Superfund: EPA Should Improve the Reliability of Data on National Priorities List Sites Affecting Indian Tribes

Superfund is EPA's principal program to address sites with hazardous substances, and some of the most seriously contaminated of these sites are listed on the NPL. Many of these sites can affect Indian tribes or their land. EPA has a policy to consult with tribes when EPA actions or decisions may affect tribal interests, including on cleanup of NPL sites that are on tribal property or that affect tribes.

GAO was asked to analyze NPL sites that are on tribal property or that affect tribes and EPA's consultation with tribes at these sites. This report: (1) examines the extent to which EPA has reliable data identifying NPL sites that are located on tribal property or that affect tribes, (2) examines the extent to which EPA has reliable data on the agency's consultation with tribes regarding NPL sites, and (3) describes the actions EPA has taken to address the unique needs of tribes when making decisions about cleanup actions at Superfund sites. GAO reviewed laws and policies, assessed EPA data on NPL sites, and interviewed EPA and tribal officials about cleanup actions and consultations at six non-generalizable NPL sites selected in part for their geographic diversity.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have reliable data identifying National Priorities List (NPL) sites that are located on tribal property or that affect tribes. Specifically, EPA collects data on whether sites are on tribal property or have Native American Interest (a data variable indicating sites where tribal members or tribal land would be directly affected by the release of hazardous substances), as well as which tribes are associated with NPL sites. However, EPA's data are not always accurate or complete for a number of reasons. For example, EPA can have difficulty identifying some tribal property boundaries, and NPL site boundaries may evolve as the site is investigated and remediated. EPA does not have a regular review process for its data on whether an NPL site is on tribal property. In addition, EPA's guidance for determining whether a site has Native American Interest is unclear, and regions may not interpret it consistently. Without improving its review process and clarifying its guidance, EPA will not have reasonable assurance that its data on tribes that are affected by NPL sites are accurate or complete.

EPA consults with tribes when actions at an NPL site may affect tribal interests, but the agency does not have reliable data on its consultations with tribes. Data from EPA's system for tracking consultation did not include documentation of some consultations that GAO confirmed had occurred. One possible reason that EPA data are incomplete is that the agency's policy is unclear on which interactions are considered consultation and are therefore to be documented in EPA's system of record, which is not consistent with federal standards for internal control. EPA's policy provides a broad definition of consultation and specifies which staff are responsible for determining when consultation may be appropriate. However, the policy does not provide further guidance on the circumstances under which consultation should be considered. For example, it does not specify any specific points in the hazardous substance cleanup process at which consultation should be considered or provide further detail on which tribal interests should be considered when determining if tribal interests on NPL sites are affected. Without clarifying guidance to clearly define circumstances under which consultation with tribes should be considered, EPA cannot have reasonable assurance that it is applying its consultation policy consistently.

EPA has taken various actions to address the unique needs of tribes when making decisions about cleanup actions. These actions include minimizing tribal members' exposure to contaminants because of tribal lifestyle (e.g., greater consumption of local fish and game) and limiting potential damage to culturally important sites. For example, EPA officials said that at one site, they altered the design and route of the roads used to remove contaminated materials to minimize the impact of cleanup activities' on cultural resources. EPA also published a memorandum in 2017 with recommendations on considering tribes' traditional ecological knowledge in the cleanup process if tribes offer it.

GAO is making four recommendations to EPA, including that it take actions to improve the data it collects and to clearly define circumstances under which consultation with tribes should be considered. EPA generally agreed with GAO's recommendations.

Releases of hazardous substances into the environment can create  significant risks to human health and the environment, and Indian tribes  can face unique challenges associated with exposure to such  substances. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),  more than 300,000 Indians—roughly 12 percent of the approximate total  Indian population of the United States—live within 3 miles of a site that  has released or may release a hazardous substance. For example, in  upstate New York, elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls, which  were released into the St. Lawrence and Grasse Rivers by an aluminum  manufacturing facility and an aluminum die casting plant, have posed a  threat to the health and traditional cultural practices of members of the  Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe since at least 1954, according to officials from  the tribe. According to these officials, fish consumption restrictions  associated with the contamination in the St. Lawrence and Grasse Rivers  disrupted the tribe’s subsistence lifestyle and the role that fishing plays in  tribal members’ lives. In addition, in 2014, we reported that for more than  30 years, the Navajo people have lived with the environmental and health  effects of uranium contamination resulting from the extraction of millions  of tons of uranium ore from mines on the Navajo reservation to support  the development of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.

The federal government’s principal program to address sites with  hazardous substances—the Superfund program—was established by the  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability  Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and is administered by EPA. EPA assesses  contaminated sites using a Hazard Ranking System that considers  several factors, such as exposure pathways, to determine a site’s relative  threat to human health or the environment. Sites with sufficiently high  scores under this system are eligible to be proposed for listing on the  National Priorities List (NPL), which includes some of the most seriously  contaminated sites that EPA identifies for long-term cleanup. After a site  is listed on the NPL, or a release or threatened release of a hazardous  substance is identified, EPA or a potentially responsible party can begin  the multi-phase remedial cleanup process, which we refer to as cleanup  actions. Potentially responsible parties are liable for conducting or paying  for the cleanup of hazardous substances.

In certain circumstances involving Superfund sites, EPA is required or  directed to consult with federally recognized Indian tribes. Specifically, for  Superfund sites on land where a tribe has jurisdiction, CERCLA requires  EPA to give tribes “substantially the same treatment as a state” for, among other things, consultation on remedial actions. In addition, in 2011,  EPA issued a general, agency-wide policy for consultation and  coordination with tribes when EPA actions and decisions may affect tribal  interests. The policy outlines a four-phase consultation process that  includes EPA notifying tribes sufficiently early in the process to allow for  meaningful input by tribes and providing formal, written feedback  explaining how EPA considered tribes’ input in its final action.

You asked us to examine Superfund sites that are located on tribal  property or that affect tribes, and EPA’s consultation with tribes regarding  cleanup actions at these sites. This report (1) examines the extent to  which EPA has reliable data identifying NPL sites that are located on  tribal property or that affect tribes, (2) examines the extent to which EPA  has reliable data on the agency’s consultation with tribes regarding NPL  sites, and (3) describes what actions, if any, EPA has taken to address  the unique needs of tribes when making decisions about cleanup actions  at NPL sites.

To examine the extent to which EPA has reliable data identifying NPL  sites that are located on tribal property or that affect tribes, we obtained  EPA data on NPL sites currently proposed, final, or deleted, that (1) EPA  data indicate are associated with Indian tribes, (2) the agency has  determined to have Native American Interest (NAI), and (3) EPA officials  told us may be within 10 miles of tribal property. We limited our review  to NPL remedial cleanup sites—proposed, final, and deleted—because  they represent sites with the highest national priority due to the  significance of releases, or threatened releases, of hazardous  substances. To assess the reliability of EPA’s data, we worked with  officials from EPA headquarters and each of its 10 regional offices to  perform data quality checks and identify any errors or omissions. We also  interviewed EPA officials about selected sites of interest that, according to  EPA, may be located within 1 mile of tribal property, but that EPA had not  identified as having NAI. Additionally, we reviewed documents and  interviewed officials from EPA headquarters and regional offices to better  understand the agency’s management and use of the database of record  for collecting and maintaining data on all Superfund sites, the Superfund  Enterprise Management System (SEMS). We worked with agency  officials to correct errors in order for us to report on the number of NPL  sites known to be on tribal property or that affect tribes as of December  2017, and we identified 87 sites of the total 1,785 NPL sites that were  proposed, final, or deleted at that time. In addition, in their comments on a  draft of this report, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the  Flathead Reservation identified an additional site that was not included in  EPA’s data, bringing the total to 88 NPL sites known to be on tribal  property or affect tribes. We recognize there may be additional sites that  may be of interest to tribes; however, we determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable for the purpose of providing information on NPL sites  known to affect tribes or to be located on tribal property. Appendix I  provides information on and cleanup status for these 88 sites.

To examine whether EPA has reliable data regarding its consultation with  tribes about NPL sites, we reviewed data from EPA’s Tribal Consultation  Opportunity Tracking System (TCOTS) regarding consultations that had  taken place since 2011 and related agency documentation, interviewed  knowledgeable agency officials, and compared TCOTS data with other  data EPA provided on tribal consultation in support of our first objective.  We worked with agency officials to correct errors and omissions to reach  a final set of data that were sufficiently reliable to report, as of May 2018.  These data provide the total number of consultations that EPA officials  have had with tribes regarding NPL site cleanup decisions since 2011.  We also interviewed EPA headquarters and regional officials to obtain  their perspectives on how and when EPA consults with tribes.

In addition, using the number of NPL sites known to be on tribal property  or affecting tribes that we developed for objective one, we selected a  nonprobability sample of six final or proposed NPL sites to use as case  studies. We selected these sites to reflect different EPA regions, listings  on the NPL before and after EPA’s 2011 consultation and coordination  policy went into effect, and sites that have had at least two assessments  or inspections performed, according to EPA data. While we selected six  NPL sites EPA has identified as affecting tribes or located on tribal  property, our interviews with tribal and EPA officials covered a broader  spectrum of sites and included officials’ views regarding any Superfund  program activities in which they had been involved. For each case study,  we requested information about EPA’s consultation with tribes as well as  any documentation that demonstrated whether and how EPA took into  account unique tribal needs associated with the site when making  cleanup decisions. We also interviewed officials from the tribe or tribes  involved with the cleanup at each of our six selected NPL sites, as well as  EPA regional officials for the region in which the site is located. We  analyzed EPA and tribal officials’ experiences with consultation and  coordination at the six selected NPL sites based on EPA’s consultation  policy.

To describe what actions EPA has taken to address the unique needs of  tribes when making cleanup decisions, we interviewed EPA officials from  the regional offices associated with the six selected NPL sites. We also  interviewed officials from the tribe or tribes with interests at each of the  selected sites in our review. Our interviews with EPA and tribal officials  covered a broader spectrum of sites and included officials’ views about  other Superfund activities in which they had been involved. Appendix II  provides a more detailed description of the objectives, scope, and methodology for this report. Appendix III provides additional information  about our six selected case study sites and the EPA regions in which they  are located.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2017 to January 2019 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

This section presents information on the Superfund program and the  stages of the cleanup process, the relationship between federally  recognized tribes and the federal government, the laws and policies that  govern EPA’s consultation with federally recognized tribes regarding  Superfund cleanup actions, and EPA’s administration of the Superfund  program.

The Superfund Program and Remedial Cleanup Process

CERCLA established the Superfund program to clean up contaminated  sites to protect human health and the environment from the effects of  hazardous substances. Under CERCLA, potentially responsible parties  are liable for conducting or paying for the cleanup of hazardous  substances at contaminated sites. Under the Superfund program, EPA  and potentially responsible parties can undertake two types of cleanup  actions: removal actions and remedial actions. Removal actions are  usually short-term cleanups for sites that pose immediate threats to  human health or the environment. Remedial actions are generally long- term cleanups—consisting of one or more remedial action projects—that  aim to permanently and significantly reduce contamination; these actions  can take a considerable amount of time and money, depending on the  nature of the contamination and other site-specific factors.

The Superfund process begins with the discovery of a potentially  hazardous site or notifications to EPA regarding the possible release of  hazardous substances that may threaten human health or the  environment. EPA delineates the Superfund remedial cleanup process in  nine phases:  1.  Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation. EPA’s regional  offices may discover sites with releases of hazardous substances or  potential for releases of hazardous substances, or such sites may  come to EPA’s attention through notifications—either reports from  state agencies or citizens. As part of this first phase of the process,  EPA’s regional offices use a screening system called the Hazard  Ranking System to guide decision making and, as needed, to  numerically assess the site’s relative potential to pose a threat to  human health or the environment.  2.  NPL Site Listing Process. EPA may propose sites that score at or  above an established level for listing on the NPL. EPA regions  submit sites to EPA headquarters for possible listing on the NPL  based on a variety of factors, including the availability of alternative  state or federal programs that may be used to clean up the site.  Sites that EPA proposes to list on the NPL are published in the  Federal Register. After a period of public comment, EPA reviews the  comments and makes final decisions on whether to list the sites on  the NPL.  3.  Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. EPA or a potentially  responsible party will generally begin the remedial cleanup process  for an NPL site by conducting a two-part study of the site: (1) a  remedial investigation to characterize site conditions and assess the  risks to human health and the environment, among other actions and  (2) a feasibility study to evaluate various options to address the  problems identified through the remedial investigation.  4.  Record of Decision. At the culmination of the remedial investigation  and feasibility study, EPA issues a record of decision that identifies  EPA’s selected remedy for addressing the contamination. A record of  decision typically lays out the planned cleanup activities for each  operable unit of the site.  5.  Remedial Design and Remedial Action. EPA or a potentially  responsible party plans the implementation of the selected remedy  during the remedial design phase, and then, in the remedial action  phase, EPA or a potentially responsible party carries out one or more  remedial action projects.  6.  Construction Completion. EPA generally considers the construction  to be complete for a site when all physical construction at a site is  complete, including actions to address all immediate threats and to  bring all long-term threats under control.  7.  Post-Construction Completion. The potentially responsible party or  the state generally conducts operation and maintenance to maintain  the remedy, such as operating a groundwater extraction and  treatment system. EPA generally performs reviews of the remedy at  least every five years to evaluate whether it continues to protect  human health and the environment.  8.  NPL Deletion. EPA may delete a site, or part of a site, from the NPL  when the agency and the relevant state authority determine that no  further site response is needed.  9.  Site Reuse and Redevelopment. EPA works with communities to  ensure that site cleanups are consistent with the site’s future use and  to make sure sites or portions of sites are used safely.

Relationship between Federally Recognized Tribes and the Federal Government

The federal government recognizes Indian tribes as distinct, independent  political communities that possess certain powers of self-government and  sovereignty. As of January 9, 2019, there were 573 federally recognized  Indian tribes. The federal government has a government-to-government  relationship with Indian tribes, so EPA works directly with tribes. The  federal government also has a trust responsibility to Indian tribes and  their members based on treaties, federal laws, and court decisions. In  addition, treaties between tribes and the federal government may reserve  rights to a tribe that could be affected by a proposed EPA action. For  example, an NPL site may contaminate fish or wildlife that a tribe has a  treaty right to fish or hunt. EPA guidance notes that certain types of EPA  actions, namely those that are focused on a specific geographic area, are  more likely than others to have potential implications for treaty-protected  natural resources.

Laws and Policies Governing EPA Consultation with Tribes Regarding Superfund Cleanup Actions

CERCLA includes a requirement for EPA to consult with Indian tribes in  certain circumstances regarding cleanup actions at Superfund sites.  Specifically, under CERCLA, EPA is required to treat tribes substantially  the same as states with regard to consultation on remedial actions on  lands for which an Indian tribe has jurisdiction, among other things. In  addition to this CERCLA requirement, the following government-wide and  agency policies apply when EPA consults with tribes regarding cleanup  actions at Superfund sites:

Executive Order 13175 (2000). Directs agencies to have an  accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal  officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal  implications.

EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs  on Indian Reservations (1984). Sets forth principles to guide  EPA in dealing with tribal governments and responding to the  problems of environmental management on reservations in order  to protect human health and the environment.

EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian  Tribes (2011). Provides a general, agency-wide policy for  consultation and coordination with tribes in cases in which EPA  actions and decisions may affect tribal interests. EPA developed  this policy in response to Executive Order 13175 and a 2009  presidential memorandum on tribal consultation. The policy  notes that EPA submits annual progress reports to the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) on the status of its consultation  actions pursuant to this 2009 presidential memorandum. This  policy provides guiding principles for consultation, outlines a four- phase process for conducting consultation, and establishes the  roles and responsibilities for specific EPA officials. Some EPA  regional offices have their own specific guidance for consulting  with tribes that include the elements of EPA’s agency-wide  consultation policy, but may include more specific guidelines. For  example, Region 2’s consultation guidance includes a list of  specific subjects to include in notification letters to tribes.

EPA Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with  Federally Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples (2014).  Affirms EPA’s commitment to provide federally recognized tribes  and indigenous peoples in the United States fair treatment and  meaningful involvement in EPA decisions that may affect their  health or environment.

EPA Guidance for Discussing Tribal Treaty Rights (2016). The  guidance states that it is intended to enhance EPA’s consultations  in situations where tribal treaty rights may be affected by a  proposed EPA action.

EPA Memorandum on Considering Traditional Ecological  Knowledge During the Cleanup Process (2017). Provides  direction to improve the Superfund decision-making process to  ensure EPA considers a tribe’s traditional ecological knowledge  when tribes willingly provide such information.

EPA Memorandum on Consideration of Tribal Treaty Rights  and Traditional Ecological Knowledge in the Superfund  Remedial Program (2017). Provides recommendations for  regional Superfund Remedial Program staff to consider when (1)  evaluating tribal treaty rights and treaty-protected resources in  program implementation and (2) considering traditional ecological  knowledge during the cleanup process when the information is  freely provided by the tribe or tribes with interests at the site.

EPA’s Administration of the Superfund Program

EPA’s 10 regional offices are responsible for carrying out many of the  implementation and management responsibilities for NPL sites, and are  guided by the Superfund Program Implementation Manual, as well as  CERCLA, CERCLA’s implementing regulations, supplementary guidance,  and agency policy. The Superfund Program Implementation Manual  states that its purpose is to provide overarching program management  priorities, procedures, and practices for EPA’s Superfund remedial and  removal programs, providing a link between EPA’s strategic plan and  Superfund program internal processes, among other things. Further, the  manual includes definitions for Superfund program accomplishments and  outlines processes for planning and tracking accomplishments through  milestones, including site-wide milestones specific to how the agency  manages the release of hazardous substances (e.g., human exposure  under control).

Using its SEMS and TCOTS data systems, EPA tracks NPL sites that are  on tribal property or that affect federally recognized Indian tribes, as well  as the agency’s efforts to consult with Indian tribes regarding cleanup  decisions at NPL sites. SEMS is EPA’s primary database to track  Superfund program accomplishments and milestones and to answer  Superfund-related questions from Congress, federal and state agencies,  and the public. SEMS is EPA’s primary system for Superfund data  collection, reporting, and tracking and serves as the Superfund program’s  data management system for accomplishment planning and tracking.  According to the Superfund Program Implementation Manual, EPA  regional staff are to input data into SEMS regarding planned or actual  accomplishments, and EPA headquarters staff are to use SEMS data as  the basis for tracking, managing, and reporting on the performance of the  Superfund program.

SEMS is the system of record for NPL site data, including information on  tribes that have an interest in the site. We looked at three of the variables  SEMS uses for tracking sites that are located on tribal property or that  affect tribes:

On tribal property. This variable indicates whether the release of  hazardous materials is on Indian country and any other land owned by  an Indian tribe or an Alaska Native entity.

NAI. This variable identifies sites that may be of interest to one or  more Native American entities whose members or land would be  directly affected by the release of hazardous materials.

Associated tribe. This variable identifies the specific Indian entity or  entities associated with a site with NAI.

