NPL-APMS-2-1-R4 

Name of Site: Alabama Plating Company, Inc. 

Contact Persons 

U.S. EPA Region 4: 

Cynthia K. Gurley 404-562-8817 

Brian Farrier 404-562-8955 

Site Investigation: 

Bonnie L. Temple Alabama Department of Environmental Management 334-271-7700 

Documentation Record: 

Jennifer K. Walker Alabama Department of Environmental Management 334-260-2708
 

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored
 

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

The Soil Exposure Pathway will not be evaluated due to limited targets. No resident populations exist and nearby
 

targets are low.
 

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

1 
HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD
 

Name of Site: Alabama Plating Company, Inc. 

Date Prepared: September 27, 1999, Revised September 2012 

EPA Region: IV 

Street Address of Site*: 570 Highway 231 North 

City, County, State, Zip Code: Vincent, Shelby County, Alabama 35178 

General Location in the State: North Central 

Topographic Map: ArcView GIS Version 3.0a: U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute series Topographic Maps of 

Childersburg, Columbiana, Harpersville, Laniers, Sleeping Giants, Sylacauga East, Sylacauga West, 

Vandiver, Vincent, Westover, Wilsonville, and Winterboro (Ref. 4). 

Latitude: 33o

 23' 59" North 

Longitude: 86o 24' 18" West 

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

identify the general area the site is located. They represent one or more locations EPA considers to be 

part of the site based on the screening information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA 

lists national priorities among the known "releases or threatened releases" of hazardous substances; thus, 

the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as 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 merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may 

need to be addressed under CERCLA. Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary description of 

facility boundaries at the time of scoring will be refined as more information is developed as to where the 

contamination has come to be located. 

Scores 

Air Pathway Not Scored 

Ground Water Pathway 26.94 

Soil Exposure Pathway Not Scored 

Surface Water Pathway 54.07 

HRS SITE SCORE 30.20 

 

2 
 S S2 

 

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

2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component 54.07 2923.5649 

(from Table 4-1, line 30) 

2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component NS 

(from Table 4-25, line 28) 

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

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

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss) NS 

(from Table 5-1, line 22) 

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa) NS 

(from Table 6-1, line 12) 

5. 2	 Total of Sgw

2 + Ssw2 + Ss2 + Sa 3649.3285 

6. HRS Site Score 30.20 

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

NS	 Not Scored 

 

WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE 

3 
4

Figure 1 – Sample Location Map 

A copy of Figure 1 is available at the EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket: 

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

CERCLA Docket Office

1301 Constitution Avenue NW.

EPA West, Room 3334

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: (202) 566-0276

E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov
5

Figure 1A – Site Location Map 

A copy of Figure 1A is available at the EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket: 

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

CERCLA Docket Office

1301 Constitution Avenue NW.

EPA West, Room 3334

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: (202) 566-0276

E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov
6

Figure 1B – Site Location Map 

A copy of Figure 1B is available at the EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket: 

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

CERCLA Docket Office

1301 Constitution Avenue NW.

EPA West, Room 3334

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: (202) 566-0276

E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov
7

Figure 2 – Sample Location Map 

A copy of Figure 2 is available at the EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket: 

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

CERCLA Docket Office

1301 Constitution Avenue NW.

EPA West, Room 3334

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: (202) 566-0276

E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov
8

Figure 3 – Source Location Map 

A copy of Figure 3 is available at the EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket: 

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

CERCLA Docket Office

1301 Constitution Avenue NW.

EPA West, Room 3334

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: (202) 566-0276

E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov
9

Figure 4 – Monitoring Well Location Map 

A copy of Figure 4 is available at the EPA Headquarters Superfund Docket: 

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

CERCLA Docket Office

1301 Constitution Avenue NW.

EPA West, Room 3334

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: (202) 566-0276

E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov
Maximum Value Factor Categories and Factors Value Assigned 

Likelihood of Release to an Aquifer: 

1. Observed Release 550 550 

2. Potential to Release: 

 2a. Containment 10 

 2b. Net Precipitation 10 

 2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 

 2d. Travel Time 35 

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

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

Waste Characteristics: 

4. Toxicity/Mobility (a) 10,000 

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100 

6. Waste Characteristics 100 32 

Targets: 

7. Nearest Well 50 20 

8. Population: 

 8a. Level I Concentrations (b) 0 

 8b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0 

 8c. Potential Contamination (b) 101.3 

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

9. Resources 5 5 

10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 0 

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

Ground Water Migration Score For An Aquifer: 

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

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score: 

13. Pathway Score (Sgw), 100 26.94 

 (highest value from line 12 for all aquifers evaluated)c 

HRS Table 3-1 –Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet 

a. Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. 

b. Maximum value not applicable. 

c. Do not round to nearest integer. 

10 
Factor Categories and Factors Maximum 

Value 

Value 

Assigned 

Drinking Water Threat 

Likelihood of Release: 

1. Observed Release 550 550 

2. Potential to Release by Overland Flow: 

 2a. Containment 10 -

 2b. Runoff 25 -

 2c. Distance to Surface Water 25 -

 

 

2d. 

 

Potential to Release by Overland Flow 

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

500 -

3. Potential to Release by Flood: 

 3a. Containment (Flood) 10 -

 3b. Flood Frequency 50 -

 3c. Potential to Release by Flood (lines 3a x 3b) 500 -

4. Potential to Release (lines 2d + 3c, subject to a maximum of 500) 500 -

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

Waste Characteristics: 

6. Toxicity/Persistence (a) 10,000 

7. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100 

8. Waste Characteristics 100 32 

Targets: 

9. Nearest Intake 50 0.002 

10. Population: 

 10a. Level I Concentrations (b) 0 

 10b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0 

 10c. Potential Contamination (b) 0.2 

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

11. Resources 5 0 

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

Drinking Water Threat Score: 

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

12]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 0.04 

Human Food Chain Threat 

Likelihood of Release: 

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

Waste Characteristics: 

15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation (a) 50,000,000 

16. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100 

17. Waste Characteristics 1,000 180 

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

11 
Factor Categories and Factors Maximum 

Value 

Value 

Assigned 

Targets: 

18. Food Chain Individual 50 45 

19. Population: 

 19a. Level I Concentrations (b) 0 

 19b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0.03 

 19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination (b) 0.0000003 

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

20. Targets (lines 18 + 19d) (b) 45.0300003 

Human Food Chain Threat Score: 

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

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

100 54.03 

Environmental Threat 

Likelihood of Release: 

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

23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation (a) -

24. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) -

25. Waste Characteristics 1,000 -

Targets: 

26. Sensitive Environments: 

 26a. Level I Concentrations (b) -

 26b.Level II Concentrations (b) -

 26c. Potential Contamination (b) -

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

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

Environmental Threat Score: 

28. Environmental Threat Score 

([lines 22 x 25 x 27]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 60) 

60 -

Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Score 

For A Watershed 

29. Watershed Scorec 

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

100 54.07 

Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Score 

30. Component Score (Sof)

c

, (highest score from line 29 for all 

watersheds evaluated, subject to a maximum of 100) 

100 54.07 

a

Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.

b

Maximum value not applicable.
 c

Do not round to nearest integer. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES
 

Reference 

Number Description of the Reference 

1.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazard Ranking System, 40 CFR Part 300, 

Appendix A. 

2.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Chemical Data Matrix, August 1996. 

Appendix B-1; 84 pages. 

3.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual, 

November, 1992. 

4.	 ArcView GIS Version 3.0a: U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute series Topographic Maps of Alabama 

Childersburg, Columbiana, Harpersville, Laniers, Sleeping Giants, Sylacauga East, Sylacauga 

West, Vandiver, Vincent, Westover, Wilsonville, and Winterboro Scale 1:24,000. 

5.	 Roy F. Weston Inc./REAC, Final Report Phase I Field Investigation, Alabama Plating Company 

Site, Vincent Alabama, U.S. EPA Work Assignment No.: 3-398, Prepared for U.S. EPA/ERTC 

May 1999, 251 pages. 

6.	 Johnson, W. Waynon, Onscene Coordinator, Emergency Response and Removal Branch, 

Region IV. Memorandum RE: Contaminated soil removal estimates for the Alabama Plating 

Company Superfund Site, Vincent, Shelby County, Alabama. August 19, 1999. 3 pages. 

7.	 Temple, Bonnie L. ESII, Site Assessment Unit, Hazardous Waste Branch, Land Division. Trip 

Report: Alabama Plating Company, Hwy 231 N at Hwy 60 Vincent, Shelby County, AL 35178. 

June 24, 1998. 25 pages. 

8.	 Facsimile: Willis, Ray, Earth Tech. Subject Waste Inventory. April 14, 1999.7 pages. 

9.	 Temple, Bonnie L. ESII, Site Assessment Unit, Hazardous Waste Branch, Land Division. Trip 

Report: Alabama Plating Co.-Main Facility Hwy 231 N at Hwy 60 Vincent, Shelby County, AL 

35178. August 11, 1998. 73 pages. 

10.	 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation. Health 

Consultation for Main Facility Alabama Plating Company Incorporated, Vincent, Shelby 

County, Alabama, CERCLIS NO. ALD004022448. January 21, 1999. 6 pages. 

11.	 Walker, Jennifer K. ESII, Compliance Section, Field Operations Division. Phone Conversation 

with Ray Willis of Earth Tech. RE: Sludge Piles. September 21, 1999. 1 page. 

12.	 Lair, Myron D., Chief, Emergency Response and Removal Branch. Letter to Gerald Hardy, Chief, 

Alabama Hazardous Waste Branch, Land Division. RE: Action Memorandum for removal action 

at the Alabama Plating Company Site located in Vincent, Alabama. 

September 18, 1998. 21 pages. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13.	 Gibson, Joseph L. Hydrogeologist, Groundwater Branch, Water Division. Memorandum RE: 

Preliminary Assessment-Groundwater, Alabama Plating-Galvanizing Plant, Vincent, Shelby 

County, Alabama. July 22, 1998. 17 pages. 

14.	 U.S. Geologic Survey, Geohydrology and Susceptibility of Major Aquifers to Surface 

Contamination in Alabama; Area 4. 1989. 31 pages. 

15.	 Walker, Jennifer K. Compliance Section, Field Operations Division. Memorandum RE: Alabama 

Plating Company, Vincent, Shelby County, Alabama, Groundwater Investigation. 

November 5, 1998. 84 pages. 

16.	 Rowe, Marvin, Alabama Plating. Letter Dated March 7, 1986 to Ms. Glenda Dean, State of 

Alabama, Water Improvement Commission. 1 page. 

17.	 Ford, Ronald F. Field Operations Division. Alabama Plating Company, Inc. Groundwater 

Monitoring Inspection. December 2, 1985. 3 pages. 

18.	 Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Field Operations Division. Alabama 

Plating Company, Inc. Comprehensive Groundwater Inspection. January 23,1987. 9 pages. 

19.	 Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Field Operations Division. Alabama 

Plating Company, Inc. Comprehensive Groundwater Inspection. March 1, 1989. 7 pages. 

