Revisions to Leeds Metal HRS Documentation Record

July 6, 2012

1. On page 1, the Ground Water Pathway score was changed from 100.00 to 64.512, and the HRS SITE 

SCORE was changed from 50.00 to 32.25. 

2. On page 2, the following changes were made:

• On line 1, Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw), the “S” value was changed from 100.00 

to 64.512; the “S2

” value changed from 10,000 to 4,161.798. 

• On line 5, Total of S 2

gw + S 2 sw + +S 2s = S 2a , the “S2” value was changed from 10,000 to 

4,161.798. 

• On line 6, HRS Site Score, the “S2

” value was changed from 50.00 to 32.25. 

3. On page 3, the following changes were made:

• On line 4, Toxicity/Mobility, the “Value Assigned” was changed from 10,000 to 1,000. 

• On line 6, Waste Characteristics, the “Value Assigned” was changed from 100 to 56.

• On line 8a, Level I Concentrations, the “Value Assigned” was changed from 170 to 50. 

• On line 8b, Level II Concentrations, the “Value Assigned” was changed from NS to 12. 

• On line 8c, Potential Contamination, the “Value Assigned” was changed from NS to 60.8. 

• On line 8d, Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c), the “Value Assigned” was changed from 170 to 

122.8. 

• On line 11, Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10), the “Value Assigned” was changed from 220 to 

172.8. 

On line 12, Aquifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11)/82,500], the “Value Assigned” was changed from 

100.00 to 64.512. 

On line 13, Pathway Score (Sgw), the “Value Assigned” was changed from 100 to 64.512.

n page 13, Ref. No. [3] was removed and replaced with “Reference Reserved.”

ew references [176] through [180] were added on new page 25a. 

n section 3.2.1, TOXICITY/MOBILITY, on page 125, the following changes were made:

In the first paragraph on the third line, “[2, pp. BI-10, BII-11; 3, pp. BI-1, BII-1]” was updated to 

“[2, pp. BI-1, 3, 8; 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. BI-10-11, A-295-296, 335-336; 178; 179].” 

In the table, in the PCE row, the “References” column entry was updated from “2, pp. bI-10” to 

“177 pp. BI-11, A-335, A-336; 178; 179.” 

In the table, in the TCE row, the “Toxicity Factor Value” column entry was updated from 10,000 

to 1,000; the “Toxicity/Mobility” column entry was updated from 10,000 to 1,000; and the 

“References” column entry was updated from “3. pp. BI-1” to “176pp. A-1, A-2; 177 pp. BI-11; 

178; 179.” 

In the table, in the Arochlor-1254 row, the “References” column entry was updated from “2, pp. 

BI-10” to “177 pp. BI-10, A-295, A-296; 178; 179.” 

In the table, on the Arochlor-1260 row, the “References” column entry was updated from “2, pp. 

BI-10” to “177 pp. BI-10, A-295, A-296; 178; 179.” 

In the table, on the Arsenic row, the “References” column entry was corrected from “2, pp. BI-1” 

to “2 p BI-1.” 

•

•

4. O

5. N

6. I

•

•

•

•

•

•
Leeds Metal HRS Documentation Record Revisions (7/6/12) 2 

• In the table, on the “Chromium” row, the “References” column entry was corrected from “2, pp. 

BI-3” to “2 p BI-3.” 

• In the table, on the “Lead” row, the “References” column entry was corrected from “2, pp. BI-8” 

to “2 p BI-8.” 

• In the paragraph following the table: 

― On line 1, the Toxicity Factor Value was changed from 10,000 to 1,000. 

― On line 2, the citation “3, pp.BI-1” was replaced with the following citations, “176, pp. A-1-

2; 177 pp. BI-11; 178; 179.” 

― On line 3, the Toxicity Factor Value was updated from 10,000 to 1,000.

― On line 4, the Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value was updated from 10,000 to 1,000. 

• In the final line on page 125, The Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value was updated from 10,000 to 

1,000. 

7. In section 3.2.3, WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FACTOR CATEGORY VALUE, on page 126, the 

following changes were made: 

• In the first paragraph the following changes were made:

― On line 1, the Toxicity Factor Value was updated from 10,000 to 1,000. 

― On line 2, the Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value was updated from 10,000 to 1,000. 

― On line 3, the Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value for the aquifer was updated from 10,000 to 

1,000. 

― On line 6, “10,000 x 10,000 = 1 x 108” was updated to “1,000 x 10,000 = 1 x 107.” 

• On the first right-justified line following the first paragraph, the Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 

was updated from 10,000 to 1,000. 

