HRS Documentation Record Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### H AZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) DOCUMENTATION RECORD - REVIEW COVER SHEET

N ame of Site: Lea and West Second Street

E PA ID No.: NMN000607057

Contact Persons

Site Investigation: Brenda Nixon Cook, NPL Coordinator, EPA Reg.6 (214) 665-7436 ( Name) (Telephone)

Documentation Record: Brenda Nixon Cook, NPL Coordinator, EPA Reg.6 (214) 665-7436 ( Name) (Telephone)

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored

1) S oil Exposure Pathway: The soil exposure pathway has not been scored because alth ough there is sampling to show a release has occurred, there are not a sufficient number of targets to impact the site score. Furthermore, although there are indications of contaminated soil present that could threaten targets, it has not been scored as a n evaluation of the soil exposure pathway would not affect the listing decision (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.2.3).

2) A ir Pathway: Based on information available at this time, evaluation of the air migration pathway would not affect the listing decision (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.2.3).

3) S urface Water Pathway: Based on information available at this time, evaluation of the surface water migration pathway would not affect the listing decision (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.2.3).HRS Documentation Record 

### 1 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD

N ame of Site: Lea and West Second Street

S ite Spill Identifier No.: A6U9

EP A Site ID No.: NMN000607057

E PA Region: 6

D ate Prepared: September 2015

S treet Addresses of Site s* : Lea and West Second Street (510 and 514 West Second Street) Site 1 - 510 and 514 West Second Street Site 2 - 507 East Second Street Site 3 - Intersection of West Second and Montana Site 4 - Intersection of South Virginia Avenue and East Alameda Street

C ity, County, and State:

G eneral Location within the State:

Topographic Map(s):

Latitude/Longitude*: Roswell , C haves C ounty, New Mexico 88202*

The s ite is located in the City of Roswell , C haves County, N ew Mexico. R oswell is lo cated in southeast New Mex ico (Ref. 3, p. 1).

The following U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-m inute series topographic map was u sed in locating the f ac ility: Roswell Nor th

, New Mexico (2013) (Ref. 3, p. 1).

Le a a n d West Second Street ( 33° 23’ 38.684” N, 104° 31’ 47.822” W ) Site 1 - 33° 23’ 38.684” N, 104° 31’ 47.822” W Site 2 – 33° 23' 41.103" N, 104° 30' 57.078" W Site 3 – 33° 23' 38.237" N, 104° 32' 34.556" W Site 4 - 33° 23' 29.129" N, 104° 31' 17.068" W

Latitude and Longitude coordinates were measured from within each source area and were determined using a scaled topographic map and Geographic Information Syste m ( GIS ) software (Ref. 3, p. 1; Ref. 4, pp. 1, 2).

S cores Ai r Pathway Not Scored Ground Water Pathway 100 

### Soil Exposure Pathway Not Scored Surface Water Pathway Not Scored

H RS SITE SCORE 50.00

* 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 hazard ous 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, disposed, or placed, or has otherwise come to be located." Generally, HRS scoring and the subsequent listing ofHRS Documentation Record 

### 2 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 a release merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to be a ddressed 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.HRS Documentation Record 

### 3 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### NOTES TO THE READER

1. The following rules were applied when citing references in this documentation record:

Tr acking numbers ar e assig n ed b y th e reg ion to every pag e o f every r eference. Th e tracking number consists of the reference number followed by the page number within that r eference. A tracking number h as a two -digit number followed by the sequenti al n u mber (e.g., R eferenc e 4

, Page 1 is expressed as 040001 i n R eferen ce 4 )

.

2. Hazardous substances ar e often listed by the names used in the Superfund Chemical Data Ma trix ( SCDM ) ( R ef. 2)

.

3. Attachment A of this documentation record consists of the following figures:

• A-1 Site Location Map

• A-2 Source Location M ap

• A-3 4-M ile Targe t D istance Limit

• A-4 4-M ile Targe t D istance Limit for Site and Sources

• A-5 Sampl e Location Map

• A-6 Ground Water Plumes

4. Attachment B of this document contains scoring information for Site 1 – Denio’s.

5. Attachment C of this document contains scoring information for Site 2 – 507 E ast Second.

6. Attachment D of this document contains scoring information for Site 3 – West Second and Montana.

7. Attachment E of this document contains scoring information for Site 4 – Parks Underground Storag e Tank (UST)

.HRS Documentation Record 

### 4 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### REFERENCES CITED

1. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Hazard Ranking System (HRS); Final Rule. 14 December 1990. Volume 55, No. 241. Pages: 1. [ A complete copy of the HRS can be obtained at the Regional docket upon request or is also available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/index.htm ].

2. EPA. 2014. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) ( E xcerpts). 20 June 2014. Pages : 23. [A complete copy of SCDM is available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm ].

3. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013 . 7.5- Minute Topographic Series Maps: Roswell North, New Mexico Quadrangle; 2013, Roswell South, New Mexico Quadrangle; 2013, Bitter Lake, New Mexico Quadrangle; 2013, South Spring, New Mexico Quadrangle. Pages: 4.

4. Wes ton Solutions, Inc. (WESTON). Project Note to File. Subject: Lea and West Second. Task Description: Calculating Latitude and Longitude Coordinates of the Site . W.O. No. 20406.012.019.0927.01. 17 August 2015. Pages: 2.

5. Bar ron’s Environmental Solutions

- In Time! , Inc. (Barron). 2012. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and Vapor Encroachment Screen. 507 East Second Street Property. 3 February 2012. Pages: 77.

6. Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Florida State University (FSU). Leaks, Spills, and Discharges at Florida Drycleaning Sites. 507 East Second Street Property. Accessed on 16 February 2015. Pages: 14. www.drycleancoalition.org

.

7. New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). Site Reassessment Report, Lea and West Second Street, Roswell, Chaves County, New Mexico. September 2014. Pages: 73.

8. Bar ron. 2008. Investigation of Perchloroethylene Contamination Around Denio’s Cleaners, West 2 nd 

### Street Location in Roswell, New Mexico. 24 September 2008. Pages: 34.

9. Hal l Environmental Analysis Laboratory (Hall). 2008. Appendix 1, Laboratory Report, Analysis of PCE Waste From Denio’s Cleaners’ West 2 nd 

### Street Location. 18 August 2008. Excerpt. Pages: 75.

10. EPA. Technical Factsheet on: Tetrachloroethylene. Excerpt from National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/voc/tech/tetrachl.pdf . Pages: 4.

11. Color ado Department of Public Health and Environment Fact Sheet, Dry Cleaners and PCE. Reviewed 2014. Pages: 2.HRS Documentation Record 

### 5 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 12. Doherty, Richard E. 2000. A History of the Production and Use of Carbon Tetrachloride, Tetrachloroethylene, Trichloroethylene, and 1,1,1

- Trichloroethane in the Unites States : Part 1 – Historical Background; Carbon Tetrachloride and Tetrachlor oethylene

. Journal of Environmental Forensics. 1, 69-81. Pages: 13.

13. NMED. 2009

- 2010. Parks UST Site Field Logbook. 10 February 2009 through 17 February 2010. Pages: 28

14. New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources. 2007. Seasonal and Long

- Term Va riations in Hydraulic Head in a Karst Aquifer: Roswell Artesian Basin, New Mexico. Open

File Report 503. August 2007. Pages: 38.

15. EPA Region 6 Laboratory. 2010. Final Analytical Report. West Second and North Montana. Project # 10SF139. 18 May 2010. Pages: 219.

16. NMED. 2009

- 2010. West Second and Montana Field Logbook. 10 February 2009 – 18 August 2010. Pages: 68.

17. WESTON. 2015. Project Note to File. Subject: Lea and West Second. Task Description: Methodology and Source Data to create Reference 17 Table. W.O. No. 20406.012.019.0927.01. Attachment: System information for private and public wells in the area of Roswell New Mexico. Pages: 6. https://gis.web.env.nm.gov/EGIS/

.

18. EPA Region 6 Laboratory. 2010. Final Analytical Report. Lea and West Second. Project # 11SF007. 18 November 2010. Pages: 89.

19. EPA Region 6 Laboratory. 2009. Final Analytical Report. North Main and 9th. Project # 09SF247. 17 July 2009. Pages: 40.

20. State of New Mexico Department of Health. 2011. Scientific Laboratory Division. Parks UST/ Roswell, NM. SLD NO.: OR -201101239. 30 June 2011. Pages: 22.

21. EPA Region 6 Laboratory. 2010. Final Analytical Report. Parks UST. Project # 10SF111. 23 March 2010. Pages: 120.

22. EPA Region 6 Laboratory. 2009. Final Analytical Report. West Second and North Montana. Project # 09SF248. 28 July 2009. Pages: 110.

23. EPA Region 6 Laboratory. 2010. Final Analytical Report. Lea and West Second. Project # 10SF122. 16 April 2010. Pages: 174.

24. WE STON. 2015. Project Note to File. Subject: Lea and West Second. Task Description: Methodology and Source Data to create Reference 24 Data Sheets. W.O. No. 20104.012.019.0927.01. 5 March 2014. Attachment: Chemical sample results for the Roswell municipal water system. Pages: 12. https://dww.water.net.env.nm.gov/DWW

.HRS Documentation Record 

### 6 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 25. WESTON. 2015. Project Note to File. Subject: Lea and West Second. Task Description: Methodology and Source Data to create Reference 25 Da ta Sheets. W.O. No. 20406.012.0927.01. 5 March 2014. Pages: 186 https://dww.water.net.env.nm.gov/DWW

.

26. Sierra Environmental, Inc. 2010. On

- Site Investigation Report. Wakefield Oil. 20 April 2010. Page s: 39.

27. High Mesa Consulting Group. Email correspondence for High Mesa Consulting Group to Mr. Sanders, Operations Manager - Albuquerque, Geomechanics Southwest, Inc. Subject: Roswell, NM Monitoring Well Locations. 17 August 2011. Attachment: Monitoring We ll Locations

Roswell, New Mexico. Pages: 8.

28. EPA Region 6 Laboratory. 2014. Final Analytical Report. Lea and West Second. Project # 14SF081. 15 May 2014. Pages: 73.

29. EPA Region 6 Laboratory. 2009. Final Analytical Report. Parks UST Site. Project # 09SF251. 23 July 2009. Pages: 48.

30. NMED. 2010. Site Inspection Report, West Second Street and North Montana Avenue, Roswell, Chaves County, New Mexico. August 2010. Pages: 47.

31. Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc. (Atkins). 1992. On

- Site Investigation, UST Site – Parks Department. East Alameda Street and Grand Avenue, Roswell, New Mexico. 1 May 1992. Pages: 4.

32. NMED. 2013. Site Inspection Report, Parks UST, Roswell, Chaves County, New Mexico. September 2013. Pages: 60.

33. NMED. 2008. NMED PST Bureau Site Sum mary. Roswell Park Department Yard. 18 September 2008. Pages: 2.

34. Atkins. 2004. Phase II Voluntary Remediation Program Final Report. Tastee Freez, 1303 West Second Street, Roswell, New Mexico. November 2004. Pages: 56.

35. NMED. 2010. Site Inspection Work Plan, Lea and West Second, Roswell, Chaves County, New Mexico. 25 January 2010. Excerpt. Pages: 4.

36. NMED. 2009. Site Inspection Work Plan, North Main and 9 th 

### Street, Roswell, Chaves County, New Mexico. 27 April 2009. Excerpt. Pages: 3.

37. NMED. 2014. Site Reassessment Work Plan, Lea and West Second, Roswell, Chaves County, New Mexico. 26 March 2014. Excerpt. Pages: 6.

38. NMED. 2011. Roswell Site Inspection Sites Well Info. Water Level Field Data Log Sheets. Recorded on 25, 26 April and 7, 8 September 2011. Pages: 7.HRS Documentation Record 

### 7 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 39. Atkins. 2012. Correspondence fr om Jessica Atkins, Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc. Mr. Garman, Department Ground Water Quality Bureau. Subject: Well Records Search and Mapping for the East Second Street Area of Interest. 21 June 2012. Exce rpts. Pages: 6.

40. WESTON. 2015. Project Note to File. Subject: Lea and West Second. Task Description: Methodology and Source Data to create Reference 40 Data Sheet. W.O. No. 20406.012.019.0927.0121 June 10, 2015. Attachment: NMED Drinking Water Bureau Wa ter System Details. Pages: 6. https://dww.water.net.env.nm.gov/DWW/

.

41. NMED. 2012. Drinking Water Bureau. Sanitary Survey Report, Roswell Municipal Water System, WSS # 202- 03. 13 -14 March 2012. Pages: 20.

42. United States Census Bureau. 2012. State & County Quick Fact Sheet, Roswell (city), New Mexico. Accessed on 27 March 2015. P ages : 2

. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35/3564930.html

.

43. Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory , Inc . 2014. Correspondence from Sarah Edwards, Hall E nvironmental Analysis Laboratory

, to Ste p hanie Stringer, NMED Drinking Water SF. Subject: City Well 18 Analytical Report. 28 March 2014. Attachment: Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc. Analytical Report. Pages: 19.

44. Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory. 2013. Correspondence from Sarah Edwards, Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory

, to Danielle Shuryn, NMED Drinking Water SF. Subject: City Well 15 Analytical Report. 30 July 2013. Attachment: Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc. A nalytical Report. Pages: 6.

45. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2014. Semi

- Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Allsup’s 289. PSTB Facility #1466. July 2014. Pages: 80.

46. University of Minnesota. Biocatalysis/Biodegradation Database, Tetrachloroethene Pathway Map (Anaerobic). Accessed 20 March 2015. Pages: 2. http://eawag

bbd.ethz.ch/tce2/tce2_map.html

.

47. WESTON. 2015. Project Note to File. Subject: Lea and West Second. Task Description: Calculating N umber of D omestic P rivate W ells in E ach Target Distance Limit ( TDL ) . W.O. No. 20406.012.019.0927.01. 23 March 2015. Attachment: Number of Wells within Target Distance Limits. Pages: 77.

48. WESTON. 2015. Phone Conversation Record. Conversation with Roger Buckley , Water Production Superintendent with City of Roswell, call originated by Michelle Brown, WESTON. Subject: Drinking Water Wells that Supply City of Roswell and Estimated Populations. 26 March 2015. Pages: 1.

49. USGS. 1995. Ground Water Atlas of the United States. HA 730

- C. Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah. Published in 1995. Excerpts. Pages 21, 23, and 24 modified with site l ocation text by M. Brown with Weston Solutions, Inc. Pages: 26. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/gwa.html

.HRS Documentation Record 

### 8 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 50. New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. 1982. WRRI Report No. 142. The Carbonate Aquif er of the Central Roswell Basin : Recharge Estimation by Numerical Modeling. February 1982. Pages: 9.

51. New Mexico Environment Department. Title 20 Environmental Protection, Chapter 7 Wastewater and Water Supply Facilities, Part 10 Drinking Water. 6 January 2013. Pages: 15.

52. Atkins. 1999

. On

- Site Investigation MSA, Sonic Drive In 1209 West Second, Roswell, New Mexico . Prepared by Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc. November 1999. Excerpts. Pages: 8.

53. Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance Inc. (HSLA)

. Per chloroethylene White Paper. November 1999. Pages: 7.

54. NMED. 2015. Memorandum to Brenda Cook, EPA, from Mark Garman, NMED GWQB Superfund Oversight Section. Subject: Reference 54 of Lea and West 2 nd 

### Street Site NPL Package. Attachment: Roswell Wells Sam pled by NMED: Well Locations, Well Depths and Screened Intervals . July 23, 2015. Pages: 69.

55. WESTON. 2015. Project Note to File. Subject: Lea and West Second

. Task Desc ription: Sample Quantitation Limit (SQL) Calculation. W.O. NO. 20406.012.019.0927.01. 31 March 2015. Pages: 1.

56. Columbia Analytical Services. 2009. Email Correspondence from Columbia Analytical Services to Mark Garman, New Mexico Environment Dept., GWIB. Subject: West 2 nd 

### and Montana/C572139 Analytical Report. 27 August 2009. Pages: 52.

57. NMED. Isoconcentration Map of Chlorinated Plumes in Roswell, New Mexico. April 2015. Pages: 5.

58. EPA. 2015. Toxics Release Inventory Program. TRI Explorer. Release Reports – Release Chemical Report. http://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_release.chemical . TRI Explorer search conducted for area code 88202. 2013 Dataset released March 2015. Pages: 4.

59. EPA. 2015. EnviroMapper for Envirofacts database. Site accessed and spreadsheet dow nloaded 10 June 2015. Pages: 5. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2_v2.get_list?facility_uin=110001553729

.

60. WESTON. 2015. Project Note to File. Subject: Lea and West Second. Task Description: Irrigation Wells within Target Distance Limit ( TDL ) . W.O. NO. 20406.012.019.0927.01. 6 July 2015. Attachment: Irrigation Wells within the Target Distance Limit (TDL). Pages: 96.

61. United States Census Bureau. 2014. Fact Sheet, Chaves County, New Mexico. Accessed on 25 June 2015. Pages: 2. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35/35005.html

.HRS Documentation Record 

### 9 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 62. Geological Survey ( United States Department of the Inter ior)

. 1938. Geology and Shallow

Water Resources of the Roswell Artesian Basin, New Mexico by Arthur M. Morgan. 1938. Excerpts. Pages: 9

63. Geological Survey ( United States Department of the Interior )

. 1983. Geohydrologic Framework of the Roswell Ground- Wat er Basin, Chaves and Eddy Counties, New Mexico by G.E. Welder. Excerpts. 1983. Pages: 30

.

64. CH2MHill. 2008. McGaffey and Main Ground Water Plume Remedial Investigation. Roswell, New Mexico CERCLIS No. NMED000605386. April 2008. Excerpts. Pages: 14.

65. EPA. 2001. McGaffey and Main Groundwater Plume HRS Documentation Record. 30 May 2001. Excerpts. Pages: 24.

66. WESTON. 2015. Project Note to File. Subject: Lea and West Second. Task Description: Private Well Personal Information. W.O. NO. 20406.012.019.0927.01. 7 August 2015. P ages: 1.

67. EPA. 2015. Drinking Water Contaminants. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Accessed 10 August 2015. Pages: 7. http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm#List

.

68. NMED. 2015 . Memorandum to Brenda Cook

, EPA , from Mark Garman

, NMED GWQB Superfund Oversight Section. Regarding : Well Use for Private Well AWS -55 . 6 August 2015 . Pages: 1.

69. Chamber of Commerce. 2015. Thunderbird Fence Supply in Roswell, NM 88201. Accessed 7 August 2015. Pages: 2. https://www.chamberofcommerce.com/roswell -nm/4494666- thunderbird- fence -supply

.

70. WESTON. 2015. Project Note to F ile. Subject: Lea and West Second. Task Description: City of Roswell City Boundary. W.O. NO. 20406.012.019.0927.01. 11 August 2015. P ages: 3.HRS Documentation Record 

### 10 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### SITE SUMMARY

Lea and West Second Street is a group listing which contains four separate sites being e valuated for the release of hazardous substances to ground water predominantly from historical dry cleaning operations within the C ity of Roswell

, Chaves County, New Mexico (Ref. 3, p. 1 ; Ref. 4, p. 2 ). These sites each have sources and /or associated conta minated ground water associated with them , and they aggregate near the intersection of Lea Street and West Second Street in an area of commercial and residential use near the center of downtown Roswell as shown in Attachment A -2 of this HRS documentation r ecord (Ref. 3, p. 1 ; Ref. 4 , p. 2 ).

To simplify the scoring of these sites

, this HRS Documentation Record presents an HRS evaluation of the grouping of the four sites : Denio’s (also known as the Lea and West Second Street Site)

, 507 East Second Street

, West Second and Montana (also known as West Second Street and North Montana Avenue) , and Parks Underground S torage T ank (UST)

. These sites contain sources that have contained hazardous substances that have r eleased into the ground water and were chosen as the primary sources for this HRS based on high concentrations of the contaminants of concern originating from these locations (Ref. 57, pp. 1-5) . In addition, to demonstrate that each of these sites qualify for the National Priorities List ( NPL ) individu ally

, with an HRS sc o re above 2 8.50, an HRS evaluation of each, including separate observed release s, is presented in Attachments B through E of this HRS documentation record.

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has been the primary agency involved in the investigation of the ground water plume resulting from the operations occurring at the sites

. Site 1 ( which includes Source 1) is called Denio’s and consists of soil contaminated with tetrachloroethylene (PCE) (also known as t etrachloroethe ne) ( Ref. 8, p. 5) and an associated ground water plume contaminated with trichloroethene ( TCE ) (also known as t richloroethylene ), PCE , and cis -1,2- dichloroethene ( cis -1,2- DCE) (also known as cis -1,2-d ichloroethylene ) . The contamination is associated with drainage of wastes from dry cleaning operations which had been occurring on the property since 1931 (Ref. 7, p. 12; Ref. 8, p. 8). The contamination has entered the ground water and created a plume associated with the release into the Roswell Basin Aquif er (Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record ). The NMED discovered the ground water contamination associated with the Denio ’ s property (Source 1 ) in 2006 and 2007 from monitoring wells sampled during Leaking Underground Storage Tan k ( LUST ) investiga tion s of the Allsups and Sawey Gulf Petroleum facilit ies (Ref. 7, p. 12).

Site 2 ( which includes Source 2 ) is called 507 East Second Street and consists of leakage from a private sewer line contaminated with PCE, TCE, and cis -1,2- DCE (Ref. 5, pp. 14, 31, 67) and an associated ground water plume contaminated with PCE and TCE. The subject property has historically been the location of a machine shop between 1930 and 1955, a dry cleaner between 2007 and 2011, and a lawn mower service and repair shop between 2007 and 2011 ( R ef. 5, p. 6). The contamination within the private sewage line is associated with drainage of wastes from former dry cleaning operations (Ref. 5, pp. 7, 8). The contamination has entered the ground water and created a plume associated with the release into the Roswell Basin Aquifer (Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record ). Site 2 is located approximately 0.8 miles due east of Site 1 , and was discovered during a 30 December 2011 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conduc ted as part of a property transfer of a former dry cleaner property (Ref. 5, p. 5; Attachment A -2 of this HRS documentation record ) . A Phase 2 ESA and Vapor Encroachment Screen report was issued for Site 2 on February 3, 2012 (Ref. 5, p. 1) . PCE was detect ed in seven soil samples and two ground water grab samples collect ed at the site in January 2012 (Ref. 7, pp. 9,HRS Documentation Record 

### 11 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 14).

Site 3 ( which includes Source 3) is called West Second and Montana and consists of an in -ground separator tank connected to the sanitary sewer system and contaminated with PCE, TCE, cis

- DCE, and
trans -1,2- dichloroethene (trans -1,2- DCE ) (also known as trans -1,2-d ichloroethylene ) (Ref. 16, p. 9; Ref. 22, p. 49, 50, 51; Ref. 30, p. 4) and an associated ground water plume contaminated with the same hazardous substances

. The contamination within the in

- ground separator tank is associated with drainage of wastes from former dry cleaning operations (Ref. 30, p. 10). The contamination has entered the ground water and created a plume associated wit h the release into the Roswell Basin Aquifer (Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record ). In 200 8

, Site 3 was discovered by the NMED Superfund Oversight Section ( SOS ) during a s ite i nspection ( SI ) (Ref. 30, p p . 5 , 7 ). Two dry cleaning businesses operated from 1985 through 2001 at the source location (Ref. 30, p. 6)

. Chlorinated solvent contamination has been detected in ground water samples from source monitoring wells at two adjacent properties on the northeast corner of the intersection of West Second Street and North Montana Avenue (Ref. 30, pp. 5, 6 ).

Site 4 ( which includes Source 4) is called Parks UST and consists of a ground water plume contaminated with PCE and TCE with no identified source (Ref. 32, pp. 8, 9; Section 2.4.1 of this HRS docum entation record ). Contamination normally associated with dry cleaning operations has been found in the ground water at this site, but efforts to identify a source have been unsuccessful. In 2005, Site 4 was discovered when a change in analysis being cond ucted in association with a LUST investigation, detected PCE and TCE (Ref. 32, p. 8). As part of the June 2009 Preliminary Assessment (PA), NMED SOS reviewed data to evaluate the distribution of chlorinated solvent contamination in ground water in the vic inity of the Park’s property in an effort to identify potential source areas of chlorinated solvents. At that time, ground water samples from 5 out of 16 LUST sites within a 0.5

- mile radius of the property (with full volatile organic compound ( VOC ) analysi s) exhibited PCE and/or TCE contamination (Ref. 32, p. 8).

Although sampling data currently available indicates that the sites (sources and releases) may not overlap, the potentially threatened target populations significantly overlap

. Therefore, the ris k to the population from the combined releases is sufficient to warrant a single listing. To illustrate this, the g round water data collected from the four Roswell Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ( CERCLA ) SI sites from 2009 through 2011 and the 2014 C ERCLA Sit e Reassessment ( SR )

were used to generate composite isoconcentration maps to aid in data interpretation (Ref. 7, pp. 59 -61 , 66

- 68 ; Ref. 57, pp. 1 -5) . The maps indicate that chlorinated solvent contamination from Si te 3 (the farthest
western

- source location) has migrated south east toward Site 4 (the fa rthest southe astern source location) and east

- northeast towards Site 2, such that the chlorinated solvent plume s are either comingling or likely to comingle (Ref. 7, pp. 22, 23, 26 ; Ref. 57 ; Attachment A -4 of this HRS documentation record )

. This data interpretation uses modeling software to show contamination throughout the alluvial ground water and artesian aquifer as a plume that extends for approximately 2 miles in a n easterly direction ( Ref. 57; Attachment s A-5 and A-6 of this HRS documentation record ).

The two drinking water aquifers which underlie all the sites are combined into one hydrogeological unit for HRS purposes and their interconnection is described in Section 3.0

. 1 of this HRS documentation record

. The se two aquifers form the Roswell Basin Aquifer System and include the shallow ground water alluvial aquifer and an underlying artesian aquifer.

Contamination associated with the four sources which contai ned PCE (and often daughter products TCE, cis -1,2- DCE, and trans -1,2- DCE) is documented by the chemical analyses of soil samples collected fromHRS Documentation Record 

### 12 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### direct

- push method borings and ground water samples collected from monitoring wells during the NMED SIs conducte d at Site 1

, Site 3 , and Site 4 , as well as Phase II sampling at Site 2 (Ref. 5; Ref. 7; Ref. 30; Ref. 32 ; see S ections 2.4.1 for Sources 1 through 4 and S ection 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record ). Multiple observed release s of PCE (and daughter produ cts) to a shallow aquifer, which is interconnected
to a deeper drinking water aquifer is also documented by the chemical analyses of ground water samples collected from monitoring wells and domestic wells located on or near each site (Ref. 5; Ref. 7; Ref. 30; Ref. 32 ; Section s 3.0.1 and 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record ) . Drinking water within the each site’s 4- mile radius is obtained from public supply wells and private wells screened in the Roswell Basin Aquifer System ( which includes the shallow ground water and artesian aquifer) , which is the aquifer being evaluated ( Ref. 47, pp. 1 -28; Ref. 48, p. 1; Attachment A

- 4 of this HRS documentation record ) . In addition, several wellhead protection areas exist within the 4- mile target distance limit s for eac h individual site ( Ref. 51, p. 7 ; Attachment A -3 of this HRS documentation record).HRS Documentation Record 

### 13 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE

S S 2



### 1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (S gw 

### ) 100 10,000 (from Table 3 -1, line 13)

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

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

2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (S sw 

### ) NS NS (Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score)

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (S s 

### ) NS NS (from Table 5 -1, line 22)

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (S a 

### ) NS NS (from Table 6 -1, line 12)

5. Total of S gw 2 

### + S sw 2 

### + S s 2 

### + S a 2 

### 10,000 HRS Site Score: Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root. 50.00

Notes :

S Score S 2 Score squared NS Not scored

Table 3- 1, refer s to score sheets presented in the HRS Rule (Ref. 1). Table 3- 1 is reproduced o n the following page of this HRS documentation record for the convenience of the reader.HRS Documentation Record 

### 14 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### HRS Table 3 -1 – Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet

Factor Categories and Factors Maximum
Value Value Assigned
Like lihood of Release to an Aquifer:

1. Obs erved Release 550 550

2. Potential to Release:

2a. Containment 10 Not Evaluated
2b. Net Precipitation 10 Not Evaluated
2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 Not Evaluated
2d. Travel Time 35 Not Evaluated
2e. Potential to Release [lines 2a x (2b + 2c + 2d)] 500 Not Evaluated
3. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2e) 550 550
Waste Characteristics:
4. To xicity / Mobility (a) 1 ,000
5. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 10 0
6. Waste Characteristics 100 18 Targets : 7. Nearest Well 50 45
8. Population:
8a. Level I Concentrations (b) 0
8b. Level II Concentrations (b) 4
8c. Potential Contamination (b) 1,361 8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b) 1,3 6 5
9. Resources 5 5
10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 5
11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 1,4 20 Ground Water Migration Score For An Aquifer:
12. Aq uifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11) ÷ 82,500] (c) 100 100 Ground Water Migration Pathway Score:
13. Pathway Score (S gw ), (highest value from line 1 2 for all aquifers evaluated) c 100 100

(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. (b) Maximum value not applicable. (c) Do not round to nearest integer

.Source Characterization - Source 1

HRS Documentation Record 

### 15 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### SOURCE 1: SOURCE DESCRIPTION

2.2 Source Characterization

2.2.1 Source Identifica tion

Source Description: Source 1 - Denio’s

Source Type : Contaminated Soil

Source 1 is the contaminated soil that result ed from dry cleaner operations that have been occurring on the property located at 514 West 2 nd 

### Street since 1931. The dry cleaning operations that have occurred under different names and owners since 1931 include: from 1931 to 1952, Adams Cleaners operated on the property; from 1949 to 1973, Vogue Cleaners was in operation; from 1980 to 2001 One -Hour Martinizing was in operation; De nio’s Cleaners was operating from 2001 to 2009; and All American Cleaners has been operating since 2009 (Ref. 7, p. 12; Ref. 8, p p. 4, 8). The area of Source 1
encompasses contaminated soil adjacent to a single building, which encompasses the addresses bet ween 510 and 514 West Second Street. These addresses are part of a single building (Ref. 8, pp. 4, 11).