20.	 Bitner, Enid, Hydrogeologist, Groundwater Branch. Memorandum RE: Groundwater Quality 

Assessment Report, Alabama Plating Company Inc., Vincent, Shelby County, 

EPA ID# ALD 004 022 448. June 22, 1992. 3 pages. 

21.	 Hagan, David Memorandum to Bernard E. Cox. RE: Alabama Plating, Vincent, Al. 

February 21, 1986. 4 pages. 

22.	 Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Field Operations Division. Alabama 

Plating Company, Inc. O&M Inspection. January 6, 1994. 4 pages. 

23.	 Keller, Kathleen D. Hydrogeologist, Groundwater Branch. Memorandum RE: Alabama Plating, 

Inc. Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluation (CME), Vincent, Shelby County, Alabama, USEPA 

I.D. No. ALD 004 022 448. May 31, 1995. 6 pages. 

24.	 Keller, Kathleen D. Hydrogeologist, Groundwater Branch. Memorandum RE: Alabama Plating, 

Inc. Operations and Maintenance (OAM) Inspection Report, Vincent, Shelby County, Alabama, 

USEPA I.D. No. ALD 004 022 448. July 10, 1996. 9 pages. 

25.	 Gibson, Joseph L. Hydrogeologist, Groundwater Branch, Water Division. Memorandum RE: 

Spring and Groundwater Sampling- 7/15/99, Alabama Plating-Facility, Vincent, Shelby 

County, Alabama. July 30, 1999. 11 pages. 

26.	 Gibson, Joseph L. Hydrogeologist, Groundwater Branch, Water Division. Memorandum RE: 

Public Water Supply Spring - 8/18/99, Alabama Plating-Facility, Vincent, Shelby 

County, Alabama. September 10, 1999. 4 pages. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27.	 Walker, Jennifer K. ESII, Compliance Section, Field Operations Division. Phone 

Conversation with Judy Greene, City Clerk, Vincent Water Works Board. RE: Water 

Supply. August 31, 1999. 1 page. 

28.	 Walker, Jennifer K. ESII, Compliance Section, Field Operations Division. Phone 

Conversation with Joyce Roberson, City Clerk, Harpersville Water Board. RE: Water 

Supply. August 31, 1999. 1 page. 

29.	 Selected Population and Housing Characteristics 1990 Census for Shelby County. 3 pages. 

30.	 Walker, Jennifer K, Compliance Section, Field Operations Division. Trip Report: Alabama 

Plating Main: Spring Creek Sediment Sampling. September 1, 1999. 86 pages. 

31.	 Holcombe, George Jr., Shelby County Health Department. Letter to James W. Warr, Director, 

Water Improvement Commission. January 14, 1980. 1 page. 

32.	 Record of Complaint Received by Water Division. Received by Glenda Dean. 

December 2, 1985. 1 page. 

33.	 Dean, Glenda Memorandum RE: Alabama Plating- Vincent, Alabama, Referral for 

Administrative Order and Litigation. March 4, 1986. 15 pages. 

34.	 Pegues, Leigh, Director, Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Letter to 

Rowe, Marvin, Alabama Plating Company, Inc. March 6, 1986. 3 pages. 

35.	 Copper, James W. Director, Environmental and Facility Standards Administration, Alabama 

Department of Public Health. Memorandum RE: Contamination in Spring Creek AreaVincent, Alabama. March 10, 1986. 3 pages. 

36.	 Walker, Jennifer K. ESII, Compliance Section, Field Operations Division. Phone 

Conversation with Connie Davis, Administrative Assistant, Shelby County Water System; 

Greg Allen Water Dist. Superintendent, Alabaster Water Board; Ken Holler Director of 

Public Works, Pelham Water Works; Sandy Blaneship, Certified Operator, Sterrett-Vandiver 

Water System; Marjorie Archer, Office Manager, Westover Water; R.D. Walker Manager of 

Leeds Water Board. RE: Water Supply. August 31, 1999. 2 pages. 

37.	 Sisk, Lynn, Water Quality Section, Water Division, Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management. Memorandum Re: Average Flow for Spring Creek and the Coosa River. 

August 31, 1999. 1 page. 

38.	 Walker, Jennifer K. ESII, Compliance Section, Field Operations Division. Phone 

Conversation with Barbara Allen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne Office. RE: 

Endangered and Threatened Species in Spring Creek and the Coosa River. July 29, 1999. 

1 page. 

39.	 Walker, Jennifer K. ESII, Compliance Section, Field Operations Division. Phone 

Conversation with Ray Willis, Sr. Response Manager, Earth RE: March 15, 2000 Waste 

Inventory List. May 3, 2000. 2 pages. 

40.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pollution Report Facsimile from Christopher A. 

Militscher, Subject: Alabama Plating Company POLREP #55. April 7, 2000, 2 pages. 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41.	 Pierce, Steve R., START Leader, Letter t o Karen Knight, On-scene Coordinator, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Emergency Response and Removal Branch 

Subject: Letter Report for Alabama Plating Company Site Characterization, Vincent, Shelby 

County, Alabama. January 18, 2000, 225 pages. 

42.	 Harvey, April, Project Manager, Analytical Environmental Services, Inc. Letter to David 

Andrews, Tetra Tech EM, Inc. Re: Alabama Plating Co. SI, Order No:9908218, Metals and 

Cyanide Analysis. August 26, 1999, 47 pages. 

43.	 Harvey, April, Project Manager, Analytical Environmental Services, Inc. Letter to David 

Andrews, Tetra Tech EM, Inc. Re: Alabama Plating Co. SI, Order No:9908183, Metals and 

Cyanide Analysis. August 30, 1999, 49 pages. 

44.	 Harvey, April, Project Manager, Analytical Environmental Services, Inc. Letter to David 

Andrews, Tetra Tech EM, Inc. Re: Alabama Plating Co. SI, Order No:9908273, Metals and 

Cyanide Analysis. August 28, 1999, 50 pages. 

45.	 Analytical Environmental Services, Inc. Case Narrative for Client: Tetra Tech EM, Inc. Project: 

Alabama Plating Co. SI, Lab Order No: 9908219, Cyanide Analysis. August 26, 1999, 34 pages. 

46.	 OSWER Publication 9345.1-25, Revision to OWSER NPL Policy, April 1997. 14 pages. 

47.	 Walker, Jennifer K., Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Field Operations 

Division, Compliance Section, Source 3 Area Calculation. 2 pages. 

48.	 Layton Environmental Engineering, Inc. RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Work Plan, Prepared 

for Alabama Plating Company, Inc. February 1995, Revised April 1996. 143 pages. 

49.	 Cooper, Daniel E., Chief, Land Division, Alabama Department of Environmental Management. 

Letter to James M. Rowe Jr., Alabama Plating Company, Inc. Re: Notice of Violation. February 

8, 1985, 5 pages. 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SD-Characterization and Containment 

SOURCE DESCRIPTION 

2.2 Source Characterization 

Number of the source: 1 

Name and description of the source: 

Contaminated Soil : 

During the April 1, 1999 Phase I field investigation of the Alabama Plating Company conducted by Weston for the 

USEPA Region IV Emergency Removal Branch an on-site soil analysis was conducted at the facility using a Field 

Portable X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzer. The metals analyzed by XRF included chromium, lead, arsenic, 

copper, cadmium, and zinc. Ten to 15 percent of the samples were submitted to the REAC Laboratory in Edison, 

New Jersey to be analyzed for confirmatory metal analysis. Sample analysis indicates soil contamination of 

cadmium, chromium, lead, zinc and arsenic (Ref.5 pp. 1,21-22; Figures 1,5,7-10). 

In order to facilitate planning and management of work to be completed at Alabama Plating Company, the facility 

was divided into three areas, as defined in Figure 1A of this documentation record package. Phase II A, B, and C, 

see Figure 1B of this documentation record package, involved the removal of contaminated soil from Areas I and 

III. Area III was divided into Phase IIB and Phase IIC as information regarding the extent of on-site contamination 

became available (Ref. 39 p. 1). During Phase IIA, B, and C the total amount of contaminated soil removed was 

44,190.14 tons (Refs. 8 p.2; 39 p.2; 40 p. 2). 

Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site: 

Area I of contaminated soil was located on the western portion of the facility (Ref.6 Figure 1). Area I was bound 

by US Highway 231 to the west and to the east by the three capped lagoons, AREA II, see Figures 1, 1A, 1B of 

this documentation record package. Area III of contaminated soil was located on the north and east portion of the 

facility. Area III is bound by the three capped lagoons to the west and the unnamed tributary to the east, see 

Figures 1, 1A and 1B of this documentation record package (Refs. 6 p. 2, 5 Figure 1). 

Containment 

Release to ground water 

No containment barriers (e.g., liner or runon/runoff control system) were present to prevent the migration of 

hazardous substances to ground water (Ref. 1 Table 3-2). 

VALUE: 10 

Release via overland migration and/or flood 

Surface water runoff from the facility drains to the northeast, east and the south. No containment barriers were 

present to prevent overland migration. Due to the physical location of Area I and Area III any surficial 

contamination in this area has the potential to migrate into the unnamed tributary, which flows approximately 3⁄4 of 

a mile before entering Spring Creek. Sediment samples from the unnamed tributary indicate that migration of 

hazardous substances from the facility has occurred (Ref. 5 pp. 22, Figure 2), see Figure 2 of this Documentation 

Record Package. Evidence of hazardous substance migration from source area exists (Ref. 1 Table 4-2). 

VALUE: 10 

17 
 

 

 

 

SD-Hazardous Substances 

Source No.: 1 

2.4.1 Hazardous Substances 

-BACKGROUND SAMPLES 

SAMPLE ID HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE EVIDENCE (mg/kg) REFERENCE 

J-06-0 Chromium 260.0 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

J-06-0 Nickel 9.5 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

J-06-0 Zinc 2,000 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

J-06-0 Arsenic 11.0 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

J-06-0 Lead 19.0 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

J-06-0 Cadmium 38.0 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

L-16-1 Chromium 28.0 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

L-16-1 Nickel 9.1 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

L-16-1 Zinc 78.0 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

L-16-1 Arsenic U(7.5) 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

L-16-1 Lead 5.2 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

L-16-1 Cadmium U 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

mg/kg sample concentrations expressed in milligrams per kilograms 

J-06-0 sample location-sample depth in feet 

18 
 

 

 

 

SD-Hazardous Substances 

Source No.: 1 

2.4.1 Hazardous Substances 

SAMPLE ID HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE EVIDENCE (mg/kg) REFERENCE 

D-09-0 Nickel 280 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

D-09-0 Zinc 44,000 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

D-09-0 Lead 550 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

D-09-0 Cadmium 13 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

C-17-0 Chromium 820 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

C-17-0 Nickel 660 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

C-17-0 Zinc 62,000 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

C-17-0 Lead 1,200 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

C-17-0 Cadmium 1,200 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

B-17-0 Chromium 1,200 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

B-17-0 Lead 190 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

B-17-0 Cadmium 1500 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

AB-19-1 Chromium 2,700 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

AB-19-1 Zinc 8,800 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

AB-19-1 Lead 230 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

AB-19-1 Cadmium 370 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

B-20-0 Nickel 340 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

B-20-0 Zinc 150,000 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

B-20-0 Lead 1900 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

D22.5-0 Chromium 1,600 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

D22.5-0 Nickel 1,200 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

D22.5-0 Zinc 56,000 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

D22.5-0 Lead 1,200 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

D22.5-0 Cadmium 150 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

D-22.5-1 Chromium 510 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

D-22.5-1 Nickel 250 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

D-22.5-1 Zinc 38,000 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

D-22.5-1 Lead 670 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

G-04-0 Zinc 84,000 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

G-04-0 Lead 1,600 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

I-04-0 Chromium 2,500 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

I-04-0 Nickel 54 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

I-04-0 Zinc 57,000 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

I-04-0 Lead 140 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

I-04-0 Cadmium 550 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

L-16-0 Chromium 990 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

L-16-0 Nickel 380 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

L-16-0 Zinc 62,000 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

L-16-0 Lead 190 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

L-16-0 Cadmium 110 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

N-10-0 Zinc 22,000 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

N-10-0 Lead 430 5 Table 2 Appendix D p. 1 

mg/kg sample concentrations expressed in milligrams per kilograms 

J-06-0 sample location-sample depth in feet 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SD-Hazardous Constituent Quantity 

Source No.: 1 

2.4.2. Hazardous Waste Quantity 

2.4.2.1.1. Hazardous Constituent Quantity 

No information on Constituent Quantity was available. 

