2002­
0001­
0071
HRS
DOCUMENTATION
RECORD­­
REVIEW
COVER
SHEET
Name
of
Site:
United
Metals,
Inc.
EPA
ID
No.
FLD098924038
Contact
Persons
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
4:
Joe
Alfano,
EPA
Task
Monitor
(404)
562­
8933
Cynthia
Gurley,
NPL
Coordinator
(706)
355­
8556
Expanded
Site
Inspection:
ABB
Environmental
Services,
Inc.
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
Documentation
Record:

David
L.
Brown,
Project
Manager
(678)
775­
3081
Tetra
Tech
EM
Inc.

Pathways,
Components,
or
Threats
Not
Evaluated
The
air
migration,
groundwater
migration,
and
soil
exposure
pathways
were
not
scored
in
this
documentation
record,
because
these
pathways
are
not
expected
to
contribute
significantly
to
the
overall
site
score
for
the
United
Metals,
Inc.
site.
Groundwater
samples
were
collected
from
on­
site
monitoring
wells,
and
an
observed
release
to
groundwater
has
been
documented;
however,
because
of
low
targets,
the
groundwater
migration
pathway
was
not
scored.
No
air
samples
have
been
collected
to
document
a
release
to
ambient
air.
Extensive
surficial
contamination
exists
throughout
the
facility,
but
no
resident
targets
have
been
identified
for
the
soil
exposure
pathway.
1
HRS
DOCUMENTATION
RECORD
Name
of
Site:
United
Metals,
Inc.
CERCLIS
ID
No.:
FLD098924038
EPA
Region:
4
Date
Prepared:
August
14,
2001
Street
Address
of
Site:
Marianna
(State
Road
71)

County
and
State:
Jackson
County,
Florida
General
Location
in
the
State:
Northwestern
Florida
Topographic
Maps
of
Florida:
Oakdale,
1994;
Altha
West,
1994
Latitude:
30°
41'09"
North
Longitude:
85°
10'05"
West
Geographical
coordinates
were
determined
from
a
point
in
the
center
of
the
facility
property
(Refs.
3;
4).

Scores
Air
Pathway
Not
Scored
Groundwater
Pathway
Not
Scored
Soil
Exposure
Pathway
Not
Scored
Surface
Water
Pathway
67.47
HRS
SITE
SCORE
33.73
2
WORKSHEET
FOR
COMPUTING
HRS
SITE
SCORE
S
S
2
1.
Groundwater
Migration
Pathway
Score
(Sgw)
NS
NS
(from
Table
3­
1,
line
13)

2a.
Surface
Water
Overland/
Flood
Migration
Component
67.47
(from
Table
4­
1,
line
30)

2b.
Groundwater
to
Surface
Water
Migration
Component
NS
(from
Table
4­
25,
line
28)

2c.
Surface
Water
Migration
Pathway
Score
(Ssw)
67.47
4,552.20
Enter
the
larger
of
lines
2a
and
2b
as
the
pathway
score.

3.
Soil
Exposure
Pathway
Score
(Ss)
NS
NS
(from
Table
5­
1,
line
22)

4.
Air
Migration
Pathway
Score
(Sa)
NS
NS
(from
Table
6­
1,
line
12)

5.
Total
of
Sgw
2
+
Ssw
2
+
Ss
2
+
Sa
2
4,552.20
6.
HRS
Site
Score
Divide
the
value
on
line
5
by
4
and
take
the
square
root
33.73
NS
=
Not
scored
S
=
Site
score
S
2
=
Site
score
squared
Site
Name:
United
Metals,
Inc.
Location:
Marianna,
Jackson
County,
Florida
3
SURFACE
WATER
OVERLAND/
FLOOD
MIGRATION
COMPONENT
SCORESHEET
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
10.
Population
10a.
Level
I
Concentrations
b
0
10b.
Level
II
Concentrations
b
0
10c.
Potential
Contamination
b
0
10d.
Population
(lines
10a
+
10b
+
10c)
b
0
11.
Resources
5
0
12.
Targets
(lines
9
+
10d
+
11)
b
0
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
Site
Name:
United
Metals,
Inc.
Location:
Marianna,
Jackson
County,
Florida
4
SURFACE
WATER
OVERLAND/
FLOOD
MIGRATION
COMPONENT
SCORESHEET,
Continued
Factor
Categories
and
Factors
Maximum
Value
Value
Assigned
HUMAN
FOOD
CHAIN
THREAT
Likelihood
of
Release
14.
Likelihood
of
Release
(value
from
line
5)
550
550
Waste
Characteristics
15.
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
a
5
x
10
5
16.
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
a
100
17.
Waste
Characteristics
1,000
56
Targets
18.
Food
Chain
Individual
50
20
19.
Population
19a.
Level
I
Concentrations
b
0
19b.
Level
II
Concentrations
b
0
19c.
Potential
Human
Food
Chain
Contamination
b
0.000003
19d.
Population
(lines
19a
+
19b
+
19c)
b
0
20.
Targets
(lines
18
+
19d)
b
20.000003
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
7.47
ENVIRONMENTAL
THREAT
Likelihood
of
Release
22.
Likelihood
of
Release
(value
from
line
5)
550
550
Waste
Characteristics
23.
Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
a
5
x
10
6
24.
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
a
100
25.
Waste
Characteristics
1,000
100
Site
Name:
United
Metals,
Inc.
Location:
Marianna,
Jackson
County,
Florida
a
Maximum
value
applies
to
waste
characteristics
category.
b
Maximum
value
not
applicable.
c
Do
not
round
to
nearest
integer.
­
Not
evaluated.
5
SURFACE
WATER
OVERLAND/
FLOOD
MIGRATION
COMPONENT
SCORESHEET,
Concluded
Factor
Categories
and
Factors
Maximum
Value
Value
Assigned
ENVIRONMENTAL
THREAT
(Concluded)

Targets
26.
Sensitive
Environments
26a.
Level
I
Concentrations
b
0
26b.
Level
II
Concentrations
b
100
26c.
Potential
Contamination
b
0.005
26d.
Sensitive
Environments
(lines
26a
+
26b
+
26c)
b
100.005
27.
Targets
(value
from
line
26d)
b
100.005
Environmental
Threat
Score
28.
Environmental
Threat
Score
([
lines
22
x
25
x
27]/
82,500,
subject
to
a
maximum
of
60)
60
60
SURFACE
WATER
OVERLAND/
FLOOD
MIGRATION
COMPONENT
SCORE
FOR
A
WATERSHED
29.
Watershed
Score
c
(lines
13
+
21
+
28,
subject
to
a
maximum
of
100)
100
67.47
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
67.47
6
Figure
1
­
FACILITY
LOCATION
MAP
A
copy
of
this
figure
is
available
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center
U.
S.
EPA
Docket
Center
EPA
West
Room
B102
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW
Washington
DC,
20460
Telephone:
703­
603­
9232
Email:
superfund.
docket@
epa.
gov
7
Figure
2
­
FACILITY
LAYOUT
MAP
A
copy
of
this
figure
is
available
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center
U.
S.
EPA
Docket
Center
EPA
West
Room
B102
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW
Washington
DC,
20460
Telephone:
703­
603­
9232
Email:
superfund.
docket@
epa.
gov
8
Figure
3
­
SOURCE
SAMPLE
LOCATION
MAP
A
copy
of
this
figure
is
available
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center
U.
S.
EPA
Docket
Center
EPA
West
Room
B102
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW
Washington
DC,
20460
Telephone:
703­
603­
9232
Email:
superfund.
docket@
epa.
gov
9
Figure
4
­
OBSERVED
RELEASE
MAP
A
copy
of
this
figure
is
available
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center
U.
S.
EPA
Docket
Center
EPA
West
Room
B102
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW
Washington
DC,
20460
Telephone:
703­
603­
9232
Email:
superfund.
docket@
epa.
gov
10
REFERENCES
Reference
Number
Description
of
the
Reference
1.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA),
Hazard
Ranking
System,
40
CFR
Part
300,
Appendix
A,
55
FR
51533.
December
14,
1990.
Excerpt,
2
pages.

2.
EPA,
Superfund
Chemical
Data
Matrix,
Appendix
B­
1.
June
1996.
Excerpt,
25
pages.

3.
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
(USGS),
7.5­
Minute
Series
Topographic
Quadrangle
Maps
of
Florida:
Oakdale,
1994;
Altha
West,
1994;
Scale
1:
24,000.

4.
David
L.
Brown,
Environmental
Scientist,
Tetra
Tech
EM
Inc.(
Tetra
Tech)
Project
Note
to
the
United
Metals,
Inc.
(UMI)
project
file.
January
17,
2001.
Subject:
Determining
the
latitude
and
longitude.
1
page.

5.
E.
C.
Jordan
Co.,
Potential
Hazardous
Waste
Site
Preliminary
Assessment,
EPA
Form
2070­
12,
UMI,
Marianna,
Jackson
County,
Florida.
April
16,
1985.
8
pages.

6.
Ecology
and
Environment,
Inc.,
Site
Screening
Investigation,
Task
II/
Phase
I
Report,
UMI,
Jackson
County,
Florida.
January
1992.
15
pages.

7.
ABB
Environmental
Services,
Inc.
(ABB),
Phase
II
Site
Inspection
Report,
UMI,
Marianna,
Jackson
County,
Florida.
March
1994.
167
pages.

8.
ABB,
Final
Expanded
Site
Inspection
Report,
UMI,
Marianna,
Jackson
County,
Florida.
June
1995.
81
pages.

9.
Thomas
W.
Moody,
Special
Programs
Supervisor,
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Regulation
(FDER),
Northwest
District.
Letter
to
Howard
Odum,
President,
UMI,
April
9,
1981.
Subject:
RCRA
Interim
Status
Compliance
Inspection
Report.
15
pages.

