EPA/ROD/R01-97/001
                                    1997
EPA Superfund
     Record of Decision:
     CHESHIRE GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
     EPA ID: CTD981067317
     OU01
     CHESHIRE, CT
     12/31/1996

-------
City:  CHESHIRE
                                                   v 1
Site Information:

   Site Name:
   Address:
CHESHIRE GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
CHESHIRE, CT
   EPA ID:        CTD981067317
   EPA Region:    01

Site Alias Name(s):
                   CHESHIRE ASSOCIATES PROPERTY
Record of Decision (ROD):
   ROD Date:
   Operable Unit:
   ROD ID:

   Media:

   Contaminant:
   Abstract:
12/31/1996
01
EPA/ROD/RO1-97/001

Groundwater

volatile organic compounds, perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene,
methylene chloride, chloroform, 1,1-dichloroethylene,
1,2-dichloroethane, trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane

The Cheshire Groundwater contamination site is located in the
northwestern corner of Cheshire, Connecticut. The site includes the
industrial property at 604 West Johnson Avenue where disposal of
waste material was conducted and, in addition, those places where
waste material emanating from this property has come to be located
in the groundwater. The site is immediately bounded by vacant land
situated atop a low hill to the east, industrial property to the south,
and Knotter Drive and Route 691 to the west and north,
respectively.The site is primarily occupied by an industrial building
at 604 West Johnson Avenue. Immediately surrounding this 70,000
square foot building are paved parking areas to the south, west, and
north. Office space is located in the southerly extension of the
building, while manufacturing areas occupy the rest of the building
space. A loading dock is located at the northwest side of the building.
Two ponds are also located on the property. A larger, lower pond is
located adjacent to the western parking lot. This pond is in part
natural, but it has been excavated and expanded from its original

-------
extent. The smaller, upper pond located to the northwest of the
building is about 7 feet higher than the lower one and is an artificial
impoundment. A single-family residence and a manufacturer of
stainless steel medical needles are located immediately south of the
604 West Johnson Avenue property across West Johnson Avenue.
Land use in the area surrounding the site is a mix of residential,
commercial, and industrial. For an undetermined period of time prior
to 1966, the site was used for agricultural purposes. Greenhouses
formerly existed on the property located to the east. The as yet
undeveloped 604 West Johnson Avenue property was acquired in
October 1966. The property was leased to many tenants.  One of these
tenants was a company which conducted contract packaging,
expandable polystyrene foam molding, injection molding, and
thermoforming on the property. A portion of the building is rumored
to have been sublet to a tool machine company. After this,
manufacturing of electro-mechanical and electronic devices
(indicators and timers) occurred in the building. The building is
currently occupied by another tenant.The specific hazardous
substance use, storage, and disposal practices of the previous tenants
are unknown, but it is believed that effluent from their operations
was disposed of through an underground drainpipe on the property.
This pipe, which was reportedly sealed, is believed to have
discharged from in-ground pits inside the northwest corner of the
building to the larger pond. It is also alleged that non-contact cooling
water from the molding machines was collected in former drain
trenches and discharged to the on-site pond. Floor drains existing at
the time of occupation of the last tenant were reportedly sealed; their
previous discharge point is unknown. The last tenant used one floor
trench to direct their tumbling wastewater discharges to an on-site
wastewater treatment system. The wastewater traveled through the
floor trench to settling pits and an evaporator in the northwest corner
of the building. This tenant was permitted to discharge metal
finishing wastewater and cooling  system blowdown to the Town of
Cheshire sewage system. This discharge was eliminated in 1992.
Settled sludge, as well as the alkaline wastewater, were then
transported off site. Methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and
trichloroethane, as well as waste oils, were formerly stored in tanks
along the norther wall of the building. Approximately four degreaser
baths were located in different areas  of the building.Contamination
on the property has also been associated with a 10,000-gallon
underground fuel tank formerly located on the northwestern side of
the building. Other evidence of contamination has included
dark-toned spills and stains in the parking lot to the west of the
building near the loading dock, and mounded material and  circular
objects, possibly containers, observed along the northern edge of the
building in the 1970s. An abandoned septic system exists under the

-------
                 western parking lot on the property. The property was connected to
                 the town sewer system in 1983. Soils stained with oily material were
                 evident near the building in 1980. Initial investigations in 1980
                 indicated a petrochemical odor, oil and grease in wells installed on
                 site, a sheen around the edges of the large pond, and water seeping
                 from the pond banks. Additional test holes installed to quantify the
                 distribution of petrochemicals on site indicated the highest levels of
                 hydrocarbon contamination near the northwest corner of the building.
                 Low levels of volatile organic and extractable organic compounds
                 were also detected in water samples.

Remedy:         No further action is necessary to address the contamination at the
                 site. The site poses no current or potential threat to human health or
                 the environment.

Text:            Full-text ROD document follows on next page.

-------


DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Cheshire Ground Water Contamination
Cheshire, Connecticut

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

This decision document presents the selected No Action decision for the Cheshire Ground Water
Contamination Site  (the "Site"), located in Cheshire, Connecticut.  This document was developed in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986  (SARA), and to the
extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan  (NCP); 40 CFR Part 300 et seq.  (1990).  The Region I
Director of the Office of Site Remediation and Restoration has been delegated the authority to approve
this Record of Decision.

The State of Connecticut has concurred with the No Action decision.

STATEMENT OF BASIS

This decision is based on the administrative record compiled for the Site which was developed in
accordance with Section 113 (k) of CERCLA.  The administrative record is available for public review at
the Cheshire Public Library in Cheshire, Connecticut and at the EPA Region I Office of Site Remediation
and Restoration Record Center in Boston, Massachusetts.  The administrative record index (attached as
Appendix A to the ROD) identifies each of the items which comprise the administrative record upon which
the selection of the remedial action is based.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

EPA has determined that No Action is necessary to address the contamination at the Site.  The Site poses
no current or potential threat to human health or the environment.

DECLARATION

EPA has determined that its response at this site is complete and no remedial action is necessary to
ensure protection of human health and the environment.  Therefore, the site now qualifies for inclusion
on the Construction Completion List.

