United States

Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 September 201 2

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response



# Support Document for the

Revised National Priorities List
Final Rule – Alabama Plating Co mpany, Inc.

# Support Document for the

Revised National Priorities List
Final Rule Alabama Plating Co mpany, 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 20460Alabama Plating Co mpany, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

ii 

## Table of Contents

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... iii

Introduc tion

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. iv

Background of the NPL

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... iv

Development of the NPL

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... iv

Ha zard 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 #9 0 and Final, May 16, 2001.

Attachment C

– Annotated HRS ScoresheetsAlabama Plating Co mpany, 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 haz ardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States

. An original National Priorities List (NPL) was promulgated

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

This document provi des responses to public comments received on the Alabama Plating Co mpany, 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 Co mpany, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

iv 

## I ntroduction

This document explains the rationale for adding the Alabama Plating Co mpany, Inc. site in Vincent, Alabama, to the National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and also prov ides the responses to public

comments received o n 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

Fede ral 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 uncon trolled 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 Conti ngency 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 F R 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.

Sec tion 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 tempor ary basis (CERCLA Section 1 01). 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 financ ed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA, were includ ed 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, an d 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 thr eatened 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 Se ptember 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). At that time, an HRS score of 28.5 0 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 Committe e on Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96

- 848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 [1980]).Alabama Plating Co mpany, 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 a ssign 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 info rmational 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 CERCLA

financed 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 notic e 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 Sec tion 105(a)(8)(A) directs the EPA to consider certain enumerated and other ap propriate 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, pl acing 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 uncon trolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a

n umerically 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, how ever, 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 r esponse for a part icular 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. Th us, the EPA relies on further, more detailed studies in the remedial investigation/feasibility study that typically follows listing.

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

factors that relate to or indicate risk, ba sed 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 in to 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 Co mpany, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

vi • Ground Water Migration (S gw )

- drinking water

• Surface Water Migration (S

sw ) 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 enviro nments

• Soil Exposure (S

s )

- resident population

- nearby population

- sensitive environments

• Air Migration (S

a )

- population

- sensitive environments

After scores are calculated for one or more pathways according to prescribed guidelines, they are combi ned 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 o nly

o ne pathway score is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring because some extremely dangerous sites pose thr eats 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 s ites can be placed on the NPL. The first of these mechanisms, authoriz ed 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 thr ee 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 pu blic 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 2

s 2

sw 2

gwAlabama Plating Co mpany, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

vii 

### Organization of this Document

The following section contains the EPA responses to site

- specif ic public comments received on the proposal of

the Alabama Plating Co mpany, 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 eac h 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. Envir onmental Protection Agency

APA A dministrative 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 Superfun d

CFR Code of F ederal R egulations

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 s tudy

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SI Site inspection

XRF X

- Ray FluorescenceAlabama Plating Co mpany, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

1 

## 1. List of Commenters and Correspondence

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 20 00

- 00 02

- 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 Exhibi t B, correspondence regarding Alabama Plating Company , Inc. ’s
request to obtain site access.

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2000

- 0002

- 000 7 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 Co mpany, Inc. (Alabama Plating Co mpany ; 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 Co mpany 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 facili ty 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

. ( S ee Figure 1

. )

Alabama Plating Co mpany 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, cor rosive 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 flow s along the eastern portion of the facility property. This unnamed stream flows approximately 0.75 mile before entering Spring Creek. T he plating processes were reportedly discontinued

in 1986 ; hot

- dip galvanizing continued until the facility ceased operat ions 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 Co mpany facility. Levels of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel , zinc

, and cyanide abo ve 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 purpose s. 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 Co mpany 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

. T he 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-12Alabama Plating Co mpany, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

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

located elsewhere on the Site.

The Alabama Plating Co mpany s ite 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, instal ling and sampling 7 shallow ground water wells, and collecting 9 surface and subsurface soil samples from Alabama Plating Co mpany. 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 th e Site to the State while the State oversaw needed cleanup actions. T he 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 f acility 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 Co mpany 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 Alaba ma Plating Co mpany 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 regard ing 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 th at th is 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 appropria tely considered, there is reason to believe that the Site would have scored under the listing

threshold.