10.
Dan
Farley
&
Associates,
P.
A.(
DFA),
Comprehensive
Plan
for
UMI,
October
1982.
54
pages.

11.
J.
A.
Kintz,
FDER,
Interoffice
Memorandum
to
Thomas
W.
Moody,
FDER.
March
25,
1983.
Subject:
UMI.
2
pages.

12.
Dan
Farley,
DFA.
Letter
to
Robert
V.
Kriegel,
FDER,
July
25,
1983.
Subject:
UMI.
8
pages.

13.
G.
P.
Neubauer,
FDER,
Interoffice
Memorandum
to
R.
V.
Kriegel,
FDER.
March
19,
1980.
Subject:
UMI.
4
pages.

14.
Doug
Jones,
DFA.
Letter
to
J.
A.
Kintz,
FDER.
June
19,
1980.
Subject:
UMI.
16
pages.

15.
Geoffrey
B.
Watts,
Environmental
Specialist,
FDER,
Groundwater
Section,
Interoffice
Memorandum
to
Phillip
J.
Doherty,
Professional
Engineer,
FDER.
March
27,
1981.
Subject:
UMI.
5
pages.
11
16.
Thomas
W.
Moody,
FDER.
Letter
to
Patrick
M.
Tobin,
Director,
EPA
Region
IV,
Waste
Management
Division.
November
13,
1986.
Subject:
UMI.
2
pages.

17.
Hazardous
Waste
Enforcement.
June
15,
1983.
5
pages.

18.
RCRA
Waste
Investigation,
ESD
Project
#86­
389,
UMI,
Marianna,
Florida.
18
pages.

19.
FDER,
Application
to
Operate/
Construct
Industrial
Wastewater
Treatment
and
Disposal
Systems,
submitted
by
Dan
Farley,
for
UMI,
Marianna,
Florida.
June
17,
1980.
24
pages.

20.
Lee
Norman,
Industrial
Consultant,
Industrial
Safety
&
Health
Consultants,
Inc.,
Hazardous
Waste
Facility
Closure
Plan,
UMI,
Marianna,
Florida.
52
pages.

21.
Howard
Odum,
President,
UMI,
Marianna,
Florida,
Notification
of
Hazardous
Waste
Activity,
EPA
Form
8700­
12.
August
11,
1980.
2
pages.

22.
FDER,
Consent
Order,
FDER
Case
No.
IW­
012­
81­
NW,
UMI,
June
14,
1988.
20
pages.

23.
DFA,
Comprehensive
Plan
for
UMI.
October
1982.
53
pages.

24.
FDER,
Operation
Permit
No.
I032­
68020
for
UMI,
Jackson
County,
Florida.
March
2,
1984.
8
pages.

25.
Patrick
M.
Tobin,
Director,
Waste
Management
Division,
EPA
Region
4.
Letter
to
Howard
Odom,
President,
UMI,
October
24,
1986.
Subject:
Amended
Complaint
and
Compliance
Order.
15
pages.

26.
Clerk
Circuit
Court,
Jackson
County,
Florida,
Case
No.
92­
11
CA.
FDER
VS.
Anrich
Industries,
Inc.(
Anrich),
Huang
Johnson,
Herbert
Eisenstadter,
and
Michael
Chen.
December
22,
1992.
8
pages.

27.
Johnson
Huang,
President,
Anrich,
d/
b/
a
UMI.
Letter
to
William
E.
Kellenberger,
P.
E.,
Hazardous
Waste
Section,
FDER,
Northwest
District.
June
11,
1991.
Subject:
Meeting
Minutes/
Warning
Notice.
2
pages.

28.
G.
Walker,
Contact
Report
to
UMI
File,
FDER.
March
24,
1992.
Subject:
Site
Access
to
United
Metals,
Inc.
1
page.

29.
Karen
Brown,
FDER
Interoffice
Memorandum
to
UMI
Site
File,
FDER,
May
30,
1991.
Subject:
Meeting
Minutes
for
Anrich
Industries
d/
b/
a
UMI.
3
pages.

30.
Edward
J.
O'Connell,
FDER,
Interoffice
Memorandum
to
UMI
Site
File,
FDER,
June
18,
1991.
Subject:
Meeting
Minutes
for
Anrich
d/
b/
a/
UMI.
2
pages.

31.
William
E.
Kellenberger,
P.
E.,
Hazardous
Waste
Section
Supervisor,
FDER,
Northwest
District.
Letter
to
Johnson
Huang,
UMI.
June
3,
1991.
Subject:
Meeting
Minutes
for
UMI.
10
pages.

32.
Robert
V.
Kriegel,
Deputy
Assistant
Secretary,
FDER,
Northwest
District.
Letter
to
Johnson
Huang,
President,
UMI.
June
5,
1991.
Subject:
Warning
Notice
NWHW
32
­
9119.
20
pages.
12
33.
John
A.
Kintz,
FDER,
Interoffice
Memorandum
to
Robert
V.
Kriegel,
FDER.
January
10,
1984.
Subject:
UMI
Test
Well
#40.
5
pages.

34.
Dora
Ann
Johnson,
Federal
On­
Scene
Coordinator
(OSC),
EPA,
Region
4.
Letter
to
Joe
McGarrity,
FDEP.
July
8,
1996.
Subject:
UMI
Site.
23
pages.

35.
Michael
Taylor,
Federal
OSC.
Memorandum
to
Removal
Assessment
Team,
Emergency
Response
and
Removal
Branch.
April
14,
1995.
Subject:
UMI.
1
page.

36.
William
E.
Kellenberger,
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(FDEP).
Interoffice
Memorandum
to
Dan
Didomenico,
January
18,
1995.
Subject:
Anrich
(a.
k.
a.
UMI),
Jackson
County.
1
page.

37.
FDEP,
Comprehensive
Quality
Assurance
Plan,
Central
Chemistry
Laboratory,
CQAP
#
870688G.
April
1998.
163
pages.

38.
U.
S.
Department
of
the
Interior,
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service(
USFWS),
National
Wetlands
Inventory
Map
of
Florida:
Oakdale
1977,
Scale
1:
24,000.

39.
Field
Logbook
for
UMI,
Site
Inspection
Reconnaissance
and
Expanded
Site
Inspection,
May
17,
1993,
and
December
7
and
December
8,
1994,
respectively.
24
pages.

40.
USGS,
Water
Resources
Data
Florida
Water
Year
1996,
Volume
4.
Northwest
Florida,
USGS
Water­
Data
Report
FL­
96­
4,
Tallahassee,
Florida:
1997.
Excerpt,
5
pages.

41.
David
L.
Brown,
Scientist,
Tetra
Tech.
Record
of
Telephone
Conversation
with
Steve
Crofton,
Jackson
County
Water
Authority,
Marianna,
Florida.
April
12,
2001.
Subject:
UMI
Site
Municipal
Drinking
Water
Supply.
1
page.

42.
David
L.
Brown,
Scientist,
Tetra
Tech.
Project
Note
to
the
UMI
Project
File.
August
11,
1999.
Subject:
Fishing
and
Recreational
Activities
on
the
Chipola
River
near
Marianna,
Florida.
1
page.

43.
USFWS.
Species
Profile
for
the
Flatwoods
Salamander.
Results
Are
Based
on
Data
Extracted
on
April
11,
2001.
On­
line
Address:
http://
ecos.
fws.
gov/
speciesprofile.
2
pages.

44.
Florida
Natural
Areas
Inventory,
Tallahassee,
Florida.
September
29,
1995.
List
of
Element
Occurrence
Records
for
a
Tract
of
Land
in
Jackson
County.
3
pages.

45.
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
Waterways
Experiment
Station,
"Technical
Report
SERPD­
97­
6,
Species
Profile:
Flatwoods
Salamander
(Ambystoma
cingulatum)
on
Military
Installations
in
the
Southeastern
United
States"
August
1997.
23
pages.

46.
David
L.
Brown,
Environmental
Scientist,
Tetra
Tech
EM
Inc.
Record
of
Telephone
Conversation
with
Mike
Reddick,
FDEP,
Tallahassee,
Florida.
June
28,
2001.
Subject:
CERCLA
Eligibility
for
United
Metals,
Inc.
5
pages.

47.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response,
"Using
Qualified
Data
to
Document
an
Observed
Release
and
Observed
Contamination,"
Fact
Sheet
No.
EPA
540­
F­
94­
028,
(November
1996).
18
pages.
13
48.
David
L.
Brown,
Environmental
Scientist,
Tetra
Tech
EM
Inc.
Record
of
Telephone
Conversation
with
Tim
Fitzpatrick,
FDEP,
Tallahassee,
Florida.
July
24,
2001.
Subject:
Data
Qualifiers.
1
page.

49.
David
L.
Brown,
Environmental
Scientist,
Tetra
Tech
EM
Inc.
Project
Note
to
the
UMI
File.
July
27,
2001.
Subject:
Summary
of
"I
­
Qualified"
Data.
2
pages.

50.
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce.
1983.
"Climatic
Atlas
of
the
United
States."
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration.
Excerpt
4
pages.

