HRS Documentation Record Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS)

DOCUMENTATION RECORD - REVIEW COVER SHEET

Name of Site: Lea and West Second Street

EPA 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) Soil Exposure Pathway: The soil exposure pathway has not been scored because although 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 an evaluation of the soil exposure pathway

would not affect the listing decision (Ref. 1, Sec. 2.2.3).

2) Air 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) Surface 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

Name of Site: Lea and West Second Street

Site Spill Identifier No.: A6U9

EPA Site ID No.: NMN000607057 

EPA Region: 6 

Date Prepared: September 2015 

Street Addresses of Sites*: 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

City, County, and State: 

General Location

within the State:

Topographic Map(s): 

Latitude/Longitude*: 

Roswell, Chaves County, New Mexico 88202* 

The site is located in the City of Roswell, Chaves County, New Mexico. 

Roswell is located in southeast New Mexico (Ref. 3, p. 1). 

The following U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute series 

topographic map was used in locating the facility: Roswell North, New 

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

Lea and 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 System (GIS) software (Ref. 3, p. 1; Ref. 

4, pp. 1, 2). 

Scores

Air Pathway Not Scored

Ground Water Pathway 100

Soil Exposure Pathway Not Scored

Surface Water Pathway Not Scored

HRS 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 hazardous

substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a hazardous substance has

been "deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or has otherwise come to be located." Generally, HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of
HRS Documentation Record 2 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

a release merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under CERCLA. Accordingly, EPA 

contemplates that the preliminary description of facility boundaries at the time of scoring will be refined as more information is 

developed as to where the contamination has come to be located.
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:

Tracking numbers are assigned by the region to every page of every reference. The tracking

number consists of the reference number followed by the page number within that reference. A

tracking number has a two-digit number followed by the sequential number (e.g., Reference 4,

Page 1 is expressed as 040001 in Reference 4).

2. Hazardous substances are often listed by the names used in the Superfund Chemical Data

Matrix (SCDM) (Ref. 2).

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

• A-1 Site Location Map

• A-2 Source Location Map

• A-3 4-Mile Target Distance Limit

• A-4 4-Mile Target Distance Limit for Site and Sources

• A-5 Sample 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 East 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

Storage 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) (Excerpts). 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. Weston 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. Barron’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. Florida 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. Barron. 2008. Investigation of Perchloroethylene Contamination Around Denio’s Cleaners,

West 2nd Street Location in Roswell, New Mexico. 24 September 2008. Pages: 34.

9. Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory (Hall). 2008. Appendix 1, Laboratory Report,

Analysis of PCE Waste From Denio’s Cleaners’ West 2nd 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. Colorado 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 Tetrachloroethylene. 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 

Variations in Hydraulic Head in a Karst Aquifer: Roswell Artesian Basin, New Mexico. OpenFile 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. WESTON. 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 Data 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. 

Pages: 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 Well LocationsRoswell, 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 Summary. 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 9th 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 from 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. Excerpts. 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 Water 

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. Pages: 2. 

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

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

Environmental Analysis Laboratory, to Stephanie 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. Analytical 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://eawagbbd.ethz.ch/tce2/tce2_map.html. 

47. WESTON. 2015. Project Note to File. Subject: Lea and West Second. Task Description: 

Calculating Number of Domestic Private Wells in Each 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 location 

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 Aquifer 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). Perchloroethylene 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 2nd Street Site NPL 

Package. Attachment: Roswell Wells Sampled 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 Description: 

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 2nd 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 downloaded 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 Interior). 1938. Geology and ShallowWater 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-Water 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. Pages: 

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 File. Subject: Lea and West Second. Task Description: City 

of Roswell City Boundary. W.O. NO. 20406.012.019.0927.01. 11 August 2015. Pages: 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 evaluated for the 

release of hazardous substances to ground water predominantly from historical dry cleaning operations 

within the City of Roswell, Chaves County, New Mexico (Ref. 3, p. 1; Ref. 4, p. 2). These sites each have 

sources and/or associated contaminated 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 record (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 Storage Tank (UST). These sites contain sources that have contained hazardous 

substances that have released 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) 

individually, with an HRS score above 28.50, an HRS evaluation of each, including separate observed 

releases, 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 tetrachloroethene) (Ref. 8, p. 5) and an associated ground water 

plume contaminated with trichloroethene (TCE) (also known as trichloroethylene), PCE, and cis-1,2-

dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE) (also known as cis-1,2-dichloroethylene). 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 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 Tank 

(LUST) investigations of the Allsups and Sawey Gulf Petroleum facilities (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 (Ref. 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) conducted 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 detected in 

seven soil samples and two ground water grab samples collected 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-dichloroethylene) (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 with the release into the Roswell Basin Aquifer (Section 3.1.1 of this 