-------
                            Region I

                    RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY

                         DECEMBER 1996

               CHESHIRE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

                           TABIiE OF CONTENTS

Contents                                                         Page  Number

 I.   SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION  	                   4

        A. General Description  	                          4
        B. Site Geology and Hydrology  ....                            4

II.   Site History and Enforcement Activities  	                5
        A. Land Use and Response History  	                  5
        B. Enforcement History  	                        7

III.   COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 	                         8

IV.   SCOPE & ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION  ..                              8

V.    SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS  	                     9

VI.   SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS  	                         14

VII.   DESCRIPTION OF NO ACTION DECISION  	                 23

VIII. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT  CHANGES  ..                     23

IX.   STATE ROLE 	                                 23

      APPENDIX

A.    ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD  INDEX

B.    HEALTH EFFECTS SUMMARY

C.    CTDEP DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE

D.    PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT

E.    RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

-------
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

A. General Description

The Cheshire Ground Water Contamination site (the Site),  located in the northwestern corner of Cheshire,
New Haven County, Connecticut, includes the industrial property at 604 West Johnson Avenue where disposal
of waste material was conducted and, in addition, those places where waste material emanating from this
property has come to be located in the ground water (refer to Figure 1).   The Site is immediately bounded
by vacant land situated atop a low north-south trending hill to the east,  industrial property to the
south, and Knotter Drive and Route 691 to the west and north, respectively (refer to Figure 2).

The Site is primarily occupied by an industrial buildings at 604 West Johnson Avenue. Immediately
surrounding the approximately 70,000 ft 2 building are paved parking areas to the south,  west and north.
Office space is located in the southerly extension of the building while manufacturing areas occupy the
rest of the building space. A loading dock is located at the northwest side of the building.  Two ponds
are located on the property.  A larger, lower pond is located adjacent to the western parking lot.  This
pond is in part natural, but it has been excavated and expanded from its original extent.  The smaller,
upper pond located to northwest of the building is about 7 feet higher than the lower one and is an
artificial impoundment.  A single-family residence and a manufacturer of stainless steel medical needles
are located immediately south of the 604 West Johnson Avenue property across West Johnson Avenue.  The
regional hydrology of this area in south-central Connecticut is drained principally by the Quinnipiac
River and six smaller rivers.  Judd Brook drains land in the immediate area of the Site.   Judd Brook is a
tributary to the Ten Mile River; the confluence of the Judd Brook and the Ten Mile River is about 3,000
ft south-southeast of the 604 West Johnson Avenue Property.  The Ten Mile River joins the Quinnipiac
River approximately 1.8 miles northeast of the confluence Judd Brook and the Ten Mile River. Mean annual
streamflow at a partial-record streamflow-gaging station on Judd Brook at West Johnson Avenue is
estimated to be 9.8 ft 3/s.  Judd Brook also receives discharge from the ground-water-flow system in the
area.

B. Geology and Hydrogeology

The primary source of recharge to the ground-water-flow system is precipitation; recharge from private
septic systems may be a local secondary source.  Measurement of groundwater levels indicates that the
predominant ground water flow direction is from the low bedrock hill on the eastern side of the Site to
the west toward the lower pond at 604 West Johnson Avenue and southwest toward the Judd Brook or the
wetlands along Judd Brook  (Figure 3).  The lower pond receives ground water discharge on its eastern side
and is presumed to lose water to the surrounding aguifer on its western side.  It is assumed that the
upper pond also is connected hydraulically to the aguifer and receives groundwater discharges on its
eastern side and loses water on its western side; however, the upper pond may be perched or poorly
connected to the aguifer.

Residences and businesses within the immediate vicinity of the Site receive public water from the South
Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority (SCCRWA).  The SCCRWA operated a cluster a five
public-supply wells at the North Cheshire Well Field about 2 miles southeast of the Site.

A more complete description of the Site can be found in the report on Geohydrology and Conceptual Model
of a Ground-Water-Flow System Near a Superfund Site in Cheshire, Connecticut prepared by the U.S.
Geological Survey.

II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

A. Land Use and Response History

Land use in the area surrounding the Site is a mix of residential, commercial and industrial.   For an
undetermined period of time prior to 1966 the Site was used for agricultural purposes.   Greenhouses
formerly existed on the property located to the east.    The as yet undeveloped 604 West Johnson Avenue
property was acguired in October 1966 by Michael J. Lembo.  Michael J. Lembo conveyed title of the
property to Cheshire Associates in December 1966.  Title to the property was conveyed in June 1984 by
Cheshire Associates to Michael J. Lembo and Samuel Feinerman as Trustees,  under the provisions of a Trust
Agreement known as the "Lembo-Feinerman Cheshire Trust".   The property has been leased by a few tenants.
The property was initially leased to the Valley National corporation in August 1966.  Valley National
conducted contract packaging, expandable polystyrene foam molding, injection molding, and thermofearning
on the property until 1979.  The Valley National Corporation was merged into S. Curtis & Son,
Incorporated in 1975.  In 1977, S. Curtis & Son Incorporated changed its name to Curtiscorp,
Incorporated.  The lease was assigned from Curtiscorp Incorporated to the Cheshire Molding Company in
1979.  The Cheshire Molding Company also operated custom injection molding operations on the property

-------
until 1980.  Cheshire Molding is also reported to have sublet a portion of the building to a tool machine
company.  Cheshire Molding Company assigned the lease to North American Philips Corporation in 1981.
Airpax Division of North American Philips Corporation operated on the property until 1995, manufacturing
electro-mechanical and electronic devices (indicators and timers.  The building is currently occupied by
another tenant.  The Cheshire Industrial Park is located across West Johnson Avenue approximately 1,000
feet south of the Site.