51.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Publication
9345.1­
07,
Hazard
Ranking
System
Guidance
Manual,
Interim
Final,
November
1992.
Excerpt
1
page.
SD­
General
Site
Description
14
General
Site
Description
The
United
Metals,
Inc.
(UMI),
facility,
EPA
ID
No.
FLD098924038,
is
located
approximately
2.5
miles
south
of
Interstate
10
and
about
1,000
feet
east
of
State
Road
71
in
Marianna,
Jackson
County,
Florida.
The
geographical
coordinates
are
latitude
30°
41'09"
north
and
longitude
85°
10'05"
west
(Refs.
3;
4).
The
UMI
facility
is
an
abandoned
used
battery
reclaiming
facility.
The
facility
is
about
180
acres,
of
which
about
24
acres
are
enclosed
by
a
chain­
link
fence;
facility
operations
occurred
in
this
portion
of
the
site
(Refs.
3;
5,
pp.
1,
2;
6,
p.
1;
7,
p.
2;
8,
p.
2;
9,
p.
3;
10,
p.
9).
A
gravel
driveway
from
State
Road
71,
located
at
the
western
edge
of
the
site,
is
the
main
entrance
to
the
UMI
property
(Refs.
6,
p.
1;
7,
p.
6;
8,
p.
2).
Five
free­
standing
buildings
are
located
within
the
fenced
portion
of
the
site.
On
the
northern
side
of
the
entrance
gate
is
a
fabricated
metal,
concrete­
floored
office
and
warehouse
building
that
consists
of
separate
office
and
storage
areas.
This
building
is
vacant,
except
for
several
battery
chargers
mounted
on
the
western
wall.
The
concrete
located
under
the
battery
chargers
is
etched
and
eroded.
A
truck
weighing
scale
is
located
outside
of
the
office
at
the
entrance
gate.
On
the
southern
side
of
the
entrance
gate
is
a
concrete
block
building
called
the
"health
center"
that
previously
contained
the
employee
decontamination
and
dressing
room.
Located
east
of
the
office
building
is
a
vehicular
maintenance
building
called
the
"truck
shop"
that
consists
of
a
metal
siding­
covered
storage
room
and
an
open­
air
bay
area
that
includes
a
concrete­
lined
grease
pit.
The
storage
room
and
bay
area
are
empty;
the
grease
pit
is
filled
partially
with
oily
water.
No
evidence
is
present
that
a
waste
oil
tank
or
other
receptacle
for
containing
wastes
were
used
at
the
maintenance
building
(Refs.
6,
p.
3;
7,
p.
2;
8,
p.
2;
9,
p.
2).

Located
east
of
the
vehicular
maintenance
building,
in
the
central
portion
of
the
fenced
area,
is
the
former
battery
recycling
operations
building.
The
recycling
operations
building
is
a
2­
acre,
open­
air
metal
building
with
a
concrete
floor,
divided
into
two
sections.
The
older,
northern
portion
of
the
structure
includes
the
main
recycling
facility,
where
batteries
were
received,
components
sorted,
and
all
wastewater
generated
and
treated.
The
southern
portion
of
the
structure
was
used
for
material
storage;
this
section
is
empty
except
for
a
pile
of
potentially
contaminated
soil
and
sediment
removed
from
on­
site
drainage
ditches
and
a
holding
pond.
All
of
the
usable
equipment
and
material
involved
in
the
process
have
been
salvaged
from
the
building.
Concrete
bin
blocks,
a
series
of
settling
basins
partially
filled
with
water,
several
large
tanks
once
used
for
neutralizing
and
storing
wastewater,
and
a
large
concrete
washdown
area
remain
in
the
production
area
of
the
structure
(Refs.
7,
pp.
6,
8;
8,
p.
2;
11,
pp.
1,
2).

Located
south
of
the
recycling
operations
building
is
a
plastics
storage
and
processing
building
(plastic
pellet
plant)
and
attached
silos
that
are
constructed
of
metal
siding
and
a
raised
concrete
floor.
The
building
was
used
as
the
final
processing
and
storage
site
for
plastic
battery
casing
chips
that
were
sent
off
site
for
recycling.
A
second
pile
of
potentially
contaminated
soil
and
sediment
and
a
pile
of
black
plastic
tubing
scrap
are
present
in
the
building.
Two
backfilled,
unlined
holding
ponds
are
located
east
of
the
recycling
building.
The
holding
ponds
formerly
received
wastewater
from
the
recycling
operations
building.
The
primary
holding
pond
is
approximately
0.66
acre
and
is
located
between
the
recycling
building
and
the
second
holding
pond.
The
second
holding
pond
is
approximately
0.61
acre,
reportedly
was
never
used,
and
was
originally
constructed
to
provide
backup
capacity.
The
primary
holding
pond
received
treated
and
possibly
untreated
wastewater
from
the
battery
SD­
General
Site
Description
15
recycling
facility
through
a
ditch.
Near
the
recycling
building,
the
ditch
is
lined
with
concrete
for
a
few
feet.
Dredged
sediments
from
the
holding
ponds
was
stored
in
two
concrete­
lined
pits
located
south
of
the
plastic
pellet
plant,
but
the
sediment
pile
was
moved
to
its
current
location
at
the
southern
portion
of
the
recycling
building
and
within
the
plastic
pellet
plant
(Refs.
6,
p.
3;
7,
pp.
8,
9;
8,
pp.
2,
5;
9,
p.
3;
13,
pp.
1,
2;
14,
pp.
4,
11,
12).

The
fenced
area
is
unpaved,
with
areas
partially
covered
with
grass
and
weeds
and
areas
that
are
bare
and
sandy
with
no
vegetation.
Areas
near
the
production
building
are
partially
barren
and
are
partially
covered
with
plastic
chips
and
other
residue
from
the
battery
recycling
building.
A
large,
agricultural
field
is
located
north
of
the
fenced
area,
and
mixed
woodlands
are
located
on
the
east,
south,
and
west
of
the
fenced
area.
The
nearest
residence
to
the
fenced
area
is
a
farmhouse,
located
about
1,600
feet
to
the
northwest
(Refs.
3;
7,
pp.
8,
9;
8,
p.
5).

Construction
of
the
battery
recycling
facility
began
in
September
1979,
and
plant
operations
began
in
November
1979.
The
president
of
the
company
when
operations
began
was
Howard
Odom.
In
1981,
UMI
processed
10,000
to
12,000
batteries
per
week,
resulting
in
2,500
gallons
of
acidic
wastes
per
day.
Primarily
lead­
acid
batteries
and
nickel
cadmium
batteries
were
recycled
by
UMI.
Batteries
were
offloaded
at
a
loading
dock,
located
at
the
northwestern
side
of
the
recycling
building
and
onto
a
conveyor
belt.
The
conveyor
belt
delivered
the
batteries
to
a
water­
cooled
saw
used
to
cut
the
tops
off
of
the
batteries.
Removed
battery
tops
were
dismantled
and
the
plastic
battery
cases
were
separated
from
the
lead
plates,
then
crushed
and
pelletized.
Lead
oxide,
posts,
and
miscellaneous
parts
were
separated
from
the
crushed
casings.
Lead
components
and
lead
oxide
were
transported
off
site
to
a
smelter,
and
the
plastic
pellets
were
transported
to
an
extruding
facility
(Refs.
7,
p.
9;
8,
p.
5;
9,
pp.
3,
4;
14,
p.
11;
15,
p.
1).

Liquid
from
the
batteries
was
deposited
into
a
settling
basin
and
flowed
through
a
channel
in
the
floor
to
the
concrete
basins.
In
the
concrete
basins,
the
wastewater
was
neutralized
with
lime
and
lead
oxide
residues
were
precipitated
for
reclamation.
The
wastewater
flowed
from
the
basins
through
the
ditch
to
the
unlined
primary
holding
pond;
the
wastewater
system
eventually
was
modified
so
that
wastewater
was
stored
in
tanks,
neutralized,
and
recycled
in
the
plant
process
to
eliminate
discharge
to
the
holding
ponds.
The
wastewater
system
modification
also
included
covering
the
entire
battery
recycling
building
floor
with
stainless­
steel
sheeting.
It
is
reported
that
the
holding
pond
received
processed
wastewater
for
at
least
4
months
and
possibly
more
than
16
months.
The
holding
ponds
eventually
were
abandoned;
pond
sediments
were
dredged,
excavated,
and
stockpiled
on
site;
and
the
ponds
were
backfilled
(Refs.
7,
p.
9;
8,
pp.
5,
6;
10,
pp.
9
through
12;
15,
p.
1;
16;
17,
p.
1;
18,
p.
1).

UMI
applied
to
the
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Regulation
(FDER)
for
a
permit
to
construct
holding
ponds
on
June
17,
1980.
The
permit
application
indicated
that
the
holding
ponds
already
had
been
constructed
and
were
in
use
and
stated
that
a
permit
application
was
filed
in
order
to
determine
the
necessity
for
a
permit
(Ref.
19,
pp.
1,
11).
On
March
11,
1980,
an
inspection
of
the
facility
by
FDER
noted
that
the
holding
ponds
were
not
in
use
and
process
water
was
being
recycled;
however,
other
file
material
indicates
that
the
ponds
received
wastewater
as
late
as
March
1981
(Ref.
7,
p.
9).
The
holding
ponds
were
acceptable
at
the
time
of
construction
and
applicable
hazardous
waste
regulations
SD­
General
Site
Description
16
were
not
in
effect
at
that
time
(Refs.
7,
pp.
6,
7;
20,
p.
3).
Mr.
Odom
filed
a
Notification
of
Hazardous
Waste
Activity
with
EPA
in
August
1980
(Ref.
21).

In
August
1981,
UMI
and
FDER
entered
into
a
Consent
Order
that
required
several
actions
by
UMI,
including
a
payment
of
a
$500
fine;
submittal
of
a
detailed
and
comprehensive
plan
evaluating
the
wastewater
system;
identification
of
environmental
problems,
and
proposal
of
corrective
action;
submittal
of
a
construction
application
for
the
proposed
modifications;
completion
of
construction
within
specified
time;
and
within
120
days
of
construction
completion,
submittal
of
an
operating
permit
application
to
FDER
(Ref.
22,
pp.
1
through
6).

A
Comprehensive
Plan
was
developed
by
UMI
and
presented
to
FDER
in
October
1982.
The
plan
contained
the
following
measures
that
UMI
would
accomplish
in
order
to
comply
with
the
Consent
Order:
removal
of
contaminated
sediment
from
the
holding
ponds
and
ditches
along
the
entrance
driveway
and
State
Route
71
right­
of­
way;
completion
of
a
limited
groundwater
assessment,
including
the
installation
of
monitoring
wells
and
implementation
of
a
monitoring
program;
and
development
of
a
closed
wastewater
system,
including
a
clarifier
and
pH
control
measures
scheduled
to
begin
in
June
1983(
Ref.
23,
pp.
16,
27,
28,
29).

In
March
1984,
FDER
issued
UMI
Permit
No.
I032­
68020
to
operate
a
closed­
loop
wastewater
treatment
facility
to
process
wastewater
generated
in
the
recycling
of
batteries,
lead,
and
plastic
by
using
lead
removal
and
either
acid
neutralization
and
reuse
of
the
wastewater
in
plant
processes
or
recovery
of
acid
for
resale
as
a
product.
The
permit
was
issued
to
UMI
on
March
2,
1984,
with
an
expiration
date
of
March
1,
1987
(Ref.
24).