2.4.2.1.2. Hazardous Wastestream Quantity 

No data available on wastestream quantity. 

2.4.2.1.3. Volume 

The removal actions are non-qualifying for HRS scoring purposes since the removal was not complete and the 

removal has not addressed the release to ground water and surface water; therefore, contamination from the site
 

still poses a threat to potable water supplies and is impacting a recreational fishery (Ref. 46 p. 2). As of March 15,
 

2000 the amount of contaminated soil removed from Phase IIA, IIB, IIC was 44,190.41 tons.
 

(Ref. 6 pp. 1-2).
 

1 ton = 1 yd3 , therefore, 44,190.14 tons = 44,190.14 yd3
 

44,190.14 yd3/2,500= 17.67 

Dimension of source (yd3 or gallons): 44,190.14yd3 

References(s): 1 Section 2.4.2.1.3, Table 2-5; 6 pp. 1-2; 8 p. 2; 39 p. 2; 40 p. 2 

Volume Assigned Value: 17.670 

2.4.2.1.4. Area 

Evaluated under volume. 

2.4.2.1.5. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value 

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 17.67 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2 Source Characterization 

Number of the source: 2 

Name and description of the source: Pile, Zinc Dross Pile 

In order to determine what types of contaminants might be present in a pile left on the facility from past practices, 

ADEM representatives collected a composite sample from the zinc dross pile on June 3, 1998, and had it analyzed 

for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. Laboratory analysis of this sample shows 

contamination of all contaminants except arsenic (Ref. 7 pp. 2,5-6,23-25). During the emergency removal, 

conducted by USEPA Region IV START team 4 -55 gallon drums of zinc dross recovered from the ground surface 

near the pole barn and 80.14 tons of zinc dross recovered from under the North process building were removed 

from the facility (Refs. 8 pp 2,4). 

Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site: 

The zinc dross pile was located on the northeast corner of the property east of the capped lagoons and west of 

the property boundary (Ref. 6 Figure 1). See Figures 1 and 3 of this documentation record package. 

Containment 

Release to ground water 

There is no evidence of a liner being in place under the pile (Ref.1 Table 3-2). Current as well as historical facility 

monitoring well data show contamination of cyanide, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc in ground 

water; thus resulting in a release to groundwater (Refs. 15 pp. 19, 1-84; 17 pp. 1,3; 18 p. 2; 19 p. 2,7; 20 p.1; 22 pp. 

2-4; 23 pp. 3,5-6; 24 pp. 1,7-9). A release to groundwater has been documented and no containment barriers were 

present (Ref. 1 Table 3-2). 

VALUE: 10 

Release via overland migration and/or flood 

Also, on June 3, 1998 a sample was collected from the drainage pathway leading away from the pile, sample AP-SI. 

Sample results show the migration of cyanide, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel and zinc from the source area. 

(Ref. 7 pp. 15-16, 21, 25). Surface water runoff from the facility drains to the northeast, east, and the south and 

enters an unnamed tributary which flows approximately 3⁄4 mile before entering Spring Creek. No containment 

barriers were present to prevent overland migration. Evidence indicates that there has been migration of 

hazardous substance from the source area (Ref. 1 Table 4-2). Sediment samples from the unnamed tributary 

indicate that migration of hazardous substances from the facility has occurred (Ref. 5 pp. 22, Figure 2), see Figure 

2 of this documentation record package. 

VALUE: 10 

21 
 

 

 

SD-Hazardous Substances 

Source No.: 2 

2.4.1 Hazardous Substances 

SAMPLE ID HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE EVIDENCE (ug/g) REFERENCE 

AP-S6 Cadmium 47.2 7 pp. 2, 5-6, 23-25 

AP-S6 Chromium 151.0 7 pp. 2, 5-6, 23-25 

AP-S6 Copper 29.4 7 pp. 2, 5-6, 23-25 

AP-S6 Lead 2260.0 7 pp. 2, 5-6, 23-25 

AP-S6 Nickel 15.7 7 pp. 2, 5-6, 23-25 

AP-S6 Zinc 426,100.0 7 pp. 2, 5-6, 23-25 

ug/g micrograms per gram 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SD-Hazardous Constituent Quantity 

Source No.: 2 

2.4.2. Hazardous Waste Quantity 

2.4.2.1.1. Hazardous Constituent Quantity 

No information on Constituent Quantity was available. 

2.4.2.1.2. Hazardous Wastestream Quantity 

No data was available on wastestream quantity. 

2.4.2.1.3. Volume 

The removal actions are non-qualifying for HRS scoring purposes since the removal was not complete and the 

removal has not addressed the release to ground water and surface water; therefore, contamination from the site 

still poses a threat to potable water supplies and is impacting a recreational fishery (Ref. 46 p. 2). As of March 15, 

2000 4-55 gallon drums and 80.14 tons of zinc dross had been removed from the Alabama Plating Company 

facility (Refs. 8 pp 2,4; 40 p. 2). 

1ton= 1 yd3 (Ref. 1, Table 2-5 p. 51591), therefore 80.14 tons=80.14 yd3 

80.14 yd3 /2.5=32.06 

Dimension of source (yd3 or gallons): 80.14 yd3 

References(s): 1 Section 2.4.2.1.3, Table 2-5; 8 pp. 2,4; 40 p. 2 

Volume Assigned Value: 32.06 

2.4.2.1.4. Area 

Evaluated under volume. 

2.4.2.1.5. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value 

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 32.06 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2 Source Characterization 

Number of the source: 3 

Name and description of the source: Lagoon/Backfilled Surface Impoundment 

During August 1999 the USEPA Region IV START Contractor began facility characterization activities, which 

included collecting surface and subsurface soil samples. Soil samples collected from the clay capped lagoon 

showed contamination of the following constituents: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and 

cyanide (Ref. 41 p. 12) 

Shortly after operations began in 1956, an unlined retention lagoon was constructed behind the electroplating 

building. This pond was constructed to receive cooling, rinsing and process water in order to allow the solids to 

settle in the pond and the supernatant to be discharged to the unnamed tributary that borders the facility to the 

east. This process continued until 1970. During the time period of 1956 to 1970 two additional unlined lagoons 

were constructed and became a part of the effluent treat process (Ref. 12 p. 3). In 1970 a wastewater treatment 

system was installed at the facility and the lagoons then received the treated effluent, including sludge as a solids 

carryover. In 1985 the use of the lagoons was terminated and were collectively designated by ADEM as a 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) and was later 

closed by the company under an Administrative Order issued by ADEM (Ref. 12 p.3). 

Wastewater treatment sludge generated by plating operations is classified under RCRA as a Listed Hazardous 

Waste F006-electroplating wastewater sludge. The hazardous constituents for which the waste is listed are 

cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel and cyanide (Ref. 12 p. 3). 

Although Alabama Plating received RCRA interim status, interim status was not reauthorized as of February 8, 

1985, do to multiple violations of Alabama Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (Ref. 49, p. 3). 

Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site: 

The three unlined lagoons were located to the east of the north and south process buildings, see figure 1 of this 

documentation record package. 

Containment 

Release to ground water 

No liner or other containment barriers were present to prevent the migration of hazardous substances (Ref. 1 

Table 3-2). 

VALUE: 10 

Release via overland migration and/or flood 

Cooling, rinsing and process water were discharged to unlined retention lagoon and the solids were allowed to 

settle out of the effluent and then the supernatant was discharged to the unnamed tributary to the east of the 

property which ultimately flows into Spring Creek (Ref. 12 p.3 Ref. 4). Evidence indicates that there has been 

migration of hazardous substance from the source area (Ref. 1 Table 4-2). Sediment samples from the unnamed 

tributary indicate that migration of hazardous substances from the facility has occurred (Ref. 5 pp. 22, Figure 2), 

see Figure 2 of this documentation record package. 

VALUE: 10 

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SD-Hazardous Substances 

Source No.: 3 

2.4.1 Hazardous Substances 

The USEPA Region IV START contractor began sampling the Alabama Plating Company main facility on August 10, 1999 using a Geoprobe to collect continuous 

subsurface core samples. A system of 20-foot by 40-foot grids was established by the emergency response and removal services (ERRS) contractor and fifty-one 

nodes were sampled resulting in 294 samples. Sample collection began at two feet below the lagoon clay cap and continued at 2 foot intervals down to 12 feet 

below the lagoon clay cap (Ref. 41 pp 3-4). Soil samples collected were labeled using the facility’s initials (AM for APC-M), grid number, and 2-foot interval depth 

(A,B,C,D,E,F) as follows : AM-f10-a, AM indicating APC-main facility, F10 indicating grid location number, and A indicating the 0-2 foot interval below the lagoon 

clay cap (Ref. 41 p.4). For sampling locations see Reference 41 Figure 2. 

SAMPLE ID DATE 

ARSENIC 

(mg/Kg) 

CADMIUM 

(mg/Kg) 

CHROMIUM 

(mg/Kg) 

COPPER 

(mg/Kg) 

LEAD 

(mg/Kg 

) 

NICKEL 

(mg/Kg) 

ZINC 

(mg/Kg) REF. 

