Tar Creek / Picher Superfund Site (Ottawa County, Oklahoma, 1900 to 2025)

A century of lead and zinc mining left chat piles, flooded mines and lead-contaminated yards in northeast Oklahoma; after Superfund listing in 1983 and a 2009 to 2012 buyout of Picher and nearby towns, EPA's 2025 review says work is under way but not complete.

The record

The place and the mining

• The Tar Creek site is in Ottawa County, Oklahoma, in the Tri-State Mining District. Oklahoma's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) gives its size as 40 square miles (25,600 acres), the contaminants as lead, cadmium and zinc, and the date of National Priorities List (NPL) listing as September 8, 1983. (Oklahoma DEQ, Tar Creek Superfund Site; opened)
• EPA's seventh five-year review says the site was proposed for the NPL in December 1982 and finalized in September 1983. (EPA, Seventh Five-Year Review, Sept. 2025; opened, but the last 4,072 characters were not read)
• DEQ says lead and zinc were mined and milled from about 1900 to the 1960s (one DEQ section says the 1970s, so DEQ's own page is inconsistent), leaving about 300 miles of underground tunnels and more than 1,320 mine shafts in the Oklahoma portion. (DEQ; opened)
• Wikipedia reports that mining ended in the 1960s, that a 1967 collapse destroyed nine homes, and that contaminated springs were first documented in 1979. (Wikipedia, Tar Creek Superfund site; opened; secondary)

Remedy structure (EPA 2025 review)

| Operable unit (OU) | What it covers | Decision record | Protectiveness finding, 2025 | |---|---|---| | OU1 | Tar Creek surface water and Roubidoux groundwater | Record of Decision (ROD) 1984 | Short-term protective for groundwater; surface water standards waived and handed to OU5 | | OU2 | Residential and high-access area soils | ROD 1997; explanation of differences 2007 (yards to 12 inches, gardens to 24 inches) | "Expected to be protective upon completion" for pathways addressed so far | | OU3 | Cardin drum removal | Removal March 28 to May 23, 2000 (120 containers) | Not evaluated; complete | | OU4 | Mining waste, chat, smelter waste, rural soil and wells | ROD 2008; explanation 2010 (added Treece, Kansas) | "Expected to be protective upon completion" for pathways addressed so far | | OU5 | Surface water and sediment across Spring and Neosho watersheds | No ROD yet | Not evaluated; no remedial action expected before 2030 |

(EPA 2025 review; opened.) OU5 covers about 437 square miles and 119 river miles across Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Tribal areas. The review period was August 7, 2024 to May 30, 2025, and the approval memo is dated September 18, 2025.

What EPA says is not yet in place

The review lists problems that make some conditions "No" for current protectiveness:

• About 20 feet of erosion on the O-3 diversion dike and an off-line, impacted supply well (milestone July 31, 2026).
• Deed notices missing on some residential properties and at the closed Stateline Repository, and buyout-area properties that "may lack restrictions or notices" (milestone July 31, 2028).
• Soil cover at Hockerville settled and damaged by all-terrain vehicles (milestone July 31, 2027).
• A January 2024 EPA lead guidance update that calls for review of site lead data against a 500 mg/kg action level.
• Regions other than 6 and 7 that receive chat need support to follow EPA's Off-Site Rule.

EPA also says Region 6 received extra congressional funding for FY2021 to FY2024, which ended in FY2025. (EPA 2025 review; opened)

Progress figures: not all the same year or the same measure

• OU2: nearly 4,000 residential and high-access properties remediated, over 7,000 assessed, as of 2024. From January 2020 to January 2025, DEQ sampled 435 properties and remediated 84; HUD sampled 278 and remediated 17. (EPA 2025 review)
• OU4: about 9.6 million tons of mine waste and contaminated soil placed in the Central Mill Repository as of 2024; over 2 million tons of chat sent to local processors; about 5,100 acres ready for reuse; about 2.22 million tons removed in 2022 and 2023. EPA's review gives no remaining tonnage. (EPA 2025 review)
• OU1: 85 Roubidoux wells plugged to date. (EPA 2025 review)

Remaining chat: sources disagree (see table below).