HRS documentation record). In 2008, Site 3 was discovered by the NMED Superfund Oversight Section

(SOS) during a site inspection (SI) (Ref. 30, pp. 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 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 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 vicinity 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) analysis) 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 risk to the population 

from the combined releases is sufficient to warrant a single listing. To illustrate this, the ground water 

data collected from the four Roswell Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) SI sites from 2009 through 2011 and the 2014 CERCLA Site 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 Site 3 (the farthest 

western-source location) has migrated southeast toward Site 4 (the farthest southeastern source location) 

and east-northeast towards Site 2, such that the chlorinated solvent plumes 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 an easterly direction (Ref. 57; 

Attachments 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. These 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 contained 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 from 
HRS 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 conducted 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 Sections 2.4.1 for Sources 1 through 4 and Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). 

Multiple observed releases of PCE (and daughter products) 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; Sections 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 limits for each 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 S2

1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) 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 (Ssw) NS NS

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

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss) NS NS

(from Table 5-1, line 22) 

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa) NS NS

(from Table 6-1, line 12) 

 

5. Total of Sgw

2 + Ssw2 + Ss2 + Sa2

 10,000 

HRS Site Score: Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take 

 the square root. 50.00

Notes: 

S Score

S2 Score squared

NS Not scored

Table 3-1, refers to score sheets presented in the HRS Rule (Ref. 1). Table 3-1 is reproduced on 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

Likelihood of Release to an Aquifer:

1. Observed 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. Toxicity/Mobility (a) 1,000

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100

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) 1,365

9. Resources 5 5

10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 5

11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 1,420

Ground Water Migration Score For An Aquifer:

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

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score:

13. Pathway Score (Sgw), 

(highest value from line 12 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 Identification

Source Description: Source 1 - Denio’s 

Source Type: Contaminated Soil

Source 1 is the contaminated soil that resulted from dry cleaner operations that have been occurring on 

the property located at 514 West 2nd 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; Denio’s Cleaners was operating from 2001 to 2009; and All American 

Cleaners has been operating since 2009 (Ref. 7, p. 12; Ref. 8, pp. 4, 8). The area of Source 1 

encompasses contaminated soil adjacent to a single building, which encompasses the addresses 

between 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 soils (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 detection of PCE contamination within vadose 

zone soils (Ref. 7, p. 16). No liner was present and native soil contained contamination. Surface and 

subsurface soil samples collected from four boreholes at Source 1, as well as a waste sample from 

Denio’s operations 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: 10 
Source 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 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 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 PCE 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 purposes. 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 

same analytical method as the background sample. The samples had the same physical 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 

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, 75

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 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 in 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

Tetrachloroethylene 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

Tetrachloroethylene 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 – milligrams 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). 

Additional supporting analytical evidence of the presence of PCE at the property 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 Sample 

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 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 

[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. 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 [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 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

Samples demonstrating contamination were collected within an area 40 feet (ft) long, 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 (ft3

). To convert this number to 

cubic yards (yd3

) equals 122.4 ft3 times 0.037037 ft3 to 1 yd3 or 4.53 yd3. 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 (yd3): 4.53 

Volume Assigned Value: 4.53 yd3/2,500 

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.). 

Area Assigned Value = 0
Source 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) should 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 0.001812

D 0

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: 0.001812
Source 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 

discovered 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 Street, 

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 subsurface 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 products 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, metal 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 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 at the 

property located at 514 West Second Street in Roswell, NM, with soil samples collected and analyzed 

for 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 similar 

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, 75
Source 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 dilutions 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). Soil samples were collected 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 SB2 (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 Substances Associated With Source 2

Soil 

Hazardous

Substance

Evidence

References Client Sample 

ID 

RL*

(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 – milligrams 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, 70, 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 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).

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 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 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 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

The volume of the private sewer line (underground pipeline) cannot be adequately determined based 
Source 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 assigned 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 unknown 
Source Characterization - Source 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 located at 1400 West Second Street where two dry cleaning businesses operated from 1985 

through 2001. Sunshine Cleaners operated at this location from 1985 through 1993, while Denio’s 

Sunshine Cleaner’s operated from 1993 through 2001. NMED discovered an in-ground concrete 

separator tank connected to the sanitary sewer system during SI activities in 2009. Soil 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 the former dry cleaning business (Ref. 30, pp. 4, 10, 37, 40).

Source 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 - Source 3

HRS Documentation Record 26 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

A containment 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 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). 