Alabama Plating stated that t he HRS package is based on information

- gathering by the EPA that was no t 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 with out 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 ha ve 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 toAlabama Plating Co mpany, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

5 consider ground water contaminati on 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 comm e nt was irreversibly compromised and its due process rights violated. It asserted that the only way due process could have be en 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 tha t the proposed listing of the Alabama Plating

Co mpany 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 Pharmace uticals, 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 ru le 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

actio n includes finalizing the site on the NPL (see Attachment A of this support document)

.

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

remedial action funding under CERCLA

. Mr. Hardy’s support of t he remedial action recommended by the EPA includes finalization of the site on the NPL; without NPL listing the S ite 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)

, a ccess to the

S ite 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 deni al of timely site access.

Response : The Agency’s listing process which was followed in the promulgation of this s ite to the NPL meets the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements and ensures due process via the notice and comment process.

Alabama Plating’s specific comment s 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 pretex t 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. ” S uch access, Alabama Plating alleged, would have allowed its con sultants 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 ev aluation and criticism” by the EPA’s alleged denial of site access.Alabama Plating Co mpany, 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 accep t. 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 Alabam a 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 Plat ing, 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 1 1, 1999

, between Alabama Plating ’s attorney, Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O’Neal, and EPA’s Assistance Regi o nal Counsel, Sara Goldsmith,

document s the progression of the situation regarding Alabama Plating’s request for site access and sample split s (Exhibit B of Alabama Plating’s comment submis s ion )

. 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 Goldsmi th, Esq, Assi s tant Regional Coun sel , U.S. EPA , Alabama Plating conveyed its willingness to accept all of the EPA ’s conditions for S ite access except f or the condition that the

Gallet employees entering the site sign an “Insurance, Indemnification, and Rele ase 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 Rele ase 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 c ommon sense measures to protect itself and its employees from being sued for selecting and performing response activities as required under CE R CLA. EPA does not seek to interfere with your clients ’ [Alabama Plating’s] interest in observing the response act ion; 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, i n 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] stil l 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 litig ation 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 andAlabama Plating Co mpany, 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 c urrent 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.

Th us, t he 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, i n 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 S ite, giving Gallet

24 hours notice (page 8 of Exhibit B of Alabama Plating’s comment)

. T he 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 analy sis of t hese 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 num b er; b) sample description; c) the date the sample was taken; d) the date the data package was

received fr o m t he laboratory; e) the date each split was given to Gallet & Associates (Gallet),

the PRP ’ s environmental consultants; and f) t he name of the Gallet repre sentative who received the split. The second char t is entitled “Lab Report Tracking,” which corresponds t o the samples referenced in the first chart and provides: a) the sample identification number; ) t he date the data package was received from the labora tory; 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 F ebruary 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 cha racterization sampling was well under way. Th e s ampling event ongoing at the time the letter was received had begun Monday, February 8, 1999, and was completed Saturday, February 1 3 , 1999 , when the EPA’s sampling team left the Site

.

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

occur r ed 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 r ecord 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 Zonn ir 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 Fluorescence 1 ( XRF ) samples, in which the EPA expres sed its willingness to provide Galle t 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 obtain ed 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/sup erfund/lead/products/xrffaqs.pdf ).Alabama Plating Co mpany, 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 , a t that time, Gallet submitted that the insurance companies financing Gallet on behalf of Ala bama Plating and the Rowes had not yet committed to financing the splitting of samples by Gallet. An d y Zonnir of the Emergency Response Team (E RT ) met with two Gallet representatives the morning of Monday, February 8

, 1999

, and informed Gallet that sampl in g 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 th at 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 sample s ; however, Gallet did not return to pick up those samples nor call with any other instructions. ERT

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

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

Alabama Plating has provided no documentary evidence tha t 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 t hat 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 re sults in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decisi on 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.’” A labama 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 indepen dent 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 “unil aterally 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 du e 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

CERCL A 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 iden tifies 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 associ ated 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. TheAlabama Plating Co mpany, 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. Th e 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 subj ect 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 d ocument, 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 s uch S ite

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 d id 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 S ite after the sampling event and before th e 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 Pla ting 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 revie w 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 o n 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 listin g based on the evidence presented.