AM-G21-A 8/13/99 9.81 BRL 12 8.33 9.2 BRL 23.5 42 pp 1, 34-45 

AM-G21-B 8/13/99 48.1 BRL 18.1 20.6 13.6 10.3 174 42 pp 2, 34-45 

AM-G21-C 8/13/99 31.8 25.1 96.3 8.46 86 BRL 1510 42 pp 3, 34-45 

AM-G21-E 8/13/99 58.3 26 187 8.29 191 BRL 2460 42 pp 5, 34-45 

AM-G17-A 8/13/99 BRL BRL 10.2 4.43 9.13 BRL 21.3 42 pp 7, 34-45 

AM-G17-B 8/13/99 14.4 BRL 14.9 9.53 9.25 BRL 39 42 pp 8, 34-45 

AM-G17-C 8/13/99 29.1 BRL 80.7 17.5 14 BRL 1680 42 pp 9, 34-45 

AM-I12-A 8/12/99 BRL BRL 13 4.1 7.37 BRL 20.9 42 pp 19, 34-45 

AM-I12-B 8/12/99 43 BRL 11.8 34.5 18.8 26.1 524 42 pp 20, 34-45 

AM-I12-C 8/12/99 19.5 183 1300 75.7 103 132 127,000 42 pp 21, 34-45 

AM-I16-A 8/11/99 7.55 BRL 11.8 4.65 13.3 BRL 18.7 43 pp 25, 37-47 

AM-I16-B 8/11/99 17.9 BRL 38.3 9.32 7.11 BRL 690 43 pp 26, 37-47 

AM-I16-C 8/11/99 7.71 19 263 9.67 18.6 6.82 7160 43 pp 27, 37-47 

AM-F19-A 8/16/99 5.63 BRL 14.3 4.88 8.27 BRL 216 44 pp 20, 39-48 

AM-F19-B 8/16/99 39.6 8.35 723 27.8 343 BRL 10700 44 pp 21, 39-48 

AM-F19-C 8/16/99 25.3 16 839 8.07 1230 BRL 25,400 44 pp 22, 39-48 

AM-F19-D 8/16/99 BRL 451 2850 12.3 344 24.4 60,000 44 p. 23, 39-48 

mg/Kg sample concentrations expressed in milligrams per kilograms BRL Below Reporting Limit 

25 
 

 

2.4.1 Hazardous Substances (continued) 

SAMPLE ID CYANIDE (mg/Kg) DATE REFERENCE 

AM-G11-AB 8.74 8/12/99 45 pp 1, 29-33 

AM-G11-CD 7.09 8/12/99 45 pp 3, 29-33 

AM-G13-AB 212 8/12/99 45 pp4, 29-33 

AM-G13-CD 122 8/12/99 45 pp 5, 29-33 

AM-G15-AB 3.32 8/12/99 45 pp 6, 29-33 

AM-G15-CD 469 8/12/99 45 pp 7, 29-33 

AM-I12-AB 3.67 8/12/99 45 pp 14, 29-33 

AM-I12-CD 260 8/12/99 45 pp 15, 29-33 

AM-I14-AB 4.42 8/12/99 45 pp 17, 29-33 

AM-I14-CD 60.7 8/12/99 45 pp 18, 29-33 

AM-J11-AB 403 8/12/99 45 pp 23, 29-33 

AM-J11-CD 8.91 8/12/99 45 pp 24, 29-33 

AM-J13-AB 192 8/12/99 45 pp 26, 29-33 

AM-J13-CD 274 8/12/99 45 pp 27, 29-33 

AM-E21-AB BRL 8/16/99 44 pp 1, 39-48 

AM-E21-CD 1080 8/16/99 44 pp 2, 39-48 

AM-F21-AB BRL 8/16/99 44 pp 4, 39-48 

AM-F21-CD 655 8/16/99 44 pp 5, 39-48 

AM-F21-EF 4190 8/16/99 44 pp 6, 39-48 

AM-F19-AB 622 8/16/99 44 pp 9, 39-48 

AM-F19-CD 3150 8/16/99 44 pp 10, 39-48 

AM-F17-AB 310 8/16/99 44 pp 12, 39-48 

AM-F17-CD 3750 8/16/99 44 pp 13, 39-48 

AM-H9-AB BRL 8/10/99 43 pp 1, 37-47 

AM-H9-CD 112 8/10/99 43 pp 2, 37-47 

AM-G21-CD 752 8/13/99 42 pp 26, 34-45 

AM-G19-CD 1910 8/13/99 42 pp 29, 34-45 

BRL Below Reporting Limit 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SD-Hazardous Constituent Quantity 

Source No.: 3 

2.4.2. Hazardous Waste Quantity 

2.4.2.1.1. Hazardous Constituent Quantity 

No information on Constituent Quantity was available. 

2.4.2.1.2. Hazardous Wastestream Quantity 

No data was available on wastestream quantity. 

2.4.2.1.3. Volume 

Not evaluated due to lack of data. 

2.4.2.1.4. Area 

The area of the three individual lagoons was calculated and the total area of the backfilled lagoons is 39,608.2 ft 2

. 

Area of source( ft2

): 39,608.2 

Reference(s): 1 Section 2.4.2.1.3, Table 2-5; 47 pp 1-2; 48 p. 47 

Area Assigned Value: 3,046.78 

2.4.2.1.5. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value 

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 3,046.78 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2 Source Characterization 

Number of the source: 4 

Name and description of the source: Pile 

Sand filter beds combined with two piles of sand filter material 

In an ADEM trip report for Alabama Plating Company dated August 11, 1998 two piles were sampled and were 

called sludge piles. In the Health consult completed by the Alabama Department of Public Health these piles were 

also referred to as sludge piles (Refs. 9 p.1; 10 p. 1,6)). On July 6, 1998 samples were collected from the two piles 

and a liquid and sludge sample was collected from the sand filter bed. The samples were analyzed for cyanide, 

cadmium, chromium, copper, lead nickel and zinc. Sample results indicate the presence of all contaminants in both 

the sludge piles and the sand filter beds (Ref. 9 pp. 1, 31-34, 37-40, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63). 

However, during the emergency removal conducted by USEPA Region IV the piles were called sand filter material 

(Ref. 11 p.1). During the removal process this material was combined with the sludge from the sand filter beds for 

disposal purposes. 

Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site: 

The sand filter beds were located to the west of the capped surface impoundments. One was located north of the 

north buildings on the facility and the other sand filter bed was located east of the north building, and west of the 

capped lagoon. Sludge pile 1 was located under a pole barn on a concrete pad on the northwest corner of the 

property and sludge pile 2 was located east of sludge pile 1, on the north end of the capped lagoons. See Figure 3 

of this documentation record package (Ref. 10 p. 1,6). 

Containment 

Release to ground water 

No liner or other containment barriers were present to prevent the migration of hazardous substances (Ref. 1 

Table 3-2). 

VALUE: 10 

Release via overland migration and/or flood 

Surface water runoff from the facility drains to the northeast, east and the south. No containment barriers were 

present to prevent overland migration. Due to the physical location of AREA III any surficial contamination in 

this area has the potential to migrate into the unnamed tributary, which flows approximately 3⁄4 of a mile before 

entering Spring Creek. Sediment samples from the unnamed tributary indicate that migration of hazardous 

substances from the facility has occurred (Ref. 5 pp. 22, Figure 2), see Figure 2 of this Documentation Record 

Package. 

VALUE: 10 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SD-Hazardous Substances 

Source No.: 4 

2.4.1 Hazardous Substances 

Sludge/Sand Filter Material Piles 

SAMPLE ID HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE EVIDENCE (ug/g) REFERENCE 

Pile-1-S Cyanide 90.1 9 pp. 1, 31-32, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Pile-1-S Cadmium 13.8 9 pp. 1, 31-32, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Pile-1-S Chromium 93.2 9 pp. 1, 31-32, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Pile-1-S Copper 21.4 9 pp. 1, 31-32, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Pile-1-S Lead 436.0 9 pp. 1, 31-32, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Pile-1-S Nickel 92.2 9 pp. 1, 31-32, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Pile-1-S Zinc 132,500.0 9 pp. 1, 31-32, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Pile-2-S Cyanide 67.9 9 pp. 1, 33-34, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Pile-2-S Cadmium 7.74 9 pp. 1, 33-34, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Pile-2-S Chromium 69.9 9 pp. 1, 33-34, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Pile-2-S Copper 30.7 9 pp. 1, 33-34, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Pile-2-S Lead 521.0 9 pp. 1, 33-34, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Pile-2-S Nickel 41.6 9 pp. 1, 33-34, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Pile-2-S Zinc 167,200.0 9 pp. 1, 33-34, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

ug/g concentrations expressed in micrograms per gram 

Sand Filter Bed Sludge Analysis 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE EVIDENCE ug/g MDL ug/g REFERENCE 

Cyanide 9.31 2.0 9 pp. 1, 37-38, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Cadmium 8.78 1.0 9 pp. 1, 37-38, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Chromium 37.8 1.5 9 pp. 1, 37-38, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Copper 26.1 2.0 9 pp. 1, 37-38, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Lead 568.0 10.0 9 pp. 1, 37-38, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Nickel 2.09 0.90 9 pp. 1, 37-38, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

Zinc 87,690.0 3.0 9 pp. 1, 37-38, 43-47, 54-55, 59-63 

ug/g concentrations expressed in micrograms per gram 

Sand Filter Bed Water Analysis 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE EVIDENCE (mg/L) MDL (mg/L) REFERENCE 

Cyanide 0.005 0.004 9 pp. 1, 39-40, 54-55, 59-63 

Cadmium <MDL 0.0030 9 pp. 1, 41-42, 54-55, 59-63 

Chromium 0.0171 0.015 9 pp. 1, 41-42, 54-55, 59-63 

Copper <MDL 0.020 9 pp. 1, 41-42, 54-55, 59-63 

Lead 3.30 2.00 9 pp. 1, 41-42, 54-55, 59-63 

Nickel 0.0135 0.030 9 pp. 1, 41-42, 54-55, 59-63 

Zinc 1.33 0.030 9 pp. 1, 41-42, 54-55, 59-63 

mg/L concentrations expressed in milligrams per liter 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SD-Hazardous Constituent Quantity 

Source No.: 4 

2.4.2. Hazardous Waste Quantity 

2.4.2.1.1. Hazardous Constituent Quantity 

No information on Constituent Quantity was available. 

2.4.2.1.2. Hazardous Wastestream Quantity 

No data was available on wastestream quantity. 

2.4.2.1.3. Volume 

The removal actions are non-qualifying for HRS scoring purposes since the removal was not complete and the 

removal has not addressed the release to ground water and surface water; therefore, contamination from the site 

still poses a threat to potable water supplies and is impacting a recreational fishery (Ref. 46 p. 2). During the 

removal conducted by USEPA Region IV a waste inventory was generated by Earth Tech. According to the 

waste inventory as of March 15, 2000 the quantity of sand filter material and sludge piles disposed of was 113.28 

tons (Refs. 8 p. 2; 11; 40 p. 2). 

1 ton = 1yd3

, therefore, 113.28 tons = 113.28 yd3. 

113.28yd3

/ 2.5=45.31 

Dimension of source (yd3 or gallons): 113.28 yd3 

References(s): 1 Section 2.4.2.1.3, Table 2-5; 8 p.2; 40 p. 2 

Volume Assigned Value: 45.31 

2.4.2.1.4. Area 

Evaluated under volume. 

2.4.2.1.5. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value 

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 45.31 

30 
 

 

 

 

SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS 

SOURCE 

NO. 