A PCE release on the property at the 510 and 514 West 2nd Street building is documented due to the detection of PCE contamination within vadose zone s oils (Ref. 8 , pp. 2-4 ; Section 2.4.1 of this HRS documentation record) and, as such, the source type for Source 1 is “contaminated soil ” (Ref. 1, Table 2- 5).

Location of Source

Source 1 is located on the south side of a building that includes addresses 510 and 514 West Second Street, on the southeast corner of Missouri Avenue and West Second Street (See Attachment A -2 of this HRS documentation record) (Ref. 8, pp. 4, 11).

Source Containment

A PCE release on the property is documented due to the detecti on of PCE contamination within vadose zone soils (Ref. 7, p. 16). No liner was present and native soil contained contamination. Surface and sub surface soil samples collected from four boreholes at Source 1 , as well as a waste sample from Denio’s operatio ns have revealed the presence of PCE (Ref. 8, pp. 5, 9, 15 -20 ). Evidence of migration from the contaminated soil to the ground water is shown through the sampling conducted during the Phase II sampling event in 2008 and discussed in Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record

. Ground water samples SB

- 2 and SB

- 4 collected from the source area document the presence of PCE and TCE (Ref. 8, p. 8; Ref. 9, pp. 32, 74 ; Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record ). In addition, TCE is a degradation product of PCE (Ref. 46, p. 1 ).

A containment value of 10 was selected for Source 1 – Contaminated Soil based on the evidence of hazardous substance migration to the vadose zone soils and the absence of a liner (Ref. 1, Table 3- 2).

Containment Value: 10Source Characterization - Source 1

HRS Documentation Record 

### 16 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 2.4.1 Hazardous Substances

Dry cleaning machines historically have had leaks, spills and discharges associated with their operation. Most discharges have been associated with dry cleaning equipment failure, followed by machine operation, solvent transfer or st orage, machine maintenance, and discharges of dry cleaning wastes (Ref. 6, p. 2).

Historically, some dry cleaners have discarded wastes by pouring wastewater into sewers or dumping wastewater on the ground near facilities (Ref. 11, p. 1). PCE released to soil is subject to leaching to the ground water. PCE is expected to exhibit low

- to

- medium mobility in soil and leach slowly to the ground water (Ref. 10, p. 2). PCE can persist for decades and travel in plumes with the ground water flow (Ref. 11, p. 1).

In August 2008, in response to a NMED abatement plan request, a Phase II ESA was conducted and samples of waste generated by the Denio’s Cleaners operation, as well as soil samples were collected and analyzed for volatiles per USEPA Method 8260B (Ref. 8, p. 4; Ref. 9, pp. 8, 74, 75) . Four soil borings (SB

- 1 through SB

- 4) were advanced to ground water along the private sewer line that runs from west to east along the south side of the building and from the drain located near the dry cleaning machine and P CE storage tank (SB-2) to the city sewer connection (Ref. 8, p. 5).

Although not required by the HRS, in order to establish relative concentrations for surrounding soils, the sample point furthest from the point of release was used for comparison purpos es. SB

- 4 was located approximately 60 feet east of the point of release (SB

- 2) on the southeast corner of the facility building (Ref. 8, pp. 5, 7, 12).

Source 1 samples were collected during the same event, from similar depths, and analyzed using the

s ame analytical method as the background sample. The sample s had the same physic al characteristics, and sampling and handling methods were all similar (Ref. 8, pp. 5, 15-21; Ref. 9, pp. 74-75).

Summarized below are the background sample results.

Soil

Ha zardous Substance Evidence

References Client Sample ID PQL * (mg/kg) Concentration (mg/kg)
Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 4 (2 -4’) 0.050 ND Ref. 9, pp. 44, 75 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 4 (6

- 8’) 0.050 0.11 Ref. 9, pp. 46, 75 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 4 (10

- 12’ ) 0.050 ND Ref. 9, pp. 48, 75 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 4 (14

- 16’) 0.050 0.069 Ref. 9, pp. 50, 75 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 4 (16

- 18 ’ ) 0.050 ND Ref. 9, pp. 52, 75

Note: mg/kg – milligram s per kilogram ND – Not detected at the reporting limit (Ref. 9, pp. 44, 48, 52) PQL – Practical Quantitation Limit (Ref. 55) * - The Practical Quantitation Limit is equal to the Sample Quantitation Limit ( SQL ) and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 55 ).Source Characterization - Source 1

HRS Documentation Record 

### 17 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Summarized i n the following tables is analytical evidence of the contamination in samples associated with Source 1.

Hazardous Substances Associated With Source 1

Soil

Hazardous Substance Evidence

References Station Location No. PQL * (mg/kg) Concentration (mg/kg)
Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 1 (0

- 2’) 0.050 0.44 Ref. 9, pp. 14, 74 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 1 (16

- 18’) 0.050 4.4 Ref. 9, pp. 20, 74 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 2 (4

- 6’) 0.050 1.8 Ref. 9, pp. 22, 74 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 2 (6- 8’) 0.050 1.3 Ref. 9, pp. 24, 74
Te trachloroethylene SB

- 2(10

- 12’) 0.50 7.4 Ref. 9, pp. 26, 74 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 2 (14

- 16’) 0.50 11 Ref. 9, pp. 28, 74 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 2 (16

- 18’) 0.050 1.6 Ref. 9, pp. 30, 74 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 3 (2

- 4’) 0.050 0.46 Ref. 9, pp. 34, 75
Tetrach loroethylene SB

- 3 (10

- 12’) 0.050 1.9 Ref. 9, pp. 38, 75 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 3 (14

- 16’) 0.050 3.0 Ref. 9, pp. 40, 75 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 3 (16

- 18’) 0.50 11 Ref. 9, pp. 42, 75

Note: mg/kg – milligram s per kilogram PQL – Practical Quantitation L imit (Ref. 55) * - The Practical Quantitation Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 55)

. 

### Additional supporting analytical evidence of the presence of PCE at the propert y is provided in the table below . Two samples were collected on August 5, 2008 of waste generated by the Denio’s Cleaners operation, which were composited into one sample (Ref. 8, pp. 4, 5).

Waste

Hazardous Substance Evidence

References Client Sampl e ID PQL * (mg/kg) Concentration (mg/kg)
Tetrachloroethylene Still BTMS Composite 12,000 880,000 Ref. 9, pp. 4, 8

Note: mg/kg – milligram per kilogram PQL – Practical Quantitation Limit (Ref. 55) * - The Practical Quantitation Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS (Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 55).Source Characterization - Source 1

HRS Documentation Record 

### 18 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1.1 Tier A: Hazardous Constituent Quantity – Not Evaluated (NE)

The total Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 1 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that i s, the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [ Ref. 1, pp. 51590

- 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.1)]. Insufficient historical and current data [manifes ts, potentially responsible party (PRP) records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, etc.] are available to adequately calculate the total mass, or a partial estimate, of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to calculate a total or partial Hazardous Constituent Quantity estimate for Source No. 1 with reasonable confidence.

2.4.2.1.2 Tier B: Hazardous Wastestream Quantity – Not Evaluated (NE)

The total Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 1 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass, or a partial estimate, of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and contaminants for the sou rce and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [ Ref. 1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.2)]. Insufficient historical and current data (manifests, PRP records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, annual reports, etc.) are available to adequately calculate the total mass, or a partial estimate, of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and contaminants for the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficien t information to adequately calculate or extrapolate a total or partial Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 1 with reasonable confidence.

2.4.2.1.3 Tier C: Volume

Samples demonstrating contamination were collected within an area 40 feet (ft) l ong, 18 ft deep and from a 2 inch (0.17 ft) diameter boring (Ref. 8, pp. 5, 12, 15

- 21). Therefore, the total volume of known contaminated soil is 40 ft x 18 ft x 0.17 ft or 122.4 cubic ft (ft 3 

### ). To convert this number to cubic yards (yd 3 

### ) equals 122.4 ft 3 

### times 0.037037 ft 3 

### to 1 yd 3 

### or 4.53 yd 3 

### . The Tier C equation for assigning a value for volume of Contaminated Soil is V/2,500 (Ref. 1, Table 2- 5).

Volume of Source 1 (yd 3 

### ): 4.53 Volume Assigned Value: 4.53 yd 3 

### /2,500 Volume Assigned Value: 0.001812

2.4.2.1.4 Tier D: Area

Because information was available to adequately determine the volume of Source 1, the area for this source was not used (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.3). Therefore, 0 is the area assigned value for Tier D ( Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.).

Are a Assigned Value = 0Source Characterization - Source 1

HRS Documentation Record 

### 19 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

Per the HRS, the highest of the values assigned to the source for hazardous constituent quantity (Tier A), hazardous wastestream quantity (Tier B), volume (Tier C), and area (Tier D) sh ould be assigned as the source hazardous waste quantity value (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.5).

Tier Evaluated Source 1 Values
A Not Evaluated
B Not Evaluated
C 0.0018 1 2
D 0



### Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 0.001812Source Characterization - Source 2

HRS Documentation Record 

### 20 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### SOURCE 2: SOURCE DESCRIPTION

2.2 Source Characterization

2.2.1 Source Identification

Source Description: Source 2– Private Sewer Line ( underground pipeline)

Source Type: Other

The 507 East 2nd Street source (Source 2)

, located approximately 0.8 miles due east of Source 1 , was di scovered during a December 30, 2011 Phase 1 ESA , conducted as part of a property transfer of a former dry cleaner property. A Phase 2 ESA and Vapor Encroachment Screen report was issued for the 507 East 2nd Street property on 3 February 2012 . PCE was detected in seven soil samples collected at the site in January 2012, at a maximum concentration of 540 mg/kg (Ref. 5, p. 4; Ref. 7, p. 14).

The private sewer line (underground pipeline) which led to contaminated soil is the result of operations by a machine shop between 1930 and 1955, a dry cleaners between 1966 and 1986, or by a lawn mower service and repair shop between 2007 and 2011 (Ref.5, pp. 4, 6).

PCE, trichloroethylene and cis -1,2- DCE were found in concentrations exceeding regulatory limits in soil located along the private sewer line (Source 2) ( Ref. 5 , p. 10 ) and

, as such, the source type for Source 2 is “ Other ” (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 5).

Location of Source

Source 2 is a pipeline that runs about 10 feet due north from where it exists 507 East Second S treet , and connects with the public sewer line (Ref. 5, p., 4)

. 507 East Second Street is associated with a building that historically contained tenants that were assigned address designations 505, 507, 509, and 511 East Second Street (Ref. 5, p. 5).

Source Containment

Surface and s ubsurface soil samples collected from the two boreholes at Source 2 have revealed the presence of PCE

. The fact that PCE was found in the soil in both boreholes at each depth interval also presents an argument that this contamination originated from at least one facility that operated on the subject property (Ref. 5, p. 10)

. There is no evidence of a liner (Ref. 5, pp. 17, 18) and the native soil adjacent to Source 2 is contaminated. Evidence of migration from the private sewer line to native contaminated soil and then to the ground water is shown through the observed release sampling conducted during Phase II sampling in 2012 and discussed in Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record . In addition, degradation produ cts of PCE have also been detected, such as TCE and cis -1,2- DCE ( Ref. 5, p. 10; Ref. 46, pp. 1-2 ).Source Characterization - Source 2

HRS Documentation Record 

### 21 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### A containment value of 10 was selected for Source 2 – Private Sewer Line (underground pipeline) based on the evidence of hazardous substance migration to the vadose zone soils and the absence of a liner (Ref. 1, Table 3- 2).

Containment Value: 10

2.4.1 Hazardous Substances

Dry cleaning machines historically have had leaks, spills, and discharges associated with their operation. Most discharges have been associated with dry cleaning equipment failure, followed by machine operation, solvent transfer or storage, machine maintenance, and discharges of dry cleaning wastes (Ref. 6, p. 2). In addition, m etal cleaning and degreasing operations typically performed in machine and repair shops have also been identified as sources of releases of PCE to the environment (Ref. 10, p. 1; Ref. 12, p. 9).

Historically, some dry cleaners have discarded wastes by pouring wastewater into sewers, or dumping wastewater on the g round near facilities (Ref. 11, p. 1). PCE released to soil is subject to leaching to the ground water. PCE is expected to exhibit low

- to

- medium mobility in soil and leach slowly to the ground water (Ref. 10, p. 2). PCE can persist for decades and travel in plumes with the ground water flow (Ref. 11, p. 1).

In August 2008, in response to a NMED abatement plan request, a Phase II ESA was conducted at the property located at 514 West Second Street in Roswell, NM, with soil samples collected and analyzed f or volatiles per USEPA Method 8260B (Ref. 8, p. 4; Ref. 9, p. 75). Four soil borings were advanced to ground water along the private sewer line that runs from west to east along the south side of the building and from the drain located near the dry cleaning machine and PCE storage tank (SB

- 2) to the city sewer connection (Ref. 8, p. 5).

Although not required by the HRS, to establish relative background concentrations for surrounding soils, the sample point (SB

- 4) used for Source 1 to establish a background level was also used for comparison purposes here

. Sample SB

- 4 was located approximately 60 feet east of the point of release (SB

- 2) on the southeast corner of the facility building located at 514 West Second Street (Source 1) (Ref. 8, pp. 5, 7, 12 ; Attachment A

- 2 of this HRS documentation record ). The background sample and Source 2 samples were collected from similar depths, analyzed with the same method, and had simila r soil characteristics (Ref. 5, pp. 8, 17, 18; Ref. 8, p. 5, 20; Ref. 9, p. 75).

Summarized in the following table are the background sample results associated with SB -4.

Soil

Hazardous Substance ** Evidence

References Client Sample ID PQL* (mg/kg) Concentration (mg/kg)
Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 4 (2

- 4’) 0.050 ND Ref. 9, pp. 44, 75 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 4 (6

- 8’) 0.050 0.11 Ref. 9, pp. 46, 75 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 4 (10

- 12’) 0.050 ND Ref. 9, pp. 48, 75 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 4 (14

- 16’) 0.050 0.069 Ref. 9, pp. 50, 75Source Characterization - Source 2

HRS Documentation Record 

### 22 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 Hazardous Substance ** Evidence

References Client Sample ID PQL* (mg/kg) Concentration (mg/kg)
Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 4 (16

- 18’) 0.050 ND Ref. 9, pp. 52, 75
Note: mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram ND – Not detected at the reporting limit (Ref. 9, pp. 44, 48, 52) PQL – Practical Quantitation Limit (Ref. 55) * - The Practical Quantitation Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and diluti ons as defined in the HRS (Ref. 55). **TCE and cis

- 1,2

- DCE were not detected at the reporting limit of 0.050 mg/kg (Ref. 9, pp. 43

- 52).


### In January 2012, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted at the property located at 507 East Second Street . During the Phase II ESA two soil borings were installed at Source 2 . One just outside the building near an interior drain used by the dry cleaning business that operated on the property (SB

- 1), and the other next to the City of Roswell sewer line that intersected Source 2 (SB

- 2) (Ref. 5, pp. 7, 8 ; Attachment A

- 2 of this HRS documentation record ). Soil, and soil gas samples were collected from each boring and analyzed for volatiles per USEPA Method 8260B (Ref. 5, p. 8). S oil samples were coll ected at intervals of 0 – 4 feet, 8 – 12 feet, and 12 – 16 feet from borehole SB

- 1, and at intervals of 0 – 4 feet, 4 – 8 feet, 8 – 12 feet, and 12 – 16 feet from borehole SB

2 (Ref. 5, p . 8). Summarized in the following tables is analytical evidence of the contamination in samples associated with Source 2. The analytical results for the soil gas samples are provided as additional supporting evidence of the presence of PCE and TCE on the property and are not scored in the HRS evaluation.

Hazardous Subst ances Associated With Source 2

Soil

Hazardous Substance Evidence

References Client Sample ID R L * (mg/kg) Concentration (mg/kg)
Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 1 (0

- 4’) 0.05 3.0 Ref. 5, pp. 14, 22, 67 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 1 (8

- 12’) 0.05 3.1 Ref. 5, pp. 14, 24, 67 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 1 (12

- 16’) 10 540 Ref. 5, pp. 14, 26, 67

Trichloroethylene SB

- 1 (12

- 16’) 1.0 31 Ref. 5, pp. 14, 26, 67 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 2 (0

- 4’) 0.048 1.0 Ref. 5, pp. 14, 31, 67

Trichloroethylene SB

- 2 (0

- 4’) 0.048 0.052 Ref. 5, pp. 14, 31, 67 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 2 (4

- 8’) 0.048 0.11 Ref. 5, pp. 14, 33, 67 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 2 (8

- 12’) 0.048 0.85 Ref. 5, pp. 14, 35, 67 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 2 (12

- 16’) 0.049 0.77 Ref. 5, pp. 14, 37, 67

Trichloroethylene SB

- 2 (12

- 16 ’) 0.049 0.079 Ref. 5, pp. 14, 37, 67

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethylene SB

- 2 (12

- 16’) 0.049 0.35 Ref. 5, pp. 14, 36, 67

Note: mg/kg – milligram s per kilogram RL – Reporting Detection Limit (Ref. 5, pp. 22, 24, 26, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37) * - The Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS (Ref. 55).Source Characterization - Source 2

HRS Documentation Record 

### 23 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Soil Gas

Hazardous Substance Evidence

References Client Sample ID RL (ug/L) Concentration (ug/L)
Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 1 0.10 8.8 Ref. 5, pp. 15, 7 0, 77

Trichloroethylene SB

- 1 0.10 0.14 Ref. 5, pp. 15, 70, 77 Tetrachloroethylene SB

- 2 0.50 10 Ref. 5, pp. 15, 72, 77

Trichloroethylene SB

- 2 0.10 0.56 Ref. 5, pp. 15, 72, 77

Note: ug/L – micrograms per liter RL – Reporting Detection Limit * - The Rep orting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 55 ).



### 2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1.1 Tier A: Hazardous Constituent Quant ity - Not Evaluated (NE)

The total Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 1 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [1, pp. 51590

- 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.1)]. Insufficient historical and current data [manifests, potentially responsible party (PRP) records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, etc.] are available to adequately calculate the total mass, or a partial estimate, of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to calculate a total or partial Haza rdous Constituent Quantity estimate for Source No. 1 with reasonable confidence.

2.4.2.1.2 Tier B: Hazardous Wastestream Quantity - Not Evaluated (NE)

The total Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 1 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass, or a partial estimate, of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and contaminants for the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.2)]. Insufficient historical and current data (manifests, PRP records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, annual reports, etc.) are available to adequately calculate the total mass, or a partial estimate, of all haza rdous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and contaminants for the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to adequately calculate or extrapolate a total or partial Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 1 with reasonable confidence.

2.4.2.1.3 Tier C: Volume

The volume of the private sewer line (underground pipeline) cannot be adequately determined basedSource Characterization - Source 2

HRS Documentation Record 

### 24 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### on the information available . Thus, the volume will be assigned a value of greater than ( >) 0 , but unknown, for Source 2 (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.3). Tier C, Volume (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.3).

Volume Assigned Value: >0, but unknown

2.4.2.1.4 Tier D: Area

Because a volume of greater than 0 , but unknown, was assigne d to Source 2, 0 is the area assigned value for Tier 0 (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.3 ).

Area Assigned Value = 0

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

Per the HRS, the highest of the values assigned to the source for hazardous constituent quantity (Tier A), hazardous wastestream quantity (Tier B), volume (Tier C), and area (Tier D) should be assigned as the source hazardous waste quantity value (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.5).

Tier Evaluated Source 2 Values
A Not Evaluated
B Not Evaluated
C > 0

, but unknown
D 0



### Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: >0 , but unknownSource Characterization - S ource 3

HRS Documentation Record 

### 25 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### SOURCE 3: SOURCE DESCRIPTION

2.2 Source Characterization

2.2.1 Source Identification

Source Description: Source 3 – West Second and Montana

Source Type : Tank

Source 3 is locat ed at 1400 West Second Street where two dry cleaning businesses operated from 1985 through 2001. Sunshine C leaners operated at this location from 1985 through 1993, while Denio’s Sunshine Cleaner’s operated from 1993 through 2001. NMED discovered an in

- gro und concrete separator tank connected to the sanitary sewer system during SI activities in 2009 . S oil contamination was identified during an emergency removal action of the tank and its contents in December 2009 (Ref. 16, p. 9; Ref. 30, pp. 4-5 ).

Source 3 was an in

- ground concrete separator tank measuring approximately 5 ft x 2.5 ft x 3 ft deep, separated into two roughly 2.5 ft chambers (one north chamber and one south chamber) by a center concrete wall with a 3

- to 4

- inch diameter opening in its center. Three influent pipes entered the east wall of the tank from the former dry cleaner tenant space (Ref. 30, p. 10).

The waste contents were kept in an in

- ground concrete tank associated with the former dry cleaning facilities at the property (Ref. 30, p. 7) and, as such, the source type category for Source 3 is “Tanks and Containers Other Than Drums” (Ref. 1, Table 2- 5).

Location of Source

Source 3 was located at 1400 West Second Street and was connected to a tenant space within a shopping center at the southwest corner of the intersection of West Second Street and Montana Avenue . The concrete separator tank was located about 6 feet from the west wall of the building, near the rear door of th e former dry cleaning business (Ref. 30, pp. 4, 10, 37, 40 ).

S ource Containment

Release to Ground Water

Source 3 contained one effluent line that extended to the south wall of the tank and was attached to the main sanitary sewer line of the shopping center building (Ref. 30, p. 10).

Waste sediment from the tank, as well as two soil samples from a hand

- auger sample , and soil samples collected after the removal of the tank have revealed the presence of PCE. In addition, TCE, the degradation product of PCE has also been detected (Ref. 30, pp. 11, 12 ).Source Characterization - S ource 3

HRS Documentation Record 

### 26 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### A containm ent value of 10 was selected for Source 3 – Tank based on the evidence of hazardous substance migration from the tank area (Ref. 1, Table 3- 2).

Containment Value: 10

2.4.1 Hazardous Substances

Dry cleaning machines historically have had leaks, spills and discharges associated with their operation. Most discharges have been associated with dry cleaning equipment failure, followed by machine operation, solvent transfer or storage, machine maintenance, and discharges of dry cleaning wastes (Ref. 6, p. 2).

Historically, some dry cleaners have discarded wastes by pouring wastewater into sewers, or dumping wastewater on the ground near facilities (Ref. 11, p. 1). PCE released to soil is subject to leaching to the ground water. PCE is expected to exhibit lo w- to

- medium mobility in soil and leach slowly to the ground water (Ref. 10, p. 2). PCE can persist for decades and travel in plumes with the ground water flow (Ref. 11, p. 1).

Source 3 sampling was conducted in June 2009 as part of the NMED SOS SI. One waste source sediment sample and a duplicate sample were collected from the bottom of the in

- ground concrete tank by using a shovel, then manually transferring the sediment to sample containers (Ref. 30, p. 11)

. The samples colle cted were analyzed for VOCs by m ethods in the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Statement of Work For Organics Analysis, Multi

- Media, Multi

Concentration (OLM04.2) (Ref. 22 , p. 5 ). Summ arized in the following tables is analytical evidence of the contamination in samples associated with Source 3.

Hazardous Substances Associated With Source 3

Waste Sediment

Hazardous Substance Evidence

References Station ID ** RL (ug/kg) Concentration (ug/kg)
Tetrachloroethylene 1400

- W2

- 11 -S 99,900 6,440,000 Ref. 22, p p . 50, 107

Trichloroethylene 1400

- W2

- 11

- S 9,990 458,000 Ref. 22, p p . 49 , 107
cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1400

- W2

- 11

- S 999 49,200 Ref. 22, p p . 49 , 107

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1400

- W2

- 11

- S 99.9 1,750 Ref. 22, p p . 49 , 107 Tetrachloroethylene 1400

- W2 -1-S 1,000,000 38,300,000 J Ref. 22, p p. 5 2 , 107

Trichloroethylene 1400

- W2

- 1

- S 100,000 965,000 Ref. 22, p p . 51 , 107
cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1400

- W2

- 1

- S 10,000 145,000 Ref. 22, p p . 51 , 107

tran

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1400

- W2 -1-S 100 7,150 Ref. 22, p p . 51, 107
Note: ug/ kg - micrograms per kilogram RL – Reporting Limit J – The identification of the analyte is acceptable; reported value is an estimate (Ref. 22, p. 109), * - The Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 55). ** - Sample 1400

- W2

- 11

- S is a field duplicate of 1400

- W2 -1- S (Ref. 30, p. 11).Source Characterization - S ource 3

HRS Documentation Record 

### 27 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1 Source Hazardous Wa ste Quantity

2.4.2.1.1 Tier A: Hazardous Constituent Quantity - Not Evaluated (NE)

The total Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 3 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all CERCLA hazar dous substances in the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [1, pp. 51590

- 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.1)]. Insufficient historical and current data [manifests, potentially responsible party (PRP) re cords, State records, permits, waste concentration data, etc.] are available to adequately calculate the total mass, or a partial estimate, of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is in sufficient information to calculate a total or partial Hazardous Constituent Quantity estimate for Source No. 1 with reasonable confidence.

2.4.2.1.2 Tier B: Hazardous Wastestream Quantity - Not Evaluated (NE)

The total Hazardous Wastestream Quantity fo r Source No. 3 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass, or a partial estimate, of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and contaminants for the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.2)]. Insufficient historical and current data (manifests, PRP records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, annual reports, etc.) are available to adequately calculate the total mass, or a partial estimate, of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and contaminants for the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to adequately calculate or extrapolate a total or partial Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 1 with reasonable confidence.

2.4.2.1.3 Tier C: Volume

Source 3 is an in

- ground concrete separator tank measuring approximately 5 ft x 2.5 ft x 3 ft deep = 37.5 ft 3 

### (1 ft 3 

### = 0.037037037 yd3) = 1.3889 yd 3 

### (Ref. 30, p. 10). The Tier C equation for assigning a value for Volume (V) of a tank is V/2.5 (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.4). Therefore, Source 3 is assigned a value of 0.55556 for the volume measure. Volume Assigned Value = 0.55556

2.4.2.1.4 Tier D: Area

Tier C , Volume , has already been calculated and is being used in scoring; therefore, the value assigned for Tier D is 0 (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.4).

Area Assigned Value = 0Source Characterization - S ource 3

HRS Documentation Record 

### 28 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

Per the HRS, the highest of the values assigned to the source for hazardous constituent quantity (Tier A), hazardous wastestream quantity (Tier B), volume (Tier C), and area (Tier D) should be assigned as the source hazardous waste quantity value (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.5).

Tier Evaluated Source 3 Values
A Not Evaluated
B Not Evaluated
C 0.55556
D 0



### Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 0.55556Source Characterization - Source 4

HRS Documentation Record 

### 29 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### SOURCE 4: SOURCE DESCRIPTION

2.2 Source Characterization

2.2 Source Characterization

2.2.1 Source Identi fication

Source Description: Source 4 –

Source Type : Other – Ground Water Plume/No Identified Source(s)

Source 4 is characterized as a ground water plume of chlorinated solvents with no identified source(s). Ground water contamination has been detected in monitoring wells at the Source , located at the southeast corner of South Grand Avenue and East Alameda Street in central Roswell, New Mexico

. The former Roswell Parks Department Yard Property, which is located at t his intersection, was reported to the NMED Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau ( PSTB ) as a LUST release in 1991 (Ref. 32, p. 8). A s oil vapor extraction (SVE) system was operated at the property from 1993 through 1997 to remediate petroleum hydrocarbons associated with the LUST. The SVE system wa s decommissioned in 2008. Ground water monitoring has been performed for the LUST release from 1997 to September 2008 (Ref. 33 , p. 2). PCE and TCE were first detected in May 2005 when a change in the analysis performed by the PSTB program was implemented and full EPA Method 8260 analysis was applied to Source ground water samples (Ref. 32, p. 8).

Dry cleaning facilities are considered to be a potential source of the chlorinated solvent contamination because PCE is the primary chlorinated solvent detected a t the property . In an effort to identify potential dry cleaning sources during the PA, NMED SOS conducted a review of the 1955 -1957, 1959- 1964, 1966

- 1971, 1974

- 1976, 1978, 1979, 1981

- 1985, 1987

- 1990, 1993, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003, and 2007 Roswell city business directories. NMED SOS identified a total of 39 dry cleaning businesses that operated from 31 cleaning facilities within a 1

- mile radius of the property (Ref. 32, p. 9). T hree of the nearest dry cleaner locations that are upgradient from the property a re College Cleaners II, Excelsior, and Holiday Drive

- In. College Cleaners II was located approximately one

quarter mile southwest of the ground water plume at 511 South Main Street from 2003 through 2007. It was only in business for a few recent years when the handling and use of PCE has been regulated. Excelsior and Holiday Drive

- In Cleaners were located one

- quarter mile west

- northwest from the ground water plume at 116 South Main Street and 126 South Main Street, respectively. Excelsior operated from 1955 to 1959 and Holiday operated from 1964 to 1976, both prior to the regulation of PCE handling and use (Ref. 32, p. 9). Ground water flow direction is north -northeast and therefore the focus of potential sources was facilities located to the west of the pl ume (Ref. 31, p. 3; Ref. 32, p. 9). The level of effort undertaken to identify the sources of contamination was at the level of expanded site inspection due to the potential co

- mingling of plumes which includes Source 1 and Source 3 loc ated up

- gradient of Source 4. The investigation of Source 4 was conducted as part of an overall assessment which included all sources included in this report.