• On the third right-justified line, “Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value (10,000) × Hazardous Waste 

Quantity Factor Value (10,000): 1 × 108

” was updated to “Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value (1,000) 

× Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value (10,000): 1 × 107

.” 

• In the second paragraph, on the first line, the Waste Characteristics Product of (1 × 108

) was 

updated to (1 × 107

); and on the second line, the Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value of 

100 was updated to 56. 

• On the last line of the section, the Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value was updated from 

100 to 56. 

8.

• The first line of the section, which was formerly the subheading “Level I Concentrations,” has 

been removed. (It has been reinserted on page 127 where appropriate.) 

• The following text that appeared at the end of the first paragraph of the section was deleted: “PCE 

was detected at a concentration above the health-based benchmarks for hazardous substances in 

drinking water (screening concentration for cancer corresponding to that concentration that 

corresponds to the 10-6 individual cancer risk for oral exposures) in one drinking water sample, 

DW-12 [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 51603 (Table 3-10); 2, BII-11; 16, pp.22-

23; 34, p. 25; 46, Table 1 (p. 1 of 3); 74, pp. 1-2].” 

In section 3.3, “TARGETS,” starting on page 126, the following changes were made:
Leeds Metal HRS Documentation Record Revisions (7/6/12) 3 

• The second paragraph of section 3.3 was split into two paragraphs in the middle of the sixth line; 

the subhead, Level I Concentrations, was added at this place; and the phrase “Of the seven 

drinking water samples presented,” was added to begin the sentence that now starts the third 

paragraph. 

• In the fourth line of the third paragraph, “seven drinking water samples” was updated to “two 

drinking water samples.” 

• In the sixth line of the third paragraph, the following reference citations were added to the list of 

citations that begins on the fourth line, “176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. BII-23; 178; 179.”

• In the former second paragraph, now the third paragraph, the final sentence that begins, “In 

addition, TCE was detected in two drinking water samples (DW09 and DW-15) at concentrations 

at or greater than the cancer risk comparison concentration but below the sample adjusted 

CRQL,” was deleted.

• The table in the middle of page 127 showing benchmark information was replaced with an 

updated table. 

• The subsection titled, Level II Concentrations, was added.

• A paragraph and table were added under the new subsection titled, Level II Concentrations. The 

content of this paragraph and table reflects the drinking water samples that document Level II 

concentrations of TCE.

• In section 3.3.1, NEAREST WELL, formerly on page 127, now on page 128, in the first line, the 

words “and PCE” have been removed; in the fourth line, the following new references have been 

added, “176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. BII-23; 178; 179.” 

9. Within the POPULATION section (3.3.2), in section 3.3.2.2, Level I Concentrations, under the 

subheading “Level I Population Targets”, the following changes were made:

• In the first line the words “PCE and” have been removed 

• Starting in the first line, “seven drinking water supply wells” was changed to “two drinking water 

supply wells.” 

• References have been updated throughout the section. 

• The table showing aquifer number and population was replaced with an updated table. 

• The “Sum of Population Served by Level I Wells” was updated from 17 to 5, and the “Sum of 

Population Served by Level I Wells x 10” was updated from 170 to 50. 

10. Within the POPULATION section (3.3.2), the content of sections 3.3.2.3, Level II Concentrations, 

and 3.3.2.4, Potential Contamination, has been replaced with updated content; pages 129a, 129b and 

129c have been added that contain additional content regarding potential contamination and potential 

population targets. 
 

 

 

 

HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD
 

Name of Site: Leeds Metal Date Prepared: September 2011 

EPA Region: Region I 

Street Address of Site*: Off of Blue Rock Road 

City, County, State, Zip Code: Leeds, Androscoggin County, Maine, 04263 

General Location in the State: Southwestern Maine 

Topographic Map: U.S. Geological Survey, Monmouth, Maine 7.5-minute series Topographical Map. 

1979 [7]. 

Latitude**: 44° 14′ 13.5′′ North 

Longitude**: 70° 04′ 48.9′′ West 

Scores 

Air Pathway 

Ground Water Pathway 

Soil Exposure Pathway 

Surface Water Pathway 

NS 

64.512 

NS 

NS 

HRS SITE SCORE 32.25 

NS = Not Scored 

* The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this Hazard Ranking System 

(HRS) documentation record identify the general area the site is located. They represent one or more 

locations U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers to be part of the site based on the 

screening information EPA used to evaluate the site for National Priorities List (NPL) listing. EPA lists 

national priorities among the known “releases or threatened releases” of hazardous substances; thus, the 

focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a hazardous 

substance has been “deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located.” Generally, HRS scoring 

and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may 

need to be addressed under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (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. 