SOURCE 

HAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

QUANTITY 

VALUE 

CONTAINMENT 

GROUND 

WATER 

CONTAINMENT 

SURFACE 

WATER 

CONTAINMENT 

AIR GAS 

CONTAINMENT 

AIR 

PARTICULATE 

1 17.67 10 10 NS NS 

2 32.06 10 10 NS NS 

3 3,046.78 10 10 NS NS 

4 45.31 10 10 NS NS 

NS Not Scored 

Sum: 3,141.82 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 

Reference(s): 1, Table 2-5, Table 2-6, Table 3-2, Table 4-2 

31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GW-General 

3.0 GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY 

3.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 

Alabama Platting Company is located in northeastern Shelby County in what is considered to be the 

Coosa Valley District of the Alabama Valley and Ridge physiographic section. The surface 

elevations for the Coosa Valley District typically range from 400 to 1500 feet above mean sea level 

(MSL) (Ref. 13 pp. 1-2) 

Alabama Plating Company is located within the recharge area of the valley and ridge aquifer system 

(Ref. 13 p. 3). The Alabama Plating site is located within the outcrop area of the Knox Group 

undifferentiated, which is composed of the Copper Ridge and Chepultepec Dolomites and the 

Longview and Newala Limestones (Refs. 13 p.3; 14 p. 10). The geologic formations of the area can 

be grouped into two types of major aquifers—the Knox-Shady and the Tuscumbia-Fort Payne (Ref. 

14, p. 11). The Knox-Shady aquifer is present in the Coosa Valley and includes the Longview and 

Newala Limestone formations (Ref. 14, p. 12). Ground water in these units occurs in interconnected 

solution channels containing large amounts of water. Weathering of these dolomites results in a 

cherty soil that is porous and allows rapid infiltration of rainfall (Ref. 14 p. 12). Wells completed in 

the dolomites have been pumped at over 900 gallons per minute (gpm), and springs have been 

gauged at several hundred to 2,000 gpm. Wells in the limestone may yield as much as 100 gpm, and 

springs have been gauged at less than 1 gpm to 1,100 gpm (Ref. 13 pp. 3-4). 

Within four miles of the facility there is one active public water supply spring which is operated by 

the Vincent Water Works Board and is located approximately 8,500 feet to the southwest of the 

facility (Refs. 4; 13 p. 4). 

The aquifer being evaluated is the Valley Ridge Aquifer System, depth to the aquifer is 25 to 50 feet. 

The permeability of the unsaturated zone is 1.4x10-3 to 4.2x10-4 cm/sec. The source of recharge to 

the major aquifers is rainfall. The average rainfall is approximately 53 inches per year with a net 

precipitation rate of 6 inches, but a large part of this is lost either by direct runoff to streams 

immediately after a rain event or by evapotranspiration to the atmosphere (Ref. 14 p. 13). 

The recharge areas for the major aquifers are susceptible to surface contamination since the 

recharge areas occur in the stream valleys where rainfall runoff is much slower than that of runoff on 

steeper-sloped ridges. Slower runoff allows more infiltration of rainfall and provides the means to 

carry contaminants to the aquifers (Ref. 14 p. 15). Faulting enhances the permeability of most rock 

materials as the stresses during faulting mechanically fracture of rocks. The increased permeability 

in fault zones also represents an increase in the potential for surface contamination to enter the 

aquifer; these areas are designated as highly susceptible to contamination (Ref. 24 p. 15). When 

rocks that have a high chert content are weathered, the chert remains unaltered, leaving a residuous 

soil which is fairly porous and allows rapid recharge (Johnston, 1933). Areas underlain by these soils 

tend to be more susceptible to surface contamination (Ref. 14 p. 15). 

Alabama Plating Company is located in an area that is highly susceptible to karst formation (Ref. 13 

p.3). Within the study area there are sinkholes present which are depressions in the land surface 

caused by the collapse of rock materials into a solution cavity. Sinkholes can provide a direct link to 

the aquifer system, which could lead to immediate contamination of the aquifer (Ref. 14 pp. 15-16). 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GW-Observed Release 

3.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE 

3.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE 

Aquifer Being Evaluated: Knox-Shady Aquifer 

Chemical Analysis: 

• Background Concentration 

On October 14 and 15, 1998 ADEM conducted a ground water investigation at Alabama Plating Company. During 

this investigation samples from 6 of the 21 monitoring wells were sampled for cyanide, arsenic, barium, cadmium, 

chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc. Monitoring well 19, MW-19 was chosen to be 

the background well. According to the Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual "background samples do not 

have to be completely outside the influence of the site" (Ref. 3 p.69). Concentrations of contaminants found in 

the other 5 monitoring wells sampled were 3 times greater than the concentration found in MW-19 or 3 times 

greater than the method of detection limit (MDL). 

SAMPLE ID DEPTH DATE REFERENCE 

MW-19 18.20 10-15-98 15 p. 8 

MW monitoring well 

SAMPLE 

ID 

HAZARDOUS 

SUBSTANCE 

CONCENTRATION 

(ug/L) 

METHOD DETECTION LIMIT 

(ug/L) REFERENCE 

MW-19 Cadmium 35.4 10.0 15 pp. 31-32, 44-45 

MW-19 Zinc 1,976 300 15 pp. 31-32, 44-45 

MW-19 Copper < MDL 10.0 15 pp. 31-32, 44-45 

MW-19 Chromium < MDL 10.0 15 pp. 31-32, 44-45 

MW-19 Nickel < MDL 10.0 15 pp. 31-32, 44-45 

MW-19 Mercury < MDL 0.300 15 pp. 31-32, 44-45 

MW-19 Cyanide < MDL 0.004 mg/L 15 pp. 31-32, 44-45 

MW-19 Barium 41.9 10.0 15 pp. 31-32, 44-45 

MW monitoring well 

ug/L concentration is expressed in micrograms per liter 

mg/L concentration is expressed in milligrams per liter 

33 
 

 

• Contaminated Samples 

SAMPLE ID DEPTH (feet) DATE REFERENCE 

MW-1 20.30 10-14-98 15 p. 14 

MW-2 18.50 10-14-98 15 p. 5 

MW-7 20.30 10-14-98 15 p. 6 

MW-12 29.22 10-15-98 15 p. 7 

MW monitoring well 

34 
 

 

 

SAMPLE ID 

LAB 

SAMPLE ID 

NUMBER 

HAZARDOUS 

SUBSTANCE 

CONCENTRATION 

(ug/L) 

METHOD 

DETECTION 

LIMIT REFERENCE 

MW-1 AA12194 Cadmium 258.0 10.0 15 pp. 19-21, 37, 52­

53 

MW-1 AA12194 Copper 43.1 10.0 15 pp. 19-21, 37, 52­

53 

MW-1 AA12194 Lead 270 10.0 15 pp. 19-21, 37, 52­

53 

MW-1 AA12194 Nickel 280.0 10.0 15 pp. 19-21, 37, 52­

53 

MW-1 AA12194 Zinc 208,000.0 300.0 15 pp. 19-21, 37, 52­

53 

MW-2 AA12193 Cyanide 0.49 mg/L 0.004 15 pp. 22-24, 37, 50­

51 

MW-2 AA12193 Cadmium 1270.0 10.0 15 pp. 22-24, 37, 50­

51 

MW-2 AA12193 Chromium 329.0 10.0 15 pp. 22-24, 37, 50­

51 

MW-2 AA12193 Copper 279.0 10.0 15 pp. 22-24, 37, 50­

51 

MW-2 AA12193 Lead 190.0 10.0 15 pp. 22-24, 37, 50­

51 

MW-2 AA12193 Nickel 1030.0 10.0 15 pp. 22-24, 37, 50­

51 

MW-2 AA12193 Zinc 888,000.0 300.0 15 pp. 22-24, 37, 50­

51 

MW-7 AA12192 Barium 2,660.0 10.0 15 pp. 25-27, 37, 48­

49 

MW-7 AA12192 Cadmium 185.0 10.0 15 pp. 25-27, 37, 48­

49 

MW-7 AA12192 Copper 36.0 10.0 15 pp. 25-27, 37, 48­

49 

MW-7 AA12192 Lead 310.0 10.0 15 pp. 25-27, 37, 48­

49 

MW-7 AA12192 Mercury 3.78 0.300 15 pp. 25-27, 37, 48­

49 

MW-7 AA12192 Nickel 62.1 10.0 15 pp. 25-27, 37, 48­

49 

MW-7 AA12192 Zinc 54,600.0 300.0 15 pp. 25-27, 37, 48­

49 

MW-12 AA12191 Cadmium 420.0 10.0 15 pp. 28-30, 37, 46­

47 

MW-12 AA12191 Nickel 288.0 10.0 15 pp. 28-30, 37, 46­

47 

MW-12 AA12191 Zinc 126,000.0 300.0 15 pp. 28-30, 37, 46­

47 

MW monitoring well 

mg/L concentration expressed in milligrams per liter 

ug/L concentration expressed in milligrams per liter 

35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attribution: 

Alabama Plating Company began operations in 1956 at which time they were involved with both hot dip 

galvanizing and electroplating of basket size parts such as bolts, fasteners, nuts and castings using cadmium, zinc 

and copper. In March 1986, the plating process was eliminated (Ref. 16 p. 1). The electroplating process is similar 

for all three plating techniques used. First the metal to be plated is immersed in a caustic cleaning bath which is 

followed by a rinse. The metal is then immersed in an acid bath and rinsed again, this is followed by immersion in 

a metal specific (cadmium, copper, or zinc) plating bath, a chromate dip, and a final rinse. The hot-dip galvanizing 

process involved initial cleaning with a caustic solution, rinsing, pickling with a five percent acid solution, hot 

galvanizing in zinc ammonium chloride, and a final quenching (Ref. 12 p. 3). 

All spent process solutions, rinses, and other waste liquids went to the wastewater treatment system for 

treatment prior to discharge or disposal. Treatment ranged from no treatment with direct discharge of process 

wastewater to an adjoining receiving system, to use of a semi-closed treatment system with discharge of treat 

effluent. The untreated process wastewater hazardous constituents may include: heavy metals, sulfide waste, 

corrosive liquids, and cyanide generated during the plating and galvanizing process (Ref. 12 p. 3). After 

operations began at the facility in 1956 an unlined retention lagoon was constructed behind the electroplating 

building. This lagoon received cooling, rinsing, and process wastewater. Solids in the effluents were allowed to 

settle in the lagoon and the supernatant was discharged into a ditch leading into an unnamed stream on the 

eastern boundary of the facility. This process continued until 1970. At some point between 1956 and 1970 two 

additional unlined lagoons were constructed and became a part of the effluent treatment system (Ref. 12 p. 3). In 

1970 a wastewater treatment unit for treating the process wastewater was installed at the facility. Once this 

system was installed the lagoons received the treated effluent, including sludge as solids carryover. From 1970 to 

late 1985, approximately 24,000 gallons per day of treated effluent was discharged into an unnamed stream which 

flows approximately 3⁄4 mile before entering Spring Creek (Ref. 12 pp. 3-4). 