Chlorinated solvent compounds have been found in the ground water monitoring wells at concentrations above state ground water quality standards, federal drinking water standa rds, or health

based benchmarks (Ref. 32, p. 11).Source Characterization - Source 4

HRS Documentation Record 

### 30 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Source 4 is characterized as a ground water plume of chlorinated solvents with no identified source(s) (Ref. 32, p. 11) and, as such, the source type for Source 4 is “ Other” (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 5).

Location of Source

Source 4 is located south of East Walnut Street and north of West Alameda Street, between South Main Street to the west and South Virginia Avenue t o the east in central Roswell, New Me xico ( Attachment A

- 6 of this HRS documentation record ). The plume is defined by sample Shamrock MW

- 4 to the northwest and sample s Shamrock MW -9 to the east and Shamrock MW

- 10 to the southeast (Attachments A -5 and A-6 of this HRS documentation record ).

S ource Containment

There are no containment features associated with this source as it is a ground water plume. Further, evidence of migration of contaminants associated with the plume to the ground water pathway has been documented in 3 monitoring wells associated with the source area (See Section 3.1.1, Observed Release , of this HRS documentation record ).

Considering that analytical results obtained from ground water samples collected in 2010 revealed the presence of PCE and TCE and that no containmen t features are present to limit the migration of hazardous substances associated with the source, a containment factor value of 10 was assigned to Source 4 (Ref. 1, Table 3- 2).

Containment Value: 10

2.4.1 Hazardous Substances

Source 4 sampling was cond ucted in February 2010 as part of the Roswell CERCLA SI (Ref. 32 , p. 17) . Ground water samples were collected from LUST monitoring wells (Ref. 32, p. 17). The samples collected were analyzed for VOCs by EPA CLP OLM04.2 (Ref. 21 ). Summarized in the followi ng tables is analytical evidence of the contamination in samples associated with Source 4.

Hazardous Substances Associated With Source 4

Background Monitoring Wells

Even though monitoring wells Firestone MW

- 8A, Firestone MW

- 4A, and Shamrock MW

- 8 are loc ated very near the estimated boundaries of the ground water plume, they are considered to be located outside the influence of potential contamination (Attachment s A2, A-5, A-6 of this HRS documentation record ) . Local ground water flow is toward the northe ast which would be away from these wells ( Ref. 31, p p . 3 , 4). Further, since PCE and TCE concentrations were either non

- detect or below the detection limit established by the laboratory

, combined with the fact that PCE and TCE are not naturally occurring substances within the environment, these wells are considered representative of background conditions for the area (Ref. 21, pp. 5, 6, 11, 12, 19, 20 ; Ref. 46, pp. 1, 2; Ref. 53, p. 1).Source Characterization - Source 4

HRS Documentation Record 

### 31 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### As shown in the tables below, the background and release samples ar e similar and their contaminant concentrations can be compared because they were collected during similar sampling event s using similar sampling and analysis procedures and from a similar range of depths. Ground water samples were collected from LUST and CERCLA site monitoring wells using certified clean disposable hand bailers. Each well was purged a minimum of three well casing volumes and/or until field parameters (pH, conductivity, temperature, ORP) stabilized prior to sample collection (Ref. 32, p. 16 ) . Ground water samples for volatile organic compound analysis were collected in 40 ml vials. Samples collected were unpreserved (Ref. 32, p. 16). All samples were stored on ice for delivery to the laboratory. Samples were analyzed by the EPA Region 6 Labo ratory (Ref. 32, p. 16).

Background Monitoring Wells in Alluvial Aquifer Associated with Parks UST

– Source 4

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth (feet bgs) / Screened Interval (feet ) Date (military time) References

Firestone MW

- 8A / 1002017

- 04/ 32.10 / 10 02/15/2010 (1010) Ref. 13, pp. 20, 22; Ref. 21, p p

. 4

, 108, 112, 113; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 Firestone MW

- 4A / 1002017

- 01 35.67 / 10 02/15/2010 (1210) Ref. 13, pp. 20, 23; Ref. 21, p p

. 4 , 108 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7

Shamrock MW

- 8 / 1002017

- 08 23.30 / 10 02/15/2 0 10 (1330) Ref. 13, pp. 20, 23; Ref. 21, p p

. 4 , 108 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7
Notes: b gs – below ground surface



### Background Results – Monitoring Wells in Alluvial Aquifer Associated with Parks UST – Source 4

Station ID/ Laboratory ID H azardous Subst ance Concentration (μg/L) Reporting
Limit * (μg/L) References

Firestone MW

8A / 1002017

- 04 Tetrachloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 12 Trichloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 11

Firestone MW

- 4A / 1002017

- 01 Tetrachloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 6
Trichloroethyle ne 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 5

Shamrock MW

- 8 / 1002017

- 08 Tetrachloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 20
Trichloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 19

Notes: * - Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 21, p. 2; Ref. 55). μg/L - m icrograms per liter U – Undetected (Ref. 21, p. 119).


### For all hazardous substances the background level is 0.5 μg/L.

Release Samples:

Ground water samples identified as “contaminated” are those that meet observed release criteria asSource Characterization - Source 4

HRS Documentation Record 

### 32 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### defined by the HRS (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 3). Observed release criteria is met when analytical evidence of a hazardous substance significantly above background exists and some portion of that increase is attributable to a release from the site. Additional criteria include that the sample concentration exceeds the Sample Quantitation Limit (SQL; including the background SQL) or another HRS

- defined limit, and is at least three times greater than the background concentration when the background concentration equals or exceeds its detection limit (Ref. 1, Table 2 -3 ).

Observed release contamination was found in wells sampled at depths ranging from 20 to 24 feet bgs (Ref. 54, pp. 1

- 5). Depth to water is about 14.26 to 17.65 feet below grade at the Source (Ref. 32, p. 13 ).

G round water sampling locations with levels meeting observed release criteria are presented below and depicted on Attachments A-2, A-5, and A-6 of the HRS documentation record.

February 2010 Monitoring Well Investigation

The second SI sampling event involving the Roswell CERCLA SI sites took place in S pring (February through April) 2010. Ground water samples were collected from 47 LUST site monitoring wells and 3 domestic wells in the geographic vicinity of Lea and West Second Street

, Parks UST, and West S econd and Montana CERCLA sites as part of SI efforts for each site (Ref. 7 , p. 21)

. The wells used to establish observed release from Source 4 are presented below.

February through April 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Wel l Depth/ Screened Interval (feet bgs) Date (military

time) References Shamrock MW

- 4 / 1002017

- 07 22.65/ 10.00 02/15/2010 (0955) Ref. 13, p. 22; Ref. 21, pp. 1

- 4, 108; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 , 4 1 Shamrock MW

- 9 / 1002017

- 09 23.35/ 10.00 02/15/2010 (1253) Ref. 13, p. 23; Ref. 21, pp. 1

- 4, 109; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 , 4 2 Shamrock MW

- 10 / 1002017

- 06 22.03/ 10.00 02/15/2010 (1302) Ref. 13, p. 23; Ref. 21, pp. 1

- 4, 111; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 , 4 3



### February through April 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event – Sample Concentration s

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration (μg/L) Reporting Limit* (μg/L) References Shamrock MW

- 4 / 1002017

- 07 Tetrachloroethylene 0.7 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 18

Shamrock MW

- 9 / 1002017

- 09 Tetrachloroethylene 0.6 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 22

Shamrock MW

- 10 / 1002017

- 06 Tetrachloroethylene 4.7 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 16

Trichloroethene 0.7 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 15

Notes: * - The Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 21, p. 2; Ref. 26, p. 1; Ref. 55). μg/L - micrograms per literSource Characterization - Source 4

HRS Documentation Record 

### 33 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### In addition to the wells shown above, there have been several sampling events that have spanned different dates that indicate other releases to ground water associated with Source 4 . Ground water samples during these sampling events were collected from monitoring wells as shown below.

2009 Monitoring Well Investigation

The first SI sampling event involving the Roswell CERCLA sites took place in June 2009. Ground water samples were col lected from 15 C ERCLA site monitoring wells, 9 direct push borings, and 4 domestic wells in the geographic vicinity of the North Main and 9 th 

### CERCLA site and the Parks UST and West Second and Montana sources (Ref. 7, p. 21).

2009 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth ( feet bgs ) / Screened Interval (feet) Date (military time) References ROW

- A

- 200B

- SStanton / 0906037

- 12 24.00/ not screened 06/16/2009 (1212) Ref. 29, pp. 1

- 4, 46; Ref. 54, pp. 3 3

ROW

- 300B

- SVA / 0906037

- 10 20.00/ not screened 06/16/2009 (1030) Ref. 29, pp. 1

- 4, 46; Ref. 54, pp. 32

ROW

- 100B

- EHendricks / 0906037

- 09 26.00 / not screened 06/16/2009 (1600) Ref. 29, pp. 1

- 4, 46; Ref. 54, pp. 35

ROW

- 400B

- SGrand / 0906037

- 11 21.5/ not screened 06/16/2009 (1420) Ref . 29, pp. 1

- 4, 46; Ref. 54, pp. 34



### 2009 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

– Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration ( μg/L ) Reporting Limit * References

ROW

- A

- 200B

SStanton / 0906037

- 12 Tetrachloroethyle ne 41.4 1 Ref. 29, p. 28

Trichloroethene 3.9 1 Ref. 29, p. 27

ROW

- 300B

- SVA / 0906037

- 10 Tetrachloroethylene 2.1 1 Ref. 29, p. 24

Trichloroethene 4.7 1 Ref. 29, p. 23

ROW

- 100B

EHendricks / 0906037

- 09 Tetrachloroethylene 67.3 1 Ref. 29, p. 22

Trichl oroethene 1.1 1 Ref. 29, p. 21

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 2.1 1 Ref. 29, p. 21

ROW

- 400B

- SGrand / 0906037

- 11 Tetrachloroethylene 30.9 J 1 Ref. 29, p. 26

Trichloroethene 1.1 1 Ref. 29, p. 25

Notes: J – The identification of the analyte is acceptable; reported value is an estimate (Ref. 2 9 , p. 47 ), * - Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 55 ). μg/L - m icrograms per literSource Characterization - Source 4

HRS Documentation Record 

### 34 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### March 2010 Monitoring Well Investigation

G round water analytical data was collected by a NMED PSTB contractor in March 2010 from 7 monitoring wells at the Wakefield Oil LUST site (Ref. 7, p. 21).

February through April 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth/ Screened Interval (feet bgs) Date (military

time) References Wakefield MW

- 2/ 1003320

- 04 33.30 / 2 0.00 03/09/2010 (1620) Ref. 26, p p. 3, 12, 28

Wakefield MW

- 3/ 1003320

- 05 30.70/ 2 0 .00 03/09/2010 (1645) Ref. 26, pp. 3, 13, 31

Wakefield MW

- 4/ 1003320

- 03 32.70/ 2 0.00 03/09/2010 (1525) Ref. 26, pp. 3, 14, 25

Wakefield MW

- 6/ 1003320

- 06 29.90/ 2 0.00 03/ 10 /2010 (1100) Ref. 26, pp. 3, 15, 34

Wakefield MW

- 7/ 1003320

- 02 30.05/ 2 0.00 03/ 09/2010 (1355) Ref. 26, pp. 3, 16, 22

Wakefield MW

- 8 / 1003320

- 01 31.00/ 2 0.00 03/09/2010 (1315) Ref. 26, pp. 3, 17 , 19



### February through April 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event – Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration (μg/L) PQL * (μg/L) References Wakefield MW

- 2/ 1003320

- 04 Trichloroethene 26 10 Ref. 26, p. 30

Wakefield MW

- 3/ 1003320

- 05 Tetrachloroethylene 24 10 Ref. 26, p. 32

Trichloroethene 36 10 Ref. 26, p. 33

Wakefield MW

- 4/ 1003320

- 03 Te trachloroethylene 43 1 Ref. 26, p. 26

Trichloroethene 26 1 Ref. 26, p. 27

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 3.5 1 Ref. 26, p. 26

Wakefield MW

- 6/ 1003320

- 06 Tetrachloroethylene 42 20 Ref. 26, p. 20

Trichloroethene 40 20 Ref. 26, p. 21

Wakefield MW

- 7/ 100332 0- 02 Tetrachloroethylene 49 5 Ref. 26, p. 23

Trichloroethene 13 5 Ref. 26, p. 24

Wakefield MW -8 / 1003320

- 01 Tetrachloroethylene 130 10 Ref. 26, p. 20

Trichloroethene 24 1 Ref. 26, p. 21

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 4.2 1 Ref. 26, p. 20

Notes: PQL – Pr actical Quantitation Limit (Ref. 26, p. 19 ).Source Characterization - Source 4

HRS Documentation Record 

### 35 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 * - The Practical Quantitation Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 55). μg/L - micrograms per liter


### June 2011 Monitoring Well Investigation

In June 2011, NMED collected ground water samples from monitoring wells at the Parks UST CERCLA site (Ref. 7, p. 21; Ref. 20, pp. 3, 6, 10, 13, 22 ).

June 2011 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth (feet bgs) / Screened Interval (feet) Date (military time) References

Parks MW

- 12/ 201101239 29.92/ 10.00 06/29/2011 (1040) Ref. 20, p. 3; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 6 , 3 6

Parks MW

- 14/ 201101238 28.47/ 10.00 06/29/2011 (0855) Ref. 20, p. 6 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 , 3 7

Park s MW

- 15/ 201101237 33.65/ 10.00 06/29/2011 (0925) Ref. 20, p. 10; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 , 3 8

Parks MW

- 16/ 201101243 27.34/ 10.00 06/29/2011 ( unknown ) Ref. 20, p. 13; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 , 3 9

Parks MW

- 17/ 201101240 25.38/ 10.00 06/29/2011 (1000) Ref. 20, p. 22 ; R ef. 54, pp. 3

, 7
, 40



### June 2011 Monitoring Well Sampling Event – Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration (μg/L) SDL * (μg/L) References

Parks MW

- 12/

201101239 Tetrachloroethylene 64.3 0.07 Ref. 20, p. 2

Trichloroethene 18.3 0.06 Ref. 20, p. 2

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 0.1 0.09 Ref. 20, p. 1

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 2.9 0.43 Ref. 20, p. 1

Parks MW

- 14/

201101238 Tetrachloroethylene 27.1 0.07 Ref. 20, p. 5

Trichloroethene 29.8 0.06 Ref. 20, p. 5

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1.8 0.09 Ref. 20, p. 4

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 5.1 0.43 Ref. 20, p. 4

Parks MW

- 15/

201101237 Tetrachloroethylene 42.5 0.07 Ref. 20, p. 8

Trichloroethene 18.9 0.06 Ref. 20, p. 8

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1.7 0.43 Ref. 20, p. 7Source Characterization - Source 4

HRS Documentation Record 

### 36 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### June 2011 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

– Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration (μg/L) SDL * (μg/L) References Parks MW

- 16/

201101238 Tetrachloroethylene 40.2 0.07 Ref. 20, p. 12

Parks MW

- 16/

201101238 Trichloroethene 17.8 0.06 Ref. 20, p. 12

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 2.9 0.43 Ref. 20, p. 11

Parks MW

- 17/

201101240 Tetrachloroethylene 60.6 0.07 Ref. 20, p. 21

Parks MW

- 17/

201101240 Trichloroethene 10.4 0.06 Ref. 20, p. 21

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1.2 0.43 Ref. 20, p. 20

Notes: S D L – Sample Detection Limit (Ref. 20, p. 2) * - The Sample Detection Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 20, p. 2; Ref. 55). μg/L - m icrograms per literSource Characterization - Source 4

HRS Documentation Record 

### 37 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1.1 Tier A: Hazardous Constituent Quantity - Not Evaluated (N E)

The total Hazardous Constituent Quantity for Source No. 4 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requirements; that is, the total mass of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and releases from the source is not known and canno t be estimated with reasonable confidence [ Ref. 1, pp. 51590

- 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.1)]. Insufficient historical and current data [manifests, potentially responsible party (PRP) records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, etc.] are available to adequately calculate the total mass, or a partial estimate, of all CERCLA hazardous substances in the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to calculate a total or partial Hazardous Constituent Quantity estimate for Source No. 4 with reasonable confidence.

2.4.2.1.2 Tier B: Hazardous Wastestream Quantity - Not Evaluated (NE)

The total Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 4 could not be adequately determined according to the HRS requi rements; that is, the total mass, or a partial estimate, of all hazardous wastestreams and CERCLA pollutants and contaminants for the source and releases from the source is not known and cannot be estimated with reasonable confidence [ Ref. 1, p. 51591 (Section 2.4.2.1.2)]. Insufficient historical and current data (manifests, PRP records, State records, permits, waste concentration data, annual reports, etc.) are available to adequately calculate the total mass, or a partial estimate, of all hazardous wastes treams and CERCLA pollutants and contaminants for the source and the associated releases from the source. Therefore, there is insufficient information to adequately calculate or extrapolate a total or partial Hazardous Wastestream Quantity for Source No. 4 with reasonable confidence.

2.4.2.1.3 Tier C: Volume

T he vertical and horizontal extent of the ground water plume has not yet been adequately determined. Therefore, based on available information it is not possible to determine a volume in cubic yards for Source 4 . Thus, the volume of contamination will be assigned a volume hazardous waste quantity value of greater than (>) 0 , but exact amount unknown (Ref. 1, Sec tion 2.4.2.1.3).

Volume Assigned Value: Unknown, but > 0

2.4.2.1.4 Tier D: Area

Tier C, Volume, has already been calculated and is being used in the HRS scoring; therefore, the value assigned for Tier D is 0 (Ref. 1, Sections 2.4.2.1.3 and 2.4.2.1.4).

Area Assigned Value = 0Source Characterization - Source 4

HRS Documentation Record 

### 38 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

Per the HRS, the highest of the values assigned to the source for hazardous constituent quantity (Tier A), hazardous wastestream quantity (Tier B), volume (Tier C), and area (Tier D) is assigned as the source hazardous waste quantity value (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.5).

Tier Evaluated Source 4 Values
A Not Evaluated
B Not Evaluated
C >0
D 0



### Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: >0Sources

HRS Documentation Record 

### 39 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

Source

No. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value Containment Factor Value by Pathw ay

Ground Water (GW) (Ref. 1, Table 3

- 2) Surface Water (SW) Air

Overland/ flood (Ref. 1, Table 4

- 2) GW to SW (Ref. 1, Table 3

- 2) Gas (Ref. 1, Table 6

- 3) Particulate (Ref. 1, Table 6

- 9)
1 0.0018 1 2 10 NS NS NS NS
2 >0, but unknown 10 NS NS NS NS

3 0.55556 10 NS NS NS NS

4 >0, but unknown 10 NS NS NS NS
TOTAL 0. 557372

NS = Not ScoredSources

HRS Documentation Record 

### 40 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Other Possible Sources

Another possible source associated with the Lea and West Second Street site includes contaminated soil near the location of Source 3. This other possible source was not evaluated separately or used in the scoring of the grouped site, but is added to demonstrate the potential release of the contaminants of concern as indicated from the sampling results below. Based on analytical evi dence associated with Tank 1 sampling of Source 3, it was concluded by the NMED SOS, that Tank 1 was actively releasing to the environment (Ref. 30, p. 11).

Sampling associated with Source 3 was conducted in June and August 2009 as part of the NMED SOS SI . On August 5, 2009, two soil samples were collected at 5 feet and 6 feet below grade, located approximately 2 feet west of the tank (Ref. 30, p. 11) evaluated as Source 3 in this HRS documentation record. The samples collected were analyzed for VOCs by Method SW8260B (Ref. 56 , p. 4 ).

In December 2009, approximately 25 cubic yards of the accessible contaminated soil around Tank 1 was excavated and disposed of at an off

- site facility (Ref. 30, pp. 11, 12). Sidewall and floor samples were collected aft er to excavation to characterize soil contamination remaining in the ground after excavation (Ref. 30, p. 11). PCE, TCE, and DCE was detected in most of the samples collected (Ref. 30, p. 12).

Soil

Hazardous Substance Evidence

References Station Lo cation No. PQL * (mg/kg) Concentration (mg/kg)
Tetrachloroethylene 1400

- W2

- 2

- 6 0.0009 0.0093 Ref. 56, p. 7

Trichloroethylene 1400

- W2 -2-6 0.0009 0.0024 Ref. 56, p. 8
cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1400

- W2

- 2

- 6 0.0009 0.0047 Ref. 56, p. 7

Tetrachloroethylene 1400

- W2

- 2

- 5 0.0011 0.0091 Ref. 56, p. 9

Trichloroethylene 1400

- W2

- 2

- 5 0.0011 0.0038 Ref. 56, p. 10
cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1400

- W2 -2-5 0.0011 0.0093 Ref. 56, p. 9
Note: PQL – Practical Quantitation Limit (Ref. 56, p. 5) * - The Practical Quantitation Limit i s equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 55). mg/kg - milligrams per kilogramGround Water Pathway

HRS Documentation Record 

### 41 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 3.0 GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY SCORE

3.0.1 General Considerations

The City of Roswell is loca ted in the northern portion of the Roswell Ground Water Basin

, which is within the lower Pecos River Valley in southeastern New Mexico (Ref. 14 , p p. 8, 9)

. The Roswell area has long and hot summers and precipitation is sparse, averaging less than 13 inche s per year, most of which occurs as intense, localized thunderstorms during the summer monsoon season. For more than 100 years the Roswell Basin has also been one of the most intensively farmed areas in the state, the principle crops being alfalfa, cotton , sorghum , and chiles (Ref. 14 , p. 8). The Basin derives virtually all of its irrigation water from ground water. Large volumes of ground water are withdrawn from shallow alluvial ground water and an underlying carbonate

- rock ( artesian) aquifer in the R oswell Basin. These two ground water systems form the Roswell Basin Aquifer system (Ref. 49 , p. 14 ). The aquifer system underlies part of the Pecos River and extends through an area of about 2,200 square miles from north of Roswell to northwest of Carlsb ad, New Mexico (Ref. 49, p. 14 ).

Regional Geology

The Roswell Artesian Basin system consists of a n eastward

- dipping carbonate aquifer ov erlain by a leaky evaporitic confining unit, which is in turn overlain by an unconfined alluvial ground
water (Ref. 14, p. 11). Historically, the carbonate aquifer in the Roswell Basin is referred to as the “artesian aquifer” and the alluvial aquifer is commonly referred to as the “shallow aquifer” (Ref. 14, p. 11).

Ground water in the carbonate

- rock aquifer in the Roswell Basin primarily is present in solution

altered zones in the San Andres Limestone and the overlying Queen and Grayburg Formations (Ref. 49, p. 15 ).

The San Andres Limestone is found at depths ranging from 300 to 1

, 300 feet below ground surface ( bgs ) . Limestone and dolomite are the principle rocks in the San Andres Limestone, although 100- to 200

- feet thick sandstone (the Glorieta Sandstone) is located near the base of the formation. The San Andres Limestone is 1

, 200 to 1 ,500 feet thick along the eastern margin of the Roswell Basin, but thins to 700 to 1,000 feet in the northwestern part of the basin where dissolution and collapse have decreased the thickness of the formation (Ref. 4 9, p. 15 ). The Grayburg and Queen Formations overlie the San Andres Limestone. The Grayburg Formation predominantly consists of dolomite and gypsum with interbedded sandstone and shale. The Queen Formation consists of fine

- grained sandstone and siltstone with interbedded gypsum. The two formations are between 400 and 8 00 feet thick along the eastern margin of the basin and thin westward as the result of erosion and dissolution (Ref. 4 9, p. 15 ). The Seven Rivers, Yates, and Tansil Formations overlie the Queen Formation and crop out at higher altitude than the alluvium in the northern part of the Roswell Basin. These three formations consist of dolomite, limestone, and gypsum with interbedded sandstone and siltstone (Ref. 49, p. 15 ).

Quaternary alluvium that consists of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay unconfor mably overlies the Permian

- aged rocks in the Roswell Basin. Alluvium and associated terrace depositsGround Water Pathway

HRS Documentation Record 

### 42 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### form a 10 - to 20

- mile

- wide band, primarily to the west of the Pecos River. The alluvium generally is about 150 to 300

- feet thick near the Pecos River and thins to the west (Ref. 4 9, p. 15 ). The alluvium, present at the surface, contains water under unconfined (water table) conditions. The alluvial aquifer is hydraulically connected to the underlying carbonate

- rock aquifer by leakage through the upper conf ining unit of the carbonate

- rock aquifer. The water table in the alluvial aquifer is at or near land surface along most of the Pecos River (Ref. 4 9, p. 16 ).

Regional Hydrogeology

Solution- altered zones in the San Andres Limestone and the Grayburg Formation form the principal carbonate

- rock aquifer in the Roswell Basin. The carbonate

- rock aquifer is 200 to 500 feet thick in the eastern one

- half of the Roswell Basin and thins northward and westward (Ref. 4 9, p. 1 6 ). The lower boundary of the aquifer is f ormed by the unaltered lower part of the San Andres Limestone or Glorieta Sandstone, or the underlying Yeso Formation. The upper part of the Grayburg and Queen Formations generally are little altered and have low permeability. The zones of low permeability in these two formations form the upper confining unit of the carbonate

- rock aquifer and separate it from the overlying alluvial aquifer (Ref. 49, p. 16 ).

Interaquifer leakage occurs between the carbonate

- rock aquifer and the overlying alluvial aquifer through the Queen aquitard (Ref 50 , pp. 1, 8). Leakage is generally greatest in the vicinity of Roswell and decreases to the south and southwest. Prior to the development of irrigation wells, water leaked vertically upward from the carbonate

- rock aquifer to the alluvial aquifer. In a 1982 report it was noted that the large drawdown of the potentiometric surface in the carbonate

- rock aquifer during the summer irrigation season reverse d the direction of vertical leakage (i.e., leakage is downward from the alluvial aquifer into the carbonate- rock aquifer) (Ref. 50, pp. 8- 9).

Ground water in the Permian

- aged carbonate rocks is present in openings formed by dissolution of part of the limestone, dolomite, and gypsum that are prevalent in the rock. The most
pe rmeable and extensively utilized aquifer in the carbonate rocks is in the Roswell Basin. This carbonate

- rock aquifer and the hydraulically connected aquifer in the alluvium have been studied extensively because of the importance of this source of groundwa ter (Ref. 49, p. 14 ).

Ground water that flows through joints, fractures, or faults in soluble rocks composed of carbonate (limestone or dolomite) or evaporite (gypsum or halite) minerals can dissolve the surrounding rock and enlarge the openings. Over ge ologic time, a vast network of interconnected openings can develop in the rock, and large volumes of ground water can flow through the openings (Ref. 4 9, p. 1 4 ). When solution

- altered rock becomes sufficiently porous, it may lack the strength to support t he weight of overlying materials, and a broad gradual collapse of the rock can occur. The collapse reduces the thickness of the formation and creates additional fractures that are subject to further dissolution. A local, and sometimes rapid, collapse of the rock can produce sinkholes and create a crater

- like appearance known as karst topography of the land surface (Ref. 49, p. 14 ).

The end result of carbonate

- rock dissolution is expressed at the land surface in features characteristic of karst topography . Because water enters the carbonate -rock aquifers rapidlyGround Water Pathway

HRS Documentation Record 

### 43 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### through sinkholes and other large openings, any contaminants present in the water can rapidly enter and spread through the aquifer(s) (Ref. 4 9, p. 10 ). According to available U.S. Geological Surv ey (USGS) documents reviewed, the Roswell Basin Aquifer system is considered a karst aquifer (Ref. 4 9, p. 1 4 ). The karstic nature of the artesian aquifer is well

- illustrated by the breccia zon es, particularly common in the upper San Andres, where they con sist of tilted and rotated blocks of carbonate rock up to 2 feet in diameter, interbedded in a silt matrix (Ref. 14, p. 13).

Historically, regional ground water flow in the Roswell area has been to the southeast toward the Pecos River

. However, both vert ical and horizontal flow directions have been altered locally by ground water withdrawal (Ref. 49, p. 18 ).

Site -s pecific Hydrogeology

In the vicinity of the grouped site, the subsurface soils consist of discontinu ou s layers of clay, sandy clay, clayey sand, poorly graded sand, and gravel to approximately 25 ft bgs ( Ref. 30, p. 4; 52 , pp. 1, 6). The thickness of the shallow alluvial in the vicinity of the site is approximately 50 feet

. Depth to ground water ranges from approximately 15 to 20 feet bgs (Ref. 30 , p. 14 )

. As previously stated, the confining unit is not completely impermeable and leakage is known to occur. Deposits of the San Andres Limestone underlie the confining unit beneath the site and consist largely of limestone and dolomite (Ref. 49, pp . 1 5 , 21 ). The San Andres Limestone and the Grayburg and Queen Formations were subject to extensive erosion prior to the deposition of the much younger alluvium in the Roswell Basin. Extensive dissolution of near

- surface parts of these carbonate format ions likely occurred during this period and may have continued af ter deposition of the alluvium (Ref. 49, p. 15). The aquifer beneath the site sources and continuing out to the target wells is considered a karst aquifer, the altitude of the base of the all uvium reveals the presence of depressions in the buried surface of the bedrock that are similar to those in areas of karst topography (Ref. 49, pp. 14, 15, 24).