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 collected were analyzed for VOCs by methods in the Contract 

Laboratory Program (CLP) Statement of Work For Organics Analysis, Multi-Media, MultiConcentration (OLM04.2) (Ref. 22, p. 5). Summarized 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, pp. 50, 107

Trichloroethylene 1400-W2-11-S 9,990 458,000 Ref. 22, pp. 49, 107

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1400-W2-11-S 999 49,200 Ref. 22, pp. 49, 107

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1400-W2-11-S 99.9 1,750 Ref. 22, pp. 49, 107

Tetrachloroethylene 1400-W2-1-S 1,000,000 38,300,000 J Ref. 22, pp. 52, 107

Trichloroethylene 1400-W2-1-S 100,000 965,000 Ref. 22, pp. 51, 107

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1400-W2-1-S 10,000 145,000 Ref. 22, pp. 51, 107

tran-1,2-Dichloroethene 1400-W2-1-S 100 7,150 Ref. 22, pp. 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 - Source 3

HRS Documentation Record 27 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. 3 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 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. 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 ft3 (1 ft3 = 0.037037037 yd3) = 1.3889 yd3 (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 = 0
Source Characterization - Source 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: 0.55556 
Source 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 Identification 

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 this intersection, was 

reported to the NMED Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau (PSTB) as a LUST release in 1991 (Ref. 32, p. 

8). A soil vapor extraction (SVE) system was operated at the property from 1993 through 1997 to 

remediate petroleum hydrocarbons associated with the LUST. The SVE system was 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 at 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). Three of the nearest dry cleaner locations that are upgradient from the property are College 

Cleaners II, Excelsior, and Holiday Drive-In. College Cleaners II was located approximately onequarter 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 plume (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 

located 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 standards, or healthbased 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 to the east in central Roswell, New Mexico

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

MW-4 to the northwest and samples Shamrock MW-9 to the east and Shamrock MW-10 to the 

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

Source 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 containment 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 conducted 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 following 

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 

located very near the estimated boundaries of the ground water plume, they are considered to be 

located outside the influence of potential contamination (Attachments A2, A-5, A-6 of this HRS 

documentation record). Local ground water flow is toward the northeast which would be away from 

these wells (Ref. 31, pp. 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 are similar and their contaminant 

concentrations can be compared because they were collected during similar sampling events 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 Laboratory (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, pp. 

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, pp. 

4, 108; Ref. 54, pp. 3, 7 

Shamrock MW-8 / 

1002017-08 23.30 / 10 02/15/2010

(1330)

Ref. 13, pp. 20, 23; Ref. 21, pp. 

4, 108; Ref. 54, pp. 3, 7

Notes:

 bgs – below ground surface

Background Results – Monitoring Wells in Alluvial Aquifer Associated 

with Parks UST– Source 4

Station ID/ 

Laboratory ID

Hazardous Substance Concentration

(μg/L)

Reporting

Limit* 

(μg/L)

References

Firestone MW8A / 

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

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 - micrograms 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 as 
Source 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). 

Ground 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 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 

establish observed release from Source 4 are presented below.

February through April 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event

Station ID/ Laboratory ID

Well 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, 41

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, 42

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, 43

February through April 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event – Sample Concentrations 

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 liter
Source 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 collected from 15 CERCLA site monitoring wells, 9 direct push borings, and 4 

domestic wells in the geographic vicinity of the North Main and 9th 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. 33

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-200BSStanton/ 

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-100BEHendricks/ 

0906037-09

Tetrachloroethylene 67.3 1 Ref. 29, p. 22

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 analyte is acceptable; reported value is an estimate (Ref. 29, 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 - micrograms per liter
Source Characterization - Source 4

HRS Documentation Record 34 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

March 2010 Monitoring Well Investigation 

Ground 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/ 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 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

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 Ref. 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 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 – Practical 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, 36 

Parks MW-14/ 201101238 28.47/ 10.00

06/29/2011

(0855) Ref. 20, p. 6 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3, 7, 37 

Parks MW-15/ 201101237 33.65/ 10.00

06/29/2011

(0925) Ref. 20, p. 10; Ref. 54, pp.3, 7, 38 

Parks MW-16/ 201101243 27.34/ 10.00

06/29/2011

(unknown) Ref. 20, p. 13; Ref. 54, pp. 3, 7, 39 

Parks MW-17/ 201101240 25.38/ 10.00

06/29/2011

(1000) Ref. 20, p. 22 ; Ref. 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. 7 
Source 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:

SDL – 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 - micrograms per liter
Source 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 (NE)

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 cannot 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 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 [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 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

The 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, Section 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 = 0
Source 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: >0
Sources

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 Pathway

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 0.001812 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 Scored
Sources

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 evidence 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 after 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 

Location 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 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).

mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Ground 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 located in the northern portion of the Roswell Ground Water Basin, 

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

The Roswell area has long and hot summers and precipitation is sparse, averaging less than 13 

inches 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 Roswell 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 Carlsbad, New Mexico (Ref. 49, p. 14). 