On December 2, 1985 groundwater inspection of the RCRA wells at Alabama Plating Company was conducted by 

ADEM, during this investigation four monitoring wells were sampled. Cadmium was found in MW-3 and MW-4 

at 0.68 mg/L and 2.0 mg/L. Chromium was also found in MW-3 and MW-4 at 0.09 mg/L and 0.34 mg/L (Ref. 17 pp. 

1,3). 

On January 7-8, 1987 ADEM's Field Operations Division, Compliance/Emergency Response Section conducted a 

comprehensive ground water inspection at Alabama Plating Company. During this investigation 6 monitoring 

wells were sampled. Listed in the table below are the results for the wells with contamination (Ref. 18 p. 2). 

Contaminant MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 

Cadmium mg/L 0.74 0.64 0.93 

Chromium mg/L <.05 0.10 0.12 

Lead mg/L <.05 0.5 0.40 

Nickel mg/L 0.2 0.5 <.01 

On February 1-2, 1989 ADEM's Field Operations Division, Compliance/Emergency Response Section conducted a 

comprehensive ground water inspection at Alabama Plating Company. During this investigation 10 monitoring 

wells were sampled, the table below lists the contaminated wells and their level of contamination, concentrations 

are expressed in mg/L (Ref. 19 pp. 2,7). 

Parameter AP-1 AP-2 AP-3 AP-4 AP-5 AP-6 AP-7 AP-8 AP-9 AP-10 

Barium <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

Copper 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 

Lead 0.23 0.09 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.127 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

Zinc 316.0 126.0 0.07 --­ 22.30 112.9 106.0 3.39 5.69 1.86 

Cyanide 0.012 0.014 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 

36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A memorandum dated June 22, 1992 stated the ground water plume is elongate south of the unit. Concentrations 

of cadmium and lead are highest near MW-1 and progressively increase to MW-14. At MW-19 levels 

significantly increase. It is thought that the increase in concentration at MW-19 is due to the fact that the 

southern edge of the contaminant plume has slightly overlapped with another plume. The source of the second 

plume could have resulted from the soil that was not removed during the sludge remediation along the surface 

water pathway (Ref. 20 p. 1). According to a memorandum dated February 21, 1986 an inspection was conducted 

as part of a regularly scheduled compliance evaluation and to investigate reports that wastewater treatment 

sludge had been recently discharged by the facility into a small nearby stream. During the inspection it was found 

that due to the ADEM's Hazardous Waste Branch's prohibition on the continuing use of the facility's 

impoundments for hazardous waste management, Alabama Plating Company began to discharge wastewater 

directly from their wastewater treatment system without routing it through the settling lagoon. During this 

inspection Mr. Rowe stated that the cone tank in the wastewater treatment system overflowed during nighttime 

galvanizing operations a number of times in the past two or three months (Ref. 21 p. 1). Since the settling lagoon 

was not used to capture the suspended solids, they settled out as sludge in the woods and creek behind the 

plant. Samples collected during the inspection were analyzed for total cyanides, cadmium, and hexavalent 

chromium. The most distant sample collected downstream from the facility was located in front of the house 

located across the county road from the facility. Sample results showed elevated levels of cadmium, chromium, 

and cyanide (Ref. 21 p. 3). 

On October 18-19, 1993 ADEM's Compliance Section of Field Operations Division participated in an Operations 

and Maintenance Inspection at Alabama Plating Company. ADEM split samples from 10 wells with the Alabama 

Plating Company's consultant. Cadmium was found in MW-5, MW-6, MW-9, MW-14, MW-15 AND MW-19. 

The highest concentration of cadmium was 0.103 ppm in MW-14. Zinc was present in MW-5, MW-6, MW-9, 

MW-11, MW-14, MW-15 and MW-19. The levels of zinc range from 0.057 ppm in MW-11 to 8.89 ppm in MW-5 

(Ref. 22 pp. 2-4). 

On December 8, 1994 ADEM's Field Operations Division Compliance Section conducted a comprehensive 

monitoring evaluation at the Alabama Plating Company. During this investigation samples were collected from 6 

of the monitoring wells at the facility. Listed in the table below are the results for the wells that showed 

contamination (Ref. 23 pp. 3,5-6). 

Parameter MW-4 MW-9 MW-12 MW-14 MW-16 MW-21 

Cadmium ppm LD 0.31 0.46 0.082 LD LD 

Nickel ppm LD LD 0.37 0.021 LD 0.044 

Lead ppm 0.011 LD 0.039 LD 0.016 0.012 

Barium ppm 0.018 0.037 0.034 0.03 0.043 0.053 

ppm concentration expressed in parts per million 

LD Less than detection 

On January 17-18, 1996 ADEM's Field Operations Division participated in an Operations and Maintenance 

Inspection at Alabama Plating Company. During the inspection an ADEM representative collected split samples. 

The highest level of barium was detected in MW-19 at 0.039 ppm, cadmium was detected only in MW-19 at 0.034 

ppm. Lead was detected only in MW-11 at 0.116 ppm, and zinc was detected in MW-11, MW-15 and MW-19; the 

highest concentration of zinc was 1.85 in MW-19 (Ref. 24 pp. 1,7-9). 

The only other potential source of contamination identified in the vicinity is the Alabama Plating Satellite facility 

located approximately 1⁄2 mile north of the main facility. 

37 
 

 

Hazardous Substances Released 

• Cyanide 

• Cadmium 

• Chromium 

• Copper 

• Lead 

• Nickel 

• Zinc 

Ground Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550 

38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

GW-Toxicity/Mobility 

3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS 

3.2.1 Toxicity/Mobility 

HAZARDOUS 

SUBSTANCE SOURCE NO. 

TOXICITY 

FACTOR 

VALUE 

MOBILITY 

FACTOR 

VALUE* 

TOXICITY/ 

MOBILITY REFERENCE 

Arsenic 3 10,000 1 10,000 2, B-2 

Cyanide 3,4 100 1 100 2, B-6 

Cadmium 1,2,3,4 10,000 1 10,000 2, B-4 

Chromium 1,2,3,4 10,000 1 10,000 2, B-5 

Copper 2,3,4 *** 1 *** 2, B-6 

Lead 1,2,3,4 10,000 1 10,000 2, B-13 

Nickel 1,2,3,4 10,000 1 10,000 2, B-14 

Zinc 1,2,3,4 10 1 10 2, B-20 

*Since the hazardous substances detected in ground water have been found at concentrations meeting criteria for an observed 

release, a mobility factor of 1 is assigned (Refs. 1, Section 3.2.1.2; 15, pp. 19-30, 37, 46-53). 

***Not available in SCDM (Ref. 2). 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GW-Hazardous Waste Quantity 

3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity 

SOURCE 

NUMBER 

SOURCE HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY 

VALUE (SECTION 2.4.2.1.5) 

IS SOURCE HAZARDOUS 

CONSTITUENT QUANTITY DATA 

COMPLETE? (YES/NO) 

1 17.67 NO 

2 32.06 NO 

3 3,046.78 NO 

4 45.31 NO 

Sum of Values: 3,141.82 

3.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Val ue 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value X Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 1X106 

Reference(s): 1, Section 2.4.3.1 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 32 

Reference(s): 1, Section 2.4.2.2 Table 2-7 

40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GW-Targets 

3.3 TARGETS 

WELL 

DISTANCE FROM 

SOURCE AQUIFER 

LEVEL I 

CONTAMINATION 

(Y/N) 

LEVEL II 

CONTAMINATION 

(Y/N) 

POTENTIAL 

CONTAMINATION 

(Y/N) 

REF. 

Vincent 

Well 

> 1/4 to 1⁄2 mile Knox-Shady Aquifer NO NO YES 14 pp. 12, 27 

The Vincent Water Works Board has a public water supply located approximately 1⁄4 mile south of Alabama Plating Company. During the October 14-15, 1998 

groundwater sampling event Vincent's drinking water supply was sampled for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, 

zinc and cyanide. Barium was present in the spring at 13.3 ug/L (micrograms per liter) which was less than three times the MDL of 10 ug/L (Ref. 15 pp. 1-3, 10, 16­

18, 37-84). The Vincent drinking water supply spring was sampled on July 15, 1999 and on August 18, 1999. Sample results from the July 15, 1999 sampling event 

show barium to be present at 0.015 milligrams per liter, which was equal to the method of detection limit (Ref. 25 pp. 1-4). Sample results from the August 18, 1999 

sampling event were all less than the MDL (Ref. 26 pp. 1-4). According to the city clerk, Vincent Water Works Board serves approximately 750 connections and 

sells water to Hapersville (Ref 27 p. 1). The city clerk for Harpersville stated that the Hapersville Water Board has 600 water service connections, and that the 

water that is purchased from Vincent supplies approximately 20 percent of their total water supply (Ref. 28 p. 1). To calculate the total population served by 

Vincent, multiply the service connections by the county average number of persons per household for Shelby County, Alabama, which is 2.71 

(Ref. 29 p. 1). 

Vincent: 750 Connections X 2.71 = 2,032.5 persons 

Hapersville 20% X 600 connections = 120 connections 

120 connections X 2.71= 325 persons 

The total population served by the Vincent Water Works Board is 2,357.5 persons. 

41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GW-Nearest Well 

3.3.1 Nearest Well 

Well: Vincent Well, City of Vincent's public drinking water supply. 

Level of Contamination (I, II, or potential): Potential 

If potential contamination, distance from source in miles: >1/4 to 1⁄2 mile 

A nearest well factor of 20 is based on the presence of Karst terrain. The Alabama Plating Facility is located in an 

area highly susceptible to karst formation (Ref.13 p.3). 

Reference(s): 1, pp. 51602-3 Section 3.3.1 

Nearest Well Factor Value: 20 

42 
 

 

 

 

GW-Potential Contamination 

3.3.2 Population 

3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination 

DISTANCE 

CATEGORY POPULATION REFERENCE 

DISTANCE WEIGHTED 

POPULATION VALUE 

0 to < 1⁄4 0 4; 27 p. 1; 28 pp. 1-3 0 

1⁄4 to < 1⁄2 2,357 4; 27 p. 1; 28 pp. 1-3 1,013 

1⁄2 to <1 0 4; 27 p. 1; 28 pp. 1-3 0 

1 to < 2 0 4; 27 p. 1; 28 pp. 1-3 0 

2 to < 3 0 4; 27 p. 1; 28 pp.1-3 0 

3 to 4 0 4; 27 p. 1; 28 pp. 1-3 0 

Sum of Distance Weighted Population Value: 1,013 

Reference(s): 1, pp. 51603-4; 4; 27 p. 1; 28 p. 1; 28pp 1-3 

Potential Contamination Factor Value: 101.3 

43 
 

 

 

 

GW-Resources 

3.3.3 RESOURCES 

There is one private ground water well located 1 mile southeast of Alabama Plating which is currently used to 

water cattle (Ref. 25 p. 1). 

Resources Factor Value: 5 

44 
 

 

 

GW-Wellhead Protection Area 

3.3.4 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA 

Currently a wellhead protection area for the spring has not been identified. 

