HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) DOCUMENTATION RECORD COVER SHEET

Name of Site: Alamo Contaminated Ground Water

EPA ID No.: TNN000410203

Contact Persons

Documentation Record: John Nolen, Remedial Project Manager

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4

61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 11th Floor

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

(404) 562-8923

Jennifer Wendel, National Priorities List Coordinator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4

61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 11th Floor

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

(404) 562-8799

Quinn Kelley, Environmental Scientist

Tetra Tech EM, Inc.

1955 Evergreen Boulevard, Ste. 300

Duluth, Georgia 30096

(678) 775-3101

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored

The surface water migration, soil exposure, and air migration pathways were not scored in this Hazard 

Ranking System documentation record because they are not expected to significantly contribute to the 

overall site score.

 
1

HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: Alamo Contaminated Ground Water

EPA Region: 4

Date Prepared: March 2011

Street Address of Site*: South Bells Street

City, County, State, Zip: Alamo, Crockett County, Tennessee 38001

General Location in the State: Western portion of state

Topographic Map: Alamo, Tennessee 1964

Latitude: 35° 47' 02.95" North

Longitude: 89° 07' 04.88" West

The coordinates above for the Alamo Contaminated Ground Water site were measured from the City of 

Alamo Water Department facility (Ref. 4). 

* The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation 

record identify the general area where the site is located. They represent one or more locations the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers part of the site based on the screening information 

EPA used to evaluate the site for National Priorities List (NPL) listing. EPA lists national priorities 

among the known “releases or threatened releases” of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is on the 

release, and not on precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as an area where a hazardous 

substance has been “deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located.” Generally, HRS scoring 

and the subsequent listing of a release represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to 

be addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA). Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary description of facility boundaries at the 

time of scoring will be refined as more information is developed about where the contamination has come 

to be located.

Pathway Pathway Score

Ground Water Migration 100.00

Surface Water Migration NS

Soil Exposure NS

Air Migration NS

HRS SITE SCORE 50.00

Notes:

HRS Hazard Ranking System

NS Not scored
2

WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE

S Pathway S2 Pathway

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) 100.00 10,000

Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw) NS NS

Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss) NS NS

Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa) NS NS

S2

gw + S2sw + S2s + S2a 10,000

(S2

gw + S2sw + S2s + S2a) / 4 2,500

√ (S2

gw + S2sw + S2s + S2a) / 4 50.00

Note:

NS = Not scored
3

Table 3-1 --Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet

Aquifer Evaluated: Memphis Sand

Factor Categories and Factors Maximum 

Value Value Assigned

Likelihood of Release to an Aquifer: 

1. Observed Release 550 550

2. Potential to Release:

2a. Containment 10 NS

2b. Net Precipitation 10 NS

2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 NS

2d. Travel Time 35 NS

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

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

Waste Characteristics:

4. Toxicity/Mobility (a) 10,000.0

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100

6. Waste Characteristics 100 32.0

Targets:

7. Nearest Well 50 50.0

8. Population:

8a. Level I Concentrations (b) 22,921.8

8b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0.00

8c. Potential Contamination (b) NS

8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b) 22,921.8

9. Resources 5 0.0

10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 20.0

11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 22,991.8

Ground Water Migration Score for an Aquifer: 

12. Aquifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11)/82,500]c 100 100.00

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score:

13. Pathway Score (Sgw), (highest value from line 12 for all aquifers 

evaluated)c 100 100.00

Notes:

NS = Not scored a = Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category b = Maximum value not applicable c = Do not round to nearest integer
CROCKETT COUNTY,

TENNESSEE

2010-09-28 S:\GIS_Workspace\TTEMI-05-003-0101_Alamo_Groundwater_HRS\Figures\GIS\MXDs\Site Location Maps\AGW SITE LOC MAP 9-28-10.mxd TTEMI-GA ingrid.tobar

FIGURE 1

SITE LOCATION

ALAMO CONTAMINATED

GROUND WATER SITE,

ALAMO

CROCKETT COUNTY,

TENNESSEE

TDD No.TTEMI-05-003-0101

Note:

The approximate extent of the ground water

plume is defined by permanent monitoring well

locations AG18, AG08, AG17, and City of Alamo

municipal well No. 2 location (AG02).

(Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-2; 8, p. 12).

Map Source:

USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle

Maps: Maury City, TN 1981 and Alamo, TN 1981.

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

LEGEND

Approximate Extent of

Alamo Ground Water Plume

in May 2010

0 750 1,500

Feet

1:18,000

4
Alamo Mills

The Crockett Times

Former Tucker Automotive

Former Volunteer Circuits

E. Church St. 

Dry Cleaners & Laundry

N. Johnson St.

Dry Cleaners

Alamo Water Department

Ward's Dry Cleaners

S Bells St

E Church St

W Church St

N Bells St

S Mill St

S Burns St

E Park St

E Main St

W Main St

S Johnson St

W Vine St

W Park St

S Branch St

W Koonce St

Mulberry St

E Elm St

N Mill St

S Mulberry St

E Vine St

Brigance St

Cherry St S Cherry St

N Johnson St

E Cherry St

N Cherry St

E Cedar St

S Poplar St

Hays St

N Burns St

E Factory St

N Locust St

N Mulberry St

N Branch St

E Park Ln

Williams Cir

Lyndon St

Cypress Rd

W Tanner St

S Court St

N Court St

E Vine St

2010-09-16 \GIS_Workspace\TTEMI-05-003-0101_Alamo_Groundwater_HRS\Figures\GIS\MXDs\Site Layout Maps\AGW SITE LAYOUT MAP 9-16-10.mxd TTEMI-GA ingrid.tobar

FIGURE 2

SITE LAYOUT

ALAMO CONTAMINATED

GROUND WATER SITE,

ALAMO

CROCKETT COUNTY,

TENNESSEE

TDD No.TTEMI-05-003-0101

Business Location Source:

Reference 76.

Map Source:

HSIP Gold Dataset, 2007.

I

3

 Imagery Prime World 2D, 2010.

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

LEGEND

Exisiting Structure

Former Structure

Major Road

Street

0 250 500

Feet

1:6,000

5
CT-06-GP

CT-07-GP

CT-03-GP

AG06-0510-MW

AG20-0510-MW

AG18-0510-MW

AG17-0510-MW

AG15-0510-MW

AG09-0510-MW

AG08-0510-MW

AG18-0510-MWD

CT-AWD2-PW

CT-AWD4-PW

CT-AWD2D-PW

AG04-0510-MS

AG03-0510-MS

AG02-0510-MS

AG01-0510-MSD

AG01-0510-MS

CT-AWD1-PW

E Church St

S Bells St

W Church St

N Bells St

E Park St

S Mill St

W Main St

E Main St

W Park St

S Burns St

S Johnson St

S Branch St

E Elm St N Mill St

Brigance St

S Cherry St Cherry St

E Cedar St N Johnson St

N Burns St

N Locust St

N Branch St

N Cherry St

E Park Ln

S Court St

N Court St

N Cherry St

2010-09-17 \GIS_Workspace\TTEMI-05-003-0101_Alamo_Groundwater_HRS\Figures\GIS\MXDs\Site Layout Maps\AGW SOURCE SAMPLING LOCATION MAP 9-17-10.mxd TTEMI-GA ingrid.tobar

ALAMO CONTAMINATED

GROUND WATER SITE,

ALAMO

CROCKETT COUNTY,

TENNESSEE

TDD No.TTEMI-05-003-0101

Map Source:

Refs. 7, Enclosure 2, p. E2-1; 7, Enclosure 5,

p. E5-19; 11, Figure 7, p. 15.

HSIP Gold Dataset, 2007.

I

3

 Imagery Prime World 2D, 2010.

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

Notes:

Alamo Contaminated Ground Water Site

Alamo Water Department

Crockett Times

Duplicate

Geoprobe Sample

Municipal Sample

Monitoring Well

Potable Well

AG

AWD

CT

D

GP

MS

MW

PW

0 150 300

Feet

1:3,600

FIGURE 3

SAMPLING LOCATIONS

LEGEND

January 2004

Crockett Times Site Inspection

Geoprobe Source Sample

Geoprobe Background Sample

May 2010

Expanded Site Inspection

Monitoring Well Source Sample

Monitoring Well Background

Sample

Alamo Water Department

Municipal Wells

Municipal Well Source Sample

Municipal Well Background

Sample

Sampled in January 2004

Sampled in May 2010

Approximate Extent of

Alamo Ground Water Plume

in May 2010

CT

AG

6
7

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Hazard Ranking System, Title 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 300, 55 Federal Register 51532. December 14, 1990. 138 Pages.

2. EPA. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). January 2004. Excerpt, 56 Pages. A complete 

copy of SCDM is available at: http://epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm.

3. Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech). 4-Mile Radius. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute 

Series Topographic Quadrangle Maps of Tennessee: Maury City 1981, Alamo 1981, Jones 1981, and 

Belle 1981. Scale 1:24,000. 1 Map.

4. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachment. Subject: Coordinates for Alamo Contaminated 

Ground Water Site. Attachment: Google Earth Map. October 28, 2010. 2 Pages. 

5. EPA. Superfund Site Information. Site Name: Alamo Contaminated Groundwater Site. Accessed 

on December 21, 2010. 1 Page. Accessed On-line at:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0410203. 

6. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachments. Subject: Parcel Information for Properties 

where Permanent Monitoring Wells were Installed. Attachments: Parcel Maps and Owner 

Information. August 10, 2010. 48 Pages.

7. Tetra Tech. Letter with Enclosures Regarding the May 2010 Sampling Event. Alamo Contaminated 

Groundwater, Alamo, Crockett County, Tennessee. Enclosures: Soil Boring/Well Logs, Well 

Survey, Figures, Tables, Field Logbook Notes, and Field Sample Collection Sheets. August 27, 

2010. 118 Pages.

8. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Expanded Site Investigation 

Narrative Report. Alamo Contaminated Groundwater Plume Site, Alamo, Crockett County, 

Tennessee. September 15, 2010. 505 Pages. 

9. EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD). Final Analytical Report. Alamo 

Contaminated Groundwater, Project Number 10-0422. July 1, 2010. 114 Pages.

10. United States Geological Survey (USGS). Reconnaissance Investigation of Volatile and 

Semivolatile Organic Compounds in the Memphis Aquifer at Alamo, Crockett County, Tennessee. 

By Susan S. Hutson and Connor J. Haugh. Open-File Report 90-580. 1992. 20 Pages.

11. TN & Associates, Inc. Site Investigation, Crockett Times, Alamo, Crockett County, Tennessee. 

July 2, 2004. 231 Pages.

12. TDEC. Potential Hazardous Waste Site, Site Inspection Report, Volunteer Circuits. December 

1992. 110 Pages.

13. ATC Associates, Inc. (ATC). Report of Findings from Geoprobe Investigation, Volunteer Circuits 

Site. Prepared for TDEC. December 30, 1999. 35 Pages.

14. ATC. Report of Findings from Additional Geoprobe Investigation, Volunteer Circuits Site. 

Prepared for TDEC. August 18, 2000. 20 Pages.

15. ATC. Report of Findings from Third Geoprobe Investigation, Volunteer Circuits Site. Prepared for 

TDEC. October 12, 2000. 18 Pages.
8

16. TDEC Division of Superfund. Phone Memo to File. Subject: Volunteer Circuits, Date of Air 

Stripper Installation. October 21, 1992. 1 Page.

17. USGS. “Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Memphis Sand in Western Tennessee.” By 

W.S. Parks and J.K. Carmichael. Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4182. 1990. 34 Pages.

18. TDEC Division of Water Supply. Letter Regarding Wellhead Protection Plan Approval. From:

Thomas A. Moss, Wellhead Protection Coordinator, Ground Water Management Section. To: John 

Gorman, Alamo Water Department. Attachment: Wellhead Protection Program Approval 

Certificate. August 21, 1997. 2 Pages.

19. EPA Region 4 SESD. Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedure for Groundwater 

Sampling, Number SESDPROC-301-R1. Effective Date: November 1, 2007. 30 Pages. Accessed 

On-line at: http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/fbqstp/Groundwater-Sampling.pdf. 

20. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File. Subject: Data Review, Validation, and Verification Conducted at 

the SESD, Analytical Support Branch. January 6, 2009. 1 Page.

21. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation. Subject: Definitions of Minimum Reporting Limit, 

Minimum Quantitation Limit, Contract Required Quantitation Limit, and Sample Quantitation Limit. 

Between Shanna Davis, Environmental Scientist, and Charlie Appleby, Quality Assurance Section, 

Management and Technical Services Branch, EPA Region 4 SESD. July 9, 2008. 1 Page.

22. TDEC. Preliminary Assessment for The Crockett Times Site, Alamo, Tennessee. February 28, 

2001. 24 Pages.

23. USGS. Ground-Water Resources of Western Tennessee. By Francis G. Wells. Water-Supply Paper 

656. Prepared in Cooperation with the Tennessee Division of Geology. 1933. 339 Pages.

24. USGS. “General Geology of the Mississippi Embayment.” By E.M. Cushing, E.H. Boswell, and 

R.L. Hosman. Professional Paper 448-B. 1964. 34 Pages.

25. USGS. “Geology and Hydrology of the Claiborne Group in Western Tennessee.” By Gerald K. 

Moore. Water-Supply Paper 1809-F. 1965. 57 Pages.

26. USGS. “Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Cockfield Formation in Western Tennessee.” 

By W.S. Parks and J.K. Carmichael. Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4181. 1990. 22 

Pages.

27. USGS. “Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Fort Pillow Sand in Western Tennessee.” By 

W.S. Parks and J.K. Carmichael. Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4120. 1989. 25 Pages.

28. EPA Center for Environmental Research Information. Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Printed 

Circuit Board Manufacturing Industry. June 1990. 83 Pages.

29. Tetra Tech. Telecon to File. Subject: Alamo Water Department Well No. 1 Service Information. 

Between Quinn Kelley, Environmental Scientist and John Gorman, Operator, Alamo Water 

Department. November 1, 2010. 1 Page.

30. TDEC. Tennessee 106 Groundwater Work Program Supplemental: 1988 Carryover Proposal #2 

(Alamo). 1988. 5 Pages.

