United States 

Environmental Protection 

Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

 September 2012

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Support Document for the 

Revised National Priorities List 

Final Rule – Alabama Plating Company, Inc.
Support Document for the

Revised National Priorities List

Final Rule

Alabama Plating Company, Inc.

September 2012

Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch

Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... iii

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. iv

Background of the NPL........................................................................................................................... iv

Development of the NPL......................................................................................................................... iv

Hazard Ranking System ........................................................................................................................... v

Other Mechanisms for Listing................................................................................................................. vi

Organization of this Document............................................................................................................... vii

Glossary.................................................................................................................................................. vii

1. List of Commenters and Correspondence ....................................................................................... 1

2. Site Description ............................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 Summary of Comments................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Support for Listing ....................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Due Process/Site Access............................................................................................................... 5

3.2.1 Access to Site ........................................................................................................................5

3.2.2 Due Process...........................................................................................................................8

3.3 Validity of Information................................................................................................................. 9

3.3.1 Formal Workplan.................................................................................................................10

3.3.2 Reliable/Probative/Substantial Evidence.............................................................................11

3.4 Consideration of Removal.......................................................................................................... 12

3.5 Response Action......................................................................................................................... 13

3.6 Scoring of Multiple Pathways .................................................................................................... 15

3.7 Removal Consideration in Scoring............................................................................................. 16

4. Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 16

Attachment A – Letter from Wm. Gerald Hardy, Chief, Land Division, Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management, to Franklin Hill, Director, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Re: EPA Letter Proposing Path Forward for Site Completion for Alabama Plating, 

March 2, 2012. 

Attachment B – POLREP #90 and Final, May 16, 2001.

Attachment C – Annotated HRS Scoresheets
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

iii

Executive Summary

Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the EPA prepare a list of national 

priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants throughout the United States. An original National Priorities List (NPL) was promulgated 

on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). CERCLA requires that the EPA update the list at least annually.

This document provides responses to public comments received on the Alabama Plating Company, Inc. 

site, proposed on August 24, 2000 (65 FR 51567). This site is being added to the NPL based on an 

evaluation under the EPA’s Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal 

Register in September 2012.
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

iv

Introduction

This document explains the rationale for adding the Alabama Plating Company, Inc. site in Vincent, Alabama, to 

the National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and also provides the responses to public 

comments received on this site. The EPA proposed this site on August 24, 2000 (65 FR 51567). This site is being 

added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the 

Federal Register in September 2012.

Background of the NPL

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq. in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. 

CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), 

Public Law No. 99-499, stat., 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National 

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 

31180), pursuant to CERCLA Section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The 

NCP, further revised by the EPA on September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37624) and November 20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), 

sets forth guidelines and procedures needed to respond under CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. On March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666), the EPA further revised the 

NCP in response to SARA.

Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the NCP include 

criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United 

States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, take into account 

the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.

Removal action involves cleanup or other actions that are taken in response to emergency conditions or on a 

short-term or temporary basis (CERCLA Section 101). Remedial action is generally long-term in nature and 

involves response actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA Section 101). 

Criteria for placing sites on the NPL, which makes them eligible for remedial actions financed by the Trust Fund 

established under CERCLA, were included in the HRS. The EPA promulgated the HRS as Appendix A of the 

NCP (47 FR 31219, July 16, 1982). On December 14, 1990 (56 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the 

HRS in response to SARA, and established the effective date for the HRS revisions as March 15, 1991.

Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that the statutory criteria provided by the HRS be used to 

prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, 

pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix B of the NCP, is the NPL.

An original NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). At that time, an HRS score 

of 28.50 was established as the cutoff for listing because it yielded an initial NPL of at least 400 sites, as 

suggested by CERCLA. The NPL has been expanded several times since then, most recently on May 10, 2012 (77 

FR 27368). The Agency also has published a number of proposed rulemakings to add sites to the NPL. The most 

recent proposal was on March 15, 2012 (77 FR 515344).

Development of the NPL

The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 [1980]).
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

v

The priority list serves primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and the public 

those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions. Inclusion of a 

facility or site on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or 

operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it assign liability to 

any person. Subsequent government actions will be necessary in order to do so, and these actions 

will be attended by all appropriate procedural safeguards.

The NPL, therefore, is primarily an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for the NPL is 

intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature 

and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites the EPA 

believes warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the extent potentially responsible parties are 

identifiable at the time of listing, serve as notice to such parties that the Agency may initiate CERCLA-financed 

remedial action.

CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs the EPA to list priority sites among the known releases or threatened 

release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and Section 105(a)(8)(A) directs the EPA to 

consider certain enumerated and other appropriate factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of policy, the EPA has 

the discretion not to use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases. Where other authorities exist, placing 

sites on the NPL for possible remedial action under CERCLA may not be appropriate. Therefore, the EPA has 

chosen not to place certain types of sites on the NPL even though CERCLA does not exclude such action. If, 

however, the Agency later determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy are not being properly responded 

to, the Agency may consider placing them on the NPL.

Hazard Ranking System

The HRS is the principle mechanism the EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a 

numerically based screening system that uses information from initial, limited investigations -- the preliminary 

assessment and site inspection -- to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to human health or the 

environment. HRS scores, however, do not determine the sequence in which the EPA funds remedial response 

actions, because the information collected to develop HRS scores is not sufficient in itself to determine either the 

extent of contamination or the appropriate response for a particular site. Moreover, the sites with the highest 

scores do not necessarily come to the Agency's attention first, so that addressing sites strictly on the basis of 

ranking would in some cases require stopping work at sites where it was already underway. Thus, the EPA relies 

on further, more detailed studies in the remedial investigation/feasibility study that typically follows listing.

The HRS uses a structured value analysis approach to scoring sites. This approach assigns numerical values to 

factors that relate to or indicate risk, based on conditions at the site. The factors are grouped into three categories.

Each category has a maximum value. The categories are:

• likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the 

environment;

• characteristics of the waste (toxicity and waste quantity); and

• people or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release.

Under the HRS, four pathways can be scored for one or more threats as identified below:
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

vi

• Ground Water Migration (Sgw)

- drinking water

• Surface Water Migration (Ssw) 

The following threats are evaluated for two separate migration components, overland/flood migration and 

ground water to surface water.

- drinking water

- human food chain

- sensitive environments

• Soil Exposure (Ss)

- resident population

- nearby population

- sensitive environments

• Air Migration (Sa)

- population

- sensitive environments

After scores are calculated for one or more pathways according to prescribed guidelines, they are combined using 

the following root-mean-square equation to determine the overall site score (S), which ranges from 0 to 100:

If all pathway scores are low, the HRS score is low. However, the HRS score can be relatively high even if only 

one pathway score is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring because some extremely dangerous 

sites pose threats through only one pathway. For example, buried leaking drums of hazardous substances can 

contaminate drinking water wells, but -- if the drums are buried deep enough and the substances not very volatile 

-- not surface water or air.

Other Mechanisms for Listing

There are two mechanisms other than the HRS by which sites can be placed on the NPL. The first of these 

mechanisms, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2), allows each State and Territory to designate one 

site as its highest priority regardless of score. The last mechanism, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 

300.425(c)(3), allows listing a site if it meets the following three requirements:

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has 

issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release;

• EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and

• EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its emergency 

removal authority to respond to the site.

4

S + S +S +S S =

2

a 2s 2sw 2gw
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

vii

Organization of this Document

The following section contains the EPA responses to site-specific public comments received on the proposal of 

the Alabama Plating Company, Inc. site on August 24, 2000 (65 FR 51567). The site discussion begins with a list 

of commenters, followed by a site description, a summary of comments, and Agency responses to each comment. 

A concluding statement indicates the effect of the comments on the HRS score for the site.

Glossary

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used throughout the text: 

ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management

Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

APA Administrative Procedure Act

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 

U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq., also known as Superfund

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, also USEPA

ERT Emergency Response Team

FR Federal Register

Gallet Gallet & Associates

HRS Hazard Ranking System, Appendix A of the NCP

HRS score Overall site score calculated using the Hazard Ranking System; ranges from 0 to 100

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300

NPL National Priorities List, Appendix B of the NCP

PRP Potentially Responsible Party

QA Quality Assurance

RI/FS Remedial investigation/feasibility study

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SI Site inspection

XRF X-Ray Fluorescence
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

1

1. List of Commenters and Correspondence

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0002-0004 Comment submitted by Richard Eldon Davis of Cabaniss, 

Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O’Neal on behalf of Alabama 

Plating Company, Inc., James M. Rowe, Jr. and J. Marvin Rowe, 

III, dated October 20, 2000, with Exhibit A, October 18, 2000, 

comments of Gallet & Associates, Inc., and Exhibit B, 

correspondence regarding Alabama Plating Company, Inc.’s 

request to obtain site access.

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0002-0007 Comment submitted by James W. Warr, Director, Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management, on behalf of the 

State of Alabama, dated July 28, 2000.