The
EPA
conducted
a
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
Program
inspection
of
the
UMI
facility
in
July
1986.
Numerous
violations
were
noted,
including
improper
closure
of
the
holding
ponds
subsequent
to
sediment
removal,
improper
storage
of
hazardous
wastes,
improper
groundwater
monitoring,
and
operation
without
appropriate
permits
for
hazardous
waste
storage
and
treatment.
As
a
result
of
the
findings,
EPA
issued
an
Amended
Complaint
and
Compliance
Order
(Refs.
18,
pp.
1
through
34;
25,
pp.
1
through
15).

The
UMI
facility
was
purchased
by
Herb
Eisenstadter
and
Michael
Chen
of
Taiwan,
and
a
partnership
was
established
to
form
Anrich
Industries,
Inc.(
Anrich).
Subsequent
to
the
purchase
of
the
facility
property,
Anrich
renovated
the
site
and
began
battery
cracking
operations
in
May
1991
(Ref.
7,
p.
7;
26,
p.
2;
27;
28).
On
May
22,
1991,
the
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(FDEP)
conducted
a
Hazardous
Waste
Inspection
of
the
facility.
Several
RCRA
violations
were
noted,
including
the
operation
of
a
hazardous
waste
pile
without
a
permit
and
the
transport
of
hazardous
wastes
to
Taiwan
without
complying
with
certain
RCRA
record
keeping
requirements
(Refs.
7,
p.
7;
29;
30;
31).
Anrich
was
ordered
by
FDEP
to
cease
operations
at
the
facility
in
June
1991
(Refs.
7,
p.
7;
32,
p.
1).
The
facility
is
not
currently
regulated
under
RCRA
(Ref.
46)

After
several
attempts
to
resolve
violations
at
the
facility
with
the
present
owners
or
corporate
officers
in
1992,
FDEP
filed
a
complaint
for
injunctive
relief
and
civil
penalties
and
costs
in
the
Jackson
County
Circuit
Court
(Fourteenth
District).
Because
Anrich
was
unable
to
comply
with
the
corrective
actions
noted
in
the
complaint,
the
facility's
equipment
was
sold
and
profits
SD­
General
Site
Description
17
were
deposited
in
the
Registry
of
the
Jackson
County
Circuit
Court,
pursuant
to
a
Court
Order
(Refs.
7,
pp.
10,
11;
26).

In
January
1981,
UMI
collected
surface
water
and
sediment
samples
from
the
primary
holding
pond.
File
material
does
not
indicate
who
collected
the
surface
water
and
sediment
samples
or
the
sample
identifications.
Surface
water
samples
were
found
to
contain
copper
at
2.3
milligrams
per
liter
(mg/
L),
zinc
at
4.5
mg/
L,
and
lead
at
4.5
mg/
L,
at
a
pH
of
1.1.
Sediment
samples
collected
from
the
east
and
west
sides
of
the
primary
holding
pond
contained
copper
at
2.38
milligrams
per
kilogram
(mg/
kg),
zinc
at
4.88
mg/
kg,
lead
at
4.55
mg/
kg,
sulfate
at
26,000
mg/
kg,
and
nitrate
at
2.68
mg/
kg.
Outfall
water
from
the
process
area
contained
5.65
mg/
L
of
lead,
at
a
pH
of
1.2
and
specific
conductance
of
123,000
microhoms
per
centimeter
(µmhos/
cm)(
Refs.
6,
p.
5;
7,
p.
11;
8,
p.
6;
9,
p.
12).

In
March
1981,
two
surface
water
samples
were
collected
from
the
holding
pond.
File
material
does
not
indicate
who
collected
the
surface
water
samples
or
the
sample
identifications.
The
surface
water
samples
collected
from
the
primary
holding
pond
contained
concentrations
of
lead
at
0.875
and
0.925
mg/
L
(Refs.
6,
p.
5;
7,
p.
11;
8,
p.
6).

A
RCRA
inspection
was
conducted
at
the
UMI
facility
in
July
1986.
Samples
were
collected
by
EPA
from
stockpiled
sediments
excavated
from
the
pond,
ditches,
and
a
hopper
located
in
the
recycling
area.
Lead
was
detected
in
sediment
samples
at
concentrations
ranging
from
8,300
to
13,000
mg/
kg.
The
sample
collected
from
the
hopper
(referred
to
as
lead
product)
contained
lead
at
a
concentration
of
160,000
mg/
kg;
this
sample
also
was
analyzed
for
EP
Toxicity
and
exceeded
the
allowable
lead
concentration
of
5
mg/
L
(Refs.
6,
p.
8;
7,
p.
12;
8,
p.
6;
33,
p.
3).

A
Site
Inspection
(SI)
was
conducted
by
ABB
Environmental
Services,
Inc.(
ABB),
on
behalf
of
FDEP
from
May
through
July
1993
in
order
to
sample
targeted
areas
of
potential
waste
discharge
or
disposal.
An
electromagnetic
(EM)
survey
was
performed
during
a
site
reconnaissance
in
May
1993.
During
the
SI,
14
soil
grab
samples
and
one
composite
soil
sample
were
collected
at
UMI.
Soil
samples
collected
from
reported
burial/
disposal
sites
identified
during
the
EM
survey,
and
from
the
roadside
drainage
ditch
were
found
to
be
contaminated
with
lead.
Seven
of
the
nine
surface
soil
samples
collected
contained
elevated
concentrations
of
lead
and
other
heavy
metals;
most
lead
concentrations
were
greater
than
1,000
mg/
kg.
Sample
UMSS06,
collected
from
the
roadside
drainage
ditch
outside
of
the
entrance
gate,
contained
10,600
mg/
kg
of
lead
(Ref.
7,
pp.
1,
14,
20,
27,
29,
31).

An
Expanded
Site
Inspection
(ESI)
was
conducted
by
ABB
in
December
1994.
During
the
ESI,
ABB
collected
seven
surface
soil
and
five
sediment
samples
from
areas
suspected
of
waste
disposal
or
wastewater
discharge
in
dry
ditches
along
suspected
migration
pathways
(Ref.
8,
pp.
1,
12).
Maximum
concentrations
of
antimony
(31
mg/
kg);
chromium
(24
mg/
kg);
copper
(16
mg/
kg);
iron
(33,800
mg/
kg);
lead
(2,700
mg/
kg);
magnesium
(1,970
mg/
kg);
manganese
(289
mg/
kg);
nickel
(10
mg/
kg);
vanadium
(16
mg/
kg);
and
zinc
(46
mg/
kg)
were
detected
in
surface
soil
samples
and
exceeded
the
background
concentration
by
three
times
or
greater
(Ref.
8,
pp.
18,
19,
20).

Sediment
samples
were
collected
during
the
ESI
from
the
wetland
area
located
west
of
the
site,
across
State
Route
71.
The
wetland
area
is
located
along
an
unnamed
tributary
of
the
Chipola
River
(Ref.
8,
pp.
13,
14,
22).
Maximum
concentrations
SD­
General
Site
Description
18
of
aluminum
(39,300
mg/
kg);
barium
(87.8
mg/
kg);
copper
(18
mg/
kg);
iron
(5,840
mg/
kg);
lead
(629
mg/
kg);
magnesium
(1,000
mg/
kg);
manganese
(100
mg/
kg);
vanadium
(37
mg/
kg);
and
zinc
(41
mg/
kg)
were
detected
in
sediment
samples
and
exceeded
the
background
concentration
by
three
times
or
greater
(Ref.
8,
pp.
20,
21).

According
to
a
report
prepared
by
PRC
Environmental
Management,
Inc.,
in
March
1996,
the
EPA
Region
4
Technical
Assistance
Team
(TAT)
conducted
a
site
investigation
at
the
facility
property
in
March
1994.
Reportedly,
TAT
later
returned
to
the
property
in
June
1995,
and
developed
a
complete
inventory
of
all
hazardous
materials
contained
on
the
property.
TAT
collected
samples
from
two
tanks,
a
sump,
and
six
drums,
and
TAT's
subcontracted
laboratory
analyzed
them
for
the
following
compounds:
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure
(TCLP)
metals,
TCLP
volatile
organic
compounds,
and
TCLP
extractable
compounds
(Refs.
34,
p.
4;
35).

The
EPA
Region
4
Removal
Assessment
Team
conducted
a
site
visit
at
UMI
from
March
13
through
March
15,
1995,
to
determine
UMI's
eligibility
for
a
removal
action.
EPA
collected
six
surface
soil,
four
waste
samples
from
55­
gallon
drums
and
three
storage
tanks,
and
two
water
samples
to
identify
the
nature
and
extent
of
contamination,
and
to
identify
the
immediate
threat
to
the
public
and
environment.
Lead
was
detected
in
the
soil
samples
collected,
and
the
waste
in
the
drums
was
determined
to
be
a
flammable
liquid.
In
addition,
a
larger,
onsite
storage
tank
was
determined
to
contain
about
800
gallons
of
sulfuric
acid.
EPA
recommended
that
a
limited
removal
of
the
containers
and
their
contents
be
conducted
at
UMI
(Refs.
34,
p.
4;
35).

