placed, deposited, stored, disposed
of, or otherwise come to be located as a result of mining, milling, smelting, or related operations. OU4
includes rural residential yards located in Ottawa County outside of city or town limits except for yards
that were addressed under OU2. In general, OU4 does not include roadways, alleyways, sinkholes, or
mine shafts. The underground mine workings are not included as part of OU4, except as possible
disposal locations for mining related wastes. Currently, the Remedial Design (RD) and RA for OU4 are
being developed and implemented. The remedy selected by the OU4 ROD included providing funding to
the State of Oklahoma to complete a voluntary relocation within a portion of the site. The voluntary
relocation is currently in progress and is anticipated to be completed in 2010. The voluntary relocation
was augmented by EPA's decision to relocate the residents of Treece, Kansas. The decision to relocate
the residents of Treece was documented in an April 2010 Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) to
the OU4 ROD.

OU5 consists of sediment and surface water in Elm Creek and Tar Creek starting at the confluence of Tar
Creek & Lytle Creek to the Neosho River down to the point where it flows into Grand Lake.
Investigations related to OU5 are ongoing, and a remedy has not yet been selected.

In summary, the operation and maintenance (O&M) and Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program
for OU1, the OU2 RA, and the OU4 RD and RA are ongoing at the site. Based on the fourth five-year
review data review, site inspection, interviews and technology assessment, it appears the selected
remedies are functioning in a manner that is consistent with the decision documents (except as noted
regarding the dikes and diversion work portions of the OU1 remedy which are not significantly reducing
mine water discharges to Tar Creek). To ensure continued protectiveness, six issues are identified in the
following paragraphs.

The first five issues described below are carried over from the third five-year review. Of these, the first
four do not currently affect the protectiveness, but they should be addressed to ensure continued
protectiveness of the selected remedies. The fifth issue currently affects protectiveness in that current
data indicates that potential unacceptable risks to human health and the environment are posed by surface
water and sediment at the site. However, a formal evaluation of the data through the risk assessment
process is necessary to assess potential human health risks that might exist. The advanced SLERA
performed under OU5 has demonstrated that environmental risks are present in site sediments and surface
water, but a determination of whether or not the risks are unacceptable has not been made.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

The sixth issue currently affects protectiveness in that Appendix H of the OWQS, 785 Oklahoma

Administrative Code (OAC) 45 does not address restrictions on the use of ground water from the Boone

aquifer and shallower ground water in areas impacted above remediation goals as called for in the OU4

ROD.

The six issues are:

1. No O&M Plan exists for the dike and diversion channel for the Admiralty Mine Site (this issue
is carried over from the third five-year review). The ODEQ's O&M Plan for the dike and
diversion channel constructed at the Admiralty Mine Site as part of the OU1 remedy was written in
1987 and facts have arisen that make it outdated. The ODEQ is responsible for maintaining the dike
and diversion channel at the Admiralty Mine Site, as part of ODEQ's O&M for OU 1. The dike at the
Admiralty site requires some maintenance to repair damage noted during the site inspection and
mowing.

2. A determination regarding the effectiveness of the well plugging program, which was intended
to prevent mine water infiltration into the Roubidoux aquifer has not been completed (this issue
is carried over from the third five-year review). The Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring
Program has collected data for a period of over 20 years since the RA to plug abandoned Roubidoux
wells was completed. In the past, it was believed that the Roubidoux aquifer was being impacted by
the mine water; however, only certain indicator parameters were found, and subsequent data
collection over twenty years has not found any more reason to believe that the mine water is
degrading the Roubidoux. It should be noted that neither EPA nor ODEQ have identified any public
drinking water wells at the site that fail to meet the health-based primary drinking water standards
(Maximum Contaminant Levels or MCLs) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
and the drinking water supplied from the Roubidoux at the site is safe for all uses. Nonetheless, all
available information indicates that the primary mechanism for mine water to enter the Roubidoux
aquifer is infiltration through unplugged abandoned wells or infiltration through wells that have faulty
well casings and/or poor seals across the Boone Formation; consequently, it is essential that plugging
of abandoned wells continue.

3. ODEQ research has found references to 19 abandoned wells that need to be assessed for
plugging (this issue is carried over from the third five-year review). The OU1 ROD recognized
that additional abandoned wells completed in the Roubidoux aquifer might be identified after
completion of the OU 1 RA. The ROD stated that the need to plug additional wells would be
evaluated as wells were identified. The existence of wells found by ODEQ's research in historic
documents has not been verified. Field work will be necessary to verify the existence of these wells
and to determine whether they are completed in the Roubidoux.

4. While significant progress has been made, there is work remaining before the OU2 RA is
complete (this issue is carried over from the third five-year review). Residential yard remediation
has been completed in the towns of Picher, Quapaw, North Miami, and Cardin. However, additional
work is still necessary to complete the RA for OU2. Chat has been identified in driveways and
alleyways in Miami and in other areas of Ottawa County outside of the mining area. The footprints of
homes demolished and removed as part of the OU4 voluntary relocation, the footprints of homes
demolished in Miami due to flooding issues, and the footprints of homes demolished as part of work
performed in Commerce have not been assessed to determine if additional remediation is required.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

additional data on the surface water and sediment in site streams, including Tar Creek. These studies
also gathered data from fish tissue. Based on this data, the assumptions on which the OU1 ROD fund
balancing ARAR's waiver were based are no longer valid. The OU1 ROD stated that fillets of fish
caught from the mouth of Tar Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers, and Grand Lake were safe to eat.
However, recent ODEQ data have demonstrated that potential risk to human health exists through
consumption of fish caught from Tar Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers, and Grand Lake. The
OU 1 ROD also stated that the sediments in Tar Creek provide a long-term sink for metals that
effectively removes the metals from most biological processes. However, the advanced SLERA
documented a moderate to high risk to ecological receptors from sediment and surface water
contamination associated with the site. Data from ongoing OU5 investigations of surface water and
sediment show that metals concentrations in surface water in site streams continue to exceed the
OWQS for its lowered designated beneficial uses.

6. ICs restricting the use of shallow ground water have not been put in place as called for in the

OU4 ROD. The OU4 ROD calls for ICs restricting the use of the Boone aquifer and also restricting
the use of any ground water that is shallower than the Boone. Specifically, the ROD calls for ICs
restricting the potable and domestic use of such ground water where concentrations of site-related
contaminants exceed the remediation goals established in the ROD. The IC is to be implemented
through the OWQS (785 OAC 45 Appendix H). Appendix H of the OWQS states that toxic metals
are present and that special well construction methods are required within the OU4 boundary due to
contamination in the Boone aquifer, but there are currently no limitations placed on the use of ground
water from the Boone aquifer (or other shallower ground water) for potable use, including domestic
supply.

Actions Needed

To address the issues identified during the fourth five-year review, the following recommendations and

follow-up actions have been identified for the site. These actions are also provided in the table following

to this memorandum.

1. Develop an O&M Plan for the dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty site. The ODEQ

indicated in the third five-year review that the last O&M Plan developed for the diversion dike and
channel at the Admiralty Mine Site was prepared in 1987 and new facts may have made it outdated.
The O&M Plan prepared for the Admiralty Mine Site should be updated. Maintenance needs to be
performed to the dike at the Admiralty site. The maintenance items identified during the fourth five-
year review site inspection should be performed. ODEQ should provide to EPA a schedule that
indicates when the O&M Plan will be revised and when the necessary maintenance will be
completed. This follow-up action should be completed no later than September 2012.

2. Complete the evaluation of the effectiveness of the well plugging program that is intended to
prevent mine water infiltration into the Roubidoux aquifer. It would be beneficial to future long-
term decision making if, under the Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program, all the analytical
results available from the Roubidoux aquifer were compiled into a single database. The database
could then be used to perform statistical and trend analyses on the data to assess long-term changes to
the water quality of the Roubidoux. If additional data are required to complete the evaluation, then
such data should be collected. Recommendations should then be developed regarding the need for
continued monitoring and/or additional actions to protect the Roubidoux aquifer if necessary. The
evaluation of the effectiveness of the well plugging program should be completed by September 2014
(prior to the next five-year review).

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

technically feasible, plugged in accordance with the OU1 ROD. As additional potential abandoned
well locations are found, field work should be undertaken to locate any wells that exist. If any wells
are found, ODEQ should determine whether the well is completed in the Roubidoux aquifer, and
ODEQ should plug those abandoned wells completed in the Roubidoux aquifer where it is found to
be technically feasible to do so. EPA will assist ODEQ to plug as many wells as can be located. This
follow-up action should be completed by September 2012.

4. Remaining actions should be taken to complete the OU2 RA. These actions include, but may not

be limited to: l)assessment of chat in driveways and alleyways in areas of Ottawa County, including
Miami, that are outside of the mining area (approximately 450 in Miami and 50 in other areas of
Ottawa County); 2) assessment of the footprints of homes demolished as part of the voluntary
relocation (approximately 450 properties); 3) remediation of residential properties located outside of
the boundary of the OU4 voluntary buyout, where access was previously denied and where soil lead
concentrations exceed the remediation goal established in the OU2 ROD (approximately 140
properties). Owners of residential properties where access was previously denied will be offered a
final opportunity to have their properties re-sampled and remediated if necessary. The next five-year
review should also consider whether OU2 can be deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL).

This deletion of OU2 from the NPL would be a partial deletion of the site. This follow-up action
should be completed by September 2015.

5. The EPA should complete the evaluation of current surface water and sediment data for Tar
Creek to verify that no unacceptable risks to human health and the environment exist in Tar
Creek. Numerous studies have been conducted since the third five-year review. These studies have
collected surface water and sediment data in Tar Creek and other site streams. If necessary, the EPA
should collect enough additional data to determine if potential risks are posed to human health and the
environment by the surface water and sediments in streams of the Tar Creek site. The risks should be
quantified through a risk assessment. If unacceptable risks are identified, then potential remedial
alternatives will be evaluated to address the identified risks. Potential remedial alternatives may
include engineered remedies, such as passive treatment through constructed wetlands. A
determination may also be made that it is still technically impractical to address surface water and
sediment through an engineered remedy and/or that no further action is required. The risk assessment
portion of this follow-up action should be completed by September 2012. If necessary, an evaluation
of remedial alternatives should be completed by September 2014 (prior to the next five-year review).

6. The IC restricting potable and domestic use of shallow ground water including the Boone
aquifer as specified in the OU4 ROD should be implemented. The OU4 ROD calls for ICs
restricting the use of the Boone aquifer and also restricting the use of any ground water that is
shallower than the Boone. Specifically, the ROD calls for ICs restricting the potable and domestic
use of such ground water where concentrations of site-related contaminants exceed the remediation
goals established in the ROD. The IC is to be implemented through the OWQS (785 OAC 45
Appendix H). Appendix H of the OWQS states that toxic metals are present and that special well
construction methods are required within the OU4 boundary due to contamination in the Boone
aquifer, but there are currently no limitations placed on the use of ground water from the Boone
aquifer (or other shallower ground water) for potable use, including domestic supply. The ODEQ has
indicated that it will explore placing a restriction in Appendix H of the OWQS limiting ground water
use from the mine pool and the Boone aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the mine pool for public
water supply or domestic use. The ODEQ's restriction will include treatment requirements to remove
any lead above the MCL of 15 micrograms per liter. EPA suggests that the State of Oklahoma review
this IC. This follow-up action should be completed by September 2011.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Determinations

I have determined that the remedy for the Tar Creek Superfund Site is protective of human health and the
environment in the short term, and will remain so provided the action items identified in the five-year
review report are addressed as described above.

Samuel Coleman, P.E.

Director, Superfund Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6	Date

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions from the Fourth Five-Year Review
Fourth Five- Year Review
Tar Creek Super fund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Recommendations/Follow-Up Actions

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Agency

Milestone Date

Follov
Actions:
Protecti
(Y/

v-Up
Affects
veness
N)

Current

Future

Develop an O&M Plan for the dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty site. The ODEQ indicated in the third
five-year review that the last O&M Plan developed for the diversion dike and channel at the Admiralty Mine Site
was prepared in 1987 and new facts may have made it outdated. The O&M Plan prepared for the Admiralty
Mine Site should be updated. Maintenance needs to be performed to the dike at the Admiralty site. The
maintenance items identified during the fourth five-year review site inspection should be performed. ODEQ
should provide to EPA a schedule that indicates when the O&M Plan will be revised and when the necessary
maintenance will be completed. This follow-up action should be completed no later than September 2012.

ODEQ

EPA

September 2012

Complete the evaluation of the effectiveness of the well plugging program that is intended to prevent mine water
infiltration into the Roubidoux aquifer. It would be beneficial to future long-term decision making if, under the
Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program, all the analytical results available from the Roubidoux aquifer
were compiled into a single database. The database could then be used to perform statistical and trend
analyses on the data to assess long-term changes to the water quality of the Roubidoux. If additional data are
required to complete the evaluation, then such data should be collected. Recommendations should then be
developed regarding the need for continued monitoring and/or additional actions to protect the Roubidoux
aquifer if necessary. The evaluation of the effectiveness of the well plugging program should be completed by
September 2014 (prior to the next five-year review).

ODEQ

EPA

September 2014

Undertake field work to determine whether the 19 wells that ODEQ found in literature actually exist, and
evaluate whether plugging any wells found is warranted or feasible. Each well location the ODEQ found in
literature should be investigated, located, assessed, and if necessary and technically feasible, plugged in
accordance with the OU1 ROD. As additional potential abandoned well locations are found, field work should
be undertaken to locate any wells that exist. If any wells are found, ODEQ should determine whether the well is
completed in the Roubidoux aquifer, and ODEQ should plug those abandoned wells completed in the
Roubidoux aquifer where it is found to be technically feasible to do so. EPA will assist ODEQ to plug as many
wells as can be located. This follow-up action should be completed by September 2012.

ODEQ

EPA

September 2012

12_TC_5YR_2010-0813_Table7.xls

PAGE 1 OF 3

AUGUST 2010

-------
Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions from the Fourth Five-Year Review
Fourth Five- Year Review
Tar Creek Super fund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Recommendations/Follow-Up Actions

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Agency

Milestone Date

Follov
Actions:
Protecti
(Y/

v-Up
Affects
veness
N)

Current

Future

Remaining actions should be taken to complete the OU2 RA. These actions include, but may not be limited to:
1)assessment of chat in driveways and alleyways in areas of Ottawa County, including Miami, that are outside
of the mining area (approximately 450 in Miami and 50 in other areas of Ottawa County); 2) assessment of the
footprints of homes demolished as part of the voluntary relocation (approximately 450 properties); 3)
remediation of residential properties located outside of the boundary of the OU4 voluntary buyout, where access
was previously denied and where soil lead concentrations exceed the remediation goal established in the OU2
ROD (approximately 140 properties). Owners of residential properties where access was previously denied will
be offered a final opportunity to have their properties re-sampled and remediated if necessary. The next five-
year review should also consider whether OU2 can be deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL). This
deletion of OU2 from the NPL would be a partial deletion of the site. This follow-up action should be completed
by September 2015.

EPA

Sepetember 2015

The EPA should complete the evaluation of current surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek to verify that
no unacceptable risks to human health and the environment exist in Tar Creek. Numerous studies have been
conducted since the third five-year review. These studies have collected surface water and sediment data in Tar
Creek and other site streams. If necessary, the EPA should collect enough additional data to determine if
potential risks are posed to human health and the environment by the surface water and sediments in streams
of the Tar Creek site. The risks should be quantified through a risk assessment. If unacceptable risks are
identified, then potential remedial alternatives will be evaluated to address the identified risks. Potential remedial
alternatives may include engineered remedies, such as passive treatment through constructed wetlands. A
determination may also be made that it is still technically impractical to address surface water and sediment
through an engineered remedy and/or that no further action is required. The risk assessment portion of this
follow-up action should be completed by September 2012. If necessary, an evaluation of remedial alternatives
should be completed by September 2014 (prior to the next five-year review).

EPA

September 2014

12_TC_5YR_2010-0813_Table7.xls

PAGE 2 OF 3

AUGUST 2010

-------
Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions from the Fourth Five-Year Review
Fourth Five- Year Review
Tar Creek Super fund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Recommendations/Follow-Up Actions

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Agency

Milestone Date

Follov
Actions:
Protecti
(Y/

v-Up
Affects
veness
N)

Current

Future

6

The IC restricting potable and domestic use of shallow ground water including the Boone aquifer as specified in
the OU4 ROD should be implemented. The OU4 ROD calls for ICs restricting the use of the Boone aquifer and
also restricting the use of any ground water that is shallower than the Boone. Specifically, the ROD calls for ICs
restricting the potable and domestic use of such ground water where concentrations of site-related
contaminants exceed the remediation goals established in the ROD. The IC is to be implemented through the
OWQS (785 OAC 45 Appendix H). Appendix H of the OWQS states that toxic metals are present and that
special well construction methods are required within the OU4 boundary due to contamination in the Boone
aquifer, but there are currently no limitations placed on the use of ground water from the Boone aquifer (or other
shallower ground water) for potable use, including domestic supply. The ODEQ has indicated that it will explore
placing a restriction in Appendix H of the OWQS limiting ground water use from the mine pool and the Boone
aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the mine pool for public water supply or domestic use. The ODEQ's
restriction will include treatment requirements to remove any lead above the MCL of 15 micrograms per liter.
EPA suggests that the State of Oklahoma review this IC. This follow-up action should be completed by
September 2011.

ODEQ

EPA

September 2011

Y

Y

12_TC_5YR_2010-0813_Table7.xls

PAGE 3 OF 3

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

CONCURRENCES

FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID# OKD980629844

By:	Date:

Bob Sullivan, Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Remedial Branch

By:	Date:

Cathy Gilmore, Chief

LA/NM/OK Section, Superfund Remedial Branch

By:	Date:

Donald H. Williams, Deputy Associate Director
Superfund Remedial Branch

By:	Date:

Charles Faultry, Associate Director
Superfund Remedial Branch

By:	Date:

James E. Costello, Assistant Regional Counsel
Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel

By:	Date:

Mark Peycke, Chief

Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel

By:	Date:

Pam Phillips, Deputy Director
Superfund Division

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5Yr_201 0-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table of Contents

Section	Page

List of Acronyms	iii

Executive Summary	v

Five-Year Review Summary Form	xiii

Section	Page

I.0	Introduction	1

2.0 Site Chronology	3

3.0 Background	3

3.1	Physical Characteristics	3

3.2	Land and Resource Use	5

3.3	History of Contamination	6

3.4	Initial Response	8

3.5	Basis for Taking Action	13

4.0 Remedial Actions	14

4.1	Remedial Action Objectives	14

4.2	Remedy Selection	15

4.3	Remedy Implementation	21

4.4	Operations and Maintenance and Long-Term Monitoring	23

4.5	Progress Since Initiation of Remedial Action	26

4.6	Activities Conducted at the Site by Other Governmental Agencies Since the Third Five-Year
Review	30

5.0 Progress Since the Third Five-Year Review	33

5.1	Protectiveness Statements from Third Five-Year Review	33

5.2	Third Five-Y ear Review Recommendations and Follow-up Actions	34

5.3	Status of Recommended Actions	36

6.0 Five-Year Review Process	39

6.1	Administrative Components	39

6.2	Community Involvement	39

6.3	Document Review	39

6.4	Data Review	40

6.5	Interviews	42

6.6	Site Inspection	43

7.0 Technical Assessment	45

7.1	Question A: Is the Remedy Functioning as Intended by the Decision Documents?	45

7.2	Question B: Are the Exposure Assumptions, Toxicity Data, Cleanup Levels, and Remedial
Action Objectives Used at the Time of the Remedy Selection Still Valid?	52

7.3	Question C: Has any Other Information Come to Light that Could Call into Question the
Protectiveness of the Remedy	58

7.4	Summary of the Technical Assessment	59

8.0 Issues	62

9.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions	64

10.0 Protectiveness Statement	66

II.0	Next Review	68

TC_5Yr_201 0-0813.DOCX	i	AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

List of Tables

Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7

List of Figures

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Chronology of Site Events

Analytical Data for Tar Creek Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program

Actions Taken Since Third Five-Year Review

Stream Surface Water Contaminant of Concern Analytical Results

Stream Sediment Contaminant of Concern Analytical Results

Issues Identified During the Fourth Five-Year Review

Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions from the Fourth Five-Year Review

Site Map

Voluntary Relocation Boundary Map

ODEQ 2008 Tar Creek Area Fish Consumption Advisory

Roubidoux Well Location Map

Stream Survey Sample Locations

Attachments

Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5

Documents Reviewed
Interview Record Forms
Site Inspection Checklist
Site Inspection Photographs

Notices to the Public Regarding the Five-Year Review

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

II

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

List of Acronyms

AAM

After Action Monitoring

ALM

Adult Lead Model

AOC

Administrative Order on Consent

ARARs

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

ATSDR

United States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

BGS

Below Ground Surface

BHHRA

Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment

BIA

United States Bureau of Indian Affairs

BMP

Best Management Practices

CAA

Clean Air Act

CDC

Centers for Disease Control

CERCLA

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

COPC

Contaminant of Potential Concern

CWA

Clean Water Act

DOI

United States Department of the Interior

ERA

Ecological Risk Assessment

EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

ERCS

Emergency Response Cleanup Services

ESD

Explanation of Significant Differences

FR

Federal Register

HAAs

High Access Areas

IAG

Inter-Agency Agreement

IC

Institutional Control

ITEC

Inter-Tribal Environmental Council

LEAD

Local Environmental Action Demanded

LICRAT

Lead Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust

LTM

Long-Term Monitoring

MCL

Maximum Contaminant Level

mg/kg

milligrams per kilogram

mg/L

milligrams per liter

mg/m3

milligrams per cubic meter

MK

Morrison Knudson Corporation

MOU

Memorandum of Understanding

NCEA

National Center for Environmental Assessment

NCP

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

NPL

National Priorities List

OAC

Oklahoma Administrative Code

OCC

Oklahoma Conservation Commission

OCHD

Ottawa County Health Department

ODEQ

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

O&M

Operation and Maintenance

OSDH

Oklahoma State Department of Health

OSWER

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

OUs

Operable Units

OWQS

Oklahoma Water Quality Standards

OWRB

Oklahoma Water Resources Board

ppm

parts per million

PPP

Pollution Prevention Plans

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

III

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

PVC

Polyvinyl Chloride

PRP

Potentially Responsible Parties

QAPP

Quality Assurance Project Plan

RA

Remedial Action

RAO

Remedial Action Objective

RAR

Remedial Action Report

RD/RA

Remedial Design/Remedial Action

RfC

Reference Concentration

RI/FS

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

ROD

Record of Decision

RPM

Remedial Project Manager

RSKERL

Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory

RWD4

Rural Water District Number 4

SARA

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SDWA

Safe Drinking Water Act

SHPO

State Historic Preservation Officer

SLERA

Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

SMCL

Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level

START

Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team

TBCs

"To Be Considered" standards

TDS

Total Dissolved Solids

TSMD

Tri-State Mining District

UCL

upper confidence limits

UIC

Underground Injection Control

USACE

United States Army Corps of Engineers

use

United States Code

USDA

United States Department of Agriculture

Mg/dl

micrograms per deciliter

USGS

United States Geological Survey

WIC

USDA's Women, Infant, and Children Program

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

IV

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Executive Summary

Pursuant to Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability
Act ("CERCLA" or "Superfund"), 42 United States Code (USC) §9621(c), the fourth five-year review of
the remedy in place at the Tar Creek Superfund Site ("site") located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma (and
later expanded to include actions in Treece, Kansas1), was completed in June 2010. The results of the
five-year review indicate that the response actions completed to date are currently protective of human
health and the environment in the short term. Except as noted in this and previous five-year reviews
regarding the ineffectiveness of the portion of the Operable Unit (OU) 1 remedy designed to decrease acid
mine water discharges to Tar Creek, the response actions performed appear to be functioning as designed,
and the site has been maintained appropriately. No deficiencies were noted that currently impact the
protectiveness of the remedy, although several issues were identified that require further action to ensure
the continued protectiveness of the remedy.

Due to the complex nature of contamination associated with the site, remediation has been handled
through various removal response actions and Remedial Actions (RA). Five OUs have been designated at
the site. The five OUs include (a) OU1 (surface water/ground water); (b) OU2 (residential properties and
High Access Areas [HAAs]); (c) OU3 (Eagle-Picher Office Complex - abandoned mining chemicals); (d)
OU4 (chat piles, other mine and mill waste, and smelter waste); and (e) OU5 (sediment and surface
water). Records of Decision (RODs) have been signed for OUs 1, 2 and 4.

Through the RA defined by the ROD for OU1, dikes and diversion channels were constructed at three
abandoned mine openings (identified as Muncie, Big John, and Admiralty) to prevent the inflow of
surface water into the abandoned mine workings. In addition, abandoned wells completed in the
Roubidoux aquifer have been properly plugged to prevent migration of contaminated acid mine water
from the mine workings into the underlying Roubidoux aquifer. The Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) in cooperation with the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) continues to evaluate the plugging of deep abandoned wells through the Roubidoux Ground Water
Monitoring Program for OU 1. The Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program has been conducted to
determine the effectiveness of the well plugging activities at preventing contamination of the Roubidoux
aquifer and to evaluate trends in water quality of the Roubidoux aquifer. In addition, the dikes and
diversion channels have been evaluated to determine their effectiveness at lowering the water levels

1 EPA Region 6 issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) on April f3, 20f0. The ESD stated that
EPA Region 6 will offer relocation to the residents of Treece, Kansas as part of its remedy for OU4 of the Tar Creek
Site.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

V

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

within the mine workings and to determine their effectiveness at eliminating the acid mine water
discharges to Tar Creek.

OU2 was addressed through two removal response actions and a RA. Through the removal response
actions and RA, contaminated soils at more than 2,295 residential properties and HAAs have been
excavated to depths up to 18 inches to a remediation goal of 500 parts per million (ppm) for lead. The
excavated soil was disposed of at permanent on-site repositories. These repositories were located in dry
mining waste areas which are already contaminated.

Another removal response action resulted in the appropriate disposal of 120 containers of laboratory
chemicals stored at the former Eagle-Picher Office Complex (OU3). As a result of this removal response
action, the EPA determined that no further action was necessary to address OU3.

The OU4 ROD was signed in February 2008. The voluntary relocation being conducted by the State of
Oklahoma and funded under the OU4 ROD is ongoing. The Remedial Design (RD) for portions of the
OU4 remedy began in 2009, and RA activities were begun in late 2009. In April, 2010, EPA decided to
add Treece, Kansas to the site. Specifically, EPA decided to relocate the residents of Treece to help
prevent exposure to the source material deposits at Tar Creek. The decision to relocate the residents of
Treece was documented in an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) to the OU4 ROD issued in
April 2010.

Investigations related to OU5 are ongoing.

Under the statutory requirements of Section 121(c) of CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), P. L. 99-499, and under the implementing regulatory
provisions of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 300.430(f)(4)(h), performance of five-year reviews are required for sites
where hazardous substances remain on-site above levels that allow for unrestricted use and unrestricted
exposure. In addition, EPA policy, as stated in the current EPA five-year review guidance, provides that
five-year reviews will be conducted at sites where a pre-SARA remedial action leaves hazardous
substances on-site above concentration levels that allow for unrestricted use and unrestricted exposure.
EPA policy also provides that five-year reviews will be conducted at pre or post-SARA sites where the
RA, once completed, will not leave hazardous substances on-site above concentration levels that allow for
unrestricted use and unrestricted exposure but will require more than five years to complete. Previous

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

five-year reviews of the site were performed as a matter of EPA policy, because the ROD for OU1 was
signed prior to the enactment of SARA, and the OU2 ROD stated that five-year reviews were not
required. An Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) to the OU2 ROD was signed in August 2007
requiring a five-year review of the OU2 remedy, and subsequent five-year reviews of OU2 are therefore
required by statute. An ESD to the OU4 ROD was signed in April 2010 adding the residents of Treece,
Kansas to the voluntary relocation. The first five-year review of the response actions for the site was
completed in April 1994, the second five-year review was completed in April 2000, and the third five-
year review was completed in September 2005.

During the fourth five-year review period, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and ground water
monitoring activities continued at the site. O&M activities include inspection and maintenance of the
dikes and diversion channels constructed as part of the OU 1 remedy, and performance of the Roubidoux
Ground Water Monitoring Program. The O&M inspections at the Admiralty site are conducted through
occasional site visits and maintenance work is conducted as needed. The Roubidoux Ground Water
Monitoring Program was continued by the ODEQ through a Cooperative Agreement with the EPA.

The OU2 RA was completed by EPA in the towns of Cardin, North Miami, Picher, and Quapaw during
the fourth five-year review period. Some RA work was also performed by the Cities of Afton,

Commerce, Fairland, and Miami. The majority of this work was performed in the City of Commerce to
address 119 properties. The City of Commerce is currently addressing a few remaining properties and
final reporting. Site reconnaissance efforts performed in December 2009 have identified chat in
alleyways and driveways in other areas of Ottawa County outside of the mining area, including in the City
of Miami.

The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Reports and Proposed Plan for OU4 were made
available to the public in July 2007, and the OU4 ROD was signed by EPA in February 2008 (EPA,
2008). The voluntary relocation included as part of the remedy for OU4 is ongoing, and is being
performed by the State of Oklahoma with funding provided by EPA under the OU4 ROD. The OU4 RD
began in 2009, and the RA began in late 2009 for portions of the selected remedy.

For the fourth five-year review, a data review, site inspection, interviews and technology assessment have
been performed. Based on the findings from these activities, it appears the remedies are functioning in a
manner that is consistent with the decision documents, except as noted here. For OU1, some of the
exposure assumptions and the potential risks posed to human health and the environment for surface

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

VII

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

water and sediments at the site are no longer valid. Recent site data demonstrate that potential risks to
human health exist through consumption of fish caught from Tar Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers,
and Grand Lake. Metals contained within site sediments are biologically available and pose risks to
ecological receptors. The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) continue to not be met for the
designated uses in Tar Creek. Finally, constructed passive wetlands may be an economically feasible
engineered remedy for surface water at the site. For these reasons, the fund balancing applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) waiver contained in the OU1 ROD may no longer be
appropriate and should be reevaluated. Also, the dikes and diversion work portions of the OU 1 remedy
are not significantly reducing the acid mine water discharges to Tar Creek. To ensure continued
protectiveness, six issues are identified as described in the following paragraphs.

The first five issues described below are carried over from the third five-year review. Of these, the first
four do not currently affect protectiveness, but they should be addressed to ensure continued
protectiveness of the selected remedies. The last two issues currently affect protectiveness as described
below.

The six issues are:

1. No O&M Plan exists for the dike and diversion channel for the Admiralty Mine Site (this issue
is carried over from the third five-year review). The ODEQ's O&M Plan for the dike and
diversion channel constructed at the Admiralty Mine Site as part of the OU 1 remedy was written in
1987 and facts have arisen that make it outdated. The ODEQ is responsible for maintaining the dike
and diversion channel at the Admiralty Mine Site, as part of ODEQ's O&M for OU 1. The dike at the
Admiralty site requires some maintenance to repair damage noted during the site inspection and
mowing.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

VIII

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

(Maximum Contaminant Levels or MCLs) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
and the drinking water supplied from the Roubidoux at the site is safe for all uses. Nonetheless, all
available information indicates that the primary mechanism for mine water to enter the Roubidoux
aquifer is infiltration through unplugged abandoned wells or infiltration through wells that have faulty
well casings and/or poor seals across the Boone Formation; consequently, it is essential that plugging
of abandoned wells continue.

3. ODEQ research has found references to 19 abandoned wells that need to be assessed for
plugging (this issue is carried over from the third five-year review). The OU1 ROD recognized
that additional abandoned wells completed in the Roubidoux aquifer might be identified after
completion of the OU1 RA. The ROD stated that the need to plug additional wells would be
evaluated as wells were identified. The existence of the wells found by ODEQ's research in historic
documents has not been verified. Field work will be necessary to verify the existence of these wells
and to determine whether they are completed in the Roubidoux aquifer.

5. An assessment of the surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek should be completed to
verify that a threat to human health does not exist (this issue is carried over from the third five-
year review). The third five-year review recommended that then current surface water and sediment
data for Tar Creek be evaluated to verify that no threat to human health exists in Tar Creek. Since the
third five-year review, additional studies have been conducted. These additional studies gathered
additional data on the surface water and sediment in site streams, including Tar Creek. The studies
also gathered data from fish tissue. Based on this data, the assumptions on which the OU1 ROD fund
balancing ARAR's waiver were based are no longer valid. The OU 1 ROD stated that fillets of fish
caught from the mouth of Tar Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers, and Grand Lake were safe to eat.
However, recent ODEQ data have demonstrated that potential risk to human health exists through
consumption of fish caught from Tar Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers, and Grand Lake. The
OU 1 ROD also stated that the sediments in Tar Creek provide a long-term sink for metals that

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

effectively removes the metals from most biological processes. However, the advanced SLERA
documented a moderate to high risk to ecological receptors from sediment and surface water
contamination associated with the site. Data from ongoing OU5 investigations of surface water and
sediment show that metals concentrations in surface water in site streams continue to exceed the
OWQS for its lowered designated beneficial uses.

6. Institutional Controls (ICs) restricting the use of shallow ground water have not been put in
place as called for in the OU4 ROD. The OU4 ROD calls for ICs restricting the use of the Boone
aquifer and also restricting the use of any ground water that is shallower than the Boone. Specifically,
the ROD calls for ICs restricting the potable and domestic use of such ground water where
concentrations of site-related contaminants exceed the remediation goals established in the ROD.
The IC is to be implemented through the OWQS (785 Oklahoma Administrative Code [OAC] 45
Appendix H). Appendix H of the OWQS states that toxic metals are present and that special well
construction methods are required within the OU4 boundary due to contamination in the Boone
aquifer, but there are currently no limitations placed on the use of ground water from the Boone
aquifer (or other shallower ground water) for potable use, including domestic supply.

The following recommendations and follow-up actions have been identified to address these issues:

1. Develop an O&M Plan for the dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty site. The ODEQ

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

evaluation of the effectiveness of the well plugging program should be completed by September 2014
(prior to the next five-year review).

3. Undertake field work to determine whether the 19 wells that ODEQ found in literature actually
exist, and evaluate whether plugging any wells found is warranted or feasible. Each well
location the ODEQ found in literature should be investigated, located, assessed, and if necessary and
technically feasible, plugged in accordance with the OU1 ROD. As additional potential abandoned
well locations are found, field work should be undertaken to locate any wells that exist. If any wells
are found, ODEQ should determine whether the well is completed in the Roubidoux aquifer, and
ODEQ should plug those abandoned wells completed in the Roubidoux aquifer where it is found to
be technically feasible to do so. EPA will assist ODEQ to plug as many wells as can be located. This
follow-up action should be completed by September 2012.

4. Remaining actions should be taken to complete the OU2 RA. These actions include, but may not

be limited to: l)assessment of chat in driveways and alleyways in areas of Ottawa County, including
Miami, that are outside of the mining area (approximately 450 in Miami and 50 in other areas of
Ottawa County); 2) assessment of the footprints of homes demolished as part of the voluntary
relocation (approximately 450 properties); 3) remediation of residential properties located outside of
the boundary of the OU4 voluntary buyout, where access was previously denied, and where soil lead
concentrations exceed the remediation goal established in the OU2 ROD (approximately 140
properties). Owners of residential properties where access was previously denied will be offered a
final opportunity to have their property re-sampled and remediated if necessary. The next five-year
review should also consider whether OU2 can be deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL).

This deletion of OU2 from the NPL would be a partial deletion of the site. This follow-up action
should be completed by September 2015.

5. The EPA should complete the evaluation of current surface water and sediment data for Tar
Creek to verify that no unacceptable risks to human health and the environment exist in Tar
Creek. Numerous studies have been conducted since the third five-year review. These studies have
collected surface water and sediment data in Tar Creek and other site streams. If necessary, the EPA
should collect enough additional data to determine whether potential risks are posed to human health
and the environment by the surface water and sediments in streams of the Tar Creek site. The risks
should be quantified through a risk assessment. If unacceptable risks are identified, then potential
remedial alternatives will be evaluated to address the identified risks. Potential remedial alternatives
may include engineered remedies, such as passive treatment through constructed wetlands. A
determination may also be made that it is still technically impractical to address surface water and

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

sediment through an engineered remedy and/or that no further action is required. The risk assessment
portion of this follow-up action should be completed by September 2012. If necessary, an evaluation
of remedial alternatives should be completed by September 2014 (prior to the next five-year review).

6. The IC restricting potable and domestic use of shallow ground water including the Boone
aquifer as specified in the OU4 ROD should be implemented. The OU4 ROD calls for ICs
restricting the use of the Boone aquifer and also restricting the use of any ground water that is
shallower than the Boone. Specifically, the ROD calls for ICs restricting the potable and domestic use
of such ground water where concentrations of site-related contaminants exceed the remediation goals
established in the ROD. The IC is to be implemented through the OWQS (785 OAC 45 Appendix
H). Appendix H of the OWQS states that toxic metals are present and that special well construction
methods are required within the OU4 boundary due to contamination in the Boone aquifer, but there
are currently no limitations placed on the use of ground water from the Boone aquifer (or other
shallower ground water) for potable use, including domestic supply. The ODEQ has indicated that it
will explore placing a restriction in Appendix H of the OWQS limiting ground water use from the
mine pool and the Boone aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the mine pool for public water supply,
or domestic use. The ODEQ's restriction will include treatment requirements to remove any lead
above the MCL of 15 micrograms per liter. EPA suggests that the State of Oklahoma review this IC.
This follow-up action should be completed by September 2011.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

XII

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site name (from WasteLAN): Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID (from WasteLAN): OKD980629844

Region:United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 6

State:

Oklahoma
and Kansas

City/County:

Ottawa County plus Treece, Kansas

SITE STATUS

NPL Status: ¦ Final ~ Deleted
Remediation status (choose all that apply): I
Multiple OUs? ¦ Yes ~ No

~ Other (specify):

Under Construction ¦ Operating ~ Complete

Construction completion date: The OU1 dikes were
completed in Dec. 1986

Has site been put into reuse?

I Yes (partially)

~ No

REVIEW STATUS

Reviewing agency:

I EPA ~ State ~ Tribe ~ Other Federal Agency:

Author: EPA Region 6, with support from Remedial Action Contract 2 (RAC2) contractor
CH2M HILL, Inc.

Review period: September 2005 through January 2010

Date(s) of site inspection: December 14 and 15,2009

Type of review:

¦ Statutory
~ Policy

~	Post-SARA	~ Pre-SARA

~	Non-NPL Remedial Action Site

~	Regional Discretion

~	NPL-Removal only

~	NPL State/Tribe-lead

Review number:
Triggering action:

~ 1 (first) ~ 2 (second)

~ 3 (third)

Other (specify): 4 (fourth)

~	Actual RA On-site Construction ~ Actual RA Start

~	Construction Completion	~ Recommendation of Previous
¦ Other (specify): Previous Five-Year Review Report

Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): September 28, 2005 (date Third Five-Year Review Report was signed).

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

XIII

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Five-Year Review Summary Form

Issues: The operation and maintenance (O&M) and Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program for Operable Unit
(OU) 1, the OU2 Remedial Action (RA), and the OU4 Remedial Design (RD) and RA are ongoing at the site. Based
on the fourth five-year review data review, site inspection, interviews and technology assessment, it appears the
selected remedies are functioning in a manner that is consistent with the decision documents (except as noted regarding
the dikes and diversion work portions of the OU1 remedy which are not significantly reducing mine water discharges to
Tar Creek). To ensure continued protectiveness, six issues are identified in the following paragraphs.

The first five issues described below are carried over from the third five-year review. Of these, the first four do not
currently affect the protectiveness, but they should be addressed to ensure continued protectiveness of the selected
remedies. The fifth issue currently affects protectiveness in that current data indicates that potential unacceptable risks
to human health and the environment are posed by surface water and sediment at the site. However, a formal
evaluation of the data through the risk assessment process is necessary to assess potential human health risks that might
exist. The advanced Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) performed under OU5 has demonstrated
that environmental risks are present in site sediments and surface water, but a determination of whether or not the risks
are unacceptable has not been made.

The sixth issue currently affects protectiveness in that Appendix H of the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS),
785 Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 45 does not address restrictions on the use of ground water from the Boone
aquifer and shallower ground water in areas impacted above remediation goals as called for in the OU4 Record of
Decision (ROD).

1. No O&M Plan exists for the dike and diversion channel for the Admiralty Mine Site (this issue is carried
over from the third five-year review). The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality's (ODEQ) O&M
Plan for the dike and diversion channel constructed at the Admiralty Mine Site as part of the OU1 remedy was
written in 1987 and facts have arisen that make it outdated. The ODEQ is responsible for maintaining the dike and
diversion channel at the Admiralty Mine Site, as part of ODEQ's O&M for OU 1. The dike at the Admiralty site
requires some maintenance to repair damage noted during the site inspection and mowing.

2. A determination regarding the effectiveness of the well plugging program, which was intended to prevent
mine water infiltration into the Roubidoux aquifer has not been completed (this issue is carried over from
the third five-year review). The Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program has collected data for a period of
over 20 years since the RA to plug abandoned Roubidoux wells was completed. In the past, it was believed that
the Roubidoux aquifer was being impacted by the mine water; however, only certain indicator parameters were
found, and subsequent data collection over twenty years has not found any more reason to believe that the mine
water is degrading the Roubidoux. It should be noted that neither the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) nor ODEQ have identified any public drinking water wells at the site that fail to meet the health-
based primary drinking water standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels or MCLs) established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the drinking water supplied from the Roubidoux at the site is safe for all uses.
Nonetheless, all available information indicates that the primary mechanism for mine water to enter the Roubidoux
aquifer is infiltration through unplugged abandoned wells or infiltration through wells that have faulty well casings
and/or poor seals across the Boone Formation; consequently, it is essential that plugging of abandoned wells
continue.

3. ODEQ research has found references to 19 abandoned wells that need to be assessed for plugging (this issue
is carried over from the third five-year review). The OU 1 ROD recognized that additional abandoned wells
completed in the Roubidoux aquifer might be identified after completion of the OU 1 RA. The ROD stated that the
need to plug additional wells would be evaluated as wells were identified. The existence of wells found by
ODEQ's research in historic documents has not been verified. Field work will be necessary to verify the existence
of these wells and to determine whether they are completed in the Roubidoux.

4. While significant progress has been made, there is work remaining before the OU2 RA is complete (this
issue is carried over from the third five-year review). Residential yard remediation has been completed in the
towns of Picher, Quapaw, North Miami, and Cardin. However, additional work is still necessary to complete the
RA for OU2. Chat has been identified in driveways and alleyways in Miami and in other areas of Ottawa County
outside of the mining area. The footprints of homes demolished and removed as part of the OU4 voluntary
relocation, the footprints of homes demolished in Miami due to flooding issues, and the footprints of homes
demolished as part of work performed in Commerce have not been assessed to determine if additional remediation
is required.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

XIV

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Five-Year Review Summary Form

5. An assessment of the surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek should be completed to verify that a
threat to human health does not exist (this issue is carried over from the third five-year review). The third
five-year review recommended that then current surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek be evaluated to
verify that no threat to human health exists in Tar Creek. Since the third five-year review, additional studies have
been conducted. These additional studies gathered additional data on the surface water and sediment in site
streams, including Tar Creek. These studies also gathered data from fish tissue. Based on this data, the
assumptions on which the OU1 ROD fund balancing applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARAR's) waiver were based are no longer valid. The OU1 ROD stated that fillets of fish caught from the mouth
of Tar Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers, and Grand Lake were safe to eat. However, recent ODEQ data have
demonstrated that potential risk to human health exists through consumption of fish caught from Tar Creek, the
Spring and Neosho Rivers, and Grand Lake. The OU1 ROD also stated that the sediments in Tar Creek provide a
long-term sink for metals that effectively removes the metals from most biological processes. However, the
advanced SLERA documented a moderate to high risk to ecological receptors from sediment and surface water
contamination associated with the site. Data from ongoing OU5 investigations of surface water and sediment show
that metals concentrations in surface water in site streams continue to exceed the OWQS for its lowered designated
beneficial uses.

6. Institutional controls (ICs) restricting the use of shallow ground water have not been put in place as called

for in the OU4 ROD. The OU4 ROD calls for ICs restricting the use of the Boone aquifer and also restricting the
use of any ground water that is shallower than the Boone. Specifically, the ROD calls for ICs restricting the
potable and domestic use of such ground water where concentrations of site-related contaminants exceed the
remediation goals established in the ROD. The IC is to be implemented through the OWQS (785 OAC 45
Appendix H). Appendix H of the OWQS states that toxic metals are present and that special well construction
methods are required within the OU4 boundary due to contamination in the Boone aquifer, but there are currently
no limitations placed on the use of ground water from the Boone aquifer (or other shallower ground water) for
potable use, including domestic supply.

Recommendations and Follow-up Actions: To address the issues identified during the fourth five-year review, the

following recommendations and follow-up actions have been identified for the site:

1. Develop an O&M Plan for the dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty site. The ODEQ indicated in the
third five-year review that the last O&M Plan developed for the diversion dike and channel at the Admiralty Mine
Site was prepared in 1987 and new facts may have made it outdated. The O&M Plan prepared for the Admiralty
Mine Site should be updated. Maintenance needs to be performed to the dike at the Admiralty site. The
maintenance items identified during the fourth five-year review site inspection should be performed. ODEQ
should provide to EPA a schedule that indicates when the O&M Plan will be revised and when the necessary
maintenance will be completed. This follow-up action should be completed no later than September 2012.

2. Complete the evaluation of the effectiveness of the well plugging program that is intended to prevent mine
water infiltration into the Roubidoux aquifer. It would be beneficial to future long-term decision making if,
under the Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program, all the analytical results available from the Roubidoux
aquifer were compiled into a single database. The database could then be used to perform statistical and trend
analyses on the data to assess long-term changes to the water quality of the Roubidoux. If additional data are
required to complete the evaluation, then such data should be collected. Recommendations should then be
developed regarding the need for continued monitoring and/or additional actions to protect the Roubidoux aquifer
if necessary. The evaluation of the effectiveness of the well plugging program should be completed by September
2014 (prior to the next five-year review).

3. Undertake field work to determine whether the 19 wells that ODEQ found in literature actually exist, and
evaluate whether plugging any wells found is warranted or feasible. Each well location the ODEQ found in
literature should be investigated, located, assessed, and if necessary and technically feasible, plugged in
accordance with the OU1 ROD. As additional potential abandoned well locations are found, field work should be
undertaken to locate any wells that exist. If any wells are found, ODEQ should determine whether the well is
completed in the Roubidoux aquifer, and ODEQ should plug those abandoned wells completed in the Roubidoux
aquifer where it is found to be technically feasible to do so. EPA will assist ODEQ to plug as many wells as can be
located. This follow-up action should be completed by September 2012.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Five-Year Review Summary Form

4. Remaining actions should be taken to complete the OU2 RA. These actions include, but may not be limited
to: l)assessment of chat in driveways and alleyways in areas of Ottawa County, including Miami, that are outside
of the mining area (approximately 450 in Miami and 50 in other areas of Ottawa County); 2) assessment of the
footprints of homes demolished as part of the voluntary relocation (approximately 450 properties); 3) remediation
of residential properties located outside of the boundary of the OU4 voluntary buyout, where access was
previously denied and where soil lead concentrations exceed the remediation goal established in the OU2 ROD
(approximately 140 properties). Owners of residential properties where access was previously denied will be
offered a final opportunity to have their properties re-sampled and remediated if necessary. The next five-year
review should also consider whether OU2 can be deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL). This deletion of
OU2 from the NPL would be a partial deletion of the site. This follow-up action should be completed by
September 2015.