The ground water flow at each source varies ; from east

- northeast near Source 2 (Ref. 5, p. 9 )

, and Source 3 (Ref. 34, pp. 13, 21), to north

- northeast at Source 4 (Ref. 31, p. 3), and to generally eastward, varying from northeast southeast at Source 1 ( Ref. 7, p. 17; Ref. 45, p. 28)

. In general

, the overall flow in the vicinity of all sources is east and southeast toward the Pecos River ( Ref. 14, pp. 18, 21).

Ground Water Resources

The City of Roswell is a large agriculture area ( Ref. 14, p. 8; Ref. 49 , p. 26 ). In 1978, approximately 95 percent of the ground water withdrawn from the Roswell Basin was used for irrigation (Ref. 4 9, p. 20 ). In 1985, approximately 88 percent of the ground water withdrawn from the basin was used for irrigation and approximately 8 percent was used for public supply (Ref. 4 9, p. 20 ). Large

- capacity wells completed in the carbonate

- rock aquifer generally yield in excess of 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm). Smaller capacity wells commonly yield 500 to 1,000 gpm (Ref. 49, p. 20 ).Ground Water Pathway

HRS Documentation Record 

### 44 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### The City of Roswell's primary drinking water supply resides in the carbonate

- rock (artes ian) aquifer (Ref. 48, p.1). The City of Roswell's public water supply system and most of the water utilized for irrigation purposes in the Pecos Valley is from the carbonate

- rock aquifer (Ref. 14, p. 8; Ref. 48, p. 1; Ref. 49 , p. 20 ). Several private do mestic wells are located within the identified ground water plume (s) . Additionally, 6 municipal supply wells are located within 4 miles of the identified ground water plume (s) ( Attachment A -3 of this HRS documentation record). All of the municipal suppl y wells for the City of Roswell are completed within the carbonate

- rock (artesian) aquifer (Ref. 48 , p. 1).

The most permeable and extensively utilized aquifer in the carbonate rocks is in the Roswell Basin. This aquifer and the hydraulically connected ground water in the alluvium are an important source of ground water (Ref. 49, p. 14). Natural leakage of the artesian water from the San Andres limestone is believed to be the principal source of the shallow ground water (Ref. 62,
pp . 4, 5). Shallow ground water has been utilized for many years for domestic and stock

- water supplies (Ref. 62, p. 6 ). Although the shallow alluvial ground water is not used as a source of drinking water within the City of Roswell limits, it is used outside of the city limits as a source of drinking water in private domestic wells (Ref. 47, pp. 1 -77 ; Ref. 62, p. 6 ; Attachment A

- 3 of this HRS documentation record ).

Aquifer Interconnection and Discontinuities

The Roswell Basin alluvial ground water and underlying carbonate

- roc k aquifer are hydraulically interconnected within 2

- miles of each of the four identified sources and underlie the entire city of Roswell, extending from north Roswell to northwest of Carlsbad (Ref. 49, pp. 14, 16, 21, 22, 23 , 24 )

. Fractures and cracks bet ween fragments of collapse breccia, solution openings along bedding planes and fractures, and solution cavities in honeycomb limestone constitute the main types of permeability in the artesian aquifer. Erratic permeability hinders correlation of individua l water

- producing zones from well to well (Ref. 63, p. 15). Because of the dissolution cavities and the channels that comprise them, karst aquifers are considered extremely vulnerable to contamination. Because water enters the carbonate

- rock aquifers rapi dly through large openings, any contaminants in the water can rapidly enter and spread through the aquifers (Ref. 49, pp. 10, 14, 24 ). The alluvium, present at the surface, contains water under unconfined (water table) conditions. The alluvial aquifer is h ydraulically connected to the underlying carbonate

- rock aquifer by leakage through the upper confining unit of the carbonate

rock aquifer. The water table in the alluvial aquifer is at or near land surface along most of the Pecos River (Ref. 49, p p. 15, 16 ). Ground water withdrawals are the principal means of discharge from the aquifer system. Water

- level declines caused by withdrawal have altered
water

- level relations between the alluvial and carbonate

- rock aquifers and between the alluvial aquifer and the Pecos River. Before the development of the area's ground

- water resources began in 1891, ground water moved from the western recharge areas through the carbonate

- rock aquifer upward into the alluvial aquifer and then into the Pecos River. Water

- level dec lines caused by withdrawal from the carbonate

- rock aquifer locally have decreased, halted, or reversed the normal upward discharge from that aquifer. Withdrawals from the alluvial aquifer can have the same effect on the natural discharge to the Pecos River and also can induce upward discharge of water from the carbonate -rock aquifer (Ref. 49, p. 17).Ground Water Pathway

HRS Documentation Record 

### 45 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Further evidence of a hydraulic connection between the alluvial ground water and the carbonate

rock aquifer within two miles of each source present at the grouped site being evaluated is also supported by the migration of contamination from the shallow alluvial ground water to the carbonate

- rock aquifer. The Roswell Municipal Water System (RMWS) operates a public drinking water supply well, City Well 13 (CW13) , which is located less than two miles from Sources 1 through 4 and is screened within the carbonate

- rock aquifer (Ref. 48; see Section 3.3.2.4 and Attachment A

- 3 of this HRS documentation record) . During a n October 1999 sampling event, PCE was detected in a sample collected from CW13 (Ref. 25, pp. 7, 8). The

same hazardous substance

, PCE

, has been documented to be present in all site sources and in ground water release samples meeting HRS observed release criteria, as was detected in City Well 13 ( Ref. 2 5, p. 8; see Sections 2.4.1 and 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). Although greater than two miles from the grouped site being evaluated, City Wells 12 ( CW12 ), 15 ( CW15 ), and 16 ( CW16 ), also operated by the RWMS, had sampling results documenting the presence of PCE in 1999, 2012, and 2011 respectively (Ref. 25, pp. 3, 4, 175, 177 ; Attachment A-3 of this HRS documentation record ).

Approximately one mile from Source 1 another Superfund site is present, McGaffey and Main Ground W ater Plume, which als o documented the presence of the same hazardous substances, including PCE, in ground water samples collected from the shallow alluvial ground water aquifer and the underlying carbonate

- rock aquifer (Ref. 7, pp. 14, 18, 19; Ref. 64, p. 5) . These hazardous substances were detected in the same city wells , CW15 and CW16 (called SRW 15 and SRW 16 in the McGaffey and Main Groundwater Plume HRS documentation record)

, currently being evaluated as subject to potential contamination ( Ref. 65, pp. 13, 14 , 15 ; see Sec tion 3.3.2.4 of this HRS documentation record). This information demonstrates that contamination has moved from the shallow alluvial ground water into the underlying carbonate

rock aquifer; therefore, the two aquifers may be combined into one hydrogeological unit for HRS purposes (Ref. 1, Section 3.0.1.2.1).

There are no aquifer discontinuities within each individual site TDL or the grouped site TDL. There are no geologic or hydrologic features that appear to transect the aquifer that would disrupt the flow of ground water (Ref. 14, p p. 9 , 13, 14, 18; Ref. 49, p. 21 ; Attachment A

- 3 of the HRS documentation record ). The three buckles near Roswell are beyond the grouped site TDL and the TDL s for each source, and have no significant impact on the aquifer system (Ref. 14, pp. 26, 27)

. The influence of the Pecos Buckles on ground water movement within the artesian aquifer is less obvious, but this may be due to the small number of wells measured in the western part of the Basin. The influence of the YO Buckle is shown by a trough in the potentiometric surface southeast of the Buckle near the center of the Basin (Ref. 14, pp. 20, 21). There is no obvious change in hydraulic gradient associated with the Border and Six

- Mile Buckles (Ref. 14, pp. 20, 21, 24).Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 46 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 3.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE

3.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE

Aquifer Being Evaluated: Shallow Alluvial/Artesian Aquifer - Roswell Basin Aquifer system

. Based on the geology/hydrogeology within the vicinity of the grouped site and the geological strata, th e Alluvial ground water and Artesian Aquifer are interconnected within two miles of the site sources and form one single hydrologic unit for HRS scoring purposes (see Section 3.0.1 of this HRS documentation record ; Ref. 1, Sec. 3.0.1.2.1). For purposes of this HRS evaluation this single hydrologic unit is also referred to as the “combined aquifer.”

Chemical Analysis

An o bserved release by chemical analysis has been established for each of the four sites being grouped into one site for purposes of placeme nt on the National Priorities List (NPL) separately, as each contains a ground water plume associated with a release of hazardous substances. Each investigation of the ground water pathway consisted of collecting ground water level measurements and ground water samples. Water levels and ground water elevation data were obtained from CERCLA

- site and LUST

- site monitoring wells. Ground water samples were collected from direct push borings, existing CERCLA and LUST site monitoring wells, and domestic wells in e ach s ite area to evalua te ground water pathway targets (Ref. 7, p. 20).

The background wells, background sample results, release wells, and observed release samples associated with each source are presented below.Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 47 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Source 1 – Denio’s

Background Wells

Ground water samples used to establish background levels for PCE, TCE, cis -1,2- DCE

, and
trans -1,2- DCE for the monitoring wells associated with Source 1 in the alluvial ground water were based on analytical results from the Lea and West Second SI sampling e vent s conducted in March 2010 by the NMED (Ref. 7, pp. 21, 36 ).

Locally , ground water flow at Source 1 is generally eastward, varying from northeast to southeast at a gradient of approximately 0.001 feet/foot (Re f . 7, p. 17; Ref. 45, p p. 2, 6). Thus,
gro und water wells representative of background conditions for Source 1 were chosen based on their location being upgradient or west of the source and identified gr ound water plume (Ref. 3, pp. 1 ; Attachment s A -6 of this HRS documentation record ).

PCE is a manufactured chlorinated solvent and does not occur naturally within the environment (Ref. 53, p. 1). An observed release to the ground water will be established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample

- specific SQL or another applicable HRS -defined limit and one of the two following conditions occurs: 1) If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample quantitation limit or another HRS

- defined limit or 2) If the background concentration equals or exceeds the detection limit, the sample measurement is three times or more above the background concentration (Ref. 1, Table 2-3, Sec.2.3).

Background Monitoring Wells

Even though monitoring well s Union Pl aza (Union) MW -23 and U nion MW

- 6 to the west, are located very near the estimated boundaries of the ground water plume, they are considered to be located outside the influence of potential contamination (Attachment s A -5 and A-6 of this HRS documentation re cord ) . Local ground water flow is toward the north east and southeast which would be away from these wells ( Ref. 7, p. 17; Ref. 14, pp. 18, 21 ; Ref. 45, p. 6). Further, since PCE, TCE, cis -1,2- DCE

, and trans -1,2- DCE concentrations have predominantly not b een detected

, combined with the fact that PCE, TCE, cis -1,2- DCE and trans -1,2- DCE are not naturally occurring substances within the environment, these well s are considered representative of background conditions for the area (Ref. 23, pp. 31, 32 ; Ref. 46, pp. 1, 2; Ref. 53, p. 1).

As shown in the tables below, the background and release samples are similar and their contaminant concentrations can be compared because they were collected during the same sampling event (March 2010) using the same sampling and analysis (CLP OLM04.2) procedures and from a similar range of depths as shown below

. Ground water samples were collected from the LUST site monitoring wells using certified clean disposable hand bailers. Each well was purged a minimum of three well casing volumes and/or until field parameters (pH, conductivity, temperature, ORP) stabilized prior to sample collection. Ground water samples for volatile organic compound analysis (VOA) were collected in 40 ml vials. Samples collected were unpreserved and a ll s amples were stored on ice for delivery to the laboratory. Samples were analyzed by the EPA Region 6 Laboratory (Ref. 7, p. 21 ).Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 48 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Background Monitoring Well in Alluvial Aquifer Associated with Denio’s – Source 1

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth (fe et bgs )/ Screened Interval (feet ) Date (military time) References

Union MW

- 23 (Union Plaza MW

- 23) / 1003013

- 08 24.45 / 10 03/1 5 /2010 (0955) Ref. 23, p p. 4 , 163 ; Ref. 54,
pp. 2

, 6

Union MW

- 6 (Union Plaza MW -6) / 1003013

- 13 26.28/ 10 03/16/2010 (1045) Re f. 23, p p . 4 , 166 ; Ref. 54,
pp. 2

, 6



### Background Results – Monitoring Well in Alluvial Aquifer Associated with Denio’s – Source 1

Station ID/ Laboratory ID H azardous Substance Concentration (μg/L) Reporting
Limit * (μ g/L) References

Union MW

- 23 (Union Plaza MW

- 23) / 1003013

- 08 Tetrachloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 32 Trichloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 31

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 31

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 31
Union MW

- 6 (Union Plaza MW

- 23) / 100301 3- 13 Tetrachloroethylene 0.6 (1.8**) 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 88
Trichloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 87

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 87

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 87

Notes: * - Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and i s adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 23, p. 2; Ref. 55). ** - As the analyte was detected, per the HRS, release samples will be compared against a level three times (i.e., 1.8) the concentration detec ted (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 3)

. μg/L - micrograms per liter U – Undetected (Ref. 23, p. 173).


### For all hazardous substances other than PCE, the background level is 0.5 μg/L. The background level for PCE is 0.6 μg/L and the level to show a significant increase is 1.8 μg/L

.

Release Wells

Ground water samples collected from monitoring wells used to document an observed release from Source 1 to the alluvial portion of the combined aquifer are presented in the following tables by sampling event. Background samples were considered comparable and appropriate based on a similar sample date sampled and similar screened interval of the well.Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 49 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Release Samples:

Ground water samples identified as “contaminated” are those that meet observed release by chemical analysis criteria as defined by the H RS (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 3). Observed release criteria is met when analytical evidence of a hazardous substance significantly above background exists and some portion of that increase is attributable to a release from the site. Additional criteria include that the sample concentration exceeds the Sample Quantitation Limit (SQL; including the background SQL) or another HRS

- defined limit , and is at least three times greater than the background concentration when the background concentration equals or exceeds its detection limit (Ref. 1, Table 2-3 ).

Observed release contamination was found in wells sampled at depths ranging from 19.6 to 26.5 feet bgs (Ref. 54, pp. 15, 53 -57 ; see analytical data tables presented below )

. Depth to water is about 16 feet below grad e at the Source (Ref. 7, p. 17). Soil boring logs from the environmental investigation at the Denio ’ s property (Source 1) indicate that vadose zone soils typically consist of clay with variable amounts of sand and occasional sand lenses, while the water bearing zone typically consists of gravel and gravel

- sand mixtures ( Ref. 7, p. 17; Ref. 12, pp. 17-20 ).

Ground water sampling locations with levels meeting observed release criteria that were collected during the same sampling event s as the background samples are presented below.

March 2010 Monitoring Well Investigation

The ground water sampling locations identified below were sampled during the second SI sampling event involving the Roswell CERCLA SI sites that took place in S pring (February through April ) 2010. Ground water samples were collected by NMED from a total of 47 LUST site monitoring wells and 3 domestic wells in the geographic vicinity of Lea and West Second Street

, Parks UST, and West Second and Montana CERCLA sites as part of SI efforts for e ach site (Ref. 7 , p. 21)

. The wells that meet observed release criteria from Source 1 are presented below (Attachments A -5 and A-6 of this HRS documentation record).

March 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth ( feet bgs ) / Screened Interval (feet) Date (military time) References Sawey MW

- 11/

1003013

- 06 19.60/ 10.00 03/16/2010 (1125) Ref. 23, pp. 1

- 4 , 165 ; Ref. 54, pp. 2

, 6

, 53 Sawey MW

- 12/

1003013

- 07 20.31/ 10.00 03/16/2010 (1037) Ref. 23, pp. 1

- 4 , 165 ; Ref. 54 , pp. 2

, 6

, 54 Sawey MW

- 13/

1003013

- 08 20.70/ 10.00 03/16/2010 (1245) Ref. 23, pp. 1

- 4 , 165 ; Ref. 54, pp. 2

, 6

, 5 5 J and J MW

- 4/

1003013

- 01 26.50/ 10.00 03/16/2010 (1300) Ref. 23, pp. 1

- 4 , 165 ; Ref. 54, pp. 2

, 6

, 56 J and J MW

- 5/

1003013

- 02 24.50/ 10 .00 03/16/2010 (1150) Ref. 23, pp. 1

- 4 , 165 ; Ref. 54, pp. 2

, 6

, 57 Miller MRMW

- 4 / 1003015

- 04 21.95/ 10.00 03/17/2010 (1032) Ref. 23, pp. 1

- 4 , 171 ; Ref. 54, pp. 2

, 6

, 15Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 50 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 Well Depth ( feet bgs ) / Station ID/ Laboratory Screened Interval Date ID (feet) (military time) References Miller MRMW

- 5 / 03/17/2010 Ref. 23, pp. 1

- 4 , 171 ; Ref. 54, pp. 2

, 1003015

- 05 20.75/ 10.00 (1055) 6

, 16 Miller ETMW

- 8 / 03/17/2010 Ref. 23, pp. 1

- 4 , 171 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 1003015

- 03 21.50/ 10.00 0915) 6 , 1 7



### March 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event – Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration (μ g/L) Reporting Limit* (μg/L) References Sawey MW

- 11/

1003013

- 06 Trichloroethene 1.2 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 67

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 0.6 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 67

Sawey MW

- 12/

1003013

- 07 Tetrachloroethylene 21.1 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 70

Trichloroethene 88.6 1 Re f. 23, p. 69

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1.1 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 69

Sawey MW

- 13/

1003013

- 08 Trichloroethene 1.5 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 71

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 0.6 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 71

J and J MW

- 4/

1003013

- 01 Trichloroethene 2.5 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 39

J and J MW

- 5/

1003013

- 02 Trichloroethene 2.6 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 41

Miller MRMW -4 / 1003015

- 04 Tetrachloroethylene 3.8 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 102

Trichloroethene 2.1 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 101

Miller MRMW

- 5/ 1003015

- 05 Trichloroethene 2.8 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 103

Miller ETMW -8 / 100301 5- 03 Trichloroethene 2.1 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 93

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 0.5 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 93

Notes: * - Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 21, p. 2; Ref. 23 , p. 2; Ref. 55). μg/L - micrograms per liter



### In addition to the wells shown above

, there have been several sampling events that have spanned different dates that indicate other releases to ground water associated with Source 1. Ground water samples du ring these sampling events were collected from monitoring wells and domestic wells as shown below.Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 51 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 2008 Phase II ESA Ground Water Sampling

In 2008, environmental contractors collected two ground water grab samples from boreholes SB

2 and SB

- 4 during assessment sampling that was conducted in response to NMED’s abatement plan request (Ref. 8, pp. 4, 8).

2008 Phase II ESA Sampling Event

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth ( feet bgs ) / Screened Interval (feet) Date (military time) References

SB -2 GW/0808338

- 11 22.00 / 5.00 08/19/2008 (1350) Ref. 8, pp. 16, 18; Ref. 9, p. 74

SB

- 4 GW/0808338

- 22 22.0 / unknown 08/19/2008 (1625) Ref. 8, p. 20; Ref. 9, p. 75



### 2008 Phase II ESA Sampling Event – Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazard ous Substance Concentration (μg/L) PQL * (μ g/L) References

SB

- 2 GW/0808338

- 11 Tetrachloroethylene 28,000 400 Ref. 9, pp. 32, 74 Trichloroethylene 30 1 Ref. 9, pp. 32, 74

SB

- 4 GW/0808338

- 22 Tetrachloroethylene 1,900 50 Ref. 9, pp. 54, 75
Trichlor oethylene 2.8 1 Ref. 9, pp. 54, 75

Note: PQL – Practical Quantitation Limit * - The Practical Quantitation Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS (Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 55). ug/L - micrograms p er liter



### 2009 Monitoring Well Investigation

The first SI sampling event involving the Roswell CERCLA sites took place in June 2009. Ground water samples were collected from 15 C ERCLA site monitoring wells, 9 direct push borings, and 4 domestic wells in the geographic vicinity of the North Main and 9th, Parks UST, and West Second and Montana sites (Ref. 7, p. 21).

2009 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth ( feet bgs ) / Screened Interval (feet) Date (military time) Re ferences N Main CC

- 3 /

0906029

- 02 19.34/ 10.00 06/14/2009 (1500) Ref. 19. pp. 1

- 3; Ref. 54, pp. 4

, 7
, 30

N Main CC

- 5 /

0906029

- 04 18.6 / 10.00 06/14/2009 (1416) Ref. 19. pp. 1

- 3; Ref. 54, pp. 4

, 7
, 31Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 52 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 2009 Monitoring Well Sampling Event – Sample Concentr ations

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration ( μg/L ) Reporting Limit * (μg/L) References
N Main CC

- 3 /

0906029

- 02 Tetrachloroethylene 0.6 0.5 Ref. 19, p. 7

N Main CC

- 5 /

0906029

- 04 Tetrachloroethylene 0.5 0.5 Ref. 19, p. 11

Notes: * - Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS (Ref. 19, p. 1; Ref. 55 ). μg/L - m icrograms per liter



### February through April 2010 Monitoring Well Investigation

Additional samples collected during the second SI sampling event , which indicate other release s are shown below (Ref. 7 , p. 21).

February through April 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth/ Screened Interval (feet bgs) Date (military time) References Firestone MW

- 6A / 1002017

- 02 32.65/ 10.00 02/15/2010 (1110) Ref. 21, pp. 1

- 4, 108; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7
, 44 Firestone MW

- 7A / 10020 17

- 03 33.75/ 10.00 02/15/2010 (1354) Ref. 21, pp. 1

- 4, 108; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7
, 45

311

- W7

- DW / 1003013

- 03 100.00/ 50.00 03/16/2010 (1340) Ref. 23, pp. 1

- 4; Ref. 54, pp. 4

, 7



### February through April 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event – Sample Concentration s

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration (μg/L) Reporting Limit* ( μ g/L) References Firestone MW

- 6A / 1002017

- 02 Tetrachloroethylene 5.3 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 8

Trichloroethene 0.9 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 7

Firestone MW

- 7A / 1002017

- 03 Tetrachloroethylene 1 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 10

Trichloroethene 0.6 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 9

311

- W7

- DW /

1003013

- 03 Tetrachloroethylene 4.7 0.5 Ref. 23, p. 50

Notes: * - Reporti ng Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample v olume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 21, p. 2; Ref. 23, p. 2; Ref. 55 , p.1 ). μg/L - micrograms per literGround Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 53 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### August through October 2010 Monitoring Well Investigation

The third SI sampling event involving the Roswell CERCLA sites took place in the Fall (August and October) of 2010. Ground water samp les were collected from 13 LUST

- sit e monitoring wells and 1 domestic well in central Roswell as part of SI efforts at Lea and West Second Street (Ref. 7, p. 21).

August through October 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth/ Screened Interval (feet bg s) Date (military time) References Conoco MW

- 4/

1010020

- 04 15.65/ 10.00 10/ 20 /2010 (1300) Ref. 18, pp. 1

- 4, 87 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 6

, 58 Wool MW

- 9/

101008

- 06 15.33/ 10.00 10/18/2010 (1345) Ref. 18, pp. 1

- 4, 84 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 6

, 59 Wool MW

- 12/

101008

- 03 24.70/ 10.00 10/17/2010 (1610) Ref. 18, pp. 1

- 4, 84 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 6

, 60 Wool MW

- 13/

101008

- 04 24.59/ 10.00 10/17/2010 (1705) Ref. 18, pp. 1

- 4, 85 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 4

, 61 Century RMW

- 1/ 1010014

- 03 22.56/ 10.00 10/19/2010 (0920) Ref. 18, pp. 1

- 4, 86 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 6 , 6 2 Century NMW

- 9/ 1010014

- 02 26.71/ 10.00 10/19/2010 (1015) Ref. 18, pp. 1

- 4, 86 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 4 , 6 3



### August through October 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event – Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Subs tance Concentration (μg/L) Reporting Limit* ( μ g/L) References Conoco MW

- 4/

1010020

- 04 Trichloroethene 0.5 0.5 Ref. 18, p. 43

Wool MW

- 9/

101008

- 06 Trichloroethene 0.6 0.5 Ref. 18, p. 21

Wool MW

- 12/

101008

- 03 Tetrachloroethylene 3.2 0.5 Ref. 18, p. 10

Trichloroethene 0.8 0.5 Ref. 18, p. 9

Wool MW

- 13/

101008

- 04 Tetrachloroethylene 2.6 0.5 Ref. 18, p. 12

Trichloroethene 0.7 0.5 Ref. 18, p. 11

Century RMW

- 1/ 1010014

- 03 Tetrachloroethylene 0.6 0.5 Ref. 18, p. 28

Trichloroethene 0.5 0.5 Ref. 18, p. 27

Century NMW

- 9/ 1010014

- 02 Tetrachloroethylene 0.8 0.5 Ref. 18, p. 26

Trichloroethene 0.6 0.5 Ref. 18, p. 25

Notes: * - Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 18, p. 2; Ref. 55 ). μg/L - m icrograms per literGround Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 54 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### June 2014 Monitoring Well Investigation

In June 2014, environmental contractors for Allsup Petroleum collected ground water samples from 9 of 14 monitoring wells located at the Allsup’s 289 facility for LUST monitoring (Ref. 7,
p. 17; Ref. 45; p. 4 )

. T hese wells are the nearest down gradient monitoring wells to Source 1 ( Attachment A -5 of this HRS documentation record ; Attachment B, Figure 1 ).

June 2014 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth/ S creened Interval (feet bgs) * Date (military time) References

Allsups289 MW

- 5 / 1406609

- 001 25.90/10.00 06/11/2014 (1340) Ref. 45, p p . 40 , 77

Allsups289 MW

- 6/ 1406609002 27.00/10.00 06/11/2014 (1135) Ref. 45, p p . 41 , 77

Allsups289 MW

- 7/ 1406609

- 003 25.9 0/10.00 6/11/2014 (1320) Ref. 45, p p. 42 , 77

Allsups289 MW

- 9 / 1406609

- 004 25.60/10.00 6/11/2014 (1110) Ref. 45, p p . 44 , 77

Allsups289 MW

- 10 / 1406609

- 005 27.80/10.00 6/11/2014 (1155) Ref. 45, p p . 45 , 77

Allsups289 MW

- 11 / 1406609

- 006 25.95/10.00 6/11/201 4 (1245) Ref. 45, p p . 46 , 77

Allsups289 MW

- 12 / 1406609

- 007 26.00/10.00 6/11/2014 (1245) Ref. 45, pp. 47, 77

Allsups289 MW

- 13/ 1406609

- 008 27.55 / 10.00 6/11/2014 (1220) Ref. 45, p p . 4 8, 77

Allsups289 MW

- 14/ 1406609

- 009 21. 30 / 10.00 6/11/2014 (1300) Ref . 45, pp. 49, 77

Notes: * - Screened Interval derived from the height of fluid column reported for each well (Ref. 45, pp. 40. 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49).Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 55 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### June 2014 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

– Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration (μg/L) Reporting Limit* (μ g/L) References

Allsups289 MW

- 5/ 1406609

- 001 Tetrachloroethylene 240 10 Ref. 45, p. 53

Trichloroethene 80 1 Ref. 45, p. 53

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 4.9 1 Ref. 45, p. 52

trans

- 1, 2- Dichloroethene 1.3 1 Ref. 45, p. 53

Allsups289 MW

- 6/ 1406609002 Tetrachloroethylene 32 1 Ref. 45, p. 55

Trichloroethene 14 1 Ref. 45, p. 55

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 2.3 1 Ref. 45, p. 54

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1.6 1 Ref. 45, p. 55

Allsups289 MW -7 / 1406609

- 003 Tetrachloroethylene 660 1 0 Ref. 45, p. 57

Trichloroethene 120 1 Ref. 45, p. 57

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 4.1 1 Ref. 45, p. 56

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 2.0 1 Ref. 45, p. 57

Allsups289 MW -9 / 1406609

- 004 Tetrachloroethylene 18 1 Ref. 45, p

. 59

Trichloroethene 19 1 Ref. 45, p. 59

Allsups289 MW

- 10 / 1406609

- 005 Tetrachloroethylene 220 10 Ref. 45, p. 61

Trichloroethene 70 1 Ref. 45, p. 61

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1.4 1 Ref. 45, p. 60

Allsups289 MW

- 11 / 1406609

- 006 Tetrachloroethylene 76 1 Ref. 45, p. 63

Trichloroethene 110 10 Ref. 45, p. 63

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 8.6 1 Ref. 45, p. 62

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 2.4 1 Ref. 45, p. 63

Allsups289 MW

- 12 / 1406609

- 007 Tetrachloroethylene 45 1 Ref. 45, p. 65

Trichloroethene 17 1 Ref. 45 , p. 65

Allsups289 MW

- 13/ 1406609

- 008 Tetrachloroethylene 200 1 0 Ref. 45, p. 67

Trichloroethene 280 1 0 Ref. 45, p. 67

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 18 1 Ref. 45, p. 66

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1.3 1 Ref. 45, p. 67

Allsups289 MW

- 14/ 1406609

- 009 Tetrachlo roethylene 15 1 Ref. 45, p. 69

Trichloroethene 98 1 0 Ref. 45, p. 69Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 56 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### June 2014 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

– Sample Concentrations

Reporting Station ID/ Concentration Limit* Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance (μg/L) (μ g/L) References

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 13 1 Ref. 45, p. 68

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 14 1 Ref. 45, p. 69

Notes: * - Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and diluti ons as defined in the HRS (Ref. 55). μg/L - micrograms per literGround Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 57 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Source 2 – 507 East Second Street

Background Wells

Ground water samples used to establish background levels for PCE and TCE for the domestic wells associated with the 507 East Second Str eet site (Source 2 ) in the alluvial ground water were based on analytical results from t he site reassessment sampling event that took place in April 2014 (Ref. 7, p. 21 ).