TCOTS tracks information about potential future tribal consultation  opportunities and serves as a repository for consultation-related  documents for active consultations for all EPA programs, including  Superfund. EPA uses TCOTS to (1) track current and forecasted  consultation, (2) publicize current EPA consultation opportunities for tribal  governments, and (3) provide reports to OMB, as called for in the 2009  presidential memorandum on tribal consultation.

EPA Does Not Have Reliable Data Identifying NPL Sites Located on Tribal Property or That Affect Tribes EPA Data Identifying NPL Sites Located on Tribal Property Are Not Accurate

EPA data identifying NPL sites that are located on tribal property or that  affect tribes are not reliable. Specifically, EPA data identifying sites that  are on tribal property, sites that have NAI, and the tribes that have  interest in NAI sites are not accurate or complete based on our reviews of  agency data and interviews with EPA officials.

EPA data identifying NPL sites that are on tribal property are not  accurate. EPA headquarters officials told us that the SEMS data variable  for identifying sites “on tribal property” may not always accurately identify  whether NPL sites are located on tribal property. Because EPA officials  told us that the agency’s data regarding NPL sites on tribal property may  not be accurate and provided explanations for why these data are  unreliable, we did not evaluate these data to determine the total number  of inaccuracies.

EPA officials we interviewed provided a number of reasons why the  agency’s data regarding NPL sites located on tribal property may not be  accurate:

First, EPA officials told us that some site location information was  inaccurately transposed during maintenance of the former database of  record used prior to adopting SEMS, and that these errors, in some  cases, carried over to SEMS. According to these officials, the  transposed information resulted in some sites appearing in the  incorrect geographic hemisphere (i.e., sites located in the western  hemisphere appeared to be located in the eastern hemisphere in the  incorrectly transposed data). These officials told us that they have  worked over the past year to correct these errors and to verify the  accuracy of site coordinates.

Second, EPA officials told us that accurately documenting which sites  are on tribal property can be complicated due to difficulties identifying  tribal property boundaries and evolving site boundaries. For example,  tribal property boundaries may be difficult to establish without  reviewing land titles and other documents. Further, EPA officials told  us they use the best available data to identify tribal property but there  are limitations in that data. In addition, EPA officials we interviewed  told us that site boundaries can be difficult to define or change over  time. For example, an agency official told us NPL sites may not have  clearly delineated boundaries until after the remedial investigation is  complete and the full extent of contamination has been determined.  Further, the official said that site boundaries may change during the  cleanup process or during post-cleanup reviews if EPA discovers new  or more widespread contamination. According to EPA headquarters  officials, EPA regional officials are responsible for tracking changes to  site boundaries in their respective regions, but specific information on  the location of site boundaries is not documented in SEMS.  Additionally, for one site—the Tar Creek site in Oklahoma (Region  6)—EPA’s publicly-available information states that there are no clear  site boundaries. One EPA regional official we interviewed told us that  he was not aware of guidance for regions regarding changing tribal  property information in circumstances in which site boundaries  change to include land that is tribal property. Additionally, EPA  officials told us that regional offices may be inconsistent in how they  determine site boundaries. EPA released recommended practices for  collecting geospatial data for Superfund sites in 2017 that included  guidance for determining and documenting NPL site boundaries.  Further, in May 2018, EPA provided national standards intended to  provide a uniform method for collecting, documenting, and managing  geospatial information for Superfund sites, including information  identifying site boundaries.

Third, EPA headquarters officials stated that EPA checks the  accuracy of these data infrequently. Headquarters officials told us  there are several standardized automated reports that officials at the  headquarters and regional levels can use to review SEMS data and  identify quality issues, including quality issues in the variables for NAI  and the associated tribes. However, these reports do not contain the  on tribal property variable, and SEMS currently does not have the  ability to run automated checks of site proximity to tribal property  based on location data. Officials told us that they review the on tribal  property data periodically outside of these reports; however, EPA  currently lacks a regular review process for these data.

Under federal standards for internal control, management should use  quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives. Quality information is  appropriate, current, complete, accurate, accessible, and provided on a  timely basis. In addition, under federal standards for internal control,  management should design control activities to achieve objectives and  respond to risks, such as by conducting reviews at the functional or  activity level. According to EPA officials, data identifying NPL sites that  are on tribal property may not be accurate for a number of reasons.  Because SEMS automated reports do not contain the on tribal property  variable, EPA regions cannot regularly conduct quality reviews of  information in SEMS on tribal property using those reports. Without a  regular review process to ensure the quality of SEMS data identifying  sites on tribal property and the ability to use automated reports to check  the accuracy of on tribal property data in SEMS, EPA does not have  reasonable assurance that regional officials have accurately identified  sites on tribal property.

EPA Data Identifying Sites as Having NAI Are Not Accurate or Complete

EPA data identifying which sites have NAI are inaccurate and incomplete,  based on our reviews of the data. We found three types of errors in these  data. First, we found that SEMS did not include some sites with known  tribal interest as having NAI. Second, we found some sites that EPA  identified in SEMS as having NAI when there was no tribal interest. Third,  we found that EPA regional officials inconsistently used the NAI variable  in SEMS when there was no longer tribal interest in a site.

SEMS does not include some NPL sites with known tribal  interests as having NAI. We found nine sites with tribal interest that  EPA did not identify as having NAI in SEMS. For six of these sites,  EPA regional officials told us that they knew the sites were of interest  to one or more tribes, even though they were not identified as having  NAI in SEMS. For example, we found that EPA Region 10 had invited  the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians to consult regarding  the Black Butte Mine site, but the site was not identified as having NAI  in SEMS. For two additional sites, following our request to review the  SEMS data, officials from Region 4 contacted tribal officials in their  region to inquire about their potential interest in NPL sites and found  that the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians had interest in two sites in  North Carolina not previously identified as having NAI: Barber  Orchard and Benefield Industries. EPA designated both sites as ready  for their intended use—meaning that construction of the remedy had  been completed—in 2011 and 2014, respectively. For the remaining  site, EPA officials in Region 5 stated that they learned of tribal interest  in the Petoskey Manufacturing Company Groundwater site when the  Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians contacted them in  December 2017, after coverage of the site’s contamination hazards  on the local news.

SEMS incorrectly includes some sites as having NAI when no  tribal interest exists. When responding to our request to verify the  accuracy of data in SEMS, EPA regional officials identified 10 sites  that were incorrectly included in SEMS as having NAI when there was  no actual tribal interest. For example, officials from Region 4 stated  that they removed the NAI designation from three sites because the  sites are situated more than 100 miles from the nearest federally  recognized tribe’s property and the officials were not aware of any  tribal interest in the sites. Similarly, EPA regional officials determined  that two other sites—Eielson Air Force Base in Region 10 and Seneca  Army Depot in Region 2—were incorrectly identified as having NAI.  These officials told us that these sites should not have been  designated as NAI because no tribes had expressed interest in either  site.

EPA inconsistently identified sites with prior NAI in SEMS. We  found that EPA regional officials inconsistently used the NAI variable  in SEMS when tribes were no longer interested in a site. For example,  Region 2 officials stated that they maintained the NAI designation for  the Hooker Hyde Park site in order to preserve the historical record  after EPA identified that the Seneca Nation of Indians no longer had  an interest in the site. Conversely, Region 8 officials indicated that  they removed the NAI designation for the Arsenic Trioxide site when it  was determined that the relevant tribe no longer had interest in the  site.

Based on our review of EPA guidance and data provided by EPA officials,  we identified several possible reasons that the agency’s data for  identifying tribal interests are not accurate or complete. One possible  reason that NAI data in EPA’s SEMS may be inaccurate and incomplete  is because EPA’s guidance for making NAI determinations is unclear,  resulting in EPA regional officials inconsistently determining and  documenting sites with NAI. EPA’s Superfund Program Implementation  Manual, which provides guidance to EPA regional officials for identifying  sites as having NAI, contains one sentence regarding how EPA regional  officials are to determine when to designate a site as having NAI. The  manual states that EPA regional officials should designate NAI in SEMS  when a site “may be of interest to tribes whose members or land are  directly affected” by the release of hazardous materials from the site, but  the manual does not specify criteria EPA regional officials should  consider for determining what constitutes NAI. For example, the manual  does not specify whether ancestral lands, areas where tribes have treaty  rights, or areas otherwise of interest to a tribe but that are not tribal  property should be considered in making this determination. It also does  not specify what types of tribal interests to consider. However, officials  from tribes we interviewed for our case studies told us that tribal interests  in NPL sites may be related to a variety of factors, including  contamination potentially affecting tribal members living in or around the  contaminated area or land where the tribe has treaty hunting or fishing  rights. Furthermore, EPA’s Superfund Program Implementation Manual  does not specify whether officials should remove the NAI designation if  officials determine tribes no longer have interest in a site. In the case of  the Petoskey Manufacturing Company Groundwater site in Michigan,  EPA Region 5 officials we interviewed told us that they were uncertain as  to whether they should identify the site as having NAI, because they were  unsure if the level of the tribe’s interest was significant enough.

EPA officials we interviewed provided additional reasons for the lack of  accuracy and completeness in the agency’s data regarding sites with NAI.  EPA headquarters officials told us they periodically, but infrequently,  review SEMS data on Superfund sites identified as having NAI. In  addition, EPA officials told us that, in some cases, they did not identify  sites as having NAI where there was tribal interest or incorrectly identified  sites as having NAI when no tribal interests were involved due to errors.  Additionally, some regional officials expressed that identifying NAI can be  complicated by the fact that tribes may have interest in sites not located  near their current property due to historical interest or treaty rights.

Under federal standards for internal control, management should design  control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks, such as by  clearly documenting internal control in management directives,  administrative policies, or operating manuals. Although EPA has  documented guidance, it is not clear about how EPA officials should  make determinations about designating sites as having NAI. Without clear  guidance to regional offices on how to determine whether sites have  NAI—including criteria to assist regions in determining when a site should  be designated as having NAI in the SEMS database and how, if at all, to  adjust the NAI data for sites that no longer have tribal interest—EPA does  not have reasonable assurance that its data on tribes that may be  affected by hazardous releases at NPL sites are accurate or complete.

EPA Data on Tribes with Interest in Sites That Have NAI Are Not Accurate or Complete

EPA data do not accurately or completely identify the tribes that have  interest in the sites that EPA identified as having NAI. Specifically,  through reviewing EPA’s data with officials in each region, we found  examples of sites that EPA indicated as having NAI but that (1) did not  identify any tribes with an interest in the sites, (2) did not identify all tribes  with an interest in the sites, and (3) incorrectly identified tribes associated  with a site.

SEMS does not include tribes for all sites. We found eight sites  with NAI for which EPA did not identify an interested tribe in SEMS.  For these eight sites, EPA officials added the tribes’ names prior to  sending us the data.

SEMS does not include all tribes that have an interest in some  sites. We identified eight sites for which EPA did not identify in SEMS  all the tribes that had interest in the site. For example, for the Smurfit  Stone Mill Frenchtown site in Missoula, Montana, EPA data listed the  Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation  as having an interest in the site. However, after speaking with EPA  Region 8 officials, we learned that the Kalispel Indian Community of  the Kalispel Reservation also has an interest in the site but could not  be included in SEMS because the tribe resides in the state of  Washington, and the site is located in Montana. In providing technical  comments on a draft of this report, EPA identified a ninth site, the St.  Louis River site, for which an additional tribe should be added to the  data in SEMS.

SEMS incorrectly identified an interested tribe associated with  one site determined to have NAI. For the Velsicol Chemical  Corporation site in Michigan, EPA identified in SEMS the interested  tribe as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, when the  actual interested tribe was the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of  Michigan. Additionally, in providing technical comments on a draft of  our report, EPA also made corrections to the tribes originally listed for  the Tar Lake site and clarified the tribe originally listed for the St.  Louis River site.

EPA officials we interviewed told us that a possible reason for the  inaccuracies in the data regarding the tribe or tribes interested in NPL  sites that have NAI is that, until recently, regional officials could not enter  the names of additional tribes to a SEMS site record that was created in  the agency’s previous database of record. In addition, officials from two  EPA regions told us that they could not record tribes as having an interest  in a site when the tribe is headquartered in a state other than the state  address on file for the site. EPA headquarters officials told us they  submitted a request in August of 2017 to have the issue resolved and  that, as of April 2018, the issue had been corrected and that regions can  now add additional tribes, or tribes from other states outside of the state  where the site is headquartered. Officials told us that prior to the  correction in SEMS, officials at the headquarters level could manually  enter data to record the names of additional tribes with NAI in a site or  identify tribes interested in a site that reside in states other than the state  in which the site is located.

EPA Does Not Have Reliable Data about the Agency’s Consultation with Tribes Regarding NPL Sites

EPA does not have reliable data on the agency’s consultation with tribes  regarding NPL sites. Additionally, based on our analysis of EPA data and  related documentation, as well as discussions with officials from EPA and  Indian tribes, we found that EPA officials more frequently coordinated  informally with tribes than conducted consultation.

EPA Does Not Have Reliable Data on Consultation with Tribes Regarding NPL Sites

EPA does not have reliable data on the NPL sites at which it has  conducted tribal consultation. According to data in TCOTS, consultation  had occurred or was projected to occur at 18 sites since EPA’s  consultation and coordination policy went into effect in 2011. However,  TCOTS data are incomplete and did not include records for 7 NPL sites  where, based on our interviews with EPA regional officials and a review of  agency documents, we determined that consultation had occurred since  2011.

One possible reason that EPA data on consultation with tribes are  incomplete is that the agency’s guidance regarding what constitutes  consultation, and therefore is to be recorded in TCOTS, is unclear. EPA  officials told us they consider consultation a specific, formal interaction  that involves government-to-government interaction between tribal  governments and senior EPA officials, such as Regional Administrators,  and generally happens at major decision points or at the request of a  tribe. Several EPA officials we interviewed clarified that the majority of  day-to-day interaction with tribes do not require consultation and are less  formal coordination efforts. EPA’s 2011 consultation policy provides a  broad definition of consultation and makes specified program and  regional officials responsible for determining when consultation may be  appropriate, but the policy does not provide specific criteria for regions to  use to determine if consultation with a tribe should be considered. The  policy initially states that it is EPA’s policy to “consult on a government-to- government basis with federally recognized tribal governments when EPA  actions or decisions may affect tribal interests.” According to the policy,  the broad scope of consultation contemplated by the policy creates “a  large number of actions that may be appropriate for consultation.” To  provide “a general framework from which to begin the determination of  whether any particular action or decision is appropriate for consultation,”  the policy provides a list of general EPA activity categories, including  Superfund response actions. However, the policy does not provide any  further guidance on the circumstances under which consultation should  be considered. For example, it does not specify any particular points in  the Superfund process at which consultation should be considered or any  further detail on what tribal interests should be considered when  determining if tribal interests are affected.

Under federal standards for internal control, management should design  control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks, such as by  clearly documenting internal control in management directives,  administrative policies, or operating manuals. Although EPA has  documented guidance about consulting with tribes, it does not provide  clear direction to regions about the circumstances under which the  agency should consider consulting with tribes during the Superfund  process. Without clarifying guidance on tribal consultation to clearly  identify the circumstances under which the agency should consider  consulting with tribes, EPA does not have reasonable assurance that  regions are applying the consultation policy consistently and uniformly.

In addition, EPA regional officials do not consistently document invitations  to consult with tribes in TCOTS, which could result in incomplete or  inaccurate data on EPA consultation with tribes. EPA headquarters  officials told us that invitations to consult should be entered in TCOTS,  because the database has a specific field for this information. Officials we  interviewed from EPA Regions 6 and 10, the two regional offices that  combined manage nearly half of Superfund sites that EPA identified as  having NAI, told us that they do not document all invitations to consult in  TCOTS. Specifically, an official we interviewed from Region 6 told us that  consultation invitations that were not made in writing are generally not  entered into TCOTS, and an official from Region 10 told us that officials in  the region would not document invitations to consult that did not lead to  actual consultation. In providing technical comments on our draft report,  EPA noted that Region 10 now documents all invitations to consult with  tribes in the TCOTS database.

Although EPA headquarters officials told us that invitations to consult  should be entered in TCOTS, agency guidance does not direct officials to  do so. EPA has developed guidance on key points in the Superfund  process at which regional officials should document consultation if it  occurs, but this guidance does not direct regional officials to document  invitations to consult in TCOTS. Moreover, officials we interviewed from 6  of EPA’s 10 regional offices were unaware of this guidance. An EPA  headquarters official we interviewed told us that EPA regional officials  may be unaware of this guidance because EPA has not conducted  annual training regarding documenting tribal consultation and has  decided to offer the training on an as-needed basis. This guidance  identifies five decision points in the Superfund process at which EPA  regional officials should, at a minimum, document any associated  consultation with tribes in TCOTS, outlined in figure 1 below.

Under federal standards for internal control, management should design  control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks, such as by  clearly documenting internal control in management directives,  administrative policies, or operating manuals. By developing or revising  guidance to clearly direct regional officials to document all invitations to  consult with tribes in the TCOTS database and providing the guidance to  those officials, EPA would have greater assurance that its regional offices  are accurately and consistently documenting invitations to consult and  that the data that EPA provides to OMB regarding agency consultations  with tribes are accurate and complete.

Consultation Is Relatively Infrequent Compared to Coordination

Based on our analysis of EPA data and documentation, as well as  interviews with EPA and tribal officials, we found that EPA more  frequently coordinated informally with tribes regarding cleanup decisions  at NPL sites than conducted consultation with tribes. Consultation  between EPA and tribes, as defined in EPA’s 2011 tribal consultation  policy, is relatively infrequent compared to less-formal coordination  efforts. For example, officials from the Kalispel Indian Community told us  that consultation is reserved for instances in which regular communication  and coordination is not working. Additionally, EPA officials in Region 8  told us that most of their day-to-day interactions with tribes are  considered coordination, and that consultation only occurs at key decision  points in the Superfund process. Most EPA regional officials we  interviewed as part of our case studies stated that consultation was  relatively infrequent. At the same time, these officials stated that they  frequently coordinate with tribes during the Superfund cleanup process.  Additionally, EPA’s policy says that tribal officials may request  consultation with the agency.

Tribal officials we interviewed as part of our case studies expressed  varying levels of satisfaction with EPA’s coordination and consultation  efforts, as well as with EPA’s cleanup decisions overall. In the case of the  General Motors Central Foundry site in Massena, New York, officials we  interviewed from the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe told us that they were  dissatisfied with the consultation and the remedy at the General Motors  Central Foundry site. Specifically, tribal officials stated that they were  dissatisfied with EPA’s decision to install a permanent cap over an  industrial landfill at the site, rather than removing all of the waste, to  address the contamination at the site. Officials from the tribe told us that  they felt EPA was disregarding the tribe’s health and safety concerns at  the site. EPA acknowledged in its amended record of decision for the site  that the tribe only partially agreed with the remedy; however, EPA notes  that they took some steps to revise the remedy to address the tribe’s  concerns. For example, the amended record of decision was created in  part, due to tribal opposition, and includes a contingency remedy that  expands the scope of the amended decision to include removal of  contaminated soil located on the tribe’s property rather than on-site  treatment. In other cases, officials of some tribes told us that the working  relationship with their local EPA region was good and that coordination  had been effective. For example, officials from the Pueblo of Laguna  reported that communication and coordination with EPA region 6  regarding the cleanup of the Jackpile-Paguate Superfund site in Laguna  Pueblo, New Mexico, was effective, and that the EPA remedial project  manager for the site had been responsive to the tribe’s needs.