5. The EPA should complete the evaluation of current surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek to
verify that no unacceptable risks to human health and the environment exist in Tar Creek. Numerous
studies have been conducted since the third five-year review. These studies have collected surface water and
sediment data in Tar Creek and other site streams. If necessary, the EPA should collect enough additional data to
determine if potential risks are posed to human health and the environment by the surface water and sediments in
streams of the Tar Creek site. The risks should be quantified through a risk assessment. If unacceptable risks are
identified, then potential remedial alternatives will be evaluated to address the identified risks. Potential remedial
alternatives may include engineered remedies, such as passive treatment through constructed wetlands. A
determination may also be made that it is still technically impractical to address surface water and sediment
through an engineered remedy and/or that no further action is required. The risk assessment portion of this follow-
up action should be completed by September 2012. If necessary, an evaluation of remedial alternatives should be
completed by September 2014 (prior to the next five-year review).

6. The IC restricting potable and domestic use of shallow ground water including the Boone aquifer as
specified in the OU4 ROD should be implemented. The OU4 ROD calls for ICs restricting the use of the Boone
aquifer and also restricting the use of any ground water that is shallower than the Boone. Specifically, the ROD
calls for ICs restricting the potable and domestic use of such ground water where concentrations of site-related
contaminants exceed the remediation goals established in the ROD. The IC is to be implemented through the
OWQS (785 OAC 45 Appendix H). Appendix H of the OWQS states that toxic metals are present and that special
well construction methods are required within the OU4 boundary due to contamination in the Boone aquifer, but
there are currently no limitations placed on the use of ground water from the Boone aquifer (or other shallower
ground water) for potable use, including domestic supply. The ODEQ has indicated that it will explore placing a
restriction in Appendix H of the OWQS limiting ground water use from the mine pool and the Boone aquifer in
the immediate vicinity of the mine pool for public water supply or domestic use. The ODEQ's restriction will
include treatment requirements to remove any lead above the MCL of 15 micrograms per liter. EPA suggests that
the State of Oklahoma review this IC. This follow-up action should be completed by September 2011.

Protectiveness Statement(s): The remedies implemented for the Tar Creek Superfund Site are protective of human
health and the environment, except as noted in this five-year review regarding the need for further assessment of
potential surface water and sediment impacts on human health and the environment.

The OU1 remedy addressed the primary route of potential human exposure by protecting the Roubidoux aquifer, and,
in this way, preventing the possibility that hazardous substances would be ingested in drinking water. Sampling data
indicate that the Roubidoux aquifer continues to meet all health-based primary drinking water standards at currently
operating municipal wells.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

XVI

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Five-Year Review Summary Form

"chronic toxicity" means the surface water concentration of a toxic substance is such that there is a statistically
significant difference (at the 95% confidence level) between longer-term survival and/or reproduction or growth of the
appropriate test organisms in a test sample and a control. Teratogenicity and mutagenicity are considered to be effects
of chronic toxicity. In Tar Creek, Lytle Creek, and Elm Creek at the Tar Creek Site, EPA found that cadmium, lead,
and zinc concentrations in surface water samples exceed the OWQS chronic toxicity standard, and zinc concentrations
also exceed the acute toxicity standard. Finally, initial construction costs for the constructed passive wetland southeast
of Commerce are considered reasonable and may be an economically feasible engineered remedy for contaminated
surface water at the site. Long-term O&M costs for such a passive wetlands system still require further evaluation. For
these reasons, the fund balancing ARARs waiver contained in the OU1 ROD may no longer be appropriate, and should
be reevaluated.

The remedy being implemented for OU2 is protective of human health and the environment in all areas where
remediation has been completed. A total of over 2,295 properties have been remediated during the OU2 RA and during
the removal actions that preceded the RA. Remaining items needed to complete the remedy are being evaluated. The
RA for OU2 is ongoing and is scheduled to be completed by the next five-year review. Fluman health and the
environment are being protected by the remedy for OU2.

The action implemented during the Removal Action for OU3 is protective of human health and the environment. The
laboratory chemicals left at the former Eagle-Picher Office Complex were removed from the site and properly disposed
of.

The RD and RA for OU4 are currently being conducted. The voluntary relocation is in progress and anticipated to be
completed in 2010, and chat sales continue at the site. Under OU4, Appendix F1 of the OWQS 785 OAC 45 does not
limit use of the ground water from the Boone aquifer as called for in the OU4 ROD. The OU4 Remedial Investigation
(RI) identified 13 private wells completed in the Boone aquifer at the site that were being used as a source of drinking
water. Of the 13 wells, testing showed that concentrations of site-related contaminants exceeded remediation goals in
only two of the on-site private wells. The OU4 ROD includes provisions for these two residences to be provided with
an alternate drinking water supply as part of the OU4 RA. Action to address the IC in the OU4 ROD with respect to
restricting potable and domestic use of shallow ground water and ground water from the Boone aquifer still need to be
taken. The OU4 remedy will be protective of human health and the environment once completed.

Investigations are currently being conducted for OU5.

With the exceptions noted above for OU1, the completed RAs, Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program, and
O&M activities for the Tar Creek Superfund Site are all protective for the short term due to the implementation of the
2008 fish consumption advisory for OU1 and because the population most at risk has been relocated under OU4. The
remedies will continue to be protective in the long-term if the action items identified in this five-year review are
addressed and the remedies are implemented as selected in the RODs.

Other Comments: The selected remedy for OU4 is anticipated to require 30 years to complete. The voluntary
relocation is in progress and anticipated to be completed in 2010. The RD/RA for portions of the selected remedy
began in 2009. OU5 is currently being investigated.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

XVII

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

xvill

AUGUST 2010

-------
Fourth Five-Year Review Report
Tar Creek Superfund Site

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 has conducted a fourth five-year
review of the remedial actions (RAs) implemented at the Tar Creek Superfund Site ("site"), for the period
between September 2005 (when the third five-year review was completed) to January 2010. The purpose
of a five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at a site remains protective of human health and
the environment, and to document the methods, findings, and conclusions of the five-year review in a
five-year review report. Five-year review reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and
make recommendations to address the issues. This fourth five-year review report documents the results
of the review for the Tar Creek Superfund Site, conducted in accordance with EPA guidance on five-year
reviews.

The Tar Creek Superfund Site is primarily located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma, in the far northeastern
corner of the state. It consists of five Operable Units (OUs): OU1 (surface water/ground water); OU2
(residential properties and High Access Areas [HAAs]); OU3 (Eagle-Picher Office Complex - abandoned
mining chemicals); OU4 (chat piles, other mine and mill waste, and smelter waste); and OU5 (sediment
and surface water). Treece, Kansas was included in OU4 through an Explanation of Significant
Difference (ESD) signed by EPA in April 2010. The ESD explains that, consistent with the OU4 ROD,
EPA has decided to complete a voluntary relocation of residents in Treece, Kansas as part of the OU4
remedial action (RA) (EPA, 2010b).

EPA guidance on conducting five-year reviews is provided by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (EPA, 2001)
(replaces and supercedes all previous guidance on conducting five-year reviews).

1.0 Introduction

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 United
States Code (USC) ' 9601 el seq. and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP), 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 300 et seq., call for five-year reviews of certain
CERCLA RAs. The statutory requirement to conduct a five-year review was added to CERCLA as part of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), P.L. 99-499. The EPA may also
conduct five-year reviews as a matter of policy for sites not addressed specifically by the statutory
requirement. The EPA classifies each five-year review as either "statutory" or "policy" depending on

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 1 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

whether it is being required by statute or is being conducted as a matter of policy. The fourth five-year
review for the Tar Creek Superfund Site is a statutory review.

As specified by CERCLA and the NCP, statutory reviews are required for sites where, after RAs are
complete, hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants will remain on site at levels that will not
allow for unrestricted use or unrestricted exposure. Statutory reviews are required for such sites if the
Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on or after the effective date of SARA. CERCLA § 121(c), as
amended, 42 USC § 9621(c), states:

If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often
than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and
the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented.

The implementing provisions of the NCP, as set forth in the CFR, state at 40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(h):

If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead
agency shall review such action no less often than every five years after the initiation of the
selected remedial action.

The EPA five-year review guidance further states that a five-year review should be conducted as a matter
of policy for the following types of actions:

•	A pre-SARA RA that leaves hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants on-site above levels
that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure;

•	A pre or post SARA RA that, once completed, will not leave hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure but will
require more than five years to complete; or,

•	A removal-only site on the National Priorities List (NPL) where the removal action leaves hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure and no RA has or will be conducted (EPA, 2001).

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 2 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

This five-year review for the Tar Creek Superfund Site is required by statute. The EPA signed an
Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) for the OU2 ROD in August 2007 that requires a statutory
five-year review of the OU2 remedy. Previous five-year reviews for the site were conducted as a matter
of EPA policy because the ROD for OU1 was signed prior to the effective date of SARA, and the original
OU2 ROD stipulated that a five-year review was not required. Actions associated with OU3, OU4, and
OU5 are also described by this five-year review report, as components of the Tar Creek Superfund Site.

This is the fourth five-year review for the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The first five-year review was
completed in April 1994; the second five-year review was completed in April 2000; and the third five-
year review was completed in September 2005. The triggering action for this statutory review is the date
the third five-year review report was signed on September 28, 2005.

2.0 Site Chronology

A chronology of significant site events and dates is included in Table 1, provided at the end of the report
text. Sources of this information are listed in Attachment 1, Documents Reviewed.

3.0 Background

This section describes the physical setting of the site, including a description of the land use, resource use,
and environmental setting. This section also describes the history of contamination associated with the
site, the initial response actions taken at the site, and the basis for each of the initial response actions.
RAs performed subsequent to the initial response actions for each of the OUs defined for the site are
described in Section 4.

3.1 Physical Characteristics

The Tar Creek Superfund Site is primarily located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma, in the far northeastern
corner of the state (see Figure 1 for a site map). In April 2010, EPA decided to add Treece, Kansas, to the
site. Specifically, EPA decided to relocate the residents of Treece to help prevent exposure to the source
material deposits at Tar Creek. The decision to relocate the residents of Treece was documented in an
ESD to the OU4 ROD issued in April 2010 (EPA, 2010b). The Tar Creek Superfund Site has no distinct
boundaries, but it includes the Oklahoma portion of the Tri-State Mining District (TSMD) along with
other areas in Ottawa County where mining waste has come to be located. The TSMD is located in the
border region of Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. The Picher Field was the Oklahoma portion of the
TSMD centered on the town of Picher, Oklahoma. Extensive lead and zinc mining took place in the

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 3 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Picher Field between the early 1900's and the 1970's. The Tar Creek Superfund Site is about 40 square
miles in size. The principal communities within the mining area include Picher, Quapaw, Cardin,
Commerce, and North Miami. The residents of Picher and Cardin were relocated under OU4 and those
communities are now generally abandoned. The contamination at the site resulted from past mining
activities. The Cherokee County Superfund Site in Kansas and the Oronogo-Duenweg and Newton
County Superfund Sites in Missouri comprise the Kansas and Missouri portions of the TSMD (EPA,
1994a).

Tar Creek and its primary tributary Lytle Creek comprise the principal drainage system within the Picher
Field. Tar Creek is characterized as a small ephemeral stream with standing pools. The headwaters of Tar
Creek are located in Cherokee County, Kansas (located north of Ottawa County on the Kansas-Oklahoma
border). Tar Creek then flows southward through the Picher Field between the towns of Picher and
Cardin, to the east of Commerce and Miami, and it then flows to its confluence with the Neosho River.
Tar Creek and Lytle Creek drain approximately 53 square miles. Other principal drainage features near
the site in Ottawa County include the Neosho River (located south of the site), the Spring River (located
east of the site), and Grand Lake (located in southern Ottawa County) (EPA, 1994a).

The Picher Field (including most of the Tar Creek Superfund Site) is located on the eastern edge of the
Central Lowland Provinces. Eastern portions of the site are located in the Ozark Plateau. The Central
Lowland Province is a nearly flat, treeless prairie. The Ozark Plateau is a broad, low structure dome
centered in southwestern Missouri and northwestern Arkansas. The natural land surface at the site is
mostly flat and gently slopes to the south towards the Neosho River, to the east towards the Spring River,
and to the west towards Elm Creek. However, much of the land surface has been modified by the mining
activities. There are numerous large tailings piles, composed of primarily limestone and chert, present on
the land surface. In addition, numerous collapsed structures from subsidence and cave-ins of mine shafts
are also present on the land surface (EPA, 1984).

Contaminated ground water at the site occurs within the Boone Formation (also known as the Boone
aquifer). The Boone Formation is composed primarily of limestone, dolomite, and chert, with lesser
amounts of sandstone and shale. Lead and zinc ore were mined from various members of the Boone
Formation. Within the mining area, water quality within the Boone aquifer is poor due to acidity and
high dissolved metals concentrations. The Boone aquifer is not used as a primary source of drinking
water at the site. However, the OU4 RI did identify 13 private residential wells completed in the Boone
aquifer that were being used as a source of drinking water at the site. Of the 13 wells tested during the RI,

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 4 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

only two were found to be impacted above the Final Remediation Goals. The OU4 ROD includes
provisions for these two residences to be provided with an alternate drinking water supply as part of the
OU4 RA (EPA, 2008). Outside of the mining district, the Boone aquifer is used as a primary drinking
water source. In areas where the Boone Formation outcrops at the surface, the aquifer is unconfined.
Where the Boone Formation is overlain by confining strata, the aquifer is confined. At the Tar Creek
Superfund Site, the Boone aquifer is both unconfined and confined. In the southern portion of the site,
the potentiometric surface within the aquifer exceeds the land surface elevation. This results in artesian
conditions, and ground water discharges from abandoned wells, boreholes, mine shafts, and collapse
structures. This ground water is acidic and contains high metals concentrations, and hence it is referred to
as acid mine water or acid mine drainage. This discharge then flows into Tar Creek (EPA, 1994a).

Also of interest at the site is the Roubidoux aquifer. The Roubidoux aquifer is composed of cherty
limestone with several sand sequences near its base. The Roubidoux aquifer lies beneath the Boone
aquifer, and the two are separated by 410 feet to 520 feet of limestone and shale of the Chattanooga
Shale, the Jefferson City Dolomite, and the Cotter Dolomite. Where present, the Chattanooga Shale acts
as an aquitard and restricts ground water flow between the Boone aquifer and Roubidoux aquifer. The
Chattanooga Shale is absent in most portions of the site. Hydrologically, the Cotter and Jefferson City
Dolomites are considered a part of the Roubidoux aquifer (ODEQ, 2006c). The Roubidoux aquifer is a
major source of drinking water in the area of the site (EPA, 1994a). The cities of Quapaw, Commerce,
Miami (located south of the site), and several rural water districts obtain their water supplies from the
Roubidoux aquifer (EPA, 1984).

3.2 Land and Resource Use

Land ownership at the site can be classified as private or Indian-owned. Under an 1833 treaty, the United
States set aside the Quapaw Reserve, located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma, consisting of approximately
12,600 acres of land. A majority of these lands are individually owned allotted lands with 'restrictions
against alienation.' These lands are managed under the supervision of the United States Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) (BIA, 2005).

Due to the size of the site, land use is varied. The site encompasses residential, commercial, and
industrial areas within the towns, while most of the land use outside of the towns is agricultural (EPA,
1997). Approximately 19,500 people lived in the mining area or close proximity to the mining area
(EPA, 2008). Tar Creek flows approximately through the center of the site, and it discharges into the
Neosho River south of the site. The Neosho River discharges into Grand Lake in southern Ottawa

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 5 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

County. Ground water under the site is found within both the Boone aquifer and Roubidoux aquifer. The
Boone aquifer at the site is not currently used as a drinking water supply, but there are some private wells
completed within the Boone aquifer. The Roubidoux aquifer is regionally used as a water supply (EPA,
1994a).

3.3 History of Contamination

Lead and zinc mining activities first began at the site in the early 1900's. During the early mining period,
most mining was conducted by small operators on 20 to 40 acre tracts. Each operator conducted their
own mining, drilling, and milling activities (EPA, 1984). Mining activities occurred within a 50 to 150
foot thick ore bearing zone within the Boone Formation. The maximum depth of mining was
approximately 385 feet below ground surface. Mining was accomplished using room and pillar
techniques. To remove the ore, large rooms, some with ceilings as high as 100 feet, were connected by
horizontal tunnels known as drifts. Pillars were left within the rooms to support the ceilings (EPA,
1994a). The lead and zinc ores were milled locally and generally sent to locations outside of Ottawa
County for smelting (the small smelter that operated in Hockerville is an exception). Rapid expansion of
mining activities occurred during the 1920's, and mining activities reached their peak around 1925. Each
mine holding usually had its own mill. During the 1930's, large central mills came into operation, and
most mining operations ceased operating their own mills. During the peak of mining activities, 130,410
tons of lead and 749,254 tons of zinc were produced annually. Large scale underground mining activities
ended in 1958 (Brown and Root, 1997). Smaller mining operations continued in the Picher Field
through the 1960's, and all mining activities at the site ceased in the 1970's (EPA, 2000b).

Zinc smelting operations were not known to have occurred in the Tar Creek area. Lead smelting of the
material mined in the Tar Creek area was dominated by the Eagle-Picher Company, which operated a
smelter in nearby Joplin, Missouri. However, the Ontario Smelting Company did operate a lead smelter
near Hockerville, Oklahoma. Ontario Smelting Company operated this smelter from 1918 until 1924.
The smelter was then purchased by the Eagle-Picher Company, who operated the smelter until the early
1930's, when the smelting operations ceased. There were no other smelting operations known to have
occurred in the Tar Creek area (USACE, 2002).

Ground water infiltration into the mines was a continual problem. This ground water inflow was
controlled through the use of pumps (EPA, 1984). When mining operations ceased, it is estimated that
underground cavities with a volume of 100,000 acre-feet (161,000,000 cubic yards) had been created. In
addition, approximately 100,000 exploratory boreholes were located within the Picher Field, mostly in

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 6 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Oklahoma. 1,064 mine shafts existed within the Oklahoma portion of the mining district. In addition,
numerous water wells, used for milling operations, were abandoned (EPA, 2000b).

During the active mining period, large scale pumping had created a large cone of depression, effectively
dewatering the Boone aquifer in the mining area. Exposed sulfide minerals, primarily marcasite and
pyrite (both iron sulfide), were oxidized by exposure to the moist air in the mines. When mining
activities ceased, pumping was also ceased, and the abandoned mines began to flood. The oxidized
sulfide minerals were now much more soluble in water. As the mines filled with ground water, the
oxidized sulfide minerals began to dissolve, generating acid mine water. The acid mine water then
reacted with the surrounding rock, and many of the metals present began to leach from the rock into the
ground water. As a result, the acid mine water contained high concentrations of zinc, lead, cadmium,
sulfate, and iron (EPA, 1994a).

In addition to the acid mine water, the mining activities at the site resulted in the accumulation on the
ground surface of mining wastes. Large volume tailings piles (known locally as 'chat'), some as high as
200 feet, were left at the site. Many of the tailings piles are still present across the site, mostly around the
towns of Picher and Cardin. In addition, numerous abandoned tailings ponds that have been filled with
fine sediments from milling and chat processing operations are also present at the site (EPA, 2008).

Three general types of mining wastes are present at the site. 'Development' rock is large diameter (4" to
2') rock that was generated during the opening of mine shafts or drifts. Development rock generally
poses no contamination problem. 'Chat' is mine tailings from the milling process. Chat contains a
mixture of gravel (typically 3/8" in diameter) and finer-grained materials. 'Fines' are the fine-grained
sediments collected in the flotation ponds (EPA, 2000b).

In March 2004, the chat piles at the site contained approximately 51.2 million tons of waste (AATA,
2005). The chat has historically been used as a source material for the concrete and asphalt industries and
as a gravel source. Other uses of the chat have included railroad ballast, sandblasting and sandbag sand,
roadway, driveway, alleyway, and parking lot aggregate, general fill material in residential areas, and
impact absorbing material in playgrounds. Sales of chat have been a significant source of income in the
local area. Based on estimates of historical aerial photographs, less than 50 percent of the original
volume of chat remains in the area. The fines were collected into flotation ponds as part of the gravity
separation milling process. Most of the ponds have since evaporated and are now dry. An inventory
conducted in 2005 as part of the Remedial Investigation (RI) for OU4 identified 83 chat piles occupying

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 7 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

767 acres with 31 million cubic yards of mine waste, and 243 chat bases (or former piles) occupying
2,079 acres with an estimated 6.7 million cubic yards mine waste. Fine tailings generated from milling
and washing chat were found in 63 ponds occupying 820 acres and totaled approximately 9 million cubic
yards of mine waste (EPA, 2008).

3.4 Initial Response

By 1979, the abandoned mines had become completely flooded due to ground water infiltration and due
to surface water inflow into the abandoned mine shaft openings and subsidence features. In low-lying
areas along the southern portion of the site (near Commerce), the potentiometric surface exceeded the
ground surface. This resulted in the surface discharge of acid mine water from abandoned boreholes and
mine shafts (EPA, 2000b). This surface discharge then emptied into Tar Creek. As a result, most of the
downstream biota in Tar Creek were killed. The bottom of the creek became stained red due to ferric
hydroxide deposition, and red stains appeared on bridge abutments and cliffs in the Neosho River
downstream of its confluence with Tar Creek (EPA, 1994a).

In 1980, the Governor of Oklahoma established the Tar Creek Task Force to investigate the effects of the
acid mine drainage. The Task Force was composed of various local, state, and federal agencies. The
OWRB was appointed as the lead state agency. The initial investigations were conducted by the Task
Force in 1980 and 1981. The conclusions from the Tar Creek Task Force's studies included the following:

• There were no significant health risks associated with the air pathway at the Tar Creek Superfund
Site;

• The Neosho River, Spring River, and Grand Lake could be used as a raw water source for public
water supplies;

• The fish from areas sampled in these water bodies were safe for consumption; and,

• Most of the metals present in the acid mine water were precipitated out of the water and into the
sediments in Tar Creek prior to its confluence with the Neosho River. The sediments in Tar Creek
provided a long-term sink for metals that effectively removed them from most biological processes,
and the sediments did not pose a health risk. Other than aesthetic alteration at the confluence of Tar
Creek and the Neosho River, there was no impact on the Neosho River from the acid mine drainage in
Tar Creek.

The Task Force identified the primary threat at the site as the potential for contamination of the
Roubidoux aquifer (EPA, 1994a).

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 8 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

The EPA proposed the Tar Creek Superfund Site to the NPL in July 1981, based on information from the
Task Force's investigations. The NPL is the list, compiled by EPA, of uncontrolled hazardous substance
releases in the United States that are priorities for long-term remedial evaluation and response. On June
16, 1982, the EPA provided funding through a Cooperative Assistance Agreement with the Oklahoma
State Department of Health (OSDH) to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the
site. The OSDH was the overall lead agency at the site for the State of Oklahoma. The OWRB, under an
interagency agreement with the ODSH, conducted the RI/FS for the site. The site was listed on the NPL
on September 8, 1983. The EPA signed a ROD for the site on June 6, 1984 (EPA, 1994a). The remedy
selected and implemented under the ROD is discussed in Section 4.

In 1994, the EPA conducted the first five-year review of the Tar Creek Superfund Site. While conducting
this five-year review, the Indian Health Service in Miami, Oklahoma, notified the EPA by letter of
elevated blood lead levels in children routinely tested as part of their participation in the United States
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) program. The letter stated that
34% of the 192 children tested had blood lead levels above 10 micrograms per deciliter (jj.g/dl), which is
the level above which the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) considers to be elevated in children. The
letter stated that although location did not appear to be a factor, a majority of the children did live within
5 miles of a chat pile (EPA, 1994a). Also, EPA Region 7 had been conducting investigations of the
Cherokee County (Kansas), and the Oronogo-Duenweg (Missouri) Superfund Sites. Data obtained from
EPA Region 7's investigations indicated that mine wastes (including chat piles) represented an
unacceptable risk to human health and the environment (EPA, 1994a).

In the summary portion of the first five-year review, EPA stated that the studies conducted for the 1984
ROD did not include a risk assessment. Risk assessment guidance had not been developed at the time the
1984 ROD was signed, and the primary emphasis at the Tar Creek Superfund Site was on ground water
and surface water impacts related to the acid mine water. The first five-year review recommended that a
second OU be designated at the site for the mining wastes. It was also recommended that studies be
undertaken to determine the impacts of the chat piles and flotation ponds on human health and the
environment. The studies were to include blood lead studies, environmental sampling of HAAs (HAAs
are areas frequented or likely to be frequented by young children such as schools, playgrounds, day cares,
etc.), mapping of all mine wastes, classification of surface mine wastes through environmental sampling
and testing, sampling of leachate from mine wastes, and sampling of airborne particulates near mine
wastes (EPA, 1994a). As a result of the five-year review recommendations, surface and ground water

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 9 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

contamination at the site became OU1, and impacts related to the mining waste, including HAAs and
residential properties, became OU2 (EPA, 2000b).

EPA addressed HAAs and residential areas of OU2 first. From August 1994 through July 1995, the EPA
conducted sampling through its removal program (the removal program is, generally speaking, the part of
the Superfund program generally responsible for conducting emergency and early response activities) to
determine the nature and extent of the contamination in residential areas of the site. The Phase I sampling
addressed HAAs, and the Phase II sampling took place at residences that were inhabited or potentially
inhabited by children. Twenty-eight HAAs and 2,070 residential properties were sampled as part of the
site assessment. The data were used to complete the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA)
and Residential RI Reports. The BHHRA concluded that lead in soil was the primary contaminant of
concern and that ingestion of contaminated soil was the only exposure pathway that posed a significant
risk to human health. These activities led the EPA to conclude that the lead contaminated soil in
residential areas posed an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health (EPA, 2000b).

Due to the concerns related to exposures to lead contaminated soil, the EPA issued an action
memorandum on August 15, 1995, that authorized removal response actions at HAAs at the site (EPA,
2000b). The removal response action began in September 1995 and was completed in December 1995.
The removal response action for the HAAs was known as the Phase I removal action. The Phase I
removal action was conducted by EPA through its Emergency Response Cleanup Services (ERCS)
contractor, Reidel Environmental Services, and by its Superfund Technical Assessment and Response
Team (START) contractor, Ecology and Environment, Inc. (Washington Group International, 2002).

The removal response action involved the excavation of lead and/or cadmium contaminated surface soils
with concentrations exceeding 500 parts per million (ppm) and 100 ppm respectively from 0 to 12 inches
in depth and 1,000 ppm lead and/or 100 ppm cadmium from 12 to 18 inches. This means that in areas
where the lead concentration exceeded 500 ppm from 0 to 12 inches and/or the cadmium concentration
exceeded 100 ppm, the soil was excavated. When the lead concentration exceeded 1,000 ppm and/or the
cadmium concentration exceeded 100 ppm in the 12 to 18 inch interval, then soil from that interval was
also excavated. On large properties where unauthorized excavation could be controlled, such as parks
and schools, the criteria were modified to 500 ppm lead and/or 100 ppm cadmium from 0 to 12 inches in
depth (the 12 to 18 inch increment was dropped). When contamination remained above the cleanup
levels below 18 inches, a barrier (orange construction fence material) was place in the bottom of the
excavation as a warning that contamination remained below the barrier. Each excavation was then

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 10 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

backfilled with clean soil. Seventeen of the 28 HAAs that were evaluated required a response action
(EPA, 2000b)

The EPA issued an action memorandum on March 21, 1996 that authorized a removal response action at
residences at the site (EPA, 2000b). This removal response action was known as the Phase II removal
action, and it included both residential properties and HAAs. The EPA signed an Interagency Agreement
(IAG) with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to conduct the Phase II removal action.
The USACE contracted with Morrison Knudson Corporation (MK) to complete the work (USACE,

2002).

This removal action was conducted in a similar manner to the HAAs, except that a cleanup level of 500
ppm for lead was chosen. This cleanup level was based on the BHHRA and EPA Region 6 experience at
other lead cleanup sites. Approximately 2,070 residential homes in Picher, Cardin, Quapaw, Commerce,
and North Miami were evaluated. The second five-year review stated that approximately 65% of these
properties contained lead above 500 ppm in soil in at least one part of the yard. The Phase II removal
response activities were conducted from June 1996 until December 1997. The following criteria were
used to prioritize the properties:

• Top priority was given to homes with children less than 6 years of age who had blood lead levels in
excess of 10 jj.g/dl, and where the soil lead concentrations had been determined to be a significant
contributor to elevated blood lead levels; and,

• The next highest priority was given to homes where the soil lead concentration exceeded 1,500 ppm
(EPA, 2000b)

During the Phase I (HAAs) and Phase II (residential properties) removal response actions, remediation
was performed at 20 HAAs, one commercial property (used by the EPA, USACE, and their various
contractors for on-site support facilities), and 227 residential properties. Approximately 84,417 cubic
yards of soil were removed from these properties during the removal actions (E&E, 2000, USACE, 2002,
and Washington Group International, 2002).

In September 1998, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma requested assistance from the EPA to conduct
response activities at an abandoned office complex located in Cardin, Oklahoma. The land was owned by
the Quapaw tribe, and had been leased by Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. from 1945 until 1981. A drum
containing residual cyanide had been discovered in one of the site buildings during work conducted in

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 11 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

1998. EPA performed evaluations of the atmosphere inside this building and determined that no cyanide
above background levels were present (EPA, 2000a).

In March 1999, the Inter-Tribal Environmental Council (ITEC) conducted a site reconnaissance of the
property in advance of the completion of an RI/FS being conducted by the ITEC and Quapaw Tribe for
the EPA. During this site reconnaissance, 120 containers of laboratory chemicals were discovered at the
site. The EPA conducted a Hazardous Characterization, again at the request of the ITEC, in May and
June 1999. These chemicals were inventoried, categorized, segregated, and overpacked in preparation of
future disposal by the BIA. The BIA informed the EPA that it did not have the funding or expertise to
remove the chemicals from the site (EPA, 2000a).

On March 2, 2000, an action memorandum was issued by EPA approving a time-critical removal action at
the Eagle-Picher Office Complex - Abandoned Mining Chemicals. This portion of the site was
designated OU3. The action memorandum determined that the chemicals posed an imminent and
substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment. This determination was
made on the basis that the containers in which the chemicals were stored had to be placed outside, where
they were exposed to the elements. The EPA was concerned that eventually the containers would
deteriorate, releasing the chemicals into the environment (EPA, 2000a).

On March 28, 2000, the emergency removal action was conducted. The laboratory chemicals were
removed from the site and transported to facilities appropriate for their disposal. The EPA was unable to
dispose of some low-level, radioactive uranyl acetate. The EPA remobilized to the site on May 23, 2000.
This material was removed from the site and transported to an offsite location for treatment and disposal
(EPA, 2000c, and EPA 2000d). The EPA determined that no further action was required in relation to
OU3 (EPA, 2004a).

On December 9, 2003, the EPA signed an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with three Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs), including DOI, Blue Tee Corp., and Gold Fields Mining Corporation, to
conduct the RI/FS for OU4. Under the terms of the AOC, the EPA prepared the risk assessments for OU4
based on data collected by the PRPs and EPA. A three-phased Site Reconnaissance was conducted from
March 29 to April 28, 2005. Field sampling and investigations were conducted in May and concluded in
October 2005. The RI/FS reports were issued in July 2007 (EPA, 2008).

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 12 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

During the course of the OU4 investigations, EPA performed a pilot project consisting of several field
studies regarding injection of chat and fine tailings into flooded mine cavities to determine whether this
could be a cost-effective disposal technique. Following the pilot injection, EPA found that the physical
placement of chat and fine tailings in flooded mine rooms does initially impact mine water; however, the
data indicated that the mine water chemistry rapidly begins to return to pre-placement conditions (EPA,
2008). In another pilot under the RI/FS, the United States Department of the Interior (DOI), with the
cooperation of the Quapaw Tribe, is promoting responsible chat sales, using Best Management Practices
(BMP) to reduce the volume of millions of tons of mining waste. Both pilots, Indian-owned chat sales and
the disposal of chat in mine cavities, were response action alternatives considered in the FS (EPA, 2008).

Site investigations associated with OU5 are ongoing. Surface water and sediment data have been
collected from site streams by EPA, ODEQ, United States Geological Survey (USGS), Cayuga-Seneca
Tribe, Quapaw Tribe and other parties. Data evaluation is ongoing. An advanced Screening Level
Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) is currently being performed under OU5.

3.5 Basis for Taking Action

The purpose of the response actions conducted at the Tar Creek Superfund Site was to protect public
health and welfare and the environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
the site. Discharges of acid mine water from the abandoned mines to surface water and possible direct
migration to the underlying Roubidoux aquifer threatened human health and the environment. In
addition, exposure to lead contamination in residential soils was determined to be associated with human
health risks higher than the acceptable range. The primary threats that the Tar Creek Superfund Site posed
to public health and safety were: potential contamination of water supply wells completed in the
Roubidoux aquifer from acid mine water; possible direct dermal contact with acid mine water where
ground water discharges at the surface; severe ecological impacts to Tar Creek as a result of the acid mine
water discharges; oral ingestion of lead contaminated soils; oral ingestion of drinking water; and oral
ingestion of chat and tailings material (EPA, 1984, EPA, 1997, and EPA, 2008).

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 13 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

4.0	Remedial Actions

This section provides a description of the remedy objectives, remedy selection, and remedy
implementation for the three OUs for which RODs have been signed by EPA for the site. It also
describes the ongoing Operations and Maintenance (O&M) activities performed at the site in the period
since completion of the third five-year review. The three OUs for which RODs have been signed are: (a)
OU1 (surface water/ground water); (b) OU2 (residential properties and HAAs); and (c) OU4 (chat piles,
other mine and mill waste, and smelter waste). Two additional OUs have been designated at the site: (a)
OU3 (Eagle-Picher Office Complex - abandoned mining chemicals); and (b) OU5 (sediment and surface
water). OU3 was addressed through a removal action, and the EPA has determined that no further action
is necessary. Investigations related to OU5 are ongoing, and a ROD has not yet been signed.

4.1	Remedial Action Objectives

The specific remedial objectives of the OU1 RA were:

•	Mitigate the potential threat to public health and the environment by preventing contamination of the
Roubidoux aquifer from acid mine water; and,

•	Minimize the damage to Tar Creek from acid mine water discharges (EPA, 1994a).

The specific remedial objective of the OU2 RA was:

•	Reduce ingestion by humans, especially children, of surface soil in residential areas contaminated
with lead at a concentration greater than or equal to 500 ppm (EPA, 1997).

The specific remedial objectives of the OU4 RA are:

•	Prevent children and adolescents from coming in direct contact, through the ingestion and inhalation
exposure pathways, with lead contaminated source material where lead concentrations exceed 500
ppm;

•	Prevent terrestrial fauna from coming in direct or indirect contact, through the ingestion exposure
pathway, with cadmium-, lead-, or zinc-contaminated source materials and soils where cadmium,
lead, and zinc concentrations exceed their respective remediation goals of 10.0 mg/kg, 500 mg/kg,
and 1100 mg/kg respectively;

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 14 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

•	Prevent riparian biota including waterfowl from coming into contact, through the ingestion exposure
pathway, with unacceptable concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc in surface water and sediment
by eliminating all discharges of cadmium, lead, and zinc from source materials to surface water;

•	Prevent children from direct contact, through the ingestion and inhalation exposure, with lead-
contaminated soil where soil lead concentrations exceed 500 ppm; and,

•	Prevent site residents from the ingestion of water from private wells that contains lead in
concentrations exceeding the National Primary Drinking Water Standards (EPA, 2008).

4.2 Remedy Selection

Three RODs have been issued by EPA for the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The OU1 ROD addressed the
impacts associated with surface water discharges of acid mine water and through the migration of acid
mine water from the Boone aquifer to the underlying Roubidoux aquifer. The ROD for OU2 addressed
surface soil contamination in residential areas at the site. The OU4 ROD addressed mining waste
including chat piles and tailings ponds, smelter wastes, soils contaminated by mining and smelter wastes,
a limited number of residential properties with lead-contaminated soils (that were not addressed under
OU2), and private residential wells impacted by site related contaminants. The site has also been
addressed through other response actions (the two removal response actions for OU2 and the removal
action for OU3) as described in Section 3.4.

The ROD for OU1 was signed on June 6, 1984, to address the mitigation of surface water and ground
water discharges of acid mine water to Tar Creek and to prevent the potential contamination of the
Roubidoux aquifer through acid mine water migration from the overlying Boone aquifer. Elements of
OU 1 included response actions to address contaminated ground water as a result of acid mine water
seepage and contaminated surface water as a result of acid mine water discharges (EPA, 1984).

The remedy described in the 1984 ROD for OU1 consisted of the following elements:

•	Abandoned wells completed in the Roubidoux aquifer were to be plugged. Each well was to be
cleared of obstructions. The wells were then to be plugged from the bottom to the surface using acid
resistant cement.

•	Surface water diversion and diking structures were to be constructed around two major inflow areas
to prevent surface water inflow into the abandoned mines. The two inflow areas were identified as
the abandoned mine shafts called Muncie and Big John. These two inflow areas combined were
thought to represent 75% of the total surface inflows into the abandoned mines. It was thought that

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 15 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

the elimination of these inflow points would cause the ground water levels in the mines to drop and,
as a result the amount of acid mine water discharged to the surface would be reduced or eliminated.
It was predicted that the Admiralty location would become an inflow point after the initial diking and
diversion work was completed, so the ROD allowed for additional diking and surface water diversion
around this location if deemed necessary.

• A surface water and ground water monitoring program was to be conducted for two years. The
purpose of the monitoring was to assess the effectiveness of the RAs at preventing contamination of
the Roubidoux aquifer and reducing the acid mine water discharges into Tar Creek.

• A fund-balancing waiver to certain Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
was granted. The waiver was invoked in the ROD declaration based on the prohibitively high costs
that would be associated with other engineered solutions to address the surface water contamination
in Tar Creek. It was determined that these costs would drain the Superfund and put at risk the EPA's
ability to address other releases under CERCLA and the NCP (EPA, 1984, and EPA, 2000b).

• The ROD stated that future RAs would be required if the selected alternatives did not adequately
mitigate the risk to human health (EPA, 1984).

The ROD for OU2, residential areas, was signed on August 27, 1997. This ROD addressed soils in

residential yards and HAAs contaminated with lead (EPA, 1997).

The remedy described in the ROD for OU2 (residential areas) included the following elements:

• Excavation of soils in residential areas and HAAs containing lead with concentrations greater than or
equal to 500 ppm to a depth of 18 inches. If lead concentrations exceed 500 ppm below 18 inches, a
marker consisting of geotextile fabric or other suitable material would be placed in the excavation
prior to backfilling to warn of contamination below the barrier. Each excavation was to be backfilled
with clean top soil.

• Excavation of obvious hot spots (places where chat contamination was readily observable at the
surface).

• Establishing new vegetation using sod or re-seeding.

• Backfilling of traffic areas and driveways with road base materials.

• On site disposal of excavated materials at a permanent long-term disposal area.

• Institutional controls (ICs) which may include the following:

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 16 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

1)	Restrictions and management controls on unsafe uses of mine tailings;

2)	Restrictions and management controls on activities that would cause recontamination of
remediated properties;

3)	Restrictions and management controls on activities that would contaminate clean site property
with mine tailings;

4)	Restrictions and management controls intended to prevent future exposure of children to
unacceptable levels of lead in the soil at new residential developments that are located in areas
with high lead levels in soil;

5)	Restrictions and management controls on building and construction activities in order to prevent
building and construction practices that would increase exposure to lead-contaminated soils;

6)	Restrictions and management controls on access to contaminated property through physical
barriers (e. g., fencing) or notices (e. g., warning signs);

7)	Public health and environmental ordinances and controls related to lead exposure and
management of mine tailings;

8)	Placing notices in property deeds regarding contamination;

9)	Sampling and analysis of lead sources;

10)	Blood lead monitoring;

11)	Health education; and,

12)	Lead-contaminated dust reduction activities.

• Measures to prevent the recontamination of residential properties, or that would reduce the potential

for recontamination of residential properties included:

1)	Vegetating poorly vegetated or unvegetated areas;

2)	Capping with soil;

3)	Capping with base coarse material or paving;

4)	Applying dust suppressants or other dust control measures;

5)	Controlling drainage;

6)	Consolidation of source materials;

7)	Containment of source materials; and,

8)	Abating lead sources to prevent releases into the environment that would recontaminate
remediated areas (EPA, 1997).

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 17 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

The OU2 ROD also included several provisions to address lead contaminated soils at the site and within
Ottawa County. The ROD expanded the site to include all portions of Ottawa County that were impacted
by mining wastes, including HAAs outside the mining area and the entire floodplain of Tar Creek. The
ROD contained a provision to cover or replace chat material in alleyways, parking lots, roads, driveways,
and other such areas located near residences with road base materials such as gravel or crushed limestone.
The ROD called for expanding the use of physical barriers to restrict access to mining wastes located near
residences as deemed appropriate (EPA, 1997).

The ROD for OU2 provided for the establishment of ground cover, such as grass, in bare contaminated
soils at certain residences, located generally outside the mining area but within Ottawa County. Finally,
the ROD stipulated that, at certain residences located generally outside the mining area but within Ottawa
County, where medical monitoring has found that a resident has elevated blood lead levels close to or
above 10 jj.g/dl, and where the residential yard is contaminated with lead at concentrations at or above
500 ppm, the soil would be excavated and replaced as called for under the selected remedy (EPA, 1997).

The ROD for OU4 was signed on February 20, 2008. This ROD addressed source materials, smelter
wastes, rural residential yard contamination, transition zone soil contamination, and contamination in
water drawn from rural residential wells. The OU4 ROD stated that the remedy would be implemented in
two phases over a period of 30 years (EPA, 2008).

The remedy described in the ROD for OU4 included the following elements:

Phase 1:

Phase 1 would address voluntary relocation of residents in the area shown in Figure 2, chat sales, and
address source materials in a manner that reduces the overall footprint of contamination and reduces the
need for land use restrictions, ICs, and O&M.

•	Residents located in Picher, Cardin and Hockerville would be voluntarily relocated following the
procedures and priorities established by the Lead Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust
(LICRAT).

•	Chat and chat bases from distal areas, including associated historic chat covered haul roads and non-
operating railroad grades, would be excavated to the underlying native soil, transported and released
to an on-site chat processor or future processing location located in a previously contaminated area of
the site, injected into the mine workings, or disposed in an on-site repository.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 18 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

• Transition zone soils (soils around and underneath source materials) would be addressed by
excavation followed by natural soil rebuilding.

• Smelter wastes would be excavated and disposed in an on-site repository. Smelter affected soils
would be managed in the same manner as transition zone soils.

• Fine tailings would be injected into mine workings or covered in place. The covered fine tailings
could be consolidated to reduce the footprint of the final cover.

• Source material in Tar, Lytle, Elm or Beaver Creek or other site waterways, would be addressed on a
priority basis through either excavation and/or the installation of a flexible membrane liner, as needed
as determined by EPA. As an interim measure, sheet piling, berms, constructed wetlands, or other
engineering controls would be installed for near-stream source materials to help prevent
contamination from migrating to surface water.

• An alternative water supply would be provided to any household where mining-related contaminants
in water drawn from rural residential wells exceeds 0.015 milligrams/liter (mg/L) for lead for rural
households. Rural households that were within the area that had been designated for relocation under
the LICRAT relocation program, but which did not elect to participate in the relocation program,
would be included in the households eligible for an alternative water supply (estimated to be two
residences).

• Rural residential yards that were found to have concentrations of soil lead that exceed 500 ppm would
be excavated to a maximum depth of 12 inches, and the excavated area would be backfilled with
clean soil, contoured to promote drainage, and revegetated. This includes residential yards that were
identified for relocation.

• On-site repositories would be constructed to accept site source materials for final disposal. On-site
repositories would be closed when they reached capacity or at completion of the RA. Closure would
be accomplished by covering the repository with a soil cover, contoured to promote drainage, and
revegetated (EPA, 2008).

Phase 2:

Phase 2 addresses certain source areas that remain after Phase 1 cleanup activities. These areas may

include chat bases, tailings ponds, unmarketable chat piles and bases, and remaining chat from distal area

consolidation. Chat sales will continue.

• The remedy would be reviewed, at a minimum, every five years since hazardous substances would
remain on-site with concentrations that exceed concentration levels that allow for unrestricted use and
unrestricted exposure. The remedy would be reviewed to ensure protection of human health and the

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 19 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

environment. As part of the five-year review, EPA would evaluate the progress of chat sales. Chat
piles and bases remaining after 10 years would be evaluated for commercial viability. This
determination would be made using input from the chat/land owners, appropriate tribal
representatives, and the commercial operators.

• Unmarketable chat piles and bases would be excavated, transported and released to an on-site chat
processor or future processing location in a previously contaminated area of the site, injected into
mine workings, or disposed of in an on-site repository.

• Abandoned chat haul roads and non-operating railroad grades that were contaminated would be
managed the same as unmarketable chat piles and bases.

• ICs and O&M activities would be implemented, as needed as determined by EPA, at repositories and
covered, fine tailings ponds.

• Environmental monitoring would be conducted, as needed as determined by EPA, to test for
contamination in ambient and near source air, surface water, ground water, and sediment during
remediation activities.

Other actions included in the selected remedy for OU4 are discussed below.

Chat sales were selected as part of the CERCLA remedy. The OU4 ROD states that although EPA does
not own and will not purchase chat, it will assist chat sales participants. The responsible sale of chat
under the Chat Rule, 40 CFR Part 278, will decrease the amount of chat on site in a way that brings added
benefits to the community while reducing exposure risks.

As part of the OU4 ROD, a watershed-based approach is being taken, including development of a
baseline hydrology model to reflect the existing land uses in the basin and reflect any rainfall storage
within the source materials. Runoff is expected to increase as the capacity of the soil to absorb rainfall
on-site decreases, and the model may be used in the future to manage increased runoff and stream flow.

Under the selected remedy, ICs include deed notices placed on land parcels that are contained in the site.
Such ICs would notify current and potential future deed holders of the presence of wastes left on-site.
The IC instrument to restrict land use is a Deed Notice and Easement filed pursuant to Oklahoma Statute
27A § 2-7-123(B). An additional IC is to be implemented to restrict use of ground water from the Boone
aquifer (or shallower) for potable or domestic supply when that water source is impacted with site-related
contaminants above the final remediation goals. The IC instrument in this case is to be implemented
through the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) Title 785, Chapter 45, Appendix H (EPA,

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 20 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

2008). Appendix H currently states that toxic metals are present and that special well construction
methods are required within the OU4 boundary due to contamination in the Boone aquifer, but there are
currently no limitations placed on the use of ground water from the Boone aquifer for potable and
domestic supply.

To ensure that injection of chat complies with Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations for a
mine backfill well, a site-wide hydrogeologic study would be performed. The study will address the
requirements of the regulations and will examine whether there is hydraulic connectivity between the
Picher Field and the Commerce mine working, identify strategic subsurface locations for injection in
order to maximize the number of potential injection sites needed to adequately alter the hydrogeology,
and evaluate the long-term effectiveness of this method (EPA, 2008).

As part of addressing in-stream source materials, removed source materials will be returned to the nearby
chat piles, chat bases, or tailings ponds from which it appears that they came, as determined by EPA, prior
to remediation of such chat piles, bases or tailings ponds. When in-stream chat outside of the distal area
is returned to its point of origin, the owners of the chat may sell it or dispose of it as is outlined in the
OU4 ROD (EPA, 2008).

In April 2010, EPA signed an ESD to the OU4 ROD. The ESD explains that, consistent with the OU4
ROD, EPA has decided to complete a voluntary relocation of residents in Treece, Kansas as part of the
OU4 remedial action (RA) (EPA, 2010b).