Locally, ground water flow at Source 2 is to the east northeast (Ref. 5, p p. 5, 9 ). Thus, the ground water well s representative of background conditions for Source 2 w ere chosen based on their location being slightly upgradient and to the south of the identified ground water plume (Ref. 3, p. 1 ; Attachment s A -5 and A-6 of this HRS documentation record).

PCE is a manufactured chlorinated solvent and does not occur naturally within the environment (Ref. 53, p. 1). Therefore, the background level of 0 for PCE can be considered representative of background conditions of the area. An obse rved release to the ground water will be established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample

- specific SQL or another HRS

defined and one of the two following conditions occurs: 1) If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample quantitation limit or another HRS

- defined limit or 2) If the background concentration equals or exceeds the detection limit, the sample measurement is three times or more ab ove the background concentration (Ref. 1, Table 2- 3, Sec. 2.3).

Background Domestic Wells

Domestic well s PW -1 and AWS -2 are located up-gradient or side

- gradient of the estimated boundaries of the ground water plume and are considered to be located outsid e the influence of potential contamination (Attachment s A

- 5, A -6 of this HRS documentation record) . Local ground water flow is toward the northeast which would be away from these well s ( Ref. 5, p. 9 ). Therefore, these well s are considered representative of back ground conditions for the area.

As shown in the tables below, the background and release samples are similar and their contaminant concentrations can be compared because they were collected during the same sampling event using similar sampling and analysis procedures and from a similar range of depths as shown below

. G round water sampling was conducted from 21 through 23 April 2014. Private domestic wells were purged for a minimum of 15 minutes using the existing pumps with samples collected from t he tap closest to the wellhead. Two of the private wells with direct wellhead access and inoperable pumps ( PW -6, and AWS -2 ) were sampled with either a disposable bailer or with a peristaltic pump. Ground water samples for VOA were collected in 40 ml vials preserved with HCl. All samples were stored on ice for delivery to the EPA Region 6 Laboratory for analysis by EPA Method 8260 (Ref. 7, p. 23; Ref. 37, p. 5 ).Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 58 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 2014 Domestic Well Investigation

The investigation of the ground water pathway during the Ap ril 21 through 23, 2014 SR consisted of collecting ground water samples from existing private domestic and irrigation wells. The SR sampling event was designed primarily to evaluate additional potential downgradient targets of the contaminated ground water plume. Private domestic and irrigation wells were identified from previous investigations conducted by NMED and through a limited well survey performed by Atkins Engineering on behalf of NMED (Ref. 7, p. 22; Ref. 39 ) . The well identification effort was focused within a distance of approximately two miles east of Source 1 at 514 West Second Street (Ref. 7, p. 19). The wells used to establish an observed release from Source 2 are presented below.

Background Monitoring Wells in Alluvial Aquifer Associated w ith 507 East Second

– Source 2

Station ID *** / Laboratory ID Well Depth (feet bgs) / Screened Interval (feet) Date (military time) References

PW -1 / 1404031

- 01 30.00/ 4 .00 04/22/2014 (1523) Ref. 28, pp. 1 -3 , 71 ; Ref. 54, p. 13

AWS

- 2/ 1404031

- 06 100/ 40 04/22/2014 (1807) Ref. 28, pp. 1 -3 , 71 ; Ref. 54, p. 66



### Background Results – Monitoring Wells in Alluvial Aquifer Associated with 507 East Second – Source 2

Station ID *** / Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration ( μg/L ) Reporting Limit * (μg/L) References

PW -1 / 1404031

- 01 Tetrachloroethene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 28, p. 35

Trichloroethene 2.8 (**8.4) 0.5 Ref. 28, p. 34

AWS

- 2/ 1404031

- 06 Tetrachloroethene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 28, p. 45

Notes: * - Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjus ted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 28, p. 1; Ref. 55). ** - As the analyte was detected, per the HRS, release samples will be compared against a level three times (i.e., 8.4) the concentration detected (Re f. 1, Table 2

- 3). *** - The Station ID for private addresses has been changed to protect personal information (Ref. 66, p. 1). μg/L - m icrograms per liter U – U ndetected (R ef. 28, p. 73).


### For PCE the background level is 0.5 μg/L. The background level for TCE is 2.8 μg/L and the level to show a significant increase is 8.4 μg/L

.Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 59 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Release Wells

Ground water samples collected from private domestic wells used to document an observed release from Source 2 to the alluvial portion of the combined aquifer are presented in the following table. Background samples were considered comparable and appropriate based on a similar sample date sampled and similar screened interval of the well.

Ground water well locations have been depicted on Attachment s A-5 and A-6 of this HRS documentation record.

Release Samples:

Ground water samples identified as “contaminated” are those that meet observed release by chemical analysis criteria as defined by the HRS (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 3). Observed release criteria is met when analyt ical evidence of a hazardous substance significantly above background exists and some portion of that increase is attributable to a release from the site. Additional criteria include that the sample concentration exceeds the Sample Quantitation Limit (SQL; including the background SQL) or another HRS

- defined limit , and is at least three times greater than the background concentration when the background concentration equals or exceeds its detection limit (Ref. 1, Table 2-3 ).

Observed release contaminatio n was found in wells sampled at depths ranging from 20 to 100 feet bgs (Ref. 54, pp. 9, 11, 12, 14, 67 -69 ; see analytical data tables presented below ) . Depth to water is about 16 .5 feet below grade at the Source (Ref. 5 , p p

. 17, 18). Soil boring logs from the environmental investigation at 507 East Second Street p roperty (Source 2) indicate that vadose zone soils typically consist of clay with variable amounts of sand and occasional sand lenses, while the water bearing zone typically consists of gravel and gravel

- sand mixtures (Ref. 5, pp. 17, 18 ).

Ground water sampling locations with levels meeting observed release criteria are presented below.

2014 Domestic Well Investigation

The investigation of the ground water pathway during the April 21 through 23

, 2014 SR consisted of collecting ground water samples from existing private domestic and irrigation wells. The SR sampling event was designed primarily to evaluate additional potential downgradient targets of the contaminated ground water plume. Private d omestic and irrigation wells were identified from previous investigations conducted by NMED and through a limited well survey performed by Atkins Engineering on behalf of NMED (Ref. 7, p. 22 ). The well identification effort was focused within a distance of approximately two miles east of Source 1 at 514 West Second Street (Ref. 7, p. 19)

. The wells used to establish observed release from Source 2 are presented below.Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 60 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 2014 Domestic Well Sampling Event (NMED Lea and West Second Street SR)

Station ID * / La boratory ID Well Depth (feet bgs) / Screened Interval (feet) Date (military time) References

PW -2 / 1404028

- 06 20.00 / 4 .0 04/22/2014 (1033) Ref. 28, pp. 1

- 3 , 69 , Ref. 54, p. 67

PW -3 / 1404028

- 07 21 .00/ 4 .0 04/22/2014 (0959) Ref. 28, pp. 1

- 3 , 69 ; Ref. 54, p. 1 4

PW -4 / 1404028

- 08 20 .00/ 2.0 04/22/2014 (0920) Ref. 28, pp. 1

- 3 , 69 ; Ref. 54, p. 9

PW -5 / 1404028

- 10 27.00 / 3.0 04/22/2014 (1811) Ref. 28, pp. 1

- 3 , 71 ; Ref. 54, p. 68

PW -6 / 1404031

- 02 27.00 / 7.0 04/23/2014 (1345) Ref. 28, pp. 1

- 3 , 71 ; Ref. 54, p

. 69

PW -7 / 1404031

- 03 23.0/5.0 04/23/2014 (0825) Ref. 28, pp. 1

- 3 , 71 ; Ref. 54, p. 12

AWS

- 55 (Thunderbird) / 1404031

- 09 100.00/ 10 0.00 04/22/2014 (1440) Ref. 28, pp. 1

- 3 , 71 ; Ref. 54, p. 11

* - The Station ID for private addresses has been changed to protect personal information (Ref. 66, p. 1).



### 2014 Domestic Well Sampling Event (NMED Lea and West Second Street SR)

– Sample Results

Station ID ** / Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration ( μg/L ) Reporting Limit * (μ g/L) References

PW -2 / 140402 8- 06 Tetrachloroethylene 76.5 0.5 Ref. 28, p. 15

Trichloroethene 11.7 0.5 Ref. 28, p. 14

PW -3 / 1404028

- 07 Tetrachloroethylene 76.7 0.5 Ref. 28, p. 17

Trichloroethene 12.7 0.5 Ref. 28, p. 16

PW -4 / 1404028

- 08 Tetrachloroethylene 38.5 0.5 Ref. 28, p. 19

PW -5 / 1404028

- 10 Tetrachloroethylene 1.9 0.5 Ref. 28, p. 23

PW -6 / 1404031

- 02 Tetrachloroethylene 0.7 0.5 Ref. 28, p. 37

PW

- 7/ 1404031

- 03 Tetrachloroethylene 52.0 0.5 Ref. 28, p. 39

AWS

- 55 (Thunderbird) /

1404031

- 09 Tetrachloroethylene 0.9 0.5 Ref. 28 , p. 51

Notes: * - Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 28, p. 1; Ref. 55). ** - The Station ID for private addresses has been changed to protect personal inf ormation (Ref. 66, p. 1). μg/L - micrograms per liter


### In addition to the wells shown above, there was the initial sampling event conducted when the source was discovered which indicated a release from the source to ground water . Ground water samples collected during this event a re shown below.Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 61 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 2012 Phase II ESA Ground Water Sampling

In January 2012, a Phase II ESA was conducted by environmental contractors on the Source 2 property. Although the samples were not collected by the NMED, they were collected by environmental contractors during environmental assessments conducted by property owners and indicate a release in connection with the 507 East Second Street p roperty (Source 2) ( Ref. 5, p. 4 ).

2012 Phase II ESA Sampling Event

Station ID Well Depth ( feet bgs) / Screened I nterval (feet ) Date (military time) References

SB

- 2 GW ( 507 E Second Ph 2 GW Grab ) 20.00/ 5.00 01/04/2012 (1420) Ref. 5, pp. 18, 67: Ref. 54, p p

. 5
, 7

SB

- 1 GW ( 507 E Second Ph 2 GW Grab ) 20.00/ 5.00 01/04/2012 (1230) Ref. 5, pp. 17, 67; Ref. 54, 5
, 7 p p

.



### 2012 Phase II ESA Sampling Event – Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration ( μg/L ) Reporting Limit * (μg/L) References

SB

- 2 GW ( 1201167

- 009 ) Tetrac hloroethylene 16,000 200 Ref. 5, p. 3 9

Trichloroethene 2,100 100 Ref. 5, p. 40

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 2,100 100 Ref. 5, p. 3 9

SB

- 1 GW ( 1201167

- 004 ) Tetrachloroethylene 7,100 100 Ref. 5, p. 28

Trichloroethene 3,900 100 Ref. 5, p. 28

cis

- 1,2

- Dic hloroethene 1,800 100 Ref. 5, p. 28

Notes: * - Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 55). μg/L - m icrograms per literGround Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 62 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Source 3 – West Second and Montana

Background Wells

Ground water samples used to establish background levels for PCE, TCE, cis -1,2- DCE

, and
trans -1,2- DCE for the monitoring wells associated with West Second and Montana (Sour ce 3) in the alluvial ground water were based on analytical results from the West Second and Montana SI sampling event conducted in June 2009 by the NMED (Ref. 30, p. 18).

Locally , ground water flow at Source 3 is generally east -northeast at a gradient of 0.006 feet/foot (Ref. 30 , p. 1 5; Ref. 34, p. 19 ). Thus, the ground water well representative of background conditions for Source 3 w as chosen based on its location being upgradient or west of the identified gr ound water plume and side gradient to the sou rce (Ref. 3, p.1 ; Attachment s A -6 of this HRS documentation record).

PCE is a manufactured chlorinated solvent and does not occur naturally within the environment (Ref. 53, p. 1). Therefore, the background level of 0 for PCE can be considered represent ative of background conditions of the area. A n observed release to the ground water will be established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample

- specific SQL or another HRS

defined limit and one of the two following conditions occurs: 1) If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample quantitation limit or another HRS

- defined limit or 2) If the background concentration equals or exceeds the detectio n limit, the sample measurement is three times or more above the background concentration (Ref. 1, Table 2-3, Sec.2.3).

Background Monitoring Wells

Even though monitoring well FC S- MW -1 is located very near the estimated boundaries of the ground water plu me, it is considered to be located outside the influence of potential contamination ( Attachment A

- 5 and A

- 6 of this HRS documentation record) . Local ground water flow is toward the northeast which would be away from this well ( Ref. 14, pp. 18, 21; Ref. 30 , p p. 4, 14 ). Further, since PCE, TCE, cis -1,2- DCE

, and trans -1,2- DCE concentrations have either been non

- detect or below the detection limit established by the laboratory

, combined with the fact that PCE, TCE, cis -1,2- DCE

, and trans -1,2- DCE are not natur ally occurring substances within the environment, this well is considered representative of background conditions for the area ( Ref. 22, pp. 13, 14; Ref. 46, pp. 1, 2; Ref. 53, p. 1).

As shown in the tables below, the background and release samples are si milar and their contaminant concentrations can be compared because they were collected during similar sampling event s (June 2009) using similar sampling and analysis procedures an d from a similar range of depths as shown below

. As part of the SI, NMED SOS collected ground water samples from five monitoring wells and the well FCS

- MW -1 at 1415 West Second Street that was historically presumed to be upgradient of the monitoring wells associated with the contaminated ground water plume

. Using certified clean disposable hand bailers, each well was purged a minimum of three well casing volumes and/or until field parameters (pH, conductivity, temperature, ORP) stabilized prior to sample collection ( Ref. 30, p. 18). InGround Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 63 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### addition, direct push borings were drilled in the residential neighborhood just north and east of the contaminated ground water plume associated with Source 3 to collect ground water grab samples from beneath the water table at each boring location. To obtain ground water grab samples, a screen point ground water sampler was threaded onto the leading end of a rod and advanced into the subsurface with a direct push rig

. 0- ring seals at each rod joint, the drive head, and the expendable drive point provided a watertight system. Once the saturated zone

wa s reached, the tool string was retracted approximately 44 inches while the screen was held in place using internal extension rods. Ground water entered the screen and was allowed to stabilize. The ground water samples were collected with peristaltic pump or with a tubing and check

- valve assembly. Ground water samples were collected in 40 ml vials and submitted for VOC analysis (Ref. 30, p. 19).

Background Monitoring Well in Alluvial Aquifer Associated with West Second and Montana

– Source 3

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth/ Screened Interval (feet bgs ) Date (military time) References

FCS

- MW

- 1/ 0906032

- 05 29.28 / 10 06/15/2009 (1000) Ref. 16, p. 24; Ref. 22, p p . 4

, 102 ; Ref. 54, pp. 2

, 6



### Background Results – Monitoring Wells in Alluvial Aquifer Associated with West Second Street and North Montana Avenue – Source 3

Station ID/ Laboratory ID H azardous Substance Concentration (μg/L) Reporting
Limit * (μg/L) References

FCS

- MW

- 1/ 0906032

- 05 Tetrachloroethylene 1.0 U 1.0 Ref. 22, p. 14 Trichloroethylene 1.0 U 1.0 Ref. 22, p. 13

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1.0 U 1.0 Ref. 22, p. 13

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1.0 U 1.0 Ref. 22, p. 13

Notes: * - Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 22, p. 2; Ref. 55). μg/L - m icrograms per liter U – Undetected (Ref. 22, p. 109).


### For all hazardous substances the background level is 1.0 μg/L.

Release Wells

Ground water samples collected from monitoring wells used to document an observed release from Source 3 to the alluvial portion of the combined aquifer are presented in the following table. The b ackground sample is considered comparable and appropriate based on a similar sample date , well depth, and similar screened interval of the well.Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 64 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Ground water well locations have been depicted on Attachment A- 5 of this HRS documentation record.

Release Samples:

Ground water samples identified as “contaminated” are those that meet observed release by chemical analysis criteria as defined by the HRS (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 3). Observed release criteria is met when analytical evidence of a hazardous substance significantly above background ex ists and some portion of that increase is attributable to a release from the site. Additional criteria include that the sample concentration exceeds the Sample Quantitation Limit (SQL; including the background SQL) or another HRS

- defined limit , and is at least three times greater than the background concentration when the background concentration equals or exceeds its detection limit (Ref. 1, Table 2-3 ).

Observed release contamination was found in wells sampled at depths ranging from 23.98 to 30.31 feet bgs (Ref. 54, pp. 1 -5 ). Depth to water is about 15 to 20 feet below grade in the Source

area (Ref. 30 , p. 15 ). Subsurface soils beneath the area of the Source consist of discontinuous layers of clay, sandy clay, clayey sand, poorly graded sand, and gravel to approximately 25 ft bgs (Ref. 30, p. 14 ).

Ground water sampling locations with levels meeting observed release criteria are presented below.

2009 Monitoring Well Investigation

The first SI sampling event involving the Roswell CERCLA sites took plac e in June 2009. Ground water samples were collected from 15 C ERCLA site monitoring wells, 9 direct push borings, and 4 domestic wells in the geographic vicinity of the North Main and 9th, Parks UST, and West Second and Montana (Ref. 7, p. 21). The wells used to establish an observed release from Source 3 are presented below.Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 65 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 2009 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth/ Screened Interval (feet bgs) Date (military time) References W Second MW

- 1 (MW1) / 0906032

- 07 24.86/ 1 0.00 06/15/2009 (1127) Ref. 16, p. 25; Ref. 22, pp. 1

- 4, 102; Ref. 27, pp. 1

- 2, 5; Ref. 54,
pp. 2

, 6

, 21 W Second MW

- 2 (MW2) / 0906032

- 09 30.31/ 10.00 06/15/2009 (1204) Ref. 16, p. 25; Ref. 22, pp. 1

- 4, 103; Ref. 27, pp. 1

- 2, 5; Ref. 54,
pp. 2

, 4

, 22 W Sec ond MW

- 3 (MW3) / 0906032

- 10 24.55/ 10.00 06/15/2009 (1455) Ref. 16, p. 25; Ref. 22, pp. 1

- 4, 103; Ref. 27, pp. 1

- 2, 5; Ref. 54,
pp. 2

, 6 , 2 3 W Second SMW

- 2 (SMW2) / 0906032

- 11 24.85/ 10.00 06/15/2009 (1348) Ref. 16, p. 25; Ref. 22, pp. 1

- 4, 103; Ref. 27, p p. 1

- 2, 5; Ref. 54,
pp. 2

, 6 , 2 4 W Second SMW

- 3 (SMW3) / 0906032

- 11 23.98/ 10.00 06/15/2009 (1421) Ref. 16, p. 25; Ref. 22, pp. 1

- 4, 103; Ref. 27, pp. 1

- 2, 5; Ref. 54,
pp. 2

, 6 , 2 5 ROW

- A

- 1 200B

- W3/ 0906039

- 0 2 25.00/ not screened 06/1 7 /2009 ( 0930 ) Ref. 16, p. 27; Ref. 10 6 ; Ref. 54, p. 2 6 22, pp. 1

- 4,

ROW

- A

- 1100B

- W2

- W3 / 0906039

- 03 28 .00/ 4 .00 06/17/2009 (1109) Ref. 16, pp. 28, 29; 4, 106 ; Ref. 54, pp. Ref. 22, pp. 1

- 2 7



### 2009 Monitoring Well Sampling Event – Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration ( μg/L ) Reporting Limit * (μg/L) References Tetrachloroethylene 52.2 1 Ref. 22, p. 18 W Second MW -1 (MW1) / 0906032

- 07 Trichloroethene 48 1 Ref. 22, p. 17

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 4.5 1 Ref. 22, p. 17

c is

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 299 5 Ref. 22, p. 17

W Second MW

- 2 (MW2) / 0906032

- 0 9 cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 198 12.5 Ref. 22, p. 21

W Second MW

- 3 (MW3) / 0906032

- 10 Trichloroethene 9.3 1 Ref. 22, p. 23

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 27.7 1 Ref. 22, p. 23

W Second SM W-2 (SMW2) / 0906032

- 11 Tetrachloroethylene 55.2 1 Ref. 22, p. 26

Trichloroethene 35.5 1 Ref. 22, p. 25

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1.9 1 Ref. 22, p. 25

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 36.9 1 Ref. 22, p. 25

W Second SMW -3 (SMW3) / 0906032

- Tetrachloroethyl ene 95.7 5 Ref. 22, p. 28

Trichloroethene 50.7 1 Ref. 22, p. 27Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 66 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration ( μg/L ) Reporting Limit * (μg/L) References
12 trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1.8 1 Ref. 22, p. 27

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 32.4 1 Ref. 22, p. 27

ROW

- 1200B

- W3 / 0906039

- 02 Tetrachloroethylene 26.5 1 Ref. 22, p. 44

Trichloroethene 9.7 1 Ref. 22, p. 43

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 5.5 1 Ref. 22, p. 43

ROW -A- 1100B

W2

- W3 / 0906039

- 03 Tetrachloroethylene 5.4 1 Ref. 22, p. 46

Trichloroethene 5.1 1 Ref. 22, p. 45

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 2.2 1 Ref. 22, p. 45

Notes: * - Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 22, p. 2; Ref. 55). μg/L - micrograms per literGround Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 67 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Source 4 – Parks UST

Background Wells

Ground water samples used to establish background levels for PCE and TCE for the monitoring wells associated with Parks UST (Source 4) in the alluvial ground water were based on analytica l results from the West Second and Montana SI sampling event conducted in March 2010 by the NMED (Ref. 7, pp. 21, 36 ).

Locally, ground water flow at Source 4 is north- northeast at a gradient of 0.01 feet/foot (Ref. 31,
pp . 3 , 4 ). Thus, ground water wells representative of background conditions for Source 4 were chosen based on their location being upgradient or west of the source and identified ground water plume (Ref. 3, p. 1 ; Attachment s A2, A-5, and A-6 of this HRS documentation record ).

PCE is a ma nufactured chlorinated solvent and does not occur naturally within the environment (Ref. 53, p. 1). Therefore, the non- detect background level for PCE and its daughter product TCE (Ref. 46, pp. 1, 2) can be considered representative of background conditions of the area. A n observed release to the ground water will be established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample

- specific SQL or another HRS -defined limit and one of the two following conditions occurs: 1) If the background concentra tion is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample quantitation limit or another HRS

- defined limit or 2) If the background concentration equals or exceeds the detection limit, the sample measurem ent is three times or more above the background concentration (Ref. 1, Table 2-3, Sec.2.3).

Background Monitoring Wells

Even though monitoring wells Firestone MW

- 8A, Firestone MW -4A, and Shamrock MW -8 are located very near the estimated boundaries of the ground water plume, they are considered to be located outside the influence of potential contamination (Attachment s A

- 5 and A-6 of this HRS documentation record ) . Local ground water flow is toward the northeast which would be away from these wells ( Ref. 31, p. 3). Further, since PCE and TCE have either been non

- detect or below the detection limit established by the laboratory

, combined with the fact that PCE and TCE are not naturally occurring substances within the environment, these wells are considered representative of background conditions for the area ( Ref. 21, pp. 5 , 6, 11, 12, 19, 20 ; Ref. 46, pp. 1, 2; Ref. 53, p. 1).

As shown in the tables below, the background and release samples are similar and their contaminant concentrations can be compared because they were collected during the same sampling event (February 2010) using the same sampling and analysis procedures and from a similar range of depths. Ground water samples were collected from the LUST site monitoring wells using certified clean dis posable hand bailers. Each well was purged a minimum of three well casing volumes and/or until field parameters (pH, conductivity, temperature, ORP) stabilized prior to sample collection. Ground water samples for volatile organic compound analysis (VOA) we re collected in 40 ml vials. Samples collected were unpreserved and a llGround Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 68 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### samples were stored on ice for delivery to the laboratory. Samples were analyzed by the EPA Region 6 Laboratory (Ref. 32, p. 16 ).

Background Monitoring Wells in Alluvial Aquifer Ass ociated with Parks UST

– Source 4

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth/ Screened Interval (feet bgs ) Date (military time) References

Firestone MW

- 8A / 1002017

- 04 / 32.10 / 10 02/15/2010 ( 1010 ) Ref. 13, pp. 20, 22; Ref. 21, p p

. 4 , 112, 113 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 Firestone MW

- 4A / 1002017

- 01 35.67 / 10 02/15/2010 ( 1210 ) Ref. 13, pp. 20, 23; Ref. 21, p p

. 4 , 108 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3, 7

Shamrock MW

- 8 / 1002017

- 08 23.30 / 10 02/15/210 ( 1330 ) Re f . 13, pp. 20, 23; Ref. 21, p p

. 4 , 108 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7



### Backgroun d Results – Monitoring Wells in Alluvial Aquifer Associated with Parks UST – Source 4

Station ID/ Laboratory ID H azardous Substance Concentration (μg/L) Reporting
Limit * (μg/L) References

Firestone MW

8A / 1002017

- 04 Tetrachloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 12

Trichloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 11

Firestone MW

4A / 1002017

- 01 Tetrachloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 6
Trichloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 5

Shamrock MW

8 / 1002017

- 08 Tetrachloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 20

Trichl oroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 19

Notes: * - Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 21, p. 2; Ref. 55). μg/L - m icrograms per liter U – Undetected (Ref. 21, p. 119).


### For all hazardous substances the background level is 0.5 μg/L.

Release Wells

Ground water samples colle cted from monitoring wells used to document an observed release from Source 4 to the all uvial portion of the combined aquifer are presented in the following tables by sampling event. Background samples were considered comparable and appropriate based on a similar sampl ing date and similar screened interval s of the well s.

Ground water well locations have been depicted on Attachment s A- 5 and A-6 of this HRS documentation record.Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 69 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Release Samples:

Ground water samples identified as “contaminated” are those that meet observed release criteria as defined by the HRS (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 3). Observ ed release criteria is met when analytical evidence of a hazardous substance significantly above background exists and some portion of that increase is attributable to a release from the site. Additional criteria include that the sample concentration exce eds the Sample Quantitation Limit (SQL; including the background SQL) or another HRS

- defined limit , and is at least three times greater than the background concentration when the background concentration equals or exceeds its detection limit (Ref. 1, Table 2-3 ).

Observed release contamination was found in wells sampled at depths ranging from 22.03 to 23.35 feet bgs (Ref. 54, pp. 41-43 ). Depth to water is about 14.26 to 17.65 feet below grade at the Source (Ref. 32, p. 13 ).

Ground water sampling locati ons with levels meeting observed release criteria are presented below.

February 2010 Monitoring Well Investigation

The second SI sampling event involving the Roswell CERCLA SI sites took place in Spring (February through April) 2010. Ground water samples were collected from 47 LUST site monitoring wells and 3 domestic wells in the geographic vicinity of Lea and West Second Street

, Parks UST, and West Second and Montana CERCLA sites as part of SI efforts for each site (Ref. 7, p. 21). The wells used to est ablish observed release from Source 4 are presented below.

February through April 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Well Depth/ Date Station ID/ Laboratory Screened Interval (military ID (feet bgs) time) References Shamrock MW

- 4 / 02/15/2010 Ref. 13, p. 22 ; Ref. 21, pp. 1

- 4, 108; 1002017

- 07 22.65/ 10.00 (0955) Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 , 4 1 Shamrock MW

- 9 / 02/15/2010 Ref. 13, p. 2 3; Ref. 21, pp. 1

- 4, 109; 1002017

- 09 23.35/ 10.00 (1253) Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 , 4 2 Shamrock MW

- 10 / 02/15/2010 Ref. 13, p. 23; Ref. 21, pp. 1

- 4, 111; 1002017

- 06 22.03/ 10.00 (1302) Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 , 4 3



### February through April 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event – Sample Concentrations

Reporting Station ID/ Concentration Limit* Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance (μg/L) (μg/L) References Shamrock MW

- 4 / 1002017

- 07 Tetrachloroethylene 0.7 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 18

Shamrock MW

- 9 / 1002017

- 09 Tetrachloroethylene 0.6 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 22

Shamrock MW

- 10 / Tetrachloroethylene 4.7 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 16Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

Reporting Station ID/ Concentration Limit* Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance (μg/L) (μg/L) References

1002017

- 06 Trichloroethene 0.7 0.5 Ref. 21 , p. 15

HRS Documentation Record 

### 70 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 Notes: * - The Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 21, p. 2; Ref. 55). μg/L - micrograms per liter



### In addition to the wells shown above, there have been several sampling events that have spanned different dates that indicate other releases to ground water associated with Source 4. Ground water samples during these sampling events were collected from monitoring wells as shown below.