2. Site Description

Alabama Plating Company, Inc. (Alabama Plating Company; the Site) is located one mile to the north and within 

the city limits of Vincent, Shelby County, Alabama. The Site consists of releases to ground water and surface

water from four sources on the Alabama Plating Company facility property. The sources are backfilled surface 

impoundments, a zinc dross pile, sand filter beds and associated piles of material, and contaminated soil in two 

areas of the facility. The facility property comprises just over 5 acres divided into 2 parcels at the intersection of 

State Highway 231 and County Road 60. There is a public water supply spring serving approximately 2,300 

persons located between 0.25 and 0.50 mile from the sources at the Site. (See Figure 1.)

Alabama Plating Company began operations at this facility in 1956, at which time it incorporated both hot-dip 

galvanizing and electroplating. These processes generate hazardous constituents including heavy metals, sulfide 

waste, corrosive liquids, and cyanide generated during plating and galvanizing. Untreated process wastewater and, 

later, effluent from wastewater treatment at the facility were discharged throughout the facility’s operational 

history into an unnamed stream that flows along the eastern portion of the facility property. This unnamed stream 

flows approximately 0.75 mile before entering Spring Creek. The plating processes were reportedly discontinued 

in 1986; hot-dip galvanizing continued until the facility ceased operations in 1996. 

During the 1980s the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) periodically conducted 

ground water sampling of permanent monitoring wells at the Alabama Plating Company facility. Levels of 

cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and cyanide above their respective Maximum Contaminant 

Levels (MCLs) were detected in the onsite monitoring wells. Metals contamination was detected in all onsite 

monitoring wells during ADEM sampling events conducted periodically between 1993 and 1998. An observed 

release to ground water was scored using portions of these data.

The results of a 1999 sampling investigation conducted in Spring Creek downstream of the Site documented an 

observed release of metals to surface water for scoring purposes. A portion of the zone of actual contamination is 

documented as a human food chain fishery.

During 1999 - 2000, the EPA conducted a time-critical removal action at the Alabama Plating Company main 

facility. The removal action included removal of four 55-gallon drums plus 80.14 tons of zinc dross; removal of 

sludge from the sand filter beds along with removal of the associated piles; removal of 44,190.14 tons of 

contaminated soil; and excavation of the backfilled impoundments. Figure 2 shows the historic site layout and the 

primary features removed as part of the time-critical removal action. The removal action removed much of the 
Alabama Plating Co., Inc. 

= Vincent water supply spring 

= Background sediment sample 

= Observed release sediment sample 

= Probable point of entry (PPE) 

FIGURE 1 

Alabama Plating Co., Inc. 

Facility Location, Spring and Sediment Samples Map 

Base map is a portion of the 2011 USGS Topographic Quadragle Map, Vincent, Alabama 
231 

231 

60 

60 

Elliott Lane 

Calvary Street 

FIGURE 2 

Alabama Plating Co., Inc. 

Former Site Features and Monitoring Well Locations 

Intermittent Stream 

Sludge Pile 

Zinc Dross Pile 

Sand Electroplating/ Filters 

MW-7 

Galvanizing Bldg 

Wastewater MW-1 

Impoundments 

Galvanizing

Bldg 

Treatment 

MW-2 

Observed Release 

Monitoring Well MW-12 
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

4

waste at the sources; however, it did not address contamination that had migrated from the sources and came to be 

located elsewhere on the Site.

The Alabama Plating Company site was proposed to be added to the National Priorities List (NPL) on August 24, 

2000 (65 FR 51567). 

In November 2002, the EPA conducted a Remedial Investigation, installing and sampling 7 shallow ground water 

wells, and collecting 9 surface and subsurface soil samples from Alabama Plating Company. In addition, the EPA 

collected 10 surface water and sediment samples from the unnamed stream and 3 surface water and sediment

samples from Spring Creek. The results of the RI revealed that inorganic contamination is still impacting shallow 

ground water on the property, as well as the unnamed stream and Spring Creek downstream of the influence of 

the unnamed stream.

The EPA has continued periodic sampling of ground water at the Site since 2004. Data from 2006 and later 

continue to show violations of the MCLs for lead, cadmium, chromium, cyanide and mercury. In January 2010, 

the EPA wrote a letter to ADEM requesting deferral of the Site to the State while the State oversaw needed 

cleanup actions. The State responded that it did not have the funding to conduct the needed cleanup itself, and that 

the current site owner would have to be willing to conduct the cleanup if the site were placed in its Voluntary 

Cleanup Program. The EPA entered into a Consent Decree with three defendants for the site to pay a $720,000 

settlement amount in 2009, and the cost recovery case was closed. The only other potentially responsible parties 

(PRPs) for this Site might be two entities which purchased the Main facility and a Satellite facility properties at 

tax sales. The EPA is working to determine if those entities are PRPs. Based on this information, the EPA 

requested the State’s concurrence on listing the Site as final on the NPL.

3.0 Summary of Comments

On July 28, 2000, ADEM sent a letter conveying the State of Alabama’s support for continuation of the process 

for the proposed listing of the site. 

One commenter submitted comments in opposition to placing the Alabama Plating Company site on the NPL. On 

October 20, 2000, Mr. Richard Eldon Davis of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O’Neal submitted 

comments on behalf of Alabama Plating Company, Inc. (Alabama Plating) opposing placement of the Alabama 

Plating Company site on the National Priorities List. Alabama Plating’s comments included Exhibit A, comments 

of Gallet & Associates (Gallet) via a letter to Mr. Davis, and Exhibit B, correspondence between the EPA and 

Alabama Plating’s attorneys regarding facility access and provision of split samples to Alabama Plating. 

Alabama Plating commented that the HRS package does not take into consideration the effect of the excavation 

and removal of contaminated soil at the Site. Alabama Plating asserted that this removal action 

substantially reduced threat to human health and the environment, and that this reduction of risk was not 

appropriately factored into the Site’s HRS score. Alabama Plating expressed that, had the effect of the removal 

been appropriately considered, there is reason to believe that the Site would have scored under the listing 

threshold. 

Alabama Plating stated that the HRS package is based on information-gathering by the EPA that was not

conducted in accordance with a formal workplan nor pursuant to an integrated approach. While stating that a 

workplan is not required for this type of response action, Alabama Plating asserted that the time was available and 

the amount of money spent justified preparation of a workplan, adding that without a workplan with specific goals 

it is difficult to evaluate whether the removal action conducted was reasonable and cost effective. While stating 

that the HRS scores seem appropriately calculated for the data shown, Alabama Plating considers it would have 

been appropriate to develop new data, collected after the removal action, to score the Site and that the soil 

contaminant levels would have been significantly lower. Alabama Plating expressed that since the EPA seems to 
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

5

consider ground water contamination enough of a concern to warrant placing the Site on the NPL, ground water 

monitoring (and possibly remediation or interception) probably should have been actively pursued during and 

after the removal action and prior to completion of the HRS evaluation.

 

Alabama Plating claimed that its environmental consultants were not allowed access to the Site, so the company’s 

ability to comment was irreversibly compromised and its due process rights violated. It asserted that the only way 

due process could have been satisfied was for Alabama Plating’s consultants to have been allowed to be present 

as the evidence that would subsequently be used as the basis for the proposed listing was being developed.

Alabama Plating asserted that the EPA has not demonstrated that the proposed listing of the Alabama Plating 

Company site is supported by and in accordance with reliable, probative, and substantial evidence as is required 

by the standard for the admission of expert evidence set forth in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 

509 U. S. 59 (1993) and its progeny. Alabama Plating further stated that by denying Site access to its 

environmental consultant, it would appear that the Agency has, perhaps, sought to immunize the data on which it 

would base its proposed rule from independent evaluation and criticism.

3.1 Support for Listing 

Comment: On July 28, 2000, Mr. James W. Warr, Director of ADEM, submitted a letter to the U.S. EPA Region 

4 Administrator stating that ADEM on behalf of the State of Alabama supports continuation of the EPA's efforts 

to propose the Site for addition to the NPL. More recently, a March 2, 2012 letter from William Gerald Hardy, 

Chief of ADEM’s Land Division, supported the remedial action recommended by the EPA, emphasizing that this 

action includes finalizing the site on the NPL (see Attachment A of this support document). 

Response: The Alabama Plating Company site is being added to the NPL. Listing makes a site eligible for 

remedial action funding under CERCLA. Mr. Hardy’s support of the remedial action recommended by the EPA 

includes finalization of the site on the NPL; without NPL listing the Site would not qualify for funding as a 

Superfund site under CERCLA. 

3.2 Due Process/Site Access

Comment: Alabama Plating stated that the EPA denied its consultants, Gallet Associates (Gallet), access to the 

Site during the EPA’s removal and sampling activities. Alabama Plating claimed that its due process rights were 

violated and its ability to comment was compromised because of the EPA’s denial of timely site access.

Response: The Agency’s listing process which was followed in the promulgation of this site to the NPL meets the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements and ensures due process via the notice and comment process. 