EPA Has Taken Various Actions to Address Unique Tribal Needs When Making NPL Site Cleanup Decisions

EPA has taken various actions to address the unique needs of tribes  when making cleanup decisions at NPL sites. These actions include  efforts to minimize tribal members’ exposure to contaminants and limit  potential damage to tribal archeological sites. For example:

EPA Regions 1 and 10 took steps to protect tribal cultural  resources at NPL sites. EPA officials we interviewed from Region 1  told us that at one site, regional officials rerouted and improved roads  used to remove contaminated materials to minimize the impact of  cleanup activities’ on historically significant cultural resources. In  addition, EPA officials we interviewed from Region 10 told us that they  coordinated with tribal cultural resource program officials to ensure  that tribal officials were present during excavation work at the Midnite  Mine site in Wellpinit, Washington, to observe and ensure that EPA  was taking appropriate measures to protect sites that are culturally  important to the tribe.

EPA Region 2 officials revised risk assessments at an NPL site.  Because of concerns about the potential health impacts to the Saint  Regis Mohawk Tribe, EPA Region 2 officials revised the risk  assessment for a site with polychlorinated biphenyl contamination to  more accurately reflect the typical exposure of tribal members. EPA’s  revised hazard exposure assessment for the General Motors Central  Foundry site assumed a higher rate of exposure to contaminants for  tribal members, given that they, on average, live on the reservation  longer than an adult non-tribal member may live in the same place for  most of his or her life. Specifically, EPA’s exposure estimate was  based on an exposure duration of 64 years for an adult tribal member  and an exposure duration of 30 years for adult non-tribal member.

EPA Region 9 incorporated tribal information into risk  assessments for some NPL sites. EPA officials we interviewed from  EPA’s Region 9 office told us about several sites where they had  considered tribal members’ heightened exposure to contamination.  For example, at one site, officials told us they worked closely with  tribal officials to gather data on tribal members’ uses of vegetation and  tribal game consumption. These EPA officials stated that they used  these data to develop risk assessment plans that were sensitive to  unique tribal needs.

EPA officials we interviewed also provided examples of the use of  traditional ecological knowledge at some NPL sites. Traditional  ecological knowledge sometimes represents unique tribal needs. For  example, EPA officials we interviewed described instances in which a  tribe provided EPA with selected information about their traditional  hunting sites and their traditional use of plants, and EPA was able to use  this information when developing risk assessments and standards for  safe consumption of fish and wildlife. For example, officials in EPA  Region 9 told us that a tribe shared information with them about how tribal  members hold reeds in their mouths as part of traditional basket making  practices. These officials reported that after learning of the tribe’s use of  such reeds, the agency considered this information when determining  how to evaluate contamination in the area where the reeds grow. EPA  and tribal officials told us that, for confidentiality reasons, some tribes may  be reluctant to share some traditional ecological knowledge; however,  headquarters and EPA regional officials told us that this was relatively  infrequent and that, in these situations, EPA was able to work with the  tribe to find ways to use more general information to inform decisions  regarding Superfund cleanups.

EPA has policies and procedures for consulting with tribes when its  actions and decisions at NPL Superfund sites may affect tribal interests.  To carry out these policies and procedures, EPA must be able to identify  when its actions and decisions may affect a tribe. The agency has  developed two systems—SEMS and TCOTS—that it uses to identify and  track sites that are on tribal property or that affect tribes, and the agency’s  efforts to consult with affected tribes, respectively. However, based on our  analysis of some of the data in these systems, these data are not reliable.  Data on sites that are on tribal property are not accurate, and there is no  regular, standardized review process officials can use to review the  quality of these data. Without developing such a review process, EPA will  not have reasonable assurance that regional officials have accurately  identified the sites that are on tribal property. Additionally, data on sites  that have NAI are not accurate or complete due, in part, to unclear  guidance for how regions should determine whether a site has NAI.

Clarifying guidance to regional offices on how to determine whether sites  have NAI can help provide EPA reasonable assurance that its data on  tribes that are directly affected by hazardous releases at NPL sites are  accurate and complete. Moreover, we found that the data tracking  consultation with tribes at NPL sites were unreliable, and may not contain  all invitations to consult. Clarifying guidance to clearly identify the  circumstances under which the agency should consider consulting with  tribes could improve the quality of EPA’s data on consultation, and could  help ensure EPA regions are applying the consultation policy consistently  and uniformly. In addition, explicitly directing regional officials to  document all invitations to consult with tribes, regardless of whether  further consultation results after the invitation, would provide EPA greater  assurance that its regional offices are accurately and consistently  documenting invitations to consult, and that the data that EPA provides to  OMB regarding tribal consultations are accurate and complete.

We are making the following four recommendations to EPA:  The Director of EPA’s Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology  Innovation should develop a regular review process to ensure the quality  of SEMS data identifying NPL sites on tribal property and revise  automated reports used to check the accuracy of SEMS data to include  on tribal property data. (Recommendation 1)

The Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Land and Emergency  Management should clarify guidance to regional offices on how to  determine whether sites have NAI, including by adding criteria for when a  site should be designated as having NAI in the SEMS database and how,  if at all, to adjust SEMS data if a tribe is no longer interested in a site.  (Recommendation 2)

The Director of EPA’s Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology  Innovation should clarify agency guidance regarding tribal consultation for  the Superfund program to clearly identify the circumstances under which  the agency should consider consulting with tribes. (Recommendation 3)

The Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of International and Tribal  Affairs should develop or revise existing guidance to clearly direct  regional officials to document all invitations to consult with tribes in the  TCOTS database and provide the guidance to those officials.  (Recommendation 4)

We provided a copy of this report to EPA, the Confederated Salish and  Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, the Kalispel Indian  Community of the Kalispel Reservation, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of  Odawa Indians, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, the Pueblo of Laguna,  the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Spokane Tribe of the Spokane  Reservation, and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) for  review and comment. EPA generally agreed with our recommendations,  and their comments are reproduced in appendix IV. EPA also provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The  Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation  and the Pueblo of Laguna also provided written comments (reproduced in  appendixes V and VI) and technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate. The Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation,  the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, the Mashpee  Wampanoag Tribe, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Spokane Tribe of  the Spokane Reservation, and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head  (Aquinnah) did not comment on our report.

EPA concurred with our recommendation to develop a regular review  process to ensure the quality of SEMS data identifying NPL sites on tribal  property and revise automated reports used to check the accuracy of  these data. EPA stated that during the course of our work on this report,  SEMS tribal data was reviewed for quality control and corrections were  made to the existing data. In addition, EPA’s Office of Superfund  Remediation and Technology Innovation plans to create a schedule to  review tribal data in SEMS and disseminate tribal data to Superfund  regional coordinators annually for their quality assurance review starting  in March 2019.

EPA generally agreed with our recommendation to clarify guidance to  regional offices on how to determine whether sites have NAI, including by  adding criteria for when a site should be designated as having NAI in  SEMS and how, if at all, to adjust SEMS data if a tribe is no longer  interested in a site. EPA noted that there are a variety of circumstances  under which a tribe may have interest in a site, and the agency plans to  identify relevant criteria in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual  that may be used to support the decision of whether or not to apply the  NAI indicator. Additionally, the agency plans to create a headquarters and  regional workgroup to review and update tribal data collected in SEMS.  The workgroup will provide guidance to clarify the NAI determination,  including identifying criteria for designating a site NAI, and identifying a  process to update SEMS when a tribe is no longer interested in a site, as  needed. EPA plans to complete this no later than October 2019.

EPA concurred with our recommendation to clarify agency guidance  regarding tribal consultation on Superfund sites to clearly identify the  circumstances under which the agency should consider consulting tribes.  In its letter, EPA pointed out that our original recommendation did not  specify that the recommendation was about guidance regarding tribal  consultation on Superfund sites, so we adjusted the language of the  recommendation accordingly. EPA plans to issue a memo to the regions  that clarifies circumstances under which regions may consider tribal  consultation for the Superfund program no later than March 2020.

EPA concurred with our recommendation that it should develop or revise  existing guidance to clearly direct regional officials to document all  invitations to consult with tribes in the TCOTS database and provide the  guidance to those officials. EPA is planning four actions to respond to this  recommendation: (1) issuing a memorandum from the Office of  International and Tribal Affairs to EPA Regional Administrators on the  importance of following EPA’s Tribal Consultation and Coordination Policy  and documenting consultation actions into TCOTS, estimated to occur in  January 2019; (2) issuing a monthly TCOTS report to Deputy Assistant  Administrators and Regional Assistant Administrators on the status of  consultations recorded in TCOTS, starting in January 2019; (3) initiating  trainings specifically targeted to EPA's Regional Superfund staff on when  and how to document consultation actions in TCOTS, estimated to begin  in February or March 2019; and (4) conducting training on tribal  consultation topics, with a specific emphasis on entering consultation  information into TCOTS, beginning in March or April 2019.

In their comments on our report, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai  Tribes of the Flathead Reservation noted that our report is thorough and  provides valuable insight into EPA’s policies and procedures for tribal  consultation at NPL sites. The tribe provided some additional detail on the  Smurfit Stone Mill Frenchtown case study which we incorporated as  appropriate. The tribe also noted that they had interest in a site not  identified by EPA as having NAI, the Anaconda Aluminum Co. Columbia  Falls Reduction Plant site. In response, we added this site to our list of  NPL sites known to be on or affecting tribal land, shown in appendix I.

The Pueblo of Laguna commented that while the scope of the report was  limited, the Pueblo appreciated GAO’s efforts to study EPA’s tribal  consultation practices. The Pueblo emphasized their belief that EPA’s  duty to consult with tribes should be an active one, not a passive one, and  presented three associated comments. First, the Pueblo believes EPA  should affirmatively consider offering consultation at each stage of the  Superfund process beginning with preliminary investigation and site  assessment. Second, the Pueblo believes EPA should continue to  contact potentially interested tribes throughout the life of an NPL site,  even if the tribe had not expressed interest at a previous stage of the  process to ensure that newly interested tribes are identified. Finally, the  Pueblo believes EPA should document all offers to consult, including  ones made orally. The Pueblo provided comments and edits on the  Jackpile-Paguate Mine case study in their letter, which we incorporated.  The Pueblo also provided technical comments on the report, which we  incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees, the Administrator of the  Environmental Protection Agency, the Chairman of the Confederated  Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, the Chairman of  the Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation, the Chairman  of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, the Chairman of the  Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, the Governor of the Pueblo of Laguna, the  Chiefs of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Chairwoman of the Spokane  Tribe of the Spokane Reservation, the Chairwoman of the Wampanoag  Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and other interested parties. In addition,  the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to the  report are listed in appendix VII.

Appendix I: Site-wide Cleanup Status of National Priorities List Sites with Known Native American Interest

This appendix provides information on the site-wide cleanup status of  National Priorities List (NPL) sites with known Native American Interest  (NAI), as of December 2017. We worked with the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) to correct inaccuracies in the Superfund  Enterprise Management System (SEMS) data identifying sites as having  NAI, and we identified 87 NPL sites—74 sites on the NPL, 8 deleted from  the NPL, and 5 proposed for addition—known to have NAI. In addition, in  providing technical comments on the draft of this report, the Confederated  Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation identified one  additional site, bringing the total to 88 NPL sites known to have NAI. Of  these 88 sites known to have NAI out of the total 1,785 NPL sites that  were proposed, final, or deleted as of December 2017, many have  reached site-wide milestones that EPA uses to track the cleanup status of  NPL sites. EPA measures four site-wide milestones, including one that  measures the progress in the Superfund process and three that describe  the management of the release, such as human exposure under control:  1.  Construction completion. Indicates that the physical construction of  the remedy EPA has selected to address the contamination is  complete.  2.  Human exposure under control. Measures the incremental progress  EPA achieved in controlling unacceptable exposures to people at a  site. A site may achieve this measure by reducing the level of  contamination, preventing people from contacting the contaminants  in-place, or controlling activities near the site (e.g., by reducing the  potential frequency or duration of exposure of people to  contaminants).  3.  Groundwater migration under control. Assesses whether  groundwater contamination is below protective, risk-based levels or, if  not, whether the migration of contaminated groundwater is stabilized  and there is not unacceptable discharge to surface water and  monitoring will be conducted to confirm that affected groundwater  remains in the original area of contamination. EPA only uses this in  sites with known past or present groundwater contamination.  4.  Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use. All cleanup goals that may  affect current and reasonably anticipated future land uses of the site  have been achieved, so that there are no unacceptable risks and all  institutional or other controls have been put in place.

Table 1 below shows the site-wide cleanup status, according to EPA, of  the 83 sites on or deleted from the NPL with known NAI.  This table  provides data on site-wide milestones obtained from EPA’s SEMS  database, as well as a brief overview of each site using information from  publicly available EPA documents, the EPA website, and additional  information provided by EPA officials. Table 2 below lists the 5 sites with  known NAI that EPA has proposed for the NPL.

Tribe or tribes  with known  interest in   the site  (CC) (HEUC) control (GWMUC) use (SWRAU)

The Salt Chuck Mine site is an inactive former gold,  silver, copper, and palladium mine on Prince of Wales  Island in southeast Alaska. Operations at the site were  suspended in 1941. The site includes abandoned mine  workings and mine mill equipment. Contaminants include  polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), copper, lead, and  arsenic. In 2011, EPA started a remedial investigation of  the upland and adjacent marine areas to evaluate  potential risk to human health and the environment.  The  investigation was completed in March 2018, and EPA  determined that there are currently no unacceptable  human health risks identified for the site and that  ecological risks are limited to copper in marine sediment  in areas used for tailings disposal.

The Tucson International Airport Area site comprises a  10-square-mile area in and next to Tucson, Arizona. The  site includes the Tucson International Airport, portions of  the Tohono O'Odham Indian Reservation, residential  areas of Tucson and South Tucson, and the Air Force  Plant #44 Raytheon Missile Systems Company. Former  aircraft and electronics manufacturing activities, fire drill  training activities, and unlined landfills have  contaminated groundwater and soil with volatile organic  compounds, metals and PCBs. Remedial activities  include: groundwater pumping and treatment, soil  removal, and soil vapor extraction.  Groundwater cleanup  actions, operation and maintenance activities, and site  monitoring are ongoing. As of July 2018, EPA reports  that water treatment systems have significantly reduced  the groundwater plume size and chemical concentrations  in groundwater.

The 4,400-acre Iron Mountain Mine site near Redding,  California produced iron, silver, gold, copper, zinc and  pyrite. Though mining operations were discontinued,  underground mine workings, waste rock dumps, piles of  mine tailings, and an open mine pit remain at the site.  Much of the acidic mine drainage is channeled into the  Spring Creek Reservoir. About 70,000 people use  surface water within 3 miles of the mine as their source  of drinking water. The installation and operation of a full- scale neutralization system, capping of areas of the  mine, and the construction and operation of a retention  reservoir to collect contaminated runoff for treatment  have significantly reduced acid and metal contamination  in surface water at the site. Site investigations and  cleanup are ongoing.

The 3.2-acre Celtor Chemical Works site, located on the  Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation, is the location of a  former ore concentrating facility that processed sulfide  ore. Wastes from the operations and processed ore  generated acidic runoff and elevated metal  concentrations in the soils throughout the site. The Trinity  River flows along the site boundary and is the only local  fish source for the Hoopa Indians. Cleanup included off- site disposal of contaminated materials; backfilling and  contouring land; and revegetation and diversion of  springs away from contaminated areas. After cleanup,  EPA took the site off the NPL in 2003. According to EPA  officials, in 2016, additional waste was discovered at the  site, resulting in additional remedial investigation to  determine the nature and extent of contamination.

The Leviathan Mine is an abandoned open-pit mine near  Markleeville, California, on the eastern slope of the  Sierra Nevada Mountains at an elevation of 7,000 feet.  The site is drained by Leviathan and Aspen Creeks,  which are tributaries to the East Fork of the Carson  River, a major western Nevada water supply source. The  mine operated intermittently between 1863 and 1962. In  the early days of mining, copper sulfate was mined from  the property and utilized for processing silver ore at the  Comstock Mines in Virginia City, Nevada. According to  EPA officials, mine operations were originally  underground, but surface mining of sulfur ore began in  the 1950s. These officials told us that, mining operations  disturbed and exposed existing mineral-rich rock and  soil, which produced residual mine waste rock. Surface  runoff from snowmelt and precipitation become  contaminated by contact with the mineral-rich rock and  associated waste rock. Officials told us that water  capture and treatment plants at the site have improved  the quality of downstream surface water and watershed  health. These officials also noted that site assessment  and cleanup is ongoing.   The 150-acre Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine site near  Clearlake Oaks, California, is an abandoned open pit  mercury mine located on the shoreline of Clear Lake.  This mine operated intermittently between  1865 and 1957 and mined sulphur and mercury. Former  mining activities at the site contaminated soils, sediment,  and surface water with mercury and arsenic.  Approximately 2 million cubic yards of mine wastes and  tailings remain on the mine site. Mercury contaminates  lake sediment and is bio-concentrated in the food web of  Clear Lake. The levels of mercury in fish from the lake  led the State to issue an advisory to limit consumption of  local fish. Clear Lake is also a drinking water source for  4,700 people. Cleanup has included erosion control, soil  removal from residential yards, and surface water  diversion. After immediate actions to protect human  health and the environment, site investigations and long- term cleanup planning are ongoing.

The Bonita Peak Mining District site consists of 48  historic mines or mining-related sources of contamination  in unincorporated parts of Colorado. Historic mining  operations have contaminated soil, groundwater, and  surface water with heavy metals. Additionally, ongoing  releases of metal-contaminated water and sediment are  occurring within the Mineral Creek, Cement Creek, and  Upper Animas River drainages in San Juan County,  Colorado. EPA and other stakeholders conducted a  remedial investigation and feasibility study in 2017.  Ongoing cleanup activity includes an interim water  treatment plant to treat acid mine drainage and  management of non-hazardous sludge. EPA plans to use  the remedial investigation to determine further cleanup  options at the site.

The 890-square-mile Idaho National Engineering  Laboratory site is located near Idaho Falls, Idaho. The  site consists of a number of major facilities that  contribute contaminants to and draw water from the  Snake River Plain Aquifer. One of these facilities is a  National Reactor Testing Station built by the Atomic  Energy Commission in 1949 to build, test, and operate  various nuclear reactors, fuel processing plants, and  support facilities. Site activities also led to the discharge  of liquid wastes to several unlined ponds and an earthen  ditch. The site includes contaminated soil, sludge, and  groundwater that contain hazardous chemicals, heavy  metals, and radioactive constituents. The site is divided  into several cleanup areas to better address site cleanup.  Remedy construction has been completed in several of  these areas, and remedial design and construction are  underway at the remaining areas.