On
January
23,
1996,
EPA
returned
to
the
facility
to
begin
removal
activities
of
the
containers
on
site.
OHM
Remediation
Services,
Inc
(OHM),
was
selected
by
EPA
as
the
removal
contractor
under
the
Emergency
Response
Contractor
Services
Program
(Ref.
34,
p.
4).
In
March
1996,
EPA
returned
to
the
facility
to
complete
removal
activities.
Five
drums
of
hazardous
materials
were
recontainerized
and
disposed
of
according
to
all
regulatory
guidelines.
A
sulfuric
acid
tank
was
dismantled,
and
its
contents
were
treated
on
the
facility
property
by
OHM
prior
to
shipment
to
an
appropriate
landfill
(Ref.
34,
pp.
7
through
9).
19
SD­
Characterization
and
Containment
Source
No.
1
SOURCE
DESCRIPTION
2.2
Source
Characterization
Number
of
the
source:
1
Name
and
description
of
the
source:
Contaminated
Soil
HRS
Source
Type:
Contaminated
Soil
Source
No.
1
comprises
two
general
areas
of
contaminated
soil
of
unknown
quantity.
The
first
area
of
contaminated
soil
is
documented
by
samples
UMSS13,
UMSS15,
UMSS16,
and
UMSS16D.
These
samples
were
collected
within
the
fenced
portion
of
the
UMI
property
(see
Figure
3
in
this
documentation
record).
Facility
operations
occurred
within
this
fenced
area
(Refs.
6,
p.
1;
7,
p.
6;
8,
p.
2;
36).
The
second
area
of
contaminated
soil
is
documented
by
samples
UMSS10,
UMSS11,
and
UMSS12,
which
were
collected
from
the
drainage
area
downgradient
of
facility
operations
(see
Figure
3
in
this
documentation
record).
Elevated
levels
of
numerous
inorganics
have
been
detected
within
both
areas
comprising
Source
No.
1
(Ref.
8,
Appendix
A,
pp.
23
through
30;
see
also
Section
2.4.1
of
this
documentation
record).

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

Source
No.
1,
is
contaminated
soil.
The
facility
property
consists
of
a
180­
acre
tract
of
land;
however,
the
area
of
concern
is
located
within
an
approximate
24­
acre,
fenced
facility
operation
area
located
on
the
north­
central
portion
of
the
facility
property,
as
well
as
in
the
drainage
area
downgradient
of
the
fenced
operation
area
(Refs.
6,
p.
1;
7,
p.
6;
8,
p.
2,
also
see
Figures
1,
2,
and
3
of
this
documentation
record).

Containment
Release
by
overland
migration
or
flood:
Source
No.
1
has
no
apparent
surface
water
runoff
control
or
management
systems.
In
addition,
evidence
exists
that
hazardous
substances
associated
with
this
source
are
present
in
an
adjacent
wetland
(Refs.
7,
pp.
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
29,
30,
31,
32;
8,
pp.
9,
12,
13,
14,
16,
18,
19,
20,
21,
Appendix
A).

Containment
value:
10
Reference:
1,
Section
4.1.2.1.2.1.1
SD­
Hazardous
Substances
Source
No.
1
20
2.4.1
Hazardous
Substances
Hazardous
Substance
Evidence
MDL
Reference(
s)

Antimony
UMSS10
(10.10
mg/
kg
*)
UMSS16
(9.09
mg/
kg
*)
UMSS16D
(31
mg/
kg)
4
mg/
kg
8,
pp.
14,
19,
20,
Appendix
A,
pp.
22,
28,
29,
30;
37,
p.
14;
47,
pp.
8,
18;
48;
49
Chromium
UMSS11
(24
mg/
kg)
UMSS16
(7.5
mg/
kg
*)
UMSS16D
(9.3
mg/
kg
*)
3
mg/
kg
8,
pp.
14,
20,
Appendix
A,
pp.
23,
28,
29,
31;
37,
p.
15;
47,
pp.
8,
18;
48;
49
Cobalt
UMSS11
(1.6
mg/
kg
*)
1
mg/
kg
8,
pp.
14,
20,
Appendix
A,
p.
23;
37,
p.
15;
47,
pp.
8,
18;
48;
49
Copper
UMSS11
(8.7
mg/
kg)
UMSS16
(16
mg/
kg)
UMSS16D
(17
mg/
kg)
1.6
mg/
kg
8,
pp.
14,
20,
Appendix
A,
pp.
23,
29,31;
37,
p.
15.

Lead
UMSS10
(763A
mg/
kg)
UMSS11
(810
mg/
kg)
UMSS12
(119
mg/
kg)
UMSS13
(573
mg/
kg)
UMSS15
(1,130
mg/
kg)
UMSS16
(1,870
mg/
kg)
UMSS16D
(2,770
mg/
kg)
5
mg/
kg
8,
pp.
14,
19,
20,
Appendix
A,
pp.
22,
26,
28,
29,
31;
37,
p.
16.

Zinc
UMSS11
(41
mg/
kg)
UMSS16
(36
mg/
kg)
UMSS16D
(46
mg/
kg)
10
mg/
kg
8,
pp.
14,
20,
Appendix
A,
pp.
23,
24,
29,
31;
37,
p.
18.
Notes:
MDL
=
Method
Detection
Limit
(Ref.
37,
Section
5.0,
pp.
12
through
61).
UM
=
United
Metals,
Inc.
SS
=
Surface
Soil
mg/
kg
=
Milligrams
per
kilogram
A
=
Value
reported
is
mean
of
two
or
more
determinations
D
=
Duplicate
sample
*
=
Values
were
adjusted
in
accordance
with
Reference
47.

The
hazardous
substances
listed
in
the
preceding
table
were
collected
from
Source
No.
1
during
the
1994
ESI.
A
quality
control
duplicate
surface
soil
sample
was
collected
from
the
UMSS16
sampling
location.
All
samples
listed
were
collected
from
surface
soils
at
the
0
to
2
foot
depth
and
compared
to
a
designated
21
background
sample,
UMSS14
(Ref.
8,
pp.
12,
13,
14,
18,
19,
20,
Appendix
A,
pp.
22
through
30).

­
Background
Concentrations
A
background
surface
soil
sample
was
not
collected
during
the
1994
ESI
sampling
activities
(Ref.
8,
pp.
19,
20).
Lead
was
detected
at
elevated
concentrations
in
all
surface
soil
samples
during
the
ESI,
with
the
exception
of
Surface
Soil
Sample
UMSS14
(Ref.
8,
pp.
18
through
20,
Appendix
A).
Surface
Soil
Sample
UMSS14
was
collected
from
the
0
to
2
foot
depth
from
the
eastern
side
of
the
fence
line
within
the
property
boundary
and
exhibited
relatively
low
concentrations
of
metals
(Ref.
8,
pp.
12,
13,
14).
Therefore,
for
the
purpose
of
HRS
scoring,
Surface
Soil
Sample
UMSS14
is
designated
as
a
background
sample
collected
from
Source
No.
1,
during
the
1994
ESI.

Sample
ID
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
MDL
Reference(
s)

UMSS14
Antimony
6U
mg/
kg
4
mg/
kg
8,
pp.
14,
20,
Appendix
A,
p.
27;
37,
p.
14
Chromium
5U
mg/
kg
3
mg/
kg
8,
pp.
14,
20,
Appendix
A,
p.
27;
37,
p.
15
Cobalt
1
U
mg/
kg
1
mg/
kg
8,
pp.
14,
20,
Appendix
A,
p.
27;
37,
p.
15
Copper
2.44
mg/
kg
*
1.6
mg/
kg
8,
pp.
14,
20,
Appendix
A,
p.
27;
37,
p.
15;
47,
pp.
8,
18;
48;
49
Lead
15.84
mg/
kg
*
5
mg/
kg
8,
pp.
14,
20,
Appendix
A,
p.
27;
37,
p.
16;
47,
pp.
8,
18;
48;
49
Zinc
7.9
mg/
kg
10
mg/
kg
8,
pp.
14,
20,
Appendix
A,
p.
27;
37,
p.
18
Notes:
MDL
=
Method
Detection
Limit
UM
=
United
Metals,
Inc.
mg/
kg
=
Milligrams
per
kilogram
U
=
Material
was
analyzed
for
but
not
detected;
the
value
reported
is
the
minimum
detection
limit
*
=
Values
were
adjusted
in
accordance
with
Reference
47.
22
SD­
Hazardous
Constituent
Quantity
Source
No.
1
2.4.2.
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
2.4.2.1.1.
Hazardous
Constituent
Quantity
Insufficient
information
is
available
to
evaluate
hazardous
constituent
quantity.

Hazardous
Constituent
Quantity
Value
(S):
Not
scored
2.4.2.1.2.
Hazardous
Wastestream
Quantity
Insufficient
information
is
available
to
evaluate
hazardous
wastestream
quantity.

Hazardous
Wastestream
Quantity
Value
(W):
Not
scored
2.4.2.1.3.
Volume
Insufficient
information
is
available
to
calculate
volume.

2.4.2.1.4.
Area
A
limited
number
of
samples
have
been
collected
on
and
in
the
vicinity
of
the
facility.
Because
of
the
presence
of
on­
site
buildings
and
the
proximity
of
sampling
locations,
the
area
of
contaminated
soil
was
not
calculated.
Contamination
in
soil
samples
collected
include
antimony,
chromium,
cobalt,
copper,
lead,
nickel,
strontium,
and
zinc,
and
the
area
of
contamination
is
unknown
but
greater
than
0
(Refs.
7,
p.
2,
Table
7,
pp.
31,32,
Figure
4;
8,
p.
2,
Figure
3,
p.
18,
Table
6,
Appendix
A,
pp.
22
through
31).

Dimension
of
source
(ft
2
or
acres):
>
0
References(
s):
1,
Section
2.4.2.1.4,
Table
2­
5
Area
Assigned
Value:
>
0
2.4.2.1.5.
Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Value
Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Value:
>
0
23
SD­
Summary
SITE
SUMMARY
OF
SOURCE
DESCRIPTIONS
Source
No.
Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Value
Containment
Ground
Water
Surface
Water
Gas
Air
Particulate
1
>
0
NS
10
NS
NS
Note:
NS
=
Not
scored
Other
Potential
Areas
of
Concern
Two
unlined
holding
ponds
previously
were
located
east
of
the
recycling
building;
both
ponds
have
been
dredged
and
backfilled.
No
soil
samples
were
collected
from
the
former
pond
locations
during
the
1994
ESI.
The
holding
ponds
received
wastewater
from
the
recycling
operations
building.
The
primary
holding
pond
is
approximately
0.66
acre
and
is
located
between
the
recycling
building
and
the
second
holding
pond.
The
second
holding
pond
(0.61
acre),
which
reportedly
was
never
used,
was
constructed
originally
to
provide
backup
capacity
(Refs.
6,
p.
3;
7,
pp.
5,
6;
8,
pp.
5,
13,
14;
9,
p.
2;
13,
p.
2).
24
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
Runoff
from
UMI
tends
to
flow
radially
from
the
battery
recycling
building,
because
it
was
constructed
originally
above
grade.
Surface
water
runoff
is
then
directed
toward
the
west
or
south
(Refs.
3;
8,
pp.
9,
22).
The
west
and
south
surface
water
migration
routes
comprise
two
separate
watersheds
for
HRS
scoring
purposes
because
there
is
no
apparent
perennial
or
other
HRS­
qualifying
water
body
connection
between
the
two
routes
within
the
15­
mile
target
distance
limit
(Ref
51,
p.
204).