** The geographic coordinates of the site were measured from its approximate center [4, p. 1]. See 

Figure 2 for the location of the latitude and longitude measurement point. 

Leeds Metal 1 HRS Documentation Record 

MEN000103584 September 2011 
 

S S2 

1.	 Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) 

2. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component 

64.512 4161.798 

(from Table 4-1, line 30) 

3.	 Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss) 

NS --

(from Table 5-1, line 22) 

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa) 

(from Table 6-1, line 12) 

2 5. Total of Sgw

2

 + Ssw2 + Ss

2

 + Sa 

6. HRS Site Score 

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

NS 

NS 

 

 

--

--

4161.798 

32.25 

 

 

WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE 

Leeds Metal 2 HRS Documentation Record 

MEN000103584 September 2011 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 NS 

2b. Net Precipitation 10 NS 

2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 NS 

2d. Travel Time 35 NS 

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

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) 10,000 

6. Waste Characteristics 100 56 

Targets: 

7. Nearest Well 50 50 

8. Population: 

8a. Level I Concentrations (b) 50 

8b. Level II Concentrations (b) 12 

8c. Potential Contamination (b) 60.8 

8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b) 122.8 

9. Resources 5 NS 

10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 NS 

11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 172.8 

Ground Water Migration Score For An Aquifer: 

12. Aquifer Score [(lines 3 x 6 x 11)/82,500] (c) 100 64.512 

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score: 

13. Pathway Score (Sgw), 

(highest value from line 12 for all aquifers evaluated)c 100 64.512 

(a) Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. 

(b) Maximum value not applicable. 

(c) Do not round to nearest integer. 

Leeds Metal 3 HRS Documentation Record 

MEN000103584 September 2011 
 

 

 

 

REFERENCES 

Ref. 

No. Description of the Reference 

[1] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Hazard Ranking System; Final Rule, 

40 CFR Part 300, Appendix A. The complete Hazard Ranking System; Final Rule is 

available from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/index.htm#HRS%20 Rule. 14 

December. Excerpt. 32 pages. 

[2] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix 

(SCDM). Available from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm. 

January. Excerpt. 107 pages. 

[3] Reference Reserved. 

[4] Hornok, G. Weston Solutions, Inc. 2010. Project Note, Leeds Metal, RE: Latitude/Longitude 

Calculations. TDD No. 09-05-0004. 25 January. 1 page. 

[5] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Superfund 

Program, Region 1, RE: Leeds Metal. Available from 

http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0103584. Printout dated 3 March. 

2 pages. 

[6] Weston Solutions, Inc., Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III (START). 

2010. Site Assessment Program Site-Specific Quality Assurance Project Plan for Surface 

and Subsurface Soil/Source, Groundwater, Drinking Water, and Sediment Sampling, Leeds 

Metal, Site Inspection, Leeds, Maine. TDD No. 09-05-0004. 26 October. 104 pages. 

[7] U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1979. Monmouth, Maine (7.5-minute series topographic 

map). 1 page. 

[8] U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1966. Wayne, Maine (7.5-minute series topographic map). 

1 page. 

[9] James W. Sewall Company. 2009. Property Map Number 4, Town of Leeds, Androscoggin 

County, Maine. 1 April. 1 page. 

[10] James W. Sewall Company. 2009. Property Map Number 1, Town of Leeds, Androscoggin 

County, Maine. 1 April. 1 page. 

[11] Weston Solutions, Inc., Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team III (START). 

2011. Final Site Inspection Report for Leeds Metal, Leeds, Maine. TDD No. 09-05-0004. 19 

August. 321 pages. 

[12] Town of Leeds, Maine. 2010. Property Card for Map Number 4 Lot Number 38. 2 

September. 2 pages. 

Leeds Metal 13 HRS Documentation Record 

MEN000103584 September 2011 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES 

Ref. 

No. Description of the Reference 

[176] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix 

(SCDM) – Interim Report for Trichloroethylene (TCE), Appendix A. Available from 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm. 31 March. 2 pages. 

[177] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix 

(SCDM). Available from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm. 31 

March. Excerpt. 57 pages. 

[178] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012 Methodology for Determining 

Chemical and Physical Properties Factor Values and Screening Concentration Benchmarks 

for Volatile Substances Listed in the U.S. EPA’s Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. Available 

from. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm-update-methodology.pdf. 

March. 40 pages. 

[179] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. SUBSET of SCDM Volatile Substances 

and Corresponding Factor Values and Supporting Data.. Available from 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/volatile-substances-factor-values.pdf. 