Also known as the Coeur d’Alene Basin Cleanup, the  Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex site is  located in northern Idaho and eastern Washington, in  one of the largest historical mining districts in the world.  The site spans 1,500 square miles and includes 166  miles of rivers. Mining operations began in the area in  1883 and continue today. Historical mining and milling  methods led to disposal of tailings in rivers and streams,  which resulted in the spread of contaminants throughout  the floodplain of the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River.  Smelter operations also resulted in emissions and piles  of waste rock. Soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface  water are contaminated with heavy metals such as lead,  which pose serious risks to people and the environment.  Since 1983, EPA and its partners have made progress in  cleaning up contamination, including cleaning some mine  and mill sites, and establishing waste repositories to  securely contain contaminated soil to reduce impacts to  people and the environment. Site remediation is ongoing.  The 2,530-acre Eastern Michaud Flats Contamination  site near Pocatello, Idaho, consists of two phosphate ore  processing facilities that began operations in the 1940s.  One facility continues to produce solid and liquid  fertilizers using phosphate ore, sulfur, air, and natural  gas. The other produced elemental phosphorus for use  in a variety of products from cleaning compounds to  foods. Cleanup at this facility is largely located within Fort  Hall Indian Reservation boundaries. Operations at both  plants contaminated groundwater and soil with metals  including arsenic, lead, and cadmium. Cleanup includes  capping contaminated soils, extraction and containment  of contaminated groundwater, and groundwater  monitoring. Site cleanup began in 2010 and is ongoing.

The Cherokee County Superfund site is a former mining  area in southeast Kansas covering about 115 square  miles. It is part of a larger regional mining area known as  the Tri-State Mining District, where more than 100 years  of mining for lead and zinc created piles of mine tailings  covering more than 4,000 acres. The mine tailings  contaminated groundwater with lead, zinc, and cadmium.  Millions of cubic yards of mine tailings are present at the  surface, in addition to impacted soils, surface water,  sediment, and groundwater. Several cleanup activities  have been completed and others are underway. Site- wide, nearly 3 million cubic yards of mining wastes have  been remediated on nearly 2,000 acres, more than 700  residential yards have been remediated, and more than  500 homes have been supplied with a clean, permanent  source of drinking water.   Otis Air National Guard Base and Camp Edwards  together form Joint Base Cape Cod, a 22,000-acre  property used for military training activities since 1911. It  is the sole source aquifer for 200,000 year-round and  500,000 seasonal residents of Cape Cod. Parts of the  aquifer have been contaminated by fuel spills, training  activities, waste disposal, and other past activities at the  base. Cleanup of a portion of the site is managed by the  U.S. Air Force, which is addressing the sources of and  groundwater contamination primarily on Otis Air National  Guard under the authority of Superfund. Contaminated  areas were the result of chemical and fuel spills, fire  training activities, landfills, and drainage structures.  Since 1984, when contaminants were first detected in  monitoring wells, numerous investigations and cleanups  have been undertaken and completed. Currently, nine  groundwater plumes are undergoing extraction and  treatment. The Air Force’s land use control program  ensures that groundwater remedies are protective until  cleanup levels are met.

The Creese and Cook Tannery site is located in  Danvers, Massachusetts. Leather tanning operations  took place on-site from about 1903 through the 1980s.  Solid tanning wastes were disposed of in two landfills at  the site. Liquid waste was discharged to the Crane River  until 1975 and later to sewers, while sludge waste was  deposited in an on-site lagoon system. Operations led to  contamination of surface and subsurface soils with  tannery wastes, and contaminants, particularly arsenic,  exceed state health-based standards in multiple  locations. In 2012 EPA conducted a removal of  contaminated surface soil and disposed of this soil off- site. EPA issued a proposed cleanup plan for the site in  October 2018.

The New Bedford harbor is an 18,000-acre urban estuary  with sediment highly contaminated with PCBs and heavy  metals. From the 1940s until EPA banned the production  of PCBs in the 1970s, two manufacturing facilities  improperly disposed of industrial wastes containing  PCBs, contaminating the harbor bottom for about 6 miles  from the Acushnet River into Buzzards Bay. After  extensive testing of water quality, harbor sediment, air  quality, and locally caught fish and shellfish, EPA  concluded that the PCBs in the sediment posed a  serious risk to human health and the environment. EPA  has placed restrictions on fishing, shellfishing and  lobstering in and around the harbor. EPA has addressed  approximately 450,000 cubic yards of contaminated  sediment in the upper harbor as of April 2017 and plans  to dredge and dispose of over 200,000 cubic yards of  contamination from the lower harbor. According to EPA,  the site cleanup will require an additional 5 to 7 years  and significant funding to finish.

The Loring Air Force Base site is located in Limestone,  Maine. Loring Air Force Base was one of the first to be  designed and built to accommodate high-speed aircraft,  and construction ended in 1953. Activities at the site,  including maintenance of jet engines, generated waste  oils, recoverable fuels, spent solvents and cleaners.  These wastes contaminated soil, groundwater, surface  water, and sediment at a number of areas across the  former base. Cleanup activities include relocation of  contaminated soil, bioremediation of groundwater, and  capping of disposal areas. The Air Force is leading the  site cleanup until goals have been achieved. The Air  Force is conducting operation and maintenance and  long-term monitoring activities.

The 25-acre Eastland Woolen Mill Superfund site is  located in the Town of Corinna, Maine. Prior to closing in  1996, the mill manufactured dyed wool and blended  woven fabric. The dyeing operation utilized various  chemicals, including dyes and dye-aids that reportedly  contained biphenyl and chlorinated benzene compounds.  Liquid wastes were discharged to the ground beneath  mill buildings until 1977. As a result, soil and bedrock  underlying the mill were contaminated with chlorinated  benzene compounds. Long-term cleanup and  environmental monitoring are ongoing. In 2012, EPA  completed a partial deletion action to remove 80% of the  land area from NPL designation and facilitate reuse. EPA  completed the second Five-Year Review in 2015.

The Eastern Surplus site is a 5 acre area in  Meddybemps, Maine. From 1946 through the early  1980s, the Eastern Surplus Company, a retailer of army  surplus and salvage items, operated on the site. Facility  operations contaminated soil and groundwater with  hazardous chemicals, including volatile organic  compounds and calcium carbide. After immediate actions  to protect human health and the environment,  remediation activities included excavating soils,  extracting and treating contaminated groundwater, and  disposing of gas cylinders. Operation and maintenance  activities and monitoring are ongoing.

Velsicol Chemical Corporation produced various  chemical compounds and products at its 54-acre plant in  St. Louis, Michigan, from 1936 through 1978. Products  included the fire retardant polybrominated biphenyl and  the pesticide DDT. To address contamination on-site,  Velsicol agreed to construct a slurry wall around the  former plant and put a clay cap over it. The Pine River,  which borders the former main plant site on three sides,  was significantly contaminated. In response, the state of  Michigan issued a no-consumption advisory for all fish  species. Over 670,000 cubic yards of DDT-contaminated  sediment were removed and disposed of off-site in an  approved landfill. DDT levels in fish have been reduced  by more than 98 percent. In the early 2000s, studies  showed the slurry wall and clay cap at the main plant site  were failing to keep contamination out of the river. In  response, EPA and Michigan's Department of  Environmental Quality (MDEQ) launched a remedial  investigation and feasibility study at the main plant site  and concluded that soil and groundwater were  contaminated. In June 2006, EPA selected a remedy that  included a comprehensive cleanup of the main plant site  and a residential soil cleanup. During the residential  cleanup, EPA excavated and disposed of 50,000 tons of  contaminated soil at an off-site landfill. Currently, EPA  and MDEQ are completing a remedial investigation in the  Pine River downstream of the former chemical plant  property.

The Allied Paper, Incorporated/Portage  Creek/Kalamazoo River site affects Kalamazoo,  Michigan, 80 miles of the Kalamazoo River (from Morrow  Dam to Lake Michigan), and 3-mile stretch of Portage  Creek. Paper mill properties, riverbanks and floodplains  have been contaminated with PCBs. EPA has removed  contaminated materials from the site, cleaned and  restored 7 miles of the Kalamazoo River and banks and  capped 82 acres worth of contaminated materials. In the  portions of the site where cleanup has concluded, EPA  conducts maintenance activities and monitors  groundwater. For two areas contaminating the river that  have not yet been cleaned up, EPA has decided on  cleanup plans and has taken actions to prevent migration  of contamination to the Kalamazoo River or Portage  Creek. EPA has decided on cleanup plans for  approximately a portion of the 80 mile stretch of the  Kalamazoo River and Portage Creek that require  remediation.   The Petoskey Manufacturing Company, or PMC,  contained a die casting plant from the 1940s and a  painting operation from the mid- to late-1960s. Disposal  of spent solvents and paint sludge onto the ground  outside the PMC building contaminated soil and  groundwater at the site with volatile organic compounds.  Contaminated groundwater reached a nearby municipal  well that provided drinking water to city residents. The  city replaced the contaminated well with a new  groundwater source. Currently, EPA and Michigan  Department of Environmental Quality are evaluating the  site for potential vapor intrusion issues into  condominiums built on top of the former PMC source  area.

Tribe or tribes  with known  interest in   the site  (CC) (HEUC) control (GWMUC) use (SWRAU)

Grand Traverse Overall Supply was a commercial  laundering and dry cleaning facility opened in 1953.  Activities at the site between 1955 and 1968 included  construction of a dry well and seepage lagoons to collect  waste. In 1977 the facility began discharging waste to the  sewer. A year later, the Michigan Department of  Environmental Quality discovered groundwater  contaminated with volatile organic compounds such as  trichloroethylene and perchloroethlyene that impacted at  least 10 wells, including one that supplied water to an  adjacent elementary school. Contaminated wells were  abandoned and new wells drilled. Waste lagoons were  drained and filled with gravel, and the contaminated soils  around the dry well and on-site barrels of waste sludge  were removed in the 1970s.  In providing technical  comments on a draft of this report, EPA officials told us  that remedial actions at the site began with soil removal  activities around 2009, and that a groundwater pump and  treat system was installed in 2012 and improved in 2015.  These officials told us the site is expected to reach  cleanup goals within approximately 5 years.

Northwestern Leather Company operated a tannery on  the 75-acre Cannelton Industries Incorporated site in  Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan from 1900 to 1958. A  portion of the site is located within the 100-year  floodplain of the St. Mary's River. Waste disposal  operations contaminated soils, sediment and the river  with heavy metals, including chromium, lead, cadmium,  arsenic and mercury. EPA’s initial long-term remedy for  the site included the excavation and consolidation of  contaminated waste material, soils, and river sediment  into an on-site landfill, collection and treatment of  groundwater, groundwater monitoring, and land use  restrictions for the landfilled area. In commenting on a  draft of our report, EPA officials told us the remedy was  amended to include excavation and removal of  contaminated soil and tannery waste and other waste  materials from portions of the site, Construction of these  remedies took place in 1999. In 2006 and 2007,  additional dredging operations removed 40,000 cubic  yards of contaminated sediment, about 500,000 pounds  of chromium and 25 pounds of mercury from Tannery  Bay and nearby wetlands. Subsequent sampling in 2014  showed mercury or chromium in Tannery Bay and an  adjacent wetland. In providing technical comments on a  draft of this report, officials noted that 2016 sampling also  showed mercury in Tannery Bay surface water and  adjacent wetland. EPA is reviewing the current  monitoring requirements and protocols, as well as the  cleanup goals. The monitoring portion of the operations  and maintenance plan will be revised based on EPA's  findings. EPA officials told us that the agency has  initiated a partial deletion of the site from the NPL to  enable reuse of some remediated site areas.

The 200-acre Tar Lake site in Mancelona Township,  Michigan was an iron works facility from 1882 through  1945. Disposal of tar waste contaminated soil and  groundwater with hazardous chemicals, including tar  waste and creosote. Cleanup activities included  excavation and disposal of tar and contaminated soils,  and groundwater extraction and treatment. After initial  cleanup, operation and maintenance activities are  ongoing. EPA has conducted several 5-year reviews of  the site’s remedy. EPA did additional sampling at the site  in 2011 and 2012 and identified the need for additional  soil excavation and expansion of the groundwater  treatment system. In providing technical comments on a  draft of this report, EPA officials told us that additional  cleanup will begin in 2020 and last several years. EPA  has deleted part of the site from the NPL.  The Torch Lake site is located on the Keweenaw  Peninsula in Michigan. The site includes several areas  ranging in size from about 10 acres to more than 200  acres. Copper mining activities in the area from the  1890s through 1969 produced mill tailings that  contaminated lake sediment and the shoreline. Cleanup  included covering 800 acres of slag piles and tailings  with soil and vegetation, and long-term monitoring of  Torch Lake. After cleanup, operation and maintenance  activities are ongoing.

Minnesota  Chippewa Tribe,  Minnesota  (Grand Portage  Band and Fond  du Lac Band);  Lac du  Flambeau Band  of Lake Superior  Chippewa  Indians;  Sokaogon  Chippewa  Community,  Wisconsin.

The St. Louis River site is located at the west end of  Duluth, Minnesota, and includes several areas of land  next to the St. Louis River, several boat slips, and a wide  section of the river known as Spirit Lake. The site overall  has been divided into two smaller sites, both managed  by the state of Minnesota. The first area, known as the  St. Louis River/Interlake/Duluth Tar (SLRIDT) site  includes 255 acres of land, boat launch ramps and bays  of the St. Louis River. From the 1890s through 1962, a  variety of industrial plants operated at the site, including  a coking plant, and tar and chemical plants. The second  site, U.S. Steel comprises 500 acres of land and 200  acres of the St. Louis River.  The area was contaminated  by a steel mill that operated on-site between 1916 and  1981. Operations at both sites contaminated soil and  underwater sediment with hazardous chemicals,  including solid wastes, PCB liquids and drums. The sites  are currently in different phases of cleanup. Cleanup of  the land portion of the SLRIDT was substantially  completed by 2001, and cleanup of the contaminated  sediment by 2010. However, in its most recent 5-year  review, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency noted  several smaller areas of contaminated materials that will  require additional cleanup. U.S. Steel conducted multiple  cleanups at their site since the 1990s and many of the  actions required by EPA’s record of decision have been  completed. However, in its most recent 5-year review,  the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency concluded that  while some cleaned-up areas continue to be protective of  human health and the environment, some areas of the  site are not protective. EPA officials also told us that the  U.S. Steel site has also contaminated a part of the St.  Louis River known as Spirit Lake. According to these  officials, the cleanup of Spirit Lake, including associated  tribal consultation, is planned through a partnership led  by EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office.

Minnesota  Chippewa Tribe,  Minnesota  (Leech Lake  Band)

The 125-acre St. Regis Paper Company site is located  within the external boundaries of the Leech Lake Band of  Ojibwe Indian Reservation in Cass Lake, Minnesota. The  wood-treatment facility operated from the 1950s through  the 1980s using creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP).  The facility’s operations contaminated soil and  groundwater with hazardous chemicals, including PCP,  dioxin and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).  Remedies put in place include water treatment and soil  containment. Subsequent assessment demonstrated  unacceptable potential risks from groundwater and  surface soil contamination. EPA proposed a cleanup plan  in March 2016 to address soil contamination in  residential areas. EPA has determined there are no  current unacceptable human risks.

The 300-square-mile Anaconda Company Smelter site is  near Anaconda, Montana. Anaconda operated a large  copper concentrating and smelting operation on the north  side of Warm Springs Creek until about 1901. Around  1902, ore processing and smelting operations began at a  separate facility that is included in the site. Operations at  the Anaconda Smelter ceased in 1980 and the smelter  facilities were dismantled soon thereafter. More than a  century of milling and smelting operations resulted in  high concentrations of arsenic, lead, copper, cadmium,  and zinc in groundwater and surface water. Cleanup  included testing and remediation of domestic wells,  removal of waste from the nearby community,  construction of nearly 1,000 acres of wetland, and  30,000 feet of stream restoration. Operation and  maintenance activities are ongoing in areas where  cleanup is complete. In other areas, cleanup is still in  progress. EPA has determined that remedies that have  been completed are protective of human health and the  environment. Where remedies are not complete, access  is controlled to prevent human exposure to waste.

The Anaconda Aluminum Co. Columbia Falls Reduction  Plant site is located two miles northeast of Columbia  Falls in Flathead County, Montana. The site includes  approximately 960 acres north of the Flathead River, a  fishery that includes the federally designated, threatened  bull trout and the federally sensitive westslope cutthroat  trout. From 1955 through 2009, an aluminum smelting  plant operated at the site, and produced significant  quantities of hazardous wastes as a byproduct of the  aluminum smelting process. The types of hazardous  wastes produced at the site are known to contain  cyanide compounds that can leach into groundwater. In  1988, EPA requested a site investigation that revealed  that there were high concentrations of polycyclic  aromatic hydrocarbons at the site, primarily in soils and  sediments, and that there had been a release of cyanide  to groundwater and surface water; both of these findings  were attributed to activities at the former smelting plant.  The remedial investigation and feasibility study of the site  is in progress, and the results of the investigation will  determine cleanup needs and identify potential cleanup  options at the site.  The Silver Bow Creek and Butte Area site is in Butte,  Montana, and includes 26 miles of stream and  streamside habitat. Since the late 1800s, mining wastes  have been dumped into streams and wetlands near  mining operations. These activities contaminated soil,  groundwater, and surface water with heavy metals. From  1988 to 2005, EPA completed several removal actions to  clean up areas around former smelter sites, mine waste  dumps, railroad beds, stream banks and channels, and  residential yards to address immediate human health  and environmental risks. Operation and maintenance,  sampling, and monitoring actions are ongoing. EPA  agreed to future cleanup work at the site in January  2018, including removal of contaminated soils, removal  of sediment and floodplain waste, and construction of  stormwater basins and sedimentation bays.

The Milltown Reservoir Sediments site near Missoula,  Montana includes about 540 acres in the Clark Fork  River and Blackfoot River floodplain and 120 miles of the  Clark Fork River upstream of the Milltown Dam and  Reservoir, which are located at the confluence of the  Clark Fork and Blackfoot Rivers. From the 1860s until  well into the 20th century, mineral- and arsenic-laden  waste from mining activities in the region flowed into the  Clark Fork River. As contaminated sediment and mine- mill waste moved downstream, about 6.6 million cubic  yards of sediment accumulated behind the Milltown Dam.  Mining activities and the downstream transport of mining- related wastes contaminated sediment, surface water,  and groundwater with heavy metals. Remedy  construction began in 2006, much of the site has been  cleaned up, and remedy construction is underway to  address remaining contamination. The site’s long-term  remedy includes construction of a bypass channel at the  reservoir; removal of contaminated reservoir sediment;  off-site disposal and use of contaminated sediment as  vegetative cap material; removal of the Milltown Dam;  continuation of a replacement water supply program and  implementation of temporary groundwater controls until  the Milltown aquifer recovers; and long-term monitoring  of surface and groundwater. Remedy construction is  ongoing.

The 438-acre Barber Orchard site in Haywood County,  North Carolina, includes the area where Barber Apple  Orchard operated from 1908 through 1988. Facility  operations resulted in contaminated groundwater and  soil. Contaminants include arsenic, lead, and pesticides  such as DDT, aldrin, and dieldrin that can be found in  groundwater or soils on residential properties built on the  former orchard. EPA removed soil in contaminated areas  and, in a 2011 proposed cleanup plan proposed long- term monitoring of contaminated groundwater with the  expectation that soil remediation will positively affect  groundwater contamination.  EPA has determined that  the contaminated groundwater does not currently  threaten people living and working near or on the site.   EPA officials told us that in 2004, the town of  Waynesville extended its municipal water system  throughout the Orchard, and since the completion of the  soil cleanup in 2011, new homes have been constructed  within the boundaries of the Orchard.