Watershed
1
Surface
water
runoff
directed
towards
the
west
flows
into
a
ditch
located
near
the
entrance
gate.
The
ditch
parallels
the
entrance
driveway
and
drains
west
toward
State
Route
71.
A
culvert
is
located
beneath
the
road
and
drains
the
ditch
into
a
wooded
wetland.
The
confluence
of
the
ditch
and
the
wooded
wetland
is
the
probable
point
of
entry
(PPE)
to
the
surface
water
pathway
in­
water
route
for
this
watershed
and
is
located
about
500
feet
south­
southwest
of
the
entrance
drive
(Refs.
8,
p.
22;
39,
p.
15;
51,
pp.
204
through
208).
Contiguous
wetlands
connect
the
wooded
wetland
to
a
perennial
stream
(an
unnamed
tributary
to
Chipola
River),
which
then
flows
into
to
the
Chipola
River,
located
about
8,800
stream
feet
(1.7
miles)
west
of
the
former
facility.
HRS­
eligible
wetlands
continuously
line
the
in­
water
route
from
the
PPE
to
the
Chipola
River
(Refs.
3;
38).
The
15­
mile
target
distance
limit
for
the
watershed
is
completed
in
the
Chipola
River
(Refs.
3;
8,
pp.
9,
22).
The
Chipola
River
has
a
net
average
annual
flow
rate
of
1,502
cubic
feet
per
second
(cfs)
(Ref.
40,
p.
104).

Watershed
2
Surface
water
runoff,
directed
south­
southeast
of
the
facility,
flows
into
an
intermittent
stream
that
is
located
along
the
south­
southeastern
boundary
of
the
facility.
This
intermittent
stream
discharges
to
a
series
of
interconnected,
wooded
wetlands.
Because
UMI
is
located
in
Marianna,
Florida,
which
has
an
average
annual
precipitation
of
about
54
inches,
the
intermittent
stream
is
not
considered
to
be
part
of
the
in­
water
surface
water
migration
pathway
(Refs.
50;
51,
p.
208).
Therefore,
the
confluence
of
the
intermittent
stream
and
the
interconnected
wooded
wetlands
comprises
the
PPE
for
this
watershed.
Surface
water
then
flows
through
the
wooded
wetlands
to
an
intermittent
stream
that
discharges
into
a
sinkhole
pond
about
1,600
feet
(0.3
mile)
west
of
State
Route
71
(Ref.
3).

As
the
higher
scoring
watershed,
Watershed
1
will
be
evaluated
for
this
HRS
documentation
package.
No
samples
have
been
collected
from
Watershed
2
to
support
an
observed
release
and
minimal
targets
exist
for
Watershed
2.
SWOF­
Observed
Release
25
4.1.2.1
LIKELIHOOD
OF
RELEASE
4.1.2.1.1
Observed
Release
Chemical
Analysis
­
Background
Sample
Sample
ID
Sampling
Location
Depth
Date
Reference(
s)

UMSD01
Approximately
1.5
miles
north
of
the
facility
0
to
2
feet
12/
7/
94
8,
pp.
3,
12
­
14,
Appendix
A,
pp.
31,
32
Notes:
UM
=
United
Metals,
Inc.
SD
=
Sediment
sample
The
December
1994
ESI
focused
on
the
impact
that
the
contaminated
soil
from
the
facility
has
on
the
Chipola
River
and
associated
wetlands.
The
table
above
presents
the
background
sediment
sample
collected
from
a
wetland
area
located
approximately
1.5
miles
north
of
the
facility
during
the
1994
ESI.
This
location
is
just
south
of
State
Road
(SR)
280
and
about
0.2
mile
east
of
SR
71.
Background
Sediment
Sample
UMSD01
was
collected
from
the
upper
2
feet
of
material
at
this
sample
location
(Refs.
8,
pp.
3,
12
through
14;
39,
p.
21).
SWOF­
Observed
Release
26
­
Background
Concentrations
Sample
ID
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
MDL
Reference(
s)

UMSD01
Copper
3.66
mg/
kg
*
1.6
mg/
kg
8,
p.
20;
Appendix
A,
pp.
31,
32;
37,
p.
15;
47,
pp.
8,
18;
48;
49
Lead
21.6
mg/
kg
*
5
mg/
kg
8,
p.
20;
Appendix
A,
pp.
31,
32;
37,
p.
16;
47,
pp.
8,
18;
48;
49
Zinc
11
mg/
kg
10
mg/
kg
8,
p.
20;
Appendix
A,
pp.
31,
32;
37,
p.
l8
Notes:
UM
=
United
Metals,
Inc.
SD
=
Sediment
sample
MDL
=
Method
Detection
Limit
mg/
kg
=
Milligrams
per
kilogram
U
=
Material
was
analyzed
but
not
detected;
the
value
reported
is
the
minimum
detection
limit
*
=
Values
were
adjusted
in
accordance
with
Reference
47.
SWOF­
Observed
Release
27
­
Observed
Release
Concentrations
Sample
ID
Sampling
Location
Depth
Date
Reference(
s)

UMSD02
Collected
from
the
wetland
area
located
directly
across
State
Route
71
from
the
facility's
main
entrance.
0
to
2
feet
12/
07/
94
8,
pp.
12,
13,
Figure
3;
39,
p.
20
UMSD03
Collected
from
the
wetland
area
located
directly
across
State
Route
71
from
the
facility's
main
entrance.
0
to
2
feet
12/
07/
94
8,
pp.
12,
13,
Figure
3;
39,
p.
20
UMSD04
Collected
from
the
wetland
area
located
directly
across
State
Route
71
from
the
facility's
main
entrance
0
to
2
feet
12/
07/
94
8,
pp.
12,
13,
Figure
3;
39,
p.
20
UMSD05
Collected
from
the
wetland
area
located
directly
across
State
Route
71
from
the
facility's
main
entrance
0
to
2
feet
12/
07/
94
8,
pp.
12,
13,
Figure
3;
39,
p.
23
Notes:
UM
=
United
Metals,
Inc.
SD
=
Sediment
sample
Sediment
samples
presented
in
the
preceding
table
were
collected
from
the
wetland
area
located
downgradient
of
the
probable
point
of
entry
(PPE)
of
drainage
from
the
facility's
main
entrance
during
the
1994
ESI(
Refs.
3;
8,
pp.
12,
13,
Figure
3;
39,
p.
20).
SWOF­
Observed
Release
28
­
Observed
Release
Concentrations
Sample
ID
Hazardous
Substance
Concentration
MDL
Reference(
s)

UMSD02
Copper
18
mg/
kg
1.6
mg/
kg
8,
p.
20,
Appendix
A,
pp.
32,
33;
37,
p.
15;
39,
p.
20
Lead
191
mg/
kg
5.0
mg/
kg
8,
p.
20,
Appendix
A,
pp.
32,
33;
37,
p.
16;
39,
p.
20
UMSD03
Copper
17
mg/
kg
1.6
mg/
kg
8,
p.
20,
Appendix
A,
p.
34;
37,
p.
15;
39,
p.
20
Lead
629
mg/
kg
5.0
mg/
kg
8,
p.
20,
Appendix
A,
p.
34;
37,
p.
16;
39,
p.
20
Zinc
41
mg/
kg
10.0
mg/
kg
8,
p.
20,
Appendix
A,
pp.
34,
35;
37,
p.
18;
39,
p.
20
UMSD05
Lead
91.5
mg/
kg
5.0
mg/
kg
8,
p.
20,
Appendix
A,
pp.
36,
37;
37,
p.
16;
39,
p.
23
Notes:
UM
=
United
Metals,
Inc.
SD
=
Sediment
sample
mg/
kg
=
Milligrams
per
kilogram
MDL
=
Method
detection
limit
SWOF­
Observed
Release
29
Attribution:

The
former
UMI
facility
was
a
used
battery
reclaiming
facility,
with
plant
operations
beginning
in
November
1979.
In
1981,
the
facility
processed
10,000
to
12,000
batteries
per
week,
resulting
in
2,500
gallons
of
acidic
wastes
per
day.
Primarily
lead­
acid
batteries
and
nickel
cadmium
batteries
were
recycled
by
the
facility.
Batteries
were
offloaded
at
a
loading
dock
located
at
the
northwestern
side
of
the
recycling
building
onto
a
conveyor
belt.
The
conveyor
belt
delivered
the
batteries
to
a
water­
cooled
saw
used
to
cut
the
tops
off
of
the
batteries.
Removed
battery
tops
were
dismantled,
and
the
plastic
battery
cases
were
separated
from
the
lead
plates,
then
crushed
and
pelletized.
Lead
oxide,
posts,
and
miscellaneous
parts
were
separated
from
the
crushed
casings.
Lead
components
and
lead
oxide
were
transported
by
truck
to
a
smelter,
and
the
plastic
pellets
were
transported
to
an
extruding
facility
(Refs.
7,
pp.
6,
9;
8,
p.
5;
9,
pp.
3,
4;
10,
pp.
9,
11
;
14,
p.
11).