Relocation and buyout

• EPA's review: from 2009 to 2012, 628 residences, 74 businesses and 125 renters were voluntarily relocated from Picher, Cardin, Hockerville and Treece. (EPA 2025 review)
• DEQ: a 2006 state law allowed voluntary buyouts for residents with children; about 530 properties were bought by the Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust (LICRAT) between 2006 and 2010, then passed to demolition and to the Quapaw Nation for reuse. (DEQ; opened) These two accounts cover different programs and years and are not reconciled here.
• KJRH (June 3, 2025) reports that Picher's population peaked at about 20,000 and that "almost all remaining residents" took buyouts, with 36 offers rejected, per Oklahoma DEQ's director. The same report says EPA "ordered" Picher evacuated in 2009. EPA's review calls the relocation "voluntary," so we do not use the "ordered" wording. (KJRH, June 3, 2025; opened; a local TV report)

Quapaw Nation

• EPA's review says the Quapaw Nation co-implements OU1 and OU4 work with EPA and DEQ, owns the Stateline Repository and some monitoring wells, and completed the Catholic 40 cleanup in 2014, described as the first Tribal-led Superfund cleanup performed by a Tribe on its own property. It removed about 569,013 tons of source material at the Howe project (298,224 tons unmarketable; 270,789 marketable). A Quapaw Nation project manager took part in the review. (EPA 2025 review; opened)
• EPA's October 2024 briefing paper lists the Quapaw Nation among partners on revising residential lead screening levels, and says the Strategic Plan is being revised for release in FY25. (EPA transition briefing paper, Oct. 2024; opened)

Oversight

• KJRH reports that DEQ took over cleanup leadership from EPA in 2014 and quotes DEQ's executive director, Robert Singletary, saying EPA estimates about 50 more years to fully remediate the chat piles and that he cannot say the final bill. L.E.A.D. founder Rebecca Jim said progress is not fast enough. (KJRH; opened) We did not find the "50 years" estimate in an EPA document.
• Wikipedia reports a 2019 EPA Strategic Plan released September 17 with $16 million in annual spending. We did not open EPA's plan; Unverified. (Wikipedia; secondary)

Exposure and health: what the record shows and what it does not

• ATSDR's 2004 Report to Congress says mine tailings and lead-based paint are "two potential sources" of children's lead exposure and that their relative contributions "cannot be determined from existing information." Tailings "may have been a primary source" before EPA remediated residential areas. Children aged 1 to 5 with blood lead at or above 10 micrograms per deciliter fell from 31.2% (67 of 215) in 1996 to 2.8% (7 of 250) in 2003. The report warns the data are a convenience sample and the drop "should not be interpreted to mean" that interventions are no longer needed. It did not assess cadmium or zinc health effects, and says that identifying an exposure pathway "does not necessarily mean that health effects will occur." (ATSDR, Tar Creek Report to Congress, Oct. 2004; opened)
• EPA's 2025 review notes that Indian Health Service in Miami, Oklahoma reported elevated blood lead in children in 1994 and refers to a table of blood lead results for 2019 to 2023. The values were not in the text we read. (EPA 2025 review)
• Later and other figures: DEQ says 43% of young children had elevated blood lead before yard cleanups; KJRH says about 34% in the mid-1980s and under 1% today; an AP story reported 21.5% near the site in 1997 and 0% in the latest screening (about 2013). See the table.
• Wikipedia reports a 24% miscarriage rate versus a 10% national average. We did not find its primary source and do not use the figure. (Unverified)
• Exposure to metals is established as a pathway in the ATSDR report. Proof that a named illness in one person was caused by the site is not established by any source we read. The sources here describe group blood lead measurements, not individual causation.