Wellhead Protection: 0 

45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SWOF-Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Pathway 

4.1 OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT 

4.1.1.1 DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE MIGRATION PATH FOR OVERLAND/FLOOD 

COMPONENT 

Alabama Plating Company is located in northeastern Shelby County in what is considered to be the Coosa Valley 

District of the Alabama Valley and Ridge physiographic section. The surface elevations for the Coosa Valley 

District typically range from 400 to 1500 feet above msl. Surface water runoff from Alabama Plating Company flows 

to the north, northeast and the south, into an unnamed intermittent tributary. The unnamed tributary flows into 

Spring Creek, which feeds the Coosa River. The probable point of entry (PPE) for contaminants migrating from the 

facility is at the confluence of the intermittent tributary and Spring Creek (Ref. 4). The average annual flow for 

Spring Creek at the Highway 231 crossing is calculated to be 18.0 cubic feet per second (cfs). At the mouth of 

Spring Creek the average annual flow is calculated to be 25.3 cfs (Ref. 37 p. 1). The average annual flow for the 

Coosa River at Childersburg is 13,860 cfs. A surfacewater intake is located on the Coosa River approximately 5.97 

miles downstream from the PPE. The Shelby County Water service has a drinking water intake located on the Coosa 

River near Childersburg, Alabama (Ref. 4). The Shelby County has 2,900 residential connections and sells water to 

the following water services : Alabaster Water Board, Pelham Water Works, Sterrett-Vandiver Water System, 

Westover Water, and Leeds Water Board (Ref. 36 p. 1). 

46 
 

 

 

 

SWOF-Observed Release 

4.1.2.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE 

4.1.2.1.1 Observed Release 

Chemical Analysis 

• Background Concentration 

SAMPLE ID SAMPLING LOCATION DEPTH DATE REFERENCE 

Spring Creek WS-10 In Spring Creek at the public water supply 

0.4 mile upstream from PPE 

0-3 inches 8/23/99 4; 30 p. 2 

WS surface water sediment sample 

SAMPLE ID HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE 

CONCENTRATION 

(ug/g) 

METHOD DETECTION 

LIMIT (ug/g) DATE REFERENCE 

Spring Creek WS-10 Arsenic <MDL 10 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,3,35-37,59-86 

Spring Creek WS-10 Barium 6.52 1.5 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,3,35-37,59-86 

Spring Creek WS-10 Cadmium <MDL 1.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,3,35-37,59-86 

Spring Creek WS-10 Chromium 12.8 1.5 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,3,35-37,59-86 

Spring Creek WS-10 Copper <MDL 2.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,3,35-37,59-86 

Spring Creek WS-10 Lead <MDL 10.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,3,35-37,59-86 

Spring Creek WS-10 Nickel <MDL 0.9 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,3,35-37,59-86 

Spring Creek WS-10 Zinc 12.0 3.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,3,35-37,59-86 

Spring Creek WS-10 Mercury <MDL 0.10 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,3,35-37,59-86 

WS surface water sediment sample 

ug/g concentrations expressed in micrograms per gram 

47 
• Contaminated Samples 

SAMPLE ID SAMPLING LOCATION DEPTH DATE REFERENCE 

WS-01 2.54 mi. downstream from PPE, mouth of Spring Creek 0-3 inches 8/23/99 4; 30 pp. 1,6,9 

WS-02 2.35 mi. downstream from PPE in Spring Creek 0-3 inches 8/23/99 4; 30 pp. 1,6,9 

WS-04 2.07 mi. downstream from PPE in Spring Creek 0-3 inches 8/23/99 4; 30 pp. 2,7,9 

WS-05 1.78 mi. downstream from PPE in Spring Creek 0-3 inches 8/23/99 4; 30 pp. 2,7,9 

WS-06 1.2 mi. downstream from PPE in Spring Creek 0-3 inches 8/23/99 4; 30 pp. 2,7,9 

WS-08 .45mi. downstream from PPE in Spring Creek 0-3 inches 8/23/99 4; 30 pp. 2,8-9 

48 
SAMPLE ID HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE CONCENTRATION (ug/g) 

METHOD DETECTION 

LIMIT (ug/g) DATE REFERENCE 

Spring Creek WS01 Barium 43.9 1.5 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 56-86 

Spring Creek WS01 Copper 3.99 2.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 56-86 

Spring Creek WS01 Nickel 2.76 0.9 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 56-86 

Spring Creek WS01 Zinc 56.4 3.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 56-86 

Spring Creek WS02 Arsenic 11.2 10 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 53-55, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS02 Cadmium 1.30 1.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 53-55, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS02 Chromium 39.1 1.5 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 53-55, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS02 Copper 5.6 2.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 53-55, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS02 Lead 12.8 10.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 53-55, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS02 Nickel 4.05 0.9 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 53-55, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS02 Zinc 141.0 3.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 53-55, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS04 Barium 23.8 1.5 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 50-52, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS04 Copper 2.73 2.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 50-52, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS04 Nickel 2.41 0.9 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 50-52, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS04 Zinc 140.0 3.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 50-52, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS05 Arsenic 13.7 10 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,47-49, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS05 Barium 30.7 1.5 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,47-49, 59-86 

49 
 

 

Spring Creek WS05 

Cadmium 1.74 1.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,47-49, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS05 Chromium 106.0 1.5 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,47-49, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS05 Copper 6.49 2.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,47-49, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS05 Lead 22.4 10 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,47-49, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS05 Nickel 9.09 0.9 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,47-49, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS06 Arsenic 15.2 10 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 44-46, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS06 Barium 64.1 1.5 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 44-46, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS06 Cadmium 1.59 1.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 44-46, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS06 Chromium 61.9 1.5 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 44-46, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS06 Copper 10.4 2.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 44-46, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS06 Lead 45.7 10 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 44-46, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS06 Nickel 15.6 0.9 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 44-46, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS06 Zinc 237 3.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1, 44-46, 59-86 

WS surface water sediment sample 

ug/g concentrations expressed in micrograms per gram 

50 
 

 

SAMPLE ID HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE CONCENTRATION (ug/g) 

METHOD DETECTION 

LIMIT (ug/g) DATE REFERENCE 

Spring Creek WS08 

Arsenic 11.6 10 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,41-43, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS08 

Barium 28.4 1.5 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,41-43, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS08 

Cadmium 1.24 1.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,41-43, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS08 

Chromium 63.7 1.5 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,41-43, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS08 

Copper 5.30 2.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,41-43, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS08 

Lead 19.3 10 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,41-43, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS08 

Nickel 6.57 0.9 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,41-43, 59-86 

Spring Creek WS08 

Zinc 172 3.0 8-23-99 30 pp. 1,41-43, 59-86 

WS surface water sediment sample 

ug/g concentrations expressed in micrograms per gram 

51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attribution: 

In January 1980 a letter was sent to the Alabama Water Improvement Commission about a complaint that was received concerning Alabama Plating discharging 

wastewater into a nearby creek (Ref. 31 p. 1). In December 1985 a complaint was received by ADEM's Water Division which was filed by with the Mayor of 

Vincent against Alabama Plating Company. The nature of the complaint was that settling pond was overflowing or leaking into Spring Creek. The citizen's 

complaint was based on degradation of vegetation on his property (Ref. 32 p. 1) 

According to a memorandum dated February 21, 1986, an inspection was conducted as part of a regularly scheduled compliance evaluation and to investigate 

reports that wastewater treatment sludge had been recently discharged by the facility into a small nearby stream. During the inspection it was found that due to 

the ADEM's Hazardous Waste Branch's prohibition on the continuing use of the facility's impoundments for hazardous waste management, Alabama Plating 

Company began to discharge wastewater directly from their wastewater treatment system without routing it through the settling lagoon. During this inspection 

Mr. Rowe stated that the cone tank in the wastewater treatment system overflowed during nighttime galvanizing operations a number of times in the past two or 

three months. Since the settling lagoon was not used to capture the suspended solids, they settled out as sludge in the woods and creek behind the plant. 

Samples collected during the inspection were analyzed for total cyanides, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium (Ref 21 p. 1). The most distant sample collected 

downstream from the facility was located in front of the house located across the county road from the facility. Sample results showed elevated levels of cadmium, 

chromium, and cyanide (Ref. 21 p. 3). 

In a memorandum dated March 4, 1986, ADEM's water Division conducted a Compliance evaluation inspection at Alabama Plating Company on February 20,1986. 

This inspection revealed that sludge had been discharged through the NPDES discharge point DSN0001, and this discharge was a result of inadequate operation 

and maintenance of the treatment facility (Ref. 33 p. 1). Results of samples collected during the inspection and a subsequent inspection by ADEM Hazardous 

Waste Division indicate that Alabama Plating violated their NPDES permit limits and also that the water quality was being adversely impacted (Ref. 33 p. 1). 

During this inspection samples were collected from the NPDES permitted discharge point downstream in the creek and in the stream after it goes under County 

Road 60. Samples collected from the stream after it crosses County Road 60 were collected in 50 foot increments. The last sampling point approximately 400 feet 

downstream from where County Road 60 crosses the stream contained elevated levels of cadmium (20.3 mg/kg), chromium (388 mg/kg), nickel (17 mg/kg), cyanide 

(76.2 mg/kg) (Ref. 33 pp. 2,14). A letter hand delivered to Mr. Marvin Rowe stated that ADEM had determined the presence of high levels of cyanide, cadmium, 

chromium, and nickel in a ditch and creek segment immediately below the wastewater discharge point and that the contamination had also been determined to 

extend from the discharge point to the unnamed tributary of Spring Creek immediately south of County Road 60. Alabama Plating was requested to submit a 

mitigation plan for the proper removal, transportation, and treatment disposal of all contaminants from the ditch and creek. The letter also stated that Alabama 

Plating Company was to assume that contamination extends to the confluence of Spring Creek for the purpose of developing the mitigation plan (Ref. 34 p. 1). 

The Alabama Department of Public Health in a memorandum dated March 10, 1986 stated that local health officials had reviewed the analytical results of water and 

sludge samples collected by ADEM. The health officials determined that due to the high levels of pollutants in conjunction with public accessibility could 

produce adverse consequences to public health. An order was issued by the local health officials which prohibited bodily contact with the polluted area involved 

until further study (Ref. 35 pp. 1,3). One other potential source of contamination in the area is the Alabama Plating Company Satellite facility. Drainage from this 

facility does not appear to enter Spring Creek or a tributary entering Spring Creek. 