31. Environmental Science Corp. (ESE). Letter Regarding Third Quarter VOC Samples. From: Sharon 

McNutt, Client Services Manager. To: John Perry, Alamo Water and Sewer Commission. August 

28, 1991. 17 Pages.
9

32. TDEC. Trip Report, Verification of Surface Drainage, Municipal Well Locations, and Site History. 

February 14, 1992. 1 Page. 

33. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachment. Subject: Summary of J-Qualified Data. August 

18, 2010. 2 Pages.

34. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed 

Release and Observed Contamination. Quick Reference Fact Sheet EPA-540-F-94-028. November 

1996. 18 Pages.

35. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachment. Subject: Rationales for Data Qualifiers. March 

26, 2008. 4 Pages.

36. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachment. Subject: May 2010 Chain-of-Custody Records 

for the Alamo Contaminated Ground Water Site ESI. Attachment: EPA Organic Traffic Reports for 

Case No. 40118, Signed Laboratory Copies. August 23, 2010. 12 Pages.

37. EPA. CLP, SOW for Organics Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration, SOM01.1, May 2005, 

and Summary of Changes SOM01.1 to SOM01.2, April 2007. 747 Pages. Accessed On-line at 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/clp/som1.htm.

38. TDEC. Site Evaluation Quality Assurance Project Plan, Alamo Contaminated Groundwater Site. 

Prepared for EPA Region 4. April 22, 2010. 15 Pages.

39. USGS. 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map of Tennessee: Alamo 1964. 1 Map.

40. TDEC. Logbook Notes for Municipal Well Sampling from May 2010 ESI Sampling Event. May 

13, 2010. 5 Pages.

41. TDEC. Preliminary Assessment for Volunteer Circuits Site, Alamo, Crockett County, Tennessee. 

April 1992. 32 Pages.

42. TN&A. Logbook Notes from The Crockett Times SI Sampling Event. From July 24, 2003 to 

January 22, 2004. 16 Pages.

43. TDEC. Prescreening Investigation for Tucker Automotive, Alamo, Tennessee. July 12, 2000. 23 

Pages.

44. TDEC. Prescreening Investigation for North Johnson Street, Alamo, Tennessee. August 27, 2004. 

47 Pages.

45. TDEC. Prescreening Investigation for East Church Street Site, Alamo, Tennessee. September 10, 

2004. 40 Pages.

46. TDEC. Pre-CERCLIS Screening Assessment Report for Alamo Mills, Alamo, Crockett County, 

Tennessee. December 21, 2007. 16 Pages.

47. TDEC. Memorandum with Attachments. Subject: Alamo Wellhead Protection Area/Volunteer 

Circuits. From: Tom Moss, Ground Water Section Manager, Division of Water Supply. To: Ron 

Sells, Jackson Manager, Division of Superfund. June 14, 1995. 20 Pages.

48. Tennessee Department of Health and Environment (TDHE). Letter Regarding the Alamo Water 

System with Attachments. From: Edmund O’Neill, Manager, Jackson Field Office, Division of 

Water Supply. To: The Honorable Tommy Green, Mayor, City of Alamo. Attachments: Laboratory 

Data Sheets. October 3, 1988. 21 Pages.
10

49. TDHE. Environmental Laboratories, Organic Analysis. Data Sheets for Well No. 1, the Clearwell, 

the Well Oil, and the Drainage Ditch. October and November 1988. 7 Pages.

50. ESE. Laboratory Reports for VOC Analysis of Alamo Water Supply Wells. 1989 to 1990. 44 

Pages.

51. ESE. Letter Regarding Fourth Quarter VOC Samples. From: Sharon Northcutt, Client Services 

Manager. To: John Perry, Alamo Water and Sewer Department. November 27, 1991. 5 Pages.

52. TDEC Division of Superfund. Memo to File with Attachment. Subject: Contaminant Trend in 

A.W.D. Well #1. Attachment: Table and Chart. April 6, 1992. 2 Pages.

53. EPA Region 4 SESD. Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality 

Assurance Manual. November 2001. 413 Pages.

54. TDEC Division of Water Supply. Memorandum. Subject: Alamo Wellfields. From: Tom Moss, 

Ground Water Management Section. To: Brenda Shaw, TN&A. June 12, 2003. 1 Page.

55. Tetra Tech. Telecon to File. Subject: Alamo Water Department Well Survey. Between Quinn 

Kelley, Environmental Scientist and John Gorman, Operator, Alamo Water Department. September 

17, 2010. 1 Page.

56. Tetra Tech. Telecon to File. Subject: County-Wide Utility District Well Survey. Between Quinn 

Kelley, Environmental Scientist and Jere Kail, General Manager, County-Wide Utility District. 

September 17, 2010. 1 Page.

57. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). ToxFAQs for Tetrachloroethylene. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. September 1997. 2 Pages.

58. TDEC. Project Note to File. Subject: Ward’s Dry Cleaners, Alamo, Tennessee. September 2, 2010. 

1 Page.

59. EPA Office of Research and Development. Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation 

of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground Water, EPA/600/R-98/128. September 1998. 248 Pages.

60. EPA Envirofacts Warehouse. Angelica Uniform Group. Facility Detail Report (Last Updated 

August 20, 2010), RCRAInfo (Last Updated August 20, 2010), and Enforcement and Compliance 

History Online (Last Updated August 9, 2010). Accessed August 20, 2010 and September 2, 2010. 

6 Pages. Accessed On-line at:

http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110004992937. 

61. Angelica Corporation. Angelica Corporate History. Accessed September 2, 2010. 1 Page. 

Accessed On-line at: http://www.angelica.com/corporate-history.html.

62. EPA Envirofacts Warehouse. Brown Chevrolet Inc. Facility Detail Report (Last Updated August 

20, 2010), RCRAInfo (Last Updated August 20, 2010), and Enforcement and Compliance History 

Online (Last Updated August 9, 2010). Accessed August 20, 2010 and September 2, 2010. 6 Pages. 

Accessed On-line at:

http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110004985507. 

63. EPA Envirofacts Warehouse. Partners Pallets. Facility Detail Report (Last Updated August 20, 

2010), RCRAInfo (Last Updated August 20, 2010), and Enforcement and Compliance History 

Online (Last Updated August 9, 2010). Accessed August 20, 2010 and September 2, 2010. 6 Pages. 

Accessed On-line at:

http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110004967304.
11

64. EPA Envirofacts Warehouse. Skelton Trucking/SE. Facility Detail Report (Last Updated August 

20, 2010), RCRAInfo (Last Updated August 20, 2010), and Enforcement and Compliance History 

Online (Last Updated August 9, 2010). Accessed August 20, 2010 and September 2, 2010. 6 Pages. 

Accessed On-line at:

http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110007860742. 

65. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Quick Reference Fact Sheet. Multi-Media, 

Multi-Concentration, Organic Analytical Service for Superfund (OLM04.3). August 2003. 4 Pages.

66. EPA. Contract Laboratory Program Organic Traffic Report and Chain of Custody Record. Case No. 

32529. January 2004. 3 Pages.

67. EPA Region 4 SESD. Analytical Support Branch Laboratory Operations and Quality Assurance 

Manual. Effective Date January 13, 2003. 222. Pages.

68. Alamo Water & Sewer Division. Wellhead Protection Plan, PWSID# TN0000005. Technical 

Assistance Provided By Tennessee Association of Utility Districts. Update January 2010. 24 Pages.

69. TDEC Division of Superfund. Trip Report. Purpose of Visit: Meet with PRP to get an idea of 

potential source locations at the Volunteer Circuits site. Superfund Personnel Present: James 

Morrison. Individuals Contacted: Benny McGee and Vincent McGee. October 23, 1992. 1 Page.

70. TDEC. Teleconference. Subject: Dates of Operation, Manufacturing Processes, and Ownership of 

Volunteer Circuits in Alamo. Between C.L. Powers and Clay Ackerman. March 30, 1992. 1 Page.

71. TDEC. Teleconference. Subject: Ownership and Dates of Operation of Volunteer Circuits in 

Alamo. Between C.L. Powers and Alainee McGee, Sales Representative for Volunteer Circuits. 

March 26, 1992. 1 Page.

72. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachments. Subject: Parcel Information and Map for 

Property where ATC Collected a Ground Water Sample in September 2000. Attachments: Parcel 

Information and Map. September 15, 2010. 5 Pages.

73. TDEC. Memo to File. Subject: Discussions with TDSWM and David Bartholomew Regarding the 

Crockett Times Site. Prepared by Ron Sells. February 1, 2001. 1 Page.

74. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachment. Subject: 2004 Crockett Times Site Inspection 

Contract Laboratory Program Form I Data Sheets. Attachment: Volatile Organics Analysis Form I 

Data Sheets. September 17, 2010. 29 Pages.

75. U.S. Census Bureau. State and County QuickFacts. Crockett County, Tennessee. Accessed 

September 20, 2010. 2 Pages. Accessed On-line at:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/47/47033.html.

76. TDEC. Project Note to File. Subject: Possible Sources of Volatile Organic Compound 

Contamination in Ground Water Underlying the City of Alamo, Crockett County, Tennessee. 

September 17, 2010. 1 Page.

77. TDEC Division of Water Supply. Tennessee Source Water Assessment Program Submittal. 

Accessed September 20, 2010. 67 Pages. Accessed On-line at:

http://www.tennessee.gov/environment/dws/pdf/tswafinl.pdf. 

78. EPA. Generic Organic Traffic Report and Chain of Custody Record. Case No. 32529. January 

2004. 2 Pages.
12

79. Tetra Tech. Project Note to File with Attachment. Subject: Alamo May 2010 Expanded Site 

Inspection Contract Laboratory Program Form I Data Sheets. Attachment: Volatile Organics 

Analysis Form I Data Sheets. September 24, 2010. 65 Pages.

80. EPA Region 4 SESD. Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedure Guidance Document 

for Design and Installation of Monitoring Wells, Number SESDGUID-101-R0. Effective Date: 

February 18, 2008. 33 Pages. Accessed On-line at: 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/fbqstp/Design-and-Installation-of-Monitoring-Wells.pdf. 
13

SITE DESCRIPTION

The Alamo Contaminated Ground Water (ACGW) site is located in Alamo, Crockett County, Tennessee

(Refs. 4; 6) (see Figure 1 of this Hazard Ranking System [HRS] documentation record). More 

specifically, the geographic coordinates as measured from the City of Alamo Water Department facility

are latitude 35° 47' 02.95" north and longitude 89° 07' 04.88" west (Ref. 4). The site consists of a 

contaminated ground water plume with no identified source underlying the City of Alamo (the City) (Ref. 

8, p. 3). The EPA identification number as recorded in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database is TNN000410203 (Ref. 5). Land 

uses surrounding the ACGW site are predominantly residential and mixed commercial (Ref. 6) (see 

Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record). The approximate extent of the ground water plume is

defined by permanent monitoring well locations AG18, AG08, AG17, and City of Alamo municipal well 

No. 2 location (AG02) (Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 8, p. 12) (see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation 

record). 

One source has been identified for the ACGW site: Source No. 1, source type “other” ground water plume

with no identified source (Refs. 3; 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 8, p. 3). Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

have been documented in Source No. 1 (see Section 2.2.1, Source No. 1). Ground water comprising the 

ACGW site contains 1,1-dichloroethene (DCE); 1,2-dichloroethane (DCA); tetrachloroethene (PCE); 

1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA); and trichloroethene (TCE) (Ref. 8, pp. 12, 13, Appendix E, pp. E-33, E-35, 

E-39). While there are multiple possible current and former sources of VOCs that have been identified in 

the vicinity of the plume, due to likely commingling of possible multiple releases over time, the 

contamination in the ground water plume cannot be attributed to any particular source. 

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Ground water samples collected from the City of Alamo’s municipal wells in 1988 and 1989 revealed 

VOC contamination in municipal well No. 1, including but not limited to 1,1-DCE; 1,1,1-TCA; and TCE

(Refs. 48, pp. 1 through 4; 49, pp. 1 through 4; 50, pp. 1 through 24). VOCs were also detected in well 

Nos. 2 and 3 (Refs. 48, pp. 5 through 8; 50, pp. 25 through 38). In a sample collected by the Tennessee 

Department of Health and Environment (TDHE) (currently the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation [TDEC]) on September 22, 1988, TCE was detected at a concentration of 97.9 

micrograms per liter (μg/L) in municipal well No. 1 (Ref. 48, p. 4). Another sample from September 

1988 contained TCE at a concentration of about 113 μg/L (Refs. 10, p. 3; 52). Following the release of 

these sample results, use of the City’s municipal well No. 1 was immediately discontinued (Ref. 10, p. 3). 

As an interim remedial measure, the City resumed pumping well No. 1, although not for distribution, and 

discharged the water to a drainage ditch (Refs. 16; 29; 30, p. 1). The City continued discharging water 

pumped from well No. 1 to a drainage ditch until July 2, 1991 when the City of Alamo installed an air 

stripper (Refs. 16; 29). At this time, municipal well No. 1 was put back into service and all City of 

Alamo municipal wells were monitored for VOC concentrations on a quarterly basis (Refs. 16; 29; 31, p. 

i; 32; 51, p. i). In 1991, VOCs were still present in two of the City’s four municipal wells (Refs. 31, pp. 

3, 9, 13; 51, p. 3). City of Alamo municipal well No. 1 is still in service at the time of this HRS 

documentation record (Ref. 29). 

After the discovery of VOC contamination in the City of Alamo’s municipal wells, the TDHE began 

investigating the possible sources of the contamination. In 1989, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in 

conjunction with TDHE Division of Superfund, conducted an investigation of the Memphis Sand aquifer 

at Alamo (Ref. 10, p. 1). The City of Alamo’s municipal wells are screened in the Memphis Sand aquifer

(Ref. 55). The study employed soil-gas analyses and sampling of all four municipal wells (Ref. 10, p. 1). 

Soil-gas was analyzed at 42 sampling points on and near the wells in the City’s wellfield south of West 

Main Street (Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 10, pp. 2, 3). The sampling points were located at a former 

industrial site, hydraulically downgradient of an underground gasoline storage tank, adjacent to a vehicle 

maintenance building, and near the City of Alamo wellfield (Ref. 10, pp. 10, 11). The industrial site was 

the former location of Volunteer Circuits, a circuit board manufacturing facility, where organic solvents 

had been used in the cleaning of electronic components (Refs. 10, p. 3; 28, p. 5; 32; 69). Soil-gas samples 
14

were collected at a depth of 3.5 feet below land surface (bls) and were analyzed for VOCs. These 

analyses provided an initial estimate of the direction, areal extent, and chemical composition of the 

contaminant plume (Ref. 10, p. 10). TCE was detected in 13 of the 42 soil-gas samples, with the highest 

concentrations detected at or near the former location of Volunteer Circuits, at a maximum concentration 

of 30 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) (Ref. 10, pp. 10, 11). However, it should be noted that soil-gas 

contamination could indicate contamination in surface soils, gases migrating upward from the 

contaminated ground water plume, or both. 