Liquid
from
the
batteries
was
deposited
into
a
reservoir
and
flowed
through
a
channel
in
the
floor
to
the
concrete
basins.
In
the
concrete
basins,
the
wastewater
was
neutralized
with
lime
and
lead
oxide
residues
were
precipitated
for
reclamation.
The
wastewater
flowed
from
the
basins
through
the
ditch
to
the
unlined,
primary
holding
pond;
the
wastewater
system
eventually
was
modified
so
that
wastewater
was
stored
in
tanks,
neutralized,
and
recycled
in
the
plant
process
to
eliminate
discharge
to
the
holding
ponds.
The
holding
ponds
eventually
were
abandoned;
pond
sediments
were
dredged,
excavated,
and
stockpiled
onsite;
and
the
ponds
were
backfilled
(Refs.
7,
p.
9;
8,
pp.
5,
6;
10,
pp.
9
through
13;
15,
p.
1;
18,
p.
1).

EPA
conducted
a
RCRA
Program
inspection
of
the
facility
in
1986.
Numerous
violations
were
noted,
including
improper
closure
of
the
holding
ponds
subsequent
to
sediment
removal,
improper
storage
of
hazardous
wastes,
improper
groundwater
monitoring,
and
operation
without
appropriate
permits
for
hazardous
waste
storage
and
treatment.
The
facility
was
sold
and
purchased
by
Herb
Eisenstader
and
Michael
Chen,
and
a
partnership
was
established
to
form
Anrich.
Subsequent
to
the
purchase
of
the
facility
property,
Anrich
renovated
the
facility
and
began
battery
cracking
operations
in
1991.
On
May
22,
1991,
FDEP
conducted
a
Hazardous
Waste
Inspection
of
the
facility.
Several
RCRA
violations
were
noted,
including
the
operation
of
a
hazardous
waste
pile
without
a
permit
and
the
transport
of
hazardous
wastes
to
Taiwan
without
complying
with
certain
RCRA
record
keeping
requirements.
Anrich
ceased
operations
at
the
facility
in
July
1991
(Refs.
7,
p.
7;
18;
31,
p.
4).

During
the
1986
EPA
RCRA
inspection,
samples
were
collected
from
stockpiled
sediments
excavated
from
the
pond,
ditches,
and
a
hopper
located
in
the
recycling
area.
Lead
was
detected
in
sediment
samples
at
concentrations
ranging
from
8,300
to
13,000
mg/
kg.
The
sample
collected
from
the
hopper
(referred
to
as
lead
product)
contained
lead
at
a
concentration
of
160,000
mg/
kg;
this
sample
also
was
analyzed
for
EP
toxicity
and
exceeded
the
allowable
lead
concentration
of
5
mg/
L
(Refs.
6,
p.
8;
7,
p.
9;
8,
p.
6;
18,
p.
3).
Soil
samples
collected
from
the
reported
burial
or
disposal
sites
and
the
roadside
ditch
were
contaminated
by
lead.
Most
concentrations
of
lead
detected
in
the
soil
were
greater
than
1,000
mg/
kg.
During
the
1993
SI,
sample
UMSS06
was
collected
from
the
roadside
drainage
ditch
outside
of
the
entrance
gate,
contained
10,900
mg/
kg
of
lead
(Refs.
7,
pp.
3,
18,
19,
29,
30,
31;
8,
pp.
7,
19).
SWOF­
Observed
Release
30
Soil
samples
were
collected
in
suspected
areas
of
waste
or
wastewater
discharge
and
dry
ditches
along
suspected
migration
pathways
during
the
1994
ESI.
Maximum
concentrations
of
antimony
(31
mg/
kg),
chromium
(24
mg/
kg),
copper
(16
mg/
kg),
lead
(2,770
mg/
kg),
nickel
(10
mg/
kg),
and
zinc
(46
mg/
kg)
were
detected
in
surface
soil
samples
and
exceeded
the
background
concentration
by
three
times
or
greater.
Lead
was
detected
in
all
surface
soil
samples,
except
for
one
sample.
Many
of
the
same
constituents
were
detected
at
observed
release
levels
in
sediment
samples
collected
from
nearby
wetlands.
Sediment
samples
were
collected
during
the
ESI
from
the
wetland
area,
located
west
of
the
facility
across
State
Route
71,
about
500
feet
south
of
the
plant
entrance
road
(Ref.
8,
pp.
12,
18,
20,
22,
Appendix
A,
pp.
22
through
31).
Maximum
concentrations
of
copper
(18
mg/
kg),
lead
(629
mg/
kg),
and
zinc
(41
mg/
kg)
were
detected
in
sediment
samples
and
exceeded
the
background
concentration
by
three
times
or
greater
(Ref.
8,
pp.
21,
22,
Appendix
A,
pp.
31
through
38).

Hazardous
Substances
Released:

Copper
Lead
Zinc
==========================================================================

Observed
Release
Factor
Value:
550
31
SWOF­
Potential
to
Release
4.1.2.1.2
POTENTIAL
TO
RELEASE
4.1.2.1.2.1
Potential
to
Release
by
Overland
Flow
Potential
to
release
was
not
scored,
because
an
observed
release
was
established
by
chemical
analysis
(see
Section
4.1.2.1.1
of
this
documentation
record).
32
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*
Toxicity/
Persistence
Factor
Value**
Reference(
s)

Antimony
1
10,000
1
10,000
1,
Section
4.1.2.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
2
Chromium
1
10,000
1
10,000
1,
Section
4.1.2.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
5
Cobalt
1
1
1
1
1,
Section
4.1.2.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
6
Copper
1
***
1
***
1,
Section
4.1.2.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
6
Lead
1
10,000
1
10,000
1,
Section
4.1.2.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
13
Nickel
1
10,000
1
10,000
1,
Section
4.1.2.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
14
Zinc
1
10
1
10
1,
Section
4.1.2.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
20
Notes:
*
=
Persistence
value
for
rivers
**
=
Toxicity/
Persistence
factor
values
can
be
found
in
Reference
1,
Table
4­
12
***
=
Copper
does
not
have
a
toxicity
value
==========================================================================

Toxicity/
Persistence
Factor
Value:
10,000
33
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
>
0
No
Sum
of
Values:
>
0
4.1.2.2.3
Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value
Toxicity/
persistence
factor
value
(10,000)
X
hazardous
waste
quantity
factor
value
(100):
1
x
10
6
A
hazardous
waste
quantity
factor
value
of
100
was
assigned,
because
actual
contamination
has
been
documented
in
the
wetlands
area
located
down
gradient
of
onsite
drainage
(Refs.
3;
8,
pp.
13,
14,
16,
18,
21,
22,
Appendix
A,
pp.
22
through
38;
38;
39,
pp.
20,
21).

==========================================================================

Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
100
Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value:
32
34
SWOF/
Drinking­
Targets
4.1.2.3
DRINKING
WATER
TARGETS
The
Jackson
County
Water
District
does
not
maintain
any
surface
water
intakes
within
the
15­
mile
target
distance
limit
on
the
Chipola
River
(Ref.
41).

==========================================================================

Nearest
Intake
Factor
Value:
0
35
SWOF/
Drinking­
Resources
4.1.2.3.3
Resources
No
known
resources
are
known
to
exist
along
the
15­
mile
surface
water
pathway.

==========================================================================

Resources
Factor
Value:
0
36
SWOF/
Food
Chain­
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
4.2.3.2
WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
4.1.3.2.1
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
Hazardous
Substance
Source
Number
Toxicity
Factor
Value
Persistence*
Bioaccumulation
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value**
Ref(
s)

Antimony
1
10,000
1
0.5
5,000
1,
Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
2
Chromium
1
10,000
1
5
5x10
4
1,
Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
5
Cobalt
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1,
Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
6
Copper
1
***
1
50,000
***
1,
Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
6
Lead
1
10,000
1
50
5x10
5
1,
Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
13
Nickel
1
10,000
1
0.5
5,000
1,
Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
14
Zinc
1
10
1
500
5,000
1,
Section
4.1.3.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
20
Notes:
*
=
Persistence
value
for
rivers
**
=
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
factor
values
can
be
found
Reference
1,
Table
4­
16
***
=
Copper
does
not
have
a
toxicity
value
==========================================================================

Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value:
5x10
5
37
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
>
0
No
Sum
of
Values:
>
0
4.1.3.2.3
Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value
Toxicity/
persistence
factor
value
(10,000)
X
hazardous
waste
quantity
factor
value
(100):
1
x
10
6
(Toxicity/
persistence
[10,000]
x
hazardous
waste
quantity
[100]
X
Bioaccumulation
potential
factor
value
[50]):
5
x
10
7
A
hazardous
waste
quantity
factor
value
of
100
was
assigned,
because
actual
contamination
has
been
documented
in
the
wetlands
area
located
down
gradient
of
onsite
drainage
(Refs.
3;
8,
pp.
13,
14,
16,
18,
21,
22,
Appendix
A,
pp.
22
through
38;
38;
39,
pp.
20,
21).

==========================================================================

Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Assigned
Value:
100
Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value:
56
38
SWOF/
Food
Chain­
Targets
4.1.3.3
HUMAN
FOOD
CHAIN
THREAT­
TARGETS
Actual
Human
Food
Chain
Contamination
The
entire
river,
from
the
confluence
of
the
unnamed
tributary
with
the
Chipola
River
to
the
target
distance
limit,
is
fished
(Ref.
42).
However,
samples
have
not
been
collected
from
the
Chipola
River;
therefore,
actual
contamination
of
a
fishery
has
not
been
documented.
The
Chipola
River
is
evaluated
based
on
potential
contamination.

Closed
Fisheries
No
known
fisheries
have
been
closed
resulting
from
contamination
within
the
15­
mile
surface
water
migration
pathway
target
distance
limit.

Benthic
Tissue
No
samples
have
been
collected
from
sessile
benthic
organisms
located
within
the
15­
mile
surface
water
migration
pathway
target
distance
limit.

Level
I
Concentrations
There
are
no
Level
I
concentrations.

