Coal Waste Pile West of Trenton, NJ. Coal tailings contain contaminants of concern. Photograph Attribution: This photograph is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
April 12, 2026
Russell Kelly
Permits and Services Division
Alabama Department of Environmental Health
1400 Coliseum Blvd. (Zip 36110)
P.O. Box 301463 (Zip 36130-1463)
Montgomery, Alabama
Re: Public Comments on the Cleanup Plan for 4401 Coalburg Road Site, Birmingham, Alabama (Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) Site – 461-073-25048 (for SunCap Property Group LLC), Comments due May 8, 2026 in writing (via U.S. Postal Service)
Dear Mr. Kelly:
The Environmental Review Workshop (ERW) (http://www.envreview.org/) has reviewed the Cleanup Plan prepared by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC dated January 14, 2026. ERW identified the following issues for which we would appreciate clarification in a revised document:
1) The Fact Sheet for the project requires submittal of comments in writing however an email address was not provided. Apparently, the ADEM expects that comments will be submitted via mail (e.g. U.S. Postal Service). ERW requests the ADEM to provide an email address where public comments may be submitted for all future public comment periods hosted by the ADEM. ERW also requests an explanation as to why it is ADEM’s practice to not provide an email address for submittal of comments since it is common practice for state environmental agencies to do so.
2) The Fact Sheet includes 2 different zip codes/addresses to send comments to. This seems irregular and it appears that one or the other should be selected.
3) Section 3 “Summary of Previous Investigations”:
a. The title of this section appears to be a misnomer because it references historical environmental assessment and investigation reports but summaries of the findings are general or absent. The documents listed in this section should be included in a references section (please add a references section) and the findings of each investigation report should be concisely (including ranges of contaminants found) summarized in this section.
b. The data generated by the historical investigations should be included in a tables section. ERW has noted that a tables section is absent from the report which is unusual. Current laboratory reports are also absent from the report but included on figures only; this type of shorthand presentation of laboratory data should not be acceptable to ADEM. Please require submittal of the laboratory reports (so that the data quality assurance/quality control may be assessed) in an appendix, and the addition of data tables for current and historical data.
c. Page 3, the last full paragraph discusses that based on historical reports, 16 surficial soil samples and 24 passive soil vapor samples, one surface water sample, and one groundwater sample were proposed in the assessment plan. However, the rationale for the number of samples and and sampling locations were not discussed; please add that. Once the historical and recent data is compiled, a comprehensive evaluation of the adequacy of the site characterization should be presented.
d. Page 4, top of the page: discussion is presented that the testing results for metals were compared to the ADEM Risk Based Corrective Action (ARBCA) screening levels however those screening levels are not included in the report (the data tables on the figures reference U.S. EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs)). Please add the screening levels to data tables (in a tables section which were requested above).
4) Section 4.1 Soil Investigation and Results: The results of the testing data should be statistically handled (e.g. with U.S. EPA ProUCL software) to provide mean and upper confidence limits evaluations. Present an evaluation of the adequacy of the investigation sampling frequency (for vertical and lateral delineation).
5) Section 4.2 Groundwater Investigation and Results: The groundwater investigation appears to be incomplete. Perched groundwater (depths approximately 29’-34’ below ground surface) testing results showed that screening levels were exceeded. However, it does not appear that any attempt to characterize an aquifer zone at the site was attempted. Add an investigation scope to characterize an aquifer zone at the site for contaminants of concern (COCs). Depending on the findings of a comprehensive groundwater investigation, ADEM may consider requiring groundwater cleanup too.
6) Page 8, the Groundwater Results section surmises that groundwater is not used in the vicinity however no data (e.g. groundwater well survey) was presented. This appears to overlook that beneficial uses of groundwater should be considered for the site and vicinity. Add an evaluation of this topic along with an evaluation of the fate and transport for groundwater contaminants which are present in groundwater at the site.
7) Section 4.4 Human Health Risk Assessment:
a. Add a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) which shows check boxes for contaminant sources, transport mechanisms, and potential receptors.
b. The human health risk assessment concludes that groundwater is not a media of concern without adequate evaluation and supporting documentation.
8) Section 5.0 Voluntary Cleanup Work Plan: The institutional controls discuss an environmental covenant requiring cap maintenance however, a restriction on groundwater usage also appears to be needed (for perched groundwater already characterized and potentially for an aquifer zone which has not yet been identified or characterized).
9) Page 9, 2nd full paragraph: the reference to inches of pressure appears to need correction to inches of vacuum (mercury or water).
When responses to these comments are available, please email them to me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Sincerely,
Tom Price
Program Manager
Environmental Review Workshop
(501(c)(3) nonprofit public benefit organization)
1792 Rogers Avenue
San Jose, California 95112