Alabama Plating’s specific comments are addressed in the following subsections:

• 3.2.1 Access to Site

• 3.2.2 Due Process

3.2.1 Access to Site

Comment: Alabama Plating argued that the EPA did not allow its consultants access to the site, refusing “under 

the pretext of needing apparently limitless indemnities,” to give Alabama Plating’s consultants the opportunity to 

develop independent data during the Agency’s [1999-2000] “removal and sampling event.” Such access, Alabama 

Plating alleged, would have allowed its consultants to be present as the “evidence was developed that was 

ultimately used to formulate the proposed listing.” It suggested that the EPA has sought to “immunize,” i.e., 

protect, the data that it used to support the proposed listing from “independent evaluation and criticism” by the 

EPA’s alleged denial of site access. 
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

6

Response: The EPA did not deny Alabama Plating or its contractor, Gallet, access to the Site; access was 

predicated upon certain, reasonable conditions that Alabama Plating did not accept. Further, Alabama Plating was 

offered splits of all samples collected by the EPA while on-site to enable Alabama Plating to develop independent 

data. 

The correspondence between EPA Region 4 and Alabama Plating’s attorneys, which was provided by Alabama 

Plating as Exhibit B of its comment, documents that Site access was not denied, but rather predicated upon certain

conditions. These conditions were typical of those specified for PRP access during EPA site investigation 

activities; however, Alabama Plating, through its attorney, chose not to accept one of these conditions: that 

individuals entering the facility sign an Insurance, Indemnification and Release Agreement and a Waiver 

Agreement.

A series of communications from February 11, 1999, to August 11, 1999, between Alabama Plating’s attorney, 

Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O’Neal, and EPA’s Assistance Regional Counsel, Sara Goldsmith,

documents the progression of the situation regarding Alabama Plating’s request for site access and sample splits

(Exhibit B of Alabama Plating’s comment submission). In correspondence on April 6, 1999 (page 30 of Exhibit B 

of Alabama Plating’s comment submission), a letter from Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O’Neal 

representing Alabama Plating to Sara Goldsmith, Esq, Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Alabama Plating 

conveyed its willingness to accept all of the EPA’s conditions for Site access except for the condition that the 

Gallet employees entering the site sign an “Insurance, Indemnification, and Release Agreement.” As explained to 

Alabama Plating through its attorney, Ms. Goldsmith’s letter of March 18, 1999 (page 23 of Exhibit B of 

Alabama Plating’s comment) addresses the EPA’s rationale requiring signature of an “Insurance, Indemnification, 

and Release Agreement”: 

There is no explicit statutory provision that directly dictates what conditions EPA may place on 

your client’s [Alabama Plating’s] access once it has begun response actions. Nonetheless, it is 

appropriate and absolutely necessary for EPA to provide parameters to the very broad and 

undefined request by your clients for “free access” to the Site for their consultants [Gallet]. The 

likelihood of the United States being sued if the response action causes injury is high. Thus, 

EPA has devised common sense measures to protect itself and its employees from being sued for 

selecting and performing response activities as required under CERCLA. EPA does not seek to 

interfere with your clients’ [Alabama Plating’s] interest in observing the response action; 

however, by accommodating your clients’ request EPA is subjecting itself to potential litigation. 

Accordingly, as your clients have not opted to finance and conduct the removal action 

themselves, they, along with their consultants, must assume most of the responsibility for 

injuries they may incur as a result of their presence onsite during EPA’s response actions.

After further correspondence on this matter, in her letter of August 11, 1999 (page 57 of Exhibit B of Alabama 

Plating’s comment submission), Ms. Goldsmith further explained: 

EPA requires the Indemnification agreement [Insurance, Indemnification, and Release 

Agreement] in conjunction with the Waiver Agreement, as Gallet [Alabama Plating’s contractor 

who is requesting to enter the site] still may sue the United States for actions arising at the Site. 

Although it is unlikely that Gallet would be successful in such a suit, the United States would 

still have to defend itself. Consequently, EPA requires your clients to indemnify it for such 

litigation costs notwithstanding the existence of Gallet’s signed Waiver Agreements.

Similarly, EPA believes that insurance alone is insufficient to protect the United States’ financial 

interests. As you are well aware, coverage from insurance companies is not always forthcoming 

notwithstanding the existence of a written policy, as often insurers will initiate separate and 
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

7

lengthy litigation to dispute the existence and/or extent of coverage available to the insured. A 

prime example of this, of course, is the current insurance litigation in which Alabama Plating is 

embroiled. Furthermore, the Agreement does not require your clients to maintain high levels of 

insurance, and it is conceivable that EPA’s recoverable litigation costs could exceed these limits. 

Thus, the communications provided by Alabama Plating in Exhibit B to its comment submission, clearly 

demonstrate that site access was not denied and that the EPA did not require “limitless” indemnities but specific 

reasonable and common-sense conditions for access during the response action.

Further, in response to Alabama Plating’s request of February 11, 1999 (page 6 of Exhibit B of Alabama Plating’s 

comment submission) , the EPA agreed to provide splits of all samples for Gallet pickup at the Site, giving Gallet 

24 hours notice (page 8 of Exhibit B of Alabama Plating’s comment). The EPA has properly split all such 

samples that Alabama Plating has requested, and Alabama Plating has thereby been afforded an opportunity to 

develop independent data. 

In her letter of August 11, 1999 (page 6 of Exhibit B of Alabama Plating’s comment), EPA Assistant Regional 

Counsel, Ms. Goldsmith provided to Alabama Plating two charts that track the samples taken by EarthTech (the 

EPA’s sampling contractor) that were sent for laboratory analysis and the corresponding final laboratory reports 

on analysis of these samples. As stated in Ms. Goldsmith’s letter of August 11, 1999: 

The first chart is entitled “Sample Tracking” and provides: 1) the sample identification number; 

b) sample description; c) the date the sample was taken; d) the date the data package was 

received from the laboratory; e) the date each split was given to Gallet & Associates (Gallet), 

the PRP’s environmental consultants; and f) the name of the Gallet representative who received 

the split. The second chart is entitled “Lab Report Tracking,” which corresponds to the samples 

referenced in the first chart and provides: a) the sample identification number; ) the date the 

data package was received from the laboratory; c) comments; d) the date each data package was 

given to Gallet; and e) the name of the Gallet representative who received the data package. 

These charts are current as of July 20, 1999. 

Moreover, the EPA received Alabama Plating’s letter dated February 11, 1999 (page 6 of Exhibit B of Alabama 

Plating’s comment), that requested free access to the Site during field activities to observe ongoing operations and 

splits of all samples submitted by the EPA for laboratory analysis, after initial site characterization sampling was 

well under way. The sampling event ongoing at the time the letter was received had begun Monday, February 8, 

1999, and was completed Saturday, February 13, 1999, when the EPA’s sampling team left the Site. 

The EPA provided to Alabama Plating its final report of all sample analyses and site characterization that 

occurred during the week of February 8, 1999. This report is titled “Final Report Phase 1 Field Investigation” and 

was included as Reference 5 to the HRS documentation record at proposal. 

Regarding the sampling in question during the week of February 8, 1999, in Ms. Goldsmith’s letter of August 11, 

1999 (page 55 of Exhibit B of Alabama Plating’s comment), she reported a discussion on January 27, 1999, 

between Andy Zonnir of ERT, EPA’s contractor –operated Emergency Response Team, Chris White, Mary 

Moran, and Peter Dohms of Gallet, and Waynon Johnson, EPA On-scene Coordinator, regarding the logistics of 

splitting X-Ray Fluorescence1 (XRF) samples, in which the EPA expressed its willingness to provide Gallet with 

 1 XRF analysis is an analytical method that can be performed in the field using a portable device to analyze for metals by 

examining the wavelength of reflected light from the sample materials. The results are quantitatively similar to those obtained 

using fixed-base laboratory analysis methods (U.S. EPA, 2004. X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) Instruments Frequently Asked 

Questions (FAQ). Technology Innovation Office. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/lead/products/xrffaqs.pdf). 
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

8

splits of samples from each area where the EPA conducted its XRF screening. Per Ms. Goldsmith’s August 11, 

1999 letter, at that time, Gallet submitted that the insurance companies financing Gallet on behalf of Alabama 

Plating and the Rowes had not yet committed to financing the splitting of samples by Gallet. Andy Zonnir of the 

Emergency Response Team (ERT) met with two Gallet representatives the morning of Monday, February 8,

1999, and informed Gallet that sampling would be started that afternoon and would continue through that Friday

(February 12, 1999). Additionally, Mr. Zonnir described to the Gallet representative the type of sampling ERT 

would conduct and options for splitting such samples. When Gallet left that day, ERT agreed to keep one bag of 

sample per every location on which the EPA took its samples. ERT ultimately filled 10 coolers full of split 

samples; however, Gallet did not return to pick up those samples nor call with any other instructions. ERT 

finished its operations and left the Site on Saturday, February 13, 1999. Eventually, the EPA disposed of the 

saved split samples in the coolers along with the other contaminated material at the Site. 