31 March. 8 pages. 

[180] Hornok, G. and Kelly, J. Weston Solutions, Inc. 2012. Project Note, Re: Summary of 

methods used to calculate Potential Groundwater Population within 4 Radial Miles of Leeds 

Metal. 27 June. 40 pages. 

Leeds Metal 25a HRS Documentation Record 

MEN000103584 September 2011 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Leeds Aquifer 

3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS 

3.2.1 TOXICITY/MOBILITY 

The Toxicity Factor Value and the Mobility Factor Value are assigned to the hazardous substances 

associated with the sources and releases at the site, and are based on the values presented in the Superfund 

Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) [2, pp. BI-1, 3, 8; 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. BI-10-11, A-295-296, 335-336; 

178; 179]. 

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 

PCE 4,5 100 1 Y 100 

177 pp. BI-11, A335, A-336; 178; 

179 

TCE 

Degradation 

Product of 

PCE 1,000 1 Y 1,000 

176 pp. A-1, A-2; 

177 pp. BI-11; 

178; 179 

Aroclor1254 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 10,000 0.0001 N 1 

177 pp. BI-10, A295, A-296; 178; 

179 

Aroclor1260 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 10,000 0.0001 N 1 

177 pp. BI-10, A295, A-296; 178; 

179 

Arsenic 1, 4 10,000 0.01 N 100 2 p. BI-1 

Chromium 1, 2, 4, 5 10,000 0.01 N 100 2 p. BI-3 

Lead 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 10,000 0.01 N 100 2 p. BI-8 

*Per the HRS, any hazardous substance that meets the criteria for an observed release by chemical 

analysis to one or more aquifers underlying the sources at the site, regardless of the aquifer being 

evaluated, assign a mobility factor value of 1 (Ref. 1, Section 3.2.1.2). 

The observed release substance, TCE, is assigned a Toxicity Factor Value of 1,000 and a Mobility Factor 

Value of 1.0 [1, p. 51601 (Sections 3.2.1.1 and 3.2.1.2); 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. BI-11; 178; 179 ]. From 

HRS Table 3-9, a Toxicity Factor Value of 1,000 and Mobility Factor Value of 1.0 for TCE are assigned a 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value of 1,000 [1, 51602 (Table 3-9)]. 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value (Ref. 1, Table 3-9): 1,000 

Leeds Metal 125 HRS Documentation Record 

MEN000103584 September 2011 
 

Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Leeds Aquifer 

3.2.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY 

Source No. Source Type Source Hazardous Waste Quantity 

1 Pile 2,565.2 

2 Pile 8,226.4 

3 Pile 690.8 

4 Pile 4,512.0 

5 Contaminated Soil 5.6 

Sum of Values: 16,000.0 

Based on HRS Section 2.4.2.2, if the Hazardous Constituent Quantity is not adequately determined for 

one or more sources, and if any target for the ground water pathway is subject to Level I or Level II 

concentrations, a factor value is assigned from Table 2-6 or a value of 100, whichever is greater, as the 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value for that pathway [1, pp. 51591 (Table 2-6), 51592 (Section 

2.4.2.2)]. 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value (Ref. 1, Table 2-6): 10,000 

3.2.3 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FACTOR CATEGORY VALUE 

The Toxicity Factor Value (1,000) and the Mobility Factor Value (1.0) for TCE are multiplied in order to 

determine the Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value (1,000) [1, pp. 51590 (Section 2.4.2), 51602 (Section 

3.2.1.3, Table 3-9)]. The Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value for the aquifer (1,000) is multiplied by the 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value for the aquifer (10,000) in order to determine the Waste 

Characteristics Product, subject to a maximum value of 1 × 108

 [1, pp. 51592 (Section 2.4.3.1), 51602 

(Section 3.2.3)]. 1,000 × 10,000 = 1 × 107

. 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 1,000 

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value (1,000) × Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value (10,000): 1 × 107 

From HRS Table 2-7, the Waste Characteristics Product (1 × 107

) is assigned a Waste Characteristics 

Factor Category Value of 56 [1, pp. 51592 (Section 2.4.3.1), 51602 (Section 3.2.3)]. 

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value (Ref. 1, Table 2-7): 56 

3.3 TARGETS 

Of the seven drinking water samples presented, PCE was detected at a maximum concentration of 3.9 

μg/L in drinking water sample DW-12 [16, pp. 22-23; 34, pp. 25; 46, Table 1 (p. 1 of 3); 74, pp. 1-2]. 