Ground water samples collected during the USGS and TDHE investigation from municipal well No. 1 

contained the highest concentrations of TCE (45 μg/L); 1,1,-DCE (32 μg/L); PCE (1.2 μg/L); and 1,1,1-

TCA (38 μg/L). Well No. 2 also contained TCE (0.7 μg/L); 1,1-DCE (0.9 μg/L); and 1,1,1-TCA (1.3 

μg/L). VOCs were not detected in the other two municipal wells at the time of the investigation (Ref. 10, 

p. 8).

Volunteer Circuits

A preliminary assessment (PA) was completed for Volunteer Circuits in April 1992 by TDEC Division of 

Superfund (Ref. 41, p. 1). Volunteer Circuits had manufactured printed circuit boards for the electronics

industry from 1973 to 1975 (Refs. 41, p. 2; 70; 71). Printed circuit board manufacturing involves use of 

various cleaners including 1,1,1-TCA and TCE (Ref. 28, p. 5). This assessment concluded that Volunteer 

Circuits posed a potential threat to the public and environment, and recommended further investigation 

(Ref. 41, pp. 7, 8). 

Between July and November 1992, TDEC Division of Superfund, conducted sampling activities for a site 

inspection (SI) at the Volunteer Circuits property (Ref. 12, pp. 1, 8). The SI included collection of soil 

samples at and in the vicinity of Volunteer Circuits and ground water samples from the City of Alamo’s 

municipal wells (Ref. 12, pp. 8, 16). Soil samples were collected from two areas, a former TCE drum 

storage area and a film developer equipment area, where spent TCE had been dumped when servicing the 

film developer (Refs. 12, pp. 6, 7; 69). Neither of these two areas had institutional containment structures 

or liners (Refs. 12, pp. 6, 7; 69). The areas of VOC soil contamination identified during the TDEC SI 

corresponded to the areas identified during the USGS soil-gas investigation (Ref. 12, p. 19). VOCs 

detected in the City of Alamo’s municipal well Nos. 1, 2, and 3 included 1,1-DCE (up to 35 μg/L); PCE 

(up to 0.7 μg/L); 1,1,1-TCA (up to 31 μg/L); and TCE (up to 45 μg/L) (Ref. 12, pp. 16, 17). It was 

concluded that the VOC contamination in the municipal wells, excluding PCE, was likely partially 

attributable to Volunteer Circuits (Ref. 12, pp. 20, 21).

In November and December 1999, ATC Associates, Inc. (ATC), on behalf of TDEC, conducted an

investigation at the Volunteer Circuits property (Ref. 13, p. 3). ATC advanced 10 soil borings to depths 

ranging from 44 to 55 feet bls. Soil borings were screened with an organic vapor analyzer, and the depth 

intervals with the highest readings within each boring were sampled for VOC analysis (Ref. 13, p. 3). 

VOCs including 1,1-DCE (up to 0.111 parts per million [ppm]); cis-1,2-DCE (0.014 ppm); PCE (0.006 

ppm); 1,1,1-TCA (up to 0.174 ppm); and TCE (up to 0.073 ppm) were detected in four soil borings 

ranging in depth from 5 to 25 feet bls (Ref. 13, p. 6). In addition to soil sampling, ATC collected ground 

water samples from each of the 10 borings (Ref. 13, p. 3). VOCs were detected in ground water collected 

from nine of the 10 locations, with the highest concentrations detected at the northwestern corner of the 

Volunteer Circuits property. At this location, 1,1-DCE was detected at a concentration of 233 parts per 

billion (ppb); 1,1,1-TCA was detected at a concentration of 231 ppb; and TCE was detected at a 

concentration of 187 ppb (Ref. 13, pp. 7, 8).

In June 2000, ATC conducted a second investigation of the area surrounding the Volunteer Circuits 

property, during which 10 additional borings were advanced to depths ranging from 48 to 64 feet bls. 

Only ground water was sampled and analyzed for VOCs during this investigation (Ref. 14, p. 3). The 

highest VOC concentrations were detected in boring locations northwest and side gradient of Volunteer 

Circuits, including 1,1-DCE at 159 ppb; 1,1,1-TCA at 125 ppb; and TCE at 31 ppb (Ref. 14, pp. 5, 6). 

PCE was detected in ground water samples collected from one location east and upgradient of Volunteer 
15

Circuits, near a dry cleaner (B-19 at 45 ppb) and one location southwest and downgradient of Volunteer 

Circuits, near the Alamo Water Department (B-13 at 20 ppb) (Ref. 14, pp. 5, 6).

In September 2000, ATC conducted a third investigation of the area surrounding the Volunteer Circuits 

property at locations identified as potential areas of concern. ATC personnel advanced eight borings at 

depths ranging from 46 to 60 feet bls where ground water was sampled and analyzed for VOCs (Ref. 15, 

p. 3). One ground water sample collected northwest of Volunteer Circuits, near The Crockett Times

building, contained 1,1-DCE (87 ppb); 1,1,1-TCA (25 ppb); and TCE (6 ppb) (Refs. 6, pp. 20, 21, 23; 15, 

pp. 5, 6). PCE was detected in one ground water sample collected east of the Volunteer Circuits property, 

near a service station, at a concentration of 98 ppb (Refs. 15, pp. 5, 6; 72, pp. 1, 2, 4). 

The Crockett Times

Between January and February 2001, TDEC completed a PA for The Crockett Times. The Crockett Times

is a local newspaper located at 46 West Main Street (Ref. 22, p. 1). The newspaper was established in 

1933 and the building that houses the newspaper office was built that same year. The newspaper is 

printed weekly, and until the 1960s, was printed at the Alamo office (Refs. 22, p. 2; 73). Printing 

operations are now subcontracted to The Dyersburg Gazette in nearby Dyersburg, Tennessee, but the 

newspaper office remains in Alamo (Refs. 11, p. 2; 22, p. 2). PCE; 1,1,1-TCA; and TCE are associated 

with newspaper printing (Refs. 11, p. 5; 22, p. 5). Because VOC contamination was detected in ground 

water downgradient of The Crockett Times property during the investigations at Volunteer Circuits, The 

Crockett Times property was recommended for further investigation (Ref. 22, p. 4, 10, 11). 

In January 2004, T N & Associates, Inc. (TN&A), on behalf of the EPA, conducted an SI at The Crockett 

Times in Alamo, Tennessee (Ref. 11, pp. 1, 2). In 1988, chlorinated solvents were detected in Alamo 

municipal well No. 1, located about 400 feet south of The Crockett Times office (Ref. 11, p. 2). At that 

time, the contamination was attributed to the Volunteer Circuits site, but TDEC considered The Crockett 

Times a potential contributor to the ground water contamination based on typical newspaper printing 

activities, including use of inks containing solvents and use of solvents to clean the printing presses (Ref. 

11, pp. 2, 5). Waste storage and disposal practices employed by The Crockett Times during printing 

operations are unknown (Ref. 11, p. 5).

During the SI, TN&A collected 14 surface soil, five temporary monitoring well ground water, and three

municipal well ground water samples (Ref. 11, p. 14). Carbon disulfide was the only VOC detected in 

surface soil samples (Ref. 11, pp. 15, 23). VOCs were detected in three of the temporary monitoring well 

ground water samples, including 1,2-DCA at (13J [estimated] μg/L); 1,1-DCE (up to 6J [estimated] 

μg/L); PCE (up to 240 μg/L); and TCE (4J [estimated] μg/L) (Ref. 11, p. 31). VOCs including 1,1-DCE 

(up to 14A [average] μg/L); PCE (up to 13A [average] μg/L); 1,1,1-TCA (up to 3.4A [average] μg/L); 

and TCE (up to 4.4A [average] μg/L), were also detected in the three municipal well ground water 

samples (Ref. 11, p. 30) (see Table 2 of this HRS documentation record).

Alamo Contaminated Ground Water Site

In May 2010, TDEC, on behalf of EPA, conducted an expanded site inspection (ESI) at the ACGW site. 

During the ESI, 14 permanent monitoring wells were installed and sampled in the City of Alamo (Ref. 7, 

Enclosure 1, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1). A total of 20 soil samples were collected from the borings between 0 

and 23 feet bls (Refs. 7, Enclosure 6; 8, pp. 10, 13). No site-related VOCs were detected in any of the soil 

borings (Ref. 8, p. 13). Ground water samples were also collected from the City of Alamo’s four 

municipal wells (Refs. 7, Enclosures 5 and 6; 8, p .12; 40). Ground water samples collected from the 

permanent monitoring wells contained 1,2-DCA (4.0 μg/L) and PCE (up to 1.2 μg/L) (Ref. 9, pp. 91, 96). 

Ground water samples collected from the City’s municipal wells contained 1,1-DCE (up to 3.9 μg/L); 

PCE (up to 18 μg/L); 1,1,1-TCA (up to 0.55J μg/L); and TCE (up to 1.8 μg/L) (Ref. 9, pp. 34, 35, 37, 38, 

39) (see Table 4 of this HRS documentation record). PCE was detected above its EPA maximum 

contaminant level (MCL) of 5 μg/L in municipal ground water well samples AG01-0510-MS (16 μg/L), 

AG01-0510-MSD (16 μg/L), AG02-0510-MS (18 μg/L), and AG03-0510-MS (9.9 μg/L) (Refs. 2, p. BII11; 8, p. 12). TCE was detected at concentrations exceeding its EPA cancer risk screening concentration 
16

of 0.21 μg/L in municipal ground water well samples AG01-0510-MS (1.7 μg/L), AG01-0510-MSD (1.8 

μg/L), and AG03-0510-MS (1.1J μg/L) (Refs. 2, p. BI,B2-1; 8, p. 12). 
Source No. 1

17 Source Characterization

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

Number of source: 1

Name of source: Contaminated Ground Water Plume

Source Type: Other – Ground Water Plume with No Identified Source

Description and Location of Source (with reference to a map of site):

The ACGW site consists of a contaminated ground water plume with no identified source underlying the 

City of Alamo (Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-2; 8, p. 12). The approximate extent of the ground water 

plume is defined by permanent monitoring well locations AG18, AG08, AG17, and City of Alamo 

municipal well No. 2 location (AG02, AWD #2) (Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, pp. E3-1, E3-2; 8, p. 19) (see 

Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record).

Ground water samples collected from the City of Alamo’s municipal wells in 1988 and 1989 revealed 

1,1-DCE; 1,1,1-TCA; and TCE contamination in municipal well No. 1 (Refs. 48, pp. 1 through 4; 49, pp. 

1, 2; 50, pp. 1 through 24). The highest TCE concentration was detected in a sample collected by TDHE 

(currently TDEC) in September 1988 at about 113 μg/L (Refs. 10, p. 3; 52). Following the release of 

these sample results, use of the City of Alamo’s municipal well No. 1 was immediately discontinued (Ref. 

10, p. 3). As an interim remedial measure, the City resumed pumping well No. 1, although not for 

distribution, and discharged the water to a drainage ditch (Refs. 16; 30, p. 1). The City continued 

discharging water pumped from well No. 1 to a drainage ditch until July 2, 1991 when the City of Alamo 

installed an air stripper (Refs. 16; 29). At this time, municipal well No. 1 was put back into service and 

all City of Alamo municipal wells were monitored for VOC concentrations on a regular basis (Refs. 29; 

31, p. i; 51, p. i). City of Alamo municipal well No. 1 is still in service at the time of this HRS 

documentation record (Ref. 29). 

Source samples collected from Source No. 1 during the January 2004 Crockett Times SI and May 2010 

ACGW site ESI contained 1,1-DCE; 1,2-DCA; PCE; 1,1,1- TCA; and TCE (Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-

2; 8, p. 12; 11, pp. 30, 31) (see Table 1 of this HRS documentation record). 
Source No. 1

18 Source Characterization

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE

During the EPA January 2004 Crockett Times SI, ground water samples were collected from the City of 

Alamo’s municipal wells, as well as from temporary monitoring wells. During the EPA May 2010 

ACGW site ESI, the City of Alamo’s municipal wells were once again sampled. Also during the ESI, 

permanent monitoring wells were installed and sampled in the City of Alamo. Table 1 presents the 

ground water wells and hazardous substances associated with Source No. 1, a ground water plume with 

no identified source. For more detailed analytical results documenting the ground water plume, see 

Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record.

TABLE 1: Source No. 1 Ground Water Wells and Associated Hazardous Substances

Well ID Sample ID Hazardous Substances References

City of Alamo Municipal Wells

No. 1

CT-AWD1-PW

AG01-0510-MS

AG01-0510-MSD

1,1-DCE

PCE

1,1,1-TCA

TCE

9, pp. 32, 33, 34, 35; 11, 

Appendix B, p. B-1

No. 2

CT-AWD2-PW

CT-AWD2D-PW

AG02-0510-MS

1,1-DCE

PCE

1,1,1-TCA

TCE

9, p. 37; 11, Appendix B, pp. 