The specific hazardous substance use, storage and disposal practices of the Valley National Corporation
and Cheshire Molding Company are unknown, but it is believed that effluent from their operations was
disposed of through an underground drainpipe on the property.  This pipe,  which was reportedly sealed
prior to Airpax occupying the property,  is believed to have discharged from in-ground pits inside the
northwest corner of the building to the larger pond.  It is also alleged that non-contact cooling water
from the molding machines was collected in former drain trenches and discharged to the on-site pond.
Floor drains existing at the time of occupancy of Airpax were also reportedly sealed; their previous
discharge point is unknown.  Airpax used one floor trench to direct their tumbling wastewater discharges
to an on-site wastewater treatment system.  The wastewater traveled through the floor trench to settling
pits and an evaporator in the northwest corner of the building.  Airpax Corporation was permitted by the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection  (CTDEP) to discharge metal finishing wastewater and
cooling system blowdown to the Town of Cheshire sewerage system.  Airpax eliminated this discharge in
1992.  Settled sludge as well as the alkaline wastewater were then transported off-site.  Methylene
chloride,1,1,1-tricloroethane, and trichlorotrifluoroethane were formerly used by airpax to degrease
parts.  Methylene chloride and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, as well as waste oils, were formerly stored in
tanks along the northern wall of the building.  Approximately four degreaser baths were located in
different areas of the building.

Contamination on the 604 West Johnson Avenue property has also been associated with a 10,000 gallon
underground No. 4 fuel tank formerly located on the northwestern side of the building.  It is believed
that this tank replaced a tank which perhaps contained No.2 fuel oil.  Other evidence of contamination
has included dark-toned spills and stains in the parking lot to the west of the building near the loading
dock, and mounded material and light-toned circular objects, possibly containers, observed along the
northern edge of the building in the 1970, s.  An abandoned septic system exists under the western parking
lot on the property.  The property was connected to the town sewer system in 1983.  Soils stained with
oily materials were evident near the building in 1980.  As a result of this surface discoloration, Ground
Water Associates, Inc. prepared a December 1980 report on ground water guality at the Site.  Initial
investigations indicated a petrochemical odor and oil and grease in wells installed onsite and a sheen
around the edges of the large pond and in water seeping from the pond banks. Additional test holes
installed to guantify the distribution of petrochemicals onsite indicated the highest levels of
hydrocarbon contamination near the northwest corner of the building.  Low levels of volatile organic and
extractable organic compounds were also detected in water samples.

EPA involvement with the Site commenced in 1985 after the Site was identified through a review of
background information for another property in Cheshire.  EPA sampled groundwater, subsurface soils,
surface water, and sediment on the 604 West Johnson Avenue property, and groundwater from two residential
drinking water wells in support of a Site Inspection of the property completed in 1986.  In 1990, the
Site was paced on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) of hazardous waste sites, making it eligible for
federal funding for investigation and cleanup.  The Site was defined as a plume of contamination from an
unknown source detected in wells on property located at 604 West Johnson Avenue and in a nearby
residential well.

Two industrial sites, including the 604 West Johnson Avenue property, were viewed as possible sources of
the contamination in the former well, which lay between the two industrial areas.  (The residential well
is no longer in use).  Contamination south of West Johnson Avenue at the second industrial facility has
been associated with a former 1,000-gallon underground storage tank and a former industrial leachfield.
Waste oil, waste electrolytic solution,  and spent solvents were stored in the underground storage tank
between 1978 and 1983.  The tank was removed in July 1986.  During removal, two openings approximately 2
in. by 2.5 ft were noted on each end of the tank, and a gray sludge at the bottom of the tank exhibited a
characteristic solvent odor. Groundwater contamination by volatile organic compounds  (VOCs) has been
documented at this property since July 1986.  A soil-vapor extraction system was operated at the site of
the former underground storage tank from August 1991 through November 1993 to remediate volatile organic
contamination of the unsaturated zone. Contaminants identified in the unconsolidated deposits and bedrock
include perchloroethylene  (PCE),trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride, chloroform,
1,1-dichloroethylene  (DCE) , 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCE), trichloroethane  (TCA) and 1,1-dichloroethane
(DCA).  Concentrations greater than 10,000 micrograms per liter  (ug/1) PCE, 3,5000 ug/1 TCE, and 5,000
ug/1 chloroform have been found in ground water from location OW-1 at this property at various times from
June 1989 to February 1991.  Contamination by PCE,  TCA,  DCE and DCA also has been documented at a
background well to this property, identified as HOLO-5.

-------
Various parties have conducted sampling at the 604 West Johnson Avenue property to determine whether
significant levels of contamination existed in the soils,  sediments, surface water and groundwater.
Haley & Aldrich conducted a soil vapor survey on the 604 West Johnson Avenue property in 1990 at the
reguest of the property owner, the Lembo-Feinerman Cheshire Trust.  The objective of the survey was to
determine whether occupants of the building might be exposed to vapors emanating from beneath the floor
of the building or from other locations on the property.  Vapor-phase VOCs, primarily TCA,  were detected
in surficial sods in the vicinity of the northwestern corner of the building and the northerly overhead
door, along the northerly wall, and near two sealed floor drains.  EPA's review of this study reveals
limitations with the analytical protocol such that the actual concentrations of contaminants detected in
the soil gas are unknown.


-------
III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Throughout the Site's history, community concern and involvement has been low.  EPA has kept the
community and other interested parties apprized of the Site activities through informational meetings,
fact sheets, press releases and public meetings.

On October 10, 1996, EPA made the draft administrative record available for public review at EPA's
offices in Boston and at the Cheshire Public Library in Cheshire, CT.  EPA published a notice and brief
analysis of the Proposed Plan in the Meriden Record Journal on October 10, 1996 and made the plan
available to the public at the Cheshire Public Library.

On October 24, 1996, EPA held an information session and public meeting to discuss the results of the
Remedial Investigation and to present the Agency's Proposed Plan.  Also during this meeting, the Agency
answered guestions and accepted oral comment on the Proposed Plan from the public.  From October 21
through November 20, 1996, the Agency held a 30-day public comment period to accept public comment on the
proposal presented in the Proposed Plan and on any other documents previously released to the public.  A
transcript of this meeting is attached as Appendix D.  The comments and the Agency's response to comments
are included in the responsiveness summary in Appendix E.