PCE was detected in five (DW-12, DW-13, DW-18, DW-23, and DW-24) of the seven selected drinking 

water samples at concentrations greater than or equal to the background sample concentration (DW-02, 

PCE concentration of 0.5 U μg/L) [14, pp. 23-25, 44-45; 15, pp. 16-17; 16, pp. 7-10, 22-23; 34, pp. 8, 12, 

15, 22-23, 25; 45, Table 1 (pp. 1-2 of 3); 46, Table 1 (pp. 1-2 of 3); 47, Table 1 (p. 1 of 3); 74, pp. 1-2]. 

Of the seven drinking water samples presented, TCE was detected at a maximum concentration of 18 

Leeds Metal 126 HRS Documentation Record 

MEN000103584 September 2011 
 

Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Leeds Aquifer 

μg/L in drinking water sample DW-12 [16, pp. 22-23; 34, pp. 25; 46, Table 1 (p. 1 of 3); 74, pp. 1-2]. 

TCE was detected in each of the seven selected ground water samples, at concentrations greater than or 

equal to the relevant background sample concentration (DW-02, TCE concentration of 0.5 U μg/L) [14, 

pp. 23-25, 35-38, 44-45; 15, pp. 16-17; 16, pp. 7-10, 22-23; 34, pp. 8, 10-12, 15, 22-23, 25; 45, Table 1 

(pp. 1-2 of 3); 46, Table 1 (pp. 1-2 of 3); 47, Table 1 (p. 1 of 3); 74, pp. 1-2]. 

Level I Concentrations 

Of the seven drinking water samples presented, TCE was detected at a concentration above the healthbased benchmarks for hazardous substances in drinking water (screening concentration for cancer 

corresponding to that concentration that corresponds to the 10-6 individual cancer risk for oral exposures) 

in two drinking water samples (DW-12 and DW-24) [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 

51603 (Table 3-10); 14, pp. 44-45; 16, pp. 22-23; 34, pp. 12, 25; 45, Table 1 (pp. 2 of 3); 46, Table 1 (pp. 

1 of 3); 74, pp. 1-2; 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. BII-23; 178; 179]. 

Sample 

ID 

Hazardous 

Substance 

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration 

(μg/L) 

Benchmark 

Concentration 

(μg/L) Benchmark 

References for 

Benchmark 

DW-12 TCE 18 1.0 Cancer Risk 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 

pp. BII-23. A-1, A-2; 

178; 179 

DW-24 TCE 1.5 1.0 Cancer Risk 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 

pp. BII-23; 178; 179 

TCE = Trichloroethene. μg/L = Micrograms per Liter. 

Level II Concentrations 

Of the seven drinking water samples presented, TCE was detected at a concentration greater than or equal 

to the relevant background sample concentration but below the health-based benchmarks for hazardous 

substances in drinking water (screening concentration for cancer corresponding to that concentration that 

corresponds to the 10-6 individual cancer risk for oral exposures) in five drinking water samples (DW-13, 

DW-16, DW-18, DW-23, and DW-25) [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 51603 (Table 3­

10); 14, pp. 23-25, 35-38, 44-45; 15, pp. 16-17; 16, pp. 9-10, 22-23; 34, pp. 8, 10-12, 15, 22-23, 25; 45, 

Table 1 (pp. 1-2 of 3); 46, Table 1 (pp. 1-2 of 3); 47, Table 1 (p. 1 of 3); 74, pp. 1-2; 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 

pp. BII-23; 178; 179]. 

Sample 

ID 

Hazardous 

Substance 

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration 

(μg/L) 

Benchmark 

Concentration 

(μg/L) Benchmark 

References for 

Benchmark 

DW-13 TCE 0.96 1.0 Cancer Risk 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. 

BII-23; 178; 179 

DW-16 TCE 0.63 1.0 Cancer Risk 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. 

BII-23; 178; 179 

Leeds Metal 127 HRS Documentation Record 

MEN000103584 September 2011 
 

 

Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Leeds Aquifer 

DW-18 TCE 0.52 1.0 Cancer Risk 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. 

BII-23; 178; 179 

DW-23 TCE 0.91 1.0 Cancer Risk 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. 

BII-23; 178; 179 

DW-25 TCE 0.65 1.0 Cancer Risk 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. 

BII-23; 178; 179 

TCE = Trichloroethene. μg/L = Micrograms per Liter. 

3.3.1 NEAREST WELL 

Based on TCE analytical results of drinking water samples, a release to the supply aquifer has been 

documented, and Level I concentrations confirmed [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 51603 

(Table 3-10); 14, pp. 44-45; 16, pp. 22-23; 34, pp. 12, 25; 45, Table 1 (pp. 2 of 3); 46, Table 1 (pp. 1 of 

3); 74, pp. 1-2; 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. BII-23; 178; 179]. As a drinking water supply well is subject to 

Level I concentrations, a Nearest Well Factor Value of 50 is assigned [1, pp. 51602-51603 (Section 

3.3.1)]. The closest drinking water supply well containing Level I concentrations of the target compounds 

is located 0.149 miles southwest of Source No. 4 [105, pp. 1-2, Figure 1]. 