4.3 Remedy Implementation

After signing the ROD for OU1, the surface water diversion and diking work at the Big John and Muncie
Mine sites proceeded as part of the RA. It was also decided to proceed with the diking and diversion
work at the Admiralty Mine site. The construction at these three sites was completed on December 22,
1986 (EPA, 1994).

The work to clear and plug the 66 abandoned Roubidoux wells identified in the ROD began in September
1985, when IT Corporation was contracted by the OWRB to conduct the work. Of the 66 identified
wells, 4 wells could not be located, 7 wells were found to be shallow (not completed in the Roubidoux
aquifer), 3 wells were still in use, 2 wells had been properly plugged and abandoned, and access was not
granted at one well location. In addition, 2 wells were not plugged due to high cost, and at 4 of the wells,
it was not physically feasible to plug the entire well, so a cement plug was placed at the floor of the mine

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 21 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

workings. The remaining 43 wells were properly plugged and abandoned (IT, 1985). After completion
of the initial work, 17 additional wells were identified. The OWRB contracted with Engineering
Enterprises, Inc. to conduct the additional work. Of the 17 wells, 13 were plugged and abandoned. Two
wells were determined to be shallow vent holes or dewatering wells, and were not plugged. Two wells
were not plugged due to technical difficulties. The additional work was completed in October 1986 (EEI,
1986).

Following construction activities at OU1, a two-year monitoring and surveillance program was conducted
to assess the effectiveness of the RA activities at mitigating the acid mine drainage discharges to Tar
Creek and preventing the migration of the acid mine water to the Roubidoux aquifer. Surface water flow
measurements and water quality data were collected at locations along and near Tar Creek to determine if
the pollutant loading to Tar Creek had changed as a result of the RA construction activities. Water levels
were monitored in the Blue Goose Mine (considered to be indicative of the water levels within the Boone
aquifer and related to the discharge volumes from the mines to Tar Creek) to determine if the water levels
within the Boone aquifer and the mine workings had decreased. Finally, water quality data were collected
from public water supply wells completed within the Roubidoux aquifer to assess the water quality after
completion of the well plugging activities. These monitoring activities were conducted in 1987 and 1988.
The results of the monitoring and surveillance program were detailed in a report submitted by the OWRB
to the EPA in 1991 and summarized in the first Five-Year Review Report (EPA, 1994a). Further
discussion regarding the results of this monitoring are provided in Section 4.5.

After signing the ROD for OU2, the removal actions being conducted for the HAAs and residential
properties were transitioned into the RA for OU2. The EPA and the USACE signed an IAG in September
1999. The USACE conducted the Remedial Design (RD)/RA under the direction of the EPA. MK was
the contractor selected by the USACE to perform the RD/RA for OU2 (USACE, 2002).

MK began remediation at the site in February 1998. During assessment activities conducted between
1996 and 2000, approximately 2,774 properties were identified that required assessment sampling for lead
in soils. Of these properties, 2,380 were assessed for lead contamination, and 2,106 exceeded the 500
ppm remediation goal for lead (88% of the assessed properties) (Washington Group International,
2002). The USACE and MK conducted remediation at 1,300 properties during the RA. These 1,300
properties were the original properties identified by the OU2 ROD as requiring remediation. The USACE
and MK completed the RA for the 1,300 properties identified at the time the OU2 ROD was signed in
July 2000. MK and the USACE demobilized from the site in September, 2000 (USACE, 2002).

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 22 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

After July 2000, the EPA contracted directly with CH2M HILL, Inc. to complete the RA for the
remaining 565 properties still to be addressed at the site. A total of 649 properties were remediated by
CH2M HILL. The remediation efforts at these properties were conducted from September 2000 to March
2006. This number includes 140 properties administered by the BIA, 495 additional residential
properties, and 14 additional HAAs (7 schools located in Miami, one school located in Picher, 1 school
playground located in Picher, 4 daycare facilities located in Miami, and the Mutt Mantle Ball Field in
Ottawa County) (CH2M HILL, 2007a). During the various sampling efforts conducted during this
period, properties were determined to be contaminated but the cities elected to perform the remediation
work. The City of Afton elected to remediate the Afton Little League Ball Park, and the City of Fairland
elected to remediate the Fairland Little League Ball Parks. The remediation was accomplished by
providing pavement over each of the identified contaminated areas. The City of Miami was in the process
of remediating multiple park properties under an agreement with ODEQ at the time the Remedial Action
Report (RAR) was being written. In 2005, the City of Commerce, under an agreement with ODEQ, began
implementing the remediation of the 98 remaining properties that were located within their city limits.
Through January 2010, more than 2,295 residential properties and HAAs have been remediated as part of
either the removal response actions or the OU2 RA (EPA, 2010a).

Currently, the RD and RA for OU4 are being developed and implemented. The voluntary relocation,
which was occurring at the time the ROD was signed, has proceeded and is anticipated to be completed in
2010. The hydrogeologic characterization study, which will determine whether the injection component
of the selected remedy will comply with the UIC regulations, began in 2008 and will be completed in
2010. The RD for rural residential properties, smelter wastes, distal area chat, in-stream chat in Tar
Creek, and the Phase 1 of the repository began in 2009. RA activities associated with these RDs began in
late 2009.

4.4 Operations and Maintenance and Long-Term Monitoring

The State of Oklahoma, through the OWRB and, since 1993, the ODEQ (the ODEQ was formed in 1993
and took over Superfund responsibilities in the State of Oklahoma from the ODSH and OWRB at that
time), is responsible for conducting the Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program (also referred to in
site documents as the Long-Term Monitoring [LTM] Program or After Action Monitoring [AAM]
Program) activities, well plugging activities, and O&M for OU1. These activities are conducted through a
Cooperative Agreement between the ODEQ and EPA.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 23 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

The ROD for OU1 does not specifically state what O&M activities were to occur at the site. However,
the ROD does mention O&M and costs related to the dikes and diversion work. The ROD also stipulated
that a two-year monitoring and surveillance program would be conducted after construction of the
selected remedies to assess the effectiveness of the RA at mitigating the acid mine discharges to Tar
Creek and preventing the migration of the acid mine water to the Roubidoux aquifer (EPA, 1984). The
results of the two-year monitoring and surveillance program were summarized and presented in the first
five-year review report. After completion of the two-year monitoring program, it was determined that the
Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program would continue for OU1 to further investigate potential
impacts to the Roubidoux aquifer from acid mine water. The First Five-Year Review Report stated that
after completion of this program, monitoring of the water quality in the Roubidoux aquifer would be
accomplished through the normal sampling conducted by the various water supply operators as required
by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (EPA, 1994a). The Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring
Program was conducted in two phases. Phase I activities were presented in the Second Five-Year Review
Report (EPA, 2000b). The results of Phase II were presented in the Third Five-Year Review (EPA,
2005).

After completion of the Phase II Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program, the ODEQ implemented
a follow-up ground water monitoring program with the approval of the EPA. The ODEQ determined that
the monitoring conducted by local water supply operators was inadequate for purposes of monitoring the
water quality in the Roubidoux aquifer. The ODEQ's reasons for this conclusion were: the analytical
parameters and frequency of sampling vary between individual water suppliers; the sampling procedures
are not consistent between water suppliers; and the sampling is conducted without an approved Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The ODEQ therefore recommended the ground water monitoring
program to provide consistent analytical testing procedures and sampling schedules and to ensure the
quality and consistency of the data (ODEQ, 2002b).

Beginning in November 2003, the Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Sampling Program involved the
sampling of 14 wells located at or near the site. These wells included 3 monitoring wells installed by the
ODEQ, 10 municipal supply wells, and one private well. Each well was sampled twice a year for 5 years.
During implementation, several changes were made to the sampling program. Well Miami #1 became
inoperable before the October 2004 sampling event and was replaced by Miami #3. Wells Miami #11 and
RWD7 #2 were added as background wells in November 2006, the first because of its location between
the mine area and Miami, and the second because of its westerly location (ODEQ, 2009a). This phase of
sampling under the Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program concluded in April 2008 (ODEQ,

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 24 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

2008b). The results of the sampling program are discussed in Section 6.4. It should be noted that neither
the EPA nor ODEQ have identified any public drinking water wells at the site that fail to meet the
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established under the SDWA. That is, the drinking water at the
site is safe for all uses.

The ROD for OU1 recognized that additional abandoned Roubidoux wells might be identified in the
future. The ROD contained provisions to evaluate the need and to plug additional wells if warranted
(EPA, 1984). The ODEQ has identified 19 wells that require further assessment (ODEQ, 2006c). The
EPA and ODEQ continue to evaluate the need to plug abandoned Roubidoux wells when wells are
identified and located.

The dikes and stream channel diversion work completed at the Muncie, Big John, and Admiralty sites
were inspected as part of the site inspection for this five-year review.

The OU2 ROD selected remedy call for excavated contaminated soil to be disposed of at an on-site
repository. Once EPA finished using the repository, the area is to be vegetated with grass to help control
erosion by wind or water. The repository would be capped with clean soil prior to vegetating, unless the
surface of the disposal area already has soil lead concentrations less than 500 ppm. ICs would be placed
on the repository and may include instituting management controls on new residential developments and
buildings and construction activities to prevent exposure of children to unacceptable levels of lead in the
soil, and placing notices in property deeds regarding contamination. The OU2 ROD specifies O&M for
OU2 to maintain the caps placed on the repositories used to dispose of excavated soils once the RA
construction activities are completed (EPA, 1997). The repositories used during the course of the RA
were expected to be put to use as pasture land for grazing rather than closed out as landfills. The North
Repository, used and operated by previous contractors at the site, was closed by CH2M HILL
(CH2M HILL, 2007a). At the request of EPA, CH2M HILL installed a fence and gates to prevent
unauthorized access onto the County Repository, which will be used by Ottawa County employees and
local residents to deposit impacted soil from county road maintenance and excavation for local utility
work (CH2M HILL, 2007b) The South Repository was closed in 2006 through a process of final site
grading, leveling, removal of bulk debris, and vegetative cover establishment. After the work was
completed, the property owner expressed concern that the vegetative cover was not well established. A
plan of action to address the concerns has been identified and is expected to be executed in Spring 2010
(CH2M HILL, 2009)

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 25 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

The EPA determined that no further action was warranted to address OU3, and O&M activities are not
required for OU3 (EPA, 2000a). The RD and RA are currently being conducted for OU4 and no O&M
activities are occurring.

4.5 Progress Since Initiation of Remedial Action

As discussed in Section 4.3, a two-year monitoring and surveillance program was conducted for the OU1
remedy during 1987 and 1988 by the OWRB. The data obtained from these activities were reviewed by
the EPA's Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL). RSKERL submitted a report
in September 1989 (RSKERL, 1989). The OWRB documented the results and findings, including a
summary of the conclusions of the RSKERL review, in a report submitted to the EPA in April 1991
(OWRB, 1991). The OWRB provided the following conclusions, which were summarized in the first
five-year review report:

• The volume of the acid mine water discharged to Tar Creek was not significantly impacted by the
OU1 RA;

• The concentrations of most constituents in the acid mine water discharges were decreasing. The
cause of the decreasing concentrations was not known, but the OWRB stated the decreases were most
likely the result of natural processes;

• The surface water quality was not significantly improved in Tar Creek, and the diking and diversion
work was at best only partially effective; and,

• Although some public water supply wells in the Roubidoux aquifer were affected by acid mine water,
insufficient data existed to evaluate the effectiveness of the well plugging activities. Neither EPA nor
ODEQ identified any public drinking water wells at the site that failed to meet the MCLs established
under the SDWA, and the drinking water at the site was determined to be safe for all uses.

The EPA concurred with these findings (EPA, 1994a).

The EPA provided further findings and conclusions based on the data in the first five-year review report.
These findings and conclusions included the following:

• The surface water data collected from Tar Creek were insufficient to perform statistical analysis due
to the short monitoring period following construction;

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 26 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

• Monitoring data from the acid mine water discharges indicated that the contaminant concentrations
were decreasing;

• The data indicated that the pollutant loading in Tar Creek was decreasing. The OWRB calculated that
only 15% of the total metals loading to Tar Creek was from identified major discharges;

• The sediment data were erratic and conclusions on the effectiveness of the remediation could not be
drawn; and,

• The data from the monitoring of water levels in the Blue Goose mine showed that overall, the long
term average water level in the Boone aquifer had not been reduced. However, the diking and
diversion work had reduced short-term rises in water levels in the mines in response to precipitation
events (EPA, 1994a).

The EPA's overall conclusion in the first five-year review was that other sources of recharge were
contributing more to the acid mine water discharges to Tar Creek than previously estimated. The EPA
concluded that the diking and diversion structures were effective at reducing surface water inflows into
the mines in relation to specific precipitation events. However, the diking and diversion structures were
at best only partially effective at achieving the remedial goal of decreasing the acid mine water discharges
to Tar Creek (EPA, 1994a).

The first five-year review report recommended that the post remediation ground water monitoring
program be extended to evaluate the success of the well plugging program at preventing contamination of
the Roubidoux aquifer (this program was already in progress). Also, 15 additional abandoned wells were
identified after completion of the second well plugging program. The EPA recommended evaluating the
need to plug these wells based on the results of the post remediation ground water monitoring program.
Due to changes in the designated uses for Tar Creek, as stated in the OWQS (see discussion under
Section 7.1), the EPA recommended no further RA or monitoring of Tar Creek. The other
recommendations of the First Five-Year Review, related to OU2, are discussed in Section 3.4 (EPA,
1994a).

The Phase I Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program was begun in 1991 to determine the quality
of the water in the Roubidoux aquifer and to assess the effectiveness of the well plugging activities. The
goal of the program was to determine if acid mine water had contaminated the public water supply
obtained from the Roubidoux aquifer. The program included wellhead sampling of municipal supply
wells and discrete sampling of the Roubidoux aquifer. The wellhead sampling program was performed
by the USGS for the OWRB between August 1992 and January 1993. Ten wells inside the mining area

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 27 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

and one well outside the mining area (used to determine background concentrations) were sampled
monthly during this period (EPA, 1994a). The OU1 ROD did not set criteria to act as a "trigger" for
action or decision regarding the effectiveness of the well plugging program. To provide such a trigger, in
January 1993, an additional 10 wells outside the mining area were also sampled. By using wells outside
the mining area, more statistically reliable data on background conditions could be gathered and indicator
parameters that could be used to indicate the presence of acid mine water influx could be determined.

Zinc, iron, and sulfate were chosen as indicator constituents of acid mine water influx due to large
concentration differences for these constituents when comparing acid mine water to the background
Roubidoux aquifer concentrations (EPA, 1994a). In addition to calculating background concentrations
for the indicator parameters, the ODEQ established tolerance limits (statistically derived values
representative of the upper limit of background concentrations) for each parameter (ODEQ, 1993). The
background concentrations and tolerance limits for these indicator parameters are provided in Table 2.

The results of the wellhead sampling were documented in an ODEQ report submitted in July 1993. The
data showed that all 21 wells sampled were meeting the primary drinking water standards (primary
drinking water standards are enforceable, health-based contaminant concentration limits established by
EPA). However, five of the wells failed the secondary drinking water standards (secondary drinking
water standards are non-enforceable standards established by EPA for aesthetic purposes such as taste or
odor) for iron, and one of those wells also failed the secondary drinking water standard for sulfate. Three
of the five wells were located in Picher, one well was located in Commerce, and one well was located in
Quapaw. The EPA determined that these five wells were impacted by acid mine water from the Boone
aquifer, but it was not demonstrated if the impact was related to widespread infiltration of acid mine water
into the Roubidoux from the Boone aquifer or due to well integrity problems (ODEQ, 1993, and EPA,
1994a).

Discrete sampling of the Roubidoux aquifer was conducted by the ODEQ from 1996 until 2002. The
ODEQ obtained samples from the impacted drinking water supply wells in Picher, Commerce, and
Quapaw. After completion of Phase II, the ODEQ implemented continued monitoring in November 2003
as described in Section 4.4. The results of the sampling program are discussed in Section 6.4.

The EPA performed statistical trend evaluations for the data collected between 2003 and 2006. The
results of this evaluation are discussed in Section 6.4.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 28 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

More than 2,295 residential properties and HAAs have been remediated as part of the removal response
actions and OU2 RA. Over 512,000 cubic yards of lead contaminated soils have been removed as part of
these efforts and placed in two on-site repositories. The RA activities for OU2 are still ongoing. The
EPA is currently performing reconnaissance efforts to evaluate the presence of chat in alleyways and
drive ways in the remainder of Ottawa County. EPA is also planning efforts to assess and remediate
where necessary the footprints of houses removed under the voluntary relocation being performed as part
of OU4 (EPA, 2005, EPA, 2010a, and CH2M HILL, 2007b)

The most recent study published on blood-lead levels in children was by the U. S. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in 2004 (and discussed in the third five-year review report).
The report stated that the percentage of children between the ages of 1 and 5 at the site with elevated
blood lead levels had decreased between 1995 and 2003. The report stated that 2.8 percent of the children
tested had elevated blood lead levels (above 10 jj.g/dl), which was only slightly higher than the percentage
of children in the United States as a whole (2.2 percent). The ATSDR further concluded that the available
evidence indicated that mine tailings in residential soils was the primary exposure pathway and source of
lead in children's blood at the site prior to the EPA's implementation of the OU2 RA, but other potential
exposure pathways needed further investigation (ATSDR 2004a, and EPA, 2010a). The EPA continues
to fund the ATSDR and the Ottawa County Health Department (OCHD) to perform community education
efforts and blood lead screening at the site. The OCHD also provides education to the local medical
community (EPA, 2010a).

As a follow-up to the 2004 survey, ATSDR and OSDH reviewed disease rates and other health
information about the Ottawa County community focusing on children's health, cancer, and other health
conditions in Ottawa County. ATSDR and OSDH found that Ottawa County residents have a health status
similar to that of other Oklahoma residents. Currently, only about 3% of preschool children in Ottawa
County have elevated blood lead levels, slightly higher than state and national rates. The OCHD is
pursuing an extensive, ongoing program that provides free blood lead screening services to children and
pregnant women in the county (ATSDR, 2008).

The OU4 RI/FS and BHHRA are complete. The RI was completed in December 2005, and the FS was
completed in July 2007. The RI was completed December 2005, and the FS was made available to the
public in July 2007 (AATA, 2005 and CH2M HILL, 2007c). In lieu of conducting a Baseline
Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) for OU4, the Ecological Remediation Goals developed by EPA for
the Cherokee County Superfund Site (located across the state line in Kansas) were considered because of

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 29 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

numerous similarities between the two sites including location, ecological sub region and province (Osage
Plains section of the Central Lowland Province), and similar concentrations of lead, cadmium, and zinc.
Other similarities between the sites including climate, topography, flora and fauna, made the
determination to use the Cherokee County site ERA appropriate for OU4 (EPA, 2008).

The voluntary relocation performed by LICRAT began in 2006. The program was originally
implemented to allow residents to relocate due to concerns associated with subsidence issues (OK, 2006).
During the Proposed Plan and comment period for the OU4 ROD, local citizens expressed a preference
for inclusion of relocation as part of the OU4 remedy. The EPA concurred and included funding for the
LICRAT as part of the selected remedy in the OU4 ROD (EPA, 2008). The EPA is only providing
funding to LICRAT as part of the OU4 remedy. The LICRAT plans to complete the voluntary relocation
program in 2010.

EPA has begun implementation of portions of the RD and RA for OU4. The hydrogeological
characterization study, specified in the OU4 ROD to assess whether or not the injection component of the
remedy will comply with UIC regulations, began in 2008 and will be completed in 2010. A pilot study
involving the injection of washed fine tailings from a commercial chat washing plant is being performed
as part of this study (see Attachment 4 - Photographs 70 - 77).

4.6 Activities Conducted at the Site by Other Governmental Agencies Since the
Third Five-Year Review

Various other Federal, Tribal, State, and local agencies are also performing work at the Tar Creek
Superfund Site to address various environmental, health, and safety risks associated with the site. On
May 1, 2003, the EPA, United States Department of the Army (through the US ACE), and the DOI
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The purpose of
the MOU is to facilitate cooperation between each signatory and provide for coordinated response,
reclamation, and restoration activities under the statutory authorities of each signatory to the MOU. Due
to the complexity, size, and scope of the issues at the Tar Creek Superfund Site, the MOU states that the
signatory Agencies will work together to coordinate activities with the State, Tribes, local governments,
and local community groups to develop and implement solutions that address the health, safety, and
environmental issues at the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The MOU called for the creation of a Federal Tar
Creek Steering Committee to work with the Tribal, State, and local governments towards these goals
(EPA, USA, and DOI, 2003) Various Federal, State, and local governmental agencies and local

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 30 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

community groups are conducting multiple meetings in order to share information and keep parties
informed regarding the work and various studies that are being pursued in and around the site (USACE,
2004a, and EPA, 2010a). The following paragraphs describe the activities these various agencies are
conducting, outside of the EPA's Superfund work, at the Tar Creek Superfund Site.

The University of Oklahoma has constructed and is currently operating a passive treatment system
(constructed wetland) to treat acid mine discharges in the Commerce area and to improve surface water
quality in Tar Creek downstream of the treatment system (See Attachment 4 - Photographs 78 - 85).
This project is being conducted as a pilot study under the Oklahoma Plan for Tar Creek (ODEQ, the
Quapaw Tribe, University of Oklahoma, and Senator James Inhofe, undated) to determine the
feasibility of passive treatment of the acid mine discharges through the use of constructed wetlands.

The State of Oklahoma, through the Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC), completed a pilot study
project in late 2006 and early 2007. The pilot study was a land reclamation project that involved the
removal of chat from the land surface. The chat was injected into the mine workings at the Southern
Queen mine on the west side of Commerce. Approximately 10,000 cubic yards of chat were injected into
the mine workings under this project. The ODEQ continues to monitor the ground water at this site
(CH2M HILL, 2010a)

In a follow-up to the fish consumption study completed in 2003, the ODEQ conducted a second fish
consumption study in 2007. The ODEQ collected and analyzed fish from the Neosho and Spring Rivers,
Grand Lake, and local ponds in Ottawa County receiving mine waste runoff. In response to the
recommendations of the original study, analytical reporting limits for the 2007 study were lowered from
0.3 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 0.05 mg/kg for cadmium, from 0.25 mg/kg to 0.05 mg/kg for
lead, and from 0.3 mg/kg to 0.1 mg/kg for zinc. The research also studied fish collected from
downstream locations along Grand Lake and the Neosho River below the dam of Grand Lake as
recommended by the original report. It concluded that the consumption of some preparations of fish
caught in waters affected by contaminated runoff from abandoned lead and zinc mines in the Oklahoma
portion of the Tri-State Mining District have levels of lead that could potentially cause adverse health
effects. Separate advisory levels were determined for both residents living within and those living outside
of the Tar Creek area using different background exposure assumptions (ODEQ, 2007a). Results were
compiled into a revised fish consumption advisory, released August 5, 2008. The advisory breaks out fish
consumption suggestions on an easy-to-read chart for residents and non-residents of Tar Creek based on
type of fish and based on the location from which the fish was caught (Figure 3) (ODEQ, 2008c).

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 31 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

The USGS is currently working on several projects at the site. The USGS, in partnership with the ODEQ
and the Quapaw and Seneca-Cayuga Tribes, has performed stream and sediment sampling along Tar
Creek, the Spring River, the Neosho River, and Upper Grand Lake. Aluminum and iron concentrations of
several thousand mg/kg, along with elevated manganese, zinc, lead and cadmium concentrations, were
measured in sediments collected from the upstream end of Grand Lake O' the Cherokees. In 2004,
sediment cores collected in a transect across the floodplain of Tar Creek near Miami, Oklahoma resulted
in similar or greater concentrations of these metals. The greatest concentrations of cadmium, iron, lead,
and zinc were detected in sediments beneath an intermittent tributary to Tar Creek, a slough which drains
mined areas near Commerce, Oklahoma. In surface water, aluminum and iron concentrations were
greatest in the Neosho River. The greatest concentrations of cadmium, lead, manganese, and zinc were
measured in surface water from Tar Creek (USGS, 2009).

Mine subsidence was not systematically addressed as part of the environmental restoration activities and
was identified by the Tar Creek Task Force as a major concern. The USACE was designated to be the
lead agency on the subsidence evaluation project and a technical team was assembled in August 2004 to
begin the subsidence evaluation. The subsidence study focused on the residential areas of Picher, Cardin,
Hockerville, and Quapaw and transportation corridors of major significance in the Picher Mining Field.
Major conclusions of the study included that the potential for shaft related and non shaft related
subsidence is a very serious threat to the safety and economic well-being of people who reside in and
travel through the area. Some residential and public-use areas and portions of transportation corridors are
subject to some degree of subsidence hazard. The magnitude of possible subsidence at locations evaluated
in the study ranged from less than 1 foot to greater than 50 feet with the attendant possibility of loss of
life and/or property depending upon where the subsidence occurs. A summary in the report included site-
specific recommendation for public use areas, residential/commercial areas, major transportation
corridors, residential streets and rural, agricultural and undeveloped areas (Subsidence Evaluation
Team, 2006).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be conducting the 2009 TSMD Transition Zone Assessment
Study, intended to provide the information needed to determine the extent of soil degradation from
historic mining operations in the TSMD. Sampling and analysis will be completed in
November/December 2009 to assess soil quality conditions in the Transition Zones of the TSMD (FWS,
2009).

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 32 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

5.0 Progress Since the Third Five-Year Review

The third five-year review of the site was completed in September 2005, for the period from April 2000,
when the second five-year review was completed, through September 2005. The findings of the third
five-year review, the status of recommendations and follow-up actions, the results of implemented
actions, and the status of any other issues are described in the following sections.

5.1 Protectiveness Statements from Third Five-Year Review

The third five-year review report concluded that the RAs implemented at the site were protective of
human health and the environment. The third five-year review report stated that for OU1, the Roubidoux
aquifer continued to meet all health-based primary drinking water standards. In addition, the report stated
that, although environmental components of the OWQS were not being met for Tar Creek, there was no
indication that a threat to human health exists. The OU1 ROD invoked a fund-balancing waiver for the
ARARs regarding the environmental risks related to surface water. The third five-year review determined
that the conditions regarding this waiver had not substantially changed, and the waiver was still
appropriate for the site. The State-designated use of Tar Creek surface water did not pose a risk to human
health. Human health was protected by the remedy implemented for OU 1. The EPA continues to find
that, due to the potential drain on the Superfund and due to the impact that drain would have on the
EPA's ability to address other releases under CERCLA and the NCP, it is not appropriate to address
environmental risks for surface water in Tar Creek (EPA, 2005).

For OU2, the Third Five-Year Review Report stated that the OU2 remedy being implemented was
protective of human health and the environment in the remediated areas. At that time 2,072 properties
had been remediated, and others were still to be identified and remediated (EPA, 2005).

The Third Five-Year Review Report stated that the action implemented during the Removal Action for
OU3 was shown to be protective of human health and the environment. The laboratory chemicals left at
the former Eagle-Picher Office Complex were removed from the site and properly disposed of (EPA,
2005).

The RI/FS, BHHRA, and ERA for OU4 were being conducted at the time of the third five-year review
report. With the exceptions noted above, the third five-year review report stated that the environmental
components of the OWQS for OU1, the completed RAs, Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program,
and O&M activities for the Tar Creek Superfund Site were all protective for the short term. The overall

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 33 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

remedy for the site was shown to be protective of human health and the environment for the short term
and would continue to be protective if action items in the report were addressed (EPA, 2005).

5.2 Third Five-Year Review Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

The third five-year review of the Tar Creek Superfund Site, completed in September 2005, recommended
the following follow-up actions:

• Develop an O&M Plan for the dikes and diversion channels. The ODEQ has indicated that at the
time of the third five-year review report, the last O&M Plan developed for the diversion dike and
channel at the Admiralty Mine Site was prepared in 1987. It was recommended that the O&M Plan
prepared for the Admiralty Mine Site should be updated. The ODEQ also indicated as part of the third
five-year review report that the 20-year property easement for the dike and diversion channel at the
Admiralty Mine Site should be extended and updated.

Regarding the Muncie and Big John Mine Sites, the EPA would continue to inspect the dikes and
diversion channel at the Muncie and Big John Mine Sites as part of each five-year review. Any
necessary maintenance identified during each inspection would be reported to the State of Kansas for
appropriate action.

• Collect and evaluate current and recent surface water and soil/sediment data to verify that no
threat to human health exists in Tar Creek. The second five-year review recommended that the
EPA review the need for updated monitoring of the contamination in Tar Creek to evaluate human
health impacts. The EPA has conducted soil sampling along the flood plain of Tar Creek to
determine lead concentration trends within the flood plain. The ODEQ and USGS were currently
conducting sampling of the sediments and surface water quality in Tar Creek at the time of the third
five-year review report. If these data were found to be appropriate for the purpose of evaluating
human health impacts, these data should be used for that purpose. If necessary, it was also
recommended that the EPA should collect enough additional data to determine if potential human
health risks are posed by the surface water and sediments in Tar Creek. If it was determined that Tar
Creek potentially poses a human health risk, then it was recommended that the EPA evaluate the need
to conduct a BHHRA to quantify the risks.

• Complete the additional fish tissues studies as recommended by the ODEQ's 2003 report. In As

discussed in Section 4.6, in July 2003 the ODEQ completed fish tissue studies based on samples

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 34 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

collected in several ponds at the site as well as the Neosho and Spring rivers. The study resulted in
the conclusion that skinless fish fillets were safe limited for consumption, but whole-eviscerated and
whole un-eviscerated fish were determined to not be safe for consumption. The ODEQ issued a fish
consumption advisory for the Tar Creek Superfund Site and the Neosho and Grand Rivers based on
the findings of this study (ODEQ, 2003c). Previous determinations that fish at the site were safe for
consumption were based on older data. The ODEQ's 2003 fish tissue sampling report recommended
that additional studies be conducted, equipment with lower detection limits, to verify the results of the
first study and to determine the downstream extent of the metals uptake in fish. It was recommended
by the third five-year review report that the ODEQ to complete the additional recommended study to
determine if extension of the fish consumption advisory to areas further downstream was necessary.
The ODEQ is pursuing plans to initiate the additional fish studies.

• Continue with the follow-up Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program (formerly LTM)
program and background reassessment for the Roubidoux aquifer. It was recommended by the
third five-year review report that the follow-up Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program
continue so that the effectiveness of the well plugging program could be determined. As part of the
monitoring program, it was is further recommended that the Roubidoux background reassessment
proposed by the ODEQ be conducted to verify that the indicator parameters, background
concentrations, and tolerance limits used as triggers to indicate acid mine water influx from the
Boone aquifer to the Roubidoux aquifer are appropriate. If it was determined through the monitoring
program that the acid mine water influx represents a more widespread regional problem, it was
recommended that the need for additional activities (such as continued or more widespread
monitoring) will be evaluated. If it was determined through the monitoring program that the
Roubidoux aquifer is no longer capable of meeting the primary drinking water standards, it was
recommended that the need for additional RAs will be reevaluated. It was should be noted at the time
of the third five-year review report that neither the EPA nor ODEQ had identified any wells at the site
that failed to meet the MCLs established under the SDWA and that. That is, the drinking water at the
site was determined to be is safe for all uses.

• Continue plugging abandoned Roubidoux wells. The OU1 ROD provided for plugging additional
abandoned Roubidoux wells as they are identified at the site. It was recommended by the third five-
year review report that these efforts should continue in order to prevent contamination from migrating
from the Boone aquifer into the Roubidoux aquifer. It was recommended that, as additional
abandoned wells were identified, efforts should be undertaken to locate each the well, determine that

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 35 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

the well is completed in the Roubidoux aquifer, and plug those abandoned wells completed in the
Roubidoux aquifer where deemed technically feasible.

• Continue with the OU2 RA. The third five-year review report recommended that residential yard
and HAA remediation as stated in the OU2 ROD should continue. The residential yard remediation
was underway at the time of the third five-year review report.

• Conduct the RI/FS, BHHRA, and ERA for OU4. The Third Five-Year Review Report
recommended that efforts to complete the RI/FS, BHHRA, and ERA to address the remaining mining
wastes at the site for OU4 should continue (EPA, 2005).

5.3 Status of Recommended Actions

The current status of implementation of the recommendations included in the third five-year review report
is summarized in Table 3.

The third five-year review report recommended development of an O&M Plan for the dike and diversion
channel at the Admiralty site by ODEQ. This action has not been implemented and remains an issue for
this five-year review. The EPA visited the Muncie and Big John sites during the site inspection
performed as part of this five-year review (see Section 6.6).

The third five-year review report recommended that current and recent surface water and soil/sediment
data be collected and evaluated to verify that no threat to human health exists in Tar Creek. EPA Region 6
is working with EPA Region 7 as part of a multi-state effort to characterize sediment and surface water
throughout the Spring and Neosho River basins. Sampling was conducted in May 2006 during the
summer of 2007. This sampling focused on collecting data to evaluate the toxicity of the sediments (EPA,
2010a). A study conducted by the USGS and the ODEQ in cooperation with EPA and the Quapaw and
Seneca-Cayuga Tribes of Oklahoma summarized concentrations and loads of selected metals in samples
of lakebed sediments, floodplain sediments, streambed sediment and surface water samples collected
from 2000 through 2006 at 30 sites in the mining district (Andrews, 2009). EPA is currently conducting a
study that includes collecting surface water and sediment data along Tar Creek, Lytle Creek, Elm Creek
and Beaver Creek. An evaluation of the data collected from these various studies relative to potential
threats to human health has not yet been performed.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 36 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

The third five-year review report recommended that the additional fish tissues studies be conducted as
recommended by the ODEQ's 2003 report. The ODEQ conducted a follow-up study in 2007 as described
in Section 4.6, and the fish consumption advisory was revised in August 2008.

The third five-year review report recommended a continuation of the Roubidoux Ground Water
Monitoring Program for the Roubidoux aquifer to evaluate whether the well plugging had successfully
prevented contamination of the aquifer from the overlying Boone aquifer. As part of the Roubidoux
Ground Water Monitoring Program, it was further recommended that the Roubidoux background
reassessment proposed by the ODEQ be conducted to verify that the indicator parameters, background
concentrations, and tolerance limits used as triggers to indicate acid mine water influx from the Boone
aquifer to the Roubidoux aquifer are appropriate. The ODEQ continued the Roubidoux Ground Water
Monitoring Program at the site to monitor the quality of the water in the Roubidoux aquifer during the
current five-year review period. The ODEQ issued a report on the results of the Roubidoux Ground
Water Monitoring Program documenting activities through 2002. In this report, the ODEQ concluded:

• That well improvements were only a temporary result of isolation of the Roubidoux aquifer from the
contaminated Boone ground water, indicating both well integrity problems and impacted Roubidoux
aquifer at these sites.

• The report also concluded that use of inflatable packers and Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) liners in the
five impacted municipal wells was not adequate to ascertain whether the Roubidoux aquifer near
them is being impacted by contaminated Boone water through inadequate or deteriorated well casing.

• The report further concluded that the extent of adverse impacts to the Roubidoux from contaminated
mine water near Picher was not well defined by the study.

• The project demonstrated that a new well could be completed in the Roubidoux aquifer within the
mine field and produce ample supply of good quality drinking water.

The ODEQ recommended:

• Continuation of the Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program.

• A trend analysis to be performed on the data.

• That Roubidoux wells continue to be evaluated for plugging.

• An additional well (or wells) to be installed near Quapaw to better delineate the extent of mine water
contamination in the Roubidoux in that area.

• An evaluation of treatment options for impacted Roubidoux water.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 37 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

• That a map delineating a two-mile buffer zone around surface mine waste and underground mine
workings be compiled to use as a notification of impaired water quality in the Boone and shallow
aquifer, and that any well completed in the Roubidoux within this zone be constructed with casing to
no less than 850 ft bgs, with an additional 250 ft bgs intermediate casing to seal off the Boone aquifer.

• That well drillers be notified of this area of contamination.

• A network of perimeter monitoring wells is needed to define and monitor Boone ground water
contamination and migration.

The 2003 to 2008 results of the Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program are presented in Table 2
and discussed further in Section 6.4.

The third five-year review report recommended that the EPA continue plugging and abandoning
Roubidoux wells as they are identified. The ODEQ has identified 19 wells that require further assessment
for plugging. The wells need to be located, assessed to determine if they are completed in the Roubidoux
aquifer, and evaluated to determine if it is technically feasible to plug those wells that are located and
determined to be completed in the Roubidoux aquifer (ODEQ, 2006c).

The OU2 RA was in progress during the third five-year review, and the report recommended that the RA
be continued. The total number of residential properties and HAAs that have been remediated as part of
the removal response actions and OU2 RA is 2,295 as of January 2010 (EPA, 2010a). The EPA is
currently evaluating actions that are necessary to complete the OU2 RA. Reconnaissance efforts have
identified chat in alleyways and driveways in Miami and other communities in Ottawa County. During
the site inspection for this five-year review, chat was observed in the footprints of demolished homes in
Picher, Cardin, and Miami. RA activities are now complete in Picher, Cardin, Quapaw, and North
Miami, with the exception of further assessment of the footprints of the homes that have been demolished
and removed as part of the voluntary relocation. The City of Commerce completed the RA for properties
remaining in Commerce under an agreement with the ODEQ. Final reporting on this work has not yet
been completed. Final reports on the remediation efforts performed by the Cities of Miami, Afton, and
Fairland have not yet been completed as well.

Lastly, the third five-year review report recommended that the OU4 RI/FS, BHHRA, and ERA be
conducted. The RI/FS and Proposed Plan for the site were made available to the public in July 2007, and
the OU4 ROD was signed by EPA in February 2008 (EPA, 2008).

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 38 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

6.0	Five-Year Review Process

This fourth five-year review for the site has been conducted in accordance with the EPA's
Comprehensive Five-Year Review guidance dated June 2001 (EPA, 2001). Interviews were conducted
with relevant parties; a site inspection was conducted; and applicable data and documentation covering
the period of the review were evaluated. The activities conducted as part of this review and specific
findings are described in the following paragraphs.

6.1	Administrative Components

The five-year review for this site was initiated by the EPA. The review team was led by the EPA
Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for OUs 1 and 2 at this site, Mr. Bob Sullivan/ EPA Region 6. The
components of the review included community involvement, document review, data review, a site
inspection, interviews, and development of this five-year review report, as described in the following
paragraphs.

6.2	Community Involvement

A public notice announcing initiation of the five-year review was published in the Miami News Record
on December 10, 2009. Upon signature, the fourth five-year review report will be placed in the
information repositories for the site, including the Miami Public Library in Miami, and at the EPA Region
6 office in Dallas, Texas. A notice will then be published in the Miami News Record to summarize the
findings of the review and announce the availability of the report at the information repositories. Copies
of the two public notices are provided as Attachment 5 to this report.

6.3	Document Review

This fourth five-year review for the site included a review of relevant site documents, including decision
documents, construction and implementation reports, sampling reports, and related monitoring data.
Documents reviewed are listed in Attachment 1.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 39 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

6.4 Data Review

The Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program continued during the current five-year review period,
and sampling was conducted from November 2003 to April 2008. Wells used in the monitoring program
included the five monitoring wells installed by ODEQ as part of the Roubidoux Ground Water
Monitoring Program (Commerce #5, Quapaw #5, Picher #5, Picher #6, and Picher #7), one municipal
supply well located within the mining area (Cardin #1), four wells located on the edge of the mining area
(Commerce #4, one private well, Quapaw #4, and the Rural Water District #4 Well #4 [RWD4 #4]), and
four wells located outside of the mining area (Miami #1, Miami #3 [replaced Miami #1 in program],
Miami #11, and RWD7 #2). The private well is located at the former smelter location south of
Hockerville. This well was reportedly used by the smelter, and is now used as a private water supply
well. The locations of each well are shown on Figure 4 (ODEQ, 2008b).

The 2003 to 2008 results from the Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program are included in Table
2. The private well was sampled on multiple occasions to determine the baseline conditions for the
indicator parameters at that well. The ODEQ defines a well that produces water with concentrations in
excess of the tolerance limits for all three indicator parameters as impacted by mine water locally near the
well site, a well that produces water with concentrations in excess of the background concentrations for
all three indicator parameters and above the tolerance limits for two of the indicator parameters as
probably impacted by mine water locally near the well site, and a well that produces water with
concentrations in excess of the background concentrations for two of the three indicator parameters and
above the tolerance limits for one of the indicator parameters as possibly impacted by acid mine water
locally near the well site.

The Quapaw #5 MW well results show that the well is still impacted by acid mine water as indicated by
concentrations of sulfate, iron and total dissolved solids (TDS) above the Secondary Maximum
Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) (averaging 416.5 mg/L, 2.8 mg/L and 1029 mg/L, respectively), as well as
concentrations of zinc above the Roubidoux tolerance limit (averaging 0.144 mg/L). Three of the wells
(the private well, Picher #5 MW, Picher #6 MW) are probably impacted by acid mine water as indicated
by elevated concentrations of sulfate, iron and TDS above the tolerance limit of the Roubidoux and many
exceedences of the SMCL for iron (Picher #6 MW and private well), some exceedences of the MCL for
lead (private well), and some exceedences of the SMCLs for iron (Picher #5 MW), sulfate (private well),
and TDS (private well). The results indicate that 3 wells (Cardin #1, Commerce #4, and Picher #7 MW)
are possibly impacted by acid mine water as indicated by concentrations of sulfate above tolerance limits
for the Roubidoux. The results indicate that 7 of the wells (Miami #1, Miami #3, Miami #11, RWD4 #3,

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 40 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Quapaw #4, Commerce #5 MW, and RWD7 #2) are not impacted by acid mine water.

The EPA performed statistical trend evaluations for the Roubidoux ground water data collected between
2003 and 2006. This evaluation stated there was very little evidence of upward or downward trends in
concentration for the analytical parameters overall. Only five percent of the cases demonstrated an
upward or downward trend. For the indicator parameters of iron, zinc, and sulfate, an upward or
downward trend was noted in 20% of the cases. The report documenting the evaluation stated that five
percent is the number of significant trends expected in random data, and overall this level of trends
equates with a stable aquifer. With respect to the indicator parameters, the report draws the same
conclusion (the aquifer is relatively stable with regards to concentration trends for the indicator
parameters). The only increasing trends were for sulfate in three wells. The data reviewed indicated that
out of the 571 analytical results reviewed, MCLs were exceeded only four times by individual
concentrations (for arsenic in Quapaw #5 and for total and dissolved lead in a private well). These
exceedences occurred during 2003 and 2004 and did not occur in public drinking water wells. A study of
the upper confidence limits (UCLs) show there were no aquifer-wide issues relative to the OWQS,
although iron concentrations in Quapaw #5 were elevated (CH2M HILL, 2007e). No MCL exceedences
were noted in the data from 2005 through 2008.

The Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program was recently extended to cover the period of October
2009 to October 2013. ODEQ, funded by EPA, will sample Miami #1, Miami #3, Miami #11, Commerce
#5, Commerce #4, Cardin #1, Picher #5, Picher #7, Picher #6, Quapaw #4, Quapaw #5, RWD4 #3, and
RWD7 #2, 13 wells total. Wells will be sampled annually in October. Water samples will be analyzed
for total metals, dissolved metals, and general chemistry (ODEQ, 2009a).

An Advanced Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) was performed for the Tri-State
Mining District (TSMD) as a whole, including the Tar Creek Superfund Site. This study describes the
results of two ecological risk assessments (ERAs), including a SLERA for aquatic and riparian habitats to
evaluate risk to ecological receptors and a detailed ERA to assess risks to the benthic invertebrate
community. Data that had been collected at the site between 2002 and 2009 to describe conditions within
the watershed were compiled. The results of the SLERA indicated that the presence of COPCs in surface
water, whole sediments, pore water, and/or soil poses potential risks to ecological receptors. The Detailed
Ecological Risk Assessment indicated that exposure to metals in sediments poses moderate to high risks
to benthic invertebrates at approximately 45% of the locations samples during the study, including
portions of Tar Creek and Lytle Creek (MacDonald, D. et al., 2010).

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 41 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

An integrated site assessment and investigation of Tar, Lytle, Elm and Beaver Creeks took place in Spring
2009. Surface water, pore water, and sediment sampling was performed to evaluate impacts to site
streams from site source materials (primarily mine tailings). The surface water data are provided in Table
4, and the sediment data are provided in Table 5. The sampling locations are provided on Figure 5.
Concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc range from the tens to tens of thousands of milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg) in local stream sediments and micrograms per liter in local streams. The narrative and
numerical criteria in the OWQS are designed to maintain and protect the beneficial surface water use
classification of "Fish and Wildlife Propagation". Under the OWQS there are numerical "Toxic
Substance" concentration limits for surface water with both "acute" and "chronic" standards listed. Under
785 OAC 45 OWQS, "acute toxicity" means the surface water concentration of atoxic substance is such
that it means greater than or equal to 50% lethality to appropriate test organisms in a test sample. Under
those same standards, "chronic toxicity" means the surface water concentration of a toxic substance is
such that there is a statistically significant difference (at the 95% confidence level) between longer-term
survival and/or reproduction or growth of the appropriate test organisms in a test sample and a control.
Teratogenicity and mutagenicity are considered to be effects of chronic toxicity. In Tar Creek, Lytle
Creek, and Elm Creek at the Tar Creek Site, EPA found that cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in
surface water samples exceed the OWQS chronic toxicity standard, and zinc concentrations also exceed
the acute toxicity standard.

6.5 Interviews

During the course of the five-year review, interviews were conducted with several parties involved with
the site: (1) Mr. Dennis Datin, ODEQ; (2) Ms. Kelly Dixon, ODEQ; (3) Ms. Angela Hughes, ODEQ; (4)
Mr. David Cates, ODEQ; (5) Mr. Jim Dixon, Environmental Director of the Peoria Tribe of Indians of
Oklahoma; (6) Dr. Mark Osborn, LICRAT; (7) Ms. Rebecca Jim, Local Environmental Action Demanded
(LEAD). Interview questionnaires were sent to 21 individuals, and responses were received from the
seven listed above. Interview records forms which document the issues discussed during these interviews
are provided in Attachment 2.

Overall, the impression of the work done at the site has been positive. Mr. Jim Dixon, environmental
director of the Peoria Tribe, however, believes that much of the remedial effort has been inadequate or
ineffective and that the remedies are not based on thorough science. He raises concerns about the
potential contamination of the Roubidoux aquifer and area surface waters from injection, and he also
raises concerns about the integrity of the chat repository. Kelly Dixon/ODEQ, has concerns about the size
and cost of the repository and whether or not marketable chat will be deposited instead of sold.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 42 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

The impact on the community is perceived by the interviewees to be both negative and positive.
According to the interviews, the community is engaged and is glad that remediation is taking place.
However, the work tends to be invasive and the community is experiencing fatigue at the length of the
remediation effort and the continued presence of government agency personnel in the area. Kelly Dixon,
ODEQ, suggests creating and maintaining a community outreach office in the area.

Kelly Dixon and David Cates of ODEQ would like to lift the restricted use standards for Tar Creek and
question the waiver of ARARs, based on fund balancing criteria, for the remediation of the Tar Creek
surface water. According to Mr. Cates and Ms. Dixon of ODEQ, the passive treatment wetlands system
located in Commerce has been successful in treating discharging mine water and should be evaluated for
the treatment of other mine water discharging into Tar Creek and Beaver Creek at other locations.

The interviews indicated that the majority of the parties consider themselves to be well-informed. Kelly
Dixon and David Cates of ODEQ essentially said that they wanted to be more fully informed concerning
enforcement and settlement negotiations between DOJ, EPA, and the mining companies that EPA has
identified as potentially responsible parties. Rebecca Jim/LEAD, would like more communication with
her office by EPA and ODEQ. Jim Dixon did not feel well-informed due to time and budget constraints,
and he essentially said that tribal input is perceived to be disregarded.