B-2, B-3

No. 3 AG03-0510-MS 1,1-DCE

TCE 9, pp. 38, 39

Temporary Monitoring Wells

CT-03-GP CT-03-GP PCE 11, Appendix B, p. B-62

CT-07-GP CT-07-GP PCE 11, Appendix B, p. B-66

Permanent Monitoring Wells

AG08 AG08-0510-MW PCE 9, p. 51

AG09 AG09-0510-MW PCE 9, p. 55

AG15 AG15-0510-MW PCE 9, p. 83

AG17 AG17-0510-MW 1,2-DCA 9, p. 91

AG18 AG18-0510-MW

AG18-0510-MWD PCE 9, pp. 96, 98

Notes:

AG Alamo Contaminated Ground Water

AWD Alamo Water Department

CT Crockett Times

D Duplicate

DCA Dichloroethane

DCE Dichloroethene

GP Geoprobe

ID Identification

MS Municipal well sample

MW Monitoring well sample

No. Number

PCE Tetrachloroethene

PW Potable well

TCA Trichloroethane

TCE Trichloroethene
Source No. 1

19 Source Characterization

2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY

Samples collected from Source No. 1 contained 1,1-DCE; 1,2-DCA; PCE; 1,1,1-TCA; and TCE. Source 

No. 1 consists of a contaminated ground water plume with no identified source underlying the City of 

Alamo (Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-2; 8, p. 12) (also see Tables 2 and 4 of this HRS documentation 

record). Analytical results for ground water samples collected from monitoring wells installed in the City 

of Alamo, as well as the City of Alamo’s municipal wells, indicate that a release of hazardous substances 

has occurred to the ground water migration pathway as documented in Section 3.1.1 of this HRS 

documentation record. During the EPA May 2010 ACGW site ESI, no liners were observed during 

permanent monitoring well installation and sampling activities (Ref. 7, Enclosure 1). Therefore, a 

containment factor value of 10, as noted in Table 2, was assigned for the ground water migration pathway 

(Ref. 1, Section 3.1.2.1, Table 3-2).

TABLE 2: Containment Factors for Source No. 1

Containment Description

Containment 

Factor Value References

Gas release to air NS NA

Particulate release to air NS NA

Release to ground water: No liner; evidence of 

migration

10 1, Section 3.1.2.1, Table 3-2; 7, 

Enclosure 1; see also Section 3.1.1 

of this HRS documentation record.

Release via overland migration and/or flood NS NA

Notes:

NA Not applicable

NS Not scored
Source No. 1

20 Source Characterization

2.4.2.1 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier A, hazardous constituent quantity, as required 

by Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.1.1.

Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: NA

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier B, hazardous wastestream quantity, as required 

by Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.1.2.

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value: NA

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

Based on sampling data, a contaminated ground water plume with no identified source underlies the City 

of Alamo, Tennessee. The vertical and horizontal extent of ground water contamination have not been 

identified. Therefore, for Source No. 1, a value of greater than zero has been assigned for the source 

hazardous waste quantity (HWQ) value for volume (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.3).

Volume Assigned Value: >0

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Tier D is not evaluated for source type “other” (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.4).

Area Assigned Value: 0

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

Source No. 1 is assigned a source HWQ value of greater than zero, but undetermined (Ref. 1, Section

2.4.2.1.5).

Source HWQ Value: >0
21 Source Characterization

SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

TABLE 3: Summary of Source Descriptions

Source 

No.

Source

Hazardous

Waste

Quantity

Value

Source 

Hazardous 

Constituent 

Quantity 

Complete?

(Yes/No)

Containment Factor Value by Pathway

Ground 

Water

(Ref. 1, 

Table 3-2)

Surface 

Water

Overland/ 

Flood

(Ref. 1, 

Table 4-2)

Air

Gas

(Ref. 1, 

Table 6-3)

Particulate

(Ref. 1, 

Table 6-9)

1 >0 No 10 NS NS NS

Notes:

> Greater than

NS Not scored

Total Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: >0.

Other Possible Sources

• Volunteer Circuits: Volunteer Circuits manufactured printed circuit boards for the electronics 

industry from 1973 to 1975 (Refs. 41, p. 2; 71). Printed circuit board manufacturing involves use 

of various cleaners including 1,1,1-TCA and TCE (Ref. 28, p. 5). Between 1992 and 2000, 

TDEC conducted several investigations of the Volunteer Circuits property, as well as surrounding 

properties. Soil and ground water samples collected during these investigations contained VOCs 

including 1,1-DCE; cis-1,2-DCE; PCE; 1,1,1-TCA; and TCE. VOCs detected in the City of 

Alamo’s municipal well Nos. 1, 2, and 3 included 1,1-DCE (up to 35 μg/L); PCE (up to 0.7 

μg/L); 1,1,1-TCA (up to 31 μg/L); and TCE (up to 45 μg/L) (Ref. 12, pp. 16, 17). It was 

concluded that the VOC contamination, excluding PCE, in the municipal wells was likely 

partially attributable to Volunteer Circuits (Ref. 12, pp. 20, 21). 

• The Crockett Times: The Crockett Times is a local newspaper located at 46 West Main Street 

(Ref. 22, p. 1). The newspaper was established in 1933 and the building that houses the 

newspaper office was built that same year. PCE; 1,1,1-TCA; and TCE are associated with 

newspaper printing (Refs. 11, p. 5; 22, p. 5). In 1988, chlorinated solvents were detected in 

Alamo municipal well No. 1, located about 400 feet south of The Crockett Times office (Ref. 11, 

p. 2). TDEC considered The Crockett Times a potential contributor to the ground water 

contamination based on typical newspaper printing activities, including use of inks containing 

solvents and use of solvents to clean the printing presses (Ref. 11, pp. 2, 5). In January 2004, 

TN&A, on behalf of the EPA, conducted an SI at The Crockett Times (Ref. 11, pp. 1, 2). Carbon 

disulfide was the only VOC detected in surface soil samples collected during the SI (Ref. 11, pp. 

15, 23). Also during the SI, VOCs, including 1,2-DCA; 1,1-DCE; PCE; 1,1,1-TCA; and TCE, 

were detected in temporary monitoring well ground water samples and in the City of Alamo’s 

municipal wells (Ref. 11, pp. 30, 31), but they could not be specifically linked to operations at 

The Crockett Times. 

• North Johnson Street Dry Cleaners: In July and August 2004, TDEC conducted a prescreening 

investigation at the property located at 18 North Johnson Street, Alamo, Tennessee (Ref. 44, pp. 

1, 3, 9). From about 1941 to about 1973, this property was used as a dry cleaning business, and 

was at one time known as Alamo Dry Cleaners (Ref. 44, p. 2). Two soil samples were collected 

and analyzed for VOCs, one near the back wall and one near the side wall of the building (Ref. 

44, p. 4). PCE and TCE were not detected in either sample (Ref. 44, pp. 5, 43, 44, 46, 47). At the 
22 Source Characterization

time of the investigation, no wells were present that would allow access to the ground water for 

sampling; therefore, no ground water samples were collected (Ref. 44, p. 4). During the EPA 

May 2010 ACGW site ESI, permanent monitoring well AG08 was installed in the parking lot 

immediately in front of 18 North Johnson Street (Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 8, p. 19; 44, pp. 

14, 15). The ground water sample collected from this well, AG08-0510-MW, contained PCE

(0.67 μg/L) (Ref. 9, p. 51). PCE is a common solvent used in the dry cleaning industry (Ref. 57, 

p. 1).

• Ward’s Dry Cleaners: Ward’s Dry Cleaners (Ward’s) is located at 807 East Main Street (Refs. 6, 

pp. 5, 31, 38; 8, p. 19; 58). It is currently in operation; therefore, according to regulations, TDEC 

cannot investigate the facility. Ward’s is not part of TDEC’s dry cleaner program and it does not 

currently perform any dry cleaning on the premises, although at one time it did (Ref. 58). During 

the EPA May 2010 ACGW site ESI, permanent monitoring well AG18 was installed in the alley 

adjacent to Ward’s (Refs. 6, p. 38; 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 8, p. 19). The ground water samples 

collected from this well, AG18-0510-MW and AG18-0510-MWD, contained PCE at 

concentrations of 1.2 μg/L and 1.1 μg/L, respectively (Ref. 9, pp. 96, 98). 
23 GW-Likelihood of Release

3.0 GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

3.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ground Water Migration Pathway Description

Regional Geology

The ACGW site is located in the central portion of Crockett County on the Mississippi Embayment of the 

Coastal Plain physiographic province (Ref. 10, p. 3). More specifically, the ACGW site is located in the 

North Central Plateau, which is predominantly underlain by sandy material from the Wilcox and 

Claiborne deposits. The topography is characterized by extensive terrace and loess deposits (Ref. 24, p. 

B24). The Mississippi Embayment is comprised of Paleozoic rocks that are filled with unconsolidated 

sediments of Mesozoic and Cenozoic age ― primarily sand, clay, silt, chalk, gravel, and lignite. Due to 

the westward dip of the strata, these sediments are as much as 3,000 feet thick near the axis, but their 

thickness decreases eastward to about 2,500 to 2,600 feet in the vicinity of the ACGW site (Ref. 10, p. 3). 

The elevation of the ACGW site is approximately 360 to 375 feet amsl (Ref. 39). The geology in the 

vicinity of the ACGW site may include, in descending stratigraphic order, some or all of the following 

units: alluvial deposits of Holocene and Pleistocene age; loess of Pleistocene age; fluvial (terrace) 

deposits of Pleistocene and Pliocene age; the Claiborne Group composed of the Jackson and Cockfield 

Formation of late Eocene age; the Cook Mountain Formation of middle Eocene age; the Memphis Sand 

Formation (500-foot sand) of early Eocene age; the Wilcox Group composed of the Flour Island 

Formation and Fort Pillow Sand (1,400-foot sand) of upper Paleocene age; the Old Breastworks 

Formation of middle Paleocene age; the Midway Group composed of the Porters Creek Clay of middle 

Paleocene age; and the Clayton Formation of lower Paleocene age (Ref. 17, p. 4).

The surface sediments (<100 feet) in the vicinity of the ACGW site consist of either fluvial deposits or 

the Cockfield Formation. Where present, the Jackson Formation overlies the Cockfield Formation, but 

because of similarities in lithology, the Jackson and Cockfield Formations cannot be reliably subdivided 

(Ref. 26, pp. 4, 7). For the purposes of this HRS evaluation, these sediments will be referred to as the 

upper Claiborne Group. Fluvial deposits are characterized by sand, gravel, minor clay, and ferruginous 

sandstone (Ref. 10, p. 4). The Cockfield Formation commonly consists of clay and silt in the upper part 

and sand in the lower part, but locally, the upper part contains thick sand beds and the lower part contains 

thick clay and silt beds that are difficult to distinguish from the underlying Cook Mountain Formation 

(Ref. 26, p. 5). Fluvial deposits range from 0 to 100 feet thick, and the Cockfield Formation ranges from 

0 to 270 feet thick (Ref. 10, p. 4).

The Cook Mountain Formation underlies the Cockfield Formation, and generally consists of clay and silt. 

However, in the vicinity of the ACGW site, it may consist predominantly of fine sand due to a possible 

facies change at the time of sediment deposition, post-depositional erosion, or local faulting of the strata 

(Ref. 10, p. 4). Thickness ranges from 40 to 200 feet, but averages about 70 feet. According to driller 

logs, this formation is thin or absent at the City of Alamo wellfield. However, a clay deposit, which may 

be the Cook Mountain Formation at a depth of 120 to 140 feet bls (247 to 227 feet amsl), was recorded in 

a drillers log 1 mile northwest of Alamo, (Ref. 10, p. 4). 

The Cook Mountain Formation is underlain by the Memphis Sand Formation, which consists of very fine 

to very coarse sand that includes subordinate lenses or beds of carbonaceous and lignitic clay and silt at 

various horizons; thin lenses of lignite also occur locally (Ref. 17, p. 5). The Memphis Sand includes 

strata equivalent to, in ascending order, the Tallahatta Formation, Winona Sand, Zilpha Clay, Sparta Sand 

of Mississippi, Carrizo Sand, Cane River Formation, and Sparta Sand of Arkansas (Ref. 17, p. 5). The 

Memphis Sand ranges from 0 to about 900 feet thick. In the vicinity of the ACGW site, the Memphis 

Sand is approximately 500 feet thick (Ref. 17, pp. 5, 6). According to lithologic logs from the May 2010 

sampling event, the Memphis Sand Formation is first encountered at about 20 to 40 feet bls (347 to 327 

feet amsl) (Ref. 7, Enclosure 1, Enclosure 2, Enclosure 4, p. E4-1).
24 GW-Likelihood of Release

Underlying the Memphis Sand Formation is the Flour Island Formation. This formation ranges in 

thickness from 0 to 310 feet and consists of predominantly clay and silt, but also contains sand, and 

lignite (Ref. 17, p. 4). Where present, the formation acts as a confining unit between the Memphis Sand 

and the Fort Pillow Sand (Ref. 17, p. 4). The Flour Island Formation is estimated to be approximately 

540 feet bls (173 feet below mean sea level [bmsl]) in the vicinity of the ACGW site (Ref. 17, p. 6).

All targets evaluated for the ACGW site are in the Memphis Sand aquifer; therefore, formations/aquifers 

below the Memphis Sand are not discussed further.

Regional Aquifer Description:

Overview narrative – Surficial aquifers in western Tennessee are located in alluvium and fluvial deposits 

comprised of sand, gravel, silt, clay and ferruginous sandstone (Ref. 27, p. 4). Available data suggest that 

the majority of the surficial aquifer is found in the sand and gravel deposits of the Mississippi River 

alluvial plain, which is part of the Quaternary System. These water bearing zones provide water to farm 

and domestic wells in rural areas (Ref. 17, p. 4). Where present, the Cook Mountain Formation provides 

a lower confining unit for the Cockfield Formation, separating the Cockfield aquifer from the Memphis 

Sand aquifer. The Memphis Sand aquifer is the primary source of water for residents in western 

Tennessee (Refs. 10, p. 1; 26, p. 7).

Surficial aquifer – In western Tennessee, the surficial aquifer is not well defined within the alluvium and 

fluvial deposits. Consequently, local impervious layers form small basins of perched water (Ref. 23, p. 

41). Where present, the Jackson Formation overlies the Cockfield Formation, but because of similarities 

in lithology, the Jackson and Cockfield Formations cannot be reliably subdivided (Ref. 26, pp. 4, 7). The 

Cockfield aquifer is generally unconfined and is comprised of saturated beds or lenses of sand. Recharge 

to this aquifer is by precipitation on sparse outcrops or downward migration of water from the overlying 

fluvial deposits (Ref. 26, p. 7). The Cockfield aquifer provides small to moderate quantities of water for 

several public and industrial supply wells, as well as domestic and farm wells in western Tennessee (Ref. 

26, p. 14). The potentiometric surface within the upper Claiborne Group is complex due to large 

differences in the altitude of the uplands of the Gulf Coastal Plain and the lowlands of the Mississippi 

Alluvial Plain. Seasonal fluctuations also add to the complexity, but ground water flow typically 

conforms to topography (Ref. 26, pp. 7, 9). In 1985 the ground water elevation of the upper Claiborne 

Group, in the vicinity of the ACGW site, ranged from 325 to 350 feet amsl (Ref. 26, p. 8).