Alabama Plating has provided no documentary evidence that Alabama Plating’s contractor was denied Site access 

during the removal and sampling action or that Alabama Plating has not received all requested splits of samples 

and/or the corresponding final lab results. Further, there was more than sufficient time that Alabama Plating could 

have requested and worked with the Agency to gain access to the Site to determine site conditions for itself other 

than during the response action. Alabama Plating did not avail itself of these opportunities. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.2.2 Due Process

Comment: Alabama Plating cited Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965), quoted in United States v. 

Seymour Recycling Corporation, 679 F. Supp. 859, 864 (S. D. Ind. 1987), as well as Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 

U.S. 319, 333 (1976), stating that due process requires that the opportunity to comment on the government’s 

evidence “must be provided ‘at a meaningful time, in a meaningful manner.’” Alabama Plating asserted that EPA 

unilaterally developed “evidence” insuring that no meaningful comment was possible and that in so doing, the 

EPA created a “kind of ‘monster’ of unfettered discretion.” It suggested that the EPA has sought to “immunize,” 

i.e., protect, the data that it used to support the proposed listing from “independent evaluation and criticism” by 

the EPA’s alleged denial of site access. 

Alabama Plating contended that by denying Alabama Plating’s consultant the right to develop independent data 

about the site (by denial of access), the EPA “has effectively denied Alabama Plating its day in court.” It noted 

that because judicial review of the NPL listing and remedy selection will be limited to the administrative record, 

the EPA has “unilaterally stifled Alabama Plating’s ability to comment meaningfully upon and to evaluate the 

Agency’s data.” It stated that “[t]here is thus the requisite logical nexus between the Agency’s action and 

Alabama Plating’s injury to constitute a violation of due process under the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the 

United States Constitution.” 

Response: Alabama Plating was provided the opportunity to comment on the government’s evidence at a 

meaningful time and in a meaningful manner in accordance with the Agency’s listing process, which complies 

with the APA and ensures due process rights via the notice and comment process. Consistent with CERCLA, the 

Agency has in place an orderly procedure for identifying sites where releases of substances addressed under 

CERCLA have occurred or may occur, placing such sites on the NPL, evaluating the nature and extent of the 

threats at such sites, responding to those threats, and deleting sites from the NPL. The purpose of the initial two 

steps is to develop the NPL, which identifies for the States and the public those sites that appear to warrant 

remedial action (56 FR 35842, July 29, 1991). The evaluation or RI/FS phase involves on-site testing to assess the 

nature and extent of the public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what 

CERCLA-funded remedial actions, if any, may be appropriate. After a period of public comment, the Agency 

responds to those threats by issuing a Record of Decision which selects the most appropriate alternative. The 
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

9

selected remedy is implemented during the remedial design/remedial action phase. Finally, the site may be deleted 

from the NPL when the Agency determines that no further response is appropriate.

Section 553 of the APA authorizes “informal” rulemaking. The informal rulemaking process encourages and 

relies on the participation of the public, including potentially responsible parties. The public can comment during 

the comment period (typically 60 days) after a site is proposed for listing and during the time the Agency is 

evaluating and selecting a remedy (the Agency may also hold a public hearing during the latter decision-making 

period). If private parties conduct remedial action under a Consent Decree between the EPA and the parties, the 

decree is also subject to public comment. The Agency believes that the above process offers the public sufficient 

opportunity to present facts and opinions germane to its decision-making in a timely manner.

As established in section 3.2.1, Access to Site, of this support document, the EPA did not deny site access to 

Alabama Plating’s consultant, Gallet; rather, the EPA imposed reasonable, common-sense conditions for such 

access to protect itself from possible harm and future legal action or financial obligation related to such Site 

access. Therefore, Alabama Plating was not denied the opportunity to develop independent data during the 

Agency’s removal and sampling event. Further, the EPA provided sample splits available at the time of sampling; 

Alabama Plating’s contractor did not pick up at least some of the available splits. The EPA provided complete 

sample analysis data for public review and comment in the proposal docket. In addition, Alabama Plating had 

ample time to access the Site after the sampling event and before the close of the comment period for the 

placement of this Site on the NPL. Therefore, Alabama Plating was not denied the ability to comment 

meaningfully upon the Agency’s data in a timely manner and was not denied due process.

The cases cited by Alabama Plating are inapplicable to this rulemaking. Armstrong v. Manzo was a family law 

proceeding to set aside an adoption decree; Mathews v. Eldridge dealt with a social security disability benefits 

claim; and U.S. v. Seymour Recycling Corp. was an action to review an EPA remedy selection. None of these 

cases dealt with a rulemaking to place a site on the NPL. Instead, Alabama Plating cites to these cases for the 

general due process principle that a party should have all meaningful time and opportunity to comment on the 

government’s actions and evidence. As fully set out in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of this support document, Access 

to Site and Due Process, however, the EPA did afford Alabama Plating all meaningful due process to participate 

in this rulemaking.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.3 Validity of Information

Comment: In referring to analytical data collected during a time critical removal action, Alabama Plating 

commented that EPA’s information-gathering was not conducted in accordance with a formal workplan and 

questioned whether the data that EPA relied on for this listing are reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and 

questioned the validity of the proposed Site listing based on the evidence presented. 

Response: Neither the HRS nor the National Contingency Plan (NCP) contains requirements specifying the 

source of the data used for an HRS site evaluation. In particular, no requirement exists for use of a formal 

workplan in an Agency time-critical removal action. The HRS documentation record at proposal demonstrates the

adequacy of the data used in the HRS evaluation of the Site for listing purposes. Alabama Plating’s specific 

comments are addressed in the following subsections:

3.3.1 Formal Workplan

3.3.2 Reliable/Probative/Substantial Evidence
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

10

3.3.1 Formal Workplan

Comment: Alabama Plating commented that the EPA’s information-gathering was not conducted in accordance 

with a formal workplan. It acknowledged that a formal workplan is not required for this type of response action, 

however, stated that the amount of money spent “would seem to justify preparation of a workplan.” Alabama 

Plating stated that without a workplan with specific goals, it found it difficult to assess whether the Agency’s 

removal action was “reasonable and cost effective.”

Response: The information presented in the HRS documentation record documents that the data used from the 

time-critical removal action meets the data quality objectives and requirements for an HRS evaluation. The 

commenter has not identified any specific shortcoming in the adequacy of the data used in the HRS evaluation of 

this site. A “formal workplan” (which Alabama Plating does not define) is not a requirement under the HRS, nor 

does the HRS evaluate whether a removal action is “reasonable and cost effective.” 

As stated above, the HRS, which is Appendix A to the NCP (40 CFR Part 300), contains no requirements 

regarding the sources or the methods of the collection of the data used in an HRS evaluation. 

Also, the NCP does not contain any specific requirements on procedures to collect the data to perform an HRS 

evaluation. The Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR part 300.420 (c), Remedial site inspection, contains the 

directions for evaluating sites for purposes of preparing an HRS evaluation. It states, in relevant part, that:

(c) Remedial site inspection. (1) The lead agency shall perform a remedial SI [site investigation] as 

appropriate to: . . .

(iii) Collect or develop additional data, as appropriate, to evaluate the release pursuant to the 

HRS; and 

(iv) Collect data in addition to that required to score the release pursuant to the HRS, as 

appropriate, to better characterize the release for more effective and rapid initiation of the RI/FS 

or response under other authorities.

Thus, there is no regulatory requirement regarding the methods used to collect the data to perform an HRS 

evaluation.

Instead at this site, in performing a remedial SI, the information from the time-critical removal was evaluated and 

found to be of sufficient quality for HRS evaluation purposes. Whether or not a formal workplan was developed 

prior to the data collection does not affect the end quality of the data or the usability of the data for other 

purposes, as long as the quality can be known and documented. As stated above, the commenter did not identify 

any specific quality issues with the data used from the removal investigation. See Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc. 

v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516, 1520 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (commenter “cannot merely state that a particular mistake was 

made,” rather it must explain “why the mistake was of possible significance” to the agency’s result).

Furthermore, a formal workplan is not required for a time-critical removal action. Given that the complete extent 

of problems is not known prior to mobilization, site-specific work plans for such actions are not typically feasible. 

Instead, data are gathered and assessed on a continual basis while the Emergency Response Team is on-site, 

which informs the removal process. This process ensures that the data are of known and documented quality.

The Agency’s Action memorandum (Reference 12 of the HRS Documentation Record at proposal) also iterated 

the planned response actions to be undertaken:

[T]he proposed removal action maximally will include: a) additional stabilization measures; b) 

bulking and disposal of the contents of vats, drums, and other containers; c) decontamination of 
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

11

containers and building structures; d) dismantling of all structures that are in danger of 

collapsing or those that pose a safety hazard; 3) characterizing the magnitude and extent of onsite and off-site contamination with removal and disposal as indicated; f) evaluation of the 

closed lagoons as a potential groundwater contamination source; and g) excavation and on-site 

treatment and/or off-site disposal of lagoon waste.