2009 Monitoring Well Investigation

The first SI sampling event involving the Roswell CERCLA sites took place in June 2009. Ground water samples were collected from 15 C ERCLA site monitoring wel ls, 9 direct push borings, and 4 domestic wells in the geographic vicinity of the North Main and 9 th 

### CERCLA site and the Parks UST and West Second and Montana sources (Ref. 7, p. 21). The wells used to indicate a release to ground water are presented belo w.

2009 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth/ Screened Interval (feet bgs) Date (military time) References ROW

- A

- 200B

- SStanton / 06/16/2009 Ref. 29, pp. 1

- 4, 46; Ref. 54, pp. 3 3 0906037

- 12 24.00/ not screened (1212) RO W

- 300B

- SVA / 06/16/2009 Ref. 29, pp. 1

- 4, 46; Ref. 54, pp. 3 2 0906037

- 10 20.00/ not screened (1030) ROW

- 100B

- EHendricks / 06/16/2009 Ref. 29, pp. 1

- 4, 46; Ref. 54, pp. 3 3 0906037

- 09 26.00 / not screened (1600) ROW

- 400B

- SGrand / 06/16/2009 Ref. 29, pp. 1

- 4, 46; Ref. 54, pp. 3 2 0906037

- 11 21.5/ not screened (1420)



### 2009 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

– Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration ( μg/L ) Reporting Limit * References

ROW -A- 200B

SStanton / 0906037

- 12 Tetrachloroethylene 41.4 1 Ref. 29, p. 28

Trichloroethene 3.9 1 Ref. 29, p. 27

ROW

- 300B

- SVA / 0906037

- 10 Tetrachloroethylene 2.1 1 Ref. 29, p. 24

Trichloroethene 4.7 1 Ref. 29, p. 23

ROW

- 100B

- Tetrachloroethylene 67.3 1 Ref . 29, p. 22Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 71 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 2009 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

– Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ Concentration Reporting Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance ( μg/L ) Limit * References

EHendricks / 0906037

- 09 Trichloroethene 1.1 1 Ref. 29, p. 21

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 2.1 1 Ref. 29, p. 21

ROW

- 400B

- SGrand / 0906037

- 11 Tetrachloroethylene 30.9 J 1 Ref. 29, p. 26

Trichloroethene 1.1 1 Ref. 29, p. 25

Notes: J – The identification of the analyt e is acceptable; reported value is an estimate (Ref. 2 9 , p. 47 ), * - Reporting Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 55 ). μg/L - m icrograms per liter


### March 2010 Monitoring Well Investigation

G round water analytical data was collected by a NMED PSTB contractor in March 2010 from 7 monitoring wells at the Wakefield Oil LUST site (Ref. 7, p. 21). The wells used to indicate oth er release s from Source 4 are presented below.

February through April 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Well Depth/ Date Station ID/ Laboratory Screened Interval (feet (military ID bgs) time) References Wakefield MW

- 2/ 1003320

- 04 33.30/ 20.00 03/ 09/2010 (1620) Ref. 26, pp. 3, 12, 28

Wakefield MW

- 3/ 1003320

- 05 30.70/ 20.00 03/09/2010 (1645) Ref. 26, pp. 3, 13, 31

Wakefield MW

- 4/ 1003320

- 03 32.70/ 20.00 03/09/2010 (1525) Ref. 26, pp. 3, 14, 25

Wakefield MW

- 6/ 1003320

- 06 29.90/ 20.00 03/10/2010 (1100) Ref. 26, pp. 3, 15, 34

Wakefield MW

- 7/ 1003320

- 02 30.05/ 20.00 03/09/2010 (1355) Ref. 26, pp. 3, 16, 22

Wakefield MW

- 8 / 1003320

- 01 31.00/ 20.00 03/09/2010 (1315) Ref. 26, pp. 3, 17, 19



### February through April 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Even t – Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance Concentration (μg/L) PQL * (μg/L) References Wakefield MW

- 2/ 1003320

- 04 Trichloroethene 26 10 Ref. 26, p. 30

Wakefield MW

- 3/ Tetrachloroethylene 24 10 Ref. 26, p. 32Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 72 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 1003320

- 05 Trichloroethene 36 10 Ref. 26, p. 33

Wakefield MW

- 4/ 1003320

- 03 Tetrachloroethylene 43 1 Ref. 26, p. 26

Trichloroethene 26 1 Ref. 26, p. 27

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 3.5 1 Ref. 26, p. 26

Wakefield MW

- 6/ 1003320

- 06 Tetrachloroethylene 42 20 Re f. 26, p. 20

Trichloroethene 40 20 Ref. 26, p. 21

Wakefield MW

- 7/ 1003320

- 02 Tetrachloroethylene 49 5 Ref. 26, p. 23

Trichloroethene 13 5 Ref. 26, p. 24

Wakefield MW -8 / 1003320

- 01 Tetrachloroethylene 130 1 Ref. 26, p. 20

Trichloroethene 24 1 Ref . 26, p. 21

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 4.2 1 Ref. 26, p. 20

Notes: PQL – Practical Quantitation Limit (Ref. 26, p. 19) * - The Practical Quantitation Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, S ection 1.1; Ref. 55). μg/L - micrograms per liter


### June 2011 Monitoring Well Investigation

In June 2011, NMED collected ground water samples from monitoring wells at the Parks UST CERCLA site (Ref. 7, p. 21; Ref. 20, pp. 3, 6, 10, 13, 22 ). The wells used to indicate other release s from Source 4 are presented below.

June 2011 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Well Depth/ Screened Interval (feet bgs) Date (military time) References

Parks MW

- 12/ 201101239 29.92/ 10.00 06/29/2011 (1040) Ref. 20, p. 3 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 , 3 6

Parks MW

- 14/ 201101238 28.47/ 10.00 06/29/2011 (0855) Ref. 20, p. 6 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 , 3 7

Parks MW

- 15/ 201101237 33.65/ 10.00 06/29/2011 (0925) Ref. 20, p. 10 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 , 3 8

Parks MW

- 16/ 201101243 27.34/ 10.00 06/29/201 1 ( unknown ) Ref. 20, p. 13; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7 , 3 9

Parks MW

- 17/ 201101240 25.38/ 10.00 06/29/2011 (1000) Ref. 20, p. 22 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3

, 7
, 40Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 73 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### June 2011 Monitoring Well Sampling Event – Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ Laboratory ID Hazardous Su bstance Concentration (μg/L) SDL * (μg/L) References

Parks MW

- 12/

201101239 Tetrachloroethylene 64.3 0.07 Ref. 20, p. 2

Trichloroethene 18.3 0.06 Ref. 20, p. 2

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 0.1 0.09 Ref. 20, p. 1

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 2.9 0.43 Ref . 20, p. 1

Parks MW

- 14/

201101238 Tetrachloroethylene 27.1 0.07 Ref. 20, p. 5

Trichloroethene 29.8 0.06 Ref. 20, p. 5

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1.8 0.09 Ref. 20, p. 4

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 5.1 0.43 Ref. 20, p. 4

Parks MW

- 15/

201101237 Tetrachlor oethylene 42.5 0.07 Ref. 20, p. 8

Trichloroethene 18.9 0.06 Ref. 20, p. 8

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1.7 0.43 Ref. 20, p. 7

Parks MW

- 16/

201101238 Tetrachloroethylene 40.2 0.07 Ref. 20, p. 12

Parks MW

- 16/

201101238 Trichloroethene 17.8 0.06 Ref. 20, p. 12

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 2.9 0.43 Ref. 20, p. 11

Parks MW

- 17/

201101240 Tetrachloroethylene 60.6 0.07 Ref. 20, p. 21

Parks MW

- 17/

201101240 Trichloroethene 10.4 0.06 Ref. 20, p. 21

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 1.2 0.43 Ref. 20, p. 20

Notes: SDL – Sa mple Detection Limit * - Sample Detection Limit is equal to the SQL and is adjusted for sample volume and dilutions as defined in the HRS ( Ref. 1, Section 1.1; Ref. 20, p. 2; Ref. 55). μg/L - m icrograms per literGround Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 74 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### The NMED has been the primary agency involved in the investigation of these ground water plumes . The investigations that identified chlorinated solvents in ground water were NMED PSTB LUST site investigations. Following the id entification of chlorinated solvents, the NMED ROS conducted investigations under the authority of the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission ( NMWQCC ) which led to investigation by the NMED SOS under CERCLA (Ref. 7, p. 12).

NMED SOS measured ground water levels from 80 existing monitoring wells in the CERCLA SI investigation areas, consisting of 15 CERCLA site monitoring wells and 65 LUST site monitoring wells. Water levels were measured 25

- 26 April and 7

- 8 September 2011 to provide potentiometric s urface and ground water flow data relevant to the site. Depth to water was measured in the wells using a water level probe with readings recorded to the nearest hundredth of a foot (0.01 ft) ( Ref. 35, p. 3; Ref. 38, pp. 1 -7) . The water level probe was deco ntaminated prior to use in each well using a soap (Liquinox) wash followed by a deionized water rinse ( Ref. 35, p. 3; Ref. 38, pp. 1 -7) . NMED SOS hired a land surveyor to survey the geographic coordinates and top of casing elevations for the 80 wells; the survey was completed in August 2011 (Ref. 27). The potentiometric surface maps demonstrate a generally eastward ground water flow direction from Source 3 eastward across central Roswell. There is a somewhat radial aspect to the eastward ground water flow in the vicinity of the site. (Ref. 7, pp. 20, 46, 47).

NMED SOS collected ground water samples from 91 sample points: 9 direct push borings, 60 LUST site monitoring wells, 15 CERCLA site monitoring wells, and 7 domestic wells. In addition, ground water an alytical data collected by a NMED PSTB contractor in March 2010 from 7 monitoring wells at the Wakefield Oil LUST site was used in data evaluation, as well as data from Phase II sampling conducted b y environmental contractors (Ref. 5, p. 4; Ref. 7, p. 20; Ref. 8, p. 4).

The CERCLA SI/SR sampling events were conducted by NMED and samples were collected according to work plans developed by the NMED (Ref. 35; Ref. 36; Ref. 37 ).

To obtain the ground water grab samples from direct push borings, a screen -point ground water sampler was threaded onto the leading end of a direct push rod and advanced into the subsurface with a direct push rig. O

- ring seals at each rod joint, the drive head, and the expendable drive point provided a watertight system. Once the s aturated zone was reached, the tool string was retracted approximately 44 inches while the screen was held in place using internal extension rods. Ground water entered the screen and was allowed to stabilize. The ground water sample was collected with a st ainless steel mini bailer or peristaltic pump (Ref. 36, p. 3).

Ground water samples were collected from LUST m onitoring wells using certified clean disposable hand bailers. Each well was purged a minimum of three well casing volumes and/or until field par ameters (pH, conductivity, temperature, and oxidation

- reduction potential [ ORP ]) stabilized prior to sample collection (Ref. 35, p. 3).

Private domestic wells were purged for a minimum of 15 minutes using the existing pumps with samples collected from the tap closest to the wellhead. Two of the private wells with direct wellhead access an d inoperable pumps ( PW

- 6, and AWS -2 ) were sampled with either aGround Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 

### 75 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### disposable bailer or with a peristaltic pump. Field parameters were measured during the purging using a mu lti

- probe instrument for measuring pH, conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and ORP (Ref. 7, p. 23; Ref. 35, pp. 3, 4, 5; Ref. 66, p. 1).

Ground water samples for VOA by EPA Method 8260 were collected in 40 milliliter vials. Samples collected pr ior to October 2010 were unpreserved while samples collected during or after October 2010 were preserved with hydrochloric acid ( HCl ) . All samples were stored on ice for delivery to the laboratory. Samples collected in 2009, 2010 , and 2014 SR were analyzed by the EPA Region 6 Laboratory, in Houston, Texas, while 2011 samples were analyzed by the New Mexico Department of Health, State Laboratory Division ( SLD ) ( Ref. 7, p. 21; Ref. 15; Ref. 35 , p p. 3, 4; Ref. 36 , p. 3; Ref. 37, p. 5 ). Samples collected by en vironmental contractors during the Phase II ESAs and the samples collected from the RMWS municipal supply wells were analyzed by Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory located in Santa Fe, New Mexico (Ref. 5, pp. 20-77; Ref. 9; Ref. 43; Ref. 44).Ground Water Pathway – Attribution

HRS Documentation Record 

### 76 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### Attrib ution:

The Lea and West Second Street s ite is located in Roswell, Chaves County, New Mexico near the intersection of West Second Street and Lea Avenue . The grouped s ite is located in an area of mixed commercial and residential use

. There are residential properties located within the boundaries identified as the grouped s ite (Ref. 3, p. 1 ; Attachment A -2 of this HRS documentation record ).

Source 1 contamination was released from dry cleaning facility activities which used PCE in their operations and released PCE into a drain at the far end of the facility building and through a private sewer line (Ref. 8, p. 4). Leakage from the drain and private sewer line has been found based on the documentation of native soil contaminated with elevated levels of PCE (see Section 2.4.1 of this HRS documentation record for Source 1). Evidence of the origins of the contamination can be demonstrated by how concentrations of PCE in native soil are most concentrated at the drain from the dry cleaning facility (SB

- 2), and become increasingly lower the further away from the release point (SB

- 3, SB

- 1, and SB

- 4) (Ref. 8, pp. 4, 11, 12). PCE has been found to have entered the alluvial ground water at the site (Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). In addition to PC E being released to the combined aquifer being evaluated for HRS purposes at the site, TCE and cis -1,2- DCE degradation products of PCE are also present (Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). PCE undergoes biodegradation through anaerobic organisms that change the PCE to TCE and then further degradation of TCE to cis -1,2-DCE and trans-1,2-DCE (Ref. 46, pp. 1, 2).

Source 2 contamination was released from a private sewer line that runs from an interior drain used by the dry cleaning business whic h used PCE in their operations (Ref. 5 , p. 4). Leakage from the private sewer line has been found based on native soil contaminated with PCE (see Section 2.4.1 of this HRS documentation record for Source 2 ). Evidence of the origins of the contamination can be demonstrated by how concentrations of PCE in native soil are most concentrated at the drain from the dry cleaning facility (SB -1 ), and are lower further from the release (SB -2) (Ref. 8, pp. 8, 14). PCE has been found to have entered the alluvial gro und water at the site (Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). In addition to PCE being released
to the combined aquifer being evaluated for HRS purposes at the site, TCE, a degradation product of PCE are also present (Section 3.1.1 of this HRS d ocumentation record ). PCE undergoes biodegradation through anaerobic organisms that change the PCE to TCE and then further degradation of TCE to cis-1,2-DCE (Ref. 46, pp. 1, 2).

Source 3 contamination was released from an in

- ground concrete separator tan k (Ref. 30 , p. 4). Spent PCE was found in the tank and l eakage from the tank has been found based on native soil collected around the tank contaminated with PCE ( Ref. 30, p. 11; see Section 2.4.1 of this HRS documentation record for Source 3). Evidence of the origins of the contamination can be demonstrated by how concentrations of PCE in native soil were most concentrated within the tank pit and contained lower concentrations further from the tank location (Ref. 30, p. 11 ). PCE has been found to have en tered the alluvial ground water at the site (Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). In addition to PCE being released to the combined aquifer being evaluated for HRS purposes at the site, TCE, cis -1,2- DCE , and trans -1,2- DCE degradation products of PCE are also present (Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record ). PCEGround Water Pathway – Attribution

HRS Documentation Record 

### 77 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### undergoes biodegradation through anaerobic organisms that change the PCE to TCE and then further degradation of TCE to cis-1,2-DCE and trans-1,2-DCE (Ref. 46, pp. 1, 2).

Source 4 contamination is the result of a release from an unidentified source (Ref. 3 2 , p. 11 ). The alluvial ground water plume which contains PCE and TCE is evidence of a release ( see Section 2.4.1 of this HRS documentation record for Source 4 ). Although the origins of the release has not been established, dry cleaning activities are considered to be a potential source since PCE is the primary chlorinated solvent detected within the plume . In an effort to identify potential dry cleaning sources, NMED SOS iden tified a total of 39 dry cleaning businesses that operated from 31 cleaning facilities within a 1

- mile radius of the source (Ref. 3 2 , p. 9 ). In addition to PCE being present in the ground water at the site, TCE, a degradation product of PCE is also presen t (Sectio n 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). PCE undergoes biodegradation through anaerobic organisms that change the PCE to TCE (Ref. 46, pp. 1, 2).

PCE contamination as well as contamination from PCE’s biodegradation products, TCE, cis -1,2- DCE a nd trans -1,2- DCE has been identified throughout the alluvial aquifer in multiple ground water plume s that extends from beneath the intersection of North Montana Avenue and West Second Street in northeasterly and southeasterly direction s (Ref. 46, p. 2; Re f. 57; Attachment A

6 of this HRS documentation record).

The NMED has been the primary agency involved in the investigation of this ground water plume. The NMED first discovered the ground water plume in 2005 following the investigation of a leaky undergr ound storage tank at the Parks Department Yard property (Source 4)

. PCE and TCE were first detected in May 2005 when a change in the analysis performed by the PSTB program was implemented and full EPA Method 8260 analysis was applied to the ground water

sa mples (Ref. 32, p. 8)

. The other identified sources were discovered in 2006 (Source 1), 2009 (Source 3), and 2011 (Source 2) (Ref. 5, p. 6; Ref. 7, p. 12; Ref. 30, p. 4).

PCE is widely used for dry cleaning fabrics and textiles and for metal degreasing op erations. Other uses include: an intermediate in the synthesis of fluorocarbons, an insulating/cooling fluid in electric transformers, in typewriter correction fluids, as veterinary medication against worms. Major environmental releases are primarily attri buted to dry cleaning and industrial metal cleaning or finishing (Ref. 10 , p. 1)

. Historically, some dry cleaners may have discarded wastes by pouring wastewater in to sewers, throwing used filters and sludge into the t rash, or by simply dumping wastewater on the ground near the facility (Ref. 11, p. 1).

In ground water PCE is catalyzed by anaerobic bacteria and produces TCE. TCE undergoes reductive dehalogenase by anaerobic bacteria and produces cis -1,2- DCE, trans -1,2- DCE and vinyl chloride (Ref. 46, pp. 1, 2). Therefore, the presence of TCE, cis -1,2- DCE, and trans -1,2- DCE can be directly linked to the release of PCE into the ground water.

The NMED has conducted several soil and ground water investigations in the area; however, the precise extent of th e PCE contamination in the ground water has not yet been determined. PCE is a manufactured product and the primary solvent used in commercial and industrial dry cleaning Ref. 53, p. 1 ).Ground Water Pathway – Attribution

HRS Documentation Record 

### 78 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### A search for possible offsite contamination sources located up

- gradi ent of the sources did not identify any facilities within the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (Ref. 58 , p p. 1-4) . EPA’s EnviroMapper identified five dry cleaning facilities within the Roswell zip code. The dry cleaners listed include: 1-Hour Martinizing , w hich is currently operating where Source 1 is located; American Linen Supply

, which is located within the site area; and College Cleaners

Roswell, College Cleaners II, and Klassic Cleaners

- Roswell which are all located down

- gradient of the ground water plu me s and identified sources (Ref. 59, pp. 1-5 ).

The McGaffey and Main Ground Water Plume Superfund site is located approximately 1 mile south- southeast of the grouped sources and although it also has the documented the presence of PCE in ground water samples collected from the shallow alluvial ground water aquifer and the underlying carbonate

- rock aquifer, the site is generally cross

- gradient or down -gr adient of the identified plumes , and is therefore not a contributing factor to this grouped site’s contam ination (Ref. 7, p. 14; Ref. 64, pp. 5, 8 ; Attachment A -6 of this HRS documentation record).

Hazardous Substances Released :

PCE TCE cis -1,2- DCE
trans -1,2- DCE

Ground Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550Ground Wate r Pathway – Waste Characteristics

HRS Documentation Record 

### 79 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

3.2.1 T oxicity/Mobility

Hazardous Substance Source No. (and/or Observed Release) Toxicity Factor Value Mobility Factor Value * Does Hazardous Substance Meet Observed Release by Chemical Analysis? (Y/N) Toxicity/ Mobility (Ref. 1, Table 3

- 9) References

cis

- 1,2

- Dichloroethylene 2, 3 , OR1, OR3 1,000 1 Y 1,000 Ref. 2, p. 12
trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethylene 3 , OR3 100 1 Y 100 Ref. 2, p. 12
Tetrachloroethylene 1, 2, 3, 4 , OR1, OR2, OR3, OR4 100 1 Y 100 Ref. 2, p. 17

Trichloroethylene 2 , 3, 4 , OR1, OR2, OR3, OR4 1 ,000 1 Y 1,000 Ref. 2, p. 18
Note: OR – Observed Release * – Hazardous substances meeting the criteria for an observed release by chemical analysis to an aquifer underlying a source are assigned a mobility factor value of 1 (Re f. 1, Section 3.2.1.1).


### Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value (Ref. 1, Section 3.2.1.3, Table 3

- 9): 1,000

3.2.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

Source No. Source Type Current Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

1 Contaminated Soil 0.001828

2 Private Sewer Line ( Other ) > 0 , but unknown

3 Tank ( In

- ground Separator Tank ) 0.55556

4 Contaminated Ground Water Plume/ No Identified Source ( Other ) > 0 , but unknown



### Sum of Values: 0.557388

A hazardous waste quantity of 0.557388 is estimated for sources at the Le a and West Second Street site which

, when applied in HRS Table 2 -6, yields a pathway hazardous waste quantity of 1

. For Source 2, a Level II target well (AWS

- 55 Thunderbird) exists, as shown below in section 3.3.2.3 of this HRS documentation record, so th is factor value is subject to a minimum value of 100 (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.4.2.2).

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.2 ): 100Ground Water Pathway – Targets

HRS Documentation Record 

### 80 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 3.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 1,000 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value (1,000) × Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value (100) = 1 x 10 5



### Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value (Ref. 1, Table 2- 7): 18



### 3.3 Ground Water Pathway Targets

3.3.1 Nearest Well

Ther e is a Level II drinking water well within the TDL (AWS -55) (Ref. 54, pp. 5, 11; Ref. 68, p. 1; See Attachment C, Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record ); therefore, a nearest well factor of 45 is assigned (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.1).

Nearest Well Factor Value: 45



### 3.3.2 Population

3.3.2.1 Level of Contamination

3.3.2.2 Level I Concentrations

To date, no known ground water targets subject to Level I concentration levels have been identified for the ground water pathway.

Level I Concentrations F actor Value: 0

3.3.2.3 Level II Concentrations

Level II concentrations have been detected in domestic well AWS

- 55 (Thu n derbird) as shown in Source 2, Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record . AWS

- 55 is located outside of the City of Roswell city limits, and therefore drinking water is not supplied by the municipal supply wells (Ref. 48, p. 1; Ref. 54, pp. 5, 11; Ref. 68, p. 1; Attachment C, Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record ). There are 4 people who work at the location which AWS-55 provid es water to (Ref. 6 9, p. 1).

Contamination has also been detected in four municipal supply wells (CW12, CW13, CW15, CW16) within the 4

- mile TDL. The contamination found in these wells cannot be attributed to one individual source, and therefore are only considered potential contamination as shown in Section 3.3.2.4 of this HRS documentation record.

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 4Ground Water Pathway – Targets

HRS Documentation Record 

### 81 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 3.3.2.4 Potential Con tamination

Roswell Municipal Water System

In addition to each source having an observed r elease and contaminated ground water plume associated with it as described above, the populations served by is the City of Roswell Municipal Water System (RMWS) wells are considered subject to potential contamination.

T he City of Roswell has four histo rically and/or currently contaminated municipal supply wells located within a 4

- mile radius of the grouped sources : City Well 12 (CW12), City Well 13 (CW13), City Well 15 (CW15), and City Well 16 (CW16) (Ref. 7 , pp. 18-19) . These four wells are active

mu nicipal supply wells for the City of Roswell that provide drinking water to the residents of Roswell (Ref. 17, p. 1). All of the City of Roswell municipal supply wells obtain their water from the artesian aquifer, which is hydraulically connected to the s hallow alluvial ground water ( Ref. 48, p. 1; Ref. 49, p. 1 4 ). Further, the artesian aquifer and the hydraulically connected alluvial ground water together comprise the Roswell Basin Aquifer S ystem (Ref. 49, p. 1 4) . This system has been designated as a ka rst aquifer by the USGS ( Ref. 14, p. 13; Ref. 49, pp. 10, 14 ).

Ground water samples were collected from the municipal supply wells as part of routine compliance sampling mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (Ref. 24 , pp. 1-12 ). The five municipal supp ly wells used to evaluate this site under the HRS are all completed within the artesian aquifer at total depths of 344 feet (CW12), 348 feet (CW13), 365 feet (CW15), 363 feet (CW16) , and 850 (for CW18) feet bgs. Depth to water in the five municipal wells have been measured at 85 feet, 80 feet, 99 feet, 124 feet, and 105 feet (Ref. 17, pp. 4, 5, 6 ).

PCE and TCE were detected in municipal supply wells CW12 and CW13 in 1999 . PCE and TCE have been detected frequently in municipal supply wells CW15 and CW16 since at least 199 9 (Ref. 25 , pp. 1, 4, 8, 10, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 42, 46, 48, 52, 54, 56, 64, 66, 74, 76, 78, 80, 86, 88, 95, 111, 117, 123, 147, 154, 156, 164, 167, 172, 175, 177 -179) . However, the concentrations of PCE and TCE detected in the municipal supply wells have been below the Federal Maximum Contaminant Level ( MCL ) of 5 ug/L for these compounds (Ref. 67, p. 5). Ground water samples were collected from municipal supply well CW18 between the years of 1999 and 2014 (Ref. 24, pp.1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12).

The nearest active public drinking water ground water supply well (CW13) o perated by the RMWS is located approximately 1.2 mile south of the Lea and West Second Street site (see Attachment A -3 of this HRS documentation record for drinking water well t arget locations ) ( Ref. 7, p. 19; Ref. 17, p. 3 ). The RMWS (Public Water System [PWS] ID No. NM3520203 ) is a blended water system that serves 48,611 people in the City of Roswell, New Mexico (Ref. 42, p. 1; Ref. 48, p. 1). The system consists of 33 ground water wells, 20 of which are active (Ref. 40, pp. 3-5 ). Of the 20 active wells, four wells, which are part of the Roswell International Air Center (RIAC) operate as a standalone system and only tie into the city system during an emergency (Ref. 48, p. 1) . Therefore, there are 16 wells that actively supply the City of Roswell.

In addition to CW 13 , five RMWS wells are located within the 4

- mile target distance limit (TDL) for the grouped site, including CW 12, CW 15, CW 16, CW 17, and CW 18 (Ref. 7, pp. 18, 19; Ref. 17, p. 3 ; Attachment A -3 of this HRS documentation record ).Ground Water Pathway – Targets

HRS Documentation Record 

### 82 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### City Wells #10, #11, and #18 are located west of the City of Roswell near US Highway 70, while City Wells #12, #13, #15, #16, and #17 are located within the southwestern quadrant of Roswell. Each of these eight wells has an associated gas chlorination treatment facility and a sampling point that is a designated entry point into the system’s distribution lines. T hree large storage tanks (the 5

- million gallon capacity Third Reservoir Storage Tank and Country Club Storage Tanks #3 and #4, each with 7.5- milli on- gallon capacities) float on the distribution lines and receive water from these City Wells. Water derived from these eight wells serves the m ain part of the City of Roswell (Ref. 41, p. 2).

Since th e RMWS is blended and no single water supply source s upplies more than 40 percent of the system, the population served is apportioned equally to each water supply source in the system (Ref.1, Section 3.3.2; Ref. 48, p. 1 ). 

### As a result, th e City of Roswell population of 48,611 is equally divided by the 16 water wells that supply the city (Ref. 42, p. 1; Ref. 48, p. 1). A n estimated 3,038 persons are served by each water supply source (Ref. 17, p. 3; Ref. 48, p.1).