Confining Unit – The Cook Mountain Formation is comprised of clay, sand, and silt, and averages 70 feet 

in thickness. Where present, it acts as the lower confining unit of the Cockfield aquifer (Ref. 26, pp. 4, 

7). According to driller’s log of the City of Alamo wellfield, the Cook Mountain Formation is not 

recognizable (Refs. 10, p. 4; 47, pp. 14, 15). In the ACGW site vicinity, the Cook Mountain Formation 

may be thin and/or sandy, or displaced by faults leaving the Cockfield and Memphis aquifer in direct 

hydraulic connection (Refs. 7, Enclosure 1; 10, p. 4; 17, pp. 7, 9).

Memphis Sand aquifer – The Memphis Sand aquifer is the primary source of water for residents in 

western Tennessee. It is a thick deposit of water-bearing sand that includes subordinate lenses or beds of 

clay and silt at various horizons. It is estimated to contain approximately 170 trillion gallons of water 

(Refs. 10, p. 1; 17, p. 5; 25, p. F17). Recharge to the aquifer generally occurs from precipitation along the 

broad outcrop belt across western Tennessee and downward infiltration of water from the overlying 

fluvial and alluvium deposits (Ref. 17, p. 7). Static water levels at the City of Alamo public supply wells, 

screened in the Memphis Sand aquifer, range from 39 to 49 feet bls, or from 328 to 318 feet amsl. Total 

depths of these wells range from 125.8 to 213 feet bls, or from 224.2 to 137 feet amsl (Refs. 10, pp. 6, 10; 

39; 47, pp. 10 through 14; 55). Due to the thin or absent Cook Mountain formation, the Memphis Sand 

aquifer is generally unconfined in the vicinity of the ACGW site (Ref. 10, p. 4). Ground water flow in the 

unconfined portion of the Memphis Sand aquifer is westward, which generally conforms to the 

topography as well as the westward dip of the Claiborne Group strata. Ground water flow in the confined 

portion of the Memphis Sand aquifer is west-southwest, following the westerly dip of the Claiborne 

Group strata (Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-2; 10, p. 5; 17, p. 7).
25 GW-Likelihood of Release

Site Geology/Aquifer Description

According to lithologic logs from permanent monitoring wells installed during the EPA May 2010 ESI, 

the ACGW site is underlain, in descending stratigraphic order, by silty to sandy clay; and sand with clay 

lenses (Ref. 7, Enclosure 1). According to a USGS study conducted in 1988 and 1989, VOCs were 

detected in the two shallowest wells located in the City of Alamo wellfield (Ref. 10, p. 10). The detection 

of these compounds, as well as the lack of evidence supporting the presence of the Cook Mountain 

Formation in the vicinity of the ACGW site, indicate that the silty and sandy clay present in the vicinity 

of the ACGW site is not a competent confining or semi-confining unit (Refs. 17, pp. 7, 9; 10, pp. 4, 10; 

26, pp. 4, 7). 

Surface sediments are composed of undifferentiated clastic and siliciclastic sediments. Neither the 

Cockfield nor the Cook Mountain Formation appears to be present in the vicinity of the ACGW site (Ref. 

7, Enclosure 1). Typically, the Cook Mountain Formation is a minimum of 40 feet thick and serves as the 

upper confining unit of the Memphis Sand aquifer (Ref. 10, p. 4). As evident in the lithologic logs 

generated by EPA, the sediment at and above the water table consists of sand and clay lenses. It is 

unclear whether this zone is part of the Cook Mountain Formation that has undergone a facies change as 

the result of sediment deposition, post-depositional erosion, or local faulting of the strata (Refs. 7, 

Enclosure 1; 10, p. 4). Due to the presence of sand and clay lenses, as well as a possible facies change, 

the Cook Mountain Formation becomes difficult to distinguish between the lower Cockfield and the 

upper Memphis Sand (Ref. 10, p. 4).

Static water level measured in wells installed during the EPA May 2010 ACGW site ESI range from 

37.80 to 53.84 feet bls, or 317.08 to 303.48 feet amsl, which coincides with water levels in the City of 

Alamo wellfield. This suggests that the newly installed permanent monitoring wells are completed and 

withdraw water from within the Memphis Sand aquifer (Refs. 7, Enclosure 1, Enclosure 2, Enclosure 3, p. 

E3-2, Enclosure 4, p. E4-1; 10, p. 5). This concurrence indicates that the confining layer (Cook Mountain 

Formation) between the Cockfield aquifer and the Memphis Sand aquifer is thin or absent in the site 

vicinity, allowing water to more readily migrate to the Memphis aquifer (Refs. 7, Enclosure 1, Enclosure 

2, Enclosure 3, p. E3-2, Enclosure 4, p. E4-1; 10, pp. 4, 5). 

Depths of the permanent monitoring wells installed during the EPA May 2010 ACGW site ESI range 

from 85.83 to 111.80 feet bls, or 275.34 to 243.77 feet amsl. Logs of these monitoring wells display 

water levels indicating that ground water flows in a westerly direction toward the City of Alamo wellfield 

(Ref. 7, Enclosure 1, Enclosure 2, Enclosure 3, p. E3-2).

Aquifer Interconnection

In western Tennessee, the surficial aquifer is not well defined, but is generally located in the Cockfield 

formation. Regionally, the surficial aquifer is comprised of sand, silt, clay and lignite making it quite 

similar to the Memphis Sand, which consists of sand, silt, clay, and minor lignite (Ref. 10, p. 4). The 

Cook Mountain Formation by and large consists of clay and silt and generally acts as a confining unit 

(between the Cockfield and Memphis Sand), but can locally consist of fine grain sand and clay lenses 

consequently diminishing the ability to serve as a competent confining unit (Ref. 17, p. 4). Conditions for 

downward leakage are particularly favorable where the Cook Mountain Formation is thin or sandy or 

where faults have displaced the Cook Mountain Formation leaving the Cockfield and Memphis Sand 

aquifers in direct hydraulic connection (Ref. 17, p. 7, 9). A review of the lithologic logs from the May 

2010 ESI indicates that ground water is first encountered approximately 317 to 303.5 feet amsl, which 

coincides with water levels in the City of Alamo wellfield. This suggests that the newly installed 

permanent monitoring wells are completed within the Memphis Sand aquifer. The logs further suggest

that the surficial aquifer may not be present in the vicinity of the ACGW site (Refs. 7, Enclosure 1, 

Enclosure 2, Enclosure 3, p. E3-2, Enclosure 4, p. E4-1; 10, p. 5).
26 GW-Likelihood of Release

Aquifer Discontinuities

The Memphis Sand provides water for most public and industrial supplies in the western part of 

Tennessee and outcrops east of Crockett County. The Memphis Sand aquifer is considered to be 

continuous within the 4-mile radius of the ACGW site (Ref. 17, pp. 4, 6).

SUMMARY OF AQUIFER BEING EVALUATED

TABLE 4: Summary of Aquifer Being Evaluated

Aquifer Name

Is Aquifer 

Interconnected with 

Upper Aquifer within 2 

Miles? (Yes/No/NA)

Is Aquifer 

Continuous within 

4-mile TDL? 

(Yes/No)

Is Aquifer 

Karst? 

(Yes/No) References

Memphis Sand Yes1 Yes No 7, Enclosure 1; 10, 

p. 4; 17, pp. 7, 9

Notes:

1 If/where the overlying surficial aquifer is present

TDL Target distance limit 
27 GW-Likelihood of Release

3.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE

3.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE

Aquifer Being Evaluated: Memphis Sand

- Hazardous Substances in Release: 1,1-DCE; 1,2-DCA; PCE; 1,1,1-TCA; and TCE

Chemical Analysis

Since 1988, VOCs have been documented in ground water underlying the City of Alamo and in Alamo’s 

municipal drinking water wells (Refs. 8, pp. 5, 12; 10, pp. 1, 3; 48, pp. 1 through 4; 49, pp. 1 through 4). 

Source No. 1 is a ground water plume with no identified source (Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, pp. E3-1, E3-2; 8, 

p. 12) (see Figure 3 and Section 2.2.1 of this HRS documentation record). 

EPA January 2004 Crockett Times Site Inspection

Background Samples

The background ground water samples listed in Table 5 were collected during the EPA January 2004 

Crockett Times SI (Refs. 11, pp. 2, 15, 18; 42, pp. 6, 12). During this investigation, ground water 

samples collected from municipal well Nos. 1 and 2 (CT-AWD1-PW, CT-AWD2-PW, and CT-AWD2DPW) contained 1,1-DCE; PCE; 1,1,1-TCA; and/or TCE. The ground water sample collected from 

municipal well No. 4 (CT-AWD4-PW) did not contain these hazardous substances (Ref. 11, p. 30). 

Therefore, ground water sample CT-AWD4-PW, collected from the City of Alamo’s municipal well No. 

4, is used to represent background concentrations for ground water samples collected from the City of 

Alamo’s municipal well Nos. 1 and 2 (Ref. 11, pp. 20, 30) (see Section 2.2.1, Source No. 1, of this HRS 

documentation record). All City of Alamo municipal wells are screened in the Memphis Sand aquifer 

(Ref. 55). Based on its upgradient location and absence of contamination, temporary monitoring well CT06-GP is used to represent background for downgradient temporary monitoring wells (Ref. 11, pp. 15, 

31). 

Background and observed release municipal well ground water samples were collected during the same 

sampling event, from similar depth intervals, and in accordance with the same sampling procedures (Refs. 

11, p. 14; 42; 53, Section 8). Background and observed release temporary monitoring well ground water 

samples were collected during the same sampling event, from similar depths, and in accordance with the 

same sampling procedures (Refs. 11, p. 14; 42; 53, Section 7). Temporary monitoring wells were 

installed and background ground water samples were collected in accordance with the EPA Region 4 

Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual 

(EISOPQAM), November 2001 (Refs. 11, p. 14; 53, Sections 6, 7, and 8). The locations of the 

background ground water samples are depicted on Figure 7, page 15 in Reference 11. Logbook notes are 

contained in Reference 42, and chain-of-custody records are contained in References 66 and 78. 

TABLE 5: Background Ground Water Samples – January 2004

Sample ID

Total Depth 

(feet amsl)

Date 

Sampled Location References

CT-AWD4-PW 201 1/22/2004

City of Alamo municipal 

well No. 4, south of West 

Park Street

7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 

11, pp. 15, 18; 39; 42, p. 

6; 55; 78, p. 2

CT-06-GP 288 1/21/2004 Northwest of the former 

Volunteer Circuits

11, p. 15; 39; 42, p. 4; 66, 

p. 2
28 GW-Likelihood of Release

Notes:

amsl Above mean sea level

AWD Alamo Water Department

CT Crockett Times

GP Geoprobe

ID Identification number

PW Potable well
29 GW-Likelihood of Release

Background Concentrations

The background municipal well ground water sample was analyzed for VOCs by the EPA Region 4 

Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) Analytical Support Branch (ASB) in accordance with 

the ASB Laboratory Operations Quality Assurance Manual (LOQAM) (Refs. 20; 67; 78, p. 2). The 

minimum quantitation limits (MQL) are listed in the ASB LOQAM (Ref. 67, Chapter 7, Appendix 3). 

Each MQL corresponds to the lowest quantitative point on the calibration curve or the lowest 

demonstrated level of acceptable quantitation (Ref. 67, Chapter 5, p. 6). The MQLs are equivalent to 

sample quantitation limits (SQL) (Ref. 21). The background temporary monitoring well ground water 

sample was analyzed for VOCs by a Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratory in accordance with 

the EPA CLP SOW OLM04.3 for multi-media, multi-concentration organic analytical service (Refs. 11, 

Appendix B, p. B-65; 65; 66, p. 2; 74). EPA Region 4 SESD reviewed all CLP data according to the 

contract statement of work (SOW) and EPA guidelines (Ref. 20). Contract required quantitation limits 

(CRQL) are provided in Reference 65. Analytical data sheets are contained in Appendix B of Reference 

11. Form I data sheets from the CLP laboratory are contained in Reference 74. 

TABLE 6: Analytical Results for Background Samples – January 2004

Sample ID

Hazardous

Substance

Hazardous

Substance 

Concentration MQL/CRQL* References

City of Alamo Municipal Well

CT-AWD4-PW 1,1-DCE 1.0U μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-4; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 2; 78, p. 2

CT-AWD4-PW PCE 1.0U μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-4; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 4; 78, p. 2

CT-AWD4-PW 1,1,1-TCA 1.0U μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-4; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 4; 78, p. 2

CT-AWD4-PW TCE 1.0U μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-4; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 4; 78, p. 2

Temporary Monitoring Well

CT-06-GP PCE 10U μg/L 10 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-65; 42, p. 4; 65, 

p. 2; 66, p. 2; 74, pp. ii, 14

Notes:

* The municipal ground water well samples are compared to MQLs contained in Reference 67, Chapter 7, Appendix 3. 

The temporary monitoring well ground water samples are compared to CRQLs contained in Reference 65.

AWD Alamo Water Department

CRQL Contract required quantitation limit

CT Crockett Times

DCA Dichloroethane

DCE Dichloroethene

GP Geoprobe

ID Identification number

μg/L Micrograms per liter

MQL Minimum quantitation limit

PW Potable well

PCE Tetrachloroethene

TCA Trichloroethane

TCE Trichloroethene

U The analyte was not detected at or above reporting limit.
30 GW-Likelihood of Release

Contaminated Samples

The ground water samples listed in Table 7 were collected during the EPA January 2004 Crockett Times 

SI (Refs. 11, pp. 2, 15, 18; 42, pp. 5, 6, 13). Contaminated samples were collected from the City of 

Alamo’s municipal well Nos. 1 and 2, as well as from temporary monitoring wells CT-03-GP and CT-07-

GP (Refs. 11, p. 18; 42, pp. 5, 6, 13). The contaminated ground water samples listed in Table 7 were 

collected in accordance with the EPA Region 4 EISOPQAM, November 2001 (Refs. 11, p. 14; 53, 

Sections 7 and 8). Logbook notes are provided in Reference 42. The chain-of-custody records are 

provided in References 66 and 78. The locations of the source samples listed in Table 7 are depicted on 

Figure 7, page 15 in Reference 11, and are described in Table 3, page 18 in Reference 11 (also see Figure 

3 of this HRS documentation record). 