Well ID: DW-12 

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

If potential contamination, distance from source in miles: 

Nearest Well Factor Value (Ref. 1, Table 3-11): 50 

3.3.2 POPULATION 

3.3.2.1 Level of Contamination 

3.3.2.2 Level I Concentrations 

Level I Population Targets 

Based on TCE analytical results of drinking water samples, a release to two drinking water supply wells 

has been documented, and Level I concentrations confirmed [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 

2.5.2), 51603 (Table 3-10); 14, pp. 44-45; 16, pp. 22-23; 34, pp.12, 25; 45, Table 1 (pp. 2 of 3); 46, Table 

1 (pp. 1 of 3); 74, pp. 1-2; 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. BII-23; 178; 179]. Information provided by the 

residents served by the drinking water supply wells indicate that a total of five Level I Actual 

Contamination Targets have been documented [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 51603 

(Table 3-10); 14, pp. 44-45; 16, pp. 22-23; 34, pp.12, 25; 45, Table 1 (pp. 2 of 3); 46, Table 1 (pp. 1 of 3); 

74, pp. 1-2; ; 117; 129; 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. BII-23; 178; 179]. 

Level I Well Aquifer No. Population References 

DW-12 1 3 117; 16, p. 22 

DW-24 1 2 129; 14, p. 44 

Sum of Population Served by Level I Wells: 5 

Leeds Metal 128 HRS Documentation Record 

MEN000103584 September 2011 
 

 

Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Leeds Aquifer 

Sum of Population Served by Level I Wells x 10: 50 

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 50 

[1, p. 51603, Section 3.3.2.2] 

3.3.2.3 Level II Concentrations 

Level II Population Targets 

Based on TCE analytical results of drinking water samples, a release to five drinking water supply wells 

has been documented, and Level II concentrations confirmed [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 

2.5.2), 51603 (Table 3-10); 14, pp. 23-25, 35-38, 15, pp. 16-17; 16, pp. 9-10; 34, pp. 8, 10-11, 15, 22-23; 

45, Table 1 (pp. 1-2 of 3); 46, Table 1 (pp. 1-2 of 3); 47, Table 1 (p. 1 of 3); 74, pp. 1-2; 176, pp. A-1-2; 

177 pp. BII-23; 178; 179 ]. Information provided by the residents served by the drinking water supply 

wells indicate that a total of 12 Level II Actual Contamination Targets have been documented [1, pp. 

51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 51603 (Table 3-10); 14, pp. 23-25, 35-38; 15, pp. 16-17; 16, pp. 

9-10; 34, pp. 8, 10-11, 15, 22-23; 45, Table 1 (pp. 1-2 of 3); 46, Table 1 (pp. 1-2 of 3); 47, Table 1 (p. 1 of 

3); 74, pp. 1-2;; 114; 119; 121, p. 2; 122; 124, p. 4; 127; 131; 176, pp. A-1-2; 177 pp. BII-23; 178; 179]. 

Level II Well Aquifer No. Population References 

DW-13 1 2 119; 14, p. 23 

DW-16 1 2 121, p. 2; 122; 14, p. 37 

DW-18 1 2 124, p. 4; 15, pp. 16-17 

DW-23 1 3 127; 16, p. 9 

DW-25 1 3 131; 14, pp. 35-36 

Sum of Population Served by Level II Wells: 12 

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 12 

[1, p. 51603, Section 3.3.2.3] 

3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination 

Potential Population Targets 

Potential Population Targets were evaluated as part of this HRS Documentation Record to determine the 

number of people served by drinking water from points of withdrawal subject to potential contamination. 

This calculation does not include those people already counted under Level I and Level II concentration 

factors. 

As noted previously in Section 3.0.1 of this HRS Documentation Record, there are no physical barriers to 

ground water flow, such as mountains or large rivers, which have been identified within a 4-mile radius of 

the Leeds Metal property; subsurface investigations to date have not identified any continuous aquitards 

in the vicinity of the Leeds Metal property; and the fine-to-coarse sand overburden deposits and 

moderately permeable fracture metamorphic bedrock do not demonstrate any significantly lower 

hydraulic conductivity layers that separate aquifers throughout a 2-mile radius of the site sources, thus 

characterizing hydrogeology beneath the site as by a single aquifer consisting of the on-site shallow and 

deep glacial overburden aquifer and the hydraulically connected underlying meta-sedimentary bedrock 

Leeds Metal 129 HRS Documentation Record 

MEN000103584 September 2011 
 

 

 

Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Leeds Aquifer 

aquifer. Therefore, an aquifer interconnection occurs within 2 miles of the sources at the site and the 

combined aquifer constitutes the aquifer being evaluated that is used for scoring the site [1, p. 51595 

(Section 3.0.1.2.1)]. For the purposes of this evaluation, the entire population served by drinking water 

from points of withdrawal within 4-radial miles of the site are eligible for evaluation as potential 

population targets [1, p. 51595, Section 3.0.1.1]. 