6.6 Site Inspection

An inspection was conducted at the site on December 14 and 15, 2009. The completed site inspection
checklist is provided in Attachment 3. Photographs taken during the Tar Creek Superfund Site
inspection are provided in Attachment 4.

The wells utilized by the ODEQ for the Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program are sampled on an
annual basis. All wells are secured in a locked building, behind a fence, or both. During the site
inspection, Picher Well No. 6-MW was observed to be behind a fence (Photograph 25). A mine shaft
collapse was observed on the east side of Picher near Picher Well No. 6-MW (Photographs 26 - 27).

The dike and diversion channel at the Muncie site was inspected. This site is located on the Treece
Subsite of the Cherokee County Superfund Site, and the remediation contractor has been filling in the
subsidence feature with source materials and soil and re-grading the land surface. At the time of the site

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 43 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

inspection, the subsidence feature at the Muncie site was almost completely filled in and portions of the
diversion dike had been removed (Photographs 5-14).

The improved stream channel at the Big John site was observed from the public right-of-way. The stream
channel improvements appeared to be functioning properly. Rip-rap was present along the cut-banks of
the channel and there were no signs evident that the stream was eroding the channel. This area contains
chat at the surface. The ROD Amendment for the Treece Subsite indicates that this area of the site will be
remediated in a similar manner to the Muncie site (EPA, 2006). Remediation work associated with the
Cherokee County site was not observed at the Big John site at the time off the site inspection
(Photographs 15 - 22).

The dike at the Admiralty site was inspected. The small collapsed portion of the dike, observed during
the second five-year review site inspection, is still present, and erosion of the dike was observed on the
upstream side of the dike adjacent to the small collapse in the center of the dike. It was not possible to
determine if this collapse had reformed since the third five-year review site inspection or had not been
adequately repaired following the third five-year review site inspection. The vegetation is well
established on the dike and slightly overgrown. The Lytle Creek diversion channel was clear and
functioning properly (Photographs 39 - 46).

The acid mine water discharges to Tar Creek at the Douthat Bridge on E40 Road were observed. Acid
mine water flows into Tar Creek at the northeast corner of the bridge, and the impact to the surface water
in the stream is apparent on the south side of the bridge (Photographs 76 - 83).

Two soil repositories (locations where the soil from the OU2 RA yard remediation work is disposed) have
been used at the site. The South Repository is located on private land on E40 Road, west of the Douthat
Bridge (Photographs 84 - 86). This repository is located at the site of the former Eagle-Picher Central
Mill. The soil from the OU2 remediation work has been used at this location to fill in and cover an old
mill tailings pond. The South Repository was secured by a locked gate and barbed wire fence. Although
the site inspection occurred during winter, it was apparent that the repository is well vegetated.

Chat was observed in alleyways and driveways in the City of Miami (Photographs 47 - 50). A number
of properties were bought out in an area along Tar Creek on the east side of Miami due to flooding that
occurred in 2007. On several properties, the houses had been removed, and chat was observed in the
footprints of the houses (Photograph 87). A reconnaissance effort was in progress at the time of the site

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 44 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

inspection to locate and identify alleyways and driveways in areas of Ottawa County outside of the
mining area.

The voluntary relocation being conducted under OU4 is currently in progress. Most residents have been
relocated through this program, and many of the properties were being cleared to remove structures and
debris (Photographs 52 - 53 and 59). Suitable houses were being relocated to a new residential
subdivision being developed along Beaver Creek southeast of Quapaw (Photograph 59). Contractors of
LICRAT were performing work during the site inspection to clear and remove buildings (Photographs
29 and 38). Although most of the residents have accepted the voluntary relocation, there were still a few
residents living in the area and there were a few business open in Picher (Photographs 30 and 53 - 54).
Chat was observed in the footprints where houses once stood (related to OU2) (Photographs 23 - 24, 51,
and 55 - 57).

During the site inspection, the chat washing operation and injection pilot study was observed at the
Sooner Chat Pile (Photographs 60 - 67). The constructed wetlands treatment system located southeast of
Commerce, constructed and operated by the University of Oklahoma, was also observed during the site
inspection (Photographs 68 - 75).

7.0 Technical Assessment

The five-year review must determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human health and the
environment. The EPA guidance lists three questions used to provide a framework for organizing and
evaluating data and information and to ensure all relevant issues are considered when determining the
protectiveness of a remedy. These questions are answered for the site in the following paragraphs. At the
end of the section is a summary of the technical assessment.

7.1 Question A: Is the Remedy Functioning as Intended by the Decision
Documents?

The documents that memorialize the remedy selection decisions for the site are the June 1984 ROD for
OU1, the August 1997 ROD for OU2, the March 2000 Action Memorandum for OU3, and the February
2008 ROD for OU4. O&M and the Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program are ongoing for OU1.
The RA for OU2 continues. OU3 was a removal response action and requires no further action. The
RD/RA for portions of the selected OU4 remedy began in 2009 This section discusses the RA
performance, O&M, costs, ICs, monitoring activities, opportunities for optimization, and early indicators
of potential remedy problems.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 45 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

RA Performance. Based on the data review, the site inspection, and the interviews, it appears that the
various Tar Creek Superfund Site remedies selected in the OU1 and OU2 RODs are functioning as
intended.

As noted in previous five-year reviews, the diking and diversion work performed as part of the OU1
remedy was not successful at reducing the discharges of acid mine water to Tar Creek. The first five-year
review documents the assessment of the remedy relative to surface water inflow into the mines and acid
mine water discharges from the mines. Although the diking and diversion structures did affect recharge
to the mines associated with rainfall events, discharges from the mines to Tar Creek were not reduced.
The diking and diversion portion of the remedy was at best only partially effective (EPA, 1994a). The
ODEQ has identified 19 wells at the site that are potentially completed in the Roubidoux aquifer. These
wells still require assessment to determine if the wells still exist and their location, as well as determining
if the wells are completed in the Roubidoux aquifer and if it is technically feasible to plug those wells
completed in the Roubidoux aquifer (ODEQ, 2006b).

The RA for OU2 is still in progress. Blood lead data collected from children at the site have
demonstrated that the OU2 remediation is effective, with only 2.8 percent of children between the ages of
one and five residing at the site having a blood lead level that exceeds 10 jj.g/dl. This percentage is
slightly higher than the average for the nation as whole (2.2 percent) (EPA, 2010a). Most actions for
OU2 have been completed, but there are still activities necessary to assess potential soil contamination
associated with chat present in alleyways and driveways in portions of Ottawa County outside the mining
area, and removed building footprints in residential areas associated with the voluntary relocation and
with several homes located in Miami that were bought out and removed due to flooding issues. Final
closure of the two soil repositories needs to be performed in accordance with the OU2 ROD once all RA
activities are completed, and the ICs stated in the OU2 ROD will need to be filed in the property records.

The voluntary relocation being performed by LICRAT and funded by EPA as part of the OU4 remedy is
in progress. The voluntary relocation will remove most residents from the most impacted portions of the
mining area and reduce the potential for exposure to site-related contamination. RA activities for OU4
began in late 2009.

Operation and Maintenance. The OU1 ROD discusses O&M costs related to the diking and diversion
portion of the selected remedy. O&M activities for the dikes and diverted creek channels are ongoing at

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 46 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

the site. The Muncie and Big John sites are located in Kansas and are within the Treece subsite of the
Cherokee County site. The dike around the Muncie site is being removed as part of the remedy for the
Treece Subsite and the subsidence feature is being filled in. The source materials in the area around the
Big John subsidence will be addressed in a similar manner. Removal of the subsidence features will
remove these pathways for surface water inflow into the mine workings, and the dikes will no longer be
necessary to divert surface water away from these locations. Continued O&M will no longer be required.
O&M at the Admiralty site, located in Oklahoma, should be performed to address the hole and erosion
noted in the dike during the site inspection.

The OU2 ROD calls for O&M to maintain the south repository and any supplemental ICs (discussed
below). Both soil repositories have been vegetated to prevent or reduce erosion. The OU2 ROD states
that a clean soil cap would be placed on those areas of the repositories where the soil lead concentrations
exceeded the remediation goal (500 ppm). The south repository is a former dry tailings pond that is
included in the RA for OU4 and may be capped according to the requirements of the OU4 ROD.

Costs of Operations and Maintenance. The OU1 ROD states that O&M costs related to the diking and
diversion portion of the selected remedy would be approximately $5,000 per year. No costs associated
with the Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program were provided in the OU1 ROD. No O&M costs
associated with the O&M of the Admiralty dike and stream diversion were provided by ODEQ as part of
this five-year review. Maintenance of the Muncie and Big John sites, located at the Cherokee County
Superfund Site, will no longer be required once the subsidence features are currently filled in as part of
the RA for the site. The dikes will no longer be required to prevent the flow of water into the subsidence
features. O&M at the Admiralty site is performed by the ODEQ. Costs for O&M associated with OU1
are not considered an issue relative to the protectiveness of the remedy. Maintenance of the dikes and
diversion channels has been minimal since the OU 1 RA was completed. The Roubidoux Ground Water
Monitoring Program has been revised through the years to obtain the data necessary to assess the water
quality of the aquifer. Sampling currently occurs on an annual basis to ensure that the drinking water
supply is safe.

The OU2 ROD states that O&M associated with maintaining the soil repositories and ICs would be
$60,000 per year. RA activities are ongoing, and no O&M costs have been incurred associated with OU2.

Implementation of ICs. ICs are generally defined as non-engineered instruments such as administrative
and legal tools that do not involve construction or physically changing the site and that help minimize the

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 47 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of a remedy by limiting land
and/or resource use (EPA, 2005). ICs can be used for many purposes including restriction of site use,
modifying behavior, and providing information to people (EPA, 2000). ICs may include deed notices,
easements, covenants, restrictions, or other conditions on deeds, and/or ground water and/or land use
restriction documents (EPA, 2001). The following paragraphs describe the ICs implemented at the site,
the potential effect of future land use plans on ICs, and any plans for changes to site contamination status.

The OU1 ROD did not call for the use of ICs (EPA, 1984).

Potential ICs for OU2 are listed in the OU2 ROD. These ICs may include:

1)	Restrictions and management controls on unsafe uses of mine tailings;

2)	Restrictions and management controls on activities that would cause recontamination of remediated
properties;

3)	Restrictions and management controls on activities that would contaminate clean site property with
mine tailings;

4)	Restrictions and management controls intended to prevent future exposure of children to unacceptable
levels of lead in the soil at new residential developments that are located in areas with high lead levels
in soil;

5)	Restrictions and management controls on building and construction activities in order to prevent
building and construction practices that would increase exposure to lead-contaminated soils;

6)	Restrictions and management controls on access to contaminated property through physical barriers
(e.g., fencing) or notices (e.g., warning signs);

7)	Public health and environmental ordinances and controls related to lead exposure and management of
mine tailings;

8)	Placing notices in property deeds regarding contamination;

9)	Sampling and analysis of lead sources;

10)	Blood lead monitoring;

11)	Health education; and,

12)	Lead-contaminated dust reduction activities (EPA, 1997).

The preceding ICs are optional under the OU2 ROD. The OU2 ROD stipulated that all ICs may not be
necessary, or that some would only be used in special circumstances as dictated by conditions
encountered at a specific property during the RA. In addition, the ROD stated that authorities of other

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 48 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

government entities might be required to implement some of the ICs (e. g. zoning restrictions would
require the municipal authority, lease restrictions might require DOI authority, etc). The ROD further
stated that many ICs, such as community-wide health education, community-wide blood lead monitoring,
and community-wide lead-contaminated dust reduction activities were appropriate for application in
residential areas throughout Ottawa County (EPA, 1997).

With respect to safe uses of mine tailings (item 1 above), chat is viewed as a commercial resource in the
community at the site. Continued chat sales is included as part of the final remedy for OU4. Prior to
signing the OU4 ROD, EPA promulgated regulations regarding the safe use of chat in transportation
construction projects (40 CFR 278). In selecting continued chat sales as part of the OU4 remedy, the
OU4 ROD requires that all site chat that is used, on-site or off-site, must be managed according to the
criteria provided in the Chat Rule, 40 CFR Part 278, and its preamble (including EPA's June 2007 fact
sheet; EPA530-F-07-016B). The Chat Rule regulations apply to transportation construction projects, and
the preamble guidance applies to non-transportation, non-residential projects. The Chat Rule and it
preamble were included in the OU4 ROD as requirements for the use of site chat (EPA, 2008).

The OU4 ROD further states that the chat sales program outlined in the OU4 ROD is part of the
CERCLA remedy, and activities undertaken in support of chat sales are undertaken pursuant to CERCLA
authority and are part of the CERCLA response action. Continued chat sales would contribute to a more
cost effective CERCLA remedy because it would result in less chat remaining on-site to be addressed
with more expensive remedial alternatives (i.e., remedial alternatives that are more costly than chat sales),
and continued chat sales would result in less chat disposed of on-site. The OU4 ROD stipulated that EPA
did not own any chat and would not purchase any chat. However, the EPA would provide guidance to
chat sales participants as part of the OU4 remedy (EPA, 2008). The EPA has conducted numerous
workshops with site stakeholders regarding chat sales and use (EPA, 2010a).

The ICs listed in items 9-12 above are currently being implemented through agreements between the
EPA and the ATSDR and OCHD or as part of the OU2 RA. The EPA funds the ASTDR and OCHD to
perform blood lead screening and health education activities at the site (EPA, 2010a). During the site
inspection conducted for this five-year review, it was noticed that numerous signs were posted in various
public areas at the site warning of the dangers associated with lead contamination and chat. Outside of the
RA work, lead-contaminated dust reduction activities are part of the community education efforts. Once
the RA activities for OU2 are completed, the EPA will work with the various authorities (city, county,

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 49 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

state, and federal) to implement any of the additional listed ICs necessary to maintain the protectiveness
of the remedy.

ICs for OU4 are listed in the OU4 ROD. The ROD specifies ICs to restrict use of properties where
covered fine tailings or on-site repositories are located, and properties acquired via the voluntary
relocation by filing of deeds of notice and easement. In addition, the ROD requires an IC to restrict future
uses of ground water from the portion of the Boone aquifer and any shallower ground water that is
impacted with site-related contaminants above the Final Remediation Goals for potable or domestic
supply. The OU4 ROD requires that ground water be restricted via the OWQS Title 785, Chapter 45,
Appendix H. Appendix H states that the Boone aquifer in Ottawa County is a Class II ground water
source suitable for use as a water supply, for agriculture, and municipal and industrial processes. This
information is amended with a remark stating "Toxic metals, special well construction required".
However, the method of special well construction is not specified, nor is any statement made regarding
how the toxic metals are to be discovered or addressed if they are found in ground water. The most recent
revision of Chapter 45 was released May 27, 2008, and according to the OWRB website the next revision,
which does not address the point above, is anticipated to be released in 2010 (EPA, 2008, OWRB, 2008).
The OU4 RI only found two private wells that were impacted above the Final Remediation Goals that are
being used as drinking water sources. These two residents are to be provided an alternate drinking water
supply as part of the OU4 RA (AATA, 2005).

Monitoring Activities. The Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program continues under OU1. The
program is implemented by ODEQ and funded by EPA to assess and monitor the effectiveness of the well
plugging portion of the remedy in terms of protection of the Roubidoux aquifer. The data collected
through the sampling indicates that the Roubidoux aquifer is impacted locally by acid mine water. The
mechanism for acid mine water migration into the Roubidoux is not totally clear. To-date, the data
collected regarding the connection between the Boone and Roubidoux aquifers indicate that the primary
pathway for ground water and contaminants to migrate into the Roubidoux aquifer from the Boone
aquifer and mine workings has been through abandoned wells, wells that have faulty casings and/or poor
seals across the Boone Formation, and through unplugged abandoned boreholes (CH2M HILL, 2008,
and ODEQ, 2006b). The statistical trend analysis performed on the data collected between 2002 and
2006 suggests that the water quality in the Roubidoux is stable with respect to the analytes monitored and
with respect to the indicator parameters (CH2M HILL, 2007e). The drinking water supplied from the
Roubidoux aquifer in the mining area continues to meet the health-based primary drinking water
standards (MCLs), and it is still considered safe for use as a drinking water supply.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 50 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Opportunities for Optimization. O&M to maintain the dikes and diversion channels at the Muncie and
Big John sites will no longer be necessary as a result of the RA for the Treece Subsite of the Cherokee
County site. The ODEQ is responsible for O&M of the dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty Mine
Site. The third five-year review states that the O&M Plan for this site dates to 1987 and should be
updated. No O&M Plan document was available as part of this five-year review. Opportunities to
optimize O&M activities at the Admiralty site were not examined due to the lack of an updated written
plan. O&M for OU2 will begin once the RA construction activities are completed.

The ODEQ continues to implement Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program. The program
includes sampling of 14 wells annually (ODEQ, 2009a). Previous sampling was performed semi-
annually. The reduction in sampling frequency is appropriate and reduces costs associated with the
sampling efforts. In over 20 years of monitoring the Roubidoux aquifer, no public drinking water supply
wells have exhibited concentrations above MCLs. The remedy could be further optimized by performing
statistical and trends analyses on the data collected since 1987 to assess the long-term trends and changes
in the water quality of the Roubidoux. Such an analysis could be used to justify further changes to the
monitoring program such as reduced sampling frequency, sampling fewer wells, and for making
recommendations on continuing the sampling program in the future.

Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems. As noted in Section 6.6, a small collapse exists in the
diversion dike at the Admiralty Mine site, and some minor erosion has occurred on the upstream face of
the dike. No other problems were noted during the site inspection.

As noted in previous five-year reviews, the discharges of acid mine water to Tar Creek have not
decreased significantly since the construction of the dikes and diversion channels.

An IC restricting domestic and potable use of ground water from the Boone aquifer and shallow ground
water containing concentrations of site-related contaminants that exceed the final remediation goal, as
stated in the OU4 ROD, has not been put in place.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 51 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

7.2 Question B: Are the Exposure Assumptions, Toxicity Data, Cleanup Levels,
and Remedial Action Objectives Used at the Time of the Remedy Selection Still
Valid?

This section addresses changes in environmental standards, newly promulgated standards, and To-Be-
Considereds (TBCs), changes in exposure pathways, and changes in toxicity and other contaminant
characteristics during the five-year review period, and progress toward meeting Remedial Action
Objectives (RAOs). Changes in promulgated standards or TBCs and assumptions used in the original
definition of the RA may indicate an adjustment in the remedy is necessary to ensure the protectiveness of
the remedy.

Changes in Exposure Pathways. There have been no changes in exposure pathways for the Tar Creek
Superfund Site since completion of the third five-year review. Future land uses are not expected to
change, and agricultural uses and rural residential uses will remain dominant on the site. A change is
expected for residential and commercial settings in areas included in the voluntary relocation. Future land
use of the properties that are purchased as part of the voluntary relocation effort being conducted by
LICRAT is stipulated in LICRAT's enabling legislation. A restriction is required for these properties
which shall run with the land on the property deed. The restriction will contain a provision that the
property may not be occupied by children six years of age and younger until the State formally
determines that the area is safe for children of such an age. The voluntary relocation effort will reduce
human health exposure pathways to site-related contaminants. As described below, the OWRB lowered
the designated use of Tar Creek. In addition, no new contaminants or routes of exposure have been
identified for OUs 1, 2, 3, or 4 as part of this five-year review. Finally, risk assessment methodology has
not changed significantly since issuance of the OU2 ROD in August 1997 or the OU4 ROD in 2007, such
that the protectiveness of the remedies might be called into question.

Subsequent to the issuance of the OU1 ROD, the State of Oklahoma concluded that the impacts to Tar
Creek (i.e., impaired water chemistry and habitat) rendered the stream not adequate to support a "Warm
Water Aquatic Community." The OWRB, the agency charged with setting Water Quality Standards for
the State of Oklahoma, has also concluded that the impacts to Tar Creek are due to "irreversible
man-made damages" resulting from past mining operations at the site.

To reflect this conclusion, the OWRB in 1985 lowered the designated uses of Tar Creek to a habitat
limited fishery and to a secondary recreation water body. The OWRB's reference to "irreversible
man-made damages" is a simplified rephrasing of the following language: "human caused conditions or

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 52 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and cannot be remedied." This wording is taken
from paragraph 785:45-5-12 (b) (3) of the OWQS. Irreversible man made conditions are one of the
allowable justifications for lowering a stream's classification from warm water fishery to a habitat-limited
fishery.

The secondary recreation water body designation allows for uses where ingestion of water is not
anticipated (e.g., boating, fishing, or wading). The OWQS associated with these designated uses are not
being met in Tar Creek at present. In particular, the pH standard and the numerical criteria for toxic
substances (e.g., heavy metals) which apply to all fishery classifications, including habitat-limited
fisheries, are not being met. (The pH relates to the acidity of the water. Lower pH means more acidic
conditions. A pH of 7 is neutral, neither acidic nor alkaline.)

The OU1 ROD contained numerous findings relative to the conditions and risks posed by contaminants
from the site. The OU1 ROD specifically stated that:

• Fish fillet samples from the mouth of Tar Creek, the Neosho River, the Spring River, and Grand Lake
are safe for human consumption.

• The sediments provide a long-term sink for metals that effectively removes the metals from most
biological processes.

Additional data collection efforts at the site call into question the above statements that were made in the
OU1 ROD. The OU1 ROD's exposure assumptions and the OU1 ROD's discussion of potential risks
posed to human health and the environment for surface water and sediments at the site are no longer
valid. Recent site data demonstrate that potential risks to human health exist through consumption of fish
caught from Tar Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers, and Grand Lake. Metals contained within site
sediments are biologically available and pose risks to ecological receptors. The narrative and numerical
criteria in the OWQS are designed to maintain and protect the beneficial surface water use classification
of "Fish and Wildlife Propagation". Under the OWQS there are numerical "Toxic Substance"
concentration limits for surface water with both "acute" and "chronic" standards listed. Under 785 OAC
45 OWQS, "acute toxicity" means the surface water concentration of atoxic substance is such that it
means greater than or equal to 50% lethality to appropriate test organisms in a test sample. Under those
same standards, "chronic toxicity" means the surface water concentration of a toxic substance is such that
there is a statistically significant difference (at the 95% confidence level) between longer-term survival
and/or reproduction or growth of the appropriate test organisms in a test sample and a control.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 53 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Teratogenicity and mutagenicity are considered to be effects of chronic toxicity. In Tar Creek, Lytle
Creek, and Elm Creek at the Tar Creek Site, EPA found that cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in
surface water samples exceed the OWQS chronic toxicity standard, and zinc concentrations also exceed
the acute toxicity standard.

Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics. The BHHRA for OU2 identified lead as the
only site-related chemical of concern. The cleanup level of 500 mg/kg for lead in soils meets the EPA's
goal of limiting soil lead levels such that a typical (or hypothetical) child or group of similarly exposed
children would have an estimated risk of no more than 5 percent exceeding the 10 (ig/dL. This blood-lead
level was established by the CDC as a level of concern at which scientists studying large populations
observed adverse health effects, including problems with learning and behavior, in groups of children
with blood lead elevations at or above this level. Lead affects multiple target systems in adults and
children; however, young children (generally seven years of age and younger) are at greatest risk from the
effects of lead. The EPA's guidance on establishing cleanup levels for lead in soil has not changed (EPA,
1994b) so the site-specific cleanup level of 500 mg/kg is still suitable.

The BHHRA for OU4 identified lead as the primary chemical of concern and determined that addressing
exposure from lead will also be protective for cadmium and zinc exposure. At OU4, areas contaminated
with source material are subject to frequent recreational use by adolescents. The EPA selected a
remediation goal for adults that will ensure that a fetus of a woman of childbearing age will have no
greater than a 5% chance of having a blood lead level greater than 10 (ig/dL. The adult lead model (ALM)
was used with site-specific exposure assumptions to come up with a preliminary remediation goal for lead
in soil. The ALM predicts that a 500 ppm remediation goal for lead in source materials will protect
adolescents who use these areas for recreation, because it provides protection to the more sensitive future
fetuses of female adolescents who use these areas for recreation. As explained in the OU2 ROD, the 500
ppm remediation goal will also be protective for younger children in the event they come in direct contact
with source material. EPA's guidance on establishing cleanup levels for lead in soil has not changed so
the site-specific cleanup level of 500 mg/kg is still suitable (EPA, 1994b).

Since the BHHRA for OU4 was performed, the only change in toxicity values for cadmium and zinc is
the inhalation reference concentration (RfC) for cadmium. In the BHHRA, the value of 2.0E-04
milligram per cubic meter (mg/m3) from National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) was
used to estimate risk. The cadmium RfC has been updated in EPA's Regional Screening Levels (RSL)
table (EPA 2009) to 1.0E-05 mg/m3 from ATSDR. This update would affect the inhalation of ambient air

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 54 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

pathway hazard estimates provided in the BHHRA. The hazard estimates would be slightly
underestimates. Since the hazard estimates associated with this pathway are well below the noncancer
threshold of 1 (0.00091 for the current general public and 0.00061 for the current and future residents
including subsistence activities), the updated toxicity value does not affect the conclusions or
recommendations of the risk assessment.

Changes in Environmental Standards. Newly Promulgated Standards, and To-Be-Considereds. ARARs
for this site were identified in the RODs for OU1, OU2 and OU4. This five-year review included
identification of and evaluation of changes in the ROD-specified ARARs and TBCs to determine whether
such changes may affect the protectiveness of the selected remedy. The ARARs and TBCs identified by
the RODs for the Tar Creek Superfund Site include chemical-, action- and location- requirements. These
ARARs and TBCs are described below.

QUI ROD (signed on June 6.1984)

Chemical-Specific Requirements:

No contaminant-specific requirements were identified in the ROD.

Action-Specific Requirements:

No action-specific requirements were identified in the ROD.

Location-Specific Requirements:

1. Executive Order on Floodplain Management, Executive Order No. 11988.

2. Executive Order on Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order No. 11990.

The first five-year review report identified the additional following ARARs for the OU1 remedy:

Chemical-Specific Requirements:

1. OWQS, Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 785:45.

2. Regulations regarding the discharge of wastewater to surface waters, Water Quality Criteria, 40 CFR
131.

3. National Primary Drinking Water Standards, 40 CFR 141.

4. National Secondary Drinking Water Standards, 40 CFR 143.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 55 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

OU2 ROD (signed on August 27.1997)

Chemical-Specific Requirements:

No chemical-specific requirements were identified in the ROD.

Action-Specific Requirements:

1. Regulations regarding the transportation of hazardous materials, 49 CFR 107, and 171-177.

2. CWA requirements regarding the use of BMPs and monitoring of discharges to assure compliance
with effluent discharge limitations, 40 CFR 122.41 and 125.100.

3. Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements to control particulate emissions to ambient air, 40 CFR 50 and 60.

Location-Specific Requirements:

1. National Historic Preservation Act requirements to minimize effects to historic landmarks and to
coordinate activities with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), 16 USC 470, et. Seq, and
40 CFR 6.301.

2. Archeological and Historic Preservation Act requirements to minimize effects on historical and
archeological data and to coordinate activities with the SHPO, 16 USC 469, 40 CFR 6.301(b), and 36
CFR 800.

3. Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act requirements to avoid undesirable impacts to such
landmarks and to coordinate activities with the SHPO, 16 USC 461-467, and 40 CFR 6.301(a).

4. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Federal Migratory Bird Act, and Oklahoma Wildlife Statutes
regulations and requirements requiring that endangered species and their habitat be conserved, and
that consultation occur with the DOI and the Oklahoma State Department of Wildlife if such areas are
affected, 16 USC 1531-1543, 50 CFR Parts 17 and 402, 40 CFR 6.302(h), 16 USC 703-712, and
Oklahoma Statutes Title 29, Section 5-412.

5. Oklahoma Water Statutes limitations on the placement or discharge of deleterious, noxious, or toxic
substances into affected waters of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Statutes Title 29, Section 7-401.

6. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and CWA Section 404 requirements related to the Nationwide Permit
for discharge of dredged or fill materials, 33 CFR 330 and 33 USC 1344.

OU4 ROD (sipned on February 20. 2008)

Chemical-Specific Requirements:

1. Federal Safe Drinking Water Act MCL of 0.015 mg/L for lead, 40 CFR 141.8.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 56 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Action-Specific Requirements:

1. Regulations regarding the transportation of hazardous materials, 49 CFR 107, and 171-177.

2. CWA requirements regarding the use of pollution prevention plans (PPPs) and BMPs and monitoring
of discharges to assure compliance with effluent discharge limitations, 40 CFR 122.26.

3. CAA requirements to control particulate emissions to ambient air, 40 CFR 50.6 (PMi0) and 50.12
(Lead).

4. SDWA addressing the UIC regulations for a Class V injection well, regarding injection of source
materials into mine rooms, 40 CFR 144 UIC Program.

5. Oklahoma Solid Waste Management Act, monitoring of injected fluid, 27A O.S. § 2-6-701 et seq.,
Management of Solid Waste, Title 252 OAC, Chapter 652 UIC.

6. CWA, a watershed-based approach will be taken to address the potential effects RAs may have on the
local watersheds, §404 33 CFR 320-330 and 40 CFR 230.

7. OWQS, monitoring wells installed during RA will be designed to comply with standards, OAC
785:45 Appendix H Beneficial Use Designations for Certain Limited Areas of Ground Water.

8. Oklahoma Statutes, ODEQ will file the deed notice upon completion of construction at each
individual property requiring engineering controls, 27A § 2-7-123(B).

9. Oklahoma Solid Waste Management Act and Management of Solid Waste, the design and
construction of the repositories and covers for fine tailing ponds in the remedy will comply with
established requirements, 27A O.S. § 2-10-101 et seq., Title 252 OAC, Chapter 515.

Location-Specific Requirements:

1. National Historic Preservation Act requirements to minimize effects to historic landmarks, 16 USC
470, et. Seq, and 40 CFR 6.301(b).

2. Endangered Species Act of 1973 regulations and requirements requiring that endangered species and
their habitat be conserved, 16 USC 1531-1544, 40 CFR 6.302(h).

ARARs Involving Activities that are No Longer Occurring. The requirements listed below, which
were previously identified as ARARs, apply to activities that are not currently taking place at the site or
conditions that do not currently exist. Therefore, as a practical matter, they are not applicable to site
remediation. However, should additional construction activities occur that affects flood plains or
wetlands, these ARARs may be applicable.

The following ARARs are only applicable to the construction of the diking and diversion structures, and
this construction is no longer occurring at the site.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 57 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

1. Executive Order on Floodplain Management, Executive Order No. 11988.

2. Executive Order on Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order No. 11990.

Interpretation, Changes, and Revisions to Guidance and Regulations. The ODEQ, OWRB, and the
Federal regulations have not been revised to the extent that the effectiveness of the remedy at the site
would be called into question. No new regulations have been issued by the State of Oklahoma or the
Federal government that would call into question the effectiveness of the remedy.

The EPA removed and reserved the regulations regarding BMPs at 40 CFR 125.100. Notice of the change
was provided in the Federal Register (FR) on May 15, 2000 (see 65 FR 94 30886-30913). The EPA
removed these regulations because the provisions under 40 CFR 125 Subpart K had never been activated.
Also, the EPA determined that the requirements for implementing BMPs were better accomplished under
the regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(k). The requirements of this regulation are applicable to the RA for
OU2 at the site in regards to the use of BMPs to limit storm water discharges of pollutants.

Progress Toward Meeting the RAOs. The well plugging efforts performed for OU1 have been effective
at removing this pathway for migration of acid mine water into the Roubidoux aquifer. Although data
indicates the Roubidoux aquifer is impacted locally, primary drinking water standards have not been
exceeded in public water supply wells, and the Roubidoux aquifer remains a usable source of drinking
water.

The OU2 RA has attained the RAOs where remediation has been completed. Data indicate that the
percentage of children residing at the site with elevated blood lead levels has declined significantly since
the OU2 RA began. The OU2 RA is ongoing, and the remaining areas of the site to be addressed will
meet the RAOs once the RA is complete.

7.3 Question C: Has any Other Information Come to Light that Could Call into
Question the Protectiveness of the Remedy

The type of other information that might call into question the protectiveness of the remedy include
potential future land use changes in the vicinity of the site or other expected changes in site conditions or
exposure pathways. No other information has come to light as part of this fourth five-year review for the
site that would call into question the protectiveness of the site remedy. Site investigations associated with
OU5 are ongoing, and may identify additional exposure pathways to be addressed by a future ROD to be
issued for OU5.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 58 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

7.4 Summary of the Technical Assessment

The technical assessment, based on the data review, site inspection, technical evaluation, and interviews
indicates that the RAs selected for the Tar Creek Superfund Site have been implemented as intended by
the decision documents. Various other Federal, State, Tribal, and local government agencies are
conducting studies and carrying out actions at the site to address the many environmental, health, and
safety concerns associated with the site. The MOU signed between the USEPA, the US ACE, and the
DOI has brought together the Federal, State, Tribal, and local government and community stakeholders at
the site. This has resulted in better communication and coordination of site activities between the various
stakeholders to address the various issues associated with the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The cooperation
of the various governmental agencies has led to coordinated use of the statutory and regulatory authorities
of each to better address the complex issues at the site.

The ODEQ completed a follow-up fish tissue study of the site and downstream areas. Separate advisory
levels were determined for both residents living within and those living outside of the Tar Creek area
using different background exposure assumptions (ODEQ, 2007a). As a result of the study, results were
compiled into a revised fish consumption advisory that was released August 5, 2008. The advisory
breaks out fish consumption suggestions on an easy-to-read chart for residents and non-residents of Tar
Creek based on type of fish and location from which fish was caught (ODEQ, 2008c). This study is an
indication that consumption of fish does pose a potential risk to human health, which contradicts the
finding of the OU1 ROD.

An Advanced Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) was performed for the Tri-State
Mining District (TSMD) as a whole, including the Tar Creek Superfund Site. This study indicated that
contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) present in surface water, sediments, pore water, and soils
within riparian and aquatic habitats posed a potential risk to ecological receptors at the site. The Detailed
Ecological Risk Assessment indicated that exposure to metals in sediments poses moderate to high risks
to benthic invertebrates at approximately 45% of the locations sampled during the study, including
portions of Tar Creek and Lytle Creek.

An integrated site assessment and investigation of Tar, Lytle, Elm and Beaver Creeks took place in March
2009. Surface water, pore water, and sediment sampling was performed to evaluate impacts to site
streams from source materials. The results show that the majority of local streams have been adversely
impacted by the deposition of coarse chat in the streams from previous mining activities at the Site.
Concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc range from the tens to tens of thousands of milligrams per

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 59 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

kilogram (mg/kg) in local stream sediments, and measure in the micrograms per liter in local stream
surface water. Forty-six percent of the cadmium and lead surface water samples taken from Tar Creek
exceeded the chronic threshold levels for fish and wildlife propagation. All of the zinc surface water
samples in Tar Creek exceeded the acute threshold levels for fish and wildlife propagation in the OWQS.

The exposure assumptions in the OU1 ROD and the OU1 ROD's description of potential risks posed to
human health and the environment by contaminated surface water and contaminated sediments at the site
are no longer valid. Recent site data demonstrate that potential risks to human health exist if fish caught in
site area streams are consumed by humans. Other recent findings show that metals contained within site
sediments are biologically available and pose risks to ecological receptors. The concentrations of
contaminants in Tar Creek continue to exceed the OWQS. Analytical results of the OU5 investigations of
the surface water in Tar Creek indicate that levels of cadmium, lead, and zinc exceed OWQS for chronic
threshold levels for fish and wildlife propagation. Additionally, all 28 samples exceed the OWQS acute
threshold level for fish and wildlife propagation for zinc.

The drinking water supplied from the Roubidoux aquifer in the mining area meets the MCLs, and it is
safe for use as a drinking water supply. The Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program continues to
monitor the aquifer to evaluate the effectiveness of the well plugging portion of the OU1 remedy at
preventing acid mine water migration from the Boone aquifer to the Roubidoux aquifer. The data
gathered since completion of the RA indicates that the Roubidoux aquifer is impacted locally by acid
mine water. The statistical trend analysis of the data collected between 2003 and 2006 indicates that the
aquifer is relatively stable with respect to the analytes sampled for, including the indicator parameters
(CH2M HILL, 2007e). The OU 1 ROD did not establish triggers that would indicate acid mine water has
impacted the Roubidoux aquifer. Three indicator parameters and background concentrations and tolerance
limit values were determined during an early phase of the Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program.
It should be noted that neither the EPA nor ODEQ have identified any public drinking water wells at the
site that fail to meet the MCLs established under the SDWA. That is, the drinking water at the site is safe
for all uses.

The OU 1 ROD stipulated that the EPA would evaluate the need to plug additional abandoned wells at the
site as they were identified. The ODEQ has identified 19 wells that need to be evaluated for plugging.
The actual existence of each well still needs to be verified and the wells located. Each well will need to
be assessed to verify that the well is completed in the Roubidoux aquifer and to determine the technical
feasibility of abandoning each well completed in the Roubidoux aquifer (ODEQ, 2006c).

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 60 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

At the time of the site inspection, one area of collapse was observed on the dike constructed at the
Admiralty site. Minor erosion was also present on the upstream face of the dike next to the collapse. This
collapse was not large enough to allow water to pass through the dike at the time of the site inspection. A
similar collapse was noted during the site inspection conducted as part of the third five-year review. The
third five-year review indicated that the collapse was repaired, and it is unclear if the current collapse was
at the same location or a different location. The erosion and collapse require repair. The O&M Plan for
this site dates to 1987 and should be updated.

The remediation work conducted under the RA for OU2 is still ongoing. Chat has been identified in
alleyways and driveways in areas of Ottawa County outside of the mining area, including the City of
Miami. Chat has also been observed in the footprints of demolished homes associated with the voluntary
relocation and homes demolished due to flooding in the City of Miami. There is still some OU2 RA work
to be completed in Commerce. Once the OU2 RA actions are completed, the soil repositories will have to
be closed in accordance with the requirements of the OU2 ROD and ICs filed on the properties.

Community education efforts are conducted at the site to alert the local residents to the health risks
associated with lead contamination. An ATSDR study indicates that in 2003, 2.8% of children at the site
have blood lead levels above 10 jj.g/dl (ATSDR, 2004a). The EPA continues to fund ATSDR and OCHD
to provide continuing education efforts and blood lead monitoring associated with the site (EPA, 2010a).

The voluntary relocation being performed by LICRAT is in progress and anticipated to be completed in
2010. The voluntary relocation will remove most of the residents from the most impacted areas at the site,
reducing the risk of exposure to site contaminants. Chat sales will continue to safely remove source
materials from the site, limiting the volume of chat that will have to be addressed as part of the OU4 RA
and limiting the land area that will be restricted as part of the OU4 RA.

The OU4 ROD requires that ground water be restricted via the OWQS Title 785, Chapter 45, Appendix
H. Appendix H states that the Boone aquifer in Ottawa County is a Class II ground water source suitable
for use as a water supply, for agriculture, and municipal and industrial processes. This information is
amended with a remark stating "Toxic metals, special well construction required". However, the method
of special well construction is not specified, nor is any statement made regarding how the toxic metals are
to be discovered or addressed if they are found in water (EPA, 2008, OWRB, 2008).

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 61 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

8.0 Issues

The O&M and Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program for OU1, the OU2 RA, and the OU4 RD
and RA are ongoing at the site. Based on the fourth five-year review data review, site inspection,
interviews and technology assessment, it appears the selected remedies are functioning in a manner that is
consistent with the decision documents (except as noted regarding the dikes and diversion work portions
of the OU1 remedy which are not significantly reducing mine water discharges to Tar Creek). To ensure
continued protectiveness, six issues are identified in the following paragraphs.

The sixth issue currently affects protectiveness in that Appendix H of the OWQS, 785 OAC 45 does not
address restrictions on the use of ground water from the Boone aquifer and shallower ground water in
areas impacted above remediation goals as called for in the OU4 ROD.

These issues are also summarized in Table 6.

1. No O&M Plan exists for the dike and diversion channel for the Admiralty Mine Site (this issue
is carried over from the third five-year review). The ODEQ's O&M Plan for the dike and
diversion channel constructed at the Admiralty Mine Site as part of the OU 1 remedy was written in
1987 and facts have arisen that make it outdated. The ODEQ is responsible for maintaining the dike
and diversion channel at the Admiralty Mine Site, as part of ODEQ's O&M for OU 1. The dike at the
Admiralty site requires some maintenance to repair damage noted during the site inspection and
mowing.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 62 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Program has collected data for a period of over 20 years since the RA to plug abandoned Roubidoux
wells was completed. In the past, it was believed that the Roubidoux aquifer was being impacted by
the mine water; however, only certain indicator parameters were found, and subsequent data
collection over twenty years has not found any more reason to believe that the mine water is
degrading the Roubidoux. It should be noted that neither EPA nor ODEQ have identified any public
drinking water wells at the site that fail to meet the health-based primary drinking water standards
(Maximum Contaminant Levels or MCLs) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
and the drinking water supplied from the Roubidoux at the site is safe for all uses. Nonetheless, all
available information indicates that the primary mechanism for mine water to enter the Roubidoux
aquifer is infiltration through unplugged abandoned wells or infiltration through wells that have faulty
well casings and/or poor seals across the Boone Formation; consequently, it is essential that plugging
of abandoned wells continue.

3. ODEQ research has found references to 19 abandoned wells that need to be assessed for
plugging (this issue is carried over from the third five-year review). The OU1 ROD recognized
that additional abandoned wells completed in the Roubidoux aquifer might be identified after
completion of the OU1 RA. The ROD stated that the need to plug additional wells would be
evaluated as wells were identified. The existence of the wells found by ODEQ's research in historic
documents has not been verified. Field work will be necessary to verify the existence of these wells
and to determine whether they are completed in the Roubidoux aquifer.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 63 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

also gathered data from fish tissue. Based on this data, the assumptions on which the OU1 ROD fund
balancing ARAR's waiver were based are no longer valid. The OU1 ROD stated that fillets of fish
caught from the mouth of Tar Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers, and Grand Lake were safe to eat.
However, recent ODEQ data have demonstrated that potential risk to human health exists through
consumption of fish caught from Tar Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers, and Grand Lake. The
OU 1 ROD also stated that the sediments in Tar Creek provide a long-term sink for metals that
effectively removes the metals from most biological processes. However, the advanced SLERA
documented a moderate to high risk to ecological receptors from sediment and surface water
contamination associated with the site. Data from ongoing OU5 investigations of surface water and
sediment show that metals concentrations in surface water in site streams continue to exceed the
OWQS for its lowered designated beneficial uses.

6. Institutional Controls (ICs) restricting the use of shallow ground water have not been put in
place as called for in the OU4 ROD. The OU4 ROD calls for ICs restricting the use of the Boone
aquifer and also restricting the use of any ground water that is shallower than the Boone. Specifically,
the ROD calls for ICs restricting the potable and domestic use of such ground water where
concentrations of site-related contaminants exceed the remediation goals established in the ROD.
The IC is to be implemented through the OWQS (785 OAC 45 Appendix H). Appendix H of the
OWQS states that toxic metals are present and that special well construction methods are required
within the OU4 boundary due to contamination in the Boone aquifer, but there are currently no
limitations placed on the use of ground water from the Boone aquifer (or other shallower ground
water) for potable use, including domestic supply.

9.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

As described in the previous section, six issues were identified during the fourth five-year review for this

site. To address these issues, the following recommendations and follow-up actions have been defined.

The recommendations are also summarized in Table 7.

1. Develop an O&M Plan for the dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty site. The ODEQ

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 64 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

indicates when the O&M Plan will be revised and when the necessary maintenance will be
completed. This follow-up action should be completed no later than September 2012.

4. Remaining actions should be taken to complete the OU2 RA. These actions include, but may not

be limited to: l)assessment of chat in driveways and alleyways in areas of Ottawa County, including
Miami, that are outside of the mining area (approximately 450 in Miami and 50 in other areas of
Ottawa County); 2) assessment of the footprints of homes demolished as part of the voluntary
relocation (approximately 450 properties); 3) remediation of residential properties located outside of
the boundary of the OU4 voluntary buyout, where access was previously denied, and where soil lead
concentrations exceed the remediation goal established in the OU2 ROD (approximately 140
properties). Owners of residential properties where access was previously denied will be offered a
final opportunity to have their property re-sampled and remediated if necessary. The next five-year
review should also consider whether OU2 can be deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL).

This deletion of OU2 from the NPL would be a partial deletion of the site. This follow-up action
should be completed by September 2015.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 65 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

5. The EPA should complete the evaluation of current surface water and sediment data for Tar
Creek to verify that no unacceptable risks to human health and the environment exist in Tar
Creek. Numerous studies have been conducted since the third five-year review. These studies have
collected surface water and sediment data in Tar Creek and other site streams. If necessary, the EPA
should collect enough additional data to determine whether potential risks are posed to human health
and the environment by the surface water and sediments in streams of the Tar Creek site. The risks
should be quantified through a risk assessment. If unacceptable risks are identified, then potential
remedial alternatives will be evaluated to address the identified risks. Potential remedial alternatives
may include engineered remedies, such as passive treatment through constructed wetlands. A
determination may also be made that it is still technically impractical to address surface water and
sediment through an engineered remedy and/or that no further action is required. The risk assessment
portion of this follow-up action should be completed by September 2012. If necessary, an evaluation
of remedial alternatives should be completed by September 2014 (prior to the next five-year review).

6. The IC restricting potable and domestic use of shallow ground water including the Boone
aquifer as specified in the OU4 ROD should be implemented. The OU4 ROD calls for ICs
restricting the use of the Boone aquifer and also restricting the use of any ground water that is
shallower than the Boone. Specifically, the ROD calls for ICs restricting the potable and domestic use
of such ground water where concentrations of site-related contaminants exceed the remediation goals
established in the ROD. The IC is to be implemented through the OWQS (785 OAC 45 Appendix
H). Appendix H of the OWQS states that toxic metals are present and that special well construction
methods are required within the OU4 boundary due to contamination in the Boone aquifer, but there
are currently no limitations placed on the use of ground water from the Boone aquifer (or other
shallower ground water) for potable use, including domestic supply. The ODEQ has indicated that it
will explore placing a restriction in Appendix H of the OWQS limiting ground water use from the
mine pool and the Boone aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the mine pool for public water supply,
or domestic use. The ODEQ's restriction will include treatment requirements to remove any lead
above the MCL of 15 micrograms per liter. EPA suggests that the State of Oklahoma review this IC.
This follow-up action should be completed by September 2011.

10.0 Protectiveness Statement

The remedies implemented for the Tar Creek Superfund Site are protective of human health and the
environment, except as noted in this five-year review regarding the need for further assessment of
potential surface water and sediment impacts on human health and the environment.

The OU1 remedy addressed the primary route of potential human exposure by protecting the Roubidoux

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 66 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

aquifer, and, in this way, preventing the possibility that hazardous substances would be ingested in
drinking water. Sampling data indicate that the Roubidoux aquifer continues to meet all health-based
primary drinking water standards at currently operating municipal wells.