Other wells that could be potentially contaminated include private domestic wells , and privately owned supply wells that are outside of the City of Roswell boundary, but within the site TDL

. The nearest private water well s are located within 1- mile of the identified sources (s ee Attachment A -3 of this HRS documentation record for drinking water well target locations ) (Ref. 47, pp. 1, 4 ). Based on the U. S. Census Bureau, the persons per household in 2009-2013 for Chaves County is 2.70 (Ref. 61 , p. 1)

. The total estimated popu lation potentially served by private domestic ground water wells outside of the City of Roswell city limits and within 4 radial miles of the site is 3,070 persons, with a total of 1,137 domestic wells identified within 4 radial miles of the s ite and outsid e of city limits (Ref. 47, pp. 1 -32 ; Attachment A -3 of this HRS documentation record ). Two private ly owned supply wells located within the 4

- mile TDL include one at the Outside Inn RV Park

, which consists of a non

- transient population in the greater than 2 to 3 miles distance interval and one at Generations of Learning in the greater than 3 to 4 miles distance interval (Ref. 17, p. 3 , Attachment A -3 of this HRS documentation record ). The Outside Inn RV Park well serves a population of 45, and the Generatio ns of Learning well serves a population of 256 (Ref. 17, p. 4 ). Each of these wells is completed at 190 feet depth and 300 feet depth respectively (Ref. 17, p. 5 ).Ground Water Pathway – Targets

HRS Documentation Record 

### 83 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

## Potential Population Targets

Domestic Wells (non

- karst) ** Domestic Wells (karst) ** Publ ic Supply Wells (karst) City of Roswell Municipal Wells (karst)

TDL from Site Number of Wells (R ef. 47 ) Total non

- karst Population

Served* Distance Weighted Population Values (non

karst) (Ref. 1, Table 3

- 12) Number of Wells (Ref. 47 ) Karst Domestic

Well Population

Served* Number of Wells (Ref. 17) Population Served (Ref. 17 ) Number of Wells (Ref. 17) Population Served ( Ref. 48 ) Total karst Population

Served Distance Weighted Population Values (karst) (Ref. 1, Table 3

- 12) References
0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref. 47, p. 4

0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref. 47, p. 4

1 1 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 Ref. 47, p. 4; Ref. 61, p. 1

2 51 138 30 22 59 0 0 City Well 13 3,038 3,09 7 2,607 Ref. 17, p. 5, Ref. 47, pp. 4

- 5; Ref. 48; Ref. 61, p. 1

3 241 651 68 86 232 Outside Inn RV 45 City Well s 12,15,16,17 12,152 12,429 8,163 Ref. 17, pp. 4

- 5, Ref. 47, pp. 5- 14; Ref. 48; Ref. 61, p. 1

4 576 1,555 131 159 429 Generations of Learning 256 City Well 18 3,038 3,723 2,607 Ref. 17, p p

. 4

- 5, Ref. 47, pp. 14

- 31 ; R ef. 48; Ref. 61, p. 1

Total 869 2,34 7 230 268 724 301 18,228 19, 252 13,379 Notes: * Based on 2.7 0 per household (Ref. 61, p. 1) ** Calculations of karst and non

- karst private domestic wells were based on shallow and artesian classifications of the water source for each well identified from the New Mexico Water Rights Reporting system website. Wells which did not contain source information were conservatively identified as non

- karst (Ref. 47).



### Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values: 230 (non-karst) + 13,379 (karst) = 13,609 Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values/10: 1,360.9 Potential Contamination Factor Value : 1,361

Population Factor Value (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.2.5) Level II Concentrations Factor Value + Potential Factor Value: 4 + 1,361 = 1,365Ground Water Pathway – Targets

HRS Documentation Record 

### 84 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 3.3.3 Resources

For more than 100 years the Roswell Basin has been one of the most intensively farmed areas in the state, the principle crops being alfalfa, cotton, sorghum

, and chiles

. The Roswell Basin derives virtually all of its irrigation water from ground water stored in the artesian and shallow alluvial aquifer (Ref. 14, p. 8 ). One such farm within the site’s TDL is Kaywal, Inc. Kaywal receives its irrigation water from the shallow ground water used to irrigate its cotton, corn, sorghum, wheat and oat crops on more than 100 acres of land (Ref. 60 , pp.1, 2, 64 , 91 ; Attachment A

- 3 of this HRS documentation record ). Another commercial farm which supplies feeder crops for commercial sale is Pirtle Farms which uses artesian ground water for irrigation of over 100 acres of agriculture land (Ref. 60 , pp. 1, 2, 79 , 93 -96 ; Attachment A

- 3 of this HRS documentation record ). As such, under the HRS, a resources value of 5 is assigned to any target well drawing water from the aquifer being evaluated or eligible overlying aquifers being used for irrigation (5

- acre minimum) of commercial food crops or commercial forage crops (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.3).

Resources Factor Value: 5Ground Water Pathway – Targets

HRS Documentation Record 

### 85 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 3.3.4 Wellhead Protection Area

A Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) is defined as the area designated by states according to Section 1428 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended, to protect wells and recharge areas that supply public drinking water systems ( Ref. 1, Sec. 3.3.4).

For the State of New Mexico, a radius of 1,000 feet has been designated as a WHPA around all municipal supply wells (Ref. 51 , p. 7 ). Six municipal supply wells subject to potential contamination are located within a 4

- mile radius of the sources ; therefore there is a WHPA within the TDL of the interconnected aquifer being evaluated for HRS purposes (Sec. 3.1.1 and Attachment A -3 of this HRS documentation record ; Ref. 1, Sec. 3.3.4).

Wellhead Protection Area Factor Value: 5

3.3.5 Calculation of Targets Factor Category Value

The target factor category value is calculated by determining the sum of the factor values for the nearest well ( 45 ), population ( 1,365 ), resources ( 5 ), and Wellhead Protection Are a ( 5 ) (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.5).

Calculations: 45 + 1,365 + 5 + 5 = 1,420

3.4 Ground Water Migration Score for an Aquifer

The ground water migration score for an aquifer is calculated by multiplying the factor category values for likelihood of release (55 0), waste characteristics ( 18 ), and targets ( 1,420 ). Divide by 82,500, the resulting value (maximum value 100) is assigned as the ground water migration pathway score (Ref.1, Section 3.4).

Calculations: (550 × 18 × 1,420) ÷ 82,500 = 170.4 (100)

3.5 Calculation of Ground Water Migration Pathway S core

The Ground W ater Migration Pathway Score assign ed based on the highest ground water migration score calculated for an aquifer underlying sources at the site. For the combined aquifer being evaluated for H RS purposes, a value of 100 is assigned

.Surface Water Pathway – Not Scored

HRS Documentation Record 

### 86 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 4.0 SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY – NOT SCORED

The surface water migration pathway is not scored because it is not expected to contribute significantly to the site score. The site score exceeds 28.50 based only on the evaluation of the ground water pathway.Soil Exposure Pathway – Not Scored

HRS Documentation Record 

### 87 Lea and West Second Street NMN000607057 

### 5.0 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY SCORE - NOT SCORED

The soil exposure pathway is not scored because it is not expected to contribute significantly to the site score. Further, the site score exceeds 28.50 based only on the evaluation of the ground water pathway.Air Migration Pathway – Not Scored

HRS Documentation Record 

### 88 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

### 6.0 AIR MIGRATION PATHWAY SCORE - NOT SCORED

The air migration pathway is not scored because it is not expected to contribute significantly to the site score. Further, the site score exceeds 28.50 based only on the evaluation of the ground water pathway.Figure References for Attachments

HRS Documentation Record 

### 89 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

### Figure References for Attachments

Attachment A -1 : Base Map Source* 2013 National Geographic Society, i- cubed

*Map annotated by EPA START-3 on 08/11/2015

Attachment A -2: Base Map Source* Esri, D igitalGlobe, GeoEye, i

- cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

*Map annotat ed by EPA START

- 3 on 08/11/2015 to depict site and source l ocations ( Ref. 4, pp. 1

- 2; Ref. 5, p. 8; Ref. 8, p. 12; Ref. 30, pp. 11, 37, 40; Ref. 32, p. 39; Ref. 54, p. 3)

Attachment A -3 : Base Map Source* Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

*Map Annotated by EPA START

- 3 on 08/11 /2015 to depict well locations, source locations, and the Roswell City Boundary (Ref. 5, p. 8; Ref. 8, p. 12; Ref. 17, pp. 1

- 6; Ref. 30, pp. 11, 37, 40; Ref. 32, p. 39; Ref. 45, p. 27; Ref. 47, pp. 4- 31; Ref. 54, pp. 2-5; Ref. 70, pp. 1-3)

Attachment A -4: Base Map Source* Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

*Ma p annotated by EPA START

- 3 on 08/11 /2015 to depict well locations, source locations, and the Roswell City Boundary (Ref. 5, p. 8; Ref. 8, p. 12; Ref. 17, pp. 1

- 6; Ref. 30, pp. 11, 37, 40; Ref. 32, p. 39; Ref. 45, p. 27; Ref. 47, pp. 4- 31; Ref. 54, pp. 2-5; Ref. 70, pp. 1-3)

Attachment A -5: Base Map Source* Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

*M ap Annotated by EPA START

- 3 on 08/11/2015 to depict well l ocations ( Ref. 17, pp. 1

- 6; Ref. 45, p. 27; Ref. 47, pp. 4- 31; Ref. 54, pp. 2-5)Figure References for Attachments

HRS Documentation Record 

### 90 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

### Attachment A -6: Base Map Source* Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

. *Map annotated by EPA START

- 3 on 08/11/2015 to depict well locations, site and source locations, and ground wate r gradient ( Ref. 4, pp. 1

- 2; Ref. 5, pp. 8, 9; Ref. 7; p. 17; Ref. 8, p. 12; Ref. 17, pp. 1

- 6; Ref. 30, pp. 11, 37, 40; Ref. 31, p, 3; Ref. 32, p. 39; Ref. 34, pp. 13, 21; Ref. 45, pp. 27, 28; Ref. 47, pp. 4- 31; Ref. 54, pp. 2-5)

Attachment B Figure 1: Base Map Source* Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

. *Map annotated by EPA START

- 3 on 08/11 /2 015 to depict well locations, site and source locations, and ground water gradient (Ref. 4, pp. 1

- 2; Ref. 5, pp. 8, 9; Ref. 7; p. 17; Ref. 8, p. 12; Ref. 17, pp. 1

- 6; Ref. 30, pp. 11, 37, 40; Ref. 31, p, 3; Ref. 32, p. 39; Ref. 34, pp. 13, 21; Ref. 45, pp. 27, 28; Ref. 47, pp. 4- 31; Ref. 54, pp. 2-5)

Attachment B Figure 2: Base Map Source* Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

. *Map annotated by EPA START

- 3 on 08/11/2015 to depict well locations, site and source locations, and the Roswell City Boundary (Ref. 5, p. 8; Ref. 8, p. 12; Ref. 17, pp. 1

- 6; Ref. 30, pp. 11, 37, 40; Ref. 32, p. 39; Ref. 45, p. 27; Ref. 47, pp. 4- 31; Ref. 54, pp. 2-5; Ref. 70, pp. 1-3)

Attachment C Figure 1: Base Map Source* Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, OpenStree tMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

. *Map annotated by EPA START

- 3 on 08/11/2015 to depict well locations, site and source locations, and ground water gradient (Ref. 5, p. 8; Ref. 8, p. 12; Ref. 17, pp. 1

- 6; Ref. 30, pp. 11, 37, 40; Ref. 32, p. 39; Ref. 45, p. 27; Ref. 47, pp. 4- 31; Ref. 54, pp. 2-5)

Attachment C Figure 2: Base Map Source* Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User CommunityFigure References for Attachments

HRS Documentation Record 

### 91 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

### *Map annotated by EPA START

- 3 on 08/11/2015 to depict well locations, site and source locations, and the Roswell City Boundary (Ref. 5, p. 8; Ref. 8, p. 12; Ref. 17, pp. 1

- 6; Ref. 30, pp. 11, 37, 40; Ref. 32, p. 39; Ref. 45, p. 27; Ref. 47, pp. 4- 31; Ref. 54, pp. 2-5; Ref. 70, pp. 1-3)

A ttachment D Figure 1: Base Map Source* Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

. *Map annotated by EPA START

- 3 on 08/11/2015 to depict well locations, site and source locations, and ground water gradient (R ef. 4, pp. 1

- 2; Ref. 5, pp. 8, 9; Ref. 7; p. 17; Ref. 17, pp. 1

- 6; Ref. 30, pp. 11, 37, 40; Ref. 31, p, 3; Ref. 32, p. 39; Ref. 34, pp. 13, 21; Ref. 45, pp. 27, 28; Ref. 47, pp. 4 - 31; Ref. 54, pp. 2-5)

A ttachment D Figure 2: Base Map Source* Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

*M ap annotated by EPA START

- 3 on 08/11/2015 to depict well locations, site and source locations, and the Roswell City Boundary (Ref. 5, p. 8; Ref. 8, p. 12; Ref. 17, pp. 1

- 6; Ref. 30, pp. 11, 37, 40; Ref. 32, p. 39 ; Ref. 45, p. 27; Ref. 47, pp. 4- 31; Ref. 54, pp. 2-5; Ref. 70, pp. 1-3)

A ttachment E Figure 1: Base Map Source* Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Jap an, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

. *Map annotated by EPA START

- 3 on 08/11/2015 to depict well locations, site and source locations, and ground water gradient (Ref. 4, pp. 1

- 2; Ref. 5, pp. 7, 8; Ref. 7; p. 17; Ref. 8, p. 12; Ref. 17, pp. 1

- 6; Ref. 30, pp. 11, 37, 40; Ref. 31, p, 3; Ref. 32, p. 39; Ref. 34, pp. 13, 21; Ref. 45, pp. 27, 28; Ref. 47, pp. 4- 31; Ref. 54, pp. 2-5)

A ttachment E Figure 2: Base Map Source* Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

*M ap annotated by EPA START

- 3 on 08/11/2015 to depict wel l locations, site and source locations, and the Roswell City Boundary (Ref. 5, p. 8; Ref. 8, p. 12; Ref. 17, pp. 1

- 6; Ref. 30, pp. 11, 37, 40; Ref. 32, p. 39; Ref. 45, p. 27; Ref. 47, pp. 4- 31; Ref. 54, pp. 2-5; Ref. 70, pp. 1-3)HRS Documentation Record 

### 92 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

# At tachment ACopyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Site Location

TDD NO:19/WESTON-042-15-003 EPA ID NO: NMN000607057 CONTRACT NO: EP-W-06-042

DISCLAIMER: THIS FIGURE IS PREPARED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR, SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PURPOSES. ATTACHMENT A-1 SITE LOCATION MAP LEA AND WEST SECOND STREET

ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY NEW MEXICO

20406.012.019.0927.01 AS SHOWN

FILE: I:\GIS_Projects\Brownm\Lea and West 2nd\mxd\HRS\Attachment A-1.mxd 9:35:13 AM 9/1/2015 BROWNM SEPTEMBER, 2015 DATE PROJECT NO SCALE 

## US EPA REGION 6 048

Miles



### 93SB-1 SB-2

SB-2 SB-3 SB-1 1400-W2-11-S/1400W2-1-S

Shamrock MW-4 Shamrock MW-9
Shamrock MW-10 SB-4

Firestone MW-8A Firestone MW-4A

Shamrock MW-8

ATTACHMENT A-2 SOURCE LOCATION MAP LEA AND WEST SECOND STREET

ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO 0 900 1,800

Feet

TDD NO: 19/WESTON-042-15-003 EPA ID NO: NMN000607057 CONTRACT NO: EP-W-06-042

DISCLAIMER: THIS FIGURE IS PREPARED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR, SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PURPOSES. LEGEND

Source 1 - Denio’s

Source 2 - 507 East Second

Source 3 - West Second and Montana

Source 4 - Parks UST

Source Samples Background Samples

20406.012.019.0927.01 AS SHOWN 9:39:03 AM 9/1/2015

FILE: I:\GIS_Projects\Brownm\Lea and West 2nd\mxd\HRS\Attachment A-2_081115.mxd 9:39:03 AM 9/1/2015 BROWNM SEPTEMBER, 2015 SCALE PROJECT NO DATE 

## US EPA REGION 6

94CITY WELL #11 CITY WELL #18 OUTSIDE INN RV PARK GENERATIONS OF LEARNING

CITY WELL #13

CITY WELL #17

CITY WELL #16 CITY WELL #15 CITY WELL #12

ATTACHMENT A-3 4-MILE TARGET DISTANCE LIMIT LEA AND WEST SECOND STREET

ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO 0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

TDD NO: 19/WESTON-042-15-003 EPA ID NO: NMN000607057 CONTRACT NO: EP-W-06-042

DISCLAIMER: THIS FIGURE IS PREPARED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR, SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PURPOSES. LEGEND
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4

Domestic Wells Public Water Supply Wells Target Distance Limit Rings Roswell City Boundary

20406.012.019.0927.01 AS SHOWN

9:45:33 AM 9/1/2015 FILE: I:\GIS_Projects\Brownm\Lea and West 2nd\mxd\HRS\Attachment A-3_0811.mxd 9:45:33 AM 9/1/2015 BROWNM SEPTEMBER, 2015 SCALE PROJECT NO DATE 

## US EPA REGION 6 0.5-mile TDL 1-mile TDL 2-mile TDL 3-mile TDL 4-mile TDL

0.25-mile TDL

2



### 95CITY WELL #11 CITY WELL #18 OUTSIDE INN RV PARK GENERATIONS OF LEARNING

CITY WELL #13

CITY WELL #17

CITY WELL #16 CITY WELL #15 CITY WELL #12

ATTACHMENT A-4 4-MILE TDL FOR SITE AND SOURCES

LEA AND WEST SECOND STREET

ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO 0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

TDD NO: 19/WESTON-042-15-003 EPA ID NO: NMN000607057 CONTRACT NO: EP-W-06-042

DISCLAIMER: THIS FIGURE IS PREPARED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR, SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PURPOSES. LEGEND
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4

Domestic Wells Public Water Supply Wells

TDLs for Individual Sources Roswell City Boundary TDLs for Grouped Site

20406.012.019.0927.01 AS SHOWN

9:48:40 AM 9/1/2015 FILE: I:\GIS_Projects\Brownm\Lea and West 2nd\mxd\HRS\Attachment A-4_081115.mxd 9:48:40 AM 9/1/2015 BROWNM SEPTEMBER, 2015 SCALE PROJECT NO DATE 

## US EPA REGION 6 2



### 96ROW-1200B-W3

ROW-A-1100B-W2-W3 407-NWA-DW 311-W7-DW 612-NKY-DW

ROW-A-200B-SStanton

ROW-300B-SVA

ROW-100B-EHendricks W-NSpring-GW

PW-2 PW-3 PW-4 PW-5

PW-1 PW-6 AWS-55 (Thunderbird)

Denios Ph 2 GW Grab 507 E2nd Ph 2 GW Grab E-NSpring-GW

PW-7

AWS-2 Walker MW-12

Walker MW-32 Brewer MW-8

Brewer MW-11

Brewer MW-15 Brewer MW-17 Adoc MW-4

Adoc MW-6 Fina I-4
Fina RF-9 W 2nd FCS-MW-1 W 2nd MW-1 W 2nd MW-2 W 2nd MW-3 W 2nd SMW-2 W 2nd SMW-3

Union MW-5 Union MW-6

Union MW-10 Union MW-23 Allsups289 MW-11 Allsups289 MW-12

Allsups289 MW-13 Allsups289 MW-14

Sawey MW-11 Sawey MW-12

Sawey MW-13 Sawey MW-14 J and J MW-4 J and J MW-5

Miller MRMW-4 Miller MRMW-5 Miller ETMW-3 Miller ETMW-8

Conoco MW-1

Conoco MW-4 Conoco MW-5 Chevron MW-1 Chevron MW-8 Chevron MW-10

Wool MW-6 Wool MW-9 Wool MW-12 Wool MW-13

Century RMW-1 Century NMW-9 Century NMW-10

Parks MW-12 Parks MW-14 Parks MW-15 Parks MW-16

Parks MW-17 Wakefield MW-2 Wakefield MW-3 Wakefield MW-4 Wakefield MW-5 Wakefield MW-6 Wakefield MW-7 Wakefield MW-8 Shamrock MW-4

Shamrock MW-8 Shamrock MW-9 Shamrock MW-10 Firestone MW-4A Firestone MW-6A Firestone MW-7A Firestone MW-8A

SC Fina MW-4 SC Fina MW-5
SC Fina MW-7 Madrid MW-7B Madrid MW-12

Madrid MW-14 Allsups268 MW-5 Allsups268 MW-7 N Main CC-3 N Main CC-4
N Main CC-5 N Main MW-12

ATTACHMENT A-5 SAMPLE LOCATION MAP LEA AND WEST SECOND STREET

ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO 0 1,300 2,600

Feet

20406.012.019.0927.01 AS SHOWN

9:56:44 AM 9/1/2015 FILE: I:\GIS_Projects\Brownm\Lea and West 2nd\mxd\HRS\Attachment A-5_0811.mxd 9:56:44 AM 9/1/2015 BROWNM SEPTEMBER, 2015 SCALE PROJECT NO DATE 

## US EPA REGION 6 Parks MW-17 Parks MW-15 Parks MW-14

Parks MW-12

Wakefield MW-8

Wakefield MW-7 Wakefield MW-6 Wakefield MW-5

Wakefield MW-4

Wakefield MW-3 Wakefield MW-2 ROW-300B-SVA

ROW-400B-SGrand TDD NO: 19/WESTON-042-15-003 EPA ID NO: NMN000607057 CONTRACT NO: EP-W-06-042

DISCLAIMER: THIS FIGURE IS PREPARED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PURPOSES LEGEND

Observed Release Background Observation Contaminted



### 97CITY WELL #13 E-NSpring-GW

PW-7

ATTACHMENT A-6 GROUND WATER PLUMES LEA AND WEST SECOND STREET

ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO 0 1,250 2,500

Feet

TDD NO: 19/WESTON-042-15-003 EPA ID NO: NMN000607057 CONTRACT NO: EP-W-06-042

DISCLAIMER: THIS FIGURE IS PREPARED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PURPOSES

LEGEND
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
PWS Wells
Ground Water Gradient 

### Types of Wells
Background
Contaminated
Observation
Observed Release

20406.012.019.0927.01 AS SHOWN

10:03:31 AM 9/1/2015 FILE: I:\GIS_Projects\Brownm\Lea and West 2nd\mxd\HRS\Attachment A-6_0811.mxd 10:03:31 AM 9/1/2015 BROWNM SEPTEMBER, 2015 SCALE PROJECT NO DATE 

## US EPA REGION 6

98HRS Documentation Record 

### 99 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

## ATTACHMENT B

S IT E 1 – DENIO’S SIT E SCORINGHRS Documentation Record 

### 100 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

### HR S T able 3 -1 – Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet fo r S it e 1

Fa ctor Categories and Factor s Maximum
Value Value Assigned
Like lihood of Release to an Aquifer:

1. Observed Release (Section 3.1.1 of the HRS Documentation Record) 550 550

2. Potential to Release:

2a. Containment 10 Not Evaluated
2b. Net Precipitation 10 Not Evaluated
2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 Not Evaluated
2d. Travel Time 35 Not Evaluated
2e. Potential to Release [lines 2a (2b + 2c + 2d)] 500 Not Evaluated
4. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2e) 550 550
Waste Characteristics:
4. To xicity/ Mobility (see Section 2.4.1, 3.1.1 and 3.2.1of the HRS Documentation Record)* (a) 1,000

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity (see Section 2.4.2.1.5 and 3.2.2 of the HRS Documentation Record) (a) 10

6. Waste Characteristics (see Section 3.2.3 of the HRS Documentation Record) 100 10

Targets : 7. Nearest Well (see Section 3.3.1 of the HRS Documentation Record) 50 20
8. Population:
8a. Level I Concentrations (b) 0
8b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0
8c. Potential Contamination (see Table 1 in Attachment B of HRS Documentation Record) (b) 1,353

8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b) 1,353
9. Resources (see Section 3.3.3 of the HRS Documentation Record) 5 5
10. Wellhead Protection Area (see Section 3.3.4 of the HRS Do cumentation Record) 20 5

11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 1,383 Ground Water Migration Score For An Aquifer:
12. Aq uifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11) ÷ 82,500] c 100 92.20 Ground Water Migration Pathway Score:
14. Pathway Score (S gw ), (highest va lue from line 12 for all aquifers evaluated) c

HRS SITE SCORE: 46.10 100 92.20

(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. (b) Maximum value not applicable. (c) Do no t round to nearest integer

.

Notes: * TCE and cis

- 1,2

- DCE were used in the evaluation of the toxicity/mobility factor value.Ground Water Pathway – Targets

HRS Documentation Record 

### 101 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

### Site 1 ( which includes Source 1) is called Denio’s and consists of soil contaminated with tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and an associated ground water plume contaminated with PCE, trichloroethene (TCE)

, and cis -1,2- dichloroethene (cis -1,2- DCE) (Ref. 8, p. 5; Section 2.4.1 and 3.1.1 of the HRS documentation record). The contamination is associated with drainage of wastes from dry cleaning operations which had been occurring on the property since 1931 (Ref. 7, p. 12; Ref. 8, p. 8). The contamination has entered the ground water and created a plume associated with the release into the Roswell Basin Aquifer (Section 3.1.1 of the HRS documentation record). The NMED discovered the ground water contamination associated with the Denio’s site (Source 1) in 2006 and 2007 from monitoring wells sampled during LUST investigations of the Allsups and Sawey Gulf Petroleum facilities (Ref. 7, p. 12).

Pot ential targets for Source 1 include the populations served by Ci ty of Roswell Municipal Wells, (RMWS), public supply wells, and private domestic wells. The wells included in each distance category of the site’s target distance limit (TDL) and the resulting potential contamination factor value can be seen in the attach ed figures and table. (Note: The number of private wells identified in Figure 2 of this attachment may not equal the number of private wells identified below. Due to the proximity of private well locations, one icon on the figure may represent multiple pri vate wells.)

Si nce th e RMWS is blended and no single water supply source s upplies more than 40 percent of the system, the population served is apportioned equally to each water supply source in the system (Ref.1, Section 3.3.2; Ref. 48). As a result, the City of Roswell population of 48,611 is equally divided by the 16 water wells that supply the city (Ref. 42, p. 1; Ref. 48, p. 1). A n estimated 3,038 persons are served by each water supply source (Ref. 17, p. 2; Ref. 48, p.1).

Ba sed on the U. S. Census Bureau, the persons per household in 2009

- 2013 for Chaves County is 2.70 (Ref. 61, p. 1). The total estimated population served by private domestic ground water wells outside of the City of Roswell city limits and within 4 radial miles of the site is 1,693 persons, with a total of 627 domestic wells identified within 4 radial miles of the s ite and outside of the city limits (Ref. 47, pp. 32-43 ). One private ly owned supply well located within the 4

- mile TDL include s the Outside Inn RV Park

, in the great er than 3 to 4 miles distance interval (Ref. 17, p. 3, Figure 2 of this attachment ). The Outside Inn RV Park well serves a population of 45 (Ref. 17, p. 4 ). The well is completed at 190 feet depth (Ref. 17, p. 5 ).ATTACHMENT B
TABLE 1

Site 1 Denio's

Domestic Wells (non-karst)** Domestic Wells (karst)** Public Supply Wells (karst)** City of Roswell Municipal Wells (karst)**

TDL from Site Number of Wells (Ref. 47, p. 1) Total non-karst Population

Served* Distance Weighted Population Values non-karst (Ref. 1, Table 3-12) Number of Wells (Ref. 47, p. 1) Karst
Domestic

Well Population

Served* Number of Wells (Ref. 17, p. 3) Population Served (Ref. 17, p. 2) Number of Wells (Ref. 17, p. 3) Population Served (Ref. 17, p. 2) Total karst Population

Served Distance WeightedPopulation Valueskarst (Ref. 1, Table 3-12) References

0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref. 47, p. 32

0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref. 47, p. 32

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref. 47, p. 32; Ref. 61,p. 1

2 1 3 0.7 2 5 0 0 City Well 13 3,038 3,043.4 2,607 Ref. 17, p. 5; Ref. 47, p. 32; Ref. 48; Ref. 61, p. 1

3 87 235 21 33 89 0 0 City Wells 12, 15,16,17 12,152 12,241.1 8,163 Ref. 17, p. 5; Ref. 47, pp. 32- 35; Ref. 48; Ref. 61, p. 1

4 403 1,088 131 101 273 Outside Inn RV 45 City Well 18 3,038 3,355.7 2,607 Ref. 17, pp. 4, 5; Ref. 47, pp. 35- 43; Ref. 48; Ref. 61, p. 1
Total 491 1361 152.7 136 367 45 18,228 18,640 13,377 *Based on 2.70 per household (Ref. 61, p. 1). The population served is also rounded to the nearest integer per HRS Table 3-12 (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.2.4). ** Calculations of karst and non-karst private domestic wells were based on shallow (non-karst) and artesian (karst) classifications of the water source for each well identified from the New Mexico Water Rights Reporting system website. Wells which did not contain source information were conservatively identified as non-karst (Ref. 47). Calculation (Ref. 1, Sec 3.3.2.4) Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values: 152.7 (non-karst) + 13,377 (karst) = 13,529.7 Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values/10: 1,352.97 Potential Contamination Factor Value: 1,353



### 1 0 2CITY WELL #11 CITY WELL #18 OUTSIDE INN RV PARK GENERATIONS OF LEARNING

CITY WELL #13

CITY WELL #17

CITY WELL #16 CITY WELL #15 CITY WELL #12

ATTACHMENT B FIGURE 1 DENIOS (SOURCE 1) 4-MILE TARGET DISTANCE LIMIT LEA AND WEST SECOND STREET

ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO 0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

TDD NO: 19/WESTON-042-15-003 EPA ID NO: NMN00607057 CONTRACT NO: EP-W-06-042

DISCLAIMER: THIS FIGURE IS PREPARED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PRPOSES

LEGEND

Denio’s Public Water Supply Wells

Domestic Wells Target Distance Limit Rings
Ground Water Plume
Ground Water Gradient

20406.012.019.0870.01 AS SHOWN

10:05:16 AM 9/1/2015 FILE: I:\GIS_Projects\Brownm\Lea and West 2nd\mxd\HRS\Attachment B-Figure 1_0812.mxd 10:05:16 AM 9/1/2015 BROWNM SEPTEMBER, 2015 SCALE PROJECT NO DATE 

## US EPA REGION 6 0.25-mile TDL

0.5-mile TDL 1-mile TDL 2-mile TDL 3-mile TDL 4-mile TDL



### 103WELL #4

CITY WELL #11 CITY WELL #18 OUTSIDE INN RV PARK GENERATIONS OF LEARNING

CITY WELL #13

CITY WELL #17

CITY WELL #16 CITY WELL #15 CITY WELL #12

ATTACHMENT B FIGURE 2 DENIO’S (SOURCE 1)

DOMESTIC WELLS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS LEA AND WEST SECOND STREET ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

TDD NO: 19/WESTON-042-15-003 EPA ID NO: NMN00607057 CONTRACT NO: EP-W-06-042

DISCLAIMER: THIS FIGURE IS PREPARED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PRPOSES LEGEND

Denio’s Public Water Supply Wells

Domestic Wells Roswell City Boundary Target Distance Limit Rings

20406.012.019.0870.01 AS SHOWN

10:10:38 AM 9/1/2015 FILE: I:\GIS_Projects\Brownm\Lea and West 2nd\mxd\HRS\Attachment B-Figure 2_0812.mxd 10:10:38 AM 9/1/2015 BROWNM SEPTEMBER, 2015 SCALE PROJECT NO DATE 

## US EPA REGION 6 0.25-mile TDL 0.5-mile TDL 1-mile TDL 2-mile TDL 3-mile TDL 4-mile TDL

2



### 104HRS Documentation Record 

### 1 05 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

## ATTACHMEN T C

S IT E 2 – 507 EAST SECOND SITE SCOR INGHRS Documentation Record 

### 106 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

### HR S T able 3 -1 – Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet fo r S it e 2

Fa ctor Categories and Factors Maximum
Value Value Assigned
Like lihood of Release to an Aquifer:

1. Observ ed Release (Section 3.1.1 of the HRS Documentation Record) 550 550
2. Potential to Release:

2a. Containment 10 Not Evaluated
2b. Net Precipitation 10 Not Evaluated
2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 Not Evaluated
2d. Travel Time 35 N ot Evaluated
2e. P otential to Release [lines 2a (2b + 2c + 2d)] 500 Not Evaluated
5. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2e) 550 550
Waste Characteristics:
4. To xicity/ Mobility (see Section 2.4.1, 3.1.1 and 3.2.1of the HRS Documentation Record)* (a) 1,000

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity (see Section 2.4.2.1.5 and 3.2.2 of the HRS Documentation Record) (a) 100

6. Waste Characteristics (see Section 3.2.3 of the HRS Documentation Record) 100 18

Targets : 7. Nearest Well (see Section 3.3.1 o f the HRS Documentation Record) 50 45
8. Population:
8a. Level I Concentrations (b) 0
8b. Level II Concentrations (see Section 3.3.2.3 of the HRS Documentation Record) (b) 4

8c. Potential Contamination (see Table 1 in Attachment C of the HRS Documentation Record) (b) 794

8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b) 798
9. Resources (see Section 3.3.3 of the HRS Documentation Record) 5 5
10. Wellhead Protection Area (see Section 3.3.4 of the HRS Documentation Record) 20 5

11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 853 Ground Water Migration Score For An Aquifer:
12. Aq uifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11) ÷ 82,500] c 100 102.36 (100) Ground Water Migration Pathway Score:
15. Pathway Score (S gw ), (highest value from line 12 for all aquifers evaluated) c

HR S SITE SCORE: 50.00 100 100

(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. (b) Maximum value not applicable. (c) Do no t round to nearest integer

. N otes: * TCE was used in the evaluation of the toxicity/ mobility factor value.Ground Water Pathway – Targets

HRS Documentation Record 

### 107 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

### Site 2 (which includes Source 2) is called 507 East Second and consists of a release from a private sewer line containing tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and cis -1,2-dichloroethene (cis -1,2- DCE) and an associat ed ground water plume contaminated with PCE, and TCE (Ref. 5, pp. 14, 31, 67; Section 2.4.1 and 3.1.1 of the HRS documentation record). The contamination is associated with wastes from dry cleaning operations (Ref. 5, pp. 7, 8). Site 2 is located approxi mately 0.8 miles due east of Site 1, and was discovered during a 30 December 2011 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted as part of a property transfer of a former dry cleaner property (Ref. 5, p. 5; Attachment A

- 2 of the HRS documentation record). A Phase 2 ESA and Vapor Encroachment Screen report was issued for Site 2 on February 3, 2012 (Ref. 5, p. 1). PCE was detected in seven soil samples and two ground water grab samples collected at the site in January 2012 (Ref. 7, pp. 9, 13).