IV. SCOPE AND ROIiE OF NO ACTION REMEDY

This Record of Decision reflects EPA's determination that no further CERCLA action is reguired at the
Cheshire Ground Water Contamination Site.  The levels of organics and metals that were detected in the
soils, sediments, surface water, and ground water do not appear to pose an unacceptable risk to human
health and the environment.

The decision by EPA not to pursue further action at the Site is not a determination that no action is
warranted under other regulations and statutes.  In addition, EPA has the authority to revisit the No
Action decision even if the Site is removed from the NPL.  This could occur if future conditions indicate
that an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment would result from the exposure to
contaminants at the Site.

V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The significant findings of the START Initiative and geohydrologic study are summarized below.

A. Soil

The low hill on which the Site is located is underlain by bedrock and covered by relatively thin
unconsolidated glacial materials.  Although the published surficial geologic map of the area shows till
as the surface material at 604 West Johnson Avenue, several exposures, as well as logs of well and test
borings in the area, indicate that the surficial material is fine to medium sand, silt and clay of
glaciolacustrine origin.  The glacial sediments range in thickness from a few feet to about 25 feet in
the eastern part of the Site and are as much as 100 feet thick in the western and southern part of the
area beneath the Judd Brook and Ten Mile River valleys.

EPA investigated soils throughout the 604 West Johnson Avenue property using field screening technigues
and laboratory analysis of soil samples.  Soil was initially collected from 20 locations around the
building on the property over October 31-November 4, 1994 (Figure 3).  These samples were collected from
temporary wellpoints installed with hydraulic probing eguipment  (geoprobe),  and analyzed for target VOCs,
the contaminant class of concern. Samples were analyzed using a gas chromatograph eguipped with a
photoionization detector.  Depth of sample collection ranged from 2-19 feet, and samples were presumably
collected just above the bedrock based upon probe refusal.  Low levels (<10 parts per billion (ppb))  of
VOCs were detected from locations GP-6, GP-7, GP-8, and GP-11 near the north-northwest side of the
building.  Ten percent of these samples were analyzed by a contract laboratory for VOCs.  No VOCs were
detected in these two samples.

Based upon these results and the suspected areas of contamination, surficial  (0-1 foot) and subsurface
(1-3 feet and 3-5 feet) soil samples were preferentially collected from along the northern perimeter of
the building over June 27-28, 1995 (Figures 4 and 5).  Eleven surficial and 29 subsurficial soil samples
were collected from 4 stations inside the building below the concrete floor and 11 stations outside the
building.  One location  (SHAL11 - shallow sample from location 11) was a background location 30 feet cast
of the building upgradient of any suspected contamination.  These samples were analyzed for VOCs using a
portable gas chromatograph.  No VOCs were detected.  Replicate samples were collected and analyzed at a
contract laboratory for volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, PCBs, and metals.  The
majority of organic contaminants detected were pesticides at levels ranging from 3-110 ppb.  The spatial
-------
distribution of pesticides, primarily DDT, DDE and ODD, was fairly uniform outside the building.  DDT,
DDE and ODD were detected at the deeper depths beneath the concrete slab at concentrations ranging from 4
to 24 ppb.

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons  (PAHs) were detected in surface and subsurface soil samples collected
from some locations onsite.  Concentrations ranged from 48 to 1,900 ppb.  The greatest number of PAHs
were detected from two locations (SHAL09 - shallow sample from location 9 and MIDD02 - middle sample from
location 2)  out from the northwest corner of the building.

A wide range of metals were detected in the surface and subsurface soils on the property.  Most
concentrations were within an order of magnitude of the background concentrations.  Most of the samples
collected along the northern perimeter of the building exceeded the background selenium concentration and
the typical range for selenium  (Shacklette & Boergnen, 1984)  in soil.  The majority of these values were
approximated due to limitations identified during data review.  Other metals which exceeded background
and the typical range included cobalt, lead, mercury and nickel.  The most significant exceedance was a
value for copper of 515 ppm from SHALOB (shallow sample from location B).   SHALOB was collected at a
depth of 10 inches below the concrete floor in the tumbling room.





B. Ground Water

The area studied during the geohydrologic investigation extended from just north and east of 604 West
Johnson Avenue southward and westward to Judd Brook and included areas of contamination at the 604 West
Johnson Avenue property, the second industrial property south of 604 West Johnson Avenue, and the
single-family residence.  The geohydrologic characterization of the Site was based on several methods of
data collection and analysis.  These included an inventory of all available well and test hole data in
the regional area, the installation of wells in bedrock and unconsolidated deposits, borehole-geophysical
logging, aguifer tests in December 1994, May 1995, and June 15 and 16, 1995, hydrologic measurements,
conceptual modeling, and water-guality sampling.  The new wells were installed to obtain samples of the
unconsolidated materials and bedrock, to provide sites for borehole-geophysical measurements, to provide
additional water-level and water-guality measuring points, and to establish appropriate measuring points
for testing of the bedrock aguifer while pumping water from the domestic well.

The guality of ground water on the 604 West Johnson Avenue property has been investigated since 1990.
Ground water contamination has only been detected in the unconsolidated deposits.  A ground water
investigation conducted for a prospective purchaser of the property in 1990 indicated a distinct to
strong petrochemical odor in wells installed in the unconsolidated deposits on the property.  Analyses
indicated total oil and grease contamination in the water similar to No. 2 fuel oil with higher
concentrations found near the northwest corner of the building.  TCA was detected from one location at a
concentration of 1-9 ug/1.  Ground water on the 604 West Johnson Avenue property was again sampled in
1983, 1995,  1987, and 1988 by various parties including EPA.   The contaminant detected at the highest
concentration was TCA.  TCA was detected in 1985 at 1,100 ug/1; thereafter, concentrations of TCA ranged
from 21 to 33 ug/1.  Other contaminants detected included 1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE, and PCE.