TABLE 7: Contaminated Ground Water Samples – January 2004

Sample ID

Total Depth 

(feet amsl)

Date 

Sampled Location References

CT-AWD1-PW 223 1/22/2004

City of Alamo municipal well

No. 1, just north of West Park 

Street

7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 

11, p. 18; 39; 42, p. 6; 

55; 78, p. 1

CT-AWD2-PW

224.2 1/22/2004

City of Alamo municipal well

No. 2, just north of West Park 

Street

7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 

11, p. 18; 39; 42, p. 6; 

CT-AWD2D-PW 55; 78, p. 1

CT-03-GP 302 1/21/2004

South side of West Main 

Street, across from Crockett 

Times building

11, p. 15; 39; 42, p. 13; 

66, p. 1

CT-07-GP 292 1/21/2004 Just east of City of Alamo 

municipal well No. 1

11, p. 15; 39; 42, pp. 4, 

5; 66, p. 2

Notes:

amsl Above mean sea level

AWD Alamo Water Department

CT Crockett Times

D Duplicate

GP Geoprobe

ID Identification number

PW Potable well
31 GW-Likelihood of Release

Contaminated Concentrations

Municipal well ground water samples were analyzed for VOCs by the EPA Region 4 SESD ASB in 

accordance with the ASB LOQAM (Refs. 20; 67; 78, p. 1). The MQLs are listed in the ASB LOQAM 

(Ref. 67, Chapter 7, Appendix 3). Each MQL corresponds to the lowest quantitative point on the 

calibration curve or the lowest demonstrated level of acceptable quantitation (Ref. 67, Chapter 5, p. 6). 

The MQLs are equivalent to SQLs (Ref. 21). Temporary monitoring well ground water samples were 

analyzed for VOCs by a CLP laboratory in accordance with the EPA CLP SOW OLM04.3 for multimedia, multi-concentration organic analytical service (Refs. 11, Appendix B, pp. B-62, B-66; 65; 66; 74). 

EPA Region 4 SESD reviewed all CLP data according to the contract SOW and EPA guidelines (Ref. 

20). CRQLs are provided in Reference 65. Analytical data sheets are contained in Appendix B of 

Reference 11. Form I data sheets from the CLP laboratory are contained in Reference 74.

TABLE 8: Analytical Results for Contaminated Samples – January 2004

Sample ID

Hazardous

Substance

Hazardous

Substance 

Concentration MQL/CRQL* References

City of Alamo Municipal Wells

CT-AWD1-PW 1,1-DCE 14A μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-1; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 2; 78, p. 1

CT-AWD1-PW PCE 5.3A μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-1; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 4; 78, p. 1

CT-AWD1-PW 1,1,1-TCA 3.4A μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-1; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 4; 78, p. 1

CT-AWD1-PW TCE 4.4A μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-1; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 4; 78, p. 1

CT-AWD2-PW 1,1-DCE 5.1A μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-3; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 2; 78, p. 1

CT-AWD2-PW PCE 13A μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-3; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 4; 78, p. 1

CT-AWD2-PW 1,1,1-TCA 1.2A μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-3; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 4; 78, p. 1

CT-AWD2-PW TCE 1.0A μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-3; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 4; 78, p. 1

CT-AWD2D-PW 1,1-DCE 5.0A μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-2; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 2; 78, p. 1

CT-AWD2D-PW PCE 13A μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-2; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 4; 78, p. 1

CT-AWD2D-PW 1,1,1-TCA 1.2A μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-2; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 4; 78, p. 1

CT-AWD2D-PW TCE 1.0A μg/L 1 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-2; 42, p. 6; 67, 

Chapter 7, Appendix 3, p. 4; 78, p. 1

Temporary Monitoring Wells

CT-03-GP PCE 48 μg/L 10 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-62; 42, p. 13; 

65, p. 2; 66, p. 1; 74, pp. ii, 8
32 GW-Likelihood of Release

TABLE 8: Analytical Results for Contaminated Samples – January 2004

Sample ID

Hazardous

Substance

Hazardous

Substance 

Concentration MQL/CRQL* References

CT-07-GP PCE 240 μg/L 10 μg/L 11, Appendix B, p. B-66; 42, p. 5; 65, 

p. 2; 66, p. 2; 74, pp. ii, 20

Notes:

* The municipal ground water well samples are compared to MQLs contained in Reference 67, Chapter 7, Appendix 3. 

The temporary monitoring well ground water samples are compared to CRQLs contained in Reference 65.

A Analyte analyzed in replicate; reported value is “average” of replicates.

AWD Alamo Water Department

CRQL Contract required quantitation limit

CT Crockett Times

D Duplicate

DCA Dichloroethane

DCE Dichloroethene

GP Geoprobe

ID Identification number

μg/L Micrograms per liter

MQL Minimum quantitation limit

PCE Tetrachloroethene

PW Potable well

TCA Trichloroethane

TCE Trichloroethene
33 GW-Likelihood of Release

EPA May 2010 ACGW Site Expanded Site Inspection

Background Samples

The background ground water samples listed in Table 9 were collected during the EPA May 2010 ACGW 

site ESI (Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 8, p. 12; 36, pp. 9, 10). City of Alamo municipal well No. 4 

(AG04) is located south and downgradient of the ACGW site and is used to represent background 

concentrations for ground water samples collected from the City of Alamo’s municipal well Nos. 1, 2, 

and 3 (Ref. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 47, pp. 3, 4, 20) (see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). 

Ground water samples collected from background permanent monitoring wells AG06 and AG20 were 

collected northeast and east of the ACGW site. These locations are upgradient of ground water within 

and underlying the ACGW site (Ref. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-2) (see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation 

record). Ground water samples collected from monitoring wells AG06 and AG20 are used to represent 

background concentrations for ground water samples collected from permanent monitoring wells located 

within the ACGW site (Ref. 7, Enclosure 1, pp. E1-1, E1-2, E1-27, E1-28; 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-2) (see 

Section 2.2.1, Source No. 1, of this HRS documentation record). Background City of Alamo municipal 

well No. 4 is screened from 119 to 159 feet bls (231 to 201 feet amsl) (Refs. 39; 55). Permanent 

monitoring well AG06 is screened from 70.43 to 90.43 feet bls (284.96 to 264.96 feet amsl), and AG20 is 

screened from 81.38 to 101.38 feet bls (286.71 to 266.71 feet amsl) (Ref. 7, Enclosure 2, Enclosure 6, pp. 

E6-1, E6-14). All ground water wells sampled during the EPA May 2010 ACGW site ESI are screened in 

the Memphis Sand aquifer (Refs. 7, Enclosure 1, Enclosure 4, p. E4-1; 55). 

Background ground water samples and downgradient ground water samples within the plume were 

collected during the same investigation, in accordance with similar sampling procedures, from wells that 

are screened in the same aquifer (Refs. 7, Enclosure 1, Enclosure 4, p. E4-1; Enclosure 5, p. E5-41; 19; 

36; 38, p. 6; 40; 55). Background permanent monitoring wells were installed in accordance with the EPA 

Region 4 SESD Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedures guidance document for Design 

and Installation of Monitoring Wells, SESDGUID-101-R0 (Refs. 7, Enclosure 5, p. E5-41; 38, p. 6; 80). 

Background ground water samples were collected in accordance with the EPA Region 4 SESD Field 

Branches Quality System and Technical Procedures for Groundwater Sampling, SESDPROC-301-R1 

(Refs. 7, Enclosure 5, p. E5-41; 19; 38, p. 6). The locations of the background ground water samples 

collected from AG04, AG06, and AG20 are depicted on page E3-1 of Enclosure 3 in Reference 7. 

Logbook notes are contained in Enclosure 5 of Reference 7 and in Reference 40. Chain-of-custody 

records are contained in References 36. 

 

TABLE 9: Background Ground Water Samples – May 2010

Sample ID

Total Depth

(feet amsl)

Date 

Sampled Location References

City of Alamo Municipal Well

AG04-0510-MS 201 5/13/2010 South of West Park 

Street

7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 36, p. 9; 

39; 40, p. 3; 55

Permanent Monitoring Wells

AG06-0510-MW 265.171 5/26/2010 Northeastern portion of 

the City of Alamo

7, Enclosure 2; 7, Enclosure 3, p. 

E3-1; 7, Enclosure 5, p. E5-62; 7, 

Enclosure 6, p. E6-1; 36, p. 10

AG20-0510-MW 266.711 5/26/2010 Eastern portion of the 

City of Alamo

7, Enclosure 2; 7, Enclosure 3, p. 

E3-1; 7, Enclosure 5, p. E5-62; 7, 

Enclosure 6, p. E6-14; 36, p. 10
 

1 

Notes: 

Depth measured from top of casing 

AG Alamo Contaminated Ground Water 

amsl Above mean sea level 

ID Identification number 

MS Municipal well 

MW Monitoring well 

Background Concentrations 

Background samples were analyzed for VOCs in accordance with the EPA CLP SOW SOM01.2 (Refs. 9, 

pp. 1, 2; 37). EPA Region 4 SESD reviewed all data according to the contract SOW and EPA guidelines 

(Refs. 9, p. 2; 20). The minimum reporting limits (MRL) are listed on the analytical data sheets in 

Reference 9. Each MRL is sample-specific and corresponds to the lowest quantitative point on the 

calibration curve; it is adjusted for the amount of sample prepared and any dilutions performed. The 

MRLs are equivalent to SQLs (Ref. 21). Form I data sheets from the CLP laboratory are contained in 

Reference 79. 

TABLE 10: Analytical Results for Background Samples – May 2010 

Sample ID 

Hazardous 

Substance 

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration MRL References 

City of Alamo Municipal Well 

AG04-0510-MS 1,1-DCE 0.50U μg/L 0.50 μg/L 9, p. 40; 36, p. 9; 40, p. 3; 79, pp. ii, 13 

AG04-0510-MS PCE 0.34J (3.4) 

μg/L 0.50 μg/L 9, p. 41; 33, pp. i, 1; 34, pp. 8, 12; 36, p. 

9; 40, p. 3; 79, pp. ii, 14 

AG04-0510-MS TCE 0.50U μg/L 0.50 μg/L 9, p. 41; 36, p. 9; 40, p. 3; 79, pp. ii, 13 

Permanent Monitoring Wells 

AG06-0510-MW PCE 0.50U μg/L 0.50 μg/L 7, Enclosure 6, p. E6-1; 9, p. 43; 36, p. 

10; 79, pp. ii, 17 

AG20-0510-MW 1,2-DCA 0.50U μg/L 0.50 μg/L 7, Enclosure 6, p. E6-14; 9, p. 107; 36, 

p. 10; 79, pp. ii, 61 

AG20-0510-MW PCE 0.50U μg/L 0.50 μg/L 7, Enclosure 6, p. E6-14; 9, p. 108; 36, 

p. 10; 79, pp. ii, 62 

Notes: 

( ) Concentration shown in parentheses was adjusted in accordance with References 33 and 34. 

AG Alamo Contaminated Ground Water 

DCA Dichloroethane 

DCE Dichloroethene 

ID Identification number 

J The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate. 

μg/L Microgram per liter 

MRL Minimum reporting limit 

MS Municipal well 

MW Monitoring well 

PCE Tetrachloroethene 

TCA Trichloroethane 

TCE Trichloroethene 

U The analyte was not detected at or above the minimum or method reporting limit. 

UJ The analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit; the reported value is an 

 estimate. 

 34 GW-Likelihood of Release 
35 GW-Likelihood of Release

Contaminated Samples

The ground water samples listed in Table 11 were collected during the EPA May 2010 ACGW site ESI 

(Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 36, pp. 9, 10, 11). Ground water samples were collected from the City of 

Alamo’s municipal wells. City of Alamo municipal well screen intervals are as follows: No. 1 is 102 to 

127 feet bls (248 to 223 feet amsl), No. 2 is 100.8 to 125.8 feet bls (249.2 to 224.2 feet amsl), and No. 3 is 

168 to 213 feet bls (182 to 137 feet amsl) (Refs. 39; 55). In addition, ground water samples were also 

collected from permanent monitoring wells installed in the City of Alamo (Refs. 7, Enclosure 5, pp. E5-

62, E5-63; 40, pp. 2 through 5). Permanent monitoring well screen intervals are as follows: AG08 is 

80.9 to 100.9 feet bls (278.93 to 258.93 feet amsl), AG09 is 80.24 to 100.24 feet bls (284.9 to 264.9 feet 

amsl), AG15 is 90.5 to 110.5 feet bls (263.77 to 243.77 feet amsl), AG17 is 65.83 to 85.83 feet bls 

(295.34 to 275.34 feet amsl), and AG18 is 80.3 to 100.3 feet bls (281.02 to 261.02 feet amsl) (Ref. 7, 

Enclosure 2, Enclosure 6, pp. E6-3, E6-4, E6-9, E6-11, E6-12). Permanent monitoring wells were 

installed in accordance with the EPA Region 4 SESD Field Branches Quality System and Technical 

Procedures guidance document for Design and Installation of Monitoring Wells, SESDGUID-101-R0 

(Refs. 7, Enclosure 5, p. E5-41; 80). Contaminated ground water samples were collected in accordance 

with the EPA Region 4 SESD Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedures for Groundwater 

Sampling, SESDPROC-301-R1 (Refs. 7, Enclosure 5, p. E5-41; 19; 38, p. 6). Logbook notes are 

provided in Enclosure 5 of Reference 7 and in Reference 40. The chain-of-custody records are provided 

in Reference 36. The locations of the source samples listed in Table 11 are depicted on page E3-1 of 

Enclosure 3 in Reference 7 (also see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). 

TABLE 11: Contaminated Ground Water Samples – May 2010

Sample ID

Total Depth

(feet amsl)

Date 

Sampled Location References

City of Alamo Municipal Wells

AG01-0510-MS

223 5/13/2010

City of Alamo municipal 

well No. 1, just north of 

West Park Street

7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 36, 

AG01 p. 9; 39; 40, p. 2; 55 -0510-MSD

AG02-0510-MS 224.2 5/13/2010

City of Alamo municipal 

well No. 2, just north of 

West Park Street

7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 36, 

p. 9; 39; 40, p. 5; 55

AG03-0510-MS 137 5/13/2010

City of Alamo municipal 

well No. 3, just north of 

West Park Street

7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 36, 

p. 9; 39; 40, p. 4; 55

Permanent Monitoring Wells

AG08-0510-MW 258.931 5/27/2010 On South Johnson Street, 

in town square

7, Enclosure 2; 7, Enclosure 

3, p. E3-1; 7, Enclosure 5, p. 