The EPA follows quality assurance (QA) and quality control procedures for data collection and analysis, and 

review and validation of data acquired during removal actions as described in OSWER Directive 9360.4-01, 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control Guidance for Removal Activities, April 1990, updated in July 2006 with three 

QA Technical Information Bulletins, OSWER Directives 9360.4-20, -21 and -22. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.3.2 Reliable/Probative/Substantial Evidence

Comment: Alabama Plating challenged the veracity and usability of the evidence that the EPA used to support the 

proposed listing, thereby questioning the validity of the listing. Alabama Plating quoted Section 556(d) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, which states that “. . . [a] sanction may not be imposed or rule or order issued 

except...[when] supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.” [Emphasis 

added by Alabama Plating.] Alabama Plating compared this standard for admission of “expert evidence” to that 

set forth in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny, alleging that they 

are the same, and that the EPA has not met this standard with the proposed listing of Alabama Plating. Alabama 

Plating argued that without this evidentiary showing - reliable, probative and substantial evidence - the proposed 

listing will not be valid. 

Response: The data supporting the proposal to add the Alabama Plating Company site to the NPL meet the 

Agency’s requirements for listing as documented in the NPL listing package at proposal. As presented in the HRS 

package at proposal, the evidence supporting the listing is reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the 

contaminant release that is the basis for the Alabama Plating Company HRS Site score and the listing decision. 

Alabama Plating failed to raise any specific issues regarding the quality of the evidence used to support the 

listing, nor has Alabama Plating identified any specific way in which the EPA’s evidence supporting the Alabama 

Plating Company site listing was not reliable, probative or substantial. Courts have held that the “dialogue 

between administrative agencies and the public is a two-way street.” Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Thomas, 

849 F. 2d 1516, 1520 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citing Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC, 567 F. 2d 9 (D.C. Cir 1977)). 

Alabama Plating “cannot merely state that a particular mistake was made,” rather it must show “why the mistake 

was of possible significance in the result the Agency reaches.” See id. at 1519. In this case, Alabama Plating has 

not explained what other evidence the Agency needs to consider or why the evidence the Agency has considered 

is not sufficient to place the Alabama Plating Company site on the NPL.

Furthermore, and contrary to Alabama Plating’s assertions, the evidentiary standard set out in the Daubert 

decision is not applicable to this informal rulemaking. Courts have recognized that even for formal administrative 

rulemakings, “laxer standards of admissibility” apply. Veg-Mix, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Ag., 832 F 2d 601 (D.C. Cir. 

1987). Generally, if evidence meets the standards of the APA by being relevant, material, and not repetitious, see 

5 U.S.C. Sec. 556(d), agencies are entitled to weigh it according to its truthfulness, reasonableness, and 

credibility. See id. (citing Johnson v. United States, 628 F. 2d 187, 190-91 (D.C. Cir 1980); National Association 

of Recycling Industries, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission, 658 F. 2d 816, 825 (D.C, Cir. 1980) (finding 

agency’s disregarding of probative hearsay evidence to be arbitrary and capricious)). In addition, in a relatively 

recent Superfund listing for the Quanta Resources site in New York, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that 

“administrative agencies may consider hearsay evidence as long as it bears satisfactory indicia of reliability.” 

Honeywell Int’l v. EPA, 372 F. 3d 441, 447 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (finding that the EPA did not act arbitrarily or 
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

12

capriciously relying on statements of a member of a Superfund technical assessment and response team). For this 

informal rulemaking to place the Alabama Plating Company site on the NPL, this support document demonstrates 

that the EPA considered the relevant facts appropriately as required under the APA.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.4 Consideration of Removal

Comment: Alabama Plating alleged that the EPA did not take into consideration the effect of the excavation and 

removal of contaminated soil [1999 removal action] in its HRS evaluation, stating also that the Agency failed to 

properly evaluate the removal’s impact on the Site’s alleged risk. In addition, Alabama Plating stated that “[i]t is 

arbitrary and capricious per se to score the site based on its alleged pre-removal condition,” and that it would 

seem appropriate to collect post-removal data, especially for ground water and sediments, to score the Site. 

Response: The Alabama Plating Company site has been appropriately evaluated with respect to the 1999 removal 

action. The 1999 removal action has been considered, and the Site qualifies for listing based on the result of the 

HRS score above 28.50. The score reflects that the Site continues to pose a risk and further response actions may 

be necessary to address unabated releases.

HRS Section 1.1, Definitions, defines a site as follows: 

Site: Area(s) where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or has 

otherwise come to be located. Such areas may include multiple sources and may include the area 

between sources.

A site, therefore, includes the sources as well as the contaminant releases that have migrated away from the 

sources and have become located elsewhere.

The Agency generally considers removal actions during the scoring process when it “has documentation that 

clearly demonstrates there is no remaining release or potential for a release that could cause adverse 

environmental or human health impacts.”2 This approach is reasonable as it insures that the risk posed by released 

hazardous substances not abated by the removal action can be properly evaluated by the EPA. Therefore, response 

actions are considered in the HRS evaluation at least in part in terms of whether any contaminant releases and 

concomitant risk to human health or the environment remain at the site after the action. Removal actions are 

considered in HRS site scoring when it is documented that no unacceptable risk from remaining contaminant 

releases remains at a site. Thus, HRS scoring reflects removal actions if there is sufficient evidence demonstrating 

that the removal actions left no unacceptable risk remaining due to contaminant releases at the site. This inquiry 

turns on the facts of each rulemaking to add a site to the NPL. 

A time-critical removal action was conducted at the Alabama Plating Company main facility during 1999 – 2000 

to address imminent threats posed by the Site. Attachment B to this support document, “Pollution Report #90 and 

Final,” for the time-critical removal action, provides information regarding this action. This is the response action 

considered for the Alabama Plating Company site; it is referred to as the “1999 removal action” throughout this 

document.

Concerning the scope of the response action, the final pollution report for this site (Attachment B to this support 

document) states on page 2 that: 

 2 This position is consistent with OSWER Directive #9345.1-25, April 4, 1997, titled “Revision to OSWER NPL Policy ‘The 

Revised Hazard Ranking System: Evaluating Sites After Waste Removals’ Publication No. 9345.1-03FS, October 1991.”
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

13

The focus of the removal action for the Alabama Plating Site consisted of removal of sources of 

contaminants and other on-site wastes. 

The final pollution report (Attachment B to this support document) states that during the removal action:

Approximately 55,000 tons of lead, cadmium arsenic, chromium and zinc contaminated soils and 

debris were removed from APC-M [the main Alabama Plating Company facility]. 

The final pollution report (Attachment B to this support document) summarizes that:

The Main facility involved the removal and cleanup of the main processing buildings, a waste 

impoundment, contaminated soils and buried drums, drums of unused products and wastes. . . 

Cleanup goals established for the Site were utilized to address these sources as well as 

observable evidence of wastes and contamination. Preliminary site sampling and geophysical 

(metal detection surveys) work helped to identify the main sources and areas of contamination. 

Hence, the removal action addressed source removal, but did not address areas of the Site to which contamination 

may have migrated via the ground water and surface water pathways. The contaminant releases from Site sources 

were not addressed as part of the time-critical removal action. Further, whereas the removal action reduced 

partially the threat posed to surface water and ground water by removing source contamination, it did not address 

the threat posed by the contamination that had (or potentially had) already migrated from the sources to surface 

water or ground water. Risk is considered for all releases posed by the site; risk is not evaluated specific to 

individual pathways (i.e., if risk is reduced in one pathway and risk remains in another pathway(s), the site is still 

considered to pose a threat for HRS purposes). 

Alabama Plating provided no documentation to demonstrate reduction or elimination of risk posed by the Site 

after the 1999 removal action. Without documentation that there is no remaining release or potential for a release 

at a site that could cause adverse environmental or human health impacts, the removal is not considered in the 

HRS scoring. The results of the Remedial Investigation conducted in 2002 demonstrate that a threat due to both 

ground water contamination and surface water contamination are still present at the Site. See Draft RI Data 

Summary Report, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Alabama Plating Company, Vincent, Shelby County, 

Alabama, November 29, 2004 included in the docket for the Site.

Therefore, the 1999 removal action was considered during the HRS evaluation of the Alabama Plating Company

site consistent with the HRS and related policy. The way in which the removal affects the score is described in 

section 3.7, Removal Consideration in Scoring, of this support document. 

Regarding the commenter’s observation that it would have seemed appropriate to collect post-removal data to 

score the site, there is no requirement to do so and, as illustrated in section 3.7., Removal Consideration in 

Scoring, of this support document, even if the 1999 removal action had been reflected in the score, neither the 

score nor the decision to list the Site would have changed. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.5 Response Action

Comment: Alabama Plating made several comments regarding the nature and execution of the response action. 

Alabama Plating questioned the characterization of the removal as an “emergency” action and expressed surprise 

over the lack of an integrated approach to remedial activities. Alabama Plating alleged similarly that the EPA’s 

approach to information gathering on the Alabama Plating site was not integrated, stating that the EPA “probably 
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

14

should have...actively pursued” “ground water monitoring (and possibly remediation or interception) . . . during

and after the removal action, and prior to completion of the HRS [evaluation],” since the Agency “seems to 

consider groundwater contamination enough of a concern to warrant placing the site on the NPL.” 