Regional Geology 

The Roswell Artesian Basin system consists of an eastward-dipping carbonate aquifer overlain 

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 solutionaltered 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. 49, 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 800 feet thick along the eastern margin of the basin and thin 

westward as the result of erosion and dissolution (Ref. 49, 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 unconformably 

overlies the Permian-aged rocks in the Roswell Basin. Alluvium and associated terrace deposits 
Ground 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. 49, 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 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. 

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. 

49, p. 16). The lower boundary of the aquifer is formed 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 reversed 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 

permeable 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 groundwater (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 geologic time, a vast network of 

interconnected openings can develop in the rock, and large volumes of ground water can flow 

through the openings (Ref. 49, p. 14). When solution-altered rock becomes sufficiently porous, 

it may lack the strength to support the 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 rapidly 
Ground 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. 49, p. 10). According to available U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) documents reviewed, the Roswell Basin Aquifer system is considered a karst 

aquifer (Ref. 49, p. 14). The karstic nature of the artesian aquifer is well-illustrated by the 

breccia zones, particularly common in the upper San Andres, where they consist 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 vertical and horizontal flow directions have been altered locally by 

ground water withdrawal (Ref. 49, p. 18). 

Site-specific Hydrogeology 

In the vicinity of the grouped site, the subsurface soils consist of discontinuous 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. 15, 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 formations likely occurred during this period and may have continued after 

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 alluvium 

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. 49, 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. 49, 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 (artesian) 

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 domestic 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 supply 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-rock 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 between 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 individual 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 rapidly 

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 hydraulically connected to the 

underlying carbonate-rock aquifer by leakage through the upper confining unit of the carbonaterock aquifer. The water table in the alluvial aquifer is at or near land surface along most of the 

Pecos River (Ref. 49, pp. 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 declines 

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 carbonaterock 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 an 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. 25, 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 Water Plume, which also 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 

Section 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 carbonaterock 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, pp. 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 

TDLs 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, the 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 observed release by chemical analysis has been established for each of the four sites being 

grouped into one site for purposes of placement 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 each site area to evaluate 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 events 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 (Ref. 7, p. 17; Ref. 45, pp. 2, 6). Thus, 

ground water wells representative of background conditions for Source 1 were chosen based on 

their location being upgradient or west of the source and identified ground water plume (Ref. 3, 

pp. 1; Attachments 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 wells Union Plaza (Union) MW-23 and Union 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 (Attachments A-5 and A-6 of this HRS 

documentation record). Local ground water flow is toward the northeast 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 been 

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 wells 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 all samples 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 (feet bgs)/ 

Screened Interval 

(feet) 

Date

(military time)

References

Union MW-23

(Union Plaza MW-23)/ 

1003013-08

24.45 / 10 03/15/2010

(0955)

Ref. 23, pp. 4, 163; Ref. 54, 

pp. 2, 6 

Union MW-6 (Union 

Plaza MW-6)/ 1003013-

13

26.28/ 10 03/16/2010

(1045)

Ref. 23, pp. 4, 166; Ref. 54, 

pp. 2, 6 

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

Source 1

Station ID/ 

Laboratory ID

Hazardous Substance Concentration

(μg/L)

Reporting

Limit* 

(μg/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)/ 

1003013-13

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 is 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 detected (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 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 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 grade 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 events 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 Spring (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 each

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, 55

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, 15
Ground 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, 17

March 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event – Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ 

Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance

Concentration

(μg/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 Ref. 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/ 

1003015-03

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 during 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 SB2 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 Hazardous Substance

Concentration

(μg/L)

PQL* 

(μg/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

Trichloroethylene 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 per 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 CERCLA 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) References

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, 31
Ground Water Pathway – Observed Release

HRS Documentation Record 52 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

2009 Monitoring Well Sampling Event – Sample Concentrations

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 - micrograms per liter

February through April 2010 Monitoring Well Investigation 

Additional samples collected during the second SI sampling event, which indicate other releases 

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/ 

1002017-03 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 Concentrations 

Station ID/ 

Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance

Concentration

(μg/L)

Reporting 

Limit*

(μg/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:

* - 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, p.1). 