E5-62; 7, Enclosure 6, p. E6-

3; 36, p. 10

AG09-0510-MW 264.91 5/27/2010 On South Johnson Street, 

in town square

7, Enclosure 2; 7, Enclosure 

3, p. E3-1; 7, Enclosure 5, p. 

E5-62; 7, Enclosure 6, p. E6-

4; 36, p. 10

AG15-0510-MW 243.771 5/28/2010

Just outside of Alamo 

Water Department 

building

7, Enclosure 2; 7, Enclosure 

3, p. E3-1; 7, Enclosure 5, p. 

E5-63; 7, Enclosure 6, p. E6-

9; 8, p. 19; 36, p. 11

AG17-0510-MW 275.341 5/28/2010

At intersection of South 

Burns Street and West 

Park Street

7, Enclosure 2; 7, Enclosure 

3, p. E3-1; 7, Enclosure 5, p. 

E5-63; 7, Enclosure 6, p. E6-

11; 36, p. 11
36 GW-Likelihood of Release

TABLE 11: Contaminated Ground Water Samples – May 2010

Sample ID

Total Depth

(feet amsl)

Date 

Sampled Location References

AG18-0510-MW

261.021 5/27/2010 Behind commercial 

building in town square

7, Enclosure 2; 7, Enclosure 

3, p. E3-1; 7, Enclosure 5, p. 

E5-62; 7, Enclosure 6, p. E6-

12; 36, p. 10 AG18-0510-MWD

Notes:

1 Depth measured from top of casing

AG Alamo Contaminated Ground Water

amsl Above mean sea level

D Duplicate

ID Identification number

MW Monitoring well

MS Municipal well
37 GW-Likelihood of Release

Contaminated Concentrations

Samples collected during the EPA May 2010 ACGW site ESI were analyzed for VOCs in accordance 

with the EPA CLP SOW SOM01.2 (Refs. 9, pp. 1, 2; 37). EPA Region 4 SESD reviewed all data 

according to the contract SOW and EPA guidelines (Refs. 9, p. 2; 20). The MRLs are listed on the 

analytical data sheets in Reference 9. Each MRL is sample-specific and corresponds to the lowest 

quantitative point on the calibration curve; it is adjusted for the amount of sample prepared and any 

dilutions performed. The MRLs are equivalent to SQLs (Ref. 21). Form I data sheets from the CLP 

laboratory are contained in Reference 79. 

TABLE 12: Analytical Results for Contaminated Samples – May 2010

Sample ID

Hazardous

Substance

Hazardous

Substance 

Concentration MRL References

City of Alamo Municipal Wells

AG01-0510-MS 1,1-DCE 3.5 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 9, p. 32; 36, p. 9; 40, p. 2; 79, p. 1

AG01-0510-MS PCE 16 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 9, p. 33; 36, p. 9; 40, p. 2; 79, p. 2

AG01-0510-MS TCE 1.7 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 9, p. 33; 36, p. 9; 40, p. 2; 79, p. 1

AG01-0510-MSD 1,1-DCE 3.9 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 9, p. 34; 36, p. 9; 40, p. 2; 79, p. 4

AG01-0510-MSD PCE 16 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 9, p. 35; 36, p. 9; 40, p. 2; 79, p. 5

AG01-0510-MSD TCE 1.8 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 9, p. 35; 36, p. 9; 40, p. 2; 79, p. 4

AG02-0510-MS PCE 18 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 9, p. 37; 36, p. 9; 40, p. 5; 79, p. 8

AG03-0510-MS 1,1-DCE 2.6J (2.6) μg/L 0.50 μg/L 9, p. 38; 33, p. 1; 34, p. 8; 35, p. 2; 36, p. 

9; 40, p. 4; 79, p. 10

AG03-0510-MS TCE 1.1J (0.66) μg/L 0.50 μg/L 9, p. 39; 33, pp. i, 1; 34, pp. 8, 12; 36, p. 

9; 40, p. 4; 79, p. 10

Permanent Monitoring Wells

AG08-0510-MW PCE 0.67 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 7, Enclosure 5, p. E5-62; 7, Enclosure 6, 

p. E6-3; 9, p. 51; 36, p. 10; 79, p. 23

AG09-0510-MW PCE 0.61 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 7, Enclosure 5, p. E5-62; 7, Enclosure 6, 

p. E6-4; 9, p. 55; 36, p. 10; 79, p. 26

AG15-0510-MW PCE 0.92 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 7, Enclosure 5, p. E5-63; 7, Enclosure 6, 

p. E6-9; 9, p. 83; 36, p. 11; 79, p. 44

AG17-0510-MW 1,2-DCA 4.0 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 7, Enclosure 5, p. E5-63; 7, Enclosure 6, 

p. E6-11; 9, p. 91; 36, p. 11; 79, p. 49

AG18-0510-MW PCE 1.2 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 7, Enclosure 5, p. E5-62; 7, Enclosure 6, 

p. E6-12; 9, p. 96; 36, p. 10; 79, p. 53

AG18-0510-MWD PCE 1.1 μg/L 0.50 μg/L 7, Enclosure 5, p. E5-62; 7, Enclosure 6, 

p. E6-12; 9, p. 98; 36, p. 10; 79, p. 56
38 GW-Likelihood of Release

Notes:

( ) Concentrations shown in parentheses were adjusted in accordance with References 33, 34, and 35.

AG Alamo Contaminated Ground Water

D Duplicate

DCA Dichloroethane

DCE Dichloroethene

ID Identification number

J The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.

μg/L Micrograms per liter

MRL Minimum reporting limit

MW Monitoring well

MS Municipal well

PCE Tetrachloroethene

TCE Trichloroethene
39 GW-Likelihood of Release

Attribution

Ground water samples collected from the City of Alamo’s municipal wells in 1988 and 1989 revealed 

VOC contamination in municipal well No. 1, including but not limited to 1,1-DCE; 1,1,1-TCA; and TCE 

(Refs. 48, pp. 1 through 4; 49, pp. 1 through 4; 50, pp. 1 through 24). VOCs were also detected in well 

Nos. 2 and 3 (Refs. 48, pp. 5 through 8; 50, pp. 25 through 38). In a sample collected by TDHE 

(currently TDEC) on September 20, 1988, TCE was detected at a concentration of 97.9 μg/L in municipal 

well No. 1 (Ref. 48, p. 4). Another sample from September 1988 contained TCE at a concentration of

about 113 μg/L (Refs. 10, p. 3; 52). Following the release of these sample results, use of the City’s 

municipal well No. 1 was immediately discontinued (Ref. 10, p. 3). As an interim remedial measure, the 

City resumed pumping well No. 1, although not for distribution, and discharged the water to a drainage 

ditch (Refs. 16; 30, p. 1). The City continued discharging water pumped from well No. 1 to a drainage 

ditch until July 2, 1991 when the City of Alamo installed an air stripper (Refs. 16; 29). At this time, 

municipal well No. 1 was put back into service and all City of Alamo municipal wells were monitored for 

VOC concentrations on a quarterly basis (Refs. 16; 29; 31, p. i; 32; 51, p. i). City of Alamo municipal 

well No. 1 is still in service at the time of this HRS documentation record (Ref. 29). 

After the discovery of VOC contamination in the City of Alamo’s municipal wells, TDHE began 

investigating the possible sources of the contamination (Ref. 10, p. 1). Several possible sources of VOC 

contamination exist in the vicinity of the ACGW site. As discussed below, studies conducted to identify 

the source or sources of the contamination at the ACGW site did not generate compelling evidence 

linking the contamination observed in City of Alamo municipal wells to any specific source, or 

combination of specific sources, other than the contaminated ground water plume itself. Moreover, any 

releases that may have occurred from possible sources are likely to have commingled over time, further 

complicating attribution of contamination in the plume to any single source or combination of sources.

In 1989, USGS, in conjunction with TDHE Division of Superfund, conducted an investigation of the 

Memphis Sand aquifer at Alamo (Ref. 10, p. 1). The City of Alamo’s municipal wells are screened in the 

Memphis Sand aquifer (Ref. 55). An underground gasoline storage tank, a vehicle maintenance building, 

and a former industrial site were identified near the wellfield (Ref. 10, pp. 10, 11). The industrial site was 

the former location of Volunteer Circuits, a printed circuit board manufacturing facility where organic 

solvents had been used in the cleaning of electronic components and in the film developer (Refs. 10, p. 3; 

28, p. 5; 32; 69). TCE was detected in 13 of the 42 soil-gas samples collected during this investigation, 

with the highest concentrations detected at or near the former location of Volunteer Circuits, at a 

maximum concentration of 30 μg/kg (Ref. 10, pp. 10, 11). Ground water samples collected from 

municipal well No. 1 contained the highest concentrations of TCE (45 μg/L); 1,1,-DCE (32 μg/L); PCE 

(1.2 μg/L); and 1,1,1-TCA (38 μg/L). Well No. 2 also contained TCE (0.7 μg/L); 1,1-DCE (0.9 μg/L); 

and 1,1,1-TCA (1.3 μg/L). VOCs were not detected in the other two municipal wells at the time of the 

investigation (Ref. 10, p. 8).

One possible source of the 1,1,1-TCA, TCE, and 1,1-DCE (PCE/TCE’s breakdown product) 

contamination in the ground water underlying the City of Alamo is Volunteer Circuits (Refs. 59, p. 24; 

69). While initially considered the source (or at least a primary source) of the ground water 

contamination, subsequent investigations show that the highest VOC concentrations were detected in 

boring locations northwest and side gradient of Volunteer Circuits, including 1,1-DCE at 159 ppb; 1,1,1-

TCA at 125 ppb; and TCE at 31 ppb (Ref. 14, pp. 5, 6). One ground water sample collected northwest of 

Volunteer Circuits contained 1,1-DCE (87 ppb); 1,1,1-TCA (25 ppb); and TCE (6 ppb) (Refs. 6, pp. 20, 

21, 23; 15, pp. 5, 6). PCE was detected in ground water samples collected east and upgradient of 

Volunteer Circuits, and southwest and downgradient of Volunteer Circuits (Refs. 14, pp. 5, 6; 15, pp. 5, 6; 

72, pp. 1, 2, 4). Volunteer Circuits manufactured printed circuit boards for the electronics industry from 

1973 to 1975 (Ref. 71). According to the owner of Volunteer Circuits, spent TCE from the film 

developer was poured onto the ground when the developer was serviced (Ref. 69). Printed circuit board 

manufacturing involves use of various cleaners including 1,1,1-TCA and TCE (Ref. 28, p. 5). 
40 GW-Likelihood of Release

Another possible source of VOC (excluding PCE) contamination in ground water underlying the City of 

Alamo is The Crockett Times. Direct attribution of VOCs, while present in ground water at the facility, 

has not been linked to facility operations. PCE contamination at the ACGW site may be attributable to 

local dry cleaning businesses including the North Johnson Street dry cleaners and Ward’s Dry Cleaners

(Refs. 44; 58) (also see the Summary of Source Descriptions in this HRS documentation record). PCE is 

a common solvent used in the dry cleaning industry (Ref. 57, p. 1). 

Other facilities possibly linked to VOC/solvent use within a 4-mile radius of the approximate center of the 

ACGW plume include the East Church Street Site, Alamo Mills, and Tucker Automotive (Ref. 76). In 

August 2004, TDEC Division of Superfund conducted a prescreening investigation at the East Church 

Street Site located at 130 East Church Street, Alamo, Tennessee (Ref. 45, pp. 1, 2, 6, 24). A dry cleaner 

and laundry business operated on this property from 1968 to sometime in the late 1970s or early 1980s 

(Ref. 45, p. 2). Two samples were collected from the property, one soil sample and one sediment sample, 

and were analyzed for VOCs (Ref. 45, pp. 5, 26, 35, 38). The soil sample was collected from behind the 

building, and the sediment sample was collected from a drainage ditch north of the building (Ref. 45, pp. 

5, 26). VOCs were not detected in either sample (Ref. 45, pp. 36, 37, 39, 40). No ground water samples 

have been collected in the vicinity of the East Church Street dry cleaner (Ref. 45, p. 3).

In December 2007, TDEC Division of Remediation, on behalf of EPA, prepared a pre-CERCLIS 

screening assessment report for the Alamo Mills facility located at 472 South Mill Street, Alamo, 

Tennessee (Ref. 46, pp. i, 2). Alamo Mills operated as a clothing manufacturing plant from the 1960s 

until 2003. Garments manufactured at the plant were knitted, sewn, dyed, cleaned, and packaged. An 

unknown dry cleaning solvent was used to clean garments prior to packaging (Ref. 46, pp. 2, 4). Drums 

of dry cleaning fluid were stored in an alley between two building sections. Degreasers were also used at 

the plant (Ref. 46, p. 4). Two possible source areas were identified at the Alamo Mills property: (1) the 

wastewater treatment lagoon that has since been closed and backfilled, and (2) the drum storage area, 

where stressed vegetation was observed (Ref. 46, p. 4). The Alamo Mills property is located south and 

sidegradient of the ACGW plume and the City of Alamo municipal wellfield (Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-

2; 46, p. 11) (also see Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record). No soil or ground water samples were 

collected during this assessment.

Tucker Automotive is a possible source of VOC contamination in the City of Alamo area. Since 1946, 

the Tucker Automotive property, located at 146 South Bells Street, has been used as a gas station, auto 

repair shop, auto body shop, machine shop, and for storage (Ref. 43, p. 2). In June 2000, during TDEC’s 

investigation of Volunteer Circuits, ATC collected a ground water sample from a temporary monitoring 

well installed on the Tucker Automotive property (Ref. 14, pp. 3, 6). TCE and PCE were not detected in 

the ground water at this location; however, benzene was detected at a concentration of 51 ppb (Ref. 14, p. 