The 3.5-acre Benfield Industries site in Waynesville,  North Carolina, includes the area where Benfield  Industries mixed and packaged materials bought in bulk  for resale in smaller amounts from 1971 through 1983.  The facility handled and stored paint thinners, solvents,  sealants, cleaners, de-icing solutions and wood  preservatives. Between 1990 and 1992, EPA conducted  the remedial investigation and feasibility study using  federal funding. The cleanup included excavating and  washing contaminated soil, biotreating contaminated  slurries, and placing the cleaned soil and slurry in  excavated areas. Following soil treatment, EPA graded  and planted seed. According to EPA officials, a  groundwater extraction system was installed and was  operated between 2001 and 2007. However, a 2007  report concluded that it was no longer an effective  groundwater remedy, and that monitored natural  attenuation may be a more effective remedy.  Consequently, EPA shut down the system in June 2007.  Agency officials told us the agency recently completed a  pilot scale treatability study in which chemicals were  injected into the subsurface to destroy residual wood  preservatives that were adversely impacting groundwater  quality. According to EPA, the agency will be using the  information gained from this treatability study in the  forthcoming remedial design.

The Homestake Mining Company site in Cibola County,  New Mexico includes a former uranium mill demolished  from 1993 through 1995 and the impacted portions of the  underlying groundwater aquifers. Uranium milling  operations began at the site in 1958 under a license  issued by the Atomic Energy Commission. Site  operations and seepage from two tailings impoundments  contaminated soil and groundwater with hazardous  chemicals including uranium, selenium, radium-226,  radium-228, thorium-230 and nitrate. Nearly 4.5 billion  gallons of contaminated water have been removed and  540 million gallons of treated water have been injected  into the aquifer. An average of 2 feet of contaminated soil  was removed from the mill area and placed in the tailings  impoundments. Cleanup is ongoing.

The 125-acre United Nuclear Corporation site near  Gallup, New Mexico, includes a former uranium ore  tailings disposal area and processing mill that operated  from 1977 through 1982. The facility processed uranium  ore using a combination of crushing, grinding and acid- leach solvent extraction methods. Milling produced acidic  slurry of ground rock and fluid tailings. Disposal of about  3.5 million tons of tailings took place in on-site  impoundments. Facility operations contaminated soil and  groundwater. Surface reclamation stabilized the mill  tailings and protected the Rio Puerco from contamination  spills. However, EPA notes that groundwater treatment  has been difficult due to low groundwater recharge rates  and extraction wells proved to accelerate movement of  contaminated water rather than contain it. Consequently,  EPA installed additional extraction wells in 2010.  Cleanup activities and monitoring are ongoing.

The 70-acre Prewitt Abandoned Refinery site is located  near Prewitt, New Mexico. The refinery operated  between 1938 and 1957. Refinery operations  contaminated soil and groundwater with hazardous  chemicals including asbestos and lead. Potentially  responsible parties removed the refinery and other site  structures; however, scattered demolished structures,  foundations and exposed fill remained on-site. The  remedy for surface soil is complete. The remedy for  subsurface soil and water continues to be protective in  the short term; however, EPA could not determine if the  remedy is protective of human health and the  environment in the long term, and the agency  recommends new evaluations to characterize the  quantity, composition and extent of various contaminants  and exposure pathways at the site. EPA further  recommends the evaluation of an alternative cleanup  plan to enhance protectiveness at the site.

The 58-acre North Railroad Avenue Plume site is a  contaminated groundwater plume in Española, New  Mexico. The Norge Town laundromat and dry cleaning  operation contaminated groundwater with  tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, cis-1,2- dichloroethylene and trans-1,2- dichloroethylene. The  contaminated groundwater aquifer is the sole-source  drinking water aquifer for the residents of City of  Espanola and, the Pueblo of Santa Clara, as well as  individual water supply wells near the site. The remedy  consists of enhanced on-site bioremediation. The areas  targeted for cleanup are the source area, soils with high  contaminant levels, and contaminated shallow  groundwater. EPA indicated that the remedy has  reduced contamination in shallow groundwater but has  not been effective in the deep aquifer; consequently,  EPA initiated additional analysis in 2015.

The Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine site is located on  the Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico, reservation and  consists of three former leases. The former leaseholder,  Anaconda Minerals Company, mined and operated a  uranium mine at the site from 1952 through 1982. Out of  a total of 7,868 leased acres, 2,656 acres were disturbed  by mining.  This disturbance originally included  three open pits, 32 waste dumps and 23 sub-grade ore  stockpiles, 4 topsoil stockpiles, and 66 acres of buildings  and roads. Mining operations detrimentally affected  surface water with hazardous chemicals in quantities  sufficient to support listing onto the EPA National  Priorities List for Superfund cleanup. Atlantic Richfield is  currently undertaking the remedial investigation and  feasibility study at the site.

Tribe or tribes  with known  interest in   the site  (CC) (HEUC) control (GWMUC) use (SWRAU)

EPA officials told us that the Carson River Mercury site  extends over more than a 130-mile length of the Carson  River, beginning near Carson City, Nevada, and  extending downstream to the Lahontan Valley.  Contamination at the site is a legacy of the Comstock  mining era of the late 1800s, when mercury was  imported to the area for processing of gold and silver ore.  The site includes mercury-contaminated soils at former  mill sites; mercury contamination in fish and wildlife; and  mercury contamination in waterways adjacent to the mill  sites, including the water, sediment, and adjacent  floodplain of the Carson River, Lahontan Reservoir,  Carson Lake, Stillwater Wildlife Refuge, and Indian  Lakes. Following excavation and removal of mercury- contaminated tailings and soils from the site to protect  human health and the environment, site investigations  and cleanup planning are ongoing.

The Hooker (Hyde Park) site is located in Niagara Falls,  New York. The 15-acre area was used for the disposal of  about 80,000 tons of waste, some of it hazardous  material, from 1953 through 1975, resulting in sediment  and groundwater contamination with hazardous  chemicals, including Aroclor 1248, chloroform, phenol,  benzoic acid and chlorendic acid. Cleanup included  establishment of a drain system around the landfill;  treatment of liquids leaching from the landfill; capping of  the landfill; and removal of contaminated soils and  sediment. Site construction finished in 2003. EPA has  determined that, since cleanup, the site no longer poses  a threat to nearby residents or the environment. Long- term groundwater treatment and monitoring are ongoing.

The General Motors (Central Foundry Division) site is  located near Massena, New York. General Motors  operated an aluminum diecasting plant on the site  beginning in1959 and used PCBs in the manufacturing  process through 1980. Contamination resulted from  General Motors’ waste disposal practices. Completed  cleanup actions include the installation of a cap on an  industrial landfill to prevent the surface flow of  contaminants and reduce potential air exposure from  contaminants; dredging of the St. Lawrence River and  placement of a cap on remaining sediment; remediation  of two inactive lagoons; and creation of a 150-foot landfill  setback along the border with the Saint Regis Mohawk  reservation. The final significant cleanup is a 10-million- gallon industrial lagoon. EPA has conducted three 5-year  reviews at the site and the owner is actively marketing  the property for re-use or redevelopment.

The Peter Cooper site in Gowanda, New York, was the  location of an animal glue and industrial adhesive  manufacturing factory. Contamination was caused by the  improper disposal of wastes derived from chrome-tanned  hides. The waste material has been shown to contain  elevated levels of chromium, arsenic, zinc, and several  organic compounds. Remedial activity for the landfill  contained more than 8 million tons of waste and included  capping the landfill, putting in a gas venting system, and  controlling leachate. A retaining wall prevents  contaminants from reaching Cattaraugus Creek. Site  investigations and cleanup are complete, and monitoring  is ongoing.

The Onondaga Lake site includes a 4.6-square-mile lake  bordering the City of Syracuse, New York, and four  nearby towns and villages. The site also includes seven  major and minor tributaries and upland sources of  contamination from a 285-square-mile drainage basin.  Onondaga Lake has been the recipient of industrial and  municipal sewage discharges from the site for more than  100 years. Contaminants include chlorinated benzenes,  mercury, and PCBs. Between 1998 and 2018 EPA  selected cleanup remedies for several areas within the  site. Cleanup activities include removing chlorobenzene  from existing wells, cleaning storm drainage systems,  construction of a lakeshore barrier wall, and groundwater  collection and treatment systems. Site investigations and  cleanup activities are ongoing in several areas of the  site, including the Lower Ley Creek and Willis Avenue  areas.

The Cayuga Groundwater Contamination site covers  about 4.8 square miles extending from Auburn to Union  Springs, New York. The site is the former location of a  facility where General Electric Company and its partners  manufactured semiconductors. The site includes  residential properties mixed with farmland, woodlands,  and commercial areas. Contaminated groundwater at the  site contains volatile organic compounds that are  potentially harmful contaminants that easily evaporate in  the air. EPA conducted a remedial investigation and  feasibility study to determine the sources, nature, and  extent of site contamination and to evaluate remedial  alternatives. Remediation will depend on the  characteristics identified, but will include bioremediation  for the most contaminated area as well as natural  processes to reduce the level of contamination to meet  groundwater standards. EPA is requiring periodic  collection and analyses of groundwater samples to verify  that the level and extent of contaminants is declining.  EPA is deferring a decision on how to clean up the  groundwater in Area 3, and intends to further investigate  that area prior to issuing a final cleanup decision.

The Eighteen Mile Creek site consists of contaminated  sediment, soil, and groundwater along approximately 15  miles of creek in Niagara County, New York. The site has  a long history of industrial use dating to the 19th century.   Contamination, including PCBs and heavy metals, spans  two areas: Eighteen Mile Creek corridor and the creek  sediment to Lake Ontario. Possible sources of the  contamination include releases from hazardous waste  sites, industrial or municipal wastewater discharges, and  disposal practices of manufacturers around the creek.  EPA has demolished five contaminated residential  properties and relocated the residents, completed the  remedial investigation and issued a record of decision for  the creek corridor in 2017, and is currently conducting  the remedial investigation in the length of the river to  Lake Ontario.    The approximately 145-acre Wilcox Oil Company site in  Bristow, Oklahoma includes the inactive and abandoned  Lorraine and Wilcox Oil Refineries, which operated from  approximately 1915 through 1963. The main components  of the refinery included a skimming plant, cracking unit,  and redistillation battery with a vapor recovery system  and continuous treating equipment. Refinery operations  contaminated soil and sediment and left behind refinery  waste material such as oil waste and sediment skimmed  from crude oil, and potentially lead. Planning and  implementation of the site’s remedial investigation and  feasibility study is ongoing.

The 200-acre Hudson Refinery site housed an oil refinery  from 1922 until 1982. The site included aboveground  storage tanks, wastewater treatment impoundments,  separators, stained soils, a land treatment unit, and loose  and friable asbestos-containing material. Refinery  operations contaminated soil, groundwater, surface  water, and sediment. The site’s long-term remedy,  selected in 2007 and amended in 2010, included removal  of asbestos-containing materials, coke tar, and scrap  metal; soil and waste excavation with off-site disposal;  excavation, stabilization, and off-site disposal of  sediment from waste ponds and sumps; treatment of  surface water from ponds with contaminated sediment;  groundwater monitoring; and institutional controls,  among others. Cleanup construction started in early  2010 and finished in October 2010. Operation and  maintenance activities and monitoring are ongoing.

The 160-acre Oklahoma Refining Company site in Cyril,  Oklahoma contained an oil refinery operated by several  different owners until 1984. Site operations contaminated  soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater with  PAHs, volatile organic compounds, and metals. Long- term remedies included bioremediation; stabilization;  neutralization, containment, and treatment of surface  water and groundwater; and on-site disposal of  excavated materials in a hazardous waste landfill.  Remediation was completed in 2001 on the southern part  of the site.  Removal of hazardous waste was completed  in 2006. EPA is currently evaluating long-term cleanup  activities on the northern portion of the site.

The Tar Creek site is located in Ottawa County,  Oklahoma. According to EPA, the site itself has no  clearly defined boundaries, but consists of areas within  Ottawa County impacted by historical mining wastes.  The site is part of the larger Tri-State Mining District that  consists of historical lead and zinc mining areas in  northeast Oklahoma, southeast Kansas, and southwest  Missouri. The site first came to the attention of the State  of Oklahoma and EPA in 1979, when water began  flowing to the surface near Commerce, Oklahoma from  underground mine areas, through abandoned boreholes.  This surface discharge flowed into Tar Creek, and soon  other discharge locations were observed near Tar Creek  and the abandoned mining town of Douthat and Quapaw.  As a result, Tar Creek and Beaver Creek were  significantly impacted. EPA has defined five areas to  focus on: surface water and groundwater; waste in  residential areas that causes high blood lead levels in  children; chemicals found in an office and laboratory  complex; piles of mine and milling waste and smelter  waste; and sediment and surface waters in seven  watersheds within three states and nine tribal areas.  Remedial efforts include plugging abandoned wells to  prevent contamination of aquifers, cleanup of public  areas and residences, removal of mining chemicals, and  relocating mining waste on the surface. The Quapaw  Tribe has led remedial efforts on portions of tribally  owned properties located within Tar Creek. Cleanup is  ongoing.

The 61-acre Tulsa Fuel And Manufacturing site in  Collinsville, Oklahoma, is the location of a former zinc  smelter and lead roaster that operated from 1914  through 1925. Historical operations contaminated soil,  sediment, and surface water with hazardous materials  including zinc and lead. EPA selected a cleanup plan for  the site that included on-site consolidation and capping  of soil, sediment and waste material. Construction of the  remedy began in August 2014 and is now completed.

The McCormick and Baxter Creosoting Company site is  a former creosote wood treating facility located on the  east bank of the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon.  The company was founded in 1944 and continued  operations until October 1991.This site is located within  the Portland Harbor Superfund site, but was not included  in the January 2017 Portland Harbor record of decision.  The site encompasses approximately 41 acres of land  and an additional 23 acres of contaminated river  sediment. Site investigations confirm releases of wood- treating chemical compounds to soils, groundwater, and  sediment. Remedial investigations identified three  plumes of contaminated groundwater migrating toward  surface waters. Completed cleanup activities include  demolition of the McCormick and Baxter plant; soil  excavation, treatment, and disposal; upland soil capping;  installation of a subsurface barrier wall; contaminant  recovery; construction of a multi-layer sediment cap in  the Willamette River; monitoring and engineering; and  institutional controls. Construction of site remedies  finished in September 2005.

Taylor Lumber and Treating operated a wood-treating  plant at the site near Sheridan, Oregon, from about 1946  until 2001. EPA found that wood-treating chemical spills,  including creosote and pentachlorophenol, contaminated  soil, roadside ditches, and groundwater at the site. In  response, EPA constructed an underground slurry wall  as part of the remedy beneath the wood-treating area to  contain and extract the most contaminated groundwater  to maintain hydraulic control within the barrier wall. The  final cleanup included excavation of contaminated soils  from 5 upland acres and from adjacent ditches flowing to  the South Yamhill River; replacement of an existing  asphalt cap in the wood-treating area with a new low  permeability asphalt cap overlaying the underground  slurry wall; disposal of material from stockpiled soil  storage cells off-site; and upgrades to the storm water  conveyance systems. EPA completed final cleanup in  2008. The property is now owned and operated by a  private company, which has ongoing obligations related  to property use restrictions, operations, and maintenance  on the property. EPA conducted its second 5-year review  in 2017.  The 4.2-acre Harbor Oil Incorporated site is located in  Portland, Oregon, in an industrial area adjacent to Force  Lake. A waste oil recycling facility currently operates on  the site. Past site operations included a tank truck  cleaning business, which was destroyed by a fire in 1979  that ruptured five 20,000-gallon aboveground used oil  tanks. Site activities, the fire, and a large oil spill in 1974  contaminated soil, sediment and groundwater with  metals, oil, pesticides, and PCBs. EPA ordered a  previous operator to empty, clean, and dismantle a tank  containing petroleum wastes. Remedial investigations  determined that contamination does not pose an  unacceptable risk to human health or the environment;  therefore, no further cleanup is required.

The 10-acre Gould, Incorporated site in Portland, Oregon  housed a lead smelter and lead oxide production facility  from 1949 until 1981. Site activities included on-site  disposal of about 87,000 tons of battery casings and  discharge of about 6 million gallons of acid into a nearby  lake, which resulted in contaminated soils and lake  sediment. EPA transferred the contaminated soils and  sediment into a lined containment area at the site as part  of the cleanup. EPA monitored groundwater at the site to  determine if historic wastes adversely impacted shallow  groundwater at the site. Based on this data, in 2000,  EPA determined that no further groundwater cleanup  actions were necessary. Groundwater monitoring near  the containment area continues to ensure that the  containment area has no adverse impact.

The North Ridge Estates site is a residential subdivision  3 miles north of Klamath Falls, Oregon that is  contaminated with asbestos as a result of the improper  demolition of approximately 80 1940s-era military  barracks buildings. Asbestos-containing materials and  soil are being removed from the old military barracks site  during three seasons of cleanup from 2016 through  2018. Additional contamination at the nearby Kingsley  Firing Range, also part of the site, will be investigated  and completed at a later time. According to EPA, cleanup  and restoration will be completed by the end of 2018.

The 76-acre Formosa Mine site is located on Silver Butte  in Douglas County, Oregon. The site was originally  mined for copper and silver from about 1910  through1937.  The abandoned mine discharges millions  of gallons of acid rock drainage and toxic metals into the  upper reaches of Middle Creek and South Fork Middle  Creek every year. These discharges have contaminated  surface water, groundwater, soil, and sediment with  heavy metals. EPA is currently designing the remedy for  all mine-impacted material on the surface and will  address risks to surface and groundwater separately.  The remedy for surface contamination consists of  excavating, contouring, or capping various areas to  prevent leaching during precipitation events.

Tribe or tribes  with known  interest in   the site  (CC) (HEUC) control (GWMUC) use (SWRAU)

The Portland Harbor site includes portions in the  Willamette River and about 12 river miles upstream of  the Willamette River in and around Portland, Oregon,  that have been contaminated from decades of industrial  use. Areas of the site housed manufactured gas plants, a  pesticide manufacturing facility, and boat maintenance  facilities, among other industrial uses. Water and  sediment at the site are contaminated with many  hazardous substances, including PCBs, PAHs,  dioxins/furans, pesticides, and heavy metals. The harbor  is an international portal for commerce, and dozens of  industries within the site provide economic sustainability  to the community. The Lower Willamette is also a  popular area for recreation, including fishing and boating.  The river provides a critical migratory corridor and  rearing habitat for salmon and steelhead, including  endangered runs of steelhead and chinook. The area  also holds great importance to several tribes as a natural  and cultural resource. EPA issued its record of decision  in January 2017 and finished its baseline sampling plan  in December 2017. The record of decision specifies the  remedy selected, which is designed to reduce risks to  human health and the environment to acceptable levels  and actively remediate (using dredging, capping,  enhanced natural recovery, and monitored natural  recovery) on 394 acres of contaminated sediment and  23,305 lineal feet of river bank. This final remedy is  estimated to cost approximately $1.05 billion and take  about 13 years to complete.