Some of the exposure assumptions and the potential risks posed to human health and the environment for
surface water and sediments at the site that were stated in the OU1 ROD are no longer valid. Recent fish
tissue data collected by ODEQ demonstrate that potential risks to human health exist through
consumption of fish caught from Tar Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers, and Grand Lake. Metals
contained within site sediments are biologically available and pose risks to ecological receptors. The
concentrations of site-related contaminants in Tar Creek surface water continue to exceed the OWQS.
The narrative and numerical criteria in the OWQS are designed to maintain and protect the beneficial
surface water use classification of "Fish and Wildlife Propagation". Under the OWQS there are
numerical "Toxic Substance" concentration limits for surface water with both "acute" and "chronic"
standards listed. Under 785 OAC 45 OWQS, "acute toxicity" means the surface water concentration of a
toxic substance is such that it means greater than or equal to 50% lethality to appropriate test organisms in
a test sample. Under those same standards, "chronic toxicity" means the surface water concentration of a
toxic substance is such that there is a statistically significant difference (at the 95% confidence level)
between longer-term survival and/or reproduction or growth of the appropriate test organisms in a test
sample and a control. Teratogenicity and mutagenicity are considered to be effects of chronic toxicity. In
Tar Creek, Lytle Creek, and Elm Creek at the Tar Creek Site, EPA found that cadmium, lead, and zinc
concentrations in surface water samples exceed the OWQS chronic toxicity standard, and zinc
concentrations also exceed the acute toxicity standard. Finally, initial construction costs for the
constructed passive wetland southeast of Commerce are considered reasonable and may be an
economically feasible engineered remedy for contaminated surface water at the site. Long-term O&M
costs for such a passive wetlands system still require further evaluation. For these reasons, the fund
balancing ARARs waiver contained in the OU 1 ROD may no longer be appropriate, and should be
reevaluated.

The remedy being implemented for OU2 is protective of human health and the environment in all areas
where remediation has been completed. A total of over 2,295 properties have been remediated during the
OU2 RA and during the removal actions that preceded the RA. Remaining items needed to complete the
remedy are being evaluated. The RA for OU2 is ongoing and is scheduled to be completed by the next
five-year review. Human health and the environment are being protected by the remedy for OU2.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 67 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

The action implemented during the Removal Action for OU3 is protective of human health and the
environment. The laboratory chemicals left at the former Eagle-Picher Office Complex were removed
from the site and properly disposed of.

The RD and RA for OU4 are currently being conducted. The voluntary relocation is in progress and
anticipated to be completed in 2010, and chat sales continue at the site. Under OU4, Appendix H of the
OWQS 785 OAC 45 does not limit use of the ground water from the Boone aquifer as called for in the
OU4 ROD. The OU4 Remedial Investigation (RI) identified 13 private wells completed in the Boone
aquifer at the site that were being used as a source of drinking water. Of the 13 wells, testing showed that
concentrations of site-related contaminants exceeded remediation goals in only two of the on-site private
wells. The OU4 ROD includes provisions for these two residences to be provided with an alternate
drinking water supply as part of the OU4 RA. Action to address the IC in the OU4 ROD with respect to
restricting potable and domestic use of shallow ground water and ground water from the Boone aquifer
still need to be taken. The OU4 remedy will be protective of human health and the environment once
completed.

Investigations are currently being conducted for OU5.

With the exceptions noted above for OU1, the completed RAs, Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring
Program, and O&M activities for the Tar Creek Superfund Site are all protective for the short term due to
the implementation of the 2008 fish consumption advisory for OU1 and because the population most at
risk has been relocated under OU4. The remedies will continue to be protective in the long-term if the
action items identified in this five-year review are addressed and the remedies are implemented as
selected in the RODs.

11.0 Next Review

The next five-year review, the fifth for the site, should be completed during or before September 2015.

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

PAGE 68 OF 68

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tables

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5Yr_201 0-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Table 1

Chronology of Site Events
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site

Third Five-Year Review Report

Date

Event

Early 1900's

Lead and zinc mining activities began in the Picher field of the Tri-
State Mining District.

1970's

Mining activities ceased in the Picher field.

November 1979

Acid mine water began flowing to the surface and draining into Tar
Creek.

June 1980

Governor of Oklahoma appointed the Tar Creek Task Force to
investigate the environmental impacts associated with the acid mine
drainage.

1980 and 1981

First investigations conducted by several government agencies
under the Tar Creek Task Force to assess the environmental impacts
associated with the acid mine drainage at the site.

July 27, 1981

The Tar Creek site is proposed to the National Priorities List (NPL).

October 1981

Report submitted to the Tar Creek Task Force documenting the
impacts of acid mine drainage within the Tar Creek basin.

June 16, 1982

EPA signs a Cooperative Agreement with the OSDH to conduct the
RI/FS for OU1.

July 1982 - March
1983

The Remedial Investigation for OU1 is conducted.

May -December 1983

The Feasibility Study for OU1 is conducted.

September 8, 1983

The Tar Creek site is formally added to the NPL.

June 6, 1984

A ROD for OU1 is signed. The selected remedy included surface
water diversion and construction of dikes at 3 locations, plugging
abandoned Roubidoux wells, and a 2 year after action monitoring
program to evaluate the effectiveness of the selected remedies.

June 15, 1984

The EPA sends RD/RA notice letters to 7 companies and 8
individuals as PRPs to allow them to complete the RD/RA for OU1.

1985

The OWRB lowers the designated use of Tar Creek to habitat-
limited fishery and secondary recreation water body.

September 1985 -
October 1986

OU1 RA activities for plugging abandoned Roubidoux Aquifer
wells are conducted by the OWRB.

December 22, 1986

RA construction for OU1 is completed.

1987- 1988

A two year surface and ground water monitoring program is
implemented by the OWRB to assess the effectiveness of the OU1
remedy.

07_TC_5YR_2010-0813_TABLE1.DOC

PAGE 1 OF 4

August 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Table 1

Chronology of Site Events
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site

Third Five-Year Review Report

Date

Event

December 30, 1987

EPA signs a referral to the US Department of Justice to implement
cost recovery against 7 companies identified as PRPs.

1991

The Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program is begun at the
site by the OWRB to assess potential impacts of acid mine water on
the Roubidoux Aquifer.

June 10, 1991

EPA enters into a Consent Decree with 6 PRPs to recover costs
related to the RI/FS, ROD, and emergency response actions related
to OU1.

January 21, 1994

US Public Health Service's Indian Health Service notifies EPA by
letter that 34% of children routinely tested near the Tar Creek site
have blood lead levels that exceed the CDC's level of 10 (j,g/dl.

April 1994

EPA completes the First Five-Year Review for the Tar Creek Site.
The First Five-Year Review recommends continuing the Roubidoux
Groundwater Monitoring Program. Also, the creation of a second
OU is recommended to address human health concerns related to
mining wastes.

August 1994 - July
1995

EPA conducts sampling at the Tar Creek site in support of a
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment and RI/FS for the
residential portion of OU2.

August 15, 1995

EPA issues an action memorandum authorizing a removal response
action to address lead contaminated soils at High Access Areas.

August 25, 1995

EPA issues notice to the PRPs and DOI providing them the
opportunity to conduct or finance the removal action at the High
Access Areas.

September - December
1995

EPA conducts removal response action at HAAs.

November 17, 1995

EPA issues Special Notices to PRPs providing them the opportunity
to undertake the RI/FS/RD for the residential portion of OU2.

March 21, 1996

EPA issues an action memorandum authorizing a removal response
action to address lead contaminated soils at 300 residential
properties.

June 1996 - December
1997

Remediation of HAAs and residences conducted as a removal
response action by the US ACE.

August 1996

EPA issues the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment for OU2.
It indicates that lead in soil is the primary contaminant of concern
and oral ingestion of soil is the primary exposure route of concern.

07_TC_5YR_2010-0813_TABLE1.DOC

PAGE 2 OF 4

August 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Table 1

Chronology of Site Events
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site

Third Five-Year Review Report

Date

Event

January 1997

EPA issues RI report for residential portion of OU2.

February 1997

EPA issues FS report for residential portion of OU2.

August 27, 1997

A ROD for OU2 is signed. The selected remedy included
excavation of soils in residential yards contaminated with lead
above 500 ppm down to a depth of 18 inches, replacement of the
contaminated soil with clean backfill, and disposal of the
contaminated soil in an onsite repository.

January 1998

Removal action for remediation of the High Access Areas and
residential yards continues as a Remedial Action conducted by the
USACE.

1998 & 1999

EPA enters into cooperative agreements with the ITEC, Quapaw
Tribe, and ODEQ to provide funding for RI/FS activities for non-
residential portions of OU2.

March 2, 2000

EPA issues an action memorandum authorizing a removal response
action to remove laboratory chemicals stored at the Eagle-Picher
Office Complex in Cardin, Oklahoma, and designates this response
as OU3.

March 28 - May 23,
2000

EPA conducts the removal response for OU3. EPA determines that
No Further Action is warranted to address OU3.

April 2000

The EPA completes the Second Five-Year Review for the Tar Creek
Site.

July 2000

The USACE completes remediation of the 1,300th residential
property under the RA for OU2. The USACE work for OU2 is
completed. The EPA hires contractor CH2M HILL to continue the
residential yard remediation work for the OU2 RA.

September 2002

The ODEQ issues report documenting results of the Roubidoux
Groundwater Monitoring Program for OU1.

May 1, 2003

The EPA, USACE, and DOI sign a Memorandum of Understanding
for the Tar Creek site.

November 2003

The ODEQ continues the Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring
Program based on recommendation from their May 2003 report.

December 9, 2003

An AOC is signed with the DOI and 2 mining companies to conduct
the RI/FS for OU4.

April 2004

The ODEQ plugs 5 abandoned Roubidoux wells at the site.

September 2005

The EPA completes the Third Five-Year Review for the Tar Creek

07_TC_5YR_2010-0813_TABLE1.DOC

PAGE 3 OF 4

August 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Table 1

Chronology of Site Events
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site

Third Five-Year Review Report

Date

Event



Site.

April - October 2005

Field work for the OU4 RI/FS is conducted.

July 2006

LICRAT was established and began the voluntary buyout.

July 2007

EPA publishes the RI/FS for OU4.

February 20, 2008

EPA signs the ROD for OU4.

December 2010

The EPA begins the Fourth Five-Year Review for the Tar Creek
Superfund Site

07_TC_5YR_2010-0813_TABLE1.DOC

PAGE 4 OF 4

August 2010

-------
Table 2

Analytical Data for Tar Creek
Roubidoux Groundwater
Monitoring Program
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Analysis

Cond.

Temp.

PH

D.O.

Alk (Field)

Alkalinity

Chloride

Sulfate

Tot Dis Sol

Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Iron

Lead

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc

CAT/AN

(Field)

(Field)

(Field)

(Field)

CaC03

CaC03

CI

S04

TDS

CaC03

Ca

Mg

Na

K

Sb

As

Cd

Cr

Fe

Pb

Mn

Hg

Ni

Se

Tl

Zn

BALANCE

Unit

ixS/cm

°C



mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

% Error

MCL/(SMCL)













(250)

(250)

(500)











0.006

0.010

0.005

0.1

(0.3)

0.015

(0.05)

0.002



0.05

0.002

(5)



Roub. T.L. / Back.















82/25





















.207/.062













.043/.009



Cardin #1



4/21/2008

Totals

467

20.85

7.2

1.35

126

132

13.7

78.2

242

205

46.6

21.3

11.7

2.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.193

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.006

0.02



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

47.4

21.8

11.5

2.5

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.169

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.027



10/23/2007

Totals

442

19.05

7.33

0.9

132

132

11

56.5

216

189

40.7

18.6

10

2.3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.132

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.007

-0.84



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

40.8

19

10

2.3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.118

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



5/8/2007

Totals

384

18.85

7.56

1.12

125

123

<10

28.2

167

157

38.7

18.4

11.1

2.7

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.096

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

9.15



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

32.2

15.6

9.1

2.3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.076

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



11/8/2006

Totals

634

21.79

7.2

1.32

160

147

28

156

375

293

64

29

15

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.103

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-5.01



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

60

28

15

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.094

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/11/2006

Totals

368

18.8

7.28

5.32

111

137

13.5

78.8

238

201

43

20

11

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.14

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-4.52



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

43

20

11

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.121

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/17/2005

Totals

487

19.2

7.8

0.9

127

144

20.8

107

308

262

60

27

13

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.17

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

1.44



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

69

29

13

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.156

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.006



4/25/2005

Totals

510

18.3

7.56

1.58

177

144

21

111

347

260

59

27

14

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.193

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.036

0.61



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

58

26

13

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.152

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/12/2004

Totals

498

18.3

7.62

1.82

199

140

20.4

107

333

250

59

27

14

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.139

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.009

2.19



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

56

26

13

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.114

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/27/2004

Totals

334

19.6

7.43

3.48

150

138

14.5

93.3

319

231

50

24

12

3

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.132

<0.01

0.009

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

0.033

-0.39



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

50

24

12

3

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.112

<0.01

0.009

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005



11/6/2003

Totals

595

17.6

6.47

n.a.

145

149

27.1

134

388

281

61

30

17

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.101

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.022

-1.58



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

61

30

17

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.098

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01





Averages

472

19.2

7.35

1.98

145

139

18

95

293

233

52

24

13

2.8

0.003

0.003

0.002

0.01

0.13

0.006

0.01

0.00005

0.01

0.01

0.002

0.011

0.11

Commerce #4



4/22/2008

Totals

727

20.41

7.2

4.22

146

152

78.5

113

432

256

61.3

25.8

46.1

3.2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.112

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.012

-2.25



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

58.1

24.7

43.1

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.094

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/23/2007

Totals

676

18.32

7.35

2.47

131

134

<10

61.9

219

186

42.9

19.1

18

2.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.094

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.027

3.56



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

47.1

21.2

36.5

2.7

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.084

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



5/8/2007

Totals

710

20.03

7.37

3.6

136

148

75.3

125

432

291

71.9

30.9

43.1

3.4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.151

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.028

2.59



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

68.8

29.5

41.5

3.3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.129

<0.005

0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



11/8/2006

Totals

769

20.92

7.11

4.41

162

159

48.7

161

448

307

74

28

31

4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.106

<0.005

0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.015

-2.96



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

66

28

30

4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.103

<0.005

0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.009



4/11/2006

Totals

412

20.1

8.41

3.54

164

161

56.5

166

437

311

70

29

36

4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.079

<0.005

0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.027

-4.55



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

72

30

37

4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.079

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/18/2005

Totals

356

19.4

7.95

0.6

117

135

<10

66

250

189

44

19

9

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.132

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.47



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

45

20

9

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.104

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/26/2005

Totals

577

19.4

7.7

1.8

n.a.

135

60.5

76

342

214

49

22

34

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.077

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.48



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

48

21

34

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.072

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/12/2004

Totals

614

19

7.47

1.61

183

148

43.5

126

403

270

65

27

29

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.09

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.03



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

63

26

29

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.086

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/27/2004

Totals

403

18.7

7.75

3.39

218

144

59.5

107

409

252

54

24

35

3

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.087

<0.01

0.009

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

-3.94



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

56

25

35

3

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.085

<0.01

0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005



11/6/2003

Totals

615

17.9

6.42

n.a.

153

150

37.9

119

383

260

61

26

28

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.095

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01

-0.5



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

57

25

27

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.086

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01





Averages

586

19.4

7.47

2.85

157

147

48

112.1

376

254

59

25

32

3.2

0.003

0.003

0.002

0.01

0.097

0.006

0.01

0.00005

0.01

0.01

0.002

0.01

-1.1

08_T C_5YR_2010-0813_T able2.xls

PAGE 1 OF 7

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 2

Analytical Data for Tar Creek
Roubidoux Groundwater
Monitoring Program
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Analysis

Cond.

Temp.

PH

D.O.

Alk (Field)

Alkalinity

Chloride

Sulfate

Tot Dis Sol

Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Iron

Lead

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc

CAT/AN

(Field)

(Field)

(Field)

(Field)

CaC03

CaC03

CI

S04

TDS

CaC03

Ca

Mg

Na

K

Sb

As

Cd

Cr

Fe

Pb

Mn

Hg

Ni

Se

Tl

Zn

BALANCE

Unit

ixS/cm

°C



mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

% Error

MCL/(SMCL)













(250)

(250)

(500)











0.006

0.010

0.005

0.1

(0.3)

0.015

(0.05)

0.002



0.05

0.002

(5)



Roub. T.L. / Back.















82/25





















.207/.062













.043/.009



Commerce #5



4/22/2008

Totals

279

20.65

7.47

1.11

109

118

10.5

13.7

157

127

27.1

13

8.2

1.8

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

0.01

0.045

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.98



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27.3

13

8.1

1.8

<0.002

0.002

0.002

0.01

0.035

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/23/2007

Totals

283

18.58

7.65

0.78

109

115

11.4

14.2

149

129

27.9

13.4

8.3

1.9

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

0.01

0.04

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.18



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25

12.3

7.6

1.7

<0.002

0.002

0.002

0.01

0.031

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.008



5/8/2007

Totals

308

20.04

7.74

1.49

103

111

20

12.1

155

135

27.8

13.8

11.8

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.042

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

0.87



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27.4

13.8

12

2.1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.031

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



11/8/2006

Totals

313

21.2

7.74

2.12

115

111

18

17.4

157

129

28

13

11

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.033

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.5



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26

13

10

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.028

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/11/2006

Totals

301

19.9

8.57

1.44

107

115

15.3

14.6

138

124

26

13

10

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.038

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-3.06



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27

13

10

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.026

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/18/2005

Totals

269

20.4

7.81

0.1

145

114

10.3

13.7

173

130

29

14

8

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.043

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

2.47



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

31

14

8

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.023

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/26/2005

Totals

268

18.4

8.17

5.18

n.a.

115

<10

13.9

150

121

28

13

8

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.07

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.05



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

28

13

8

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.034

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/12/2004

Totals

260

17.9

8.64

5.65

152

111

<10

13

154

124

28

13

8

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.092

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

1.7



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

28

13

8

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/27/2004

Totals

252

18.9

7.82

5.75

158

111

<10

11.8

158

122

25

13

8

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.093

<0.01

<0.01

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

-0.53



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25

13

8

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.034

<0.01

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005



*4/27/2004

Totals

252

18.9

7.82

5.75

158

111

<10

11.8

158

123

25

13

8

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.114

<0.01

<0.01

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

-0.53



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26

13

8

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.039

<0.01

<0.01

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005



11/6/2003

Totals

294

17.7

7.29

n.a.

108

112

15.6

12

155

127

26

13

11

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.08

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01

-0.53



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26

13

11

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.048

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.01





Averages

280

19.3

7.88

2.94

126

113

12.8

13.5

155

126

27

13

9

2

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.009

0.047

0.006

0.01

0.00005

0.01

0.01

0.003

0.006

-0.3

Fernandez Well



4/21/2008

Totals

407

20.26

7.2

1.57

120

135

<10

62.2

207

185

41

20

6

1.9

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.447

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.308

-3.64



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

39

19

6

1.8

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.386

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.065



10/23/2007

Totals

997

16.23

6.92

1.21

181

181

<10

111

324

273

112

52

16

4.2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.549

<0.005

0.014

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

1.08

26.5



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

60

29

12

3.2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.526

<0.005

0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.231



5/7/2007

Totals

951

18.38

6.81

1.75

206

216

<10

285

679

522

113

54

15

3.9

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.681

<0.005

0.012

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.999

1.28



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

106

51

14

3.7

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.477

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



11/8/2006

Totals

378

18.8

7.3

1.06

132

126

<10

57.2

206

184

41

18

6

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.35

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.273

-1.93



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

36

18

6

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.334

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.039



4/10/2006

Totals

239

17.8

6.69

1.43

153

155

<10

130

306

262

25

13

5

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.302

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.09

-40.36



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26

14

5

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.277

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/17/2005

Totals

404

17.1

7.59

2.5

155

151

<10

125

348

274

61

29

8

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.393

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.251

-0.61



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

68

30

8

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.391

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.14



4/25/2005

Totals

402

15.8

7.27

1.4

180

136

<10

72.5

241

199

44

21

7

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.63

<0.005

0.011

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.689

-2.61



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

43

21

7

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.526

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.321



1/28/2005

Totals

756

12.1

7.03

2.63

n.a.

211

<10

282

648

477

-

-

49

13

na

na

<0.002

<0.005

0.512

<0.005

0.013

na

na

na

na

1.2

na

10/11/2004

Totals

445

15.4

7.41

2.09

128

138

<10

92.4

284

219

57

27

8

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.349

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.244

4.82



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

56

26

8

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.343

0.015

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.148



*10/11/2004

Totals

445

15.4

7.41

2.09

128

148

<10

115

327

248

57

27

8

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.358

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.251

-1.52



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

54

25

7

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.318

0.021

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.169



4/29/2004

Totals

427

17.3

7.5

2.27

134

128

<10

56.3

233

185

43

22

7

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.359

<0.01

0.006

0.00006

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

0.299

3.6



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

28

15

6

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.238

0.012

<0.005

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

0.089



*4/29/2004

Totals

427

17.3

7.5

2.27

134

144

<10

103

328

236

39

20

7

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.359

<0.01

0.006

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

0.228

-14.66



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

28

15

6

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.249

<0.01

<0.005

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

0.037



12/19/2003

Totals

415

14.8

6.64

n.a.

125

147

<10

85.5

274

213

46

23

8

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.319

0.026

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.236

-4.3



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

46

24

8

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.464

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.464



11/4/2003

Totals

252

17.1

7.83

n.a.

115

114

<10

16.4

138

126

27

14

5

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.316

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.083

-2.35



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27

14

5

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.246

0.013

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.07



10/6/2003

Totals

257

18.3

7.08

n.a.

130

98.9

<10

14

148

124

26

14

5

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.208

0.017

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.05

3.2



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26

14

5

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.288

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.067



*10/6/2003

Totals

257

18.3

7.08

n.a.

130

98.6

<10

16.4

132

126

26

14

5

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.287

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.065

2.34



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26

14

5

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.224

0.008

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.033



7/30/2003

Dis Met

370

18.2

8.19

n.a.

na

145

11.1

126

368

na

60

29

8

2

na

na

na

na

0.41

0.056

<0.01

na

<0.01

na

na

0.239

-0.46



Averages

461

17

7.26

1.86

143

145.4

10.1

102.9

305

241

48

23

9

2.6

0.003

0.003

0.002

0.009

0.379

0.009

0.01

0.00005

0.01

0.01

0.002

0.265

-1.92

08_T C_5YR_2010-0813_T able2.xls

PAGE 2 OF 7

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 2

Analytical Data for Tar Creek
Roubidoux Groundwater
Monitoring Program
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Analysis

Cond.

Temp.

PH

D.O.

Alk (Field)

Alkalinity

Chloride

Sulfate

Tot Dis Sol

Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Iron

Lead

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc

CAT/AN

(Field)

(Field)

(Field)

(Field)

CaC03

CaC03

CI

S04

TDS

CaC03

Ca

Mg

Na

K

Sb

As

Cd

Cr

Fe

Pb

Mn

Hg

Ni

Se

Tl

Zn

BALANCE

Unit

(xS/cm

°C



mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

% Error

MCL/(SMCL)













(250)

(250)

(500)











0.006

0.010

0.005

0.1

(0.3)

0.015

(0.05)

0.002



0.05

0.002

(5)



Roub. T.L. / Back.















82/25





















.207/.062













.043/.009



Miami #1



4/27/2004

Totals

413

19.6

8.27

3.3

120

112

78.8

12.6

265

133

29

14

47

3

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

1.13

0.01

0.012

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

-0.03



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

28

14

45

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.042

0.01

<0.005

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005



11/4/2003

Totals

500

15.7

7.15

n.a.

na

117

83.6

12.4

262

133

30

15

50

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.372

0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.01

0.29



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

30

15

50

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.062

0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01



*11/4/2003

Totals

500

15.7

7.15

n.a.

na

116

84.5

12.5

264

135

29

14

49

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.057

0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01

-1.58



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

30

15

50

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01





Averages

471

17

7.52

3.3

120

115

82.3

12.5

264

134

29

15

49

3

0.005

0.005

0.003

0.008

0.281

0.007

0.01

0.0001

0.01

0.01

0.004

0.008

-0.44

Miami #3



4/22/2008

Totals

537

20.06

7.22

0.66

107

121

96.9

13.7

286

137

29.5

13.8

58.1

2.8

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-2.16



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

29.1

13.7

56.3

2.8

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.113

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/23/2007

Totals

533

16.94

7.28

1.47

114

118

90.4

14.1

274

138

29.9

14

52.6

2.7

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.96



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27.9

13.4

50.6

2.7

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.006



5/8/2007

Totals

523

19.5

7.35

0.49

108

116

87.5

11.5

266

144

28.7

13.8

53.7

2.9

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.48



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

28.6

13.9

52.1

2.8

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



11/8/2006

Totals

538

18.56

7.52

1.51

116

115

95.6

16.8

275

129

27

14

54

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-4.08



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27

13

52

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/11/2006

Totals

547

20.1

8.51

2.14

155

138

94.3

15.3

256

131

28

14

57

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-5.82



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

29

14

57

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/18/2005

Totals

492

19.3

7.7

0.7

125

118

92.8

12.9

263

138

31

14

54

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.15



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

31

14

55

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



*10/18/2005

Totals

492

19.3

7.7

0.7

125

118

91.6

13.7

258

138

32

14

54

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.5



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

34

15

54

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/26/2005

Totals

527

18.8

7.77

1.47

n.a.

116

96.8

14

282

131

30

14

56

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.7



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

29

14

57

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



*4/26/2005

Totals

527

18.8

7.77

1.47

n.a.

117

97.4

15.4

283

130

29

14

56

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-2.8



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

29

14

56

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/12/2004

Totals

506

16.5

8

1.65

102

114

97.2

13.4

293

134

30

14

57

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.89



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

32

15

56

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



*10/12/2004

Totals

506

16.5

8

1.65

102

114

95.7

13.6

291

132

28

13

54

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-3.62



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

30

14

56

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005





Averages

521

18.6

7.71

1.26

117

119

94.2

14

275

135

29.5

14

55

2.9

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.01

0.024

0.005

0.01

0.00005

0.01

0.01

0.001

0.005

-2.29

Miami #11



5/8/2007

Totals

345

19.1

7.73

1.3

104

108

33.2

11.8

168

128

24.9

13

24.2

1.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.065

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

0.98



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

24.7

12.9

23.5

1.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.035

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00015

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



*5/8/2007

Totals

345

19.1

7.73

1.3

104

109

34.4

11.4

171

127

25.2

13

24.3

1.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.055

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

0.58



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25.1

13

23.2

1.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.026

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



11/8/2006

Totals

353

19.4

7.74

1.24

111

108

35.9

15.6

178

117

22

12

22

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.081

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-6.1



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

22

12

22

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.058

<0.005

<0.01

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



*11/8/2006

Totals

353

19.4

7.74

1.24

275

109

35.1

15.5

183

115

23

12

23

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.08

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-4.55



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

23

12

23

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.05

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005





Averages

349

19.3

7.74

1.27

149

109

34.7

13.6

175

122

24

12

23

2

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.01

0.056

0.005

0.01

0.00006

0.01

0.01

0.001

0.005

-2.27

08_T C_5YR_2010-0813_T able2.xls

PAGE 3 OF 7

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 2

Analytical Data for Tar Creek
Roubidoux Groundwater
Monitoring Program
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Analysis

Cond.

Temp.

PH

D.O.

Alk (Field)

Alkalinity

Chloride

Sulfate

Tot Dis Sol

Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Iron

Lead

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc

CAT/AN

(Field)

(Field)

(Field)

(Field)

CaC03

CaC03

CI

S04

TDS

CaC03

Ca

Mg

Na

K

Sb

As

Cd

Cr

Fe

Pb

Mn

Hg

Ni

Se

Tl

Zn

BALANCE

Unit

ixS/cm

°C



mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

% Error

MCL/(SMCL)













(250)

(250)

(500)











0.006

0.010

0.005

0.1

(0.3)

0.015

(0.05)

0.002



0.05

0.002

(5)



Roub. T.L. / Back.















82/25





















.207/.062













.043/.009



Picher #5 - MW



4/22/2008

Totals

604

21.67

7.26

2.35

135

142

26

135

383

264

59.5

27.5

17

2.8

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.113

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-2.72



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

59.6

27.8

16.8

2.8

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.11

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/23/2007

Totals

605

19.25

7.17

2.5

137

136

30

119

332

265

57.4

26.5

17.9

2.9

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.118

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.2



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

58.2

27.3

17.5

2.9

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.115

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.042



*10/23/2007

Totals

605

19.25

7.17

2.5

137

136

28.9

122

356

268

57.9

26.8

17.6

2.9

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.118

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.15



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

53.2

25

16.4

2.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.101

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



5/8/2007

Totals

442

20.03

7.59

1.56

119

121

38.9

57.2

256

194

40.9

20.1

25.8

2.8

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.116

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

1.91



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

37.4

18.7

23.5

2.9

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.11

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



11/8/2006

Totals

635

21.46

7.23

0.88

139

137

27.4

141

373

282

64

28

17

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.118

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.03



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

58

27

17

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.108

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/11/2006

Totals

483

23.9

8.51

2.68

157

127

34.4

68.3

243

189

39

19

21

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.629

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-4.56



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

41

20

21

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.112

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



*4/11/2006

Totals

483

23.9

8.51

2.68

157

126

34.4

69.8

245

189

40

20

21

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.227

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-3.23



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

42

20

21

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.1

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/17/2005

Totals

544

21.8

7.81

0.3

124

135

27.1

119

332

264

60

27

18

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.098

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

1.13



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

71

30

18

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.046

<0.005

<0.01

0.00015

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



*10/17/2005

Totals

544

21.8

7.81

0.3

124

135

28.3

118

307

265

61

27

18

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.107

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

1.43



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

73

30

18

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.043

<0.005

<0.01

0.0001

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.009



4/25/2005

Totals

581

18.5

7.56

2.91

132

138

25.4

132

373

273

61

28

17

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.093

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.47



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

62

28

17

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.061

<0.005

<0.01

0.00011

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/12/2004

Totals

569

18.3

7.68

2.33

122

136

26.4

140

398

279

63

29

17

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.171

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.24



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

62

28

17

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.151

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/27/2004

Totals

536

20.7

7.33

3.19

142

134

28.3

126

384

253

55

26

19

3

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.433

<0.01

0.007

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

-2.62



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

55

27

18

3

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.39

<0.01

0.007

0.00008

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005



11/5/2003

Totals

590

14

6.52

n.a.

na

140

25.6

135

381

278

61

29

18

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.232

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01

-0.32



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

59

28

18

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.213

<0.005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01





Averages

555

20.4

7.55

2.02

135

134

29.3

114

336

251

56

26

19

3

0.003

0.003

0.002

0.01

0.163

0.005

0.01

0.00007

0.01

0.01

0.002

0.007

-1.01

08_T C_5YR_2010-0813_T able2.xls

PAGE 4 OF 7

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 2

Analytical Data for Tar Creek
Roubidoux Groundwater
Monitoring Program
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Analysis

Cond.

Temp.

PH

D.O.

Alk (Field)

Alkalinity

Chloride

Sulfate

Tot Dis Sol

Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Iron

Lead

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc

CAT/AN

(Field)

(Field)

(Field)

(Field)

CaC03

CaC03

CI

S04

TDS

CaC03

Ca

Mg

Na

K

Sb

As

Cd

Cr

Fe

Pb

Mn

Hg

Ni

Se

Tl

Zn

BALANCE

Unit

ixS/cm

°C



mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

% Error

MCL/(SMCL)













(250)

(250)

(500)











0.006

0.010

0.005

0.1

(0.3)

0.015

(0.05)

0.002



0.05

0.002

(5)



Roub. T.L. / Back.















82/25





















.207/.062













.043/.009



Picher #6 - MW



4/21/2008

Totals

662

21.89

7.1

4.24

136

151

<10

186

405

312

69

32.6

14.4

2.4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.369

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.008

-2.56



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

68.6

32.9

14

2.4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.339

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.007



*4/21/2008

Totals

662

21.89

7.1

4.24

136

151

<10

184

397

313

70.9

33.5

14.8

2.4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.379

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.009

-0.92



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

70.3

33.4

14.3

2.4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.355

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.007



10/22/2007

Totals

619

16.4

7.25

4.05

143

147

10.2

171

387

312

68.9

31.9

13.5

2.3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.351

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.008

-0.56



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

66.7

31.8

13.5

2.3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.275

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.009



*10/22/2007

Totals

619

16.4

7.25

4.05

143

147

10.2

170

406

310

68.4

31.9

13.4

2.3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.35

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.014

-0.63



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

66.5

31.5

13.4

2.3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.259

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.011



5/7/2007

Totals

616

20.06

7.22

1.97

138

139

<10

177

375

286

63.6

30.8

13.7

2.4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.325

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-2.89



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

63.7

30.8

14

2.4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.302

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



*5/7/2007

Totals

616

20.06

7.22

1.97

138

139

<10

175

381

290

64

30.9

13.6

2.3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.327

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-2.41



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

63.4

30.4

13.8

2.3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.307

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



11/7/2006

Totals

602

21.4

6.94

4.17

141

136

<10

144

339

273

56

27

12

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.302

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.008

-3.52



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

55

27

12

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.274

<0.005

<0.01

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.008



4/10/2006

Totals

511

20.3

8.11

2.62

134

139

10

142

315

258

56

26

13

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.309

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-4.02



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

59

27

13

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.284

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



*4/10/2006

Totals

511

20.3

8.11

2.62

134

138

10

143

316

258

54

25

13

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.301

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-5.69



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

57

26

13

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.222

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/27/2005

Totals

453

17.8

7.73

3.79

125

136

10

125

313

249

58

26

12

2

<0.002

0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.296

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

0.04



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

59

26

12

2

<0.002

0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.238

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



*10/27/2005

Totals

453

17.8

7.73

3.79

125

137

10

125

307

251

63

27

12

2

<0.002

0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.298

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.006

2.74



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

59

26

12

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.282

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.006



4/25/2005

Totals

510

18.6

7.77

3.24

n.a.

135

<10

125

333

251

60

26

12

2

<0.002

0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.345

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.006

1.11



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

58

26

12

2

<0.002

0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.341

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.007



*4/25/2005

Totals

510

18.6

7.77

3.24

n.a.

134

<10

126

336

251

61

26

12

2

<0.002

0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.338

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.006

1.53



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

56

25

12

2

<0.002

0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.331

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.006



10/11/2004

Totals

553

19.1

7.44

2.06

193

147

<10

170

417

303

71

30

13

2

<0.002

0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.531

<0.005

0.012

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.021

-0.97



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

71

30

13

2

<0.002

0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.507

<0.005

0.012

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.02



4/27/2004

Totals

555

20.9

7.26

4.92

157

143

<10

156

407

293

63

29

14

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.444

<0.01

0.011

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

0.015

-1.57



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

62

29

13

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.414

<0.01

0.011

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

0.019



12/9/2003

Totals

537

18.2

6.83

n.a.

135

143

<10

150

380

280

65

29

13

2

<0.002

0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.464

<0.005

0.013

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.016

-0.13



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

60

27

12

2

<0.002

0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.337

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.015



*12/9/2003

Totals

537

18.2

6.83

n.a.

135

142

<10

150

381

277

64

29

13

2

<0.002

0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.46

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.014

-0.37



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

61

27

12

2

<0.002

0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.337

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.016





Averages

560

19.3

7.39

3.4

141

141

10

154.1

364

280

63

29

13

2

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.01

0.341

0.005

0.01

0.00005

0.01

0.01

0.002

0.009

-1.22

Picher#7-MW



4/21/2008

Totals

779

22.21

7.09

1.92

155

165

11

240

490

393

85.3

41.9

12.5

3.1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.176

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.63



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

81

40.4

11.6

2.9

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.187

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/22/2007

Totals

700

16.05

7.3

1.38

151

155

12

194

447

347

73.4

35.8

11.7

2.8

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.079

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.95



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

68.5

34.4

11.3

2.8

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.071

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



5/8/2007

Totals

647

19.65

7.41

1.14

148

146

11.8

198

405

307

67.5

34.3

12.2

2.9

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.079

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-4.07



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

66.9

34.5

11.9

2.8

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.075

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



11/7/2006

Totals

652

19.81

7.04

2.04

153

146

12.3

175

397

329

65

33

12

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.124

<0.005

0.006

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-2.6



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

60

31

11

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.113

<0.005

0.006

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/11/2006

Totals

482

19.6

8.2

1.43

117

129

17.5

103

257

216

44

23

13

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.079

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-4.88



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

47

23

13

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.065

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/17/2005

Totals

527

20.4

7.82

0.2

179

142

11.4

137

326

280

62

30

11

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.064

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

0.88



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

72

32

11

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.062

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/25/2005

Totals

524

18.3

7.71

1.87

174

140

10.1

125

341

261

59

28

11

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.09

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

1.03



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

56

28

11

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.09

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/12/2004

Totals

483

17.9

7.83

1.31

129

136

13.5

112

306

244

54

26

12

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.127

<0.005

<0.01

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

0.03



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

55

27

12

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.121

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/27/2004

Totals

480

20.2

7.5

4.35

105

134

12.6

112

335

237

51

26

12

3

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.078

<0.01

0.005

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

-0.76



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

49

26

12

3

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.072

<0.01

<0.005

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005



11/5/2003

Totals

563

14.7

6.89

n.a.

na

145

<10

141

374

284

60

31

12

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.166

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01

0.24



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

59

31

12

3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.16

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01





Averages

584

18.9

7.48

1.74

146

144

12.2

153.7

368

290

62

31

12

3

0.003

0.003

0.002

0.01

0.104

0.006

0.009

0.00005

0.01

0.01

0.002

0.006

-1.37

08_T C_5YR_2010-0813_T able2.xls

PAGE 5 OF 7

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 2

Analytical Data for Tar Creek
Roubidoux Groundwater
Monitoring Program
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Analysis

Cond.

Temp.

PH

D.O.

Alk (Field)

Alkalinity

Chloride

Sulfate

Tot Dis Sol

Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Iron

Lead

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc

CAT/AN

(Field)

(Field)

(Field)

(Field)

CaC03

CaC03

CI

S04

TDS

CaC03

Ca

Mg

Na

K

Sb

As

Cd

Cr

Fe

Pb

Mn

Hg

Ni

Se

Tl

Zn

BALANCE

Unit

ixS/cm

°C



mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

% Error

MCL/(SMCL)













(250)

(250)

(500)











0.006

0.010

0.005

0.1

(0.3)

0.015

(0.05)

0.002



0.05

0.002

(5)



Roub. T.L. / Back.















82/25





















.207/.062













.043/.009



Quapaw #4



4/22/2008

Totals

263

20.35

7.54

1.35

102

112

<10

13.2

144

123

26.4

13.4

5.6

1.4

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.73



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25.6

13.1

5.3

1.3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/24/2007

Totals

280

17.87

7.4

1.46

109

113

10.8

14.3

137

127

27.1

13.7

6.7

1.5

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.89



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

23.4

12

5.8

1.3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.01



5/9/2007

Totals

287

19.85

7.28

1.12

104

107

13.4

12.6

145

132

26.2

13.7

9

1.7

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.043

1.62



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26.6

13.4

8.6

1.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.041



11/9/2006

Totals

276

19.12

7.39

0.52

118

112

18.6

20

160

134

29

14

12

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.1



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27

13

11

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/12/2006

Totals

270

18.8

8.53

1.03

92

109

<10

15.2

118

118

24

13

5

1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-5.03



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25

13

5

1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/18/2005

Totals

258

19.9

7.96

1.58

96

115

18.6

16.4

184

136

30

14

11

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

0.23



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

30

14

11

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/26/2005

Totals

261

16.8

8.04

1.57

n.a.

109

<10

13.5

138

119

26

13

6

1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.62



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25

13

6

1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/13/2004

Totals

242

17.4

7.86

1.43

124

104

<10

12.7

149

121

27

14

5

1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

2.2



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27

13

5

1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.005



*10/13/2004

Totals

242

17.4

7.86

1.43

124

104

<10

12.8

147

121

27

13

5

1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

0.64



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27

14

5

1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/28/2004

Totals

275

19.4

7.31

2.29

146

107

<10

11.8

152

122

25

13

8

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

<0.02

<0.01

<0.005

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

0.005

0.94



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

24

13

7

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

<0.02

<0.01

<0.005

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005



11/6/2003

Totals

249

17.7

7.03

n.a.

107

109

<10

11.1

129

120

25

13

5

1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01

-2.49



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

24

13

5

1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01



*11/6/2003

Totals

249

17.7

7.03

n.a.

107

109

<10

11.1

131

121

24

13

5

1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01

-3.47



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25

13

5

1

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01





Averages

263

18.5

7.6

1.38

112

109

11.8

13.7

145

125

26

13

7

1

0.003

0.003

0.002

0.01

0.02

0.005

0.01

0.00005

0.01

0.01

0.002

0.009

-0.81

Quapaw #5 MW



4/23/2008

Totals

1497

21.15

6.5

1.8

265

267

99.1

456

1080

807

158

74.2

56.9

8.4

<0.002

0.004

<0.002

<0.01

2.88

<0.005

0.026

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.135

-2.75



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

156

73.4

54.8

8.3

<0.002

0.006

<0.002

<0.01

2.77

<0.005

0.036

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.126



*4/23/2008

Totals

1497

21.15

6.5

1.8

265

268

98.5

464

1100

808

161

75.9

57.5

8.4

<0.002

0.005

<0.002

<0.01

2.92

<0.005

0.031

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.138

-2.29



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

158

73.2

54.9

8.3

<0.002

0.006

<0.002

<0.01

2.79

<0.005

0.034

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.129



10/24/2007

Totals

1503

17.23

6.8

5.94

279

268

95.4

429

1040

703

158

73.5

53

8.3

<0.002

0.005

<0.002

<0.01

2.77

<0.005

0.033

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.13

-1.58



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

144

67.6

48.1

7.4

<0.002

0.005

<0.002

<0.01

2.42

<0.005

0.032

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.126



*10/24/2007

Totals

1503

17.23

6.8

5.94

279

268

95.4

459

1020

707

160

75.1

53.2

8.4

<0.002

0.005

<0.002

<0.01

2.81

<0.005

0.034

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.132

-2.65



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

142

66.6

48.9

7.4

<0.002

0.004

<0.002

<0.01

2.33

<0.005

0.03

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.116



5/9/2007

Totals

1477

20.6

6.7

1.46

264

253

92.9

264

1000

716

154

75

54.2

8.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

2.62

<0.005

0.026

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.121

11.02



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

154

74

53.5

8.4

<0.002

0.004

<0.002

<0.01

2.45

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.114



11/9/2006

Totals

1446

19.93

6.78

1.39

272

251

95.4

391

968

709

156

69

50

8

<0.002

0.004

<0.002

<0.01

2.48

<0.005

0.035

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.113

-0.02



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

143

69

49

8

<0.002

0.004

<0.002

<0.01

2.42

<0.005

0.035

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.11



4/12/2006

Totals

1497

20.3

7.7

1.29

244

252

93.6

434

992

767

151

69

54

8

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

2.62

<0.005

0.027

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.118

-2.91



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

150

68

53

8

<0.002

0.005

<0.002

<0.01

2.57

<0.005

0.037

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.112



*4/12/2006

Totals

1497

20.3

7.7

1.29

244

253

93.8

422

993

764

150

69

54

8

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

2.61

<0.005

0.026

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.119

-2.39



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

147

67

53

8

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

2.53

<0.005

0.037

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.11



10/18/2005

Totals

1378

20.8

7.11

3.8

308

249

95.1

417

1020

358

162

72

53

8

<0.002

0.005

<0.002

<0.01

2.44

<0.005

0.036

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.139

0.55



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

168

73

50

7

<0.002

0.005

<0.002

<0.01

2.34

<0.005

0.038

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.143



4/26/2005

Totals

1350

19.2

7.1

1.93

n.a.

246

92.4

412

1020

733

159

72

52

7

<0.002

0.005

<0.002

<0.01

2.86

<0.005

0.039

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.167

0.62



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

152

68

51

7

<0.002

0.005

<0.002

<0.01

2.68

<0.005

0.039

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.159



10/13/2004

Totals

1341

18.6

7.01

2.43

247

250

95.9

410

1010

739

159

70

53

7

<0.002

0.005

<0.002

<0.01

3.06

<0.005

0.043

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.178

-0.18



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

144

65

48

7

<0.002

0.005

<0.002

<0.01

2.75

<0.005

0.042

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.16



4/28/2004

Totals

1372

21.7

6.87

1.75

260

254

104

455

1083

754

148

71

59

8

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

3.68

<0.01

0.05

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

0.208

-4.43



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

147

72

58

7

<0.01

0.011

<0.005

<0.005

3.58

<0.01

0.049

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

0.194



11/6/2003

Totals

1427

18.5

6.41

n.a.

265

250

102

401

1050

751

146

70

58

8

<0.002

0.005

<0.002

<0.01

3.72

<0.005

0.046

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.222

-1.4



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

147

71

59

8

<0.002

0.005

<0.002

<0.01

3.69

<0.005

0.047

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.213





Averages

1445

19.7

6.92

2.57

266

256

96.4

416.5

1029

717

153

71

53

8

0.003

0.005

0.002

0.01

2.8

0.005

0.035

0.00005

0.01

0.01

0.002

0.144

-0.65

08_T C_5YR_2010-0813_T able2.xls

PAGE 6 OF 7

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 2

Analytical Data for Tar Creek
Roubidoux Groundwater
Monitoring Program
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Analysis

Cond.

Temp.

PH

D.O.

Alk (Field)

Alkalinity

Chloride

Sulfate

Tot Dis Sol

Hardness

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Iron

Lead

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc

CAT/AN

(Field)

(Field)

(Field)

(Field)

CaC03

CaC03

CI

S04

TDS

CaC03

Ca

Mg

Na

K

Sb

As

Cd

Cr

Fe

Pb

Mn

Hg

Ni

Se

Tl

Zn

BALANCE

Unit

ixS/cm

°C



mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

mg/l

% Error

MCL/(SMCL)













(250)

(250)

(500)











0.006

0.010

0.005

0.1

(0.3)

0.015

(0.05)

0.002



0.05

0.002

(5)



Roub. T.L. / Back.















82/25





















.207/.062













.043/.009



RWD4 #4



4/23/2008

Totals

297

21.47

7.05

0.98

107

117

18.1

<10

157

135

28.1

15.3

6.9

1.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.039

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.89



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26.8

14.7

6.6

1.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.033

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/24/2007

Totals

295

18.31

7.58

0.55

113

116

17.7

<10

141

137

27.1

15.1

6.8

1.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.026

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.57



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

24.3

13.6

6

1.3

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



5/9/2007

Totals

298

19.75

7.52

0.93

125

110

17.8

<10

151

141

26.8

15.1

7.2

1.5

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.024

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

0.4



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26.6

15

7.1

1.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.021

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



*5/9/2007

Totals

298

19.75

7.52

0.93

125

110

17.7

<10

147

143

26.5

15

7

1.5

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.022

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.1



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26.6

15

7.1

1.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



11/9/2006

Totals

299

20.28

7.69

1.25

116

111

18.1

11

160

135

27

15

7

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.025

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.34



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26

15

7

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.022

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/2/2006

Totals

309

19.4

7.98

0.86

99

114

17.9

10.5

134

130

25

15

7

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-2.81



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27

15

7

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.022

<0.005

0.015

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/18/2005

Totals

295

20.4

8.09

1.05

141

114

17.7

10.4

168

140

29

16

7

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.025

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

2.06



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

28

15

6

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.022

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/26/2005

Totals

282

18.4

8.01

1.91

n.a.

114

16.5

10.2

157

133

28

15

6

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.031

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.2



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

28

15

6

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.026

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/13/2004

Totals

275

18.9

7.97

2.3

157

109

16.6

10.2

154

132

29

16

7

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.026

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

4.36



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

28

15

6

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

<0.02

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



4/28/2004

Totals

273

19.9

7.42

3.34

124

110

15.2

<10

160

135

26

15

6

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.026

<0.01

<0.005

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

0.16



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26

15

6

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.027

<0.01

<0.005

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005



*4/28/2004

Totals

273

19.9

7.42

3.34

124

110

15.2

<10

159

132

25

15

6

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.025

<0.01

<0.005

0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

-0.72



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26

15

6

2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005

<0.005

0.029

<0.01

<0.005

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

<0.005



11/7/2003

Totals

283

17.7

6.65

n.a.