Contamination was initially documented at the abandoned domestic well in 1983.  Ground water
contamination has been documented at the existing domestic well since 1994.  Contaminants identified
included TCA, PCE, TCE, DCE, DCA, ethylbenzene, benzene, toluene, o-xylene, m-xylene, and chloroform.
Prior to EPA's remedial study, the last time ground water samples were collected from this location was
in August 1987.  TCA, TCE, PCE chloroform and o-xylene were detected at concentrations ranging from 0.2
to 36 ug/1 at that time.

Ground water sampling was conducted during remedial study at the Site in phases.  During the first phase,
ground water was collected from the three steel-cased monitoring wells  (GW-2, GW-3, GW-5 (also identified
as wells 1,  2, and 5) installed on the 604 West Johnson Avenue property in 1980, from seven temporary
wellpoints,  and from the domestic well  (CS-221) (Figure 3).  All samples were analyzed for target VOCS
using a gas chromatograph eguipped with a photoionization detector.  Low levels  (<10 ug/1)  of VOCs were
detected from three of the temporary wellpoint locations.  Ten percent of the samples collected from the
temporary wellpoints were analyzed by a contract laboratory for VOCs.  1,1-DCA was detected from
wellpoint GP-20, located west off the northwest corner of the building.  Analysis of those samples
collected from the steel-cased monitoring wells also indicated low level VOC contamination with the
exception of a sample collected from GW-3.  Results of GW-3 indicated either methylene chloride or
1,1-DCE at 25 ug/1  (methylene chloride and 1,1-DCE co-elute from the chromatographic column, thus a
definitive identification is not possible using this field screening method).  Contract laboratory
-------
analysis of samples from each monitoring well indicated no VOCs detected with the exception of TCA at 3
ug/1 from GW-3.   Analysis of the sample collected from the domestic well indicated trace (<1 ppb)
concentrations of TCA and 28 ug/1 of either methylene chloride or 1,1-DCE.  No VOCs were detected in this
sample as a result of contract laboratory analysis.  Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for VOCs
were not exceeded in any sample.  Contract laboratory analysis for metals indicated that concentrations
of aluminum, iron and manganese exceeded their Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL)  in some of the
wells.  SMCLs, based on aesthetic water guality, are set at concentrations that when exceeded do not
cause human health concerns but sometimes cause the water to have an unappealing appearance or taste.
Chromium was detected from GW-3 at 108 ug/1 which slightly exceeded the MCL of 100 ug/1.  There appears
to be a correlation between the turbidity of the sample and the metals concentration.  The turbidity in
samples from monitoring wells GW-3 and GW-5 was greater than in other well samples.  Metals results for
these two samples were similarly elevated.

During the second phase,  ground water samples were collected from CS-221 during an aquifer test on
December 16, 1994.  Seven samples were collected from the pump discharge over the 3-hour duration of the
test and were analyzed on site using a portable gas chromatograph with a photoionization detector.
1,1-DCE and toluene were detected in each sample at concentrations ranging from 0.60 to 0.96 ug/1 and
0.93 to 4.7 ug/1, respectively.  One sample collected during the middle of the test was analyzed at the
USEPA Region I laboratory using gas   chromatography/mass spectroscopy.  1,1-DCF, TCA, toluene, and
1,1-DCA were detected at concentrations ranging from 0.40 to 1.4 ug/1.

During the third phase, ground water samples were collected during an aguifer testing period the week of
June 13-17, 1995.  Water samples were collected from GW-2, GW-3, and GW-5, from five newly installed
monitoring wells at the Site, and from the CS-221 well on June 13-14, before pumping began (Figure
Two of the newly installed monitoring wells were overburden wells, SW-1 and SW-2, and three were bedrock
wells TH-1, TH-2 and TH-3.  (Additional samples were collected from 3 wells on the industrial property,
south, including HOLO-5). Samples were analyzed using a portable gas chromatograph.  Toluene and TCE were
each detected from SW-1 at 0.3 ug/1 and toluene was detected from GW-5 at 30 ug/1. Also, a strong
petroleum odor and an oily sheen on the surface of the standing water was noted at well GW-5.  (Samples
were collected from the five new monitoring wells and CS221 in May 1995.  Results indicated the presence
of a large number of complex aromatic molecules typical of light fuel oils such as No. 2 or diesel fuel
oil from wells SW-1 and SW-2).  PCE and 1,1-DCE were detected at 3.9 and 0.8 ug/1, respectively,  in the
sample collected from HOLO-5, located on the other industrial property southwest of CS221.   Two samples
were collected at well TH-3 before and after the aguifer test of June 16. Two samples were also collected
at well TH-2 after the aguifer test of June 15 and during the aguifer test of June 16.  No VOCs were
detected in the samples collected from these wells.  One water sample was collected from CS-221 during
the aguifer test on June 15, and three samples were collected during the aguifer test on June 16.  In all
four samples, 1,1-DCE was found at concentrations of 0.8 to 1.2 ug/1.



During the fourth phase,  samples were collected from each of the wells identified above and analyzed at a
contract laboratory for VOCs, metals and cyanide.  VOCs were detected from GW-2, GW-3 and GW-5.  1,1-DCA
and 1,1,1-TCA were detected in each sample at concentrations ranging from 0.7 to 1.3 ug/1 respectively.
1,1-DCE was also detected from GW-5 at 0.7 ug/1 and tetrahydrofuran was detected from GW-2 at 5.2 ug/1.
TCA was detected in HOLO-5 at 0.6 ug/1 and dibromochloromethane at 0.6 ug/1.  No MCLs for VOCs or metals
were exceeded in any sample.  Aluminum and iron were detected in some wells at concentrations exceeding
EPA's SMCL.  More VOCs were reported for the December 1995 investigation than for the Fall 1994
investigation because the low concentration VOC method was used with guantitation limits of 1 ug/1 for
most compounds while the Routine Analytical Services method used in the Fall 1994 had guantitation limits
of 10 ug/1. The inorganic results compared well both qualitatively and quantitatively for the two
investigations.