μg/L - micrograms per liter
Ground 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 samples were collected from 13 LUST-site 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 bgs)

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, 62

Century NMW-9/ 

1010014-02 26.71/ 10.00

10/19/2010

(1015) Ref. 18, pp. 1-4, 86; Ref. 54, pp. 3, 4, 63

August through October 2010 Monitoring Well Sampling Event – Sample Concentrations

Station ID/ 

Laboratory ID Hazardous Substance

Concentration

(μg/L)

Reporting 

Limit*

(μg/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 - micrograms per liter
Ground 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). These wells are the nearest downgradient 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/

Screened Interval 

(feet bgs)* 

Date

(military time)

References

Allsups289 MW-5/ 

1406609-001 25.90/10.00

06/11/2014

(1340)

Ref. 45, pp. 40, 77

Allsups289 MW-6/ 

1406609002 27.00/10.00

06/11/2014

(1135)

Ref. 45, pp. 41, 77

Allsups289 MW-7/ 

1406609-003 25.90/10.00

6/11/2014

(1320)

Ref. 45, pp. 42, 77

Allsups289 MW-9/ 

1406609-004 25.60/10.00

6/11/2014

(1110)

Ref. 45, pp. 44, 77

Allsups289 MW-10/

1406609-005 27.80/10.00

6/11/2014

(1155)

Ref. 45, pp. 45, 77

Allsups289 MW-11/ 

1406609-006 25.95/10.00

6/11/2014

(1245)

Ref. 45, pp. 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, pp. 48, 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*

(μg/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 10 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 10 Ref. 45, p. 67

Trichloroethene

280 10 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

Tetrachloroethylene 15 1 Ref. 45, p. 69

Trichloroethene

98 10 Ref. 45, p. 69
Ground 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) (μg/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 dilutions as defined in the HRS (Ref. 

55). 

μg/L - micrograms per liter
Ground 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 Street site (Source 2) in the alluvial ground water

were based on analytical results from the 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, pp. 5, 9). Thus, the 

ground water wells representative of background conditions for Source 2 were chosen based on 

their location being slightly upgradient and to the south of the identified ground water plume 

(Ref. 3, p. 1; Attachments 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 observed release to the ground water will be established 

when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample-specific SQL or another HRSdefined 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 Domestic Wells

Domestic wells 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 outside the influence of 

potential contamination (Attachments A-5, A-6 of this HRS documentation record). Local 

ground water flow is toward the northeast which would be away from these wells (Ref. 5, p. 9). 

Therefore, these wells are considered representative of background 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. Ground 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 the 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 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 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 with 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 adjusted 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 (Ref. 1, Table 2-3).

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

μg/L - micrograms per liter

U – Undetected (Ref. 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 Attachments 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 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 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, pp. 17, 18). Soil boring logs from the 

environmental investigation at 507 East Second Street property (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 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). 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*/ Laboratory 

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. 14

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/ 100.00

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* 

(μg/L) References

PW-2/ 1404028-06

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 information (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 are 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 property (Source 2) (Ref. 5, p. 

4).

2012 Phase II ESA Sampling Event

Station ID

Well Depth

(feet bgs) / 

Screened Interval

(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, pp. 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 pp. 

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) 

Tetrachloroethylene 16,000 200 Ref. 5, p. 39

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

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 2,100 100 Ref. 5, p. 39

SB-1 GW (1201167-

004) 

Tetrachloroethylene 7,100 100 Ref. 5, p. 28

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

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 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 - micrograms per liter
Ground 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 (Source 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. 15; Ref. 34, p. 19). Thus, the ground water well representative of background 

conditions for Source 3 was chosen based on its location being upgradient or west of the 

identified ground water plume and side gradient to the source (Ref. 3, p.1; Attachments 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 observed release to the ground water will be established 

when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the sample-specific SQL or another HRSdefined 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 FCS-MW-1 is located very near the estimated boundaries of the 

ground water plume, 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, pp. 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 naturally 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 similar and their 

contaminant concentrations can be compared because they were collected during similar

sampling events (June 2009) using similar sampling and analysis procedures and 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). In 
Ground 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 

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 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, pp. 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

Hazardous 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 - micrograms 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 background 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 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 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 place in June 2009. 

Ground water samples were collected from 15 CERCLA 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/ 10.00

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 Second 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, 23

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, pp. 1-2, 5; Ref. 54, 

pp. 2,6, 24

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, 25

ROW-A-1200B-W3/ 

0906039-02 25.00/ not screened

06/17/2009

(0930)

Ref. 16, p. 27; Ref. 

106; Ref. 54, p. 26

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-

27

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

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 299 5 Ref. 22, p. 17

W Second MW-2

(MW2)/ 0906032-

09

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 SMW-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-

Tetrachloroethylene 95.7 5 Ref. 22, p. 28

Trichloroethene 50.7 1 Ref. 22, p. 27
Ground 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-1100BW2-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 liter
Ground 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 analytical 

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; Attachments A2, 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 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. 

An 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 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 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 (Attachments 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 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 all 
Ground 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 Associated 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, pp. 