6, Appendix A, p. A-4). Benzene was also detected in Alamo’s municipal well No. 4 during the January 

2004 Crockett Times SI and the May 2010 ACGW site ESI at concentrations of 10A μg/L and 0.69 μg/L, 

respectively (Refs. 9, p. 40; 11, Appendix B, p. B-4). Alamo’s municipal well No. 4 is downgradient of 

Tucker Automotive (Ref. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-2) (see Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record). In 

July 2000, TDEC Division of Superfund conducted a prescreening investigation at this property. 

Evidence of underground storage tanks was present at the time of the investigation (Ref. 43, p. 3).

Additionally, four RCRA facilities have been identified in Alamo, Tennessee, including Angelica 

Uniform Group, Brown Chevrolet Inc., Partners Pallets, and Skelton Trucking. The Angelica Uniform 

Group facility is located at 101 West Park Street. Angelica Corporation, which owns Angelica Uniform 

Group, provides textiles and apparel for the service industry (Refs. 60, pp. 1, 2; 61). Specific operations 

and waste management practices employed at Angelica Uniform Group are not known. This facility is 

located downgradient of the ACGW plume (Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-2; 60, p. 1). No ground water 

samples have been collected in the vicinity of the Angelica Uniform Group.

Brown Chevrolet Inc. is located north and sidegradient of the ACGW site at 172 North Bells Street (Refs. 

7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-2; 62, p. 1). It is listed in RCRA as an automotive mechanical and electrical repair 

and maintenance facility (Ref. 62, p. 1). Specific operations and waste management practices employed 
41 GW-Likelihood of Release

at the Brown Chevrolet facility are not known. No ground water samples have been collected in the 

vicinity of Brown Chevrolet Inc.

Partners Pallets is located at 220 South Burns Street. It is listed in RCRA as an ice manufacturer (Ref. 63, 

p. 1). Specific operations and waste management practices employed at Partners Pallets are not known. 

This facility is located downgradient of the ACGW plume; it is not expected to be a source for the VOC 

contamination detected in the City of Alamo’s municipal wells or monitoring wells located within the 

ACGW site (Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-2; 63, p. 1). No ground water samples have been collected in the 

vicinity of Partners Pallets.

Skelton Trucking is located at 226 East Elm Street, near the location of background permanent 

monitoring well AG06 installed in May 2010 (Refs. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1; 64, p. 1). It is listed in 

RCRA as a general freight trucking facility (Ref. 64, p. 3). Specific operations and waste management 

practices employed at the Skelton Trucking facility are not known. No ground water samples have been 

collected in the vicinity of Skelton Trucking.

The hazardous substances listed below have been documented in ground water samples collected from the 

City of Alamo’s municipal wells and permanent monitoring wells located within the ACGW

contaminated ground water plume (see Tables 2 and 4 in Section 2.2.2 for Source No. 1, and Tables 11

and 15 in Section 3.1.1, Observed Release, of this HRS documentation record). Several possible sources 

of VOC contamination exist in the vicinity of the ACGW site; however, the contamination cannot be 

directly attributed to any specific source, or combination of specific sources. PCE is a common solvent 

used in the dry cleaning industry (Refs. 57, p. 1).

Hazardous Substances in the Release

1,1-DCE

1,2-DCA

PCE

1,1,1-TCA

TCE

Ground Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550.00
42 GW-Likelihood of Release

3.1.2 POTENTIAL TO RELEASE

Potential to release was not evaluated for the Memphis Sand aquifer because an observed release has been 

documented (see Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). 
43 GW-Waste Characteristics

3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

3.2.1 TOXICITY/MOBILITY

The toxicity and mobility factor values for the hazardous substances detected in the source samples with 

containment factor values of greater than 0 are summarized in Table 13. The combined toxicity and 

mobility factor values are assigned in accordance with Reference 1, Section 3.2.1. Hazardous substances 

detected in the observed release to ground water are assigned a mobility factor value of 1 (Ref. 1, Section 

3.2.1.2).

TABLE 13: Ground Water Toxicity/Mobility

Hazardous

Substance Source No.

Toxicity 

Factor

Value

Mobility

Factor 

Value

Does Hazardous 

Substance Meet 

Observed 

Release? 

(Yes/No)

Toxicity/

Mobility

(Ref. 1, 

Table 3-9) Reference

1,1-DCE 1 100 1 Yes 100 2, p. BI-5

1,2-DCA 1 100 1 Yes 100 2, p. BI-4

PCE 1 100 1 Yes 100 2, p. BI-10

1,1,1-TCA 1 1 1 Yes 1 2, p. BI-11

TCE 1 10,000 1 Yes 10,000 2, p. BI,B2-1

Notes:

DCA Dichloroethane

DCE Dichloroethene

No. Number

PCE Tetrachloroethene

TCA Trichloroethane

TCE Trichloroethene

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000.00

(Ref. 1, Table 3-9)
44 GW-Waste Characteristics

3.2.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

TABLE 14: Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source No. Source Type Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

1 Other – Ground water plume with 

no identified source Undetermined, but greater than zero

The hazardous constituent quantity for Source No. 1 is not adequately determined. The HWQ is 

undetermined, but greater than zero. Because Level I contamination is present in a drinking water well, 

the HWQ receives a minimum factor value of 100 for the ground water migration pathway (Ref. 1, 

Section 2.4.2.2).

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100

(Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2)

3.2.3 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FACTOR CATEGORY VALUE

The waste characteristics factor category was obtained by multiplying the toxicity/mobility and HWQ 

factor values, subject to a maximum product of 1 × 108

. Based on this product, a value was assigned in 

accordance with Reference 1, Table 2-7.

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000.00

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value × 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 1,000,000.00 (1 × 106

)

 

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 32

(Ref. 1, Table 2-7) 
45 GW-Targets

3.3 TARGETS

Residents of the City of Alamo are provided drinking water from the Alamo Water Department municipal 

system (Ref. 55). The Alamo Water Department operates four wells, municipal well Nos. 1 through 4. Well 

Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are located just north of West Park Street, and well No. 4 is located south of West Park 

Street (Ref. 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1) (see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). The total depths of 

the City of Alamo municipal wells are as follows: well No. 1 is 127 feet bls (223 feet amsl), well No. 2 is 

125.8 feet bls (224.2 feet amsl), well No. 3 is 213 feet bls (137 feet amsl), and well No. 4 is 159 feet bls (201 

feet amsl) (Refs. 39; 55). All Alamo Water Department municipal wells have wellhead protection areas and 

withdraw from the Memphis Sand aquifer (Refs. 18; 47, pp. 3, 4; 55; 68; 77). Water is blended before 

distribution to 3,056.24 residents (1,208 connections in May 2010 x 2.53 persons per household) and no one 

well contributes more than 40 percent of the municipal water supply, resulting in an average population 

served per well of 764.06 (3,056.24 residents ÷ 4 wells) (Refs. 55; 75). 

The County-Wide Utility District (CWUD) operates 15 wells connected to seven water plants, which serve 

seven routes in five counties (Ref. 56). Two routes, Route 5a (Egg Hill Water Plant) and Route 5b (HWY 

412 Water Plant), are located within 4 miles of the approximate center of the ACGW plume (Refs. 3; 56). 

Each of these water plants maintains two wells (Ref. 56). The CWUD wells and their associated potential 

contamination population targets are not scored in this HRS documentation record. 

The City of Alamo’s municipal wells, located within a 4-mile radius of the approximate center of the 

ACGW plume, provide drinking water to about 3,056.24 people. The population served by these wells per 

distance ring is distributed as follows: > 0 to 0.25 mile, 3,056.24 people; > 0.25 to 0.50 mile, 0 people; > 

0.50 to 1 mile, 0 people; > 1 to 2 miles, 0 people; > 2 to 3 miles, 0 people; > 3 to 4 miles, 0 people (Refs. 3; 

55; 75) (also see Table 15 of this HRS documentation record). All of the wells within the 4-mile radius are 

screened in the Memphis Sand aquifer (Refs. 55; 56). The City of Alamo maintains wellhead protection 

areas. Therefore, wellhead protection areas are located within Source No. 1 at the ACGW site (Refs. 18; 47; 

56; 68; 77). Three City of Alamo municipal wells (Nos. 1, 2, and 3) are located within the plume and are 

scored as actual contamination targets at Level I concentrations (see Section 3.3.3.2). City of Alamo 

municipal well No. 4 is located within 0.25 mile of the approximate center of the ACGW plume. Its 

drinking water population would be scored as potential contamination targets; however, potential 

contamination was not scored.

TABLE 15: Municipal and County Drinking Water Wells Within a 4-Mile Radius of the Approximate 

Center of the ACGW Plume 

Memphis Sand Aquifer

Distance 

Ring

Miles

Water 

System Name

No. of 

Wells

Well No. and 

Depth of Wells

(feet bls)

Level 

I 

Cont. 

(Y/N)

Level 

II 

Cont. 

(Y/N)

Pot.

Cont. 

(Y/N)

Pop.

Served References

> 0 to 0.25 City of Alamo 3

Well No. 1 – 127 

Well No. 2 – 125.8

Well No. 3 – 213

Y N N 2,292.18 55; 75

> 0 to 0.25 City of Alamo 1 Well No. 4 – 159 N N Y 764.06 55; 75

Notes:

> Greater than

bls Below land surface

Cont. Contamination

CWUD County-Wide Utility District

ID Identification number

N No

No. Number

Pop. Population

Pot. Potential

Y Yes
46 GW-Targets

Level I Samples

Ground water samples listed in Table 16 were collected from the City of Alamo’s municipal drinking water 

wells installed in the Memphis Sand aquifer located within the ACGW site in May 2010 (Refs. 7, Enclosure 

3, p. E3-1; 36, p. 9; 40; 55) (see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). The samples were analyzed 

by a CLP laboratory for VOCs (Ref. 9, pp. 1, 2). The analytical results and MRLs are provided in Reference 

9.

TABLE 16: Level I Concentrations

City of 

Alamo 

Municipal 

Well ID Sample ID

Hazardous 

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration

Benchmark 

Concentration Benchmark References

No. 1 AG01-0510-MS PCE 16 μg/L 5 μg/L MCL 2, p. BII-11; 9, 

p. 33

No. 1 AG01-0510-MS TCE 1.7 μg/L 0.21 μg/L CR 2, p. BI,B2-1; 9, 

p. 33

No. 1 AG01-0510-MSD PCE 16 μg/L 5 μg/L MCL 2, p. BII-11; 9, 

p. 35

No. 1 AG01-0510-MSD TCE 1.8 μg/L 0.21 μg/L CR 2, p. BI,B2-1; 9, 

p. 35

No. 2 AG02-0510-MS PCE 18 μg/L 5 μg/L MCL 2, p. BII-11; 9, 

p. 37

No. 3 AG03-0510-MS TCE 1.1J (0.66) 

μg/L 0.21 μg/L CR

2, p. BI,B2-1; 9, 

p. 39; 33, pp. i, 

1; 34, pp. 8, 12

Notes: 

( ) Concentration shown in parentheses was adjusted in accordance with References 33, 34, and 35.

AG Alamo Contaminated Ground Water

CR Cancer risk screening concentration from SCDM (Ref. 2)

D Duplicate

ID Identification

MCL Maximum contaminant level from SCDM (Ref. 2)

μg/L Micrograms per liter

MS Municipal well sample

No. Number

PCE Tetrachloroethene

SCDM Superfund chemical data matrix

TCE Trichloroethene
47 GW-Targets

3.3.1 NEAREST WELL

Because actual contamination at Level I concentrations has been documented, a nearest well factor value 

of 50 is assigned (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.1, Table 3-11). 

Well ID: City of Alamo municipal well Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are located within the ACGW site (Refs. 7, 

Enclosure 3, p. E3-1) (see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record). See Table 16 of this HRS 

documentation record for all drinking water wells evaluated at Level I concentrations. 

Level of Contamination (I, II, or potential): I

Nearest Well Factor Value: 50.0

(Ref. 1, Section 3.3.1, Table 3-11) 

3.3.2 POPULATION

3.3.2.1 Level of Contamination

3.3.2.2 Level I Concentrations

A total of 2,292.18 people are subject to actual contamination at Level I concentrations (Refs. 55; 75) (see 

Section 3.1.1, Observed Release of this HRS documentation record). Level I concentrations are 

documented in Table 16. Municipal drinking water wells that contain PCE and TCE at concentrations 

above the MCL and/or the cancer risk screening concentration were evaluated as Level I targets and are 

presented in Table 17. The population data for the drinking water wells listed in Table 17 were obtained 

from the Alamo Water Department and the U.S. Census Bureau (Refs. 55; 75). 

TABLE 17: Level I Population

City of Alamo 

Municipal 

Well ID Sample ID

Hazardous 

Substance Population References

No. 1 AG01-0510-MS

AG01-0510-MSD

PCE

TCE 764.06 9, pp. 33, 35; 55; 75

No. 2 AG02-0510-MS PCE 764.06 9, p. 37; 55; 75

No. 3 AG03-0510-MS TCE 764.06 9, p. 39; 55; 75

Notes:

AG Alamo Contaminated Ground Water

D Duplicate

ID Identification

MS Municipal well sample

PCE Tetrachloroethene

TCE Trichloroethene

Sum of Population Served by Level I Wells: 2,292.18 Individuals

Sum of Population Served by Level I Wells × 10: 22,921.8 Individuals

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 22,921.8
48 GW-Targets

3.3.2.3 Level II Concentrations

No Level II concentrations have been identified.

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0.00

3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination

Potential contamination targets are not scored

Potential Contamination Factor Value: NS

3.3.2.5 CALCULATION OF POPULATION FACTOR VALUE

A value of 22,921.8 (Level I) is assigned for the population factor value (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.2.5).

Total Population Factor Value: 22,921.8

3.3.3 RESOURCES

Wells used for resources were not identified within a 4-mile radius of the ACGW site (Refs. 54; 55).

Resources Factor Value: 0.00

3.3.4 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA

Tennessee’s Wellhead Protection Program was approved in July 1994 in accordance with Section 1453 of 

the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments (Ref. 77, p. 1). The City of Alamo’s Wellhead 

Protection Plan was approved by TDEC Division of Water Supply on August 21, 1997 (Ref. 18). The 

City of Alamo maintains wellhead protection areas (Refs. 18; 47, pp. 3, 4; 68). Three of the City of 

Alamo’s municipal wells are located within the ACGW site (Refs. 3; 7, Enclosure 3, p. E3-1) (see Figure 

3 of the HRS documentation record).

Wellhead Protection Area Factor Value: 20.00