110

114

14.8

<10

133

135

27

15

6

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.044

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01

-0.17



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27

15

6

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.038

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01



*11/7/2003

Totals

283

17.7

6.65

n.a.

110

114

14.6

<10

136

134

27

16

6

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.045

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01

1.33



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27

16

6

2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.038

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.01





Averages

289

19.4

7.5

1.59

121

113

16.8

10.2

151

136

27

15

6

2

0.003

0.003

0.002

0.009

0.028

0.006

0.009

0.00005

0.01

0.01

0.002

0.006

0.12

RWD7 #2



5/9/2008

Totals

1169

22.5

7.37

3.55

148

145

277

12.4

392

171

35.3

16.7

176

5.7

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.078

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-0.15



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

35.2

16.5

175

5.6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.105

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



10/24/2007

Totals

1189

20.2

7.72

0.39

142

147

277

13.4

596

168

36.2

17.4

177

5.7

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.144

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.012

0.24



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

32.5

15.7

162

5.2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.081

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

0.007



5/9/2007

Totals

1181

22.4

7.62

1.41

143

139

272

13

573

170

35.3

17.4

184

6.2

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.118

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

2.88



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

34.6

17.5

182

6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.095

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



11/9/2006

Totals

1446

19.9

6.78

1.39

270

139

286

18.6

606

159

37

16

172

6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.087

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-1.97



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

32

16

164

5

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.076

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005



*11/9/2006

Totals

1446

19.9

6.78

1.39

275

140

287

18.8

598

160

36

16

171

6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.09

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005

-2.64



Dissolved

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

33

16

167

6

<0.002

<0.002

<0.002

<0.01

0.075

<0.005

<0.01

<0.00005

<0.01

<0.01

<0.001

<0.005





Averages

1286

21

7.25

1.63

196

142

279.8

15.2

553

166

35

17

173

6

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.01

0.095

0.005

0.01

0.00005

0.01

0.01

0.001

0.006

-0.33

Notes

Cond. Conductivity
Temp. Temperature

Alk Alkalinity
(xS/cm microSiemens per centimeter
°C degrees Celcius
mg/l milligrams per liter
CAT Cation
AN Anion

MCL maximum contaminant level as of May, 2009 (EPA, 2009)

SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level as of May, 2009 (EPA, 2009)
Roub.T.L Roubidoux tolerance limit
Back. Background

bold indicates value greater than MCL or SMCL
itallicized indicates value greater than trigger level for Roubidoux aquifer

08_T C_5YR_2010-0813_T able2.xls

PAGE 7 OF 7

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5Yr_201 0-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 3

Actions Taken Since Third Five-Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Issue from Third Five-Year Review

Third Five-Year Review
Recommendations/ Follow-up
Actions

Party
Responsible

Action Taken

Date of Action

1

No O&M Plans exist for the dikes
and diversion channels. The third
five-year review identified that the
ODEQ's O&M Plan for the dike and
diversion channel constructed at the
Admiralty Mine Site as part of the OU1
remedy dates to 1987. There was not
an O&M Plan for the dikes and
diversion channel constructed at the
Muncie and Big John Mine Sites,
located in the State of Kansas,
although EPA plans to inspect the
dikes and diversion channel at the
Muncie and Big John Mine Sites as
part of each five-year review.

Develop an O&M Plan for the dikes
and diversion channels. The O&M

Plan prepared for the Admiralty Mine
Site should be updated. The ODEQ
also indicated as part of the third five-
year review that the 20-year property
easement for the dike and diversion
channel at the Admiralty Mine Site
should be extended and updated.

ODEQ

No Action Taken

No Action
Taken

Site inspections for Munice and Big
John Mine Sites. Regarding the
Muncie and Big John Mine Sites, the
EPA planned to inspect the dikes and
diversion channel at the Muncie and
Big John Mine Sites as part of each
five-year review. Any necessary
maintenance identified during each
inspection would be reported to the
State of Kansas for appropriate action.

EPA Region 6

EPA inspected the Munice Site during
the fourth five-year review site
inspection, but could not locate the Big
John Mine Site at that time.

December 14-
15, 2009

PAGE 1 OF 6

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 3

Actions Taken Since Third Five-Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Issue from Third Five-Year Review

Third Five-Year Review
Recommendations/ Follow-up
Actions

Party
Responsible

Action Taken

Date of Action

2

Evaluate current surface water and
sediment data for Tar Creek. A

BHHRA was not performed for OU1
because formal risk assessment
guidance and procedures had not
been developed at the time the OU1
ROD was written. The Second Five-
Year Review Report stated that most
of the surface water and sediment
data for Tar Creek were 10 years old
at the time the report was issued (April
2000). The report recommended that
EPA review the need for updated
monitoring data from Tar Creek in
order to confirm that contamination
levels have not worsened, and in order
to determine whether there are any
effects on human health.

Collect and evaluate current and
recent surface water and
soil/sediment data to verify that no
threat to human health exists in Tar
Creek. The EPA has conducted soil
sampling along the flood plain of Tar
Creek to determine lead concentration
trends within the flood plain. The
ODEQ and USGS were conducting
sampling of the sediments and surface
water quality in Tar Creek during the
writing of the Third Five-Year Review.
If these data were appropriate for the
purpose of evaluating human health
impacts, it was recommended that
they be used for that purpose. If
necessary, the EPA was to collect
enough additional data to determine if
potential human health risks are posed
by the surface water and sediments in
Tar Creek. If it was determined that
Tar Creek potentially poses a human
health risk, then it was recommended
that the EPA evaluate the need to
conduct a BHHRA to quantify the
risks.

EPA Region 6

Surface water and sediment data have
been collected from site streams by
EPA, ODEQ, USGS, Cayuga-Seneca
Tribe, Quapaw Tribe, and other
parties. Data evaluation is ongoing.
An advanced SLERA is currently being
performed under OU5.

Ongoing

PAGE 2 OF 6

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 3

Actions Taken Since Third Five-Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Issue from Third Five-Year Review

Third Five-Year Review
Recommendations/ Follow-up
Actions

Party
Responsible

Action Taken

Date of Action

3

Status of recommendations from
the ODEQ's 2002-2003 fish tissue
study. The ODEQ collected fish
tissue samples from ponds on the Tar
Creek site and from the Neosho and
Spring Rivers. The report issued by
the ODEQ documenting this fish tissue
study recommended that a new study
be conducted using lower detection
limits to verify the results of the first
study. Also, the ODEQ recommended
that sampling be conducted in areas
downstream (including Grand Lake)
from the locations sampled during the
original study to determine the
downstream extent of the metals
uptake in fish.

Complete the additional fish tissues
studies as recommended by the
ODEQ's 2003 report. The ODEQ
issued a fish consumption advisory for
the Tar Creek site and the Neosho and
Grand Rivers based on the findings of
the 2003 study. It was recommended
by the Third Five-Year Review that the
ODEQ complete the additional
recommended study to determine if
extension of the fish consumption
advisory to areas further downstream
is necessary.

ODEQ

In a follow-up fish consumption study
conducted in 2007, ODEQ collected
and analyzed fish from the Neosho
and Spring Rivers, Grand Lake, and
local ponds in Ottawa County
receiving mine waste runoff. In
response to the recommendations of
the original study, analytical reporting
limits for the 2007 study were lowered
from 0.3 mg/kg to 0.05 mg/kg for
cadmium, from 0.25 mg/kg to 0.05
mg/kg for lead, and from 0.3 mg/kg to
0.1 mg/kg for zinc. The research also
studied fish collected from
downstream locations along Grand
Lake and the Neosho River below the
dam of Grand Lake as recommended
by the original report. Separate
advisory levels were determined for
both residents living within and those
living outside of the Tar Creek area
using different background exposure
assumptions (ODEQ, 2007). Results
were compiled into a revised fish
consumption advisory, released
August 5, 2008. The advisory breaks
out fish consumption suggestions on
an easy-to-read chart for residents and
non-residents of Tar Creek based on
type offish and location from which
fish was caught (ODEQ, 2008).

2008

PAGE 3 OF 6

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 3

Actions Taken Since Third Five-Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Issue from Third Five-Year Review

Third Five-Year Review
Recommendations/ Follow-up
Actions

Party
Responsible

Action Taken

Date of Action

4

Complete the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the well plugging
program that is intended to prevent
mine water infiltration into the
Roubidoux Aquifer. The two-year
AAM and the second AAM program for
the Roubidoux Aquifer have shown
indications that the Roubidoux Aquifer
is impacted by acid mine water at
several well locations. However, it
was still unclear as to whether mine
water influx was the result of faulty
well casings or representative of more
widespread influx of mine water from
the Boone Aquifer into the Roubidoux
Aquifer. The effectiveness of the well
plugging program could not be
determined at the time of the Third
Five-Year Review.

Continue with the LTM program and
background reassessment for the
Roubidoux Aquifer. It was

recommended by the Third Five-Year
Review that the LTM program continue
so that the effectiveness of the well
plugging program can be determined.
As part of the LTM program, it was
further recommended that the
Roubidoux background reassessment
proposed by the ODEQ be conducted
to verify that the indicator parameters,
background concentrations, and
tolerance limits used as triggers to
indicate acid mine water influx from
the Boone Aquifer to the Roubidoux
Aquifer are appropriate. If it was
determined through the LTM program
that the acid mine water influx
represents a more widespread
regional problem, the need for
additional activities (such as continued
or more widespread monitoring) would
be evaluated. If it was determined
through the LTM program that the
Roubidoux Aquifer was no longer
capable of meeting the primary
drinking water standards, the need for
additional remedial actions would be
reevaluated.

ODEQ and
EPA Region 6

The Roubidoux aquifer continues to
meet MCLs and is suitable for use as
a drinking water source. The LTM and
AAM for the Roubidoux are now being
referred to as the Roubidoux
Groundwater Monitoring Program to
be consistent with the ROD.

Roubidoux
Groundwater
Monitoring
Program is
ongoing

PAGE 4 OF 6

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 3

Actions Taken Since Third Five-Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Issue from Third Five-Year Review

Third Five-Year Review
Recommendations/ Follow-up
Actions

Party
Responsible

Action Taken

Date of Action

5

Well plugging program for
abandoned Roubidoux wells. The

OU1 ROD recognized that additional
abandoned wells completed in the
Roubidoux Aquifer might be identified
after completion of the RA. The ROD
stated that the need to plug additional
wells would be evaluated as wells
were identified. The need to plug
additional Roubidoux wells as they
were identified was also
recommended in the First and Second
Five-Year Review Reports. This
requirement remains an issue to be
addressed in future five-year reviews.

Continue plugging abandoned
Roubidoux wells. The OU1 ROD

provided for plugging additional
abandoned Roubidoux wells as they
are identified at the site. These efforts
should continue in order to prevent
contamination from migrating from the
Boone Aquifer into the Roubidoux
Aquifer. If additional abandoned wells
were identified, efforts were to be
undertaken to locate the well,
determine that the well is completed in
the Roubidoux aquifer, and plug those
abandoned wells completed in the
Roubidoux Aquifer where deemed
technically feasible.

ODEQ

The ODEQ has identified 19 potential
wells in the 2006 report that need to
be located and assessed to determine
if the wells are completed in the
Roubidoux aquifer (ODEQ, 2006) . No
wells have been plugged since the
Third Five-Year Review.

Ongoing

6

Completion of the OU2 RA. RA

activities at the site were ongoing
during the writing of the Third Five-
Year Review. There were still
residential properties at the site where
assessment sampling had determined
remediation was needed.

Continue with the OU2 RA. The

residential yard and HAA remediation
as stated in the OU2 ROD were to
continue. The residential yard
remediation was underway at the time
of writing of the Third Five-Year
Review.

EPA Region 6

The residential yard and HAA
remediation has been completed in
Picher, Cardin, Quapaw and North
Miami by EPA and documented in a
remedial action report (CH2M HILL,
2007a). Additional remedial action
work under OU2 is ongoing.

Ongoing

PAGE 5 OF 6

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 3

Actions Taken Since Third Five-Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Issue from Third Five-Year Review

Third Five-Year Review
Recommendations/ Follow-up
Actions

Party
Responsible

Action Taken

Date of Action

7

Completion of the OU4 RI/FS,
BHHRA, and ERA. The EPA, ODEQ,
and Quapaw Tribe were working with
the PRPs to plan and execute the
RI/FS for OU4 at the time of writing the
Third Five-Year Review. The EPA
was responsible for completing the
BHHRA and the ERA based on data
collected by the PRPs and EPA.

Conduct the RI/FS, BHHRA, and
ERA for OU4. Efforts to complete the
RI/FS, BHHRA, and ERA to address
the remaining mining wastes at the
site for OU4 were to continue.

EPA Region 6

The RI/FS for OU4 was completed in
July 2007. The BHHRA was
presented in the OU4 ROD, signed by
EPA in February of 2008. In lieu of
developing a baseline ERA for OU4,
the Ecological Remediation Goals
developed by EPA for the nearby
Cherokee County Superfund Site were
used to develop the Ecological
Remediation Goals in the OU4 ROD.

February 2008

PAGE 6 OF 6

AUGUST 2010

-------
TABLE 4

Stream Surface Water Contaminant of Concern Analytical Results
Fourth Five- Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma









CD



PB



ZN











Mg/L



Mg/L



Mg/L







Acute :

161



477



379







Chronic1 :

2



19



343





Date

Sample















StationID

Collected

Type

Matrix













Tar Creek

RVR0001 -0001SW

3/20/09 16:15

N

WS

6J

=

106

=

3010

=

RVR0001-0002SW

3/26/09 10:40

N

ws

5

U

19.5

=

1680

=

RVR0001-0003SW

3/25/09 15:05

N

WS

5

U

16.8

=

887

=

RVR0001-0004SW

3/25/09 10:45

N

ws

5

u

21.4

=

1080

=

RVR0001-0005SW

3/17/09 14:30

N

ws

82

=

12.8

=

2820

=

RVR0001-0006SW

3/17/09 15:45

N

ws

5

u

38.3

=

2100

=

RVR0001-0007SW

3/18/09 11:10

N

ws

5

u

42.7

=

1550

=

RVR0001-0008SW

3/18/09 12:40

N

ws

5

u

9

=

1750

=

RVR0001-0009SW

3/20/09 10:40

N

ws

5

u

5.2

=

1560

=

RVR0001 -001OSW

3/17/09 11:50

N

ws

5

u

40.9

=

1330

=

RVR0001 -0011 SW

3/6/09 13:10

N

ws

5

u

44.1

=

1940

=

RVR0001 -0012SW

3/6/09 11:10

N

ws

2

LJ

10.9

=

2070

=

RVR0001 -0013SW

3/5/09 15:00

N

ws

§2

=

11

=

3620

=

RVR0001 -0014SW

3/5/09 13:00

N

ws

HI

=

9.9

LJ

5310

=

RVR0001 -0015SW

3/7/09 13:05

N

ws

62

=

10

U

6220

=

RVR0001 -0016SW

3/7/09 11:50

N

ws

5J

=

10

U

5880

=

RVR0001 -0017SW

3/17/09 11:30

N

ws

5

u

2.3

=

5240

=

RVR0001 -0018SW

3/17/09 10:15

N

ws

5

u

3

=

5410

=

RVR0001 -0019SW

3/7/09 15:45

N

ws

5J5

=

10

U

5440

=

RVR0001-0020SW

3/7/09 12:23

N

ws

5J5

=

10

u

5630

=

RVR0001 -0021 SW

3/7/09 9:45

N

ws

5J

=

10

u

5140

=

RVR0001-0022SW

3/6/09 16:50

N

ws

5J3

=

10

u

5280

=

RVR0001-0023SW

3/6/09 15:03

N

ws

5J5

=

10

u

5510

=

RVR0001-0024SW

3/6/09 11:25

N

ws

5

u

10

u

5000

=

RVR0001-0025SW

3/5/09 10:30

N

ws

1Z

LJ

2.9

LJ

5040

=

RVR0001-0026SW

3/5/09 12:40

N

ws

3J

LJ

10

U

4930

=

RVR0001-0027SW

3/18/09 10:00

N

ws

5

U

2.1

=

4710

=

RVR0001-0028SW

3/18/09 11:10

N

ws

5

U

2.6

=

4500

=

Lytle Creek

RVR0002-0001 SW

3/27/09 11:25

N

ws

5

U

30.2

=

728

=

RVR0002-0002SW

3/27/09 13:00

N

ws

5J3

=

64.6

=

1530

=

RVR0002-0003SW

3/28/09 10:00

N

ws

5

u

20.1

=

1320

=

RVR0002-0004SW

3/28/09 11:25

N

ws

5

u

20.7

=

1430

=

RVR0002-0005SW

3/28/09 12:50

N

ws

5

u

25.3

=

1200

=

RVR0002-0006SW

3/26/09 12:15

N

ws

5

u

55.1

=

1210

=

R VR0002-0007SW

3/26/09 10:10

N

ws

5

u

80.4

=

1370

=

RVR0002-0008SW

3/25/09 15:10

N

ws

5

u

75.4

=

1400

=

RVR0002-0009SW

3/25/09 10:35

N

ws

5

u

81

=

1680

=

RVR0002-001 OSW

3/20/09 14:55

N

ws

5

u

64.1

=

437

=

RVR0002-0011 SW

3/20/09 13:15

N

ws

5

u

104

=

697

=

RVR0002-0012SW

3/19/09 12:00

N

ws

5

u

19.1

=

827

=

RVR0002-0013SW

3/19/09 10:15

N

ws

5

u

49.9

=

684

=

RVR0002-0014SW

3/7/09 15:10

N

ws

5

u

6.3

LJ

443

=

Elm Creek

RVR0003-0001 SW

3/9/09 12:40

N

ws

14.9

=

418

=

2420

=

RVR0003-0002SW

3/10/09 11:20

N

ws

61.7

=

392

=

8120

=

10_T C_5YR_2010-0813_T able 4.xls

PAGE 1 OF 2

AUGUST 2010

-------
TABLE 4

Stream Surface Water Contaminant of Concern Analytical Results
Fourth Five- Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma









CD

PB

ZN









Mg/L

Mg/L

Mg/L





Acute1 :

161

477

379





Chronic1 :

2

19

343



Date

Sample









StationID

Collected

Type

Matrix







RVR0003-0003SW

3/10/09 12:15

N

WS

158 =

446 =

20200 =

RVR0003-0004SW

3/8/09 14:40

N

ws

92.4 =

149 =

23500 =

RVR0003-0005SW

3/8/09 13:50

N

WS

35.2 =

21.2 =

12300 =

RVR0003-0006SW

3/8/09 13:10

N

ws

33.1 =

27.5 =

9340 =

R VR0003-0007SW

3/8/09 11:30

N

ws

40.4 =

57.8 =

9960 =

RVR0003-0008SW

3/9/09 11:25

N

ws

27.8 =

13.2 =

6850 =

RVR0003-0009SW

3/9/09 10:30

N

ws

33.8 =

10.6 =

6950 =

RVR0003-001OSW

3/11/09 11:00

N

ws

0.53 LJ

11.3 =

128 =

RVR0003-0011 SW

3/11/09 12:00

N

ws

0.27 LJ

4J_ LJ

176 =

RVR0003-0012SW

3/11/09 13:25

N

ws

0.88 LJ

48.7 =

126 =

RVR0003-0013SW

3/19/09 10:50

N

ws

5 U

0.4 U

644 =

RVR0003-0014SW

3/19/09 12:25

N

ws

5 U

0.4 U

566 =

Beaver Creek

R VR0004-0007SW

3/18/09 15:35

N

ws

5 U

2 U

32.5 =

RVR0004-0008SW

3/11/09 17:10

N

ws

0.25 LJ

10.8 =

37.7 LJ

RVR0004-0009SW

3/11/09 15:30

N

ws

0.33 LJ

23.2 =

48.9 LJ

RVR0004-001 OSW

3/11/09 12:10

N

ws

0.33 LJ

23.2 =

56.6 LJ

RVR0004-0011 SW

3/9/09 13:25

N

ws

1.2 LJ

10 U

1470 =

RVR0004-0012SW

3/10/09 11:55

N

ws

0.88 LJ

1.9 LJ

1220 =

RVR0004-0013SW

3/10/09 15:20

N

ws

0.54 LJ

1.8 LJ

894 =

RVR0004-0014SW

3/8/09 13:50

N

ws

5 U

10 U

549 =

RVR0004-0015SW

3/8/09 12:20

N

ws

5 U

10 U

472 =

RVR0004-0016SW

3/8/09 11:23

N

ws

5 U

10 U

544 =

Bold results indicate detected result exceeded acute screening threshold of the OWQS
Underline results indicate detected result exceeded chronic screening threshold of the OWQS

Bold/Underline/ltalic results indicate detected result exceeded both acute and chronic screening threshold of the OWQS
1 - Provided by Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.

U : Not detected at the laboratory reported quantitation limit

J : Result is estimated because of outlying QC parameters such as matrix spike, serial dilution, etc.

JH : Result is estimated with a high bias because of outlying QC parameters.

LJ : Reported concentration is between the MDL and the CRQL. Result is estimated because of outlying quality control parameters
JW: Result is estimated because of outlying quality QC such as matrix spike, serial dilution, etc. The result is reported in dry weight
= : Analyte was detected at the reported concentration
OWQS - Oklahoma Water Quality Standards

10_T C_5YR_2010-0813_T able 4.xls

PAGE 2 OF 2

AUGUST 2010

-------
TABLE 5

Stream Sediment Contaminant of Concern Analytical Results
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma









CD



PB



ZN











mg/Kg



mg/Kg



mg/Kg





Date

Sample















StationID

Collected

Type

Matrix













Tar Creek

RVR0001-0001SD

3/20/09 16:25

N

SD

22.4

J

589

=

7340

=

RVR0001-0002SD

3/26/09 11:05

N

SD

119

J

3130

=

27000

=

RVR0001-0003SD

3/25/09 15:30

N

SD

7

J

154

=

2930

=

RVR0001-0004SD

3/25/09 11:20

N

SD

35

J

416

=

12000

=

RVR0001-0005SD

3/17/09 14:40

N

SD

11.4

=

155

=

2230

=

RVR0001-0006SD

3/17/09 15:55

N

SD

73.7

=

553

=

13600

=

RVR0001-0007SD

3/18/09 11:20

N

SD

78.6

=

2310

=

13100

=

RVR0001-0008SD

3/18/09 12:50

N

SD

34.7

=

261

=

4080

=

RVR0001-0009SD

3/20/09 10:50

N

SD

128

J

1360

=

22200

=

RVR0001-0010SD

3/17/09 12:00

N

SD

215

=

4940

=

41800

=

RVR0001-0011SD

3/6/09 13:10

N

SD

90.3

J

2340

J

25000

J

RVR0001-0012SD

3/6/09 11:10

N

SD

2

J

25.9

J

1460

J

RVR0001-0013SD

3/5/09 15:00

N

SD

11.5

J

160

J

2660

J

RVR0001-0014SD

3/5/09 13:00

N

SD

69.9

J

142

J

16300

J

RVR0001-0015SD

3/7/09 13:05

N

SD

19.1

J

279

J

5380

J

RVR0001-0016SD

3/7/09 11:50

N

SD

21.6

J

153

J

4300

J

RVR0001-0017SD

3/17/09 11:40

N

SD

21.9

=

180

=

4980

=

RVR0001-0018SD

3/17/09 10:35

N

SD

116

=

761

=

17700

=

RVR0001-0019SD

3/7/09 16:10

N

SD

31.6

J

238

J

8280

J

RVR0001-0020SD

3/7/09 12:45

N

SD

21.6

J

268

J

5660

J

RVR0001-0021SD

3/7/09 10:10

N

SD

34.8

J

240

J

7140

J

RVR0001-0022SD

3/6/09 17:05

N

SD

8.1

J

287

J

3190

J

RVR0001-0023SD

3/6/09 15:30

N

SD

17.4

J

587

J

5520

J

RVR0001-0024SD

3/6/09 11:40

N

SD

6.4

J

169

J

2790

J

RVR0001-0025SD

3/5/09 11:15

N

SD

16.1

J

407

J

8420

J

RVR0001-0026SD

3/5/09 13:15

N

SD

18.9

J

337

J

6320

J

RVR0001-0027SD

3/18/09 10:30

N

SD

20.6

=

239

=

5940

=

RVR0001-0028SD

3/18/09 11:25

N

SD

15.7

=

348

=

5350

=

Lytle Creek

RVR0002-0001SD

3/27/09 11:35

N

SD

3

=

39.1

=

708

=

RVR0002-0002SD

3/27/09 13:10

N

SD

22.3

=

127

=

8270

=

RVR0002-0003SD

3/28/09 10:10

N

SD

137

=

667

=

35300

=

RVR0002-0004SD

3/28/09 11:35

N

SD

117

=

611

=

27500

=

RVR0002-0005SD

3/28/09 13:00

N

SD

139

=

1070

=

28800

=

RVR0002-0006SD

3/26/09 12:25

N

SD

87.6

J

2540

=

15900

=

RVR0002-0007SD

3/26/09 10:25

N

SD

96.5

J

1910

=

22700

=

RVR0002-0008SD

3/25/09 15:30

N

SD

15.9

J

302

=

5070

=

RVR0002-0009SD

3/25/09 10:45

N

SD

9.1

J

82.3

=

1680

=

RVR0002-001OSD

3/20/09 15:05

N

SD

47.6

J

775

=

11700

=

RVR0002-0011SD

3/20/09 13:25

N

SD

87.2

J

2570

=

20700

=

RVR0002-0012SD

3/19/09 12:10

N

SD

20.8

=

265

=

6180

=

RVR0002-0013SD

3/19/09 10:25

N

SD

110

=

1500

=

11900

=

RVR0002-0014SD

3/7/09 15:10

N

SD

237

JW

1520

JW

43000

JW

Elm Creek

RVR0003-0001 SD

3/9/09 12:40

N

SD

85.2

JW

6070

JW

14300

JW

RVR0003-0002SD

3/10/09 11:20

N

SD

85.8

J

23800

=

55300

=

RVR0003-0003SD

3/10/09 12:15

N

SD

100

J

27400

=

51900

=

10_T C_5YR_2010-0813_T able 5.xls

PAGE 1 OF 2

AUGUST 2010

-------
TABLE 5

Stream Sediment Contaminant of Concern Analytical Results
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma









CD



PB



ZN











mg/Kg



mg/Kg



mg/Kg





Date

Sample















StationID

Collected

Type

Matrix













RVR0003-0004SD

3/8/09 14:40

N

SD

645

JW

40400

JW

67900

JW

RVR0003-0005SD

3/8/09 13:50

N

SD

82.6

J

5170

J

10500

J

RVR0003-0006SD

3/8/09 13:10

N

SD

53.5

J

3680

J

4350

J

RVR0003-0007SD

3/8/09 11:30

N

SD

43.4

J

4220

=

8250

=

RVR0003-0008SD

3/9/09 11:25

N

SD

1.1

J

32.6

=

695

=

RVR0003-0009SD

3/9/09 10:30

N

SD

25.6

J

939

=

3280

=

RVR0003-001OSD

3/11/09 11:10

N

SD

39.2

J

1320

=

3410

=

RVR0003-0011SD

3/11/09 12:10

N

SD

19.6

J

1170

=

3920

=

RVR0003-0012SD

3/11/09 13:35

N

SD

52.9

J

2920

=

8800

=

RVR0003-0013SD

3/19/09 11:00

N

SD

8.5

=

101

=

1360

=

RVR0003-0014SD

3/19/09 12:30

N

SD

9.1

=

79.3

=

7940

=

Beaver Creek

RVR0004-0007SD

3/18/09 15:45

N

SD

2.8

=

140

=

524

=

RVR0004-0008SD

3/11/09 17:20

N

SD

6.2

J

258

=

1480

=

RVR0004-0009SD

3/11/09 15:40

N

SD

10.9

J

161

=

1470

=

RVR0004-001 OSD

3/11/09 12:20

N

SD

18.9

J

91.5

=

2040

=

RVR0004-0011SD

3/9/09 13:50

N

SD

20.1

J

24

=

2210

=

RVR0004-0012SD

3/10/09 12:10

N

SD

164

J

165

=

21500

=

RVR0004-0013SD

3/10/09 15:40

N

SD

3.4

J

34.3

=

833

=

RVR0004-0014SD

3/8/09 13:55

N

SD

545

J

586

J

88400

J

RVR0004-0015SD

3/8/09 12:30

N

SD

26

J

86.8

J

6620

J

RVR0004-0016SD

3/8/09 11:35

N

SD

14

J

84.2

J

2400

J

U : Not detected at the laboratory reported quantitation limit

J : Result is estimated because of outlying QC parameters such as matrix spike, serial dilution, etc.

JH : Result is estimated with a high bias because of outlying QC parameters.

LJ : Reported concentration is between the MDL and the CRQL. Result is estimated because of outlying quality
JW : Result is estimated because of outlying quality QC such as matrix spike, serial dilution, etc. The result is reported
= : Analyte was detected at the reported concentration

10_T C_5YR_2010-0813_T able 5.xls

PAGE 2 OF 2

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 6

Issues Identified During the Fourth Five-Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Issues

Affects
Protectiveness
(Y IN)

Current

Future

1

No O&M Plan exists for the dike and diversion channel for the Admiralty Mine Site (this issue is carried over from the
third five-year review). The ODEQ's O&M Plan for the dike and diversion channel constructed at the Admiralty Mine
Site as part of the OU1 remedy was written in 1987 and facts have arisen that make it outdated. The ODEQ is
responsible for maintaining the dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty Mine Site, as part of ODEQ's O&M for
OU1. The dike at the Admiralty site requires some maintenance to repair damage noted during the site inspection
and mowing.

N

Y

2

A determination regarding the effectiveness of the well plugging program, which was intended to prevent mine water
infiltration into the Roubidoux aquifer has not been completed (this issue is carried over from the third five-year
review). The Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program has collected data for a period of over 20 years since the
RA to plug abandoned Roubidoux wells was completed. In the past, it was believed that the Roubidoux aquifer was
being impacted by the mine water; however, only certain indicator parameters were found, and subsequent data
collection over twenty years has not found any more reason to believe that the mine water is degrading the
Roubidoux. It should be noted that neither EPA nor ODEQ have identified any public drinking water wells at the site
that fail to meet the health-based primary drinking water standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels or MCLs)
established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the drinking water supplied from the Roubidoux at the
site is safe for all uses. Nonetheless, all available information indicates that the primary mechanism for mine water to
enter the Roubidoux aquifer is infiltration through unplugged abandoned wells or infiltration through wells that have

N

Y

3

ODEQ research has found references to 19 abandoned wells that need to be assessed for plugging (this issue is
carried over from the third five-year review). The OU1 ROD recognized that additional abandoned wells completed in
the Roubidoux aquifer might be identified after completion of the OU1 RA. The ROD stated that the need to plug
additional wells would be evaluated as wells were identified. The existence of wells found by ODEQ's research in
historic documents has not been verified. Field work will be necessary to verify the existence of these wells and to
determine whether they are completed in the Roubidoux.

N

Y

11_T C_5YR_2010-0813_T able6.xlsx

PAGE 1 OF 3

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 6

Issues Identified During the Fourth Five-Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Issues

Affects
Protectiveness
(Y IN)

Current

Future

While significant progress has been made, there is work remaining before the OU2 RA is complete (this issue is
carried over from the third five-year review). Residential yard remediation has been completed in the towns of Picher,
Quapaw, North Miami, and Cardin. However, additional work is still necessary to complete the RA for OU2. Chat
has been identified in driveways and alleyways in Miami and in other areas of Ottawa County outside of the mining
area. The footprints of homes demolished and removed as part of the OU4 voluntary relocation, the footprints of
homes demolished in Miami due to flooding issues, and the footprints of homes demolished as part of work
performed in Commerce have not been assessed to determine if additional remediation is required.

An assessment of the surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek should be completed to verify that a threat to
human health does not exist (this issue is carried over from the third five-year review). The third five-year review
recommended that then current surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek be evaluated to verify that no threat
to human health exists in Tar Creek. Since the third five-year review, additional studies have been conducted. These
additional studies gathered additional data on the surface water and sediment in site streams, including Tar Creek.
These studies also gathered data from fish tissue. Based on this data, the assumptions on which the OU1 ROD fund
balancing ARAR's waiver were based are no longer valid. The OU1 ROD stated that fillets offish caught from the
mouth of Tar Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers, and Grand Lake were safe to eat. However, recent ODEQ data
have demonstrated that potential risk to human health exists through consumption offish caught from Tar Creek, the
Spring and Neosho Rivers, and Grand Lake. The OU1 ROD also stated that the sediments in Tar Creek provide a
long-term sink for metals that effectively removes the metals from most biological processes. However, the
advanced SLERA documented a moderate to high risk to ecological receptors from sediment and surface water
contamination associated with the site. Data from ongoing OU5 investigations of surface water and sediment show
that metals concentrations in surface water in site streams continue to exceed the OWQS for its lowered designated
beneficial uses.

11_T C_5YR_2010-0813_T able6.xlsx

PAGE 2 OF 3

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 6

Issues Identified During the Fourth Five-Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Issues

Affects
Protectiveness
(Y IN)

Current

Future

6

ICs restricting the use of shallow ground water have not been put in place as called for in the OU4 ROD. The OU4
ROD calls for ICs restricting the use of the Boone aquifer and also restricting the use of any ground water that is
shallower than the Boone. Specifically, the ROD calls for ICs restricting the potable and domestic use of such ground
water where concentrations of site-related contaminants exceed the remediation goals established in the ROD. The
IC is to be implemented through the OWQS (785 OAC 45 Appendix H). Appendix H of the OWQS states that toxic
metals are present and that special well construction methods are required within the OU4 boundary due to
contamination in the Boone aquifer, but there are currently no limitations placed on the use of ground water from the
Boone aquifer (or other shallower ground water) for potable use, including domestic supply.

Y

Y

11_T C_5YR_2010-0813_T able6.xlsx

PAGE 3 OF 3

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5Yr_201 0-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Table 7

Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions from the Fourth Five-Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Recommendations/Follow-Up Actions

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Agency

Milestone Date

Follov
Actions:
Protecti
fY

v-Up

Affects

veness

Current

Future

ODEQ

EPA

September 2012

Complete the evaluation of the effectiveness of the well plugging program that is intended to prevent mine
water infiltration into the Roubidoux aquifer. It would be beneficial to future long-term decision making if, under
the Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program, all the analytical results available from the Roubidoux
aquifer were compiled into a single database. The database could then be used to perform statistical and trend
analyses on the data to assess long-term changes to the water quality of the Roubidoux. If additional data are
required to complete the evaluation, then such data should be collected. Recommendations should then be
developed regarding the need for continued monitoring and/or additional actions to protect the Roubidoux
aquifer if necessary. The evaluation of the effectiveness of the well plugging program should be completed by
September 2014 (prior to the next five-year review).

ODEQ

EPA

September 2014

ODEQ

EPA

September 2012

12_TC_5YR_2010-0813_Table7 .xls

PAGE 1 OF 3

AUGUST 2010

-------
Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions from the Fourth Five-Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Recommendations/Follow-Up Actions

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Agency

Milestone Date

Follov
Actions:
Protecti
fY

v-Up

Affects

veness

Current

Future

Remaining actions should be taken to complete the OU2 RA. These actions include, but may not be limited to:
1)assessment of chat in driveways and alleyways in areas of Ottawa County, including Miami, that are outside
of the mining area (approximately 450 in Miami and 50 in other areas of Ottawa County); 2) assessment of the
footprints of homes demolished as part of the voluntary relocation (approximately 450 properties); 3)
remediation of residential properties located outside of the boundary of the OU4 voluntary buyout, where
access was previously denied and where soil lead concentrations exceed the remediation goal established in
the OU2 ROD (approximately 140 properties). Owners of residential properties where access was previously
denied will be offered a final opportunity to have their properties re-sampled and remediated if necessary. The
next five-year review should also consider whether OU2 can be deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL).
This deletion of OU2 from the NPL would be a partial deletion of the site. This follow-up action should be
completed by September 2015.

EPA

Sepetember2015

The EPA should complete the evaluation of current surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek to verify that
no unacceptable risks to human health and the environment exist in Tar Creek. Numerous studies have been
conducted since the third five-year review. These studies have collected surface water and sediment data in
Tar Creek and other site streams. If necessary, the EPA should collect enough additional data to determine if
potential risks are posed to human health and the environment by the surface water and sediments in streams
of the Tar Creek site. The risks should be quantified through a risk assessment. If unacceptable risks are
identified, then potential remedial alternatives will be evaluated to address the identified risks. Potential
remedial alternatives may include engineered remedies, such as passive treatment through constructed
wetlands. A determination may also be made that it is still technically impractical to address surface water and
sediment through an engineered remedy and/or that no further action is required. The risk assessment portion
of this follow-up action should be completed by September 2012. If necessary, an evaluation of remedial
alternatives should be completed by September 2014 (prior to the next five-year review).

EPA

September 2014

12_TC_5YR_2010-0813_Table7 .xls

PAGE 2 OF 3

AUGUST 2010

-------
Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions from the Fourth Five-Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Number

Recommendations/Follow-Up Actions

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Agency

Milestone Date

Follov
Actions:
Protecti
fY

v-Up

Affects

veness

m

Current

Future

6

The IC restricting potable and domestic use of shallow ground water including the Boone aquifer as specified in
the OU4 ROD should be implemented. The OU4 ROD calls for ICs restricting the use of the Boone aquifer and
also restricting the use of any ground water that is shallower than the Boone. Specifically, the ROD calls for
ICs restricting the potable and domestic use of such ground water where concentrations of site-related
contaminants exceed the remediation goals established in the ROD. The IC is to be implemented through the
OWQS (785 OAC 45 Appendix H). Appendix H of the OWQS states that toxic metals are present and that
special well construction methods are required within the OU4 boundary due to contamination in the Boone
aquifer, but there are currently no limitations placed on the use of ground water from the Boone aquifer (or
other shallower ground water) for potable use, including domestic supply. The ODEQ has indicated that it will
explore placing a restriction in Appendix H of the OWQS limiting ground water use from the mine pool and the
Boone aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the mine pool for public water supply or domestic use. The ODEQ's
restriction will include treatment requirements to remove any lead above the MCL of 15 micrograms per liter.
EPA suggests that the State of Oklahoma review this IC. This follow-up action should be completed by
September 2011.

ODEQ

EPA

September 2011

Y

Y

12_TC_5YR_2010-0813_Table7 .xls

PAGE 3 OF 3

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5Yr_201 0-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Figures

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5Yr_201 0-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
I Miles

Figure 1
Tar Creek Superfund Site

Ottawa County, OK

CH2MHILL

File Path: \\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\OU5\MXD\Figure1-1 .mxd 2/04/09 SDaigle

-------
State Line Rd

Richer

Quapaw

Road

20

Cardin

40

Road

• Vjj>j

Commerce

iffi» 'waffi CM

V



-=r*



.....

CH2MHILL

Legend

Voluntary Buyout Boundary
Site Boundary

2,500 5,000

10,000

Figure 2

Voluntary Relocation Boundary Map

Tar Creek Superfund Site
Operable Unit 4
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:
AATA INTERNATIONAL INC.
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

\\HOLLISTER\PROJ\TAR_CREEK\380667_TAR_CREEK_OU4\MAPFILES\OU4_RELOCATIONZONE.MXD CRIVERS 1/29/2010 10:26:07

-------
c, consumption'

* For the Tar Creek Area Including Grand Lake

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality has issued a series offish consumption advisories
for the Tar Creek area, which includes Grand Lake. The advisory pertains to lead levels found in fish. The
recommendations provided are categorized by residents or non-residents of theTar Creek area. These guidelines are
designed to help people make informed choices about their health and diet.

Below are the different types offish sampled in theTar Creek area along with the suggested maximum number of meals
per month one should consume.

Carp

Freshwater Drum
Redhosrse Sucker
Small mouth Buffalo

Not Sampled

3 meals per 9 meals per
month of month of
preparations boneless
with bones fillets

8 meals per
month of
preparations
with bones

6 meals per
month of
preparations
with bones

Carp

Freshwater Drum
Redhosrse Sucker
Smallmouth Buffalo

Not Sampled

5 meals per
month of
preparations
with bones

Unrestricted

II meals per
month of
preparations
with bones



Mill Ponds

Spring River

Neosho River

Grand Lake

Game Fish

Mill Ponds

Spring River

Neosho River

Grand Lake

White Bass
Largemouth Bass
Black Crappie
White Crappie

14 meals per
month of
preparations
with bones

Unrestricted

Unrestricted

Unrestricted

White Bass
Largemouth Bass
Black Crappie
White Crappie

Unrestricted

Unrestricted

Unrestricted

Unrestricted

SPjlS

Mill Ponds

Spring River

Neosho River

Grand Lake

£unfish

Mill Ponds

Spring River

Neosho River

Grand Lake

Bluegill Sunfish
Green Sunfish
Hybird Sunfish

2 meals per
month of
preparations
with bones

5 meals per
month of
preparations
with bones

Unrestricted

Unrestricted

Bluegill Sunfish
Green Sunfish
Hybird Sunfish

5 meals per
month of
preparations
with bones

8 meals per
month of
preparations
with bones

Unrestricted

Unrestricted



Mill Ponds

Spring River

Neosho River

Grand Lake

Catfish

Mill Ponds

Spring River

Neosho River

Grand Lake

Blue Catfish
Channel Catfish

Unrestricted

9 meals per
month of
preparations
with bones

Unrestricted

Unrestricted

Blue Catfish
Channel Catfish

Not sampled

Unrestricted

Unrestricted

Unrestricted

Paddle F'Sh *

Mill Ponds

Spring River

Neosho River

Grand Lake

paddle Fish 4-

Mill Ponds

Spring River

Neosho River

Grand Lake



Not Sampled

Unrestricted

Unrestricted

Unrestricted

Paddle "Fish Eggs

Not Sampled

Unrestricted

Unrestricted

Unrestricted

This publication is issued by theOklahoma Department of Environmental Quality as authorized by Steven A. Thompson, Executive Director. Copies have been produced at a cost of$8.03. Twenty-five copies have been deposited with Publications C

earinghouse of the Oklahoma Depar

tment of Libraries. CMullins\CustomerService\FishConsumptionGuide\Poster\ConsumptionPoster.indd Printed on recycled

content paper. 8/05/08

FIGURE3

ODEQ Fish Consumption Guide
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

ES010510072638DFW

.GH2MHILL

-------
Kansas

Oklahoma

MCNee

' T29N R22E

RWD7#2

Cardirn

luapaw

Commerce

Miami#11

T28N

Figure 4 - Well Location Map
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Fourth Five-Year Review

W PWS Wells
^ Monitor Wells
-0- Plugged Wells
LTM Wells

LTM Well Numbers

Subsurface Mine Workings
Site Boundary

Figure reproduced from ODEQ, 2004c

-------
m

[Grove Rd'

[RVROOOItOOOII

RVROO01:0002^

RVR0003-0012J

RVR0001-0003]

RVR0002-0001 |

RVR0003-0011

RVROQQ 1-^0004

[RVR0002-0002I

RVR0001-0005J

3m? RVR0002-0003I

Sv^oBo04mB

RVR0001-0006

RVR0002-0005

RVR0002-0006]

RVR0001-0007li.
* RVR0001-0008

RVR0002-0007J

M/RVR0003^0Ci0|

RVR0003-0014

j^0RVR0003-0007
t^R^Q(^gooo3:ooQ8:

IRVR0002-0008

RVR0001-0009

IS 1RVR0002-0009]

J % tersjmb
rvrooo2^o6io^B

RVR0001-00101

RVR0003-0009M3Q») Rrf)

R\/Rnnai-nnii i'BnRVRQQQ2-ooTi|

RVR0002-0012'

RVR0001-0012,

RVR0002-QQ14j

RVR0002-0013

RVR0001-0013

RVR0001-00147;

RVR0001:0015i

1RVR0001:0018]

RVR0001-00191

RVR0QQT-,0Q201

RVR00Q4-0011|

fMelba]

RVR0004-0012 ^^RVRQQ"oYo"q'i S a ]

¦BmM

[Morgan

'RVR0001(0021]

RVR0QQ1;QQ22|

!RVR0001{0023MOJ

[ RVR0001:0025]

Wmofpth

[RVR0001:0026]

[ RVRQO01 t00271

. RVR0001:0028]

f Newman Rd]

fHighland Ave]

Legend

^ Sample Location

Roads

— Highway
Local Road
Creek

Tar Creek Boundary

Figure 5

Stream Survey
Sample Locations

Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County; Oklahoma

\\HOLLISTER\PROJ\TAR CREEK\R6R2-043_TCSM_OU4_FR_395950\MAPFILES\CHAT_DEPTHS_080410.MXD CRIVERS 8/5/2010 08:55:00

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5Yr_201 0-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Attachments

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5Yr_201 0-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Attachment 1

Documents Reviewed

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report ~ Attachment 1 ~ Documents Reviewed

Attachment 1
List of Documents Reviewed

AATA International, Inc., Draft: Remedial Investigation Report Tar Creek OU4 RI/FS Program.
December 2005.

Andrews, W.J., Becker, M.F., Mashburn, S.L., Smith, S.J. 2009. Selected Metals in Sediments and
Streams in the Oklahoma Part of the Tri-State Mining District, 2000-2006. U.S. Geological
Survey Scientific Report 2009-5-032.

U. S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2004a. Activities in Oklahoma.
Factsheet. June 2004.

U. S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2004b. Report to Congress, Tar
Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. October 2004.

U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2008. Health Data Findings and

Recommendations for Ottawa County, Oklahoma, Near the Tar Creek Superfund Site Factsheet.
September 2008.

Brown and Root Environmental, 1997. Residential Remedial Investigation Report, Residential Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Final,
January 1997.

U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 2005. Chat Sales Treatability Study Work Plan for the Sale of

Indian-Owned Chat Within the Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Final, June
23,2005.

CH2M HILL, 2002a. Technical Memorandum, High Access Area Sampling Results, Miami Oklahoma

Schools, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit 2, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. April 22, 2002.

CH2M HILL, 2002b. Technical Memorandum, Sampling Results for Parks and Daycare Centers, Miami,
Oklahoma, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit 2, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. September
13, 2002.

CH2M HILL, 2002c. Technical Memorandum, Flood Plain Sampling Results, Tar Creek Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 2, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. October 3, 2002.

CH2M HILL, 2002d. Technical Memorandum, Ottawa County High Access Area Sampling Results, Tar
Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit 2, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. November 1, 2002.

CH2M HILL, 2004. Memorandum, Number of OU2 Properties Remediated by CH2MHILL, Tar Creek
Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. July 16, 2004.

CH2M HILL. 2006a. Technical Memorandum, Borrow Source Sampling Results, Borrow Area No. 6
(Commerce Borrow Area), Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit No. 2, Ottawa County,
Oklahoma. March 27, 2006.

CH2M HILL. 2006b. Technical Memorandum. Sampling and Analysis of Asphalt Millings, Commerce
High School Parking Lot and Access Roads, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County,

Oklahoma. November 9, 2006.

13_T C_5Y r_Att1 _2010-081 3_Docum ents.doc

Page 1 of 7

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report ~ Attachment 1 ~ Documents Reviewed

CH2M HILL. 2006c. Technical Memorandum. Additional Work Completed at ABC Kids Daycare, Tar
Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. November 9, 2006.

CH2M HILL. 2007a. Remedial Action Report, Tar Creek Superfund Site Operable Unit 2, Ottawa
County, Oklahoma. March, 2007.

CH2M HILL. 2007b. Technical Memorandum. County Repository Construction Completion, Tar Creek
Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. April 9, 2007.