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, pp. 

4, 108; Ref. 54, pp. 3, 7 

Shamrock MW-8 / 

1002017-08 23.30 / 10 02/15/210

(1330)

Ref. 13, pp. 20, 23; Ref. 21, pp. 

4, 108; Ref. 54, pp. 3, 7

Background Results – Monitoring Wells in Alluvial Aquifer Associated 

with Parks UST– Source 4

Station ID/ 

Laboratory ID

Hazardous Substance Concentration

(μg/L)

Reporting

Limit* 

(μg/L)

References

Firestone MW8A / 

1002017-04

Tetrachloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 12

Trichloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 11

Firestone MW4A / 

1002017-01

Tetrachloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 6

Trichloroethylene 0.5 U 0.5 Ref. 21, p. 5

Shamrock MW8 / 

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. 21, 

p. 2; Ref. 55).

μg/L - micrograms 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 collected from monitoring wells used to document an observed release 

from Source 4 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 sampling date and similar screened intervals of the wells. 

Ground water well locations have been depicted on Attachments 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). 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 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 locations 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 establish 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, 41

Shamrock MW-9/ 02/15/2010 Ref. 13, p. 23; Ref. 21, pp. 1-4, 109; 

1002017-09 23.35/ 10.00 (1253) Ref. 54, pp. 3, 7, 42

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, 43

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. 16
Ground 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 CERCLA site monitoring wells, 9 direct push

borings, and 4 domestic wells in the geographic vicinity of the North Main and 9th 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 below.

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. 33

0906037-12 24.00/ not screened (1212)

ROW-300B-SVA/ 06/16/2009 Ref. 29, pp. 1-4, 46; Ref. 54, pp. 32

0906037-10 20.00/ not screened (1030)

ROW-100B-EHendricks/ 06/16/2009 Ref. 29, pp. 1-4, 46; Ref. 54, pp. 33

0906037-09 26.00 / not screened (1600)

ROW-400B-SGrand/ 06/16/2009 Ref. 29, pp. 1-4, 46; Ref. 54, pp. 32

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-200BSStanton/ 

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. 22
Ground 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 analyte is acceptable; reported value is an estimate (Ref. 29, 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 - micrograms per liter

March 2010 Monitoring Well Investigation 

Ground 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 other 

releases 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 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/ Tetrachloroethylene 24 10 Ref. 26, p. 32
Ground 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 Ref. 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, 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). The wells used to indicate other 

releases 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, 36 

Parks MW-14/ 201101238 28.47/ 10.00

06/29/2011

(0855) Ref. 20, p. 6 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3, 7, 37 

Parks MW-15/ 201101237 33.65/ 10.00

06/29/2011

(0925) Ref. 20, p. 10 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3, 7, 38 

Parks MW-16/ 201101243 27.34/ 10.00

06/29/2011

(unknown) Ref. 20, p. 13; Ref. 54, pp. 3, 7, 39 

Parks MW-17/ 201101240 25.38/ 10.00

06/29/2011

(1000) Ref. 20, p. 22 ; Ref. 54, pp. 3, 7, 40
Ground 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 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. 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 – Sample 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 - micrograms per liter
Ground 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 identification 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 surface 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 decontaminated 

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 analytical 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 by 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 saturated 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 stainless steel mini bailer or peristaltic pump (Ref. 36, p. 3). 

Ground water samples were collected from LUST 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, 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 and inoperable pumps (PW-6, and AWS-2) were sampled with either a 
Ground 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 multi-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 prior 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, pp. 3, 4; Ref. 36, p. 3; Ref. 37, p. 5). Samples collected by environmental 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

Attribution:

The Lea and West Second Street site is located in Roswell, Chaves County, New Mexico near 

the intersection of West Second Street and Lea Avenue. The grouped site is located in an area of 

mixed commercial and residential use. There are residential properties located within the 

boundaries identified as the grouped site (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 PCE 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 which 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 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, a degradation 

product 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 (Ref. 46, pp. 1, 2). 

Source 3 contamination was released from an in-ground concrete separator tank (Ref. 30, p. 4). 

Spent PCE was found in the tank and leakage 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 entered 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). PCE 
Ground 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. 32, 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 identified a total of 39 dry cleaning businesses that 

operated from 31 cleaning facilities within a 1-mile radius of the source (Ref. 32, p. 9). In 

addition to PCE being present in the ground water at the site, TCE, a degradation product of PCE 

is also present (Section 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 and trans-1,2-DCE has been identified throughout the alluvial aquifer in multiple ground 

water plumes that extends from beneath the intersection of North Montana Avenue and West 

Second Street in northeasterly and southeasterly directions (Ref. 46, p. 2; Ref. 57; Attachment A6 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 underground 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 

samples (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 operations. 