The calculation of Potential Population Targets was evaluated as part of this HRS Documentation Record 

utilizing two separate techniques. Method 1 utilized the 1990 and 2000 census data to estimate the 

populations relying upon both private and public ground water supplies presented in the SI report 

(Reference 11) [11, pp. 112-115; 180]. To estimate the population served by private ground water 

supplies, a comparison was made between the 1990 and 2000 census data to determine the change (net 

increase) in population between the two census periods. This calculated proportional change in population 

was then applied to a subset of the 1990 census data (population relying on private drinking water supply 

wells) to estimate the number of persons relying upon private water supplies in 2000 [11, pp. 112-115; 

180]. Method 2 utilized the most recent census data (2010), which became available after completion of 

the SI report (Reference 11), and discussions with local personnel knowledgeable of the public and 

private ground water resource within 4-radial miles of the site. These discussions with local personnel 

were used to validate the drinking water supply of the entire population presented in the 2010 census 

within 4-radial miles of the site [11, pp. 112-115; 180]. Potential Population Targets calculation 

determined through the two methods (Method 1 and Method 2) confirms that there are no significant 

impact to the Distance-Weighted Population Value and, therefore, no significant impact to the Potential 

Contamination Factor Value or the overall site score. This HRS Documentation Record reports the 

method resulting in the minimal Potential Population Targets for determining the Potential Contamination 

Factor Value. Furthermore, the listing decision remains the same using the Method 1 data utilized at 

proposal or using the newer 2010 census data, reflecting current site conditions; conversely the new data 

confirms the listing decision [11, pp. 112-115; 180] 

Method 1 utilized the 1990 and 2000 census data to calculate a percent change in the total population 

within 4-radial miles of the Leeds Metal Site. This calculated proportional change was then applied to the 

population by radius for the private wells subset of the 1990 census data within each distance ring. The 

resulting population utilizing private drinking water supply wells within each radial ring, represented the 

same proportional increase as the total population from 1990 to 2000 [11, pp. 112-115; 180]. In addition, 

the population served by drinking water from public water supply wells within a 4-mile radius of the 

Leeds Metal property was determined through information in the ME Drinking Water Program database 

and summarized in the Leeds Metal SI [11, pp. 112-115; 180]. 

Method 2 utilized the most recent census data (2010), which became available after completion of the SI 

report (Reference 11), and discussions with local personnel knowledgeable of the public and private 

ground water resource within 4-radial miles of the site. The discussions with local personnel were used to 

validate the drinking water supply of the entire population presented in the 2010 census within 4-radial 

miles of the site [11, pp. 112-115; 180]. The 2010 census data (supplied by EPA) was utilized to 

determine the total population within each distance ring. Discussions with officials, for the towns located 

within 4-radial miles of the site, were conducted to establish the sources utilized for drinking water 

supplies located within each of the towns. Public water supply information from the Maine Drinking 

Water Program database was utilized to determine the supply type, location, and population served by 

each public supply source located within 4-radial miles of the site. Further discussion with Maine 

Drinking Water Program, Town, and public water supply system representatives confirmed the data 

presented in public water supply system database, along with activity status, source, location of the 

withdrawal point, population served, and distribution area (as needed) within each distance ring within a 

4-mile radius of the Leeds Metal property. This information was used to estimate the populations 

currently relying upon private and public ground water supplies within each distance ring within a 4-mile 

Leeds Metal 129a HRS Documentation Record 

MEN000103584 September 2011 
 

 

 

 

Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Leeds Aquifer 

radius of the Leeds Metal site [180]. 

The following table presents the comparison of the Potential Population Targets within a 4-mile radius of 

the Leeds Metal property utilizing the two methods and the resulting Distance-Weighted Population 

Value for each method. 