Response: Whether or not the 1999 removal action was an emergency removal action is not relevant to the action 

being taken at this time, to place the site on the NPL. As discussed in section 3.3.1, Formal Workplan, of this 

support document, while data collected during this removal action is used in the HRS evaluation, the quality and 

the usability of the data was not dependent on the classification or characterization of that action. 

Furthermore, the 1999 removal action was characterized by the EPA as a time-critical removal action; it was not 

an emergency action as indicated by the commenter. The 1999 removal action met the criteria for a time-critical 

removal action under the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300 as 

documented in the Action Memorandum (Reference 12 of the HRS documentation record at Site proposal) dated 

September 18, 1998, written by Waynon Johnson, On-Scene Coordinator, Emergency Response and Removal 

Branch, EPA Region 4, and approved by Richard D. Green, Director, Waste Management Division, EPA Region 

4. The Action Memorandum described the site conditions, threats to public health or welfare of the environment, 

and statutory and regulatory authorities that justified undertaking a time-critical removal action at the Site. The 

Action Memorandum identified the conditions at the Site that warranted an emergency removal action to be: 

Site-related contaminants found in samples of sludge, soil, sediment, and groundwater include 

arsenic, cyanide, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc.

Evidence of the presence and release of hazardous substances and/or pollutants or contaminants 

include:

a. Leaking and overflowing vats, tanks, and various other containers in deteriorating condition 

that contain plating process solutions and other waste-like materials in the buildings and sheds at 

the site.

b. Chemical staining and corrosive degradation of floors, walls, and ceilings are found 

throughout the buildings on-site.

c. Uncontainerized sludge, wastewater treatment filter wastes, and other waste-like materials 

inside the buildings, sheds, and on the grounds of the facility.

d. Fixtures and appurtenances within the buildings that are chemically corroded and layered 

with process condensate.

e. Readily visible soil staining and data revealing elevated cyanide and heavy metal 

contamination on-site as well as evidence of off-site contaminant migration.

f. Documentation of direct discharge of process wastewater and F006-Listed sludge into the 

on-site wastewater discharge ditch and the unnamed stream bordering the Site.

g. Data showing groundwater contamination with constituent plumes extending off-site that 

have not been defined either laterally or vertically.

h. Data revealing the presence of soil and groundwater contaminated with petroleum 

hydrocarbons in a former UST [underground storage tank] area. 
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

15

In order to protect public health or welfare or the environment, a removal action should be 

undertaken at the Site to abate further release or the threat of release of hazardous substances 

and/or pollutants or contaminants into the environment.

The Action Memorandum concluded that:

. . . the Site was found to pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or 

welfare or the environment, and to meet the criteria for a time-critical removal action under the 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300.

Regarding integration of EPA’s remedial activities, this is not relevant to the HRS score or the decision to place 

this site on the NPL. As explained previously in section 3.3.1, Formal Workplan, of this support document, 

neither the HRS nor the NCP has any such requirement. Whether or not activities should be integrated does not 

impact the quality or usability of the data used in the HRS evaluation of this site from these actions. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.6 Scoring of Multiple Pathways

Comment: Alabama Plating alleged that the EPA “eliminated” the soil and air pathways from scoring because the 

removal action substantially reduced any threat to human health and the environment. 

Response: Alabama Plating is incorrect in its statement that the EPA eliminated the soil exposure and air

migration pathways from scoring because the removal action substantially reduced any threat to human health and 

the environment. As stated on page 1 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, the soil and air pathways 

were not evaluated because of limited targets and thus scoring the pathways would not impact the listing decision, 

not because the Agency considered there to be no risk posed via these pathways. 

The HRS documentation record at proposal, on page 1 states:

The Surface Water Pathway, Environmental Threat will not be evaluated due to lack of 

targets.

The Soil Exposure Pathway will not be evaluated due to limited targets. No resident 

populations exist and nearby targets are low.

The Air Pathway will not be evaluated due to limited targets in the immediate vicinity.

[emphasis in original]

The HRS does not require scoring all four pathways, and the EPA typically does not score all four pathways, if 

scoring those pathways does not change the listing decision. For some sites, data for scoring a pathway are 

unavailable, and obtaining these data would be time-consuming or costly. In other cases, data for scoring some 

pathways are available, but would only have a minimal effect on the site score. In still other cases, data on other 

pathways could substantially add to a site score, but would not affect the listing decision. The HRS is a screening 

model that uses limited resources to determine whether a site should be placed on the NPL for possible Superfund 

response. A subsequent stage of the Superfund process, the RI, characterizes conditions and hazards at the site 

more comprehensively.

Therefore, the decision to not evaluate the soil exposure and air migration pathways during the HRS evaluation is 

consistent with HRS requirements, and is not a reflection of any determination regarding the results of the 

removal action conducted at the Alabama Plating Company site. Further, Alabama Plating did not provide any 

documentation supporting its assertion that the absence of evaluation of the soil and air pathways was in any way 

related to the removal action or its results. 
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

16

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.7 Removal Consideration in Scoring

Comment: Alabama Plating challenged the statement in the HRS package that “removal has not addressed the 

release to groundwater and surface water; therefore contamination from the site still poses a threat to potable 

water supplies and is impacting a recreational fishery,” asserting that the excavation/soil removal did, in fact, 

address ground water and surface water contamination because it removed a source of contamination. Alabama 

Plating argued that the reduction in risk from the 1999 removal action had not been factored into the HRS score

and that there is every reason to believe the Site would have scored below the NPL-listing threshold if the 

removal action had been appropriately considered, given that the Site score at proposal (30.21) only “barely” 

exceeded the 28.5 threshold required for NPL listing.

Response: The removal action did remove documented amounts of contamination from the Site sources; however, 

the removal action clearly did not address contamination that had migrated from the sources via ground water and 

surface water. Therefore, for purposes of the HRS evaluation contamination remains on the Site and the Site 

continues to pose a threat that may warrant further investigation and, if needed, clean up. The extent of the 

remaining contamination and the risk posed by the Site after the removal action will be considered during later 

stages of the Superfund process that occur after listing. See section 3.5, Consideration of Removal, of this support 

document for a detailed explanation regarding why the removal action was appropriately considered in the Site 

HRS evaluation. 

The commenter provided no explanation of, rationale for, or evidence supporting its assertion that the Site score 

would change and would be below 28.50 if the removal were considered; therefore, the comment is speculative 

rather than substantial. Further, as noted, investigation following listing will identify the level of risk remaining at 

the Site in accordance with the Superfund process.

Attachment C to this support document includes HRS scoresheets providing each scoring factor in the ground 

water and surface water pathways, as well as the overall site score for both the score at proposal and the score 

with consideration of the removal action, with annotations indicating the source of information for each factor or 

factor category, as applicable. As detailed in the attachment, scoring of the site with consideration of the removal 

action results in no change in the eligibility of the site for NPL listing.

This comment results in a change of .01 in the HRS score to correct a minor rounding error in the surface water 

pathway score at proposal, and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

4. Conclusion

The original HRS score for this site was 30.21. Based on the above responses to comments, the final HRS score is 

30.20. The final scores for the Alabama Plating Company, Inc. site are:

Ground Water: 26.94

Surface Water: 54.07

Soil Exposure: Not Scored

Air: Not Scored

HRS Site Score: 30.20
ATTACHMENT A

Letter from Wm. Gerald Hardy, Chief, Land Division

Alabama Department of Environmental Management
lANCE R. LEFLEUR 	 ROBERT J. BENTLEY 

DIRECTOR GovERNOR 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

adem.alabama.gov 

1400 Coliseum Blvd. 36110·2400 • Post Office Box 301463 


Montgomery, Alabama 36130·1463 


(334) 271-7700 • FAX (334) 271-7950 


March 2, 2012 

Mr. Franklin Hill 

Director, Superfund Division 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

61 Forsyth Street 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 

RE: 	 EPA Letter Proposing Path Forward for Site Completion for Alabama Plating 

Alabama Plating, Shelby County, Alabama 

EPA J.D. No. ALD 004 022 448 

Dear Mr. Hill: 

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM or the Department) received your letter 

on February 23, 2012 proposing a remedial action and path forward for Site completion, to include 

tlnalizing the site on the National Priorities List (NPL), for the Alabama Plating Company Superfund 

Site. To address the elevated metals concentrations in the groundwater, EPA is recommending in-situ 

chemical injections accompanied with monitored natural attenuation. EPA estimates the cost for the 

selected remedy to be approximately $835,000, with the State cost share of $83,500 which would be 

expected in year 20 15 or 20 16. 

As stated in our previous letters regarding the listing of this site on the NPL, the Department is committed 

to a 5-year payment schedule for the State share of cleanup costs associated with the American Brass 

NPL Site (EPA J.D. No. ALD 981 868 466). This commitment for Alabama Hazardous Substance 

Cleanup Fund (AHSCF) funds will be completed in 2014. Therefore, the Department would be willing to 

accept EPA's proposed remedial action and commit to the State cost share of$83,500 since payment 

obligations would not begin until ADEM's obligation to American Brass is fulfilled. 