Pote nt ial targets for Source 2 include the populations served by City of Roswell Municipal Wells, (RMWS), public supply wells, and private domestic wells. The wells included in each distance category of the site’s target distance limit (TDL) and the resulting Level II well and potential contamination factor value can be seen in the attached figures and table. (Note: The number of private wells identified in Figure 2 of this attachment may not equal the number of private wells identified below. Due to the proximity of private well locations, one icon on the figure may represent multiple private wells.)

One Level II well was identified within the site’s TDL, but outside of the city limits (Figure 2 of this attachment). Private well AWS

- 55 was sampled in April 2014 and found to contain PCE above background levels, but below EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level (Ref. 67, p. 5; Section 3.1.1 of the HRS documentation record). AWS

- 55 is a private well which is the sole source of water for a business which employs four people (Ref. 68; Ref. 69).

Sin ce th e RMWS is blended and no single water supply source s upplies more than 40 percent of the system, the population served is apportioned equally to each water supply source in the system (Ref.1, Section 3.3.2; Ref. 48)

. 

### As a r esult, the City of Roswell population of 48,611 is equally divided by the 16 water wells that supply the city (Ref. 42, p. 1; Ref. 48, p. 1). A n estimated 3,038 persons are served by each water supply source (Ref. 17, p. 2; Ref. 48, p.1).

Based on the U. S. Census Bureau, the persons per household in 2009

- 2013 for Chaves County is 2.70 (Ref. 61, p. 1). The total estimated population served by private domestic ground water wells outside of the City of Roswell city limits and within 4 radial miles of the site is 1,401 persons, with a total of 519 domestic wells identified within 4 radial miles of the s ite and outside of the city limits (Ref. 47, pp. 44-54 ). One private ly owned supply well located within the 4

- mile TDL include s the Outside Inn RV Park

, in the greater than 3 to 4 miles distance interval (Ref. 17, p. 3, Figure 2 of this attachment ). The Outside Inn RV Park well serves a population of 45 (Ref. 17, p. 4 ). The well is completed at 190 feet depth (Ref. 17, p. 5 ).ATTACHMENT C
TABLE 1

Site 2 507 East Second

Domestic Wells (non-karst)** Domestic Wells (karst)** Public Supply Wells (karst)** City of Roswell Municipal Wells (karst)**

TDL from Site Number of
Wells (Ref. 47, p. 1) Population Served* Distance Weighted Population Values
non-karst (Ref. 1, Table 3-12) Number of Wells (Ref. 47, p. 1) Population Served* Number of Wells (Ref. 17, p. 3) Population
Served (Ref. 17, p. 2) Number of
Wells (Ref. 17, p. 3) Population
Served (Ref. 17, p. 2) Total karst Population

Served Distance Weighted Population
Values-karst (Ref. 1, Table 3- 12) References

0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref. 47, p. 44

0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref. 47, p. 44

1 1 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 Ref. 47, p. 44; Ref. 61, p. 1

2 35 95 10 18 49 0 0 City Well 13 3,038 3,086.6 2,607 Ref. 17, p. 5; Ref. 47, pp. 44- 45; Ref. 48; Ref. 61, p. 1

3 115 311 68 22 59 0 0 City Wells 12,
17 6,076 6,135.4 2,607 Ref. 17, p. 5; Ref. 47, pp. 45- 48; Ref. 48; Ref. 61, p. 1

4 229 618 42 98 265 Outside Inn RV 45 City Well 15,16 6,076 6,385.6 2,607 Ref. 17, pp. 4, 5; Ref. 47, pp. 48-54; Ref. 48; Ref. 61, p. 1
Total 380 1027 121 139 376 45 15,190 7,823 *Based on 2.70 per household (Ref. 61, p. 1). The population served value is also rounded to the nearest integer per HRS Table 3-12 (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.2.4). ** Calculations of karst and non-karst private domestic wells were based on shallow (non-karst) and artesian (karst) classifications of the water source for each well identified from the New Mexico Water Rights Reporting system website. Wells which did not contain source information were conservatively identified as non-karst (Ref. 47). Calculation (Ref. 1, Sec 3.3.2.4) Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values: 121 (non-karst) + 7,823(karst) = 7,944 Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values/10: 794.4
Potential Contamination Factor Value: 794



### 1 08CITY WELL #11 CITY WELL #18 OUTSIDE INN RV PARK GENERATIONS OF LEARNING

CITY WELL #13

CITY WELL #17

CITY WELL #16 CITY WELL #15 CITY WELL #12

ATTACHMENT C FIGURE 1 507 EAST SECOND (SOURCE 2) 4-MILE TARGET DISTANCE LIMIT LEA AND WEST SECOND STREET

ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO 0 0.5 1 1.

Miles

TDD NO: 19/WESTON-042-15-003 EPA ID NO: NMN00607057 CONTRACT NO: EP-W-06-042

DISCLAIMER: THIS FIGURE IS PREPARED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR, SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PURPOSES. LEGEND
507 East Second

Domestic Wells Public Water Supply Wells
Ground Water Plume
Ground Water Gradient Target Distance Limit

20406.012.019.0870.01 AS SHOWN

10:20:34 AM 9/1/2015 FILE: I:\GIS_Projects\Brownm\Lea and West 2nd\mxd\HRS\Attachment C-Figure 1_0812.mxd 10:20:34 AM 9/1/2015 BROWNM SEPTEMBER, 2015 SCALE PROJECT NO DATE 

## US EPA REGION 6 0.25-mile TDL 0.5-mile TDL 1-mile TDL 2-mile TDL 3-mile TDL 4-mile TDL

5



### 109CITY WELL #11 CITY WELL #18 OUTSIDE INN RV PARK GENERATIONS OF LEARNING

CITY WELL #13

CITY WELL #17

CITY WELL #16 CITY WELL #15 CITY WELL #12

ATTACHMENT C FIGURE 2 507 EAST SECOND (SOURCE 2) DOMESTIC WELLS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS LEA AND WEST SECOND ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

TDD NO: 19/WESTON-042-15-003 EPA ID NO: NMN00607057 CONTRACT NO: EP-W-06-042

DISCLAIMER: THIS FIGURE IS PREPARED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR, SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PURPOSES. LEGEND

507 East Second Public Water Supply Wells

Domestic Wells Level II Well (AWS-55) Roswell City Boundary Target Distance Limit Rings

20406.012.019.0870.01 AS SHOWN

10:14:48 AM 9/1/2015 FILE: I:\GIS_Projects\Brownm\Lea and West 2nd\mxd\HRS\Attachment C-Figure 2_0812.mxd 10:14:48 AM 9/1/2015 BROWNM SEPTEMBER, 2015 SCALE PROJECT NO DATE 

## US EPA REGION 6 0.25-mile TDL

0.5-mile TDL 1-mile TDL 2-mile TDL 3-mile TDL 4-mile TDL



### 110HRS Documentation Record 

### 111 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

## ATTACHMENT D

S IT E 3 – WEST SECOND AND MONTANA SIT E SCORINGHRS Documentation Record 

### 112 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

### HR S T able 3 -1 – Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet fo r S it e 3

Fact or Categories and Factors Maximum
Value Value Assigned
Like lihood of Re lease to an Aquifer:

1. Observed Release (Section 3.1.1 of the HRS Documentation Record) 550 550

2. Potential to Release:

2a. Containment 10 Not Evaluated
2b. Net Precipitation 10 Not Evaluated
2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 Not Evalu ated
2d. Travel Time 35 Not Evaluated
2e. P otential to Release [lines 2a (2b + 2c + 2d)] 500 Not Evaluated
6. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2e) 550 550
Waste Characteristics:
4. To xicity/ Mobility (see Section 2.4.1, 3.1.1 a nd 3.2.1 of the HRS Documentation Record)* (a) 1,000

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity (see Section 2.4.2.1.5 and 3.2.2 of the HRS Documentation Record) (a) 10

6. Waste Characteristics (see Section 3.2.3 of the HRS Documentation Record) 100 10

Targets : 7. Nearest Well (see Section 3.3.1 of the HRS Documentation Record) 50 20
8. Population:
8a. Level I Concentrations (b) 0
8b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0
8c. Potential Contamination (see Table 1 in Attachment D of the HRS Document ation Record) (b) 1,345

8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b) 1,345
9. Resources (see Section 3.3.3 of the HRS Documentation Record) 5 5
10. Wellhead Protection Area (see Section 3.3.4 of the HRS Documentation Record) 20 5

11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 1,375 Ground Water Migration Score For An Aquifer:
12. Aq uifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11) ÷ 82,500] c 100 91.66 Ground Water Migration Pathway Score: 16. Pathway Score (S gw ), (highest value from line 12 for all aquifers evaluated) c

HRS SITE SCORE: 45.83 100 91.66

(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. (b) Maximum value not applicable. (c) Do not round to nearest integer

.

Notes: * TCE and cis

- 1,2

- DCE were used in the evaluation of the toxicity/ mobility factor value.Ground Water Pathway – Targets

HRS Documentation Record 

### 113 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

### Site 3 (which includes Source 3) is called West Second and Montana and consists of a release from an in

- ground separator tank and an associated ground water plume contaminated with tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), cis -1,2- dichloroethene (cis

- DCE), and trans -1,2- dichloroethene (trans

1,2- DCE) (Ref. 16, p. 9; Ref. 22, p. 49, 50, 51; Ref. 30, p. 4; Sections 2.4.1 and 3.3.1 of this HRS documentation record). The contamination within the in

- ground separator tank is associat ed with drainage of wastes from former dry cleaning operations (Ref. 30, p. 10). The contamination has entered the ground water and created a plume associated with the release into the Roswell Basin Aquifer (Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). In 2008, Site 3 was discovered by NMED SOS during Site Inspection (SI) (Ref. 30, p. 5, 7). Two dry cleaning businesses operated from 1985 through 2001 at the source location (Ref. 30, p. 6). Chlorinated solvent contamination has been detected in ground water samples from source monitoring wells at two adjacent properties on the northeast corner of the intersection of West Second Street and North Montana Avenue (Ref. 30, p. 5, 6).

Pote ntial targets for Source 3 include the populations served by City of R oswell Municipal Wells (RMWS), public supply wells, and private domestic wells. The wells included in each distance category of the site’s target distance limit (TDL) and the resulting potential contamination factor value can be seen in the attached figur es and table. (Note: The number of private wells identified in Figure 2 of this attachment may not equal the number of private wells identified below. Due to the proximity of private well locations, one icon on the figure may represent multiple private wells.)

Sin ce th e RMWS is blended and no single water supply source s upplies more than 40 percent of the system, the population served is apportioned equally to each water supply source in the system (Ref.1, Section 3.3.2; Ref. 48)

. 

### As a result, the City of Roswell population of 48,611 is equally divided by the 16 water wells that supply the city (Ref. 42, p. 1; Ref. 48, p. 1). A n estimated 3,038 persons are served by each water supply source (Ref. 17, p. 2; Ref. 48, p.1).

Bas ed on the U. S. Census Bureau, the persons per household in 2009

- 2013 for Chaves County is 2.7 (Ref. 61, p. 1). The total estimated population served by private domestic ground water wells outside of the City of Roswell city limits and within 4 radial miles of the site is 883 persons , with a total of 327 domestic wells identified within 4 radial miles of the site and outside of city limits (Ref. 47, pp. 55-67 ). Two private ly owned supply wells located within the 4

- mile TDL include the Outside Inn RV Park in the greater than 2 to 3 miles distance interval and Generations of Learning in the 3 to4 miles distance interval (Ref. 17, p. 3; Figure 2 of this attachment). Outside Inn RV Park serves a population of 45, and Generations of Learning serves a population of 256 (Ref. 17, p. 4 ). Ea ch of these wells is respectively completed at 190 feet depth and 300 feet depth (Ref. 17, p. 5 ).ATTACHMENT D
TABLE 1

Site 3 West 2nd and Montana

Domestic Wells (non-karst)** Domestic Wells (karst)** Public Supply Wells (karst)** City of Roswell Municipal Wells (karst)**

TDL from

Site Number of Wells (Ref. 47, p. 1) Population Served* Distance Weighted Population Values non-karst (Ref. 1, Table 3-12) Number of Wells (Ref. 47, p. 1) Population Served* Number of Wells (Ref. 17, p. 3) Population
Served (Ref. 17, p. 2) Number of Wells (Ref. 17, p. 3) Population
Served (Ref. 17, p. 2) Total karst Population

Served Distance Weighted Population Values-karst (Ref. 1, Table 3- 12) References

0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref. 47, p. 55

0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref. 47, p. 55

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref. 47, p. 55

2 12 32 10 3 8 0 0 City Well 13 3,038 3,046 2,607 Ref. 17, p. 5; Ref. 47, p. 55; Ref. 48; Ref. 61, p. 1

3 102 275 21 50 135 Outside Inn RV 45 City Well 15,16,17,18 12,152 12,332 8,163 Ref. 17, pp. 4, 5; Ref. 47, pp. 55-59; Ref. 48; Ref. 61, p.
1

4 346 934 42 88 238 Generations of Learning 256 City Wells 12 3,038 3,531.6 2,607 Ref. 17, pp. 4, 5; Ref. 47, pp. 59-67; Ref. 48; Ref. 61, p.
1
Total 460 1241 73 141 381 13,377 *Based on 2.70 per household (Ref. 61, p. 1). The population served is also rounded to the nearest integer per HRS Table 3-12 (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.2.4). ** Calculations of karst and non-karst private domestic wells were based on shallow (non-karst) and artesian (karst) classifications of the water source for each well identified from the New Mexico Water Rights Reporting system website. Wells which did not contain source information were conservatively identified as non-karst (Ref. 47). Calculation (Ref. 1, Sec 3.3.2.4) Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values: 73 (non-karst) + 13,377(karst) = 13,450 Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values/10: 1,345 Potential Contamination Factor Value: 1,345



### 1 1 4CITY WELL #11 CITY WELL #18 OUTSIDE INN RV PARK GENERATIONS OF LEARNING

CITY WELL #13

CITY WELL #17

CITY WELL #16 CITY WELL #15 CITY WELL #12

ATTACHMENT D FIGURE 1 WEST SECOND AND MONTANA (SOURCE 3) 4-MILE TARGET DISTANCE LIMIT LEA AND WEST SECOND STREET

ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO 0 0.5 1

Miles

TDD NO: 19/WESTON-042-15-003 EPA ID NO: NMN00607057 CONTRACT NO: EP-W-06-042

DISCLAIMER: THIS FIGURE IS PREPARED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PRPOSES

LEGEND
West Second and Montana

Domestic Wells Public Water Supply Wells
Ground Water Plume
Ground Water Gradient Target Distance Limit Rings

20406.012.019.0870.01 AS SHOWN

10:24:26 AM 9/1/2015 FILE: I:\GIS_Projects\Brownm\Lea and West 2nd\mxd\HRS\Attachment D-Figure 1_0812.mxd 10:24:26 AM 9/1/2015 BROWNM SEPTEMBER, 2015 SCALE PROJECT NO DATE 

## US EPA REGION 6 0.25-mile TDL

0.5-mile TDL 1-mile TDL 2-mile TDL 3-mile TDL 4-mile TDL

1.5



### 115WELL #4

CITY WELL #11 CITY WELL #18 OUTSIDE INN RV PARK GENERATIONS OF LEARNING

CITY WELL #13

CITY WELL #17

CITY WELL #16 CITY WELL #15 CITY WELL #12

ATTACHMENT D FIGURE 2 WEST SECOND AND MONTANA (SOURCE 3) DOMESTIC WELLS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS LEA AND WEST SECOND STREET ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

TDD NO: 19/WESTON-042-15-003 EPA ID NO: NMN00607057 CONTRACT NO: EP-W-06-042

DISCLAIMER: THIS FIGURE IS PREPARED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PRPOSES

LEGEND
West Second and Montana Public Water Supply Wells

Domestic Wells Roswell City Boundary Target Distance Limit Rings

20406.012.019.0870.01 AS SHOWN

10:28:00 AM 9/1/2015 FILE: I:\GIS_Projects\Brownm\Lea and West 2nd\mxd\HRS\Attachment D-Figure 2_0812.mxd 10:28:00 AM 9/1/2015 BROWNM SEPTEMBER, 2015 SCALE PROJECT NO DATE 

## US EPA REGION 6 0.25-mile TDL 0.5-mile TDL 1-mile TDL 2-mile TDL 3-mile TDL 4-mile TDL

2



### 116Ground Water Pathway – Targets

HRS Documentation Record 

### 117 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

## ATTACHMENT E

S IT E 4 – PARKS UNDER GROUND STORAG E TAN K SIT E SCORINGHRS Documentation Record 

### 118 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 Ground W ater

P athway – Targets



### HR S T able 3 -1 – Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet fo r S it e 4

Fact or Categories and Factors Maximum
Value Value Assigned
Like lihood of Release to an Aquifer:

1. Observed Release (Section 3.1.1 of the HRS Documentation Record) 550 550

2. Potential to Release:

2a. Containment 10 Not Evaluated
2b. Net Precipitation 10 Not Evaluated
2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 Not Evaluated
2d. Travel Time 35 Not Evaluated
2e. Potential to Release [lines 2a (2b + 2c + 2d) ] 500 Not Evaluated
7. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2e) 550 550
Waste Characteristics:
4. To xicity/ Mobility (see Section 2.4.1, 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 of the HRS Documentation Record)* (a) 1,000

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity (see Section 2.4.2.1. 5 and 3.2.2 of the HRS Documentation Record) (a) 10

6. Waste Characteristics (see Section 3.2.3 of the HRS Documentation Record) 100 10

Targets : 7. Nearest Well (see Section 3.3.1 of the HRS Documentation Record) 50 20
8. Population:
8a. Le vel I Concentrations (b) 0
8b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0
8c. Potential Contamination (see Table 1 in Attachment E of this HRS Documentation Record) (b) 1,097

8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b) 1,097
9. Resources (see Secti on 3.3.3 of HRS Documentation Record) 5 5
10. Wellhead Protection Area (see Section 3.3.4 of this HRS Documentation Record) 20 5

11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 1,127 Ground Water Migration Score For An Aquifer:
12. Aq uifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11) ÷ 82,500] c 100 75.13 Ground Water Migration Pathway Score: 17. Pathway Score (S gw ), (highest value from line 12 for all aquifers evaluated) c

HRS SITE SCORE: 37.56 100 75.13

(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. (b) Max imum value not applicable. (c ) Do not round to nearest integer

. Notes: * TCE was used in the evaluation of the toxicity/mobility factor value.Ground Water Pathway – Targets

HRS Documentation Record 

### 119 Lea and West Second St reet NMN000607057 

### Site 4 (which includes Source 4) is called Parks UST and consists of a ground water plume contaminated with t etrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) with no identified source (Ref. 32, pp. 8, 9; Section 2.4.1 of the HRS documentation record). Contamination normally associated with dry cleaning operations has been found in the ground water at this site, but efforts to identify a source have been unsuccessful. In 2005, Site 4 was discovered when a change in analysis being conducted in association with a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) investigation, detected PCE and TCE (Ref. 32, p. 8). As part of the June 2009 Preliminary Assessment (PA), the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Superfund Oversight Section (SOS) reviewed data to evaluate the distribution of chlorinated solvent contamination in ground water in the vicinity of the Park’s proper ty in an effort to identify potential source areas of chlorinated solvents. At that time, ground water samples from 5 out of 16 LUST sites within a 0.5

- mile radius of the property (with full VOC analysis) exhibited PCE and/or TCE contamination (Ref. 32, p. 8).

Potent ial targets for Source 4 include the populations served by City of Roswell Municipal Wells (RMWS), public supply wells, and private domestic wells. The wells included in each distance category of the site’s target distance limit (TDL), and the resulting potential contamination factor value can be seen in the attached figures and table. (Note: The number of private wells identified in Figure 2 of this attachment may not equal the number of private wells identified below. Due to the proximity of private well locations, one icon on the figure may represent multiple private wells.)

Since th e RMWS is blended and no single water supply source s upplies more than 40 percent of the system, the population served is apportioned equally to each water suppl y source in the system (Ref.1, Section 3.3.2; Ref. 48). As a result, the City of Roswell population of 48,611 is equally divided by the 16 water wells that supply the city (Ref. 42, p. 1; Ref. 48, p. 1). A n estimated 3,038 persons are served by each wate r supply source (Ref. 17, p. 2; Ref. 48, p.1).

Base d on the U. S. Census Bureau, the persons per household in 2009

- 2013 for Chaves County is 2.70 (Ref. 61, p. 1). The total estimated population served by private domestic ground water wells outside of th e City of Roswell city limits and within 4 radial miles of the site is 1,180 persons, with a total of 437 domestic wells identified within 4 radial miles of the site and outside of the city limits (Ref. 47, pp. 68-77 ). One private ly owned supply wells loc ated within the 4

- mile TDL include s Outside Inn RV Park in a greater than 3 to 4 miles distance interval (Ref. 17, p. 1 ; Figure 2 of this attachment ). Outside Inn RV Park serves a population of 45 (Ref. 17, p. 2). The well is completed at 190 feet depth (Ref. 17, p. 5 ).ATTACHMENT E
TABLE 1

Site 4 Parks UST

Domestic Wells (non-karst)** Domestic Wells (karst)** Public Supply Wells (karst)** City of Roswell Municipal Wells (karst)**

TDL from

Site Number of
Wells (Ref. 47, p. 1) Population Served* Distance Weighted Population Values non-karst (Ref. 1, Table 3-12) Number of
Wells (Ref. 47, p. 1) Population Served* Number of
Wells (Ref. 17, p. 3) Population
Served (Ref. 17, p. 2) Number of
Wells (Ref. 17, p. 3) Population
Served (Ref. 17, p. 2) Total karst Population

Served Distance Weighted Population Values-karst (Ref. 1, Table 3- 12) References

0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref. 47, p. 68

0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref. 47, p. 68

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref. 47, p. 68

2 24 65 10 9 24 0 0 City Well 13 3,038 3062 2,607 Ref. 17, p. 5; Ref. 47, p. 68; Ref. 48; Ref. 61, p. 1

3 121 327 68 41 111 0 0 City Wells 12, 15,16,17 12,152 12263 8,163 Ref. 17, p. 5; Ref. 47, pp. 68-72; Ref. 48; Ref. 61, p. 1

4 171 462 42 71 192 Outside Inn RV Park 45 0 0 237 82 Ref. 17, pp. 4, 5; Ref. 47, pp. 72-77; Ref. 48; Ref. 61, p.
1
Total 316 854 120 121 327 15,190 10,852 *Based on 2.70 per household (Ref. 61, p. 1). The population served value is also rounded to the nearest integer per HRS Table 3-12 (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.2.4). ** Calculations of karst and non-karst private domestic wells were based on shallow (non-karst) and artesian (karst) classifications of the water source for each well identified from the New Mexico Water Rights Reporting system website. Wells which did not contain source information were conservatively identified as non-karst (Ref. 47). Calculation (Ref. 1, Sec 3.3.2.4) Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values: 120 (non-karst) + 10,852(karst) = 10,972 Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values/10: 1,097.2 Potential Contamination Factor Value: 1,097



### 1 2 0ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 1 PARKS UST (SOURCE 4) 4-MILE TARGET DISTANCE LIMIT LEA AND WEST SECOND STREET

ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO 0 0.5 1 1

Miles

TDD NO: 19/WESTON-042-15-003 EPA ID NO: NMN00607057 CONTRACT NO: EP-W-06-042

DISCLAIMER: THIS FIGURE IS PREPARED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PRPOSES

LEGEND
Parks UST Public Water Supply Wells

Domestic Wells Target Distance Limit Rings
Ground Water Plume
Ground Water Gradient

20406.012.019.0870.01 AS SHOWN

10:33:17 AM 9/1/2015 FILE: I:\GIS_Projects\Brownm\Lea and West 2nd\mxd\HRS\Attachment E-Figure 1_0812.mxd 10:33:17 AM 9/1/2015 BROWNM SEPTEMBER, 2015 SCALE PROJECT NO DATE 

## US EPA REGION 6 0.25-mile TDL 0.5-mile TDL 1-mile TDL 2-mile TDL 3-mile TDL 4-mile TDL

.5



### 121CITY WELL #11 CITY WELL #18 OUTSIDE INN RV PARK GENERATIONS OF LEARNING

CITY WELL #13

CITY WELL #17

CITY WELL #16 CITY WELL #15 CITY WELL #12

WELL #2 (SOUTH) WELL #1 (NORTH) ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 2 PARKS UST (SOURCE 4)

DOMESTIC WELLS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS LEA AND WEST SECOND STREET ROSWELL, CHAVES COUNTY, NEW MEXICO

0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

TDD NO: 19/WESTON-042-15-003 EPA ID NO: NMN00607057 CONTRACT NO: EP-W-06-042

DISCLAIMER: THIS FIGURE IS PREPARED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR SURVEY OR ENGINEERING PRPOSES

LEGEND
Parks UST Public Water Supply Wells

Domestic Wells Roswell City Boundary Target Distance Limit Rings

20406.012.019.0870.01 AS SHOWN

10:36:26 AM 9/1/2015 FILE: I:\GIS_Projects\Brownm\Lea and West 2nd\mxd\HRS\Attachment E-Figure 2_0812.mxd 10:36:26 AM 9/1/2015 BROWNM AUGUST, 2015 SCALE PROJECT NO DATE 

## US EPA REGION 6 0.25-mile TDL 0.5-mile TDL

1-mile TDL 2-mile TDL 3-mile TDL 4-mile TDL

2



### 122