The geohydrologic characterization of the area was based on several methods of data collection and
analysis. These included an inventory of all available well and testhole data in the regional area, a
geologic investigator. The installation of wells in bedrock and unconsolidated deposits,
borehole-geophysical logging, a surface-geophysical survey, aquifer tests, hydrologic measurements,
conceptual modeling, and water quality sampling. Water-level data indicate that there is good hydraulic
connection between the unconsolidated materials and  underlying fractured bedrock.  Fluvial redbeds of
the New Haven Arkose underlie the glacial deposits in the region; in the area of the Site,  the redbeds;
consist of  (1) channel sandstone units, which are coarse sandstone to fine conglomerate, and  (2)  overbank
mudstone units,  which are siltstone and silty sandstone with some fine sandstone.  Thin-bedded zones of
siltstone that are particularly fissile are present locally within the mudstone units.  Rock units strike
northward and dip eastward at about 20!.  The eastward-dipping strata are cut by a consistent set of west
to west-northwest dipping, high-angle fractures.  These fractures are oriented perpendicular to bedding
and are present mostly in the channel sandstone units, but locally extend into the mudstone units as
-------
well.

Borehole-geophysical logging indicates that ground water flows along bedding planes in fissile zones and
between fissile zones in high-angle fractures.  Heat-pulse flowmeter measurements and borehole fluid
conductivity, and temperature logs indicate that only a small subset of the fissile zones and some
high-angle fractures are hydraulically significant.  Heat-pulse flowmeter measurements made under
nonpumping conditions in bedrock wells at the Site indicated that there was virtually no consistent,
measurable flow in the boreholes; thus, the vertical hydraulic gradient was very low in these wells.
Measurements made in each well as the well was being pumped indicated that flow occurred in fissile zones
and high-angle fractures. Measurements made in the domestic well as the well was being pumped indicated
that all measurable flow occurred at high-angle fracture.  Flow in TH-1 was associated with a highly
broken  (perhaps weathered)  zone near the top of the well. Flow in TH-2 was associated with two fissile
zones.  Most of the flow entered TH-3 from a lower fissile zone. Measurements made in TH-2 and TH-3
during the June aguifer test showed that the aguifer system is formed by connected fissile zones and
high-angle fractures.  While the domestic well was pumped, water entered TH-2 at the upper fissile zone,
flowed downward through the borehole, and flowed out at the lower fissile zone.  Under the same pumping
conditions, water entered TH-3 at the upper fissile zone, flowed downward through the borehole, and
flowed out at the lower fissile zone.  Water must enter the high-angle fracture in the area between CS221
and TH-2 and between CS221 and TH-3 where it intersects the water-bearing fissile zones present in TH-2
and TH-3.  The combined fracture types form an aguifer system in which ground water follows a stair-step
flowpath, flowing horizontally through fissile zones and vertically through high-angle fractures.

The short duration aguifer tests conducted at the Site indicate that there is good hydraulic connection
in the fractures between the pumping domestic well and the two bedrock wells located approximately 100
feet to the north (TH-2) and south (M-3)  along bedding strike.  During the short duration of the aguifer
tests, there was no hydraulic connection in bedrock wells located to the east  (TH-1),  perpendicular to
the strike.  A higher rate of borehole flow was observed in TH-2 than in TH-3 during the June 15-16
aguifer test.  This may indicate that the hydraulic connection is better between TH-2 and CS221 than
between TH-3 and CS221.  A range of transmissivity of 27 to 46 sguare feet per day was calculated from
the aguifer test data for the fractured bedrock  aguifer at the pumping well (CS221) and the bedrock well
to the north.  Individual fracture zones identified by bore-hole logs and heat-pulse flowmeter
measurements as the source of water to these wells are calculated to have hydraulic conductivities as
high as 92 feet per day.

C. Ground water Flow

The natural head gradient at the Site slopes westward to southwestward.  North-south-trending fractures
provide preferential pathways for ground water flow.  The ground water flow direction lies between the
direction of the gradient and the orientation of preferred pathways.  Therefore, the probable source of
ground water flow to the domestic well CS221 ranges from north to cast under low pumping rate conditions
(Figure 7).  Low pumping rates were used in the aguifer tests and local scale model simulation and also
are presumed to have wasted during the time the well was used for domestic water supply.  Ground water at
604 West Johnson Avenue flows westward and discharges to the ponds located on the property. Contamination
in the overburden at this Site is likely to have moved westward over time. If contamination entered
fractured bedrock at this Site, it may have entered ground water that flowed to the domestic well during
the time the well was in use, because fracture zones at 604 West Johnson Avenue and the residential
property are connected hydraulically.

D. Surface Water

Surface water samples were collected from the two ponds located on the 604 West Johnson Avenue property
on June 19, 1995.  Three surface water samples were collected from the larger pond.  The first was
collected from the area of the discharge outfall (BG-3).  A second sample was collected farther out into
the pond from the initial sampling point (BG-2).  A third surface water sample was collected out from the
western bank halfway between the outfall and West Johnson Avenue (BG-1).   The fourth surface water sample
(LT-1) was collected out from the shore where a drainage culvert enters the smaller pond from the
southeast.  One surface water sample (RW-1) was collected from a reference pond having similar
characteristics i.e., water depth, substrate, shoreline canopy and water source.

Surface water samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCS pesticides, metals and toxicity. One VOC was detected
from BG-1, and one SVOC each was detected from BG-1 and BG-3.  No pesticides or PCBs were detected in any
surface water sample.  Concentrations of analytes detected in agueous samples were compared to the
Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) which include values for both acute and chronic effects.  AWQC were
developed under the Clean Water Act Section 304 for protection of aguatic life.  The acute value is
expected to be fully protective for the fastest-acting toxicants and even more protective for the
slower-acting toxicants.  The chronic value was derived based on the shortest duration in which chronic
-------
effects are sometimes observed for certain species and toxicants, and thus should be fully protective
even for the slowest-acting toxicants.