Please note that your letter states that all of the steps preceding the remedial action would be perfonned 

on a federal fund-lead basis and "would place no additional financial burden on the State of Alabama". 

Based on this statement, it is the Department's understanding that ADEM will not be asked to provide 

any additional funds beyond those requested in the subject Jetter. Therefore, ADEM would be willing to 

commit to the agreed upon total State cost share of $83,500, but cannot commit to any amount greater 

than $100,000. 

Birmingham Branch Decatur Branch 	 Mobile Branch Mobile-Coastal . .
 110Vulcan Roi3:d 2715Sandtin Road, S. W. 	 2204 Perimeter Road 4171 Commanders Drive • 

. 

• Birmingham, AL 352094702 Decatur, AL 35603-1333 	 Mobile, AL 36615-1131 Mobite, Al36615-1421 

(205) 942-6168 (256) 353-1713 	 (251) 450-3400 (251) 432-6533 

(205) 941-1603 (FAX) (256) 340.9359 (FAX) 	 (251) 479-2593 {FAX) (251) 432-6598 (FAX} 
Mr. Franklin Hill 

March 2, 2012 

Page 2 of2 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Stephen A. Cobb at 334­

271-7739 or via email at sac@adem.state.al.us. 

Sincerely, 

Wrn. Gerald Hardy, Chief 

Land Division 

cc: 	 Mrs. Gwendolyn Keyes Flerning/USEPA Region 4 

Mrs. Tracy P. Strickland/ADEM 

Mrs. Brandi Little/ ADEM 
ATTACHMENT B

Pollution Report #90 and Final

May 16, 2001
SITE: a!a.hxMo..~ ~~Q:.. BREAK: 	 2 , l 0 v 9. .. ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE~M: _______ 

REGION IV 


POLLUTION REPORT (POLREP) 


POLREP #90 and FINAL 

Alabama Plating Co., Satellite Site 

1900 U.S. Highway #231 

Vincent, Shelby Co., AL 

- TO: 	 Myron D. Lair, ERRB S. Goldsmith, EPA-EAD 


Dan Thorton, EPA HQ, ERD J. Redmond, ADEM 


EPA Region 4 Response Center B. Safay, ATSDR 


R. Don~ld· 	ger, ERRB , S. Carbonaro, EPA 

. 	 Z-'--~ FROM: nstopher A. Militscher, OSC 

DATE: 	 May 16,2001 


Period Covered: 05/05/01 to 05/16/01 


I. BACKGROUND: 

Site No.: A4X7 


Delivery Order No.: 4009-F4-034 


Response Authority: CERCLA 


Incident Category: Time-Critical Removal 


PERSONNEL ON-SITE 


ERRS - 6 ERRS subs: - 2 


EPA- I 


II. SITUATION: 

See previous POLREPs for the details ofthe response. This is the Final POLREP for the 

Alabama Plating Co. Site. 

/ 

I 

The Alabama Plating Co. Site was comprised of two locations, the Main facility which 

was completed last year and the Satellite facility whi,ch was started in November of 2000. Both 

facilities are located along U.S. Highway #231 in Shelby County, Alabama. The Main facility 

involved the removal and cleanup ofthe main processing buildings, a waste impoundment, 

contaminated soils and buried drums, drums of unused products and wastes. The Satellite 

facility included a warehouse with some processing equipment, buried drums of wastes and 

contaminated soils. Some ofthe significant contaminants of concern at both facilities included 

arsenic, lead, zinc, and amenable and total cyanides. Because the Satellite facility was located 

several miles from the Main facility (APC-M), the command post was re-located after 

completing the Main facility to help to expedite the cleanup at the Satellite facility (APC-S). 
The focus of the removal action for the Alabama Plating Site consisted of removal of 

sources of contaminants and other on-site wastes. Cleanup goals established for the Site were 

utilized to address these sources as well as observable evidence of wastes and contamination. 

Preliminary site sampling and geophysical (metal detection surveys) work helped to identify the 

main sources and areas of contamination. 

The primary removal activities at the Satellite facility included continued site security, 

the layout of a grid system for sampling purposes, identification and coordination along the 

Plantation Pipeline Easement, excavation and removal of contaminated soils and buried wastes, 

temporary relocation of one family, surveying, backfilling and grading, site restoration and 

demobilization of equipment and materials. Continued community relations and enforcement 

coordination were also conducted, as required. 

Approximately 55,000 tons of lead, cadmium, arsenic, chromium and zinc contaminated 

soils and debris were removed from APC-M. Approximately 3,500 tons·ofF006 wastes and 250 

tons of zinc dross were sent off-site for treatment and disposal. In addition, approximately I 8 

drums and labpacks of acids and bases, oxidizers, flammable solvents, cyanide salts, elemental 

mercury, etc., were also transported to permitted RCRA facilities for proper treatment and/or 

disposal. The summary of the transportation and disposal activities for APC-S are included 

below. 

Ill. SITE ACTIVITIES: 

During this final reporting period ERRS completed the contaminated soil excavation 

activities, T & D of stockpiled soils, and backfilling. ERRS removed 28 truck loads of non-haz 

soils this week for a total of 1,560 truck loads to date comprising -37,225 tons of contaminated 

soils. The contaminated soils and debris were sent to Superior Star Ridge landfill in Moody, 

AL, a permitted Subtitle C facility. The estimate for contaminated soils was less than initially 

projected. Preliminary estimates were approximately 50,000 tons of contaminated soil. 

ERRS removed haz wastes this week including 8 haz truck loads. ERRS has to date 

removed 234 truck loads of zinc dross, drums and other hazardous wastes for a total of 

approximately 5,130 tons. The haz wastes from the Site were sent to Chern Waste 

Management's SubtitleD facility in Emelle, AL. Initial estimates for hazardous wastes were 

well below actual amounts. Initially, it was estimated that 40 drums were buried at APC-S. 

Current estimates indicate that up to a thousand drums were buried at the Satellite facility. 

ERRS also arranged for the removal of approximately 0.91 tons of tires segregated 

during the cleanup and shipped to Blount Recycling Landfill in Trafford, AL for shredding and 

recycling. 

ERRS completed the removal of the decon pad this period and completed all excavation 

activities. ERRS continued with site grading and restoration measures this reporting period. 

ERRS completed work on the East sediment basin and restoration around one of the residents 

home. ERRS received 112 truck loads of ~ackfill during the week of 5/7 in order to complete 
backfilling and continue with grading activities . 

. The subcontractor for hydroseeding was on-site to continue stabilization work in 

backfilled and graded areas. Approximately 20% of the site has been hydro-seeded to date. 

IV. ESTIMATED COSTS: 

ERRS costs as ofS/12/01 are estimated at$7,006,193 with a D.O. ceiling of$7,109,200. 

D.O. funds remaining are $103,007. Current costs include all T & D performed to date as well as 

many of the await bills for the remainder ofthe month. Cost estimates based upon the remainder 

ofthe work on-site indicate that sufficient funds remain in the current D.O. for demobilization 

activities. 

V. COST SUMMARY: 

ERRS Action Memo Ceiling: $8,984,200 

ERRS 1 1/00 Budget Projection: $7,585,000 

ERRS D.O. Ceiling: $7,109,200 

Extramural Contingencies Remaining: $ 962,000 

Other Extramural Funds Remaining: $ 675,000 (GST, REAC, START) 

COE lAG Costs: $ 10,000 

EPA Direct Action Memo Ceiling: $ 263,800 

EPA Direct Estimated Costs: $ 186,300 

VI. ONGOING ACTIVITIES: 

The ERRS subcontracted hydro-seeder is on-site applying fertilizer, lime and hydro-seed 

to the completed graded areas. The ERRS subcontracted fence company is on-site to re-locate 

the fence as planned. The command post is being 'broken down' and demobilization of 

equipment and other materials has commenced as of 5/14. It is expected that demobilization 

activities will be completed by 5118. 

The OSC will continue with site coordination activities for the Satellite facility. ERRS 

will continue to perform grading and restoration (hydro-seeding) activities. The fence will also 

be re-located as planned. ERRS will continue with demobilization activities and with the 

finalization of await bills. ERRS PM will be providing a final report to the OSC. OSC will 

continue with coordination with ADEM who requested copies of all analytical work for the 

Satellite facility. The ERRS subcontracted surveyor will also be providing an 'as-built' survey 

for the Satellite facility. Analytical packages are still being received intermittently by the OSC 

from the ERRS contractor. A work order was prepared for ERRS -to address the finalization of 

off-site D.O. requirements. 
VIJ. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE COORDINATION: 

The OSC will finalize the site files, prepare the requested information for ADEM and 

coordinate with other parties as needed. EPA files will be turned over to the Superfund Record 

Center within the next several weeks. · 

By copy ofthis POLREP, the OSC will notify the EPA Remedial Project Manager that 

the removal action has been completed. · 

Based upon confirmatory sampling information there is a potential for groundwater 

resources in the area of Satellite facility to be impacted. Future remedial work would potentially 

need to address this issue. However, the threat of direct contact from contaminated soils and 

wastes and the potential adverse impact to surface waters have been eliminated through the 

completed removal action. 
ATTACHMENT C

Annotated HRS Scoresheets
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama Plating
 

WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE
 

Comparison of Score at Proposal to Scenario 1, Considering Removal
 

Considering 

At proposal Removal 

S S2	 S S2 

1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) 26.94 725.76 26.94 725.7636 

2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component 

(from Table 4-1, line 30) 

2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component 

(from Table 4-25, line 28) 

2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw) 54.08 2924.65 54.07 2923.5649 

Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score.