The Black Butte Mine site is located near Cottage Grove,  Oregon. Mercury mining from the late 1880s through the  late 1960s included extracting ore from the mine,  crushing it on-site, roasting it in kilns to volatilize the  mercury, and bottling and shipping the mercury. Mining  operations, tailings piles left at the site, and erosion from  Furnace Creek contaminated soil, sediment, surface  water, and groundwater with mercury and other toxic  metals. EPA and its contractors are working in the  Furnace Creek area of the site to excavate mine tailings  and contaminated soils/sediment for safe disposal in an  off-site repository. Removing the mine tailings will reduce  mercury leaking into Furnace Creek and reduce the  potential for mercury leaching into groundwater. Site  investigations for the long-term cleanup are under way.

The Newport Naval Education/Training Center site was  used by the U.S. Navy as a refueling depot from 1900  through the mid-1970s. The site encompasses 1,063  acres on the west coast of Aquidneck Island in  Portsmouth, Middletown, and Newport, Rhode Island.  The site includes multiple areas of contamination,  including a landfill, a fire training area, a former shipyard,  and five tank farms. The areas contain varying degrees  of groundwater contamination. The Navy is the lead  agency for site investigation and cleanup. Site cleanup  has included installation of a soil cover, use of a  groundwater pump and treat system, and removal of  contaminated debris.

The Centredale Manor Restoration Project site is located  in North Providence, Rhode Island, where the main  “source area” consists of about 9 acres down the  Woonasquatucket River, south to the Lyman Mill Dam,  and includes the restored Allendale Dam. The site was a  chemical production and drum reconditioning facility from  the 1940s to the 1970s that resulted in the release of  dioxin and other contamination.  Past site operations led  to chemicals released directly to the ground, buried and  emptied directly into the river. This resulted in  contamination of soil, groundwater, surface water and  sediment in the adjacent river and downstream ponds. A  major fire in 1972 destroyed most structures at the site.  Residential apartments were constructed at the site in  the late 1970s and early 1980s and still occupy the site.  To address immediate risks, EPA conducted several  activities including fencing the site, capping  contaminated soil, and reconstructing Allendale Dam.  EPA developed the cleanup plan, with amendments, in  2012. EPA, the state of Rhode Island, and potentially  responsible parties agreed in July 2018 on a plan to  clean up contamination at the site.   The Whitewood Creek site covers an 18-mile stretch of  Whitewood Creek in Lawrence, Meade, and Butte  counties in South Dakota. Since the 1870s, gold mining  operations in the area included the discharge of millions  of tons of mine tailings into the creek. These mine  tailings settled along the Whitewood Creek floodplain,  contaminating soil, groundwater, and surface water with  heavy metals. EPA excavated 4,500 cubic yards of  contaminated soil from residential yards, disposed of  contaminated soil, and established institutional controls  and surface water monitoring. EPA took the site off the  Superfund program’s National Priorities List in 1996  when cleanup finished and affected counties restricted  future development in impacted areas. Surface water  monitoring is ongoing.

The 360-acre Gilt Edge Mine site is located about 6.5  miles east of Lead, South Dakota. The primary mine  disturbance area encompasses a former open pit and a  cyanide heap-leach gold mine, as well as prior mine  exploration activities from various companies. Mining and  mineral processing at the site began in 1876 and early  gold miners developed extensive underground workings  that wind through the central portion of the site. There  was also some surface mining. Historical operations at  the site contaminated surface water and groundwater  with acidic heavy-metal-laden water. In 1986, mine  owners commenced development of a large-scale open  pit, cyanide heap leach gold mine operation. In the late  1990s, site owners abandoned the site and their  responsibilities to address acidic heavy-metal-laden  water  generated from the exposed highwalls of the three  open mine pits and from the millions of cubic yards of  acid-generating spent ore and waste rock. Investigation  and cleanup activities at the site are ongoing. Interim  remedies are currently in place for the water treatment,  Lower Strawberry Creek, and Ruby Gulch Waste Rock  Dump; and remedial action construction is in progress for  the primary mine disturbance area.

The Lower Duwamish Waterway site is a 5-mile segment  of the Duwamish, Seattle, Washington’s only river. The  river flows between residential areas as well as through  the industrial core of Seattle into Elliott Bay. The  waterway has served as Seattle’s major industrial  corridor since the early 1900s, resulting in sediment  contaminated with toxic chemicals from industrial  practices, stormwater runoff, and wastewater. EPA has  also found contamination in fish and shellfish, including  PCBs, arsenic, polycyclic PAHs, dioxins, and furans. As  a result, consumption of resident fish and shellfish, and  contact with contaminated sediment pose a risk to  human health. EPA signed the record of decision in 2014  that includes plans to clean up about 177 acres in the  waterway, including dredging, capping, and natural  sedimentation. By the end of 2015, 50 percent of PCB  contamination in the river bottom was removed through  these early action cleanups. Cleanup and monitoring  activities are ongoing.

The 340-acre Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering  Station site is located on a peninsula 15 miles west of  Seattle. Site activities included torpedo maintenance, fuel  storage, welding, painting, carpentry, plating, and sheet  metal work. Site activities and waste disposal practices  contaminated soil, sediment and groundwater with  hazardous chemicals, including 1,4-Dioxane, chromium,  and vinyl chloride. The site’s long-term cleanup remedy  included demolition of the plating shop building; removal  and disposal of contaminated soil and sediment; removal  of underground storage tanks; long-term monitoring of  groundwater, sediment and shellfish; institutional  controls; and phytoremediation to treat contaminated  landfill soil. Remedy construction took place between  1995 and 2000. Site operation and maintenance  activities, and site monitoring, are ongoing.  Four sites on the NPL are part of the 586-square-mile  Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland,  Washington, where waste was created as a by-product  of producing plutonium from 1943 through1987. The 25- square-mile Hanford 100-Area site, also referred to as  the River Corridor, is focused on cleanup of  contamination that originated from nine nuclear reactors.  Cooling water contaminated with radioactive and  hazardous chemicals was discharged into both the  adjacent Columbia River and on-site infiltration cribs and  trenches. Site operations also included burying  contaminated solid wastes on-site. These activities  contaminated soil and groundwater with radioactive  constituents, heavy metals, and other hazardous  chemicals. Contaminants have been addressed by  demolishing buildings, removing contaminated soil, and  employing pump and treat systems for contaminated  groundwater, among others. EPA has selected eight  interim remedies for the 100-Area and remedial  investigations are under way to support selection of final  cleanup remedies.

Four sites on the NPL are part of the 586-square-mile  Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland, Washington  where waste was created as a by-product of producing  plutonium and other nuclear materials for nuclear  weapons from 1943 through 1987. The 79-square-mile  200-Area site is located 17 miles north-northwest of  Richland, Washington. The 200-Area site is located in  the center portion of the Hanford site, known as the  Central Plateau, and contains former chemical  processing plants and waste management facilities.  During processing activities, massive quantities of  carbon tetrachloride were discharged into the ground.  Site activities also included processing, finishing and  managing nuclear materials, including plutonium. About  1 billion cubic yards of solid and diluted liquid wastes  (radioactive, mixed, and hazardous substances) were  disposed in trenches, ditches, and in an on-site landfill.  About 1,000 facilities and structures were built to support  processing activities which contaminated soil,  groundwater and surface water with hazardous  chemicals and radioactive constituents. Thousands of  containers and drums holding radioactive waste were  placed in burial grounds. Remedial investigations,  removal actions, and remedy design and construction  are under way for more than 800 waste areas at the site.  Cleanup actions included decontamination and  demolition of contaminated structures; treatment of  contaminated soil; excavation and off-site disposal of  drummed wastes; institutional controls; and natural  attenuation of groundwater contaminants. According to  EPA, a remedy for one of the large canyon-type buildings  is about halfway complete and is awaiting investigation  and remediation of surrounding waste sites before it can  be completed.

Four sites on the NPL are part of the 586-square-mile  Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland, Washington  where waste was created as a by-product of producing  plutonium and other nuclear materials for nuclear  weapons from 1943 through 1987. The 56 square mile  Hanford 300 Area site was home to fuel manufacturing  operations at Hanford as well as experimental and  laboratory facilities. The 300-Area site includes an  unlined liquid disposal area north of the on-site industrial  complex area, landfills, and miscellaneous disposal sites  associated with operations at the industrial complex. The  300-Area site contains about 27 million cubic yards of  solid and diluted liquid wastes mixed with radioactive and  hazardous wastes in ponds, trenches, and landfills. The  areas used for liquid discharges had no outlets;  therefore, liquids percolated through the soil into the  groundwater and the Columbia River. Cleanup actions  completed to date include decontamination and  demolition of contaminated structures; natural  attenuation of groundwater contaminants; and disposal  of building rubble, contaminated soil, and debris.  Remedy construction has been completed in several  areas of the site and remedial investigations, removal  actions, and remedy design and construction are under  way at the remaining areas.  Four sites on the NPL are part of the 586-square-mile  Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland, Washington  where waste was created as a by-product of producing  plutonium and other nuclear materials for nuclear  weapons from 1943 through 1987. Waste areas in the  120-square-mile Hanford 1100-Area site include a  landfill, drains, underground tanks and a sand pit where  as many as 15,000 gallons of waste battery fluids may  have been disposed. Past site activities and waste  disposal practices contaminated soil and groundwater  with heavy metals and hazardous chemicals such as  PCBs and trichloroethene. Remedial activities include  off-site disposal of PCB-contaminated soils, capping of  the landfill, and establishing continuing institutional  controls to prevent future exposure and contamination  from buried asbestos.Following cleanup, EPA deleted  the site from the NPL in 1996.

The 300-acre Jackson Park Housing Complex site is  located in eastern Kitsap County, about 2 miles  northwest of Bremerton, Washington. From 1904 through  1959, the facility operated as a Navy ammunition depot  and included ordnance, manufacturing, processing, and  disassembly. Residual ordnance powders were disposed  of by open burning. Hazardous dust deposited on floors  during ordnance handling was washed into floor drains  that led into Ostrich Bay. The site also included  incinerators; paint, battery, and machine shops; and a  boiler plant. Site activities contaminated surface water  and soil with hazardous chemicals and heavy metals.  The site’s long-term remedy included installation of a soil  and vegetation cover over contaminated soil, shoreline  stabilization, implementation of a shellfish sampling  program, and signs along the shoreline to notify local  residents of any harvest restrictions. Site cleanup also  included the removal and off-site disposal of wooden  pilings from abandoned Navy structures, excavation and  disposal of contaminated soil, establishment of an  environmental monitoring program, and subsurface  placement of oxygen-releasing chemicals. Remedy  construction began in 2000 and is ongoing.

The 53-acre Old Navy Dump/Manchester Laboratory site  is located north of Manchester, Washington, along the  western shore of Clam Bay in Puget Sound. Federal  ownership of this site started in 1898 with the U.S. Army.  In 1924, the entire site was transferred to the U.S. Navy.  From the 1940s through the 1960s, the Navy used the  site primarily for construction, repair, maintenance, and  storage of submarine nets and boats, but also used the  site for firefighter training and as a dump for wastes  generated at the site. Former firefighter training activities  contaminated soil with dioxins and petroleum  hydrocarbons. The Navy also dumped demolition debris  and industrial waste, including asbestos, into a former  tidal lagoon, contaminating soil, sediment, seep water,  and shellfish in Clam Bay with PCBs and metals. Clam  Bay has been used primarily for recreational shellfishing  and is a known habitat for the bald eagle and chinook  salmon, a threatened species under the Endangered  Species Act. In the early 1970s, EPA and the National  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)  acquired portions of the property. The site is currently  occupied by an EPA analytical laboratory and a NOAA  fisheries research laboratory. The Army Corps of  Engineers established in the third 5-year review in 2014  that the remedy at this site is protective of human health  and the environment. Operation and maintenance  activities and monitoring are ongoing.

The 83-acre Pacific Sound Resources site, formerly  known as the Wyckoff West Seattle Wood Treating  facility, is located on the south shore of Elliott Bay on  Puget Sound in Seattle, Washington. A wood-treating  facility operated at the site between 1909 and 1994.  Wood-preserving operations used creosote,  pentachlorophenol, and various metal-based solutions of  copper, arsenic, and zinc. Daily operations, as well as  spills, leaks and storage of treated wood products  resulted in soil and groundwater contamination. Direct  discharge or disposal of process wastes and waste  transport were the most likely sources of contamination  to marine sediment. Over half of the site is located in  either intertidal or subtidal lands. Cleanup actions  included the placement of subtidal and intertidal caps  over the 58-acre marine sediment area, including  placement of at least 5 feet of cap material in the  intertidal zone; dredging and removal of contaminated  sediment for off-site disposal; and removal of marine  pilings for off-site disposal. Construction of long-term  cleanup remedies concluded in 2005 and, following  cleanup, operation and maintenance activities, including  periodic groundwater monitoring, are ongoing.

The Wyckoff Company / Eagle Harbor Superfund site is  on the east side of Bainbridge Island in Central Puget  Sound, Washington. The site was used for creosote  wood treatment for more than 85 years, according to the  Washington Department of Ecology. Environmental  investigations revealed extensive contamination— including creosote, mercury, and other metals—in soils,  groundwater, and in the sediment on the bottom of Eagle  Harbor. EPA reports that extensive cleanup actions have  been completed at the site, including operating a  groundwater extraction and treatment system since  2012, capping sediment on more than 70 acres of Eagle  Harbor, and hauling away contaminated soils and debris.  Further cleanup actions are needed in the soil and  groundwater at the former wood treatment facility and in  adjacent beach sediment. In 2016 EPA released a  proposed plan for additional cleanup actions at the site  and, after a public comment period, divided the work into  two cleanup decisions. The first was issued in May 2018  and the second is planned for issue near the end of  2018.  The 10-acre Pesticide Lab site is an active agricultural  research laboratory located at the Yakima Agricultural  Research Laboratory in Yakima, Washington, and has  been in operation since 1961.The site is leased by the  U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Wastes from the  formulation, mixing, and storage of pesticide were  discharged into a septic tank disposal system at the site  from 1965 through 1985. USDA addressed cleanup  under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  The site has been cleaned up and is no longer a threat to  human health. Long-term monitoring is not required  because cleanup left no contaminants of concern on the  site. EPA deleted the site from the NPL in 1993.

The 92-acre Hidden Valley Landfill site is located in  Puyallup, Washington. The site contains a former landfill  and gravel pit that operated from 1967 through 1985.  The landfill accepted liquids, solids, industrial wastes,  and heavy metal sludge. Waste disposal activities  contaminated groundwater with hazardous chemicals  and heavy metals. The site’s long-term remedy included  covering the waste with an impermeable barrier,  collecting landfill gases, controlling surface water and soil  erosion, and minimizing the lateral and vertical  movement of contaminated groundwater. Remedy  construction took place in 2000. Landfill gas and  groundwater monitoring are ongoing.

The Tulalip Landfill site, located within the boundaries of  the Tulalip Indian reservation, is a former landfill located  between Marysville and Everett, Washington. The site  consists of a 147-acre landfill and 160 acres of wetlands.  The Seattle Disposal Company operated the landfill from  1964 until 1979. The landfill received an estimated 3  million to 4 million tons of commercial and industrial  waste. In 1979, landfill operators closed the landfill,  added a soil cover, and constructed a perimeter barrier  berm. However, insufficient grading of the soil cover  resulted in poor drainage and allowed precipitation to  collect and eventually infiltrate the landfill surface. As a  result, the landfill contaminated groundwater, surface  water and sediment with metals, pesticides, PCBs and  polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. EPA’s interim remedy  for the landfill included capping the landfill and installing  a landfill gas collection and treatment system, among  other actions. EPA continued the interim remedy for the  landfill and included institutional controls for the  wetlands, such as placing and maintaining signs to warn  of potential risk from harvest and consumption of  resident fish and shellfish. The tribe is responsible for  maintenance of the remedy, inspections, and sampling at  the site.

Harbor Island is a 420-acre manmade island in Elliott  Bay in Seattle Washington. The site includes the entire  island and associated sediment. Built in the early 1900s,  the island housed businesses that conduct commercial  and industrial activities, including oil terminals, shipyards,  rail transfer terminals, cold storage, and lumberyards.  Site operations contaminated groundwater, sediment and  soil with lead, PCBs, arsenic, mercury, and other  contaminants. Remedial activities include removal and  treatment of contaminated soil, treatment of  groundwater, removal of approximately 6,000 creosote  treated piles, and dredging sediment. Most portions of  the site have been cleaned up and are undergoing long- term monitoring.

The Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide Flats site is  located in the City of Tacoma and the Town of Ruston at  the southern end of Puget Sound in Washington. The  site encompasses an active commercial seaport and  includes 12 square miles of shallow water, shoreline, and  adjacent land, most of which is highly developed and  industrialized. EPA found widespread contamination of  the water, sediment, and upland areas at the site and  has divided the site into seven areas being managed as  distinct cleanup sites. As part of this cleanup, EPA has  remediated 2,436 properties with the worst  contamination, restored 11 acres of shallow marine  habitat, and restored 70 acres of estuarine habitat. The  site’s long-term remedy includes demolishing remaining  buildings and structures, excavating soil and slag from  the five most contaminated source areas on the site,  depositing demolition debris in an on-site containment  facility, and monitoring the impacts of cleanup on  groundwater and off-shore marine sediment.  Investigations and remedy construction are ongoing at  the site.

Tribe or tribes  with known  interest in   the site  (CC) (HEUC) control (GWMUC) use (SWRAU)

Midnite Mine is an inactive former uranium mine in the  Selkirk Mountains of eastern Washington. Located within  the reservation of the Spokane Tribe of Indians, the mine  was operated from 1955 until 1981. The site includes two  open pits, backfilled pits, a number of waste rock piles,  and several ore/protore stockpiles. The site  contamination has resulted in elevated levels of  radioactivity and heavy metals mobilized in acid mine  drainage, both of which pose a potential threat to human  health and the environment. The site drains to Blue  Creek, which enters the Spokane Arm of Franklin D.  Roosevelt Lake. Contaminated water emerging below  the waste rock and ore piles is currently captured for  treatment in an on-site treatment system. Cleanup  includes consolidation of mine waste rock, protore, and  contaminated soils; backfilling these materials in lined  pits; covering these pits to prevent water infiltration; and  ongoing water treatment. According to EPA, significant  cleanup is planned to occur between 2017 and 2024.   The 40-acre Lockheed West Seattle site is located in  Elliott Bay near the mouth of the West Waterway in  Seattle, Washington. The site includes about 7 acres of  aquatic tidelands owned by the Port of Seattle and 33  acres of state-owned aquatic lands. Historic industrial  practices at the former shipyard contaminated sediment  with hazardous chemicals, including PCBs, dioxins, and  furans. Industrial activities generated considerable  quantities of sandblast grit and other industrial waste that  discharged to sediment and accumulated beneath dry  docks and shipways. The Lockheed Martin Corporation,  as the potentially responsible party for the cleanup, will  remove contamination from a 40-acre area in the  northwest corner of the mouth of the West Waterway and  north of the Port of Seattle’s Terminal 5. An estimated  total of 167,000 cubic yards of contaminated material will  be removed over the course of the cleanup. According to  EPA, the cleanup was to begin in 2018 and is anticipated  to be completed in the spring of 2019.