Response : Neither the HRS nor the N ational Contingency Plan (N CP ) contains requirements specifying the source of the data used for an HRS site evaluation. In particular, n o requirement exists for use of a formal workpla n 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 subs ections :

3.3.1 Formal Workplan

3.3.2 Reliable/Probative/Substantial EvidenceAlabama Plating Co mpany, 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 form al 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 ass ess 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 d a ta quality objectives and req uirements for an HRS evaluation. The

co mmenter 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

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

As stated above, the HRS, which is A ppendix A to the NCP (40 CFR Part 300)

, contains no requirements regarding the sources or the methods of the collection of the d ata used in an HRS evaluation.

Also, the NCP does not contain any specific requirements on procedures to colle c t the d a ta to perform an HRS

evaluation

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

d irections 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) C olle ct or develop additional data, as appropriate, to evaluate the release pursuant to the HRS; and

(iv) C ollect 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 informatio n 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 a ffect the end quality of the data or the usability of th e 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 , 8 49 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 ti me

- critical removal action. Given t hat 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 Emergenc y Response Team is on

- site, which informs the removal process. This process e nsures that the data are of known and documented quality.

T he Agenc y ’s Action memorandum ( Reference 12 of the HRS Documentation Record at proposal) a lso iterated

t he planned resp onse 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 ofAlabama Plating Co mpany, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

11 containers and b uilding structu res; 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 on

site 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 dispo s al of lagoon waste.

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

review a nd 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 Q A Technical Information Bulletins, OSWER Direct ives 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 showi ng

- reliable, probative and substantial evidence

- the proposed listing will not be valid.

Response : T he data supporting the proposal to add the Alabama Plating Co mpany 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, t he evidence supporting the listing is r eliable, probative and substantial evidence of the

contamina n t release that is the basis for th e Alabama Plating Co mpany HRS S ite score and t he 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 identif ied any specific way in which the EPA’s evidence supporting the Alabama Plating C o mpany 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) (cit ing 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 A gency 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 Co mpany site on the NPL.

Furthermore, and contrary to Alabama P lating’s assertions, the evidentiary standard set out in the Daubert decision is not applicable to this informal rulemaking. C ourts 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, reasonablen ess, 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 orAlabama Plating Co mpany, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

12 capriciously rely ing on statements of a member of a Superfund technical assessment and r esponse team). For this informal rulemaking to place the Alabama Plating Co mpany 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 t he 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 remova l 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 alle ged pre

- removal condition,” and that it would seem appropriate to collect post

- removal data, especially for ground water and sediments, to score the S ite.

Response : The Alabama Plating Co mpany site has been appropriately evaluated with respect to the 199 9 re moval

action. The 1999 re moval 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 a ddress 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 an d 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 scor ing 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 T his approach is reasonable as it insures that the risk posed by rel eased hazardous substances not abated by the removal action can b e properly evaluated by the EPA. Therefore, r esponse actions are considered in the HRS evaluation at least in part in terms of whether any contaminant releases and

concomitant risk to human h ealth 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 reflect s removal actio ns 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 Co mpany 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 info rmation regarding this action. This is the response action considered for the Alabama Plating Co mpany site; it is referred to as the “1999 removal action” throughout this

document.

Concerning the scope of the response action, the final pollution report fo r 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 Co mpany, 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 t o 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 con tamination.

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 pathway s . 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 po tentially 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 ano ther 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 the re 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 Co mpany site consistent with the HRS and related policy . The way in which the removal affects the score is descri bed 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 illustrat ed 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, s tating that the EPA “probablyAlabama Plating Co mpany, 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
consid er groundwater contamination enough of a concern to warrant placing the site on the NPL.”

Response : Whether or not the 1999 removal action was a n emergency removal action is not relevant to the action being taken at this time, to place the site on the N PL. As discussed in sect i on 3.3. 1

, Formal Workplan, of this

sup port document , while data collected during this removal action is used in the HR S evaluation, the quality and the usability of the d a ta was not dependent on the classification or characterizati on of that action.