52 
 

 

 

Hazardous Substances Released: 

• Arsenic 

• Cadmium 

• Chromium 

• Copper 

• Lead 

• Nickel 

• Zinc 

Observed Release Factor Value: 550 

53 
 

 

 

 

SWOF/Drinking-Toxicity/Persistence 

4.1.2.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS 

4.1.2.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence 

HAZARDOUS 

SUBSTANCE 

SOURCE 

NUMBER 

TOXICITY 

FACTOR 

VALUE 

PERSISTENCE 

FACTOR 

VALUE 

TOXICITY/ 

PERSISTENCE 

FACTOR VALUE 

(TABLE 4-12) REFERENCE 

Arsenic 3 10,000 1.0 10,000 2 B-2 

Cadmium 1,2,3,4 10,000 1.0 10,000 2 B-4 

Chromium 1,2,3,4 10,000 1.0 10,000 2 B-5 

Copper 2,3,4 *** 1.0 *** 2 B-6 

Lead 1,2,3,4 10,000 1.0 10,000 2 B-13 

Nickel 1,2,3,4 10,000 1.0 10,000 2 B-14 

Zinc 1,2,3,4 10 1.0 10 2 B-20 

Cyanide 3,4 100 0.4 40 2 B-6 

***Not available in SCDM (Ref. 2). 

Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value: 10,000 

54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SWOF/Drinking-Hazardous Waste Quantity 

4.1.2.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity 

SOURCE NUMBER SOURCE HAZARDOUS WASTE 

QUANTITY VALUE (SECTION 

2.4.2.1.5.) 

IS SOURCE HAZARDOUS 

CONSTITUENT QUANTITY 

DATA COMPLETE? (YES/NO) 

1 17.67 NO 

2 32.06 NO 

3 3,046.78 NO 

4 45.31 NO 

Sum of values: 3,141.82 

4.1.2.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value 

Toxicity/persistence factor value X hazardous waste quantity factor value: 1X106 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 32 

55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SWOF/Drinking-Targets 

4.1.2.3 DRINKING WATER TARGETS 

4.1.2.3.1 Nearest Intake 

Location of Nearest Drinking Water Intake: Coosa River 

Distance from the probable point of entry: 5.67 miles 

Reference: 4 

Potential Contamination: 

Type of surface water body: Coosa River (River)
 

The Coosa River has an average annual flow of 13,860 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the station located at
 

Childersburg (station number 02407000) (Ref. 37 p. 1). The intake is located approximately 5.67 miles downstream
 

from the PPE (Ref. 4).
 

Dilution Weight: 0.0001 

Reference(s) 1 Table 4-13; 4; 37 p. 1 

Nearest Intake Factor Value: 0.002 

56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SWOF/Drinking-Potential Contamination 

4.1.2.3.2 Population 

4.1.2.3.2.2 Level I Concentrations 

No Level I concentrations have been documented in the Coosa River; therefore, Level I was not evaluated. 

4.1.2.3.2.3 Level II Concentrations 

No Level II concentrations have been documented in the Coosa River; therefore, Level II was not evaluated. 

4.1.2.3.2.4 Potential Contamination 

The Shelby County Water service has a drinking water intake located on the Coosa River near Childersburg, 

Alabama (Ref. 4). The Shelby County Water service has 2,900 residential connections and sells water to the 

following water services: Alabaster Water Board, Pelham Water Works, Sterrett-Vandiver Water System, 

Westover Water, and Leeds Water Board (Ref. 36 p. 1). All of the above mentioned water systems are located in 

Shelby County. 

The Alabaster Water Board obtains 75 percent of the water supply from three groundwater wells and the 

remaining 25 percent is purchased from Shelby County. The Alabaster Water Board generally does not mix the 

purchased surface water and the ground water. The surface water purchased from Shelby County serves 1,500 

service connections (Ref. 36 p. 1). 

Pelham Water Works purchases water from Shelby County, but does not mix the purchased water with their 

groundwater. The water purchased from Shelby County serves 1,400 service connections (Ref. 36 p. 1). 

Sterrett-Vandiver Water System and Westover Water both purchases 100 percent of their water supply from 

Shelby County. The water systems respectively supply 926 and 2,500 service connections (Ref. 36 p. 1). 

Leeds Water Board also purchase water from Shelby County, but generally does not mix this water into their 

system. The water purchased serves on subdivision, which has approximately 150-service connection 

(Ref. 36 p.2). 

In the table below are the population served by each of the systems discussed above. The population was 

calculated by multiplying the number of service connections by 2.71, which is the average number of persons per 

household for Shelby County according to the 1990 Census (Ref. 29 p. 1). 

Water System Service Connections County Average 

Persons/Household 

Population 

Shelby County 2,900 2.71 7,859 

Alabaster Water Board 1,500 2.71 4,065 

Pelham Water Works 1,400 2.71 3,794 

Sterett-Vandiver Water System 926 2.71 2,509 

Westover Water 2,500 2.71 6,775 

Leeds Water Board 150 2.71 406 

TOTAL 9,376 2.71 25,408 

57 
TYPE OF SURFACE WATER BODY TOTAL POPULATION DILUTION WEIGHTED POPULATION 

(TABLE 4-14) 

Large River 25,408 2 

 

 

INTAKE 

AVERAGE ANNUAL 

FLOW (cfs) WATER SYSTEM 

POPULATION SERVED 

REFERENCES 

Shelby County 13,860 Shelby County Water System 7,.859 36 p. 1 

Shelby County 13,860 Alabaster Water Board 4,065 36 p. 1 

Shelby County 13,860 Pelham Water Works 3,794 36 p. 1 

Shelby County 13,860 Sterrett-Vandiver 2,509 36 p. 1 

Shelby County 13,860 Westover Water 6,775 36 p. 1 

Shelby County 13,860 Leeds Water Board 406 36 p. 2 

Dilution-Weighted Population Served by Potentially Contaminated Intakes: 25,408 

Potential Contamination Factor Value: 0.2 

58 
 

 

 

SWOF/Drinking-Resources 

4.1.2.3.3 Resources 

No Resources were identified in the target area. 

Resources Factor Value: 0 

59 
 

 

 

 

SWOF/Food Chain-Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation 

4.2.3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS 

4.1.3.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation 

HAZARDOUS 

SUBSTANCE 

SOURCE 

NO. 

TOXICITY 

FACTOR 

VALUE 

PERSISTENCE 

FACTOR 

VALUE 

BIOACCUMULATION 

VALUE 

TOXICITY/ 

PERSISTENCE/ 

BIOACCUMULATION FACTOR 

VALUE 

(TABLE 4-16) REF. 

Arsenic 3 10,000 1.0 5.0 50,000 2 B-2 

Cadmium 1,2,3,4 10,000 1.0 5,000 50,000,000 2 B-4 

Chromium 1,2,3,4 10,000 1.0 5.0 50,000 2 B-5 

Copper 2,3,4 *** 1.0 50,000 *** 2 B-6 

Lead 1,2,3,4 10,000 1.0 50.0 500,000 2 B-13 

Nickel 1,2,3,4 10,000 1.0 0.5 5,000 2 B-14 

Zinc 1,2,3,4 10 1.0 500 5,000 2 B-20 

Cyanide 3,4 100 0.4 0.5 20 2 B-6 

***Not available in SCDM (Ref. 2). 

Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 50,000,000 

60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SWOF/Food Chain-Hazardous Waste Quantity 

4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity 

SOURCE NUMBER 

SOURCE HAZARDOUS WASTE 

QUANTITY VALUE (SECTION 

2.4.2.1.5.) 

IS SOURCE HAZARDOUS 

CONSTITUENT QUANTITY DATA 

COMPLETE? (YES/NO) 

1 17.67 NO 

2 32.06 NO 

3 3,046.78 NO 

4 45.31 NO 

Sum of values: 3,141.82 

4.1.3.2.3	 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value 

Toxicity/persistence factor value X hazardous waste quantity factor value: 1X106 

(Toxicity/persistence x hazardous waste quantity) X bioaccumulation potential factor value: 5 X 109 

Reference(s): 1 Section 4.1.3.2.3 Table 2-7 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Assigned Value: 100 

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 180 

61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SWOF/Food Chain-Targets 

4.1.3.3 HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT-TARGETS 

Actual Human Food Chain Contamination 

Surface Water and Sediment Samples 

SAMPLE ID 

DISTANCE FROM 

PROBABLE POINT OF 

ENTRY 

HAZARDOUS 

SUBSTANCE 

BIOACCUMULATION 

POTENTIAL FACTOR 

VALUE 

Spring Creek WS-02 2.35 miles Cadmium 5,000 

Spring Creek WS-02 2.35 miles Copper 50,000 

Spring Creek WS-02 2.35 miles Zinc 500 

Spring Creek WS-01 2.54 miles Copper 50,000 

Spring Creek WS-01 2.54 miles Zinc 500 

WS surface water sediment sample 

Most Distant Level II Sample 

Sample ID: Spring Creek WS-01 

Distance from the probable point of entry: 2.54 miles downstream of the PPE 

Reference: 4; 30 1,6,9,53-86 

Level II Fisheries 

62 

IDENTITY OF FISHERY EXTENT OF THE LEVEL II FISHERY (RELATIVE TO PROBABLE POINT OF 

ENTRY) 

Spring Creek Level II fishery begins 2.35 mi. from the PPE and ends 2.54 mi. from the PPE 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SWOF/Food Chain-Food Chain Individual 

4.1.3.3.1 Food Chain Individual 

Sample ID: WS-01 and WS-02 

Hazardous Substance: Cadmium 

Bioaccumulation Potential: 5,000 

During an August, 1999, sampling event on Spring Creek fishing line was present in a tree on the right-bank 

approximately 100 feet upstream from sampling point WS-01and was also present in a tree on the left-bank at 

sampling location WS-02 (Ref. 30 pp1,6). Fishing was observed on the Coosa River during this sampling event, 

fishermen in boats and people fishing along the banks of the Coosa (Ref. 30 p. 8). The food chain individual 

factor value of 45 is assigned based on Level II concentrations at the fishery (Ref. 1 Section4.1.3.3.2.2; 3 p. 301). 

IDENTITY OF FISHERY 

TYPE OF SURFACE 

WATER BODY REFERENCE 

DILUTION 

WEIGHT 

Spring Creek Small to Moderate Stream 1 Section 4.1.3.3.1 Table 4-13 0.1 

Food Chain Individual Factor Value: 45 

63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SWOF/Food Chain-Potential human food chain contamination 

4.1.3.3.2 Population 

4.1.3.3.2.1 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination 

IDENTITY OF 

FISHERY 

ANNUAL 

PRODUCTION 

(POUNDS) 

TYPE OF SURFACE 

WATER BODY AVERAGE 

ANNUAL FLOW REF. 

POPULATION 

VALUE (PI) 

DILUTION 

WEIGHT (DI) PI

XDI 

Coosa River >0 Large River 13,860 37 p. 1 0.03 0.0001 0.000003 

Default values were assigned since at the time of scoring no reasonable production estimate could be made (Ref. 3 pp. 315-316). 

Sum of Pi x Di

: 0.000003 

(Sum of Pi x Di

)/10: 0.0000003 

Potential Human Food Chain Contamination Factor Value: 0.0000003 

64 
 

 

 

SWOF/Food Chain-Level II Concentrations 

4.1.3.3.2.3 Level II Concentrations 

IDENTITY OF FISHERY ANNUAL PRODUCTION (POUNDS) REFERENCE HUMAN FOOD CHAIN 

POPULATION VALUE 

Spring Creek >0 1 p. 51621 Table 4-18; 0.03 

Default values were assigned at the time of scoring since no production estimates could be made. 

Level II Concentration Factor Value: 0.03 

65