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 attributed 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 trash, 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 the 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-gradient of the sources did not 

identify any facilities within the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (Ref. 58, pp. 1-4). EPA’s 

EnviroMapper identified five dry cleaning facilities within the Roswell zip code. The dry 

cleaners listed include: 1-Hour Martinizing, which is currently operating where Source 1 is 

located; American Linen Supply, which is located within the site area; and College CleanersRoswell, College Cleaners II, and Klassic Cleaners-Roswell which are all located down-gradient 

of the ground water plumes 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-gradient of the 

identified plumes, and is therefore not a contributing factor to this grouped site’s contamination

(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: 550 
Ground Water Pathway – Waste Characteristics

HRS Documentation Record 79 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

3.2.1 Toxicity/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 (Ref. 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 Lea 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 this 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): 100
Ground 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 105

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value (Ref. 1, Table 2-7): 18

3.3 Ground Water Pathway Targets 

3.3.1 Nearest Well

There 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 Factor Value: 0 

3.3.2.3 Level II Concentrations

Level II concentrations have been detected in domestic well AWS-55 (Thunderbird) 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 provides water to (Ref. 69, 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: 4 

 
Ground Water Pathway – Targets

HRS Documentation Record 81 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination 

Roswell Municipal Water System

In addition to each source having an observed release 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. 

The City of Roswell has four historically 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

municipal 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 shallow alluvial ground water (Ref. 48, p. 1; Ref. 49, 

p. 14). Further, the artesian aquifer and the hydraulically connected alluvial ground water together 

comprise the Roswell Basin Aquifer System (Ref. 49, p. 14). This system has been designated as a 

karst 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 supply 

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 1999 (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) operated 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 target 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 CW13, five RMWS wells are located within the 4-mile target distance limit (TDL) for 

the grouped site, including CW12, CW15, CW16, CW17, and CW18 (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. Three large storage tanks (the 5-milliongallon capacity Third Reservoir Storage Tank and Country Club Storage Tanks #3 and #4, each with 

7.5-million-gallon capacities) float on the distribution lines and receive water from these City Wells. 

Water derived from these eight wells serves the main part of the City of Roswell (Ref. 41, p. 2). 

Since the RMWS is blended and no single water supply source supplies 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, 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). An 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 wells are located within 1-mile of the identified sources (see 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 population 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 site and outside of city limits (Ref. 47, pp. 1-32; 

Attachment A-3 of this HRS documentation record). Two privately 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 to3 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 Generations 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)** Public Supply Wells (karst) City of Roswell Municipal Wells (karst)

TDL 

from 

Site

Number of 

Wells

(Ref. 47)

Total non-karst 

Population 

Served*

Distance 

Weighted 

Population 

Values (nonkarst)

(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 3,097 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 Wells 

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, pp. 4-

5, Ref. 47, pp. 

14-31; Ref. 

48; Ref. 61, p. 

1

Total 869 2,347 230 268 724 301 18,228 19,252 13,379

Notes:

* Based on 2.70 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 = 1,365
Ground 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: 5 
Ground 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 Area (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 (550), 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 Score

The Ground Water Migration Pathway Score assigned based on the highest ground water migration 

score calculated for an aquifer underlying sources at the site. For the combined aquifer being evaluated 

for HRS 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 Street

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 Street

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, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, 

IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community 

*Map annotated by EPA START-3 on 08/11/2015 to depict site and source locations (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 

*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-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 

*Map Annotated by EPA START-3 on 08/11/2015 to depict well locations (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 Street

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 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 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 (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, 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. 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 Community 
Figure References for Attachments

HRS Documentation Record 91 Lea and West Second Street

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)

Attachment 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 (Ref. 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)

Attachment 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 

*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 E 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 (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)

Attachment 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 

*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)
HRS Documentation Record 92 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

Attachment A
Copyright:© 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

93
SB-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

DATE PROJECT NO SCALE

US EPA REGION 6

94
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 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

DATE PROJECT NO SCALE

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

95
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 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

DATE PROJECT NO SCALE

US EPA REGION 6

2

96
ROW-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-3 PW-2

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-14J 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-8 Chevron MW-1

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-10 Shamrock MW-9

Firestone MW-4A

Firestone MW-6A

Firestone MW-7A

Firestone MW-8A

SC Fina MW-4

SC Fina MW-5

Madrid MW-7B SC Fina MW-7

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

DATE PROJECT NO SCALE

US EPA REGION 6

Parks MW-17

Parks MW-15

Parks MW-14

Parks MW-12

Wakefield MW-8

Wakefield MW-7

Wakefield MW-5Wakefield MW-6

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

97
CITY

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

DATE PROJECT NO SCALE

US EPA REGION 6

98
HRS Documentation Record 99 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

ATTACHMENT B

SITE 1 – DENIO’S SITE SCORING
HRS Documentation Record 100 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

HRS Table 3-1 – Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet for Site 1 

Factor Categories and Factors

Maximum

Value

Value

Assigned

Likelihood 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. Toxicity/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

Documentation Record) 20 5 

11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 1,383

Ground Water Migration Score For An Aquifer:

12. Aquifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11) ÷ 82,500] c 100 92.20

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score:

14. Pathway Score (Sgw),

(highest value 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 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 101 Lea and West Second Street

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). 