Furthermore, t he 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 a ction under the National Oil and Hazardous S ubstance Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300 as d ocumented in t he Action Memorandum (Reference 12 of the HRS documentation record at Site proposal) dated September 18, 1998 , written by Waynon Johnson, On

- Scen e 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 describe d the s ite conditions, threats to public health or welfare of the environ ment, 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 warrant ed a n 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 th e presence and release of hazardous substances and/or pollutants or contaminants

include:

a. Leaking and overflowi ng 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. Ch e mical staining and corrosive degradation of floors, walls, and ceilings are found

throu g hout 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 ar e 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 p rocess 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 Co mpany, Inc. NPL Listing Support Document September 2012

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

underta ken 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 endangerme nt 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 S ubstance 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 ha s any such requir e ment. Whether or not activities should be i ntegrated does not impact the quality or usability of the data used in the HRS ev a l u ation of this s ite 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 Mul tiple Pathways

Comment : Alaba ma 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 it s 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 near b y targets are low.

Th e 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 cha nge 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 w ould 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 po ssible 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 evaluat e the soil exposure and air migration pathways during the HRS eva luation 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 Co mpany site

. Further, Alabama Plating did not provide any documentation supporting its a ssertion that the absence of evaluat ion of the soil and air pathways was in any way

related to the removal action or its results.Alabama Plating Co mpany, 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 supplie s 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 t he 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 propo sal (30.21) only “barely” exceeded the 28.5 threshold required for NPL listing.

Response : T he 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 exten t 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 det ailed explanation regarding why the removal action was appropriately considered in the Site

HRS evaluation.

T he 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.

Attachm ent 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, w ith 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 response s to comments , the final HRS score is

30.20

. The final scores for the Alabama Plating Co mpany, Inc. site are:

Ground Water: 26.94

Surface Water: 54. 07 Soil Exposure: Not Scored

Air: Not Scored

HRS Site Score: 3 0. 20ATTACHMENT A

Letter from Wm. Gerald Hardy, Chief, Land Division

Alabama Department of Environmental ManagementlANCE 

### 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/ ADEMATTACHMENT B

Pollution Report #90 and Final

May 16, 2001

## SITE: 

# a!a.hx**Mo..~ ~~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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the month. Cost estimates based upon the remainder

of the 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 of this 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 ScoresheetsAlabama Plating

WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE Comparison of Score at Proposal to Scenario 1, Considering Removal

Considering At proposal Removal

S S 2 S S 2

1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (S gw ) 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 Wate r Migration Pathway Score (S

sw ) 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 (S

s ) (from Table 5-1, line 22)

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (S

a ) (from Table 6-1, line 12)

5. Total of S gw 2 + S

sw 2 + S

s 2 + S

a 2



### 30.21 6. HRS Site Score Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root 30.20Alabama Plating

HRS Table 3-1 – Gr ound 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 Relea se 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

toxic ity/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 ofFactor 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 R emoval, 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

G ro und Water Migration Pathway Score:



### 13. Pathway Score (S gw ),
(highest value from line 12 for al l aquifers evaluated) c 100 

### 26.94 26.94

a. Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.

b. Maximum value not applicable.

c. Do not rou nd 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

Likel ihood of Release:

1. Observed Release

550 

### 550 550 Relea se 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 prop osal.

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 t o 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. Toxici ty/Persistence

(a) 

### 10,000 10,000 Scored using substances present in observed release. Highest value: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lea d and nickel. HRS documentation record at proposal pages 49

- 51 demonstrate contaminantspresent 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 documentati on 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

wa ter 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 Thre at

Likelihood of Release:

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

### 550 550

Waste Characteristics:

15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

(a) 

### 5 x 10 7 

### 5 x 10 7 Values assigned to substances present in observed release. Highest v alue:

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 do cumented 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 Pag e 62 of HRS documentation record at proposal documents Level II fishery.

1 9c. Potential Human Food Chain

Contamination (b) 

### 0.0000003 0.00000003 Potential f or 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 Environme nts: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 Score c (lines 13 + 21 + 28, subjec t to a maximum of 100) 100 

### 54.08 54.07 ( Incorrectly rounded at proposal. )

Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component

Score

30. Component Score (S of ) 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.