Disputed numbers

What this case shows

1. The hazard sat in plain view and in plain use. Chat is piled across the district, and DEQ tells residents not to use it in driveways, yards or gardens. That advice came long after the piles were there. What a resident could know depended on someone testing the yard. (DEQ)
2. Progress and completion are different facts. EPA says nearly 4,000 properties and millions of tons of waste have been handled, and also that OU5 has no remedy, OU2 and OU4 are protective only "upon completion," and some deed notices are missing. A reader can hold both. (EPA 2025 review)
3. People who left were offered a voluntary choice, and people who stayed were not. The 2006 to 2012 buyouts moved families out of Picher, Cardin, Hockerville and Treece, and some offers were declined. Renters and businesses are counted separately by EPA, which shows they were in the record. What those who stayed or left received, and whose choices were constrained, is not documented in the sources we read.
4. Records of controls are incomplete. EPA's 2025 review flags missing deed notices on residential and buyout-area properties. The legal record meant to tell future owners is partly missing. (EPA 2025 review)
5. A tribal government did part of the work. The Quapaw Nation owns a repository, led a first-of-its-kind Tribal cleanup on its own land and joins in federal decisions. That is a case of those closest to the land taking part in a decision that affects it. (EPA 2025 review)
6. Health data are group data. Blood lead among children fell sharply in the surveys, and the agency also warned against concluding the work is done. The point is that residents had to rely on agency testing to learn their risk, with different numbers in different public accounts. (ATSDR 2004)

The strongest objections, and our answers

1. Objection: The cleanup is a success; children's lead levels fell. Mitigation: We include the ATSDR drop from 31.2% to 2.8% and the later figures. We also include ATSDR's caution on sampling and EPA's 2025 list of open items. Falling blood lead supports progress. It does not show the site is complete.
2. Objection: The mining companies, not the public, should be named as responsible. Mitigation: We did not read EPA's enforcement or settlement records for responsible parties, and the 2025 review does not mention them. We say nothing about who paid, and we do not assign fault.
3. Objection: The buyout was voluntary and generous. Mitigation: EPA calls it voluntary. We report the counts and do not rate the offers because we did not read the terms or prices.
4. Objection: Higher illness rates in the area prove the site caused harm. Mitigation: We do not make that claim. The sources show exposure pathways and group blood lead levels. The 24% miscarriage figure has no primary source in our reading.
5. Objection: Local TV and Wikipedia are weak sources. Mitigation: We lead with EPA's 2025 review and ATSDR's 2004 report, both opened, and use KJRH and Wikipedia only for attributed statements, flagged as such.
6. Objection: The 50-year estimate may be wrong. Mitigation: It is attributed to DEQ's director as relaying EPA. We did not find it in an EPA document and mark it Unverified as an EPA estimate.

Open questions: what would change our minds

• The last 4,072 characters of EPA's 2025 review, including the rest of the institutional control review and the appendices, were not read. Table 11 (children's blood lead, 2019 to 2023) values were not in the text read.
• Total public spending and who paid (federal, state, responsible parties) were not found in an EPA or DEQ document. The "nearly $600 million" figure is Unverified.
• Remaining chat tonnage: three different figures; no EPA total.
• Buyout terms, prices and who qualified (LICRAT records, state law text) were not read.
• Mine operators, successor liability and settlements were not reviewed.
• The EPA "50 years" estimate was not found in a primary document.
• The ATSDR 2008 public health assessment (the search result link was blocked) was not read.
• Health studies of residents beyond blood lead (for example neurodevelopment or pregnancy outcomes) were not opened.
• The 2019 Strategic Plan and any updated plan (planned for FY25) were not read.
• Whether the Quapaw Nation's role was shaped by legal rulings or agreements was not researched.

Sources

Evidence status and correction history

Key claims

Correction history

Found an error or a better source? We keep every correction on the record with its date and reason. Nothing here is quietly rewritten.