Potential targets for Source 1 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 the RMWS is blended and no single water supply source supplies 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). An 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 1,693 persons, with a total of 

627 domestic wells identified within 4 radial miles of the site and outside of the city limits (Ref. 47, 

pp. 32-43). One privately owned supply well located within the 4-mile TDL includes 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 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 Weighted 

Population 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

102
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 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

DATE PROJECT NO SCALE

US EPA REGION 6

0.25-mile TDL

0.5-mile TDL

1-mile TDL

2-mile TDL 3-mile TDL

4-mile TDL

103
WELL #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

DATE PROJECT NO SCALE

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

104
HRS Documentation Record 105 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

ATTACHMENT C

SITE 2 – 507 EAST SECOND SITE SCORING
HRS Documentation Record 106 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

HRS Table 3-1 – Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet for Site 2 

Factor Categories and Factors

Maximum

Value

Value

Assigned

Likelihood 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

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

Waste Characteristics:

4. Toxicity/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 of 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. Aquifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11) ÷ 82,500] c 100 102.36 (100)

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score:

15. Pathway Score (Sgw),

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

HRS SITE SCORE: 50.00

100 100

(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.

(b) Maximum 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 107 Lea and West Second Street

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 associated 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 approximately 

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). 

Potential 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). 

Since the RMWS is blended and no single water supply source supplies 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). An 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 site and outside of the city limits (Ref. 47, 

pp. 44-54). One privately owned supply well located within the 4-mile TDL includes 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

108
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 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

DATE PROJECT NO SCALE

US EPA REGION 6

0.25-mile TDL

0.5-mile TDL

1-mile TDL

2-mile TDL

4-mile TDL 3-mile TDL

5

109
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 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

DATE PROJECT NO SCALE

US EPA REGION 6

0.25-mile TDL

0.5-mile TDL

1-mile TDL

2-mile TDL

3-mile TDL

4-mile TDL

110
HRS Documentation Record 111 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

ATTACHMENT D

SITE 3 – WEST SECOND AND MONTANA SITE SCORING
HRS Documentation Record 112 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

HRS Table 3-1 – Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet for Site 3

Factor Categories and Factors

Maximum

Value

Value

Assigned

Likelihood 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

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

Waste Characteristics:

4. Toxicity/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. Level I Concentrations (b) 0

8b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0

 8c. Potential Contamination (see Table 1 in Attachment D of the HRS 

Documentation 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. Aquifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11) ÷ 82,500] c 100 91.66

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score:

16. Pathway Score (Sgw),

(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 Street

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 (trans1,2-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 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 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).

Potential targets for Source 3 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 the RMWS is blended and no single water supply source supplies 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). An 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 2.7 

(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 privately 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). Each 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

114
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 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

DATE PROJECT NO SCALE

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

115
WELL #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

DATE PROJECT NO SCALE

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

116
Ground Water Pathway – Targets

HRS Documentation Record 117 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

ATTACHMENT E

SITE 4 – PARKS UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITE

SCORING
HRS Documentation Record 118 Lea and West Second Street

NMN000607057

 Ground Water Pathway – Targets 

HRS Table 3-1 – Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet for Site 4 

Factor Categories and Factors

Maximum

Value

Value

Assigned

Likelihood 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. Toxicity/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. Level 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 Section 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. Aquifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11) ÷ 82,500] c 100 75.13

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score:

17. Pathway Score (Sgw),

(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) Maximum 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 Street

NMN000607057

Site 4 (which includes Source 4) is called Parks UST and consists of a ground water plume 

contaminated with tetrachloroethene (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 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 VOC analysis) exhibited PCE 

and/or TCE contamination (Ref. 32, p. 8).

Potential 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 the RMWS is blended and no single water supply source supplies 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). An 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 1,180 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 privately owned supply wells located within the 4-mile TDL includes 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

120
ATTACHMENT 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

DATE PROJECT NO SCALE

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

121
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

WELL #2

WELL #1 (SOUTH) (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

DATE PROJECT NO SCALE

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