Most
Distant
Level
II
Sample
There
are
no
Level
II
concentrations.
39
SWOF/
Food
Chain­
Food
Chain
Individual
4.1.3.3.1
Food
Chain
Individual
Sample
ID:
UM02SD
Hazardous
Substance:
Copper,
Lead
Bioaccumulation
Potential:
50,000,
50
Sample
ID:
UM03SD
Hazardous
Substance:
Copper,
Lead,
Zinc
Bioaccumulation
Potential:
50,000,
50,
500
Sample
ID:
UM05SD
Hazardous
Substance:
Lead
Bioaccumulation
Potential:
50
Identity
of
Fishery
Type
of
Surface
Water
Body
Dilution
Weight
Reference
Chipola
River
Large
stream
to
River
0.001
1,
Table
4­
13;
40,
p.
103
A
food
chain
individual
value
of
20
was
assigned
based
on
an
observed
release
to
a
perennial
surface
water
with
a
fishery
downstream.
An
observed
release
was
documented
in
HRS­
eligible
wetlands
located
immediately
down
gradient
of
on­
site
drainage.
The
wetlands
begin
adjacent
to
the
facility
property
and
are
drained
by
an
unnamed,
perennial
tributary
of
the
Chipola
River
(Refs.
3;
8,
pp.
13,
14,
16,
18,
21,
22;
38;
39,
pp.
20,
21;
41;
42).
The
HRS­
eligible
wetlands
are
contiguous
from
the
PPE
to
the
Chipola
River
(Ref.
38)
It
is
not
known
whether
the
unnamed
tributary
is
fished.
The
average
annual
flow
rate
of
the
Chipola
River
is
1,502
cfs
(Ref.
40,
p.
104).

==========================================================================

Food
Chain
Individual
Factor
Value:
20
40
SWOF/
Food
Chain­
Level
I
Concentrations
4.1.3.3.2
Population
4.1.3.3.2.1
Level
I
Concentrations
No
Level
I
concentrations
have
been
documented
within
the
15­
mile
surface
water
migration
pathway
target
distance
limit.

==========================================================================

Level
I
Concentrations
Factor
Value:
0
41
SWOF/
Food
Chain­
Level
II
Concentrations
4.1.3.3.2.2
Level
II
Concentrations
No
Level
II
concentrations
have
been
documented
within
the
15­
mile
surface
water
migration
pathway
target
distance
limit.

==========================================================================

Level
II
Concentrations
Factor
Value:
0
42
SWOF/
Food
Chain­
Potential
Human
Food
Chain
Contamination
4.1.3.3.2.3
Potential
Human
Food
Chain
Contamination
Identity
of
Fishery
Annual
Production
in
Pounds
Type
of
Surface
Water
Body
Average
Annual
Flow
Rate
Population
Value
(Pi)
Dilution
Weight
(Di)
Population
Value
x
Dilution
Weight
(Pi
x
Di)
Reference
Chipola
River
>0
Large
stream
to
River
1,502
cfs
0.03
0.001
0.00003
1,
Tables
4­
13,
4­
18;
3;
40,
p.
104;
42
Sum
of
Human
Food
Chain
Population
Values
x
Dilution
Weights
(Pi
x
Di)
=0.00003
Population
Values
x
Dilution
Weights
(Pi
x
Di)
÷
10
=
0.000003
Notes:
cfs
=
Cubic
feet
per
second
The
average
annual
flow
rate
for
the
Chipola
River
from
1913
to
1996
is
1,502
cfs
(Ref.
40,
p.
104.)
The
annual
production
for
the
Chipola
River
is
not
known.
The
Chipola
River
is
a
fishery,
therefore,
an
annual
production
rate
of
greater
than
zero
was
assumed
(Refs.
41;
42).
It
is
not
known
whether
the
unnamed
tributary
is
fished.

==========================================================================

Potential
Human
Food
Chain
Contamination
Factor
Value:
0.000003
SWOF/
Environment­
Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
43
4.1.4.2
WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
4.1.4.2.1
Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
Hazardous
Substance
Source
Number
Ecosystem
Toxicity*
Persistence**
Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence
Factor
Value
(Table
4­
20)
Reference(
s)

Antimony
1
100
1
100
1,
Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
2
Chromium
1
100
1
100
1,
Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
5
Cobalt
1
***
1
***
1,
Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
6
Copper
1
100
1
100
1,
Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
6
Lead
1
1,000
1
1,000
1,
Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
13
Nickel
1
10
1
10
1,
Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
13
Zinc
1
10
1
10
1,
Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
20
Notes:
*
=
Ecotoxicity
value
for
fresh
water
**
=
Persistence
value
for
rivers
***
=
Copper
does
not
have
an
ecosystem
toxicity
value
SWOF/
Environment­
Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
44
Hazardous
Substance
Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence
Factor
Value
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value
(Section
4.1.3.2.1.3)
Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value
(Table
4­
21)
Reference(
s)

Antimony
100
5
500
1,
Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
2
Chromium
100
5
500
1,
Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
5
Cobalt
***
5,000
***
1,
Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
6
Copper
100
50,000
5x10
6
1,
Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
6
Lead
1,000
5,000
5x10
6
1,
Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
13
Nickel
10
500
5,000
1,
Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
14
Zinc
10
500
5,000
1,
Section
4.1.4.2.1;
2,
p.
B­
20
Notes:
***
=
Copper
does
not
have
an
ecosystem
toxicity
value
==========================================================================

Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value:
5
x
10
6
45
SWOF/
Environment­
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
4.1.4.2.2.
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
>
0
No
Sum
of
Values:
>
0
4.1.4.2.3.
Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value
Ecosystem
toxicity/
persistence
factor
value
(1,000)
X
hazardous
waste
quantity
factor
value
(100):
1
x
10
5
(Ecosystem
toxicity/
persistence
[1,000]
X
hazardous
waste
quantity
[100]
x
Bioaccumulation
potential
factor
value
[5,000]):
5
x
10
8
A
hazardous
waste
quantity
factor
value
of
100
was
assigned,
because
actual
contamination
at
Level
II
concentrations
has
been
documented
in
the
wetlands
area
located
immediately
down
gradient
of
on­
site
drainage
(Refs.
3;
8,
pp.
13,
14,
16,
18,
21,
22,
Appendix
A,
pp.
22
through
38;
38;
39,
pp.
20,
21).

==========================================================================

Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
100
Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value:
100
46
SWOF/
Environment­
Targets
4.1.4.3
ENVIRONMENTAL
THREAT
­
TARGETS
Level
I
Concentrations
No
Level
I
concentrations
have
been
documented;
therefore,
Level
I
concentrations
were
not
evaluated.

Most
Distant
Level
II
Sample
Sample
ID:
UMSD02
Distance
from
Probable
point
of
entry:
about
1,100
feet,
which
occurs
in
a
wetlands
area
classified
as
palustrine
forested.
References:
3;
8,
pp.
13,
14;
38;
39,
p.
20;
also
see
Figure
4
of
this
documentation
record
47
SWOF/
Environment­
Level
I
Concentrations
4.1.4.3.1
Sensitive
Environments
4.1.4.3.1.1.
Level
I
Concentrations
No
Level
I
concentrations
have
been
documented;
therefore,
Level
I
concentrations
were
not
evaluated.

==========================================================================

Level
I
Concentrations
Factor
Value:
0
48
SWOF/
Environment­
Level
II
Concentrations
4.1.4.3.1.2.
Level
II
Concentrations
Sensitive
Environments
Actual
contamination
of
a
sensitive
environment
listed
in
Reference
1,
Table
4­
23
has
been
documented.
The
Flatwoods
Salamander
(ambystoma
cingulatum),
which
is
classified
as
a
federally
threatened
species,
has
been
documented
to
habitat
the
wetland
area
located
about
1,000
feet
west
of
the
facility
property.
The
specific
coordinates
for
the
location
of
the
Flatwoods
Salamander
were
reported
to
be
latitude
30°
40'59"
north,
and
longitude
85°
10'28
west
(Refs.
3;
43;
44;
45,
pp.
6
through
18).

Sensitive
Environments
Value:
75
Wetlands
Actual
contamination
at
Level
II
concentrations
has
been
documented.
The
observed
release
to
the
wetland
area
consists
of
about
1,100
feet
of
wetland
frontage,
which
occurred
in
palustrine
forested
wetlands,
from
the
PPE
to
sediment
sample
UMSD02
which
is
the
most
distant
sediment
sample
collected
during
the
1994
ESI
(Refs.
3;
8,
pp.
13,
14
;
38;
39,
p.
20;
also
see
Figure
4
of
this
documentation
record).

Wetland
Value:
25
Sum
of
Sensitive
Environments
Value
(75)
+
Wetland
Value
(25):
100
==========================================================================

Level
II
Concentrations
Factor
Value:
100
49
SWOF/
Environment­
Potential
Contamination
4.1.4.3.1.3
Potential
Contamination
Sensitive
Environments
Type
of
Surface
Water
Body
Sensitive
Environment
Sensitive
Environment
Value(
s)
Reference
Chipola
River
None
identified
0
1,
Table
4­
23
Sum
of
Environment
Value:
0
Wetlands
Type
of
Surface
Water
Body
Wetlands
Frontage
Wetlands
Value
Reference
Chipola
River
2
miles
50
1,
Table
4­
24;
3;
38
Total
Wetland
Frontage:
2
miles
About
2
miles
of
wetland
frontage
are
located
along
the
Chipola
River.
(Refs.
3;
38).
Therefore:

50
x
0.001
(surface
water
dilution
weight
for
the
Chipola
River)
=
0.05
0.05
÷
10
=
0.005
The
average
annual
flow
rate
for
the
Chipola
River
from
1913
to
1996
is
1,502
cfs
(Ref.
40,
p.
104.)
Therefore,
the
dilution
weight
for
the
wetlands
associated
with
the
Chipola
River
is
0.001
(Ref.
1,
Table
4­
13).

In
addition,
there
is
an
undetermined
extent
of
wetland
frontage
present
between
the
wetland
subject
to
Level
II
concentrations
and
the
confluence
of
the
unnamed
tributary
and
the
Chipola
River
(Ref.
38;
see
also
Figure
4
in
this
documentation
record).

==========================================================================

Potential
Contamination
Factor
Value:
0.005