CH2M HILL. 2007c. Draft-Final Feasibility, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit 4, Ottawa County,
Oklahoma. July 2007.

CH2M HILL. 2007d. Technical Memorandum, Sampling and Analysis of Chat Samples Collected Along
the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Right-of-Way, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa
County, Oklahoma. May 25, 2007.

CH2M HILL. 2007e. Technical Memorandum, Roubidoux Aquifer Data Evaluation. February 15, 2007.

CH2MHILL. 2008. Hydrogeologic Characterization Work Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable
Unit 4. May 2008.

CH2M HILL. 2009. Technical Memorandum. South Repository Closure Modifications. June 29, 2009.

CH2M HILL, 2010. Hydrogeologic Characterization Study Report, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable
Unit 4, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Draft, March 2010.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E), 2000. Removal Action Report for Tar Creek Superfund Site,
Ottawa County, Oklahoma. December 2000.

Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1986. Final Report, Engineering Supervision of Clearing and Plugging
Operations at the Tar Creek Superfund Site. December 1986.

Grand Energy Corp, 2004. Work Plan for Plugging Five Abandoned Roubidoux Wells, Tar Creek
Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Prepared for Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality. April 2004.

IT Corporation (IT), 1985. Engineering Supervision, Clearing and Plugging Sixty-Six Abandoned Wells.
August, 1985.

MacDonald, D, et al. 2009a. Advanced Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) for Aquatic
Habitats with the Tri-State Mining District, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri. February, 2009.

MacDonald, D, et al, 2009b. Development and Evaluation of Sediment and Pore-Water Toxicity

Thresholds to Support Sediment Quality Assessments in the Tri-State Mining District (TSMD),
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Draft Final Technical Report, Volume I; Text. February, 2009.

MacDonald, D, et al, 2009c. Development and Evaluation of Sediment and Pore-Water Toxicity

Thresholds to Support Sediment Quality Assessments in the Tri-State Mining District (TSMD),
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Draft Final Technical Report, Volume II; Appendices 1
through 4.. February, 2009.

13_T C_5Y r_Att1 _2010-081 3_Docum ents.doc

Page 2 of 7

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report ~ Attachment 1 ~ Documents Reviewed

MacDonald, D, et al, 2010. Advanced Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) for aquatic
Habitats within the Tri-State Mining District, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri. Draft Final
Technical Report. October, 2009 (Revised May, 2010).

Office of the Secretary of State, 2000. Governor Frank Keating's Tar Creek Superfund Task Force Final
Report. October 1, 2000.

Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC), 2004. Conservation Conversation, Information for and
about Oklahoma's Conservation Districts. Volume 49, No. 9/10, September/October 2004.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), the Quapaw Tribe, University of Oklahoma,
and Senator James Inhofe, undated. Oklahoma Plan for Tar Creek.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), undated. Mine Tailings Usage Guidelines for
Residential Properties.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 1993. Technical Memorandum, Sampling
Results of Public Water Wells, August, 1992 to January, 1993, Tar Creek Superfund Site.
December 10, 1993.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2002a. Summary ofRoubidoux Water Quality
Tests for Phase II After Action Monitoring at the Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County,
Oklahoma. September 2002.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2002b. Scope of Work Amendment, Tar Creek
Superfund Site, After Action Monitoring (V-006449). Draft. October 2002.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2002c. Letter from David A. Cates, P. E./

ODEQ, to Roberta K. Hirt/ U. S. EPA, regarding Quarterly Report (FFY2003: 4th Quarter) EPA
Assistance ID Number: Tar Creek Grant # V-006449 (After Action Monitoring). October 31,

2002.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2003a. Letter from David A. Cates, P. E./

ODEQ, to Roberta K. Hirt/ U. S. EPA, regarding Quarterly Report (FFY2003: 1st Quarter) EPA
Assistance ID Number: Tar Creek Grant #¥-006449 (After Action Monitoring). January 30,

2003.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2003b. Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the
Tri-State Mining Area. July 1,2003.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2003c. News Release - DEQ Discourages
Eating Whole Fish from Tar Creek Area: Fish Fillets Are Safe. July 17, 2003.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2003d. Letter from David A. Cates, P. E./

ODEQ, to Roberta K. Hirt/ U. S. EPA, regarding Quarterly Report (FFY2003: 3rd Quarter) EPA
Assistance ID Number: Tar Creek Grant #¥-006449 (After Action Monitoring). July 30, 2003.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2003e. Letter from David A. Cates, P. E./

ODEQ, to Roberta K. Hirt/ U. S. EPA, regarding Quarterly Report (FFY2003: 4th Quarter) EPA
Assistance ID Number: Tar Creek Grant # ¥-006449 (After Action Monitoring). September 2003.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2003f. Letter from David A. Cates, P. E./
ODEQ, to Roberta K. Hirt/ U. S. EPA, regarding Tar Creek OU2 and OU4 Quarterly Report

13_T C_5Y r_Att1 _2010-081 3_Docum ents.doc

Page 3 of 7

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report ~ Attachment 1 ~ Documents Reviewed

MultiSite Grant CA# V-0064565 (FFY2003: 4th Quarter July, August, and September). October
23,2003.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2004a. Letter from David A. Cates, P. E./
ODEQ, to Roberta K. Hirt/ U. S. EPA, regarding Revised Quarterly Report (FFY2004 1st
Quarter) EPA Assistance ID Number: Tar Creek Grant # V-006449 (After Action Monitoring).
January 30, 2004.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2004b. Scope of Work - Tar Creek Superfund
Site, After Action Monitoring (V-006449). Amended Draft. April 5, 2004.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2004c. Letter from David A. Cates, P. E./

ODEQ, to Roberta K. Hirt/ U. S. EPA, regarding Quarterly Report (FFY2004 2nd Quarter) EPA
Assistance ID Number: Tar Creek Grant #V-006449 (After Action Monitoring). April 30, 2004.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2004d. Letter from David A. Cates, P.

E./ODEQ, to Ursula Lennox/RPM U. S. EPA, regarding Long Term Monitoring at Tar Creek, a
part of After Action Monitoring. May 24, 2004.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2004e. Letter from David A. Cates, P.

E./ODEQ, to Ursula Lennox/RPM U. S. EPA, regarding Long Term Monitoring (Second Round
of Semi-annual Roubidoux Sample, April 2004) at Tar Creek, a part of After Action Monitoring.
August 30, 2004.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2005a. Letter from David A. Cates, P.

E./ODEQ, to Ursula Lennox/RPM U. S. EPA, regarding Long Term Monitoring (Third Round of
Semi-annual Roubidoux Sample, October 2004) at Tar Creek, a part of After Action Monitoring.
January 31, 2005.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2005b. Letter from David A. Cates, P.

E./ODEQ, to Ursula Lennox/RPM U. S. EPA, regarding Long Term Monitoring (Fourth Round
of Semi-annual Roubidoux Sample, April 2005) at Tar Creek, a part of After Action Monitoring.
July 28, 2005.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2006a. Letter from David A. Cates, P.

E./ODEQ, to Ursula Lennox/RPM U. S. EPA, regarding Long Term Monitoring (Fifth Round of
Semi-annual Roubidoux Sample, October 2005) at Tar Creek, a part of After Action Monitoring.
January 4, 2006.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2006b. Letter from David A. Cates, P.

E./ODEQ, to Ursula Lennox/RPM U. S. EPA, regarding Long Term Monitoring (Sixth Round of
Semi-annual Roubidoux Sample, April 2006) at Tar Creek, a part of After Action Monitoring.
August 2006.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2006c. Technical Report After Action
Monitoring of the Roubidoux Aquifer at the Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County,

Oklahoma. September 2006.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2006d. Letter from David A. Cates, P.

E./ODEQ, to Ursula Lennox/RPM U. S. EPA, regarding Long Term Monitoring (Seventh Round
of Semi-annual Roubidoux Sample, November 2006) at Tar Creek, a part of After Action
Monitoring. November 2006.

13_T C_5Y r_Att1 _2010-081 3_Docum ents.doc

Page 4 of 7

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report ~ Attachment 1 ~ Documents Reviewed

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2007a. Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-
State Mining Area Follow-Up Study. September 14, 2007.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2007b. Letter from David A. Cates, P.

E./ODEQ, to Ursula Lennox/RPM U. S. EPA, regarding Long Term Monitoring (Eighth Round of
Semi-annual Roubidoux Sample, April 2007) at Tar Creek, a part of After Action Monitoring.
October 04, 2007.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2008a. Letter from David A. Cates, P.

E./ODEQ, to Ursula Lennox/RPM U. S. EPA, regarding Long Term Monitoring (Ninth Round of
Semi-annual Roubidoux Sample, October 2007) at Tar Creek, a part of After Action Monitoring.
February 13, 2008.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2008b. Letter from David A. Cates, P.

E./ODEQ, to Ursula Lennox/RPM U. S. EPA, regarding Long Term Monitoring (Tenth Round of
Semi-annual Roubidoux Sample, April 2008) at Tar Creek, a part of After Action Monitoring.

July 31,2008.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2008c. Fish Consumption Guide for the Tar
Creek Area Including Grand Lake. August 05, 2008.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2009a. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Tar

Creek Superfund Site, Extended After Action Monitoring of the Roubidoux Aquifer. September 20,
2009.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2009b. Quality Assurance Project Plan for
Extended After Action Monitoring of the Roubidoux Aquifer, Tar Creek Superfund Site. October
20, 2009.

Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), 1991. Tar Creek After Action Monitoring Report. April 5,
1991.

Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), 2008. Title 785. Oklahoma Water Resources Board,

Chapter 45. Oklahoma's Water Quality Standards. May 27, 2008.

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, 2004. http://quapawtribe.com/site/view/EnvironmentalOffice.pml. July
2004.

Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL), 1989. Tar Creek - The Effectiveness of
Remediation. September 6, 1989.

State of Oklahoma (OK), 2006. Gov. Henry Sets Tar Creek Relocation Plan in Motion. July 14, 2006.

Subsidence Evaluation Team, 2006. Picher Mining Field, Northeast Oklahoma Subsidence Evaluation
Report. January, 2006.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Supplementary Closeout Report, Tar Creek Superfund
Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Final. September 2002.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Tar Creek and Spring River Watershed Management
Plan. Newsletter. December 2003.

13_T C_5Y r_Att1 _2010-081 3_Docum ents.doc

Page 5 of 7

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report ~ Attachment 1 ~ Documents Reviewed

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2004a. Tar Creek and Spring River Watersheds. Multi-
Agency Team Newsletter. March 2004.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2004b. fattp://www.swt.usace .army .mil/library. July 2004.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2004c. Reconnaissance Phase Tar Creek and Lower Spring
River Watershed Management Plan. Draft, August 2004.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (EPA and Quapaw Tribe), 2002.
Tar Creek Mining Waste Fact Sheet. June 28, 2002.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, U. S. Department of the Army, and U. S. Department of the
Interior (EPA, USA, and DOI), 2003. Memorandum of Understanding Between the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U. S. Department of the Interior, and U. S. Department of the
Army. May 1, 2003.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1984. Record of Decision, Remedial Alternative
Selection. June 6, 1984.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994a. Five Year Review, Tar Creek Superfund Site,
Ottawa County, Oklahoma. April, 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994b. Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA
Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities. OSWER Directive #9355.4-12. August.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1995. ACTION MEMORANDUM, Request for a Time-
Critical Removal Action at the Tar Creek Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma (Removal Action I).
August 15, 1995.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996. Request to Change the Scope of the Time-Critical
Removal Action at the Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma, and Request for an
Exemption from Both the 12-Month Statutory Limit and the $2 Million Statutory Limit. March
21, 1996.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1997. Record of Decision, Residential Areas, Operable
Unit 2, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. August 27, 1997.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000a. Request for Approval of a Removal Action at the
Eagle-Picher Office Complex-Abandoned Mining Chemicals (OU3), Cardin, Ottawa County,
Oklahoma. March 2, 2000.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000b. Five-Year Review, Tar Creek Superfund Site,
Ottawa County, Oklahoma. April 2000.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000c. POLREP No. 1 (Removal). Memorandum from
Gary Moore/USEPA Region 6 On-Scene Coordinator to Director, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, regarding Eagle-Picher Office Complex - Abandoned Mining Chemicals
Site, Cardin, Ottawa County, OK. April 4, 2000.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000d. POLREP No. 2 and Final (Removal).

Memorandum from Gary Moore/USEPA Region 6 On-Scene Coordinator to Director, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, regarding Tar Creek Superfund Site: Eagle-Picher Office
Complex - Abandoned Mining Chemicals (OU3), Cardin, Ottawa County, OK. June 1, 2000.

13_T C_5Y r_Att1 _2010-081 3_Docum ents.doc

Page 6 of 7

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report ~ Attachment 1 ~ Documents Reviewed

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2001. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. EPA
540-R-01-007. June 2001.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003. Administrative Order on Consent for RI/FS for
OU4. CERCLA Docket No. 6-03-01. December 9, 2003.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2004. Tar Creek (Ottawa County). Superfund Site Status
Summary. May 5, 2004.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005. Five-Year Review, Tar Creek Superfund Site,
Ottawa County, Oklahoma. September 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7. 2006. EPA Superfund Record of Decision
Amendment: Cherokee County, OU 03, 04. September 26, 2006.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ). 2007. Residential Property Soil Sampling. April, 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2007. Superfund Explanation of Significant Difference for
the Record of Decision: Tar Creek Superfund Site - Operable Unit 2, Ottawa County, Oklahoma.
August 2007.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2008. Record of Decision, Residential Areas, Operable
Unit 4, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. February 20, 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. Tar Creek (Ottawa County) Oklahoma Fact Sheet.
January.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2010b. Superfund Explanation of Significant Difference
for the Record of Decision: Tar Creek Superfund Site - Operable Unit 4, Ottawa County,
Oklahoma. April 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 2009. Sampling and Analysis Plan for the 2009 Tri-State Mining
District Transition Zone Assessment Study, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma. November 3, 2009.

U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2003. Assessment and Comparison of1976-77 and 2002Water Quality
in Mine shafts in the Picher Mining District, Northeastern Oklahoma and Southeastern Kansas.
Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4248. 2003.

U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2004. Hydrology and Ground Water-Quality in the Mine Workings
within the Picher Mining District, Northeastern Oklahoma, 2002-03. Scientific Investigations
Report 2004-5043. 2004.

U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2009. Selected Metals in Sediments and Streams in the Oklahoma Part
of the Tri-State Mining District, 2000-2006. Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5032. 2009.

Washington Group International, 2002. Closeout Report for the Remedial Action of Residential
Properties, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. October 2002.

13_T C_5Y r_Att1 _2010-081 3_Docum ents.doc

Page 7 of 7

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5Yr_201 0-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Attachment 2

Interview Record Forms

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Five-Year Review Interview Record

Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Interviewee: Jim Dixon/Environmental Director
Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
Phone: 918-540-2535 ext 16
email: jdixon@peoriatribe.com

Site Name

EPA ID No.

Date of
Interview

Interview
Method

Tar Creek Superfund Site

EPA ID# OKD980629844

July 2, 2010

Via E-Mail

Interview
Contacts

Organization

Phone

Address

Bob Sullivan

EPA Region 6

214-665-
2223

sullivan. robert@epa. gov

1445 Ross Ave
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Darren Davis

CH2M HILL, as
rep of EPA

972-980-
2170

ddavis9@ch2m.com

12377 Merit, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75251

Interview Questions

1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted at the site since the third Five-
Year Review period (i.e. after September 2005)?

Response: Much of the remediation effort has been inadequate or ineffective. The remedies
undertaken, have many times, been based on personal opinions, slanted studies, or an out of sight out
of mind perspective, and not based on good thorough science.

2. From your perspective, what effect has continued remedial operations at the site had on
the community?

Response: There is concern about the lasting effectiveness of some past remediation projects, dollars
and efforts spent for the value received. Also there are well founded issues about ongoing and
proposed remedies such as the chat repository integrity and the injection of chat fines into the mine
pool, both of which have the very real potential and probability of ground water contamination.

3. Are you aware of any ongoing community concerns regarding the site or its
administration?

Response: The biggest concern expressed has to do with the potential contamination of the Rubidoux
Aquifer and area surface waters by any type of injection and increased hydraulic pressures in the
Boone aquifer/Tar Creek site mine pool.

14_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_PEORIATRIBE_JIMDIXON.DOC PAGE 1

July 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: Jim Dixon/Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

4. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, meetings, reporting
activities, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please describe the purpose
and results.

Response: The Peoria Tribe Environmental Department is very active in all ongoing Tri-State Mining
District/Tar Creek Superfund Site organizations. We regularly meet as a Trustee with the Tar Creek
Trustee Council; the Trustee Councils of Tri-State (Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma); two annually
scheduled meetings of the Peoria Tribe and EPA Region 6 and 7 officials; and scheduled Indian Water
Rights meetings.

5. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities that have occurred related to the site
that required a response by your office, if applicable? If so, please give details of the events and
results of the responses.

Response: The Peoria Tribe Environmental Department regularly reads and comments on all
documents submitted for public comment related to OU4 and the ongoing remediation efforts. Our
comments are acknowledged as received, but consistently ignored or passed off. For example, the
Peoria Tribe has consistently addressed the issue of chat fine injection into the Tart Creek mine pool.
The EPA hydro-geologic study definitely shows the migration of contamination from the mine pool
into ground water strata in a southward flow, directly into the Peoria Tribe jurisdiction. The injected
contaminants increase the level of contamination in the mine pool, and the hydro-geologic study shows
that that increased load migrates on into the ground water. The Peoria Tribe has responded with a
letter of concern to EPA.

6. Do you feel well-informed about the site's activities and progress?

Response: No. The Peoria Tribe Environmental Department tries to stay updated on all ongoing site
related activities, but because of our workload, sometimes are not aware of some or all remediation
aspects because of the turn-around time of some EPA OU4 documents. We were told the quick turn-
around time on public comment on some documents was because "stimulus funding was being used
and had to be used quickly or lost. But a quick fix is sometimes more costly.

7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?

Response: 1. Funding through the superfund process should be made available to interested tribes to
support an in-house expert. Mountains of information cannot be processed and answered effectively
with the current tribal resources.

2. Although there seems to be open lines of communication, tribal input is generally
disregarded, or at least from a tribal perspective, is perceived as such. To quote our Chief, after he
attended the last meeting between our tribe and EPA Region 6 and 7 officials; "You know that nothing
is going to change, don't you/"

14_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_PEORIATRIBE_JIMDIXON.DOC PAGE 2

July 2010

-------
Five-Year Review Interview Record

Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Interviewee: Rebecca Jim

LEAD

Phone:

email: ijim@neok.com

Site Name

EPA ID No.

Date of
Interview

Interview
Method

Tar Creek Superfund Site

EPA ID# OKD980629844

July 13, 2010

Via E-Mail

Interview
Contacts

Organization

Phone

Address

Bob Sullivan

EPA Region 6

214-665-
2223

sullivan. robert@epa. gov

1445 Ross Ave
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Darren Davis

CH2M HILL, as
rep of EPA

972-980-
2170

ddavis9@ch2m.com

12377 Merit, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75251

Interview Questions

1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted at the site since the third Five-
Year Review period (ie. after September 2005)?

Response: We appreciate the buy-out of most of the residents from the epi-center, and the progress
toward removal of all the buildings. Chat consolidation is progressing (along with sales), however we
are concerned for the health of the workers and their families. Workers are not protected from
inhalation during work, and are not given the opportunity to shower and change clothes before going
home. We, therefore, wonder about the exposure to their children. Otherwise, we don't know that
much about what EPA is doing. The tribes are briefed, which we appreciate, however, not LEAD
Agency. To our knowledge the chat owners, especially the tribal owner meetings have been respectful
and well received. EPA's continued involvement in our annual Tar Creek Conference has been
appreciated and we hope will continue.

2. From your perspective, what effect has continued remedial operations at the site had on
the community?

Response: We think the community now understands the hazards of Tar Creek Site and support
cleanup. Local jobs for local folks remains their priority and such a philosophy and practice will gain
more local support. The Superfund Job Training Initiative is a model program and has been well
received. The waiting list is long for a next round of training. Local workers have been hired, but are in
several cases easily fired or let go recently. Not all have been hired, but are waiting for new contracts
to come.

15_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_LEAD_REBECCAJIM.DOC PAGE 1

July 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: Rebecca Jim/LEAD

3. Are you aware of any ongoing community concerns regarding the site or its
administration?

Response: Concerns regarding the clearing of the riparian area in Miami. Flooding could be a bigger
problem without vegetation to protect stream-bank erosion. Worker safety for those using the chain
saws (masks for dust) and showers before going home. Sampling of saw dust and smoke from open
fires have not been done, to our knowledge and, therefore remain a concern. EPA has not given a final
review of the complaint. DEQ said we were right for our concern. City of Miami says they have data,
however, that data is regarding water quality in the stream only.

There is still concern about the continued flow of mine water and how that will be resolved. EPA has
not briefed us on that issue. There is concern regarding run-off from the new repository where the
floatation pond area near the central mill (south side of Douthit Road) into Tar Creek.

Dust remains a concern, especially for the workers as well as dust from the trucks which are not
covered. LEAD Agency would like a general briefing on OU4 so that we may have a greater
understanding of the work going on (which we can only view from the air) and the next phases of
OU4.

Main roads are wet during transport times, but back in the fields where workers are, there is dust
exposure.

4. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting
activities, etc.) conducted by LEAD regarding the site? If so, please describe the purpose and
results.

Response: Yes. Site tours for colleges, high schools and other interested parties are conducted
several times per month. We have monthly meetings of our members and Board to discuss what we
know. We observe to the best of our ability, with limited knowledge of what to look for that can't be
seen

from the road. We use our website and facebook and send out a newsletter to our mailing list and
members with EPA updates and articles about what we find out about the site, OU4 and OU5.

5. Do you feel well-informed about the site's activities and progress?

Response: Not really. Some communication by EPA and DEQ would be helpful. Earl Hatley is a
member of the Hazardous Waste Management Advisory Council for the ODEQ and doesn't get much
information that way, as the DEQ tells him they too are not told much.

6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?

Response: Allow LEAD Agency to be a better tool for public outreach about the site. That is after all
a reason why we exist. Listing our organization on materials for community outreach would be helpful
from EPA. Regular briefings, materials to mail and hand out, etc. Allowing us to interface more with
Superfund staff about issues we hear from the community. Some information about the mine water
and tailings pile flows, time-line for dealing with this would be helpful. Discussions about plans to
allow our input would help. Thank you for this opportunity to communicate directly with you this
way!

15_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_LEAD_REBECCAJIM.DOC PAGE 2

July 2010

-------
Five-Year Review Interview Record

Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Interviewee: Dr. Mark Osborn

LICRAT

Phone:

email:

Site Name

EPA ID No.

Date of
Interview

Interview
Method

Tar Creek Superfund Site

EPA ID# OKD980629844

June 5, 2010

Via E-Mail

Interview
Contacts

Organization

Phone

Address

Bob Sullivan

EPA Region 6

214-665-
2223

sullivan. robert@epa. gov

1445 Ross Ave
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Darren Davis

CH2M HILL, as
rep of EPA

972-980-
2170

ddavis9@ch2m.com

12377 Merit, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75251

Interview Questions

1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted at the site since the third Five-
Year Review period (ie. after September 2005)?

Response: I am grateful that the EPA chose to fund the remainder of the voluntary relocation of the
residents of the most affected area of the superfund site.

2. From your perspective, what effect has continued remedial operations at the site had on
the community?

Response: They have allowed residents to relocate from the center of the site.

3. Are you aware of any ongoing community concerns regarding the site or its
administration?

Response: I would defer to the remaining residents and those unhappy with the voluntary relocation.

4. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting
activities, etc.) conducted by LICRAT regarding the site? If so, please describe the purpose and
results.

Response: Each property that has been included in the voluntary relocation has been appraised and
offers made to the owners or renters. Demolition of the purchased properties is in process.

16_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_LICRAT_DRMARKOSBORN.DOC PAGE 1

June 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: Dr Mark Osborn/LICRAT

5. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities that have occurred related to the site
that required a response by your office, if applicable? If so, please give details of the events and
results of the responses.

Response: There have been multiple events and issues which have required a response by the Trust
since the initiation of the second voluntary relocation. These include primarily the tornado of 2008 and
the process of the appraisal and purchase of properties.

6. How many properties have been acquired by LICRAT? Is ODEQ provided with periodic
documentation of the status of the buyout?

Response: The final numbers are pending and should be available in one to two months. ODEQ is
provided with periodic updates concerning the status of the buyout.

7. How many properties owners have chosen not to participate in the voluntary buy-out? I n
general, what reasons are given for not participating, if any?

Response: Again, final numbers should be available shortly.

8. Do you feel well-informed about the site's activities and progress?
Response: Yes.

9. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
Response: I hope the next area of focus will be on watershed issues.

16_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_LICRAT_DRMARKOSBORN.DOC PAGE 2

JUNE 2010

-------
Five-Year Review Interview Record

Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Interviewee: Angela Hughes/ODEQ

Phone: 405-702-5141

email: Angela.Hughes@deq.state.ok.us

Site Name

EPA ID No.

Date of
Interview

Interview
Method

Tar Creek Superfund Site

EPA ID# OKD980629844

July 3, 2010

Via E-Mail

Interview
Contacts

Organization

Phone

Address

Bob Sullivan

EPA Region 6

214-665-
2223

sullivan. robert@epa. gov

1445 Ross Ave
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Darren Davis

CH2M HILL, as
rep of EPA

972-980-
2170

ddavis9@ch2m.com

12377 Merit, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75251

Interview Questions

1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted at the site since the third Five-
Year Review period (ie. after September 2005)?

Response: I have a positive impression of the work conducted since 2005. EPA has shown through
their efforts that they are committed to the site. It did take legislation for EPA to assist with the buyout
of citizens for subsidence issues. But once approved EPA has assisted in the buyout efforts when it's
been needed. Issues with funding of OU1 has been challenging for the state to get work done in a
timely manner since funding was delayed. But EPA and the state continue to do their best to
communicate and accomplish goals set for the site.

OU2 continues to need work and EPA has made some efforts to consider the states position on
properties that need sampling and potential cleanup. Working with the viable cities in the area has
often been challenging but the work is worthy of the effort for protection of the children that could
continue to be impacted. EPA and ATSDR have made an effort to educate the local communities
about potential for exposure. This effort must continue as the elected officials change often and
although EPA has expressed their desire to stop performing work in the viable communities I believe
that this work should continue.

OU4 work has proceeded at a fast pace once funds were made available. EPA does an adequate job of
coordinating with the state. I believe the intent to coordinate is there from the project managers and
management but sometimes we feel like we are not being heard or being included in meaningful way.

2. From your perspective, what effect has continued remedial operations at the site had on
the community?

Response: There is not much community left now. But when attendance at buyout public meetings
was bigger there was concern about truck traffic, subsidence concerns, etc. People from the area are
tired of the "government" being in the area. They don't necessarily agree with or understand the need
for the work. I think they are tired of the constant negative attention that they believe the government
has brought to the area.

17_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_ANGELAHUGHES.DOC PAGE 1

July 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: Angela FIughes/ODEQ

3. Are you aware of any ongoing community concerns regarding the site or its
administration?

Response: Citizens in the area question what work is going on in the area and why. We do our best to
explain the work and the reasons for it.

4. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting
activities, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please describe purpose and
results.

Response: I report quarterly to EPA about grants that the buyout work under. I attend buyout
meetings so I can keep up on the information and report as necessary to EPA. I work closely with
Kathy Gibson to inform her of budget issues. DEQ includes Tar Creek updates in our DEQ Annual
Report and DEQ Land Report.

I get regular calls from contractors looking for work.

5. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities that have occurred related to the site
that required a response by your office, is applicable? If so, please give details of the events and
results of the responses.

Response: We get occasionally get complaints and press requests that we respond too. I do not have
specific information to when these were or what they were about.

6. Have there been any changes in state environmental standards since the third five-year
review period which may call into question the current protectiveness or effectiveness of the
remedial action?

Response: I do not know.

7. How many properties have been acquired by LICRAT? Is ODEQ provided with periodic
documentation of the status of the buyout?

Response: This is information is best provided by the LICRA Trust. I work closely with the Trust but
the information is constantly changing so it is hard to provide a number. The Trust has stopped
accepting buyout applications. The Trust should be able to provide final numbers by the end of 2010.
Also an independent firm is currently performing an audit of the Trust buyout. All this information
will be provided to EPA.

17_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_ANGELAHUGHES.DOC PAGE 2

July 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: Angela FIughes/ODEQ

8. How many properties owners have chosen not to participate in the voluntary buy-out?
Response: This information is best provided from the LICRA Trust.

9. Do you feel well-informed about the site's activities and progress?

Response: I do not participate regularly in the site updates and regular scheduled calls. If I need
updates or specific information I can generally get a quick response from EPA.

10. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
Response: No.

17_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_ANGELAHUGHES.DOC PAGE 3

July 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5Yr_201 0-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Five-Year Review Interview Record

Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Interviewee: David Cates/ODEQ

Phone: 405-702-5133

email: David.Cates@deq.state.ok.us

Site Name

EPA ID No.

Date of
Interview

Interview
Method

Tar Creek Superfund Site

EPA ID# OKD980629844

July 12, 2010

Via E-Mail

Interview
Contacts

Organization

Phone

Email

Address

Bob Sullivan

EPA Region 6

214-665-
2223

sullivan. robert@epa. gov

1445 Ross Ave
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Darren Davis

CH2M HILL, as
rep of EPA

972-980-
2170

ddavis9@ch2m.com

12377 Merit, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75251

Interview Questions

1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted at the site since the third Five-
Year Review period (ie. after September 2005)?

Response: To begin, I would like to summarize what activities have occurred in the last five years:

OU4: RI, PP, ROD, RD, Chat Rule & start of RA in January 2010

OU2: Continuation of Residential yard remediation with Commerce and Miami contracts

OU1: Continued Roubidoux monitoring

OU5: Sediment sampling & Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
NRD meetings

Oklahoma Plan: 4 Land Reclamation projects, Mayer Ranch Passive Treatment System, Paving 13
miles of chat roads, Monitoring Tar Creek Water Quality, plugging of 51 mine shafts, & completion of
the subsidence report that lead to the Buyout of Picher & Cardin.

It is evident that a lot has occurred since the last five year review. The focus over the past 5 years has
been on OU4 chat and fine tailings characterization and remediation. For the most part I am please
with progress at the site. However, with the success of the Passive Treatment System at Mayer Ranch
site in Commerce for treating discharging mine water, I would like to see some more attention directed
toward the characterization (flow and concentration) and potential remediation of mine water
discharges at Douthat Area of Tar Creek and Beaver Creek, especially since the hydrogeologic
characterization report (HCR) indicates potential increase in concentrations at the discharges due to
fines injection. In fact the HCR recommends beginning monitoring of surface water at the discharges.

18_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_DAVIDCATES.DOC	PAGE 1

July 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: David Cates/ODEQ

2. From your perspective, what effect have continued remedial operations at the site had on
the community? Are you aware of any ongoing community concerns regarding the site or its
operation and maintenance?

Response: I think there are positive and negative impacts of the continued remedial operations. On
the one hand I think the community is engaged and happy to see remediation taking place. However,
the work tends to be invasive into their lives, especially the OU2 yard remediation, and complaints
have been received particularly related to drainage. Some individuals have expressed concerns about
depressed property values related to being identified with a superfund site. Also, it seems that OU2 is
never ending in that contaminated soils or chat in residential areas are continually being discovered.

3. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting
activities, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please describe purpose and
results.

Response: We have participated in many site visits and meetings related to OU4 sampling and
remedial activities. We participate in NRD meetings as well as participated in OU5 sampling activities
and meetings. We routinely attend the Picher Buyout meetings. For the past five years I have been
involved with sampling Roubidoux wells on a semiannual (now annual) basis. I also assist the
University of Oklahoma in monthly monitoring of surface water and mine water at SE Commerce and
the passive treatment system at Mayer Ranch.

4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities that have occurred at the site, such as
dumping, vandalism, or anything that required emergency response from local authorities? If
so, please give details.

Response: There have been three natural disasters at the site including: a tornado in Picher, ice storms,
and flooding in Miami. Tire and trash dumping has occurred in subsidences and mine shafts at the site.
Also a subsidence occurred along Highway 69 south of Picher which resulted in a reduction in the load
limit and speed limit along with monitoring the highway for subsidence.

5. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site that
required a response by your office? If so, please summarize the events and result.

Response: One complaint that we received was related to the Town of Quapaw using chat as bedding
material during the construction of new sewer lines. We sampled and tested the source of the chat and
communicated with the mayor. The town indicated they would discontinue its use. A recent complaint
was received related to dust generated from OU4 haul trucks traveling on a county road near an
individual's house. Limestone was used for road repairs covering chat in this section of road during the
past winter. Limestone produces more dust than chat. Dust suppression through watering occurs when
the trucks are using this section of road but on weekends, afterhours, and when EPA remedial activities
are done, dust is still generated by traffic. The same type of complaint was received when the City of
Picher used limestone to repair potholes in city streets. DEQ responded but could not offer any help.
Paving this road by the County or EPA and designating it as a haul route may be a possible long term
solution.

18_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_DAVIDCATES.DOC PAGE 2

July 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: David Cates/ODEQ

6. Are you aware of any problems or difficulties encountered since the third Five-Year
Review which have impacted progress or resulted in a change in O&M procedures for the
Roubidoux Monitoring Program and the Admiralty diversion dike, conducted under OU1?
Please describe changes and impacts.

Response: The After Action Monitoring of the Roubidoux was delayed somewhat by a short
interruption in funding and changes to the work plan. However we are back on track now and no
impacts were realized. The changes included the addition of a new well (Miami #11) to the monitoring
network. This well is located outside the mining area north of Miami and offers an ideal sentinel
location to detect migration of any mine water contaminants in the Roubidoux towards the large
pumping center at Miami. Also additional parameters were added to the list of analytes to be
consistent with those included in the OU4 monitoring of the Boone and mine pool.

7. Are you aware of any problems or difficulties encountered since the third Five-Year
Review which have impacted progress of the Remedial Action for OU2? Please describe changes
and impacts.

Response: We get random requests from local community for sampling at sites slated for
redevelopment, placement of schools, footprints of houses that have been demolished, or chat in
driveways. I suspect these types of requests will continue into the future and in some cases will
probably require remediation. The Picher buyout and demolition has exposed many footprints (and
some concrete foundations) that need to be remediated. Parts of one of the Oklahoma Plan land
reclamation projects at SE Commerce where source material was removed to native soil has not
developed a vegetative cover, possibly due to metal phytotoxicity of the soil. As a result, dust from this
area blows across the street into houses located just north of this site. A child at one of the houses has
experienced chronic elevated blood lead concentrations. The area has been sampled and shows some
exceedances of the 500 ppm lead cleanup level for OU2. Therefore the area has been slated for
remediation in the summer of 2010.

8. Does ODEQ have documentation of the remediation performed by the City of Commerce,
City of Miami, City of Afton or City of Fairland?

Response: The DEQ has reports for work done by Commerce and Miami.

18_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_DAVIDCATES.DOC PAGE 3

July 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: David Cates/ODEQ

9. Have there been any changes in state environmental standards since the third five-year
review period which may call into question the current protectiveness or effectiveness of the
remedial action?

Response: With the success of the passive treatment system in removing metals from discharging
mine water at Mayer Ranch in Commerce, it calls into question the fund balancing waiver for
addressing contamination in Tar Creek surface water from discharging mine water at Douthat. The
State would like to lift the restricted beneficial use standards for Tar Creek. It seems appropriate at this
time that EPA conduct an evaluation of this technology towards the treatment of mine water
discharging into Tar Creek and Beaver Creek. This is especially warranted now since the
hydrogeologic Study recommends monitoring surface water at the mine water discharges near Douthat
due in part to a potential increase in metals concentrations there that may result from chat fines
injection. Application of this technology to treatment of mine water discharges, along with removal of
source material (chat piles) adjacent to the streams and removal of chat from the streams, will allow for
the restoration of Tar Creek water quality and beneficial uses.

The low remedial goals for zinc (1100 mg/kg) and cadmium (10 mg/kg) and underestimation of the
transition zone buffer zone have resulted in a much larger cleanup areas and volumes than had been
estimated from the RI. The increased area and volume of contaminated materials needs to be
incorporated into any negotiations with PRPs related to settlement for cleanup costs.

10. The third Five-Year Review recommended development of an updated O&M Plan for
the dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty site. What is the status of the updated O&M
Plan?

Response: The DEQ has not updated any O&M plans for the dike and diversion channel at the
Admiralty site. Currently we conduct Operations and Maintenance of the Admiralty Diversion dike
and channel through occasional site visits and conducting repairs as needed. The most recent being last
fall (2009) and the diversion dike was found to be operating as intended. There was a little more
vegetation than past visits due presumably to reduced recreational vehicle traffic by locals, the result of
a reduced population from the ongoing buyout of Picher and Cardin. The new Lytle Creek channel
appears to have some blockage or the beginnings of a beaver dam that will be removed if necessary.
We plan to inspect the dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty site during the annual monitoring of
the Roubidoux wells.

18_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_DAVIDCATES.DOC PAGE 4

July 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: David Cates/ODEQ

11. The third Five-Year Review recommended that Roubidoux wells continue to be plugged
and abandoned as they are identified. Have any additional Roubidoux wells been identified or
plugged and abandoned since the third Five-Year Review? Has any additional work occurred
related to the 19 potential wells identified in the ODEQ's 2006 report on the Roubidoux Long
Term Groundwater Monitoring Program?

Response: Since the last Five Year Review ODEQ has not plugged any abandoned deep Roubidoux
wells. However, six wells were plugged in the early 2000s at an average cost of approximately $20,000
each. An evaluation of the past well plugging activities lead to the identification of 19 potential
Roubidoux wells that may need to be plugged. To my knowledge this list, along with the wells
previously plugged wells, represents the complete tally of abandoned Roubidoux wells. However
during field activities of the OU4 hydrogeologic study several potential Roubidoux wells have been
reported; but these do not appear to be deep wells from an inspection of the appropriate mine maps.
We hope to identify the some of the Roubidoux wells on the list during the construction activities of
OU4. Our records show that some of the listed wells have already been plugged in the past, and I
believe others were probably plugged but no records exist for these. Our plans are to locate the 19
wells utilizing GIS to obtain latitude and longitude coordinates for the wells from mine maps and other
sources of information. We have partially completed this task. Using the well coordinates and GPS
instruments, the well locations will be staked and a field search will be conducted. A field search was
conducted for the Tulsa well in the southern portion of Section 22-T29N-R23E at the Atlas chat pile,
but the well was not observed. Earth moving equipment may be necessary to locate this well.
Representatives of Bingham Sand and Gravel Company who have operated chat washing at this site
since the mid 1980s have offered to help locate the well. We expect to coordinate with OU4
construction contractors and Picher demolition contractors to uncover some of the listed Roubidoux
wells when they are remediating a site where one of the wells is thought to be located. The Quapaw #2
well will be plugged when the town acquires a backup well. Once we have identified a group of wells,
we will hire a contractor to plug them.

12. The third Five-Year Review recommended that that the Roubidoux background
reassessment proposed by the ODEQ be conducted to verify that the indicator parameters,
background concentrations, and tolerance limits used as triggers to indicate acid mine water
influx from the Boone Aquifer to the Roubidoux Aquifer are appropriate. What is the status of
this reassessment?

Response: DEQ continues to conduct After Action Monitoring of the Roubidoux wells at the site but
this has dropped to annual sampling of 13 wells from semi-annual. Currently the iron, zinc and sulfate
concentrations are used to indicate mine water contamination when they exceed their respective
tolerance limits, established in the 1990s. The tolerance limits are calculated as the 95% confidence
level of the background concentration for each indicator parameter. The concentrations of these
parameters in mine water have dropped significantly since the early 1980s but they still represent the
parameters with the greatest difference between mine water and Roubidoux, and thus still represent
ideal indicator parameters. When a sample of Roubidoux water tests high (above the tolerance limit)
for all three indicator parameters, the well (and the adjacent aquifer) is concluded to be impacted by
mine water. Since the background concentrations of the indicator parameters have not been observed to
have changed over time, we do not expect the tolerance values to be significantly different now.

During the last Five Year Review CH2MHill conducted a statistical analysis of the After Action

18_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_DAVIDCATES.DOC PAGE 5

July 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: David Cates/ODEQ

Monitoring data that showed no increases in indicator parameter levels over time. We have not re-
evaluated the levels at this time but will look at the well data we have from outside the mining area and
determine if there is enough information to re-evaluate the tolerance levels. We have time series data
from several wells outside the mining area over time but not a lot of synoptic data from many wells at
one point in time which would be ideal for the re-evaluation.

13. The third Five-Year Review recommended that the 20-year property easement for the
dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty Mine Site be updated. What is the status of the
property easement?

Response: The DEQ has not taken any action to extend the easement at this time for the dike and
diversion channel at the Admiralty mine site. We have been granted access from the land owner, Mr.
Richard Adams, on every occasion that we requested it. However, we will explore the possibilities of
extending the easement to an indefinite time period.

14. Is ODEQ informed as to the status of the water supply wells and Public Water Systems
for the Cities of Picher and Cardin? Specifically, which wells will continue to be used, and who
will operate them?

Response: The Picher water system consisted of the Picher #5 well located south of town in the
SENE of Section 29-T29N-R23E as the primary well and the Picher #7 located just Southwest of town
in the SESW of Section 20-T29N-R23E as a backup well. The Picher #6 well located on the east side
of town in the SENWNW of Section 21-T29N-R23E has never been part of the water system. The
Cardin #1 well located in the SESE of Section 19-T29N-R23E is the primary well with the Picher #7
as the backup well. With the shut-down of the Picher and Cardin municipal governments as a result of
the buyout, the water system was purchased by the Quapaw Tribe. It is our understanding they will
operate the system as before for only the residents that choice not to participate in the buyout. The
number of households remaining is expected to be around 10 to 15. The Tribe has stated they will not
provide new hookups to anyone within the buyout area.

15. The OU4 ROD states that future use of groundwater from the Boone aquifer (or
shallower) should be restricted for potable or domestic supply in areas where the supply is
impacted with site-related contaminants above the Final Remediation Goals. Oklahoma Water
Quality Standards Title 785, Chapter 45, Appendix H is referenced as the institutional control to
be applied to restrict use. Are any changes necessary to Appendix H to provide for
implementation of this institutional control?

Response: The Boone would need to be added to Appendix H with reduced beneficial uses (i.e., with
drinking water supply beneficial use omitted). However, there are potential problems with using
Appendix H to impose restrictions on groundwater use from the Boone. Partly because of groundwater
rights issues and much of the water in the Boone is considered treatable under the OWQS, having a
TDS value of less 3,000 mg/1. Never-the-less, the DEQ will explore placing a restriction in Appendix
H of the OWQS limiting groundwater use from the mine pool and the Boone in the immediate vicinity
of the mine pool for public water supply, or domestic use, with treatment requirements to remove any
lead above the MCL of 15 ug/1. Lead is the only site related COC for OU4 that has a specified remedial

18_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_DAVIDCATES.DOC PAGE 6

July 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: David Cates/ODEQ

goal for groundwater and, with the exception of a few of the existing Boone wells in the mining area,
most do not produce water with lead above the MCL. Also the presence of high iron concentrations
above the SMCL in the mining area makes water produced from the Boone unsuitable for most
practical purposes without treatment, in particular, for potable or domestic supply. Lastly, the
Hydrogeologic Characterization Study (HCS) shows that metals are attenuated within the aquifer in a
short distance away from the mine pool.

16. Do you know of opportunities to optimize the operation, maintenance, or sampling
efforts at the site related to OU1, and have such changes been adopted?

Response: DEQ continues to conduct After Action Monitoring of the Roubidoux wells at the site but
this has dropped to annual sampling of 13 wells from semi-annual. In addition to the change in
monitoring frequency, a few other changes have been made, including inclusion of a new well (Miami
#11) to the monitoring network. This well is located outside the mining area north of Miami and offers
an ideal sentinel location to detect migration of any mine water contaminants in the Roubidoux
towards the large pumping center at Miami. Also additional parameters were added to the list of
analytes to be consistent with those included in the OU4 monitoring of the Boone and mine pool.
The O&M activities for the diversion dike and channel at the Admiralty mine site will be conducted
during the annual AAM event.

17. Do you feel well-informed about the site's activities and progress?

Response: Yes we are well informed about the site's activities and progress since we participate in
weekly Remedial Action conference calls, review all the EPA documents, and visit the site often. We
are less informed concerning enforcement / settlement negotiations between DOJ, EPA and the mining
companies.

18_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_DAVIDCATES.DOC

PAGE 7

July 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: David Cates/ODEQ

18. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?

Response: We recommend the following activities be enacted or continued as appropriate:

• Begin sampling (flow and concentrations) of the Douthat mine water discharge and develop a
treatment design for the discharge similar to the passive treatment system at Mayer Ranch in
Commerce. Continue filling subsidences and mine shafts as part of the response action for
OU4. Include other mine shaft closure methods, besides filling, in the 'tool box'.

• Continue OU4 RA activities that are flexible (e.g., incorporating stock ponds in the design
where low areas under chat piles and bases warrant such features).

• Continue injection of washed chat fines into the mine workings and conduct pilot testing on
injection of mill pond fines.

• Incorporate ET cover design at the OU4 repository that includes 1 foot of clean soil over 2 feet
of transition zone soils and vegetate with Bermuda grass to reduce the potential for
phytotoxicity. Allow the placement of demolition debris from the Picher buyout at the
repository. This will require changes to the repository operations and design.

• Include the location of abandoned Roubidoux wells into the requirements for OU4 contracts at
certain sites.

• Do not remove chat in streams until it can be coordinated with OU5 and Kansas work; and
conduct work in an upstream to downstream fashion to reduce the potential of recontamination
of areas already cleaned.

18_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_DAVIDCATES.DOC

PAGE 8

July 2010

-------
Five-Year Review Interview Record

Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Interviewee: Dennis Datin/ODEQ

Phone: 405-702-5125

email: Dennis.Datin@deq.ok.gov

Site Name

EPA ID No.

Date of
Interview

Interview
Method

Tar Creek Superfund Site

EPA ID# OKD980629844

June 30, 2010

Via E-Mail

Interview
Contacts

Organization

Phone

Address

Bob Sullivan

EPA Region 6

214-665-
2223

sullivan. robert@epa. gov

1445 Ross Ave
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Darren Davis

CH2M HILL, as
rep of EPA

972-980-
2170

ddavis9@ch2m.com

12377 Merit, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75251

Interview Questions

1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted at the site since the third Five-
Year Review period (ie. after September 2005)?

Response:

The work done at the site has reduced the blood lead levels of children in the area which would include
remediation, education and other ways to help the people. This project has been a long process and the
people have shown some fatigue with the work. There is still work to be done concerning remediation
of residential properties as well as the chat piles.

Response: The community has been overwhelmed by the length of time it has taken to complete this
project. There will always be concerns about areas that have not been remediated.

3. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting
activities, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please describe purpose and
results.

Response: DEQ has continued to visit the site over the years and has continued to work with the
cities concerning yard remediation, hydro studies, chat removal, etc. The purposes of these visits were
to assist EPA with RI/FS, RD, RA, residential yard work and to help the communities to improve there
properties.

19_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_DENNISDATIN2010.DOC PAGE 1

JUNE 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: Dennis Datin/ODEQ

Response: There were at least three incidences that were natural disasters. These were flooding in
Miami, tornado in Picher, and an ice storm in the area. The flooding and tornado did require some
emergency help from the government. DEQ participated with EPA on these projects.

5. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site that
required a response by your office? If so, please summarize the events and result.

Response: One complaint was the use of chat in installation of new sewer lines in Quapaw. DEQ
responded with a letter informing them that this was an inappropriate use of chat. They agreed not to
use in the future but the chat that was already placed in the sewer lines would remain.

Response: No.

7. Are you aware of any problems or difficulties encountered since the third Five-Year
Review which have impacted progress of the Remedial Action for OU2? Please describe changes
and impacts.

Response: The work has moved slowly in Commerce for the yard remediation done by the City due to
the city having to approval to demo some of the houses.

8. Does ODEQ have documentation of the remediation performed by the City of Commerce,
City of Miami, City of Afton or City of Fairland?

Response: We have reports for the City of Commerce and the City of Miami.

19_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_DENNISDATIN2010.DOC PAGE 2

JUNE 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: Dennis Datin/ODEQ

Response: No.

10. The third Five-Year Review recommended development of an updated O&M Plan for
the dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty site. What is the status of the updated O&M
Plan?

Response: I don't know.

Response: None that I know of.

Response: Reports have been issued by DEQ on the after action monitoring.

13. The third Five-Year Review recommended that the 20-year property easement for the
dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty Mine Site be updated. What is the status of the
property easement?

Response: I don't know.

19_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_DENNISDATIN2010.DOC PAGE 3

JUNE 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: Dennis Datin/ODEQ

Response: I don't know which wells will remain and how many since that will be for the Quapaw
tribe to determine.

Response: No.

16. Do you know of opportunities to optimize the operation, maintenance, or sampling
efforts at the site related to OU1, and have such changes been adopted?

Response: No.

17. Do you feel well-informed about the site's activities and progress?
Response: Yes, although there is a lot of material to review and keep up with.

18. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?

Response: It would be good to try to finish up the residential work in the Cities that it has begun in
such as Commerce, Quapaw, North Miami and Miami. Additional information needs to be clarified
concerning areas within the boundary that may need to be sampled (i.e. if housing units, schools or
other entities decide to construct areas, who needs to do the sampling.

19_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_DENNISDATIN2010.DOC PAGE 4

JUNE 2010

-------
Five-Year Review Interview Record

Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Interviewee: Kelly Dixon/ODEQ

Phone: 405-702-5156

email: Kelly.Dixon@deq.state.ok.us

Site Name

EPA ID No.

Date of
Interview

Interview
Method

Tar Creek Superfund Site

EPA ID# OKD980629844

June 29, 2010

Via E-mail

Interview
Contacts

Organization

Phone

Address

Bob Sullivan

EPA Region 6

214-665-
2223

sullivan. robert@epa. gov

1445 Ross Ave
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Darren Davis

CH2M HILL, as
rep of EPA

972-980-
2170

ddavis9@ch2m.com

12377 Merit, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75251

Interview Questions

1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted at the site since the third Five-
Year Review period (i.e. after September 2005)?

Response: I have mixed impressions. From my perspective, EPA did not treat the state as a true
partner in negotiations with PRPs, in discussions with other federal agencies, and in the development
of the proposed plan and ROD for OU4. The State had to continually remind EPA that we wanted to
participate and to some extent this is true today.

There has been improvement on this front, but we should not have to remind EPA at every turn to
include the state in a meaningful way. The R6 RPMs have gone out of their way to improve
communication and to include the state. I do not believe that DO J, EPA HQ and R6 attorneys have
done the same.

Response: This is a complicated question because there is not one community but several - 5 towns, 9
tribes, county government, etc. From my perspective the buyout has had a tremendous impact on the
communities - both positive and negative. I recently watched an independent film that really focused
on the human element of this site. I believe that EPA and the state could do a better job in the
community by really striving to understand the impacts of our actions and decisions to individuals and
communities.

I recognize that EPA has held many public meetings. It may be a good idea to create and maintain a
community outreach office in the area. I am aware of some concerns about EPA's work on OU4 where
it is planning to revisit some property that was cleaned up under the Oklahoma Plan.

20_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_KELLYDIXON.DOC PAGE 1

JUNE 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: Kelly Dixon/ODEQ

3. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting
activities, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please describe purpose and
results.

Response: As a support agency, our staff reports quarterly to EPA on our grant activities. Our staff
routinely accompanies EPA on site visits, inspections, and participates in meetings. Outside of our
lead activities on OU1 and our coordination with the University of Oklahoma on some sampling, we
are not in a lead role on this project.

We do have staff committed to coordinating with the LICRAT on the buyout activities and have
maintained a routine presence at these meetings.

Response: The tornado that went through Picher in 2007 was devastating and brought in all kinds of
government response. There have also been a few occasions of roof collapse (of undermined areas);
one of which was close to a local highway that created some concern. Outside of that, I am not aware
of any such incidents that required emergency response from local authorities.

5. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site that
required a response by your office? If so, please summarize the events and result.

Response: Yes. In 2009 we discovered that the City of Quapaw's contractor was utilizing washed
chat as bedding gravel for sewer line work. We addressed the issue and kept EPA in the loop on our
correspondence and the resolution of the issue. We recently were made aware of a citizen complaint to
another state agency who had done reclamation work. The citizen reportedly was contacted by EPA or
its contractor for access to a site for OU4 work and was reportedly told that the work was not good
enough and was informed about liability. DEQ and EPA participated in a teleconference about this
issue to discuss and resolve it and to implement measures to avoid this again. The measures mainly
require better and more frequent communication, especially on properties where work has occurred
prior to the OU4 ROD. Outside of that, I am not aware of any other complaints, or issues that required
action by our office.

6. Are you aware of any problems or difficulties encountered since the third Five-Year
Review which have impacted progress or resulted in a change in O&M procedures for the
Roubidoux Monitoring Program conducted under OU1? Please describe changes and impacts.

Response: First, it seems to be a misnomer to call OU 1 in O&M; we refer to it as After-Action
Monitoring and it is considered Long-term Remedial Action. The state continues to try to locate
additional abandoned wells that need plugging. The problem of finding and properly plugging these
has been going on for a long time. It is likely that additional wells will be discovered during OU4
work and the state is hopeful that EPA and its contractors will communicate any locations to us so that
we can complete that aspect of this work.

20_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_KELLYDIXON.DOC PAGE 2

June 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: Kelly Dixon/ODEQ

7. Are you aware of any problems or difficulties encountered since the third Five-Year
Review which have impacted progress of the Remedial Action for OU2? Please describe changes
and impacts.

Response: There is still some work to do under OU2 on footprints of homes (where homes have been
demolished) and homes where access was denied before but may now be available. From my
perspective, until all properties have been addressed, it will be difficult to close OU2. EPA in the past
was reluctant to provide funding to cleanup footprints until there were a certain number. Several of
these footprint properties are in towns like Commerce and Quapaw, where, if unaddressed, could serve
as an exposure point for children.

8. Does ODEQ have documentation of the remediation performed by the City of Commerce,
City of Miami, City of Afton or City of Fairland?

Response: DEQ should have documentation of work performed by the Commerce and Miami, as we
had agreements with them for this work. I am unaware of any actions taken by Afton or Fairland.

Response: Yes. The efficacy of passive treatment wetlands has been demonstrated by the University
of Oklahoma at the Meyer Ranch in Commerce. This calls into question EPA's decision to downgrade
surface water standards for Tar Creek under OU1. Also, because of a high degree of connectivity of
the ground water in the Boone Formation and surface water, I believe that EPA should evaluate the
costs and benefits of conducting passive treatment to improve surface water quality in Tar Creek. The
protectives and effectiveness comes into this equation when one considers that EPA instituted a fund-
balancing waiver related to the surface water at Tar Creek. It now appears that surface water quality
could be improved at a reasonable cost.

10. The third Five-Year Review recommended development of an updated O&M Plan for
the dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty site. What is the status of the updated O&M
Plan?

Response: I do not know.

Response: See my response to #6. I know that the state Project Manager was working closely at one
time with the Corps of Engineers, the Oklahoma Geological Survey and a local person to identify
these; however, we have had limited success in verifying them.

20_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_KELLYDIXON.DOC PAGE 3

June 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: Kelly Dixon/ODEQ

Response: I do not know but defer to the state Project Manager.

13. The third Five-Year Review recommended that the 20-year property easement for the
dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty Mine Site be updated. What is the status of the
property easement?

Response: I do not know.

14. Is ODEQ informed as to the status of the water supply wells and systems and for the
Cities of Picher and Cardin?

Response: I do not know.

15. The OU4 ROD states that future use of groundwater from the Boone aquifer (or
shallower) should be restricted for potable or domestic supply in areas where the supply is
impacted with site-related contaminants above the Final Remediation Goals. Oklahoma Water
Quality Standards Title 785, Chapter 45, Appendix H is referenced as the institutional control to
be applied to restrict use. Are any changed necessary to Appendix H to provide for
implementation of this institutional control?

Response: This is a state and local issue that needs to be considered and evaluated by the state and
other local stakeholders.

16. Do you know of opportunities to optimize the operation, maintenance, or sampling
efforts at the site related to OU1, and have such changes been adopted?

Response: The OU1 work is efficient and I cannot think of any way to optimize.

20_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_KELLYDIXON.DOC PAGE 4

June 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site Fourth Five-Year Review Interview Record
Response Provided By: Kelly Dixon/ODEQ

17. Do you feel well-informed about the site's activities and progress?

Response: Sometimes. I believe that the R6 RMPs are, mostly, working hard to keep us informed.
However, certain aspects, especially related to ongoing negotiations with PRPs, are not readily or
easily shared by EPA and/or DOJ.

I have also noticed an apparent lack of comprehensive view of current work and work that has
occurred in the past. Our close participation with R6 RPMs has helped on that front; however, it is not
clear to me that existing resources are taken into consideration.

I continue to have concerns about the disparity between cost estimates and actual costs and whether
anyone is tracking these differences. I am also concerned about the disparity between estimated costs
and actual costs over the term of this project, estimated at 30 years.

18. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?

Response: EPA R6 has worked hard to listen and understand stakeholder concerns and in some cases
has made some changes. It is not always clear to me how and who makes final decisions on some
issues. I believe this could be improved. I remain concerned about the size of the repository, the
ultimate cost to maintain it, and whether or not marketable chat will be deposited there instead of sold.
I would like to see more engagement with ODOT, who could be a major purchaser or user of chat.
With the scope and long-term duration of this project, it seems like it would be useful to routinely
pause, look at issues and accomplishments and re-evaluate remedial actions- more frequently than 5
years and especially focused on OU4 and OU5. I remain concerned that OU4 actions may pre-empt
some decisions that have been left to OU5.

I also believe that EPA has made a misjudgment in its position regarding mine shafts. These shafts are
a conduit to ground water and are safety concerns. It is not clear that EPA has thought through a
closeout strategy for the site when considering its reluctance to address these.

20_TC_5YR_ATT2_2010-0813_INTERVIEW_ODEQ_KELLYDIXON.DOC

PAGE 5

June 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5Yr_201 0-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Attachment 3

Site Inspection Checklist

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist

Please note that "O&M" is referred to throughout this checklist. At sites where Long-Term Response
Actions are in progress, O&M activities may be referred to as "system operations" since these sites are
not considered to be in the O&M phase while being remediated under the Superfund program. N/A
means "not applicable".

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site Name: Tar Creek Superfund Site

City/State: Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Agency Completing 5 Year Review: EPA

EPA ID: OKD980629844

Date of Inspection: 12-14-09 and 12-15-09

Weather/temperature: 12/14/09 - cloudy, 30 degrees F
12/15/09 - clear, 20-35 degrees F

Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)

~	Landfill cover/containment
O Access controls

H Institutional controls

~	Groundwater pump and treatment

Q Surface water collection and treatment

M Other: Groundwater monitoring, surface water diversion, excavation and backfill, relocation

Attachments:	M Inspection team roster attached	Q Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. O&M site manager:

Name:

Title:

Date:

Interviewed: ~ at site	~ at office ~ by phone Phone Number:

Problems, suggestions: Q Additional report attached (if additional space required).

2. O&M staff: NA
Name:

Title:

Date:

Interviewed: ~ at site	~ at office ~ by phone Phone Number:

Problems, suggestions: ~ Additional report attached (if additional space required).

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 1 of 16

Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist



3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police

department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county

offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

Agency:



Contact:



Name:



Title:



Date:



Phone Number:



Problems, suaaestions:

~ Additional report attached (if additional space required).

Agency:



Contact:



Name:



Title:



Date:



Phone Number:



Problems, suaaestions:

~ Additional report attached (if additional space required).

Agency:



Contact:



Name:



Title:



Date:



Phone Number:



Problems, suaaestions:

Q Additional report attached (if additional space required).

Agency:



Contact:



Name:



Title: Mayor



Date:



Phone Number:



Problems, suaaestions:

Q Additional report attached (if additional space required).

4. Other interviews (optional)

O N/A ~ Additional report attached (if additional space required).



21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 2 of 16

Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist

III. ONSITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

1.

O&M Documents

[~1 O&M Manuals Q Readily available Q Up to date JgJ N/A
OAs-Built Drawings ~ Readily available ~ Up to date JSN/A
Q Maintenance Logs Q Readily available Q Up to date H N/A
Remarks: There are no onsite facilities. No records are currently maintained at site. Records are maintained in the files
of ODEQ and EPA.

2.

Health and Safety Plan Documents

~ Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan ~ Readily available M Up to date ~ N/A
O Contingency plan/emergency response plan Q Readily available M. Up to date Q N/A
Remarks:

3.

O&M and OSHA Training Records
Remarks:

Q Readily available Q Up to date £

a n/a

4.

Permits and Service Agreements

~	Air discharge permit
[~l Effluent discharge

Q Waste disposal, POTW

~	Other permits
Remarks:

~	Readily available

~	Readily available
Q Readily available

~	Readily available

~	Up to date

~	Up to date
Q Up to date

~	Up to date

MN/A
MN/A
MN/A
RN/A

5.

Gas Generation Records
Remarks:

~ Readily available

~ Up to date

HN/A

6.

Settlement Monument Records
Remarks:

~ Readily available

~ Up to date

MN/A

7.

Groundwater Monitoring Records J3 Readily available J3 Up to date
Remarks: ODEQ reports on aroundwater monitorina activities after each samplina event.

ON/A

8.

Leachate Extraction Records
Remarks:

~ Readily available

~ Up to date

HN/A

9.

Discharge Compliance Records
Remarks:

~ Readily available

~ Up to date

HN/A

10.

Daily Access/Security Logs
Remarks:

~ Readily available

~ Up to date

HN/A

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 3 of 16	Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist

IV. O&M Costs

^ Applicable Q N/A

1. O&M Organization

~	State in-house Q Contractor for State

~	PRP in-house Q Contractor for PRP

JS Other: MOU Agreement between ODEQ and EPA

2. O&M Cost Records

~ Readily available	Q Up to date	JgJ Funding mechanism/agreement in place

Original O&M cost estimate: ~ Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From (Date):
From (Date):
From (Date):
From (Date):
From (Date):

To (Date):
To (Date):
To (Date):
To (Date):
To (Date):

Total cost:

Total cost:

Total cost:

Total cost:

Total cost:

~	Breakdown attached

~	Breakdown attached
[~1 Breakdown attached

~	Breakdown attached

~	Breakdown attached

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period	J3 N/A

Describe costs and reasons: Continued monitoring of the Roubidoux aquifer and abandonment of wells is ongoing as
part of the Roubidoux Ground Water Monitoring Program performed by ODEQ and funded by EPA. EPA also funds the
ODEQ to continue to abandon Roubidoux wells.

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLSApplicable ~ N/A

1. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged ~ Location shown on site map ~ Gates secured	]S N/A

Remarks:

2. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other security measures	Q Location shown on site map	HN/A

Remarks:

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 4 of 16

Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist

3. Institutional Controls

1. I mplementation and enforcement

Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented:

Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced:

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by): Not required

Frequency:

Responsible party/agency:

Contact:

Name:

Title:

Date:

Phone Number:

Reporting is up-to-date:

OYes

ONo

ON/A

Reports are verified by the lead agency:

OYes

ONo

ON/A

Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met:

OYes

ONo

ON/A

Violations have been reported:

OYes

ONo

ON/A

Other problems or suggestions: Q Additional report attached (if additional space required).

2. Adequacy JgJ ICs are adequate Q ICs are inadequate Q N/A

Remarks: OU2 ROD provides for implementation of numerous ICs to control exposure to COCs in residential settings.
Most require implementation through local governmental authorities or are related to public awareness. The OU4 ROD
includes a voluntary relocation of residents within the most impacted areas of the site, and most of the residents have been
bought out and left, significantly decreasing the risks to exposures. There is no evidence to suggest that properties are
becoming recontaminated. Evidence continues to show that there is recreational use of the chat piles (to be addressed under
OU4) in the form of waste, refuse, and tire tracks present on the piles. There are numerous awareness activities, including
signs, flyers, and posters that warn people not to go onto the chat piles. Many chat piles are fenced and signs posted
regarding not trespassing onto the property. The OU4 ROD provides for the use of ICs in the form of Deed Notices and
restrictions on use of groundwater in the Boone Aquifer in areas impacted by site-related contaminants above remediation
goals.

4. General

1. Vandalism/trespassing Q Location shown on site map JS No vandalism evident

Remarks: Vandalism related to the remedies is not evident. Dumping still occurs at the site in rural areas. Trespassing
onto chat piles, tailings ponds, and general trespassing onto private properties continues to occur.

2. Land use changes onsite Q N/A

Remarks: Site comprises approximately 40 square miles in area, and includes both rural areas and several small towns.
Most residents within the boundary of the voluntary buy-out being conducted by the State under the LICRAT have moved out
of the area, and most properties are abandoned and structures are being removed or demolished. Most of the site is
agricultural or vacant land now, though residential and commercial uses continue in portions of the site.

3. Land use changes offsite J3 N/A

Remarks:

~ Yes ONo §N/A
OYes ONo MN/A

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 5 of 16

Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

1.

Roads

~ Applicable B. N/A



1.

Roads damaged Q Location shown on site map Q Roads adequate Q N/A
Remarks: Roads are all publicly owned and maintained.



2.

Other Site Conditions





Remarks: OU2 repository is locked and fenced. Property is privately owned.







VII. LANDFILL COVERS

Q Applicable N/A

1.

Landfill Surface







1.

Settlement (Low spots)
Areal extent:

Remarks:

~ Location shown on site map
Depth:

~ Settlement not evident

2.

Cracks

Lengths:

Remarks:



~ Location shown on site map
Widths: Depths:

~ Cracking not evident

3.

Erosion
Areal extent:
Remarks:



~ Location shown on site map
Depth:

~ Erosion not evident

4.

Holes

Areal extent:
Remarks:



~ Location shown on site map
Depth:

~ Holes not evident

5.

Vegetative Cover

~ Cover properly established Q No signs of stress Q Grass
Remarks:

~ Trees/Shrubs

6.

Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.)
Remarks:

ON/A

7.

Bulges
Areal extent:
Remarks:



Q Location shown on site map

ft	in * i

Height:

Q Bulges not evident

ft	Ill 1 u

I I

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 6 of 16	Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist

Wet Areas/Water Damage

~ Wet areas Q Location shown on site map

~ Ponding Q Location shown on site map

~ Seeps ~ Location shown on site map
Q Soft subgrade Q Location shown on site map
Remarks:

Areal extent:
Areal extent:
Areal extent:
Areal extent:

~ Wet areas/water damage not evident

Slope Instability
Areal extent:
Remarks:

~ Slides ~ Location shown on site map

~ No evidence of slope instability

Benches Q Applicable Q N/A

(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow
down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)

Flows Bypass Bench
Remarks:

Q Location shown on site map

ft in * i

Q N/A or okay

ft in * j

Bench Breached
Remarks:

~ Location shown on site map

~ N/A or okay

Bench Overtopped
Remarks:

~ Location shown on site map

~ N/A or okay

Letdown Channels

~ Applicable ON/A

Settlement
Areal extent:
Remarks:

~ Location shown on site map
Depth:

~ No evidence of settlement

Material Degradation
Material type:
Remarks:

~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent:

~ No evidence of degradation

Erosion
Areal extent:
Remarks:

~ Location shown on site map
Depth:

~ No evidence of erosion

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 7 of 16 Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist

4.

Undercutting Q Location shown on site map

Areal extent: Depth:

Remarks:

~ No evidence of undercutting

5.

Obstructions Q Location shown on site map
Type:

Areal extent: Height:

Remarks:

ON/A

6.

Excessive Vegetative Growth

~	Evidence of excessive growth

~	Location shown on site map
Remarks:

~	No evidence of excessive growth

~	Vegetation in channels but does not obstruct flow

Areal extent:

4.

Cover Penetrations Q Applicable ON/A



1.

Gas Vents

~	Active ~ Passive

~	Property secured/locked
[Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks:

~	Routinely sampled

~	Functioning

~	Needs 0& M

ON/A
O Good condition

2.

Gas Monitoring Probes

~	Routinely sampled

~	Property secured/locked

~	Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks:

~	Functioning

~	Needs O&M

ON/A
O Good condition

3.

Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)

~	Routinely sampled

~	Property secured/locked Q Functioning

~	Evidence of leakage at penetration Q Needs O&M
Remarks:

ON/A
O Good condition

4.

Leachate Extraction Wells

~	Routinely sampled

~	Property secured/locked

~	Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks:

~	Functioning

~	Needs O&M

ON/A
O Good condition

5.

Settlement Monuments Q Located Q Routinely surveyed
Remarks:

ON/A

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 8 of 16

Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist



5.

Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable ON/A



1.

Gas Treatment Facilities
O Flaring
~ Good condition
Remarks:

ON/A

O Thermal destruction O Collection for reuse
O Needs 0& M

2.

Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
~ Good condition Q Needs 0& M
Remarks:

ON/A

3.

Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings) Q N/A

~ Good condition O Needs 0& M

Remarks:

6.

Cover Drainage Layer

OApplicable ON/A



1.

Outlet Pipes Inspected
Remarks:

O Functioning

ON/A

2.

Outlet Rock Inspected
Remarks:

O Functioning

ON/A

7.

Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable ~ N/A



1.

Siltation
Areal extent:
Remarks:

O Siltation evident
Depth:

ON/A

2.

Erosion
Areal extent:
Remarks:

O Erosion evident
Depth:

ON/A

3.

Outlet Works
Remarks:

O Functioning

ON/A

4.

Dam

Remarks:

O Functioning

ON/A

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 9 of 16

Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist



8.

Retaining Walls

nApplicable ON/A





1.

Deformations
Horizontal displacement
Remarks:

~ Location shown on site map
Vertical displacement:

~ Deformation not evident
Rotational displacement:

2.

Degradation
Remarks:

~ Location shown on site map



~ Degradation not evident

1.

Perimeter Ditches/Off-site discharge ~ Applicable

ON/A



1.

Siltation
Areal extent:
Remarks:

~ Location shown on site map
Depth:



~ Siltation not evident

2.

Vegetative Growth
Areal extent:
Remarks:

~ Location shown on site map
Type:



~ Vegetation does not impede flow

3.

Erosion
Areal extent:
Remarks:

~ Location shown on site map
Depth:



~ Erosion not evident

4.

Discharge Structure Q Location shown on site map

~ Functioning Q Good Condition

Remarks:



ON/A





VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS

O Applicable ^ N/A

1.

Settlement
Areal extent:
Remarks:

Q Location shown on site map

ft	in * i

Depth:



~ Settlement not evident

2.

Performance Monitoring

~	Performance not monitored

~	Performance monitored Frequency:

Q Evidence of breaching Head differential:
Remarks:



ON/A

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 10of 16	Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist

IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES M Applicable ~ N/A

1.

Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines ~ Applicable EJ N/A

1.

Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical Q N/A
Q All required wells located Q G°°d condition Q Needs 0& M
Remarks:

2.

Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances ~ N/A
~ System located Q Good condition Q Needs 0& M
Remarks:

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment Q N/A

~	Readily available Q Good condition

~	Requires Upgrade ~ Needs to be provided
Remarks:

2.

Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines Q Applicable B. N/A

1.

Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical Q N/A

~ Good condition Q Needs 0& M

Remarks:

2.

Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances Q N/A

~ Good condition Q Needs 0& M

Remarks:

3.

Spare Parts and Equipment Q N/A

~	Readily available Q Good condition

~	Requires Upgrade ~ Needs to be provided
Remarks:

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 11 of 16

Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist



3.

Treatment System Q Applicable MN/A



1.

Treatment Train (Check components that apply)

~	Metals removal Q Oil/water separation Q Bioremediation
Q Air stripping Q Carbon adsorbers Q Filters (list type):
O Additive (list type, e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)

Q Others (list):

O Good condition Q Needs O&M
o Sampling ports property marked and functional

~	Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
Q Equipment properly identified

~	Quantity of groundwater treated annually (list volume):

~	Quantity of surface water treated annually (list volume):

Remarks:



2.

Electrical Enclosures and Panels (property rated and functional) Q N/A

~ Good condition Q Needs 0& M

Remarks:



3.

Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels Q N/A
~ Good condition Q Proper secondary containment Q Needs O&M
Remarks:



4.

Discharge Structure and Appurtenances Q N/A

~ Good condition Q Needs 0& M

Remarks:



5.

Treatment Building(s) Q N/A

~	Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Q Needs Repair

~	Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks:



6.

Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy) ~ N/A

~	All required wells located Q Property secured/locked Q FunctioningQ Routinely sampled

~	Good condition Q Needs O&M
Remarks:



4.

Monitored Natural Attenuation ~ Applicable H N/A



1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)

~	All required wells located Q Property secured/locked Q FunctioningQ Routinely sampled

~	Good condition ~ Needs O&M
Remarks:

ON/A

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 12of 16

Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist

5. Long Term Monitoring ^Applicable QN/A

2. Monitoring Wells ~ N/A

JU All required wells located JgJ Property secured/locked JgJ Functioning^ Routinely sampled
~ Good condition Q Needs O&M

Remarks: The ODEQ monitors 11 existing public water supply wells and two monitor wells in the Roubidoux Aquifer to
verify that contaminated groundwater has not migrated from the mine workings and Boone Aquifer down into the Roubidoux,
which is used as the drinking water supply in the area of the site. All wells are secured with fences and gates and sampled
yearly by ODEQ.

X. OTHER REMEDIES MApplicable ON/A

The OU1 remedy included construction of 3 surface water diversion structures and channel improvements to route surface
water flow around collapse features that provided for surface water inflow into the mines. Two such features are located in
Kansas on the Treece Subsite of the Cherokee County Superfund Site (EPA Region 7). The other is located in Oklahoma
near the Douthat Bridge on E40 Road.

Contractors are currently performing Remedial Action activities, which includes filling in subsidence features with source
materials and regrading the land surface. This was observed at the Muncie site. The subsidence feature at the Muncie site
had been almost completely filled in at the time of the site inspection and most of the diversion dike had been removed.

The improved stream channel at the Big John site, located approximately one-half mile east of the Muncie site, was observed
from the public right-of-way along the road. The stream channel improvements appeared to be functioning properly. There
were no signs evident that the stream was eroding the channel. Rip-rap was present along the cut-banks of the channel. The
Big John collapse is located on private land and was not visited or inspected. This area contains chat at the surface.
Remediation work associated with the Cherokee County Site was not observed at the time of the site inspection.

The dike at the Admiralty site was partially constructed along a railroad embankment. The small collapsed portion of the dike,
observed during the second five-year review site inspection, is still present, and erosion of the dike was observed on the
upstream site of the dike adjacent to the small collapse in the center of the dike. It was not possible to determine if this
collapse occurred along the railroad embankment or along the constructed dike. The third five-year review stated that the
ODEQ believed that the collapse was around an area were a culvert had existed in the railroad embankment. The dike was
overgrown with vegetation. Mine water discharges to Tar Creek at the Douthat Bridge were observed.

The wells utilized by the ODEQ for the Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program are sampled on an annual basis. All
wells are secured in a locked building, behind a fence, or both.

The OU2 repository was secured by a locked gate and barbed wire fence. Although the site inspection occurred during
winter, it was apparent that the repository is vegetated.

Remediation of residential yards for OU2 is completed in the towns of Quapaw, Picher, Cardin, and North Miami. The City of
Commerce is performing the remaining remediation of residential yards in Commerce under an agreement with the ODEQ.
During the site inspection, there were several properties where it appeared that work was not yet complete.

Chat was observed in alleyways and driveways in the City of Miami. A number of properties were bought out in an area along
Tar Creek on the east side of Miami due to flooding that occurred in 2007. On several properties, the houses had been
removed, and chat was observed in the footprints of the houses.

The voluntary buyout being conducted under OU4 is currently in progress. Most residents have been relocated through this
program. Contractors of LICRAT were performing work during the site inspection to clear and remove buildings. Chat was
observed in the footprints of where houses once stood (related to OU2).

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 13of 16

Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist

XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

1. Implementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a
brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas
emission, etc.)

The OU1 remedy was to achieve two goals: reduce or eliminate the discharge of acid mine water to Tar Creek, and
protect the Roubidoux Aquifer from contamination by downward migration of acid mine water through abandoned wells
and boreholes.

Dikes were constructed along Tar Creek at the Muncie, Big John, and Admiralty mine sites to divert Tar Creek and Lytle
Creek around these openings to the mines. It was thought at the time of the ROD that diverting the creeks around these
mine openings would reduce the recharge to the mines, lower the water levels within the mines, and reduce or eliminate
the discharges of acid mine water. The first and second five year reviews concluded that the diking and diversion work
did reduce the amount of recharge received by the mines in response to precipitation events, but the discharges of acid
mine water from the mines were not eliminated and the volume of the discharges was not decreased. It was concluded
that the constructed portions of the OU1 remedy were at best only partially effective. This conclusion remains valid
based on the observed discharges of acid mine water occurring during the site inspection for this five-year review. Many
abandoned wells completed in the Roubidoux Aquifer have been plugged since the OU1 ROD was signed. The ODEQ
has identified 18 remaining wells that should be assessed to determine if they require plugging. The EPA and ODEQ
continue to monitor the Roubidoux through the Groundwater Monitoring Program. To-date, the data suggests that there
are localized impacts to the aquifer from mine water, with several mine-related constituents exceeding SMCLs. However,
the primary drinking water standards (MCLs) are not exceeded and the Roubidoux remains a usable source of drinking
water.

The goal of the OU2 remedy was to reduce ingestion of surface soils in residential areas contaminated with lead at a
concentration equal to or greater than 500 ppm. To meet this objective, soils at residential properties are tested for lead.
Where lead concentrations are determined to be greater than 500 ppm, the soils in those areas are removed, down to a
depth determined by the sampling, but no greater than a depth of 18 inches. Replacement soil is then placed in the
excavated portions of each yard. Residential remediation is completed in Quapaw, Picher, Cardin, and North Miami. The
City of Commerce has performed residential soil remediation in the City of Commerce under an agreement with the
ODEQ. Existing data on blood lead levels in children at the site have demonstrated that the OU2 remediation has been
effective.

The OU4 remedy will address the chat piles, chat bases, tailings ponds, in-stream and near-stream chat, rural residences
not addressed under OU2, smelter wastes, and transition zone soils near source materials and smelter wastes. The
remedial action will occur over a period of 30 years, and initial remedial design work to address distal areas is on-going.
This portion of the remedial action will begin in 2010. The hydrogeologic characterization study to determine the ability of
the injection component of the remedy to comply with UIC regulations is on-going and anticipated to be completed in
2010. The voluntary buy-out program, being implemented by the LICRAT, is in progress. Many properties have been
bought by LICRAT, removing people from the site and the reducing the risk from exposure to site-related contaminants.

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 14of 16

Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist

2. Adequacy of O&M

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss
their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.

For OU1, the only O&M procedures involve inspections and maintenance of the diversion dikes. The diversion dike at
the Admiralty location needs mowing and repairs to remove a small collapse and repair some erosion of the dike. O&M
at this location is conducted by the ODEQ. Remediation associated with the Cherokee County Site in EPA Region 7 has
resulted in the filling-in of the subsidence feature at the Muncie site and removal of the dike. Removal of the subsidence
feature eliminates the pathway for surface water to enter the mines at this location. The Big John location could not be
inspected during the site inspection. It is not known if this location is to be addressed in a manner similar to the Muncie
site.

Groundwater monitoring is being conducted as part of the Long-Term Monitoring program. This monitoring is related to
the protection of the drinking water supply at the site. Monitoring of the groundwater used as the primary drinking water
supply at the site shows no exceedences of primary drinking water standards (health-based standards). Exceedences of
secondary (non-health based) standards do occur in some wells. Inspection and maintenance of the dikes and diverted
creek channels is adequate to ensure that recharge to the mines at these sites is not occurring.

3. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of
unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future.

The EPA and ODEQ have concluded that the diking and diversion work was at best only partially effective at achieving
the remedial goals for OU1. The State of Oklahoma has down-graded the designated beneficial uses for Tar Creek, but
water quality data indicates that the surface water does not meet the environmental components of the water quality
standards established for the down-graded beneficial use. The EPA concluded in the third five-year review that the water
quality in Tar Creek did not pose a risk to human health based on the secondary recreation water body designated use.
This determination was based on older data, and the five-year review recommended that current data be evaluated to
verify that surface water does not pose a risk to human health. The ROD for OU1 only allows for additional response
activities to be conducted addressing surface water and sediment contamination in Tar Creek if there is a threat to human
health.

The diversion dike at the Admiralty location requires some O&M to repair erosion.

Groundwater monitoring for OU1 continues to be protective of human health. Monitoring of the groundwater used as the
primary drinking water supply at the site shows no exceedences of MCLs. Exceedences of SMCLs do occur in some
wells. The data indicate that there are localized impacts from mine water in the Roubidoux Aquifer, but the groundwater
continues to be a usable source of drinking water.

Chat is present in alleyways and driveways in Miami, and in the footprints of demolished homes in Miami and in the
mining area where homes have been removed by the LICRAT.

The most recent data indicates that the percentage of children with elevated blood lead levels exceeding the CDC
recommended level is 2.8%, which slightly exceeds the national average of 2.2%. The percentage has decreased
significantly since the OU2 residential areas remediation began, and is an indication that the remedy is effective.

The voluntary relocation performed by the LICRAT and funded by EPA as part of the OU4 remedy is protective to the
extent that it removes people from the area, reducing the potential for exposure to mining wastes that remain at the
surface.

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 15of 16

Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Attachments, Site Inspection Checklist

4. Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.

Removal of the collapse at the Muncie site removes the need to perform O&M inspections at this location. Sampling
under the Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program has been decreased from semi-annual sampling to annual
sampling.

There is currently no O&M associated with the OU2 remedy.

Tar Creek Site Inspection - Inspection Team Roster
Date of Site Inspection - December 14 - 15, 2009

Name

Organization

Title

Bob Sullivan

EPA Region 6

Remedial Project Manager

Scott Irving

CH2M HILL

Project Manager

Darren Davis

CH2M HILL

Project Manager

21_TC_5YR_ATT3_2010-0813_SITEINSPECTIONCHECKLIST.DOC Page 16of 16

Performed December 14-15,2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Attachment 4

Site Inspection Photographs

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 2: View of downtown Richer along US, Highway 69, facing north.

Filename: DSCN1693.JPG

Filename: DSCN1691.JPG

Photo 1: View of downtown Picher along US. Highway 69, facing north.

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 1 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 3: View of the Douthat Bridge and E40 Road, facing east.

Filename: DSCN1694.JPG

Photo 4: Chat in foreground, adjacent to Tar Creek.

Filename: DSCN1695.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 2 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

v..

4



--4 J"® -

%





Photo 5: Remediation at the Muncie site in Kansas, being performed for the Treece Subsite of
the Cherokee County Superfund Site (EPA Region 7).

Filename: DSCN1696.JPG

L^l

ia.. .. .

:w !¦''

IBfj > w	- ?¦

WmZ L-

m ¦¦ ¦ -- v « «Er~T-.--

icie site in Kansas, being performed for the Treece Subsite of

Photo 6: Remediation at the Muncie site in Kansas, being performed for the Treece Subsite of
the Cherokee County Superfund Site (EPA Region 7). Rip-rap on the diversion dike is present
to left. Bridge in center of picture goes over the old Tar Creek Channel, View is facing west.

Filename: DSCN1698.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 3 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 7: Remediation at the Muncie site in Kansas, being performed for the Treece Subsite of
the Cherokee County Superfund Site (EPA Region 7). Depression in the center background is
what remains of the Muncie subsidence.

Filename: DSCN1699.JPG

Photo 8: Close-up view of the bottom of the Muncie subsidence.

Filename: DSCN1700.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 4 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 9: View of the Muncie subsidence being filled in.

Filename: DSCN1701.JPG

Photo 10: View of the dike at the Muncie site. The subsidence (at left) has been filled in.
Diverted Tar Creek channel is in the tree-line in center background. View is facing north.

Filename: DSCN1702.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 5 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 11: View of dirt being used to fill in subsidence at the Muncie site.

Filename: DSCN17G4.JPG

Photo 12: View of chat pile remnant and wetland area across the road south of the Muncie
site. Wetland area is in the old Tar Creek channel. View is to the south.

Filename: DSCN1705.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 6 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 13: View of breach made in diversion dike at the Muncie site to allow access to fill in the
subsidence. View is to the southwest.

Filename: DSCN1706.JPG

Photo 14: View of access road made into the Muncie site to bring material in to the site. View
is to the southeast.

Filename: DSCN1707.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 7 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 15: View of diverted Tar Creek channel between the Muncie and Big John sites. View is
facing north.

Filename: DSCN1708.JPG

Photo 16: View of diverted Tar Creek channel between the Muncie and Big John sites. View is
facing south.

Filename: DSCN1709.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 8 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 17: View of diverted Tar Creek channel between the Muncie and Big John sites. View is
facing north.

Filename: DSCN1710.JPG

Photo 18: View of channel improvement on Tar Creek tributary west of Tar Creek and
northeast of Big John site. Rip-rap is present along cut-bank in center of photograph. View is
to the south.

Filename: DSCN1711.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 9 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 19: View of channel improvement on Tar Creek tributary west of Tar Creek and
northeast of Big John site. Rip-rap is present along cut-bank in center of photograph. View is
to the south.

FilenameDSCN1712.JPG:

Photo 20: View of tributary channel on north side of bridge. View is facing north.

Filename: DSCN1713.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 10 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 21: View of channel improvement on Tar Creek tributary west of Tar Creek and
northeast of Big John site. Stream channel has been straightened and widened. View is to
the southeast.

Filename: DSCN1714.JPG

Photo 22: View of channel improvement on Tar Creek tributary west of Tar Creek and
northeast of Big John site. Stream channel has been straightened and widened. View is to
the south.

Filename: DSCN1715.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 11 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 23: Close-up view of chat in footprint of house that has been demolished in Richer
under the voluntary relocation.

FilenameDSCN1717.JPG:

Photo 24: View of house footprint from previous photograph.

Filename: DSCN1718.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 12 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 25: View of Richer Weil No. 6-!
Groundwater Monitoring Program.

Well is monitored by ODEQ under the Roubidoux

Filename: DSCN1719.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 13 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 27: Close-up view of mine shaft collapse on the east side of Picher near Picher Well No.
6-MW.

Filename: DSCN1721.JPG

Photo 28: View of mine shaft collapse with orange barricading placed around it.

Filename: DSCN1722.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 14 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG



Photo 29: View of house relocation being done by contractor for the LICRAT as part of the
voluntary relocation.

Filename: DSCN1723.JPG

Photo 30: View of hamburger restaurant in Picher, The restaurant is still open for business.

Filename: DSCN1725.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 15 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 16 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 34: View of Richer from the Fisher Chat Piie. View is to the northwest.

Filename: DSCN1730.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 17 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 35: View of Richer from the Fisher Chat Pile. View is to the north.

Filename: DSCN1731.JPG

Photo 36: View facing east from the Fisher Chat Pile.

Filename: DSCN1732.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 18 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 37: View of Picher from the Fisher Chat Pile. Ponds in the center are the wastewater
treatment lagoons for the City of Picher. View is to the southeast.

Filename: DSCN1733.JPG

Photo 38: View of home demolition in Picher.

Filename: DSCN1734.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 19 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 39: View of water-filled collapse feature on southwest side of Admiralty diversion dike.
Water discharges towards the southwest towards Tar Creek. View is to the southwest.

Filename: DSCN1736.JPG

Photo 40: View of water-filled collapse feature on southwest side of Admiralty diversion dike.
Water discharges towards the southwest to Tar Creek. View is to the west.

Filename: DSCN1737.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 20 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 41: View of the Admiralty diversion dike. View is to the northwest.

Filename: DSCN1738.JPG

Photo 42: View of small collapse on top of Admiralty diversion dike. Hole is 10-12 inches
across.

Filename: DSCN1740.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 21 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 43: View of water-filled subsidence feature from the Admiralty diversion dike. Water
flows towards the southwest to Tar Creek. View is to the southwest.

Filename: DSCN1741.JPG

Photo 44: View of diverted Lytle Creek channel from Admiralty diversion dike. View is facing
north/northeast.

Filename: DSCN1742.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC	PAGE 22 OF 44	DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 45: View along top of Admiralty diversion dike. View is facing east.

Filename: DSCN1743.JPG

Photo 46: Confluence of Tar Creek and diverted Lytle Creek Channel from on top of the
diversion dike. View is to the north.

Filename: DSCN1744.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 23 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 47: View of mobile home park in Miami where chat is present in parking area.

Filename: DSCN1745.JPG

Photo 48: View of chat in parking area in mobile home park in Miami,

Filename: DSCN1746JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 24 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 49: Chat in driveway in Miami,

Filename: DSCN1747.JPG

Photo 50: Chat in driveway in Miami,

Filename: DSCN1748.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 25 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 51: Footprint of home demolished in Picher. Chat is present within the footprint of the
home. Fill dirt has been brought in to fill in the depression where the house once sat.

Filename: DSCN1751.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 26 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 53: Real estate sign indicating home was sold in Picher.

Filename: DSCN1754.JPG

Photo 54: Business that remains open in Picher.

Filename: DSCN1755.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 27 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 55: View of chat-filled building footprint in Richer. Dirt has been brought in to grade the
property.

Filename: DSCN1756.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 28 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 57: View of chat in building footprint and fill dirt.

Filename: DSCN1758.JPG

Photo 58: View of property for sale in rural area of site. Property is east of Picher, Chat is
present underneath the real estate sign.

Filename: DSCN1760.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 29 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 59: Sign for new housing edition southeast of Quapaw near Beaver Creek. Suitable
homes from Richer are being reiocated here for sale and reuse.

Filename: DSCN1761.JPG

Photo 60: View of injection well associated with pilot study at the Sooner Chat Pile.

Filename: DSCN1762.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 30 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 61: Close-up view of injection well.

Filename: DSCN1763.JPG

Photo 62: Piping used to feed wash-water and washed fine tailings from chat washer to
injection well.

Filename: DSCN1764.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 31 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 64: View of injection well and Sooner Chat Piie.

Filename: DSCN1766.JPG

Photo 63: Pipeline used to feed wash-water and washed fine tailings from chat washer to
injection well.

Filename: DSCN1765.JPG

mm



mi QB&hs

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 32 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 65: Close-up of injection weii and pipeline. Chat washing unit is visible in center
background.

Filename: DSCN1767.JPG

Photo 66: Chat washing unit at the Sooner Chat Pile.

Filename: DSCN1768.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 33 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 67: Close-up view of chat washing unit.

Filename: DSCN1769.JPG

Photo 68: View of iron settling pond at Meyer Ranch,
constructed wetlands treatment system.

Part of University of Oklahoma

Filename: DSCN1770.JPG

v H



22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 34 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 69: View of the University of Oklahoma's constructed wetlands treatment system at
Meyer Ranch on southeast side of Commerce. View is facing east.

Filename: DSCN1771.JPG

m I

IV'.	.T.

Vjjfir'fity ,'V I

¦

ki t J 4



Photo 70: View of the University of Oklahoma's constructed wetlands treatment system at
Meyer Ranch on southeast side of Commerce. View is facing east.

Filename: DSCN1772.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 35 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 71: View of mine water flow into the constructed wetlands treatment system at Meyer
Ranch,

Filename: DSCN1773.JPG

Photo 72: View of iron settling pond and windmill and solar panel at OU's constructed wetlands
treatment system at Meyer Ranch. Windmill and solar panel are used to supply electricity.
View is facing east.

Filename: DSCN1774.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 36 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 73: View of treatment pond at Meyer Ranch.

Filename: DSCN1775.JPG

Photo 74: View of limestone treatment beds on either side of windmill at Meyer Ranch. View
is facing west.

Filename: DSCN1776.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 37 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 76: View of water discharging from mines and into roadside drainage ditch on east side
of Douthat Bridge.

Filename: DSCN1778,JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 38 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 77: Iron staining on vegetation along old Lytle Creek channel on northeast side of
Douthat Bridge.

Filename: DSCN1779.JPG

Photo 78: View of Tar Creek under Douthat Bridge,
within vegetation in foreground.

Mine water discharges into Tar Creek

Filename: DSCN1780.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 39 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Photo 79: View of old Lytle Creek channel from Douthat Bridge. View is facing northeast.

Filename: DSCN1781.JPG

Photo 80: View of mine water discharge into Tar Creek from roadside ditch and the old Lytle
Creek channel on northeast side of Douthat Bridge.

Filename: DSCN1782.JPG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 40 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 41 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 42 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 43 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPH LOG

22_TC_5YR_ATT4_2010-0813_PHOTOGRAPHS.DOC

PAGE 44 OF 44

DATE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: DECEMBER 14-15, 2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Attachment 5

Notices to the Public Regarding the Five-Year Review

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5YR_2010-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------


l4

$

Tar Creek Superfund Site Public Notice

U.S. EPA Region 6 Begins Fourth
Five-Year Review of Site Remedy
December 2009

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6 (EPA) has begun the fourth five-year
review of the remedy for the Tar Creek
Superfund Site in Ottawa County, Oklahoma.
The review will evaluate if the remedy
continues to protect public health and the
environment.

The approximately 40-square mile Site is a
former lead and zinc mining area, which is part
of the Tri-State Mining District, located at the
junction of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri.
Land deposition of mining waste, including
mining waste piles known as "chat", impacts
the Site area. Land use is a mix of agricultural
and residential, and the cities' of Cardin,
Commerce, North Miami, Picher, and Quapaw,
as well as rural areas of northern Ottawa
County, are located within the Site. Much of
the Site is allotted Indian land. Elevated levels
of lead, zinc, and cadmium exist in the mine
waste that affects the Site's soils, surface
water, and ground water.

The EPA and Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) continue to
implement the Site ground water monitoring
program. The cleanup of lead-contaminated
soils from approximately 2,300 residential
yards and high access areas located within the
Site has significantly reduced the exposure of
the population, especially young children.	

The Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation
Assistance Trust continues to relocate impacted
Ottawa County residents.

The EPA third five year review report is available
on the internet. Results of the fourth five-year
review will be made available to the public on the
internet and at the following information repository:

Miami Public Library
200 North Main Street
Miami, OK 74354

Information about the Tar Creek Superfund Site also
is available on the internet at

www.epa.gov/region 6/superfund.

For more information about the Tar Creek
Superfund Site contact:

Bob Sullivan (OU 1&2) at 214.665.2223,
Ursula Lennox (OU4) at 214.665.6743, or
Gary Baumgarten (OU5) at 214.665.6749

E-mail addresses for EPA staff are
sullivan.robert@epa.gov,
lennox.ursula@epa.gov and
baumgarten.gary@epa.gov

EPA also can be reached at 1.800.533.3508 (toll
free).

Published in the Miami News Record
December 10, 2009

-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Fourth Five-Year Review Report

[This page intentionally left blank.]

TC_5Yr_201 0-0813.DOCX

AUGUST 2010

-------