The aqueous sample collected from BG-3 was found to contain a concentration of copper which slightly
exceeds the chronic AWQC.  The chronic AWQC for copper is 16.7 ug/1; 17.2 ug/1 was detected in the
sample. However, this sample from BG-3 did not show the greatest toxicity response.  It is most likely
that the suppressed reproduction response of Ceriodaphnia dubia  (freshwater invertebrate)  young in the
other large pond samples as compared to the reference pond was at least in part due to some uncontrolled
or unmeasured factor. The survival and growth data for Pimephales promelas (freshwater fish) showed no
statistically significant difference between the laboratory controls, the site reference pond and the
on-site ponds.

E.  Sediment

Sediment samples were co-located with the surface water samples.  Sediment samples were analyzed for
VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, metals, total organic carbon, grain size, whole sediment toxicity, and acid
volatile sulfide/simultaneously extracted metals (AVS/SEM).   No volatile or semivolatile organic
compounds were detected in any sediment sample.  Concentrations of analytes detected in sediment samples
were compared to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment  (OMOE) Lowest Effect Levels (LELs) and Severe
Effect Levels (SELs). The OMOE define the LEL as a level of contamination which has no effect on the
majority of the sediment-dwelling organisms.  The sediment is considered clean to marginally polluted.
Sediments which contain contaminants at concentrations which exceed the LEL may require further testing.
In contrast, the SEL is defined as sediment which is considered heavily polluted and likely to affect the
health of sediment-dwelling organisms.

Three of the four sediment samples (LT-1, BG-1 and BG-3) were shown to contain levels of inorganics;
which exceed the OMOE LELs but not the SELs.  These metals include chromium,  copper, iron, manganese,
nickel, lead and zinc.  However, the remaining sample  (BG-2)  exceeded the SEL for copper.   Pesticides
were detected in sediments from all the site ponds at levels which exceed OMOE LELs.  In addition, sample
LT-1 contains levels of 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDE which exceeded the SEL values,  after taking into account
the concentration of organic carbon in the samples.  The results from the sediment toxicity test indicate
an impact on survival of  Hyalella azteca (freshwater amphipod) at locations BG-2 and BG-3 as compared to
the site reference pond.  The survival data analysts for Chironomus tentans (freshwater invertebrate)
showed no statistically significant difference between either the laboratory control and the on-site
ponds, or the site reference pond and the onsite ponds.  There was no statistically significant
difference between the reference pond and the onsite pond with respect to C.  tentans growth.

Review of the AVS/SEM results indicated that holding times for these samples were exceeded.  Holding time
refers to the period of time between the time of sample collection to time of analysis or sample
preparation. Holding time is one of the criteria used to assess the validity of sample results.  Two
additional sediment samples were collected from the locations previously exhibiting the highest metals
results.  These samples were collected from BG-2 and BG-3 on July 11, 1996.  Results indicated that most
of the metals are tied up with sulfide, thereby precluding their availability for uptake by aquatic
organisms.

VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

A Risk Assessment (RA) or Risk Screen for Human Health and an Ecological Evaluation were performed to
estimate the probability and magnitude of potential adverse effects from exposure to contaminants
associated with the Site.

The public health risk assessment followed a four step process:  1) contaminant identification, which
identified those hazardous substances which, given the specifics of the site were of significant concern;
2)  exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure pathways, characterized the
potentially exposed populations, and determined the extent of possible exposure;  3) toxicity assessment,
which considered the types and magnitude of adverse health effects associated with exposure to hazardous
substances, and 4)  risk characterization, which integrated the three earlier steps to summarize the
potential and actual risks posed by hazardous substances at the site, including carcinogenic and
non-carcinogenic risks.  The results of the public health risk assessment and risk screen for the
Cheshire Ground Water Contamination Site are discussed below, followed by the conclusions of the
ecological risk evaluation.

Thirty-nine contaminants of concern,  listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this Record of Decision,  were selected
for evaluation in the Human Health Risk Assessment.  These contaminants constitute a representative
-------
subset of all contaminants identified at the Site during the remedial study.  The  thirty-nine
contaminants of concern were selected to represent potential site related hazards  based  on  toxicity,
concentration, frequency of detection, and mobility and persistence in the environment.  A  summary  of  the
health effects of each of the contaminants of concern can be found in Appendix B.

                         TABLE 1:  SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANT'S
                            OF CONCERN IN  (GROUND WATER)

Contaminants
of Concern
1, 1-dichloroethane
tetrabydrofuran
1, 1-dichloroethylene
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
bromodichl or ome thane
1, 3-dichlorobenzene
dibromochl or ome thane
toluene
bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
arsenic
chromium
copper
lead
manganese
nickel
Maximum
Concentration
ug/1
14
5.2
0.9
3
0.6
1
0.6
1.4
15
25.6
108
25.5
3.1
186
82.9

Frequency
of Detection
6/21
1/21
3/21
6/21
1/21
1/21
2/21
1/21
1/4
3/16
3/16
2/16
9/16
11/16
8/16
                    TABLE 2:  SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS
                           OF CONCERN IN  (SOILS)
Contaminants
of Concern

arsenic
barium
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
mercury
nickel
phenanthrene
anthracene
fluoranthene
pyrene
benzo(g,h,i)perylene
benz(a)anthracene
benz(b)fluoranthene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
chrysene
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
pentachlorophenol
isophorone
chlordane-alpha
dieldrin
ODD
DDE
DDT
endosulfan sulfate
Maximum
Concentration
(mk/kg)
3,
80,
0,
1.
12,
0,
14,
0,
0,
1,
1,
4,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
le 0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
.80
.10
.71
.00
.40
.19
.40
.81
.12
.90
.20
.80
.58
.00
.82
.82
.87
.43
.054
.7
.006
.052
.11
.08
.11
.004
                                                Frequency
                                              of Detection

                                                  11/11
                                                  11/11
                                                   8/11
                                                   1/11
                                                  11/11
                                                   1/11
                                                   8/11
                                                   1/11
                                                   1/11
                                                   1/11
                                                   2/11
                                                   1/11
                                                   1/11
                                                   1/11
                                                   1/11
                                                   1/11
                                                   2/11
                                                   1/11
                                                   1/11
                                                   3/11
                                                   1/11
                                                   2/11
                                                   3/11
                                                   4/11
                                                   7/11
                                                   1/11
-------
Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the contaminants of concern were estimated
quantitatively or qualitatively throuqh the development of several hypothetical exposure pathways.  These
pathways were developed to reflect the potential for exposure sure to hazardous substances based on the
present uses, potential future uses, and location of the Site.  The Cheshire Ground Water Contamination
Site is currently occupied by a manufacturer of semi-conductor and parts for semi-conductors.  Future
industrial land use at the 604 West Johnson Avenue property is a reasonable assumption because of its
current zoninq and location to major hiqhways.  A sinqle-family residence is located to the south across
West Johnson Avenue.  A manufacturer of medical needles is located south of the residence.  The Site is
located within the Cheshire industrial area.  The area surroundinq the Site is primarily commercial and
industrial with some residential properties located to the east.  The followinq is a brief summary of the
exposure pathways evaluated.