Makah Reservation Warmhouse Beach Dump is located  within the Makah Indian Reservation at the northwest tip  of the Olympic Peninsula in Washington. The site  includes a former open dump on top of a ridge about 3  miles northwest of Neah Bay and two streams that  originate within the dump and flow to East Beach and  Warmhouse Beach. Municipal and household solid and  hazardous wastes were disposed of at the dump from  the 1970s until 2012. Elevated levels of metals,  perchlorate and PCBs have been found in soil at the  dump and in the sediment of both creeks.  Mussels at the  beach also contain elevated concentrations of lead;  however, EPA has not determined whether this is from  the dump or creeks. EPA is in the remedial investigation  stage of the cleanup.

Bremerton Gas Works is a former manufactured gas  plant located about a mile and a half north of downtown  Bremerton, Washington. It occupies about 2.8 acres of  property along the Port Washington Narrows in Puget  Sound. Two species of fish that are listed as threatened  under the Endangered Species Act (steelhead trout and  chinook salmon) live near the site. This portion of Puget  Sound is used as a sport and commercial fishery, as well  as for subsistence fishing by the Suquamish Indian Tribe.  EPA is in the early stages of the cleanup process,  conducting the remedial investigation and feasibility  study, which EPA expects to complete in spring 2019.

The Hamilton/Labree Roads Groundwater Contamination  site is located about 2 miles southwest of Chehalis,  Washington. According to EPA, past site activities  included spilling and dumping tetrachoroethene in  Berwick Creek and burying drums and other containers  of assorted hazardous chemicals on-site. The release at  the site has contaminated soil, sediment, groundwater,  and surface water. EPA’s selected interim remedy  includes rerouting Berwick Creek around contaminated  areas, thermally treating tetrachoroethene-contaminated  soil and sediment, and treating contaminated  groundwater. Remedial design is under way.

Penta Wood Products site is located in the town of Siren  in Burnett County, Wisconsin. A wood treatment facility  operated at the site from 1953 until 1992, and used  pentachlorophenol (PCP) to treat wood posts and  telephone poles. Facility operations contaminated soil  and groundwater with PCP and arsenic. During cleanup,  EPA removed about 28 storage tanks containing liquid  and sludge. Also, 43,000 gallons of a PCP/oil mixture  and sludge were disposed of off-site. The treatment  building was demolished and contaminated soil was  cleaned on-site or disposed of off-site. Cleanup was  completed in 2000, and operation and maintenance  activities and monitoring are ongoing. In September  2014, the State of Wisconsin took over operations and  maintenance activities at the site.

The Ashland/Northern States Power Lakefront site is  located on the shore of Chequamegon Bay, which is part  of Lake Superior, in northern Wisconsin. The site  consists of several properties, including those owned by  Northern States Power Co. of Wisconsin, Canadian  National Railroad and the city of Ashland. 16 acres of  contaminated lake sediment just off-shore are also part  of the site.  The near-shore portion of the site was  formed by the placement of fill consisting of sawdust,  wood, and wood waste; demolition debris; and other  waste materials. Contaminants including tar, oil, PAHs,  volatile organic compounds, and metals have been found  in sediment, groundwater, and soil. Contamination has  also been found in an adjacent residential area. Because  groundwater is contaminated at levels of health concern,  two artesian wells have been closed as a precautionary  measure. Access to a portion of the bay and shore is  restricted for boats and swimmers because when  sediment is agitated, oil and tar can be released causing  a slick to form. Cleanup at the site is ongoing and is  being overseen by the Wisconsin Department of Natural  Resources and EPA. Phase 1,soil and groundwater  cleanup under portions of the site was completed in  2016.  This entailed removing contaminated soil,  covering the area with clean material, and installing  barriers to stop groundwater from migrating.  Phase 2,  the full-scale wet dredge in the Chequamegon Bay, was  completed in 2018. EPA is conducting the first five-year  review of the site.

In providing technical comments on a draft of this report, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation  identified this additional site.

Site Overview  Blackbird Mine is located 25 miles west of the town of  Salmon in the Salmon-Challis National Forest in east- central Idaho. Cobalt, silver, and copper ore were  extracted from underground and open-pit mining  operations. Contaminated soil, sediment and tailings  were released from the mine site during high water flows  from thunderstorms and snowmelt. Acid rock drainage  and leachate from the mining tunnels, waste piles, and  tailings contaminated soil, sediment, surface water, and  groundwater with heavy metals such as copper, cobalt,  and arsenic. Affected surface waters include Blackbird  Creek, the South Fork of the Big Deer Creek, Big Deer  Creek, and Panther Creek. Since 1995, cleanup actions  have collected contaminated runoff water in the mine  area and treated it for copper and cobalt. Cleanup  actions have also stabilized waste-rock piles at the mine.  Remedy construction is complete except for determining  whether to divert Bucktail Creek. Post-construction  monitoring of these cleanup activities is ongoing.

Since the early 1900s, General Electric operated a large- scale industrial facility that manufactured and serviced  power transformers, defense and aerospace materials,  and plastics, and used numerous industrial chemicals at  its Pittsfield facility. Years of PCB and industrial chemical  use, and improper disposal, led to extensive  contamination around Pittsfield, Massachusetts as well  as down the entire length of the Housatonic River, which  is approximately 150 miles from its source on the East  Branch in Hinsdale, Massachusetts and flows through  Connecticut into Long Island Sound. After testing  groundwater, river sediment, soil, and wildlife, EPA  determined that the contamination needed to be  addressed and that the greatest concern in the area is  the possibility of direct contact or ingestion of PCB  contamination. Since 1977, there has been a ban on  fishing and consumption of fish from areas of the  Housatonic River. These restrictions will remain in place  until PCB levels decrease. Data are collected to ensure  that the current restrictions protect human health. EPA  collects information regarding PCBs in fish and shellfish.  In addition to PCBs, other industrial compounds present  at the site pose an unacceptable risk to people and the  environment.

Site Overview  The Smurfit-Stone Mill Frenchtown site is located 11  miles northwest of Missoula, Montana. The 3,200-acre  site formerly housed a pulp mill that operated from 1957  through 2010. The core industrial footprint of the mill site  covers about 100 acres, and there are more than 900  additional acres containing a series of unlined ponds  used to store treated and untreated wastewater from the  mill, as well as sludge recovered from untreated  wastewater. The site also includes landfills used to  dispose of solid wastes, including general mill refuse and  asbestos. Various hazardous substances were used or  produced on-site, including bleaching chemicals that  produced dioxins and furans that may have been  released into the environment. A screening investigation  by EPA determined that the site’s primary contamination  sources include four sludge ponds, an emergency spill  pond, an exposed soil pile adjacent to a landfill, a  wastewater storage pond, and a soil land farming area.  The results of the investigation will determine cleanup  needs and identify potential cleanup options at the site.

The Anaconda Copper Mine site covers more than 3,400  acres of the Mason Valley, near the city of Yerington,  Nevada. Portions of the site are owned by a company,  while other areas are public lands managed by the U.S.  Bureau of Land Management. Nevada Department of  Environmental Protection and EPA have conducted  several emergency removal actions at the site to address  immediate concerns. Remedial investigations and  feasibility studies will be conducted to determine the  extent of contamination and potential cleanup options for  other areas at the site.

Site Overview  The Lower Fox River, located in northeastern Wisconsin,  begins at the Menasha and Neenah channels leading  from Lake Winnebago and flows northeast for 39 miles to  where it discharges into Green Bay and Lake Michigan.  The Fox River Natural Resource Damage Assessment /  Polychlorinated Bisphenyls Releases site addresses  releases caused by operations of several pulp and paper  mills that, during the 1950s and 1960s, routinely used  PCBs in their operations that resulted in contamination of  the river. Samples from the site also indicate the  presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons resulting  from manufactured gas plant processes co-mingled or  underneath the PCB contamination.  Approximately  270,000 people live in the communities along the river.  2018 is the 10th year of dredging in the Lower Fox River,  and EPA estimates 450,000 cubic yards of PCB- contaminated sediment will be removed before the end  of the year. In addition, about 2.1 acres of sediment will  be capped and 179 acres will be covered with sand. EPA  plans to oversee a second 5 year review in 2019.

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report (1) examines the extent to which the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) has reliable data identifying National Priorities  List (NPL) sites that are located on tribal property or that affect tribes, (2)  examines the extent to which EPA has reliable data on the agency’s  consultation with tribes and (3) describes what actions, if any, EPA has  taken to address the unique needs of tribes when making decisions about  cleanup actions at NPL sites.

To examine the extent to which EPA has reliable data identifying NPL  sites that are located on tribal property or that affect tribes, we reviewed  relevant provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 as amended and  policies and guidance regarding EPA’s identification and clean-up of NPL  sites. We obtained and evaluated EPA data from the Superfund  Enterprise Management System (SEMS) on proposed, final, and deleted  NPL remedial sites that have tribes associated with them or that EPA has  designated as having Native American Interest (NAI). We limited our  review to examining proposed, final, and deleted NPL sites because they  represent sites with the highest national priority due to the significance of  releases, or threatened releases, of hazardous substances. EPA also  indicated whether such sites may be located within 10 miles of known  tribal property by comparing the sites’ coordinates to the tribal geographic  location as recorded in publicly available EPA data. We also obtained  information about whether a site was considered a federal facility  because other federal agencies may have different consultation policies  than EPA. We did not determine whether EPA has information about  consultation with tribes for sites considered federal facilities.

EPA initially identified 265 NPL Superfund sites that were on tribal  property, had NAI, had a tribe or tribes with potential interest in the site, or  may have been within 10 miles of tribal property. We then worked with  EPA headquarters officials and each regional office to perform data  quality checks and identify any errors or omissions, in order to develop a  revised list of a total of 87 NPL sites—of which 11 were federal facilities— known to affect tribes or to be located on tribal property. As an example of  the data quality checks, officials from each EPA regional office reviewed  the list of sites for their respective regions and made corrections to the  sites’ designation as having NAI or tribes with interest in the sites. As  another example, we compared data from EPA’s Tribal Consultation  Opportunity Tracking System (TCOTS) database with the list of sites EPA  provided us and determined that a tribal consultation had occurred for a  site that EPA had not identified as having NAI. We checked with officials  from the appropriate EPA regional office and they told us that the site  should have been designated as having NAI, so we added it to our list.  We also interviewed officials from EPA’s headquarters and regional  offices to better understand the agency’s management, use, and the  reliability of these data. In providing comments on a draft of this report,  the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation  identified an additional site that was not included in EPA’s data, which we  reviewed with EPA and added to our list of NPL sites known to be on  tribal property or that affect tribes, bringing the total to 88 sites. We  recognize that there may be additional sites at which there is tribal  interest but determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to provide  information on NPL sites known to be on tribal property or that affect  tribes, and to select six sites for nongeneralizable case studies for our  work. We did not select case studies from sites located on federal  facilities because federal agencies may have different tribal consultation  policies. For the case studies, we selected sites based on geographic  diversity, and in order to represent sites that have been listed since the  publication of EPA’s tribal consultation policy in 2011. We also selected  sites that had at least two assessments or inspections performed  according to EPA data so the tribes would have sufficient information to  share with us about their experiences. In one of the case studies, we had  to change to a different site from the same region when the tribe  associated with the site we had initially selected did not wish to  participate. We chose a replacement site in the same EPA region that  was at a similar point in the cleanup process as the site we originally  selected.

To examine whether EPA has reliable data regarding its consultation with  tribes about NPL sites, we reviewed EPA-specific guidance that applies to  tribal consultation on NPL sites. We evaluated data from EPA’s TCOTS,  reviewed related agency documentation, interviewed knowledgeable  agency officials, and compared TCOTS data with other information EPA  provided. Specifically, we compared data from TCOTS with information  that officials from EPA headquarters and each EPA region provided to us  regarding consultation for each of the nonfederal sites that had NAI. In  order to determine the frequency with which EPA consults with tribes on  cleanup actions of NPL sites, we examined and compared available data  on consultation from the TCOTS system with other information provided  by EPA in light of EPA’s consultation guidance. We also interviewed  officials from EPA and selected tribes from our six nongeneralizable case  studies regarding consultation. While we selected case studies based on  nonfederal NPL sites EPA has identified as being on tribal property or  affecting tribes, our interviews with tribal and EPA officials covered a  broader range of sites and included officials’ views about any Superfund  activities in which they had been involved. For each case study, we  requested information documenting EPA’s consultation with tribes as well  as any materials that demonstrated whether and how agency decisions  took into account unique tribal needs associated with the site. We also  conducted semi-structured interviews with officials from the tribe or tribes  involved at each of our case study sites, as well as EPA regional officials  for the region in which the site is located. We visited the Jackpile-Paguate  Uranium Mine site and conducted interviews with tribal officials in person.  We evaluated EPA and tribal officials’ experiences with consultation at  our selected case study sites based on EPA’s consultation policies.

To describe what actions EPA has taken to address the unique needs of  tribes when making decisions about cleanup actions at NPL sites, we  interviewed EPA officials from the regional offices associated with our  selected case study sites about consultation regarding our case study  sites, as well as at other NPL sites that affect tribes in their region. We  also conducted semi-structured interviews with tribal officials who had  consulted or coordinated with EPA regarding each of the selected sites in  our review. We asked the tribes to describe the effects of the site on any  unique needs such as subsistence fishing and gathering, and whether  EPA has explored or addressed these needs during the agency’s cleanup  actions.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2017 to January 2019 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix III: Description of Case Study Sites

To analyze examples of consultation and better understand the tribal  perspective on consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA), we conducted six nongeneralizable case studies of final or  proposed National Priorities List (NPL) sites with Native American Interest  (NAI). We selected these case studies on the basis of geographic  diversity and in order to represent sites that have been listed since the  publication of EPA’s tribal consultation policy in 2011. For each of these  case studies, we collected documentation and interviewed the relevant  tribal and EPA regional officials. Figure 2 provides an overview of these  case studies.

Case Study 1: Creese and Cook Tannery (Former)—EPA Region 1

According to EPA, the Creese and Cook Tannery site is located on the  Crane River in Danvers, Massachusetts. According to an October 2018  proposed cleanup plan, several businesses operated at the site, including  leather tanneries that operated from the late 1800s until the early 1980s  and a former railroad station. Use of arsenic and chromium at tanneries  resulted in these chemicals contaminating soil at the site. Other soil  contaminants include dioxins, furans, and polycyclic aromatic  hydrocarbons from railroad operations, combustion, and use of asphalt  pavement. In the mid-1980s, the Massachusetts Department of  Environmental Protection conducted an initial investigation to determine  the nature and extent of contamination and evaluate the potential  remedial options under state law. The department then reviewed and  approved, pursuant to state law, a plan for excavation of the waste and its  placement in a containment cell. EPA began investigations in 2010 and  found arsenic in surface soils. As a result, in 2012 EPA removed 450 tons  of contaminated soil from the site. EPA conducted six site assessments,  including an archaeological assessment, and placed the site on the NPL  in 2013.

The site is in the early stages of the cleanup process. The feasibility study  for the site was completed in September 2018, and EPA issued a cleanup  proposal for comment in October 2018. According to information provided  by EPA, the site has not yet reached any Superfund site-wide milestones  because the remedial action has not begun.

EPA officials stated that both the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and  Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) have expressed interest in  the site due to possible adverse impacts on significant cultural resources  in the contaminated area. EPA officials told us they notified both tribes of  the site concurrently with notification to the Massachusetts Historical  Commission in August 2014. In a consultation response form dated  September 2014, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe indicated that the  cleanup has the potential to have adverse effects on historical or cultural  resources important to the tribe and requested that the tribe be notified  prior to any archaeological activity on-site, and that they be provided any  archaeological assessment documents.

EPA’s Consultation and Coordination with the Tribes for the Site

The National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take  into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties,  including properties to which Indian tribes attach religious and cultural  significance. According to EPA Region 1 officials, they are consulting  with both tribes under the act. EPA sent an archaeological survey to the  tribes in June 2017. Officials from the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe  indicated that they agree with the survey’s findings and required that  consultation continue. EPA officials told us that the Wampanoag Tribe of  Gay Head (Aquinnah) did not comment on the assessment. Both tribes  have asked EPA to inform them of cleanup status for the site and share  any reports.

Perspectives of Tribal and EPA Officials on Consultation and Coordination for the Site

EPA officials told us they were consulting with both tribes under section  106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Officials also told us that  EPA will negotiate a memorandum of understanding with both tribes once  the final cleanup is selected, if it is determined that the selected remedy  will have an adverse effect on any resources that are eligible for the  National Register of Historic Places. With regard to coordination, both  tribes noted that resource constraints prevent their further involvement  with the site cleanup process. Officials from the Wampanoag of Gay  Head (Aquinnah) tribe indicated that EPA has been available for  discussions if the tribe raises an issue.

Case Study 2: General Motors (Central Foundry Division)—EPA Region 2

The General Motors (Central Foundry Division) site is located on the St.  Lawrence River in Massena, New York, adjacent to the Saint Regis  Mohawk Tribe’s reservation. According to an EPA document, General  Motors operated an aluminum die casting plant on the site beginning in  1959 and used polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) in the manufacturing  process through 1980. EPA found contamination in soils and industrial  lagoons on the General Motors site property, in groundwater, in the St.  Lawrence and Raquette Rivers, in Turtle Cove, and in soils and sediment  within the Saint Regis Mohawk reservation. After General Motors’  bankruptcy, ownership of the site was transferred to a trust. This General  Motors site was placed on the Superfund NPL in September 1983.

According to information provided by EPA, the cleanup of the General  Motors site is ongoing, with the last substantial cleanup of the Remedial  Design and Remedial Action phase focused on a 10-million-gallon  industrial lagoon. To date, contractors have dredged sediment in the St.  Lawrence River, Turtle Cove, and Raquette River systems. EPA officials  told us that, in addition to these dredging activities, they have completed  other significant cleanup work, including installation of a groundwater  collection system, installation of a multi-layer cap on the industrial landfill  on-site, and demolition of the 1-million-square-foot factory building, EPA  officials stated that consultation with the tribe led to excavating a portion  of the industrial landfill in order to establish a 150-foot buffer between a  landfill on the site and the tribe’s reservation. EPA declared human  exposure to contaminants at the site under control in 2008. EPA officials  told us there is no requirement to consult with tribes to determine that  site-wide milestones have been reached, and that the Saint Regis  Mohawk Tribe was not consulted regarding the designation of human  exposure under control. Tribal officials do not agree with this  determination and stated that EPA has not asked the tribe for any input  on this measure. EPA officials responded that while EPA did not consult  with the tribe on the human exposure under control environmental  indicator, they coordinated extensively with the tribe with respect to  cleanup status, strategy, and site-wide milestones prior to making the  designation.