Distance 

Category 

Method 1 

Potential 

Population 

[11, 180] 

Method 1 

Distance-Weighted 

Population Value 

(Ref. 1, Table 3-12) 

Method 2 

Potential 

Population 

[180] 

Method 2 DistanceWeighted Population 

Value 

(Ref. 1, Table 3-12) 

0 to 1/4 mile 21* 17 53* 53 

>1/4 to 1/2 mile 169* 102 137* 102 

>1/2 to 1 mile 184 52 300 52 

>1 to 2 miles 574 94 856 94 

>2 to 3 miles 2,921** 212 1,340 212 

>3 to 4 miles 1,832 131 2,343 131 

Total 5,701 608 5,046 644 

* A total of nine Level I and/or Level II Population Targets have been accounted for within 1⁄4 mile of the 

Leeds Metal site, and eight Level I and/or Level II Population Targets have been accounted for greater 

then 1⁄4 mile to 1⁄2 mile of the site [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 51603 (Table 3-10); 11, 

pp. 112-115; 14, pp. 23-25, 35-38, 44-45; 15, pp. 16-17; 16, pp. 9-10, 22-23; 34, pp. 8, 10-12, 15, 22-23, 

25; 45, Table 1 (pp. 1-2 of 3); 46, Table 1 (pp. 1-2 of 3); 47, Table 1 (p. 1 of 3); 74, pp. 1-2].; 97, p. 12; 

117; 119; 121, p. 2; 124, p. 4; 127; 129; 131; 180]. 

** Note that an error has occurred in the 2011 SI population value calculation due to triple counting of 

one public ground water supply (Monmouth Water Association) system’s population (the actual value 

for this ring is 1,835 people). However due to the range in the HRS Population Served By Wells Within 

Distance Categories, no change occurs in the Distance-Weighted Population Value [11, pp. 112-115; 180] 

This HRS Documentation Record reports the method resulting in the minimal Potential Population 

Targets for determining the Potential Contamination Factor Value [1, Table 3-12; 11, pp. 112-115; 180]. 

The listing decision will remain the same using the Method 1 data utilized at proposal or using the newer 

2010 census data, reflecting current site conditions; conversely the new data confirms the listing decision. 

Distance Category Population References 

Distance-Weighted 

Population Value (Ref. 1, 

Table 3-12) 

0 to 1/4 mile 21* 11, pp. 112-115; 180 17 

>1/4 to 1/2 mile 169* 11, pp. 112-115; 180 102 

>1/2 to 1 mile 184 11, pp. 112-115; 180 52 

Leeds Metal 129b HRS Documentation Record 

MEN000103584 September 2011 
 

 

Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Leeds Aquifer 

Distance Category Population References 

Distance-Weighted 

Population Value (Ref. 1, 

Table 3-12) 

>1 to 2 miles 574 11, pp. 112-115; 180 94 

>2 to 3 miles 2,921** 11, pp. 112-115; 180 212 

>3 to 4 miles 1,832 11, pp. 112-115; 180 131 

* A total of nine Level I and/or Level II Population Targets have been accounted for within 1⁄4 mile of the 

Leeds Metal site, and eight Level I and/or Level II Population Targets have been accounted for greater 

then 1⁄4 mile to 1⁄2 mile of the site [1, pp. 51593 (Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2), 51603 (Table 3-10); 11, 

pp. 112-115; 14, pp. 23-25, 35-38, 44-45; 15, pp. 16-17; 16, pp. 9-10, 22-23; 34, pp. 8, 10-12, 15, 22-23, 

25; 45, Table 1 (pp. 1-2 of 3); 46, Table 1 (pp. 1-2 of 3); 47, Table 1 (p. 1 of 3); 74, pp. 1-2].; 97, p. 12; 

117; 119; 121, p. 2; 124, p. 4; 127; 129; 131; 180]. 

** Note that an error has occurred in the 2011 SI population value calculation due to triple counting of 

one public ground water supply (Monmouth Water Association) system’s population (the actual value 

for this ring is 1,835 people), however due to the range in the HRS Population Served By Wells Within 

Distance Categories, no change occurs in the Distance-Weighted Population Value. [11, pp. 112-115; 180] 

Calculations: 

Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values: 608 

Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values/10: 60.8
 

Potential Contamination Factor Value: 60.8 

(1, p. 51603-51604, Section 3.3.2.4) 

Leeds Metal 129c HRS Documentation Record 

MEN000103584 September 2011 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ground Water Migration Pathway 

Leeds Aquifer 

3.3.3 RESOURCES 

No Resources were evaluated as part of this HRS Documentation Record. 

Well ID Aquifer No. Resource Use References 

Resources Factor Value: Not Scored 

3.3.4 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA 

No Wellhead Protection Areas were evaluated as part of this HRS Documentation Record. 

Area Use References Value 

Wellhead Protection Area Factor Value: Not Scored 

Leeds Metal 130 HRS Documentation Record 

MEN000103584 September 2011