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss) 

(from Table 5-1, line 22) 

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa) 

(from Table 6-1, line 12) 

5. Total of Sgw

2 + Ssw2 + Ss2 + Sa2 

30.21 6. HRS Site Score 

Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root 

30.20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama Plating 

HRS Table 3-1 –Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet
 

Factor Categories and Factors Maximum 

Value 

Value 

Assigned, 

Proposal 

Value 

Assigned, 

Scenario 1 

Comments/Explanation for Scenario 1 

values 

Likelihood of Release to an Aquifer: 

1. Observed Release 

550 550 550 

Release was not addressed during removal; 

still eligible for scoring. See Support 

Document section 3.4, Consideration of 

Removal. See pages 33-35 of HRS 

documentation record at proposal for 

demonstration of observed release. 

2. Potential to Release: 

2a. Containment 10 Potential to release not scored if observed 

release documented. See HRS Section 3.1.2, 

Potential to release. 2b. Net Precipitation 10 

2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 

2d. Travel Time 35 

2e. Potential to Release [lines 2a x (2b + 2c + 2d)] 500 

3. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2e) 550 550 550 

Waste Characteristics: 

4. Toxicity/Mobility 

(a) 10,000 10,000 

Observed release substances used for 

toxicity/mobility. Highest: cadmium, 

chromium, lead and nickel. See HRS 

documentation record at proposal page 35 

for observed release substances and page 39 

for toxicity/mobility values. 

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity 

(a) 100 100 

HRS Section 2.4.2.2, Calculation of 

hazardous waste quantity factor value, 

contains provision for evaluating hazardous 

waste quantity after removal action. If the 

value before removal is 100 or greater, 

assign either the value considering removal 

or 100, whichever is greater. See page 40 of 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Factor Categories and Factors 

Maximum 

Value 

Value 

Assigned, 

Proposal 

Value 

Assigned, 

Scenario 1 

Comments/Explanation for Scenario 1 

values 

HRS documentation record at proposal. 

6. Waste Characteristics 100 32 32 

Targets: 

7. Nearest Well 50 20 20 Targets were exposed to the release that has 

already occurred and been documented; 

section 3.4 of the support document, 

Consideration of Removal, explains that the 

release occurred and was not addressed 

during the removal. Pages 41-44 of the HRS 

documentation record at proposal provide 

documentation of targets. 

8. Population: 

8a. Level I Concentrations 

(b) 0 0 

8b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0 0 

8c. Potential Contamination (b) 101.3 101.3 As above, targets exposed at the time the 

release was documented. See pages 41-44 of 

the HRS documentation record at proposal. 

8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b) 101.3 101.3 

9. Resources 5 5 5 

10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 0 0 

11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 126.3 126.3 

Ground Water Migration Score For An Aquifer: 

12. Aquifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11)/82,500]c 100 26.94 26.94 

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score: 

13. Pathway Score (Sgw), 

 (highest value from line 12 for all aquifers 

evaluated)c 

100 26.94 26.94 

a. Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. 

b. Maximum value not applicable. 

c. Do not round to nearest integer. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HRS TABLE 4-1 -Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Scoresheet 

Factor Categories and Factors Maximum 

Value 

Value 

Assigned, 

Proposal 

Value 

Assigned, 

Scenario 1 

Comments/Explanation 

Drinking Water Threat 

Likelihood of Release: 

1. Observed Release 

550 550 550 

Release already occurred and was not 

addressed during removal. See Support 

Document section 3.4, Consideration of 

Removal. Observed release documented 

on pages 47-51 of HRS documentation 

record at proposal. 

2. Potential to Release by Overland Flow: NS Potential to release not scored if 

observed release documented. See HRS 

Section 4.1.2.1.2, Potential to release. 

2a. Containment 10 

2b. Runoff 25 

2c. Distance to Surface Water 25 

2d. Potential to Release by Overland Flow 

(lines 2a x [2b + 2c]) 

500 

3. Potential to Release by Flood: 

3a. Containment (Flood) 10 

3b. Flood Frequency 50 

3c. Potential to Release by Flood (lines 3a x 

3b) 

500 

4. Potential to Release (lines 2d + 3c, subject to a 

maximum of 500) 500 NS 

5. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 4) 550 550 550 

Waste Characteristics: 

6. Toxicity/Persistence 

(a) 10,000 10,000 

Scored using substances present in 

observed release. Highest value: arsenic, 

cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel. 

HRS documentation record at proposal 

pages 49-51 demonstrate contaminants 
 

 

 

 

 

 

present in observed release; page 54 

documents toxicity/persistence values. 

7. Hazardous Waste Quantity 

(a) 100 

100 Value assigned due to Level II target in 

Human Food Chain threat. See HRS 

Section 2.4.2.2, Calculation of 

hazardous waste quantity factor value, 

and page 62 of HRS documentation 

record at proposal. 

8. Waste Characteristics 100 32 32 

Targets: 

9. Nearest Intake 50 0.002 0.002 

Population potentially exposed at the 

time the observed release documented. 

Pages 56-58 of HRS documentation 

record at proposal document drinking 

water targets. 

10. Population: 

10a. Level I Concentrations (b) 0 0 

10b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0 0 

10c. Potential Contamination (b) 0.2 0.2 

10d. Population (lines 10a + 10b + 10c) (b) 0.2 0.2 

11. Resources 5 0 0 

12. Targets (lines 9 + 10d + 11) (b) 0.202 0.202 

Drinking Water Threat Score: 

13. Drinking Water Threat Score ([lines 5 x 8 x 

12]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 100) 

100 0.04 0.04 

Human Food Chain Threat 

Likelihood of Release: 

14. Likelihood of Release (same value as line 5) 550 550 550 

Waste Characteristics: 

15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation 

(a) 5 x 107 5 x 107 

Values assigned to substances present in 

observed release. Highest value: 

cadmium. HRS documentation record at 

proposal pages 49-51 document 

substances in release; page 60 

documents values for 

toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation. 

16. Hazardous Waste Quantity 

(a) 100 100 

Value assigned due to Level II target in 

Human Food Chain threat. See HRS 

Section 2.4.2.2, Calculation of 

hazardous waste quantity factor value, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and page 62 of HRS documentation 

record at proposal. 

17. Waste Characteristics 1,000 180 180 

Targets: 

18. Food Chain Individual 

50 45 45 

Release documented in Spring Creek, a 

recreational fishery, was not addressed 

by removal. See support document 

section 3.4, Consideration of Removal. 

Page 63 of HRS documentation record 

at proposal documents Human Food 

Chain Individual. 

19. Population: 

19a. Level I Concentrations (b) -­ 0 

19b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0.03 0.03 Page 62 of HRS documentation record 

at proposal documents Level II fishery. 

19c. Potential Human Food Chain 

Contamination 

(b) 0.0000003 0.00000003 

Potential for contamination to impact 

Coosa River, also a fishery. See page 64 

of HRS documentation record at 

proposal for documentation of potential 

targets. 

19d. Population (lines 19a + 19b + 19c) (b) 0.0300003 0.0300003 

20. Targets (lines 18 + 19d) (b) 45.03 45.030003 

Human Food Chain Threat Score: 

21. Human Food Chain Threat Score ([lines 14 x 17 x 

20]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 100) 

100 54.04 54.03 (Incorrectly rounded at proposal.) 

Environmental Threat 

Likelihood of Release: 

22. Likelihood of Release (same value as line 5) 550 550 550 

23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation (a) 

24. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 

25. Waste Characteristics 1,000 NS NS 

Targets: 

26. Sensitive Environments: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

26a. Level I Concentrations (b) 

26b.Level II Concentrations (b) 

26c. Potential Contamination (b) 

26d. Sensitive Environments (lines 26a + 26b + 26c) (b) 

27. Targets (value from 26d) (b) NS NS 

Environmental Threat Score: 

28. Environmental Threat Score 

([lines 22 x 25 x 27]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 

60) 

60 NS 

NS 

Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component 

Score For A Watershed 

29. Watershed Scorec 

(lines 13 + 21 + 28, subject to a maximum of 100) 

100 54.08 54.07 (Incorrectly rounded at proposal.) 

Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component 

Score 

30. Component Score (Sof)

c

, (highest score from line 29 

for all watersheds evaluated, subject to a maximum 

of 100) 

100 54.08 54.07 

a

Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.

b

Maximum value not applicable.
 c

Do not round to nearest integer. 

NS = Not scored.