Tribal officials noted concern regarding contamination of tribal property  and the effect on subsistence fishing in the St. Lawrence River and tribal  member health. The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe is concerned that PCB  contamination from the site is airborne and affecting the health of tribal  members. Further, the tribe is concerned that PCB accumulation in fish  tissue results in fish that are unsafe to eat in the quantities typically  consumed by tribal members who rely on subsistence fishing. See figure  3 below for a fish consumption advisory issued by the tribe because of  PCB contamination concerns. Tribal officials also told us the tribe is  concerned that PCBs may be transferred through breast milk, exposing  future generations to the contamination. Tribal officials told us that tribal  members also complain of a strong odor emanating from the site, and  have advocated for the tribe to take a more active role in the site cleanup.

EPA’s Consultation and Coordination with the Tribe for the Site

According to EPA, the agency sent an official consultation letter to the  tribe in 2011, as directed by EPA’s 2011 Policy on Consultation and  Coordination with Indian Tribes. Consultations with the tribe focused on  the tribal role in the cleanup process at the General Motors (Central  Foundry Division) site, as well as the Alcoa Aggregation and Reynolds  Metals sites, which also affect the tribe. EPA officials told us they have  responded to tribal concerns, in part, by agreeing to a stricter treatment  threshold for maximum allowable PCB contamination (10 parts per million  instead of 500 parts per million), based on the tribe’s objection to the  originally-proposed plan. EPA officials also told us that they have  responded to tribal concerns by adopting practices to mitigate air  contamination during response activities, such as minimizing the size of  excavation areas to reduce potential exposure and wetting contaminated  soils before removal. EPA officials told us that coordination with the tribe  began in the 1980s, and that the region coordinates extensively with the  Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. Additionally, these officials told us that,  through annual meetings with tribes in the region and periodic visits to  individual tribes, they coordinate with all tribes in the region, including the  Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, at least once a year. In technical comments  provided in response to the draft of this report, EPA officials told us that  the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe has been treated as a support agency,  equivalent to the state of New York, since 1995, and that the tribe has  been asked to concur on all records of decision for the site as early as  1990, though they have not always concurred.

Tribal and EPA officials have differing perspectives on the effectiveness  or utility of consultation. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe officials noted that  they have met repeatedly with EPA over the years but the consultation  has felt perfunctory and like a “box checking exercise.” Tribal officials  stated that EPA did not consider their input as seriously as General  Motors’ input, and they believe that EPA is over-reliant on the initial  research conducted by scientists from the company, and has not  sufficiently considered updated and independent research. Saint Regis  Mohawk tribal officials noted that EPA did not recognize tribal members’  stronger reliance on the environment and exposure to contamination. The  tribe also provided us with examples of less formal coordination with EPA,  including a letter from EPA responding to tribal officials’ requests for  additional air monitoring at the site.

EPA Region 2 officials stated that consultation with the Saint Regis  Mohawk Tribe has become more extensive and sophisticated since the  issuance of the 2011 tribal consultation policy. The region held a  consultation with the tribe in 2011 to address coordination with the tribe  about three Superfund sites. In a summary of that consultation, EPA  noted that they will take steps to further the tribe’s partnership role with  respect to the three sites by providing as much time and opportunity as  feasible for consultation, consistent with the mutual desire to move the  cleanups forward expeditiously; continuing to share, for advance review,  drafts of pertinent documents; consulting with the tribe prior to taking  actions or implementing decisions that may affect the tribe’s interests;  inviting tribal officials to technical meetings where potentially responsible  parties and other trustees are present; and informing the tribe of the  results of meetings or substantive decisions with any potentially  responsible party. Further, EPA officials noted that they cannot fulfill  some requests made by the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe; however, EPA  officials stated that tribal activism led to a more stringent 10 parts-per- million treatment threshold for PCBs on the site, rather than the originally  proposed 500 parts-per-million standard. EPA also provided  documentation of less-formal coordination with the tribe, including  correspondence regarding approaches to addressing the tribe’s concerns  of PCB air impacts during cleanup.

Case Study 3: Petoskey Manufacturing Company (PMC) Groundwater—EPA Region 5 General Information on the Site

According to information provided by EPA, the PMC Groundwater site is  located in a former industrial area on the shores of Lake Michigan’s Little  Traverse Bay in Petoskey, Michigan. PMC was established in 1946 as a  small fabricating and painting business that later produced parts for the  automotive industry until 2000. During this period PMC improperly  disposed of solvents used in plant operations, contaminating groundwater  and Petoskey’s municipal well with volatile organic compounds and  inorganic contaminants.

According to EPA officials, the agency has gone through several rounds  of cleanups at PMC Groundwater. EPA initially listed the PMC  Groundwater site on the NPL in 1983. The City of Petoskey completed  construction of a new municipal water source in 1996. EPA began  cleanup in 1999 and declared the site as ready for anticipated use in  2007; the site was subsequently redeveloped with condominiums. In the  site’s 2014 5-year review, EPA noted that the remedies they had put in  place, including excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil,  installation and operation of a system to remove volatile organic  compounds from subsurface soil, and a groundwater monitoring plan,  were protective of human health and the environment in the short term,  but that an effective long-term remedy would require additional steps.  According to EPA officials, EPA is conducting a remedial investigation  and feasibility study to determine the nature and extent of soil and  groundwater contamination, which is expected to be completed in 2019.  According to EPA officials, in 2016, EPA fieldwork indicated that  trichloroethene concentrations exceeded acceptable levels under some  condominiums’ slab foundations, and in 2017, EPA conducted an  emergency removal action to address the intrusion of the vapors.

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians officials told us the tribe’s  interest in the site is due to potential exposure of tribal members and the  effects on nearby surface waters. Tribal members rely on subsistence  fishing in the Bear River in close proximity to the site. These officials also  told us the tribe also conducts commercial fishing in Lake Michigan. Tribal  members residing in Petoskey relied on the contaminated municipal well.  Additionally, tribal officials told us that they want to understand the status  of the site because they may be interested in future land acquisitions in  the area and the U.S. Department of the Interior may not be willing to take  contaminated land into trust for the tribe.

According to tribal officials, the tribe contacted EPA officials in 2017 when  local news reported vapor intrusion issues into condominiums built on the  site. Neither tribal officials nor EPA have found any indication of previous  consultation or coordination for the site. Since the tribe’s initial contact,  EPA officials have shared relevant information and spoken with the tribe  regarding the site. EPA officials told us that representatives from the tribe  attended a public meeting about the site in June 2018 and that EPA is in  close contact with an official from the tribe and will provide him with  reports as appropriate.

According to EPA and tribal officials, EPA has not consulted with the tribe  about the site. With respect to coordination, tribal officials told us that they  were satisfied with EPA’s response following the tribe’s initial contact.  EPA officials told us that the tribe is aware that consultation is available if  the tribe desires it, and officials will coordinate with the tribe. EPA officials  stated that the relationship with tribes in the region has evolved  considerably since the 1990s and that coordination with tribes in the  region has improved.

Case Study 4: Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine— Region 6 General Information on the Site

According to information provided by EPA, the Jackpile-Paguate Uranium  mine is a 2,656-acre site located on the Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico,  about 40 miles west of Albuquerque. Anaconda Copper Mining and The  Anaconda Company, predecessors to the Atlantic Richfield Company,  moved more than 400 million tons of rock within the mine between 1952  and 1982 area in addition to 25 million tons of uranium ore off-site for  additional processing. Mining operations contaminated surface water with  hazardous substances. Additionally, according to a report by the U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services, people living in villages near  the site could be exposed to contamination through radioactive materials  from the site being used in home construction, or through contact with  mine contaminants suspended in air or present in dust blown or tracked  from the mine. Reclamation of the mine began in 1990 and was closed  out in June 1995; however, EPA was not involved in the initial reclamation  prior to the site being listed on the NPL. Figure 5 is a photograph of  Gavalon Mesa, one of the major mining areas at the site, and erosion  typical to a previously reclaimed area.

EPA listed the site on the NPL in 2013. EPA officials conducted four  assessments at the site. The site is currently in its remedial investigation  and feasibility study stage, and the site has not met any site-wide  milestones.

The site is located within the boundaries of the Pueblo of Laguna’s  reservation. Pueblo of Laguna officials stated that the site impacted the  Pueblo in several ways, including radon contamination in homes due to  use of contaminated mining debris in home construction, contamination of  water sources, and dust from mining operations reaching homes and  gardens.

EPA’s Consultation and Coordination with the Pueblo for the Site

EPA officials stated that neither EPA nor the Pueblo of Laguna have  initiated consultation for the Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine under the  2011 consultation policy. EPA consulted with the tribe for the site in 2009,  which resulted in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to facilitate  coordination in performing removals and site assessments for the site.  According to EPA officials, once the remedial investigation and feasibility  study is complete, they will seek to consult with the tribe before making a  decision about cleanup goals. EPA officials noted that the agency has  consistently coordinated with the tribe, including regular briefings to the  tribe and working closely with the tribe’s Environmental and Natural  Resources Department since EPA became involved at the site. In  addition, the tribe is a support agency for the site—which means EPA  must provide the tribe substantial and meaningful involvement in the  initiation, development, and selection of the remedial action at the site.  The Pueblo has a Superfund support contract with EPA to facilitate its  support agency work helping EPA perform oversight of the response  work, and reviewing and commenting on EPA documents, according to  EPA officials.

Perspectives of Pueblo and EPA Officials on Consultation and Coordination for the Site

Pueblo officials told us that they have been satisfied with the coordination  for the site, and they prefer that coordination be face-to-face when  possible. Officials told us that consultation requires a senior EPA official  to present in person to the Pueblo Council, and all other interactions are  considered coordination. According to the Pueblo, coordination with EPA  has been effective, in part, because EPA acknowledges that site  contamination extends beyond the mine lease boundaries.

EPA officials told us that they are in frequent communication with the  Pueblo. EPA officials noted that they hold regular briefings with tribal  officials, as well as through routine electronic and phone communication.  EPA officials noted that coordination with the tribe early in the Superfund  cleanup process facilitates their work. For example, since the site is on  tribal property, EPA worked with the Pueblo to gain site access to  investigate the extent of the contamination.

Case Study 5: Smurfit-Stone Mill Frenchtown—Region 8

According to information provided by EPA, the Smurfit Stone Mill- Frenchtown site is a 3,200-acre area located northwest of Missoula,  Montana. The site was originally a pulp mill operated from 1957 through  2010. It includes more than 900 acres of unlined ponds that were used to  store wastewater effluent from the mill, as well as sludge recovered from  untreated wastewater. Contamination includes dioxins and furans  produced through bleaching of pulp, as well as PCBs.

EPA proposed to add the site to the NPL in 2013 and is evaluating public  comments on the proposal before making a final decision. EPA  negotiated an administrative settlement agreement and order on consent  in 2015 with three potentially responsible parties to conduct a remedial  investigation and feasibility study at the site. EPA officials told us that  these parties have completed several site tasks contributing to the  remedial investigation and feasibility study for the site.

Both the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead  Reservation and the Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel  Reservation (hereafter Kalispel or Kalispel Indian Community) have  interest in the site. Officials from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai  Tribes of the Flathead Reservation stated that their interest in the site is  drawn from the Hellgate Treaty of 1855. According to these officials, the  site is located on land where the tribes retain treaty hunting, fishing, and  gathering rights in portions of the Clark Fork River that are potentially  contaminated by the site. The two tribes are concerned about adverse  health impacts on tribal members due to exposure through consumption  of fish from near and downstream from the site and ensuring that tribal  cultural and historical resources are protected during cleanup activities.  Officials from the Kalispel Indian Community believe that contaminants  from the site and throughout the watershed have reached its reservation  in Northeast Washington. These contaminants may affect tribal members’  nutrition and exercise of their culture. The tribe would like EPA to sample  for contamination from Smurfit Stone Mill further down the Clark Fork  River to the areas where the Kalispel have interest.

According to EPA officials, EPA has not consulted with the tribes but has  coordinated with the natural resource trustees, which include the  Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and told us they have also  coordinated with the Kalispel Indian Community. EPA officials told us that  coordination with the Kalispel Indian Community differs from coordination  with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes because the Kalispel  do not have treaty rights at the site. Region 8 notified the Confederated  Salish and Kootenai Tribes about the site in 2014, but told us they did not  send corresponding notification to the Kalispel Indian Community  because they had not been identified as having tribal interest during the  preliminary assessment and site investigation. EPA officials told us the  reason they have not yet consulted with the tribes under the 2011 policy  is that the site is still being characterized. According to officials from the  Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, they were first informed of the  site by the Missoula County Water Quality district in 2012. Officials from  this tribe told us that in December 2012, they sent a letter to the state  Governor supporting NPL listing for the site, and also indicated their  support of NPL listing to EPA when responding to a Federal Register  notification indicating EPA’s intent to add the site to the NPL. EPA  officials told us that the agency wants to improve communication with the  tribes by scheduling quarterly calls, site visits, and offering opportunities  to review and comment on documents produced during the remedial  investigation process.

Officials from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have been  dissatisfied with the extent of coordination with EPA. Specifically, they  told us that EPA has not provided the tribes with sufficient information to  engage in the cleanup process in a meaningful way. For example,  officials stated EPA did not involve them when EPA entered into the  administrative settlement agreement and order on consent to conduct the  remedial investigation and feasibility study. Tribal officials told us that this  experience is inconsistent with other Superfund sites where EPA has  given the tribes greater opportunity for meaningful input.

EPA officials told us they coordinated with the interested tribes through  communications with the natural resources trustees in the region as a  whole. EPA officials told us that they officially notified the tribes about the  site after the preliminary assessment and site investigation, and that they  typically do not issue a trustee notification letter or invite tribes to consult  until after EPA completes a preliminary assessment. Officials told us that  the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes was notified at the same  point as other natural resource trustees, and that this was sufficiently  early to allow for meaningful input because it occurred prior to any major  decisions.

According to Kalispel tribal officials, coordination with EPA has been  limited. Kalispel tribal officials told us that they have faced some  difficulties coordinating with EPA about the site because they are located  in EPA Region 10, while the site is managed by EPA Region 8. One tribal  official we spoke with expressed that he felt EPA may be trying to exclude  the Kalispel Indian Community from cleanup decisions at the site. For  example, this official told us that the tribe had requested that EPA Region  8 extend their water sampling area further downstream on the Clark Fork  River to determine the extent of releases from the site, but that EPA  issued its sampling plan without taking the tribe’s concerns into account.  However, these officials told us that they are developing their relationship  with EPA region 8. They also told us that coordination with EPA is  valuable, and that they consider consultation as a tool to be employed  when coordination is insufficient.

Region 8 officials acknowledged the letter from the natural resource  trustees requesting a stronger role in decision-making and highlighted  improvements EPA has made to communication. Further, officials cited  several actions to demonstrate their commitment to working with the  tribes: evaluating the berms at the site, as the Confederated Salish and  Kootenai Tribes requested; evaluating contamination’s impact on tribal  health through fish consumption patterns; and responding in writing to  natural resource trustee letters. However, EPA considers the role of the  Kalispel Indian Community in the cleanup to be different because that  tribe does not have treaty rights within the site boundaries. EPA officials  stated that they keep the tribe informed of meetings and invite them to  site visits. Figure 6 shows the berms during a high-water event in 2011  and a portion of a berm indicated to be in poor condition by the work plan  for the remedial investigation and feasibility study in 2017.

The Midnite Mine site is a former open-pit uranium mine located in  eastern Washington state on the Spokane Indian Reservation, near  Wellpinit, Washington. According to information from EPA, Dawn Mining  Company and Newmont USA Limited operated an open-pit uranium mine  intermittently between 1955 and 1981. During mining operations, over 33  million tons of rock was blasted and excavated to access uranium ore.  The waste was dumped in piles, used to fill mine pits, or spread on the  surface. About 2.4 million tons of ore and near ore-grade rocks were also  stockpiled at the mine in anticipation of later processing. The former mine  site includes approximately 350 acres directly affected by mine  operations, as well as affected groundwater, surface water, and sediment.  Hazardous substances released at the site as a result of mining include  numerous metals and radio-nuclides. Key contaminants of concern that  EPA identified in the human health risk assessment for the site include  uranium, radium, lead, and manganese.

According to EPA, construction of the remedies is currently under way for  the site. EPA listed the site on the NPL in 2000 and performed the  remedial investigation and feasibility study from 1998 through 2006. In  2012, the potentially responsible parties and the United States agreed to  a consent decree that required the potentially responsible parties to  develop a design for and implement the remedial action at the site. No  site-wide milestones have been met.

According to tribal officials, the Spokane Tribe of Indians is interested in  the effect of contamination from the site on subsistence hunting and  fishing, particularly elk and rainbow trout, respectively. Tribal officials  stated that contamination from the mine flows into Blue Creek, which  impacts the tribe’s ability to conduct traditional practices such as sweat  lodges. Tribal officials stated their ultimate goal would be for the site to be  sufficiently clean for wildlife to safely live on the site, for fish to thrive in  water adjacent to the site, and for the tribe to resume its traditional  hunting and gathering activities in the area.

EPA consulted with the Spokane Tribe of Indians in June 2013 regarding  a potential change to water treatment practices. Tribal officials stated the  tribe is pleased that the new water treatment plant will operate year-round  and will discharge treated water via a pipe into Lake Roosevelt, which is a  larger body of water with less direct impact on the tribe’s natural  resources. In addition, tribal officials stated that EPA invited the tribe to  consult at other times but the tribe did not think it was necessary.

Tribal officials told us that their coordination with EPA has resulted in  more consideration of the natural resources and hopefully a fuller  remediation of the site. For example, EPA applied the tribe’s more  stringent water quality standards to discharge from the site, which EPA  supported by providing technical assistance to the tribe during the  development and approval processes. Spokane tribal officials stated that  during the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study phase, EPA’s  program manager offered to consult with the tribe at various points, which  the tribe declined because the tribe felt they had sufficient interactions  with EPA. The Superfund cleanup process has been a learning process  for tribal officials but, overall, the tribe is pleased with the result and the  open exchange of information with EPA.

Speaking generally, EPA officials noted that the 2011 consultation policy  has had a positive effect on the frequency of consultation with tribes in  the region. The policy has led Superfund remedial project managers to  more routinely invite tribes to consult.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix V: Comments from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation

Appendix VI: Comments from the Pueblo of Laguna

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements

In addition to the individual named above, Barbara Patterson (Assistant  Director), Emily Norman (Analyst-in-Charge), Matthew Bond, John  Delicath, Justin Fisher, Andrew Furillo, Jeanette Soares, Ruth Solomon,  Sara Sullivan, and Kiki Theodoropoulos made significant contributions to  this report.

EPA's National Priorities List sites are some of the most contaminated places in the country. They may pose unique challenges for Indian tribes. For example, toxic substances in 2 New York rivers pose a threat to one tribe’s health and its subsistence lifestyle, which includes fishing.

EPA has a policy to consult with tribes if its efforts to deal with these sites may affect them. In some cases, consultation is a legal mandate. However, we found the databases EPA uses to track sites and tribal consultations are sometimes inaccurate.

We made 4 recommendations, including that EPA improve its data and clarify its guidance on consultations.