Ground water

No current exposure to qround water exists because the qround water at the Site is not used for drinkinq
water. Therefore, this pathway was not evaluated.  Future use of the contaminated qround water for
residential drinkinq water was assumed.  Residents were assumed to consume 2 liters per day of qround
water havinq contaminant levels equivalent to the maximum detected concentrations for 350 days per year
over 30 years.  Because contaminant levels are low, only the Reasonable Maximum Exposure  (RME) scenario
was quantitatively evaluated as a conservative approach.

Soils

Current potential exposures, which may include workers and trespassers, were not quantitatively evaluated
because contaminant levels are low and a future residential scenario was evaluated as a conservative
screen. Future residential land use was assumed as a conservative screen of potential risks via exposure
to surface soils. Less conservative scenarios, such as worker and trespasser exposure, may be more
appropriate, but because risks from the conservative scenario are low, a quantitative assessment of risks
was determined to be unnecessary. Exposure was assumed to occur via incidental inqestion of soils and
inhalation of airborne contaminants over a 30 year exposure period.

Excess lifetime cancer risks were determined for each exposure pathway by multiplyinq the exposure level
with the chemical specific cancer factor.  Cancer potency factors have been developed by EPA from
epidemioloqical or animal studies to reflect a conservative, "upper bound" of the risk posed by
potentially carcinoqenic compounds.  That is, the true risk is unlikely to be qreater than the risk
predicted.  The resultinq risk estimates are expressed in scientific notation as a probability (e.q. 1 x
10 -6 for 1/1,000,000) and indicate (usinq this example), that an averaqe individual is not likely to
have qreater that a one in a million chance of developinq cancer over 70 years as a result of
site-related exposure as defined to the compound at the stated concentration. Current EPA practice
considers carcinoqenic risks to be additive when assessinq exposure to a mixture of hazard substances.

The hazard index was also calculated for each pathway as EPXs measure of the potential for
non-carcinoqenic health effects.  A hazard quotient is calculated by dividinq the exposure level by the
reference dose (RfD) or other suitable benchmark for non-carcinoqenic health effects for an individual
compound.  Reference doses have been developed by EPA to protect sensitive individuals over the course of
a lifetime and they reflect a daily exposure level that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of an
adverse health effect.  RfDs are derived from epidemioloqical or animal studies and incorporate
uncertainty factors to help ensure that adverse health effects will not occur.  The hazard quotient is
often expressed as a sinqle value  (e.q. 0.3) indicatinq the ratio of the stated exposure as defined to
the reference dose value (in this example, the exposure as characterized is approximately one third of an
acceptable exposure level for the qiven compound).  The hazard quotient is only considered additive for
compounds that have the same or similar toxic endpoint and the sum is referred to as the hazard index
(HI).  (For example:  the hazard quotient for a compound known to produce liver damaqe should not be added
to a second whose toxic endpoint is kidney damaqe).

Table 3 depicts the carcinoqenic risk summary for the contaminants of concern in qround water evaluated
to reflect potential future inqestion of qround water correspondinq to the reasonable maximum exposure
(RME) scenario.  Only those contaminants for which the RME risk estimate is qreater than 1 x 10 -6 is
shown in the summary below.  Estimated risks for all contaminants are presented in the Risk Assessment.
-------
                                                Table 3

                           CARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR THE POSSIBLE FUTURE INGESTION
                                              OF Ground water
    Contamin-
    ant of
    Concern
    (class)
Concen-
tration
(ug/1)
              MAX
Exposure        Cancer
Factor      Potency Factor
(1/kg/day)    (mg/kg/day)-1
    1,1-dichloroethylene        0.9        0.011
    bromodichloromethane        0.6        0.011
    dibromochloromethane        0.6        0.011
    bis(2-ethyl hexyl)phthalate 15         0.011
    arsenic (A)                 25.6       0.011
                                        0.6
                                        0.062
                                        0.084
                                        0.014
                                        1.5
Risk Estimate
         RME

6 x 10-6
5.7 x 10-7
6 x 10-7
2.3 x 10-6
4.3 x 10-4

4.3 X 10-4
Table 4 depicts the non-carcinogenic risk summary for the contaminants of concern in ground water
evaluated to reflect potential future ingestion of ground water corresponding to the reasonable maximum
exposure (RME)  scenario.  Only those contaminants for which the Hazard Quotient is 0.1 or greater are
presented below. Hazard Quotients for all contaminants can be found in the Risk Assessment.

                                            Table 4
                      NON-CARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR THE POSSIBLE FUTURE INGESTION
                                        OF Ground water
                                               Target
Contamin-
ant

(class)
arsenic
chromium
manganese
nickel





Concen- Exposure
tration Factor
(ug/1) (1/kg/day)
max
25.6 0.027
108 0.027
186 0.027
82.9 0.027





Reference
Dose

(mg/kg/day)
0.0003
0.005
0.024
0.02
HI skin
HI liver
HI kidney
HI body wgt
HI cent. ner.
Endpoint
of
Toxicity

Skin
Not observed
Central Nerv. Syst.
Deer. Body wgt.
2.3
Less than one
Less than one
Less than one
Less than one

Hazard
Quotient
RME
2.3
0.6
0.36
0.1





Table 5 depicts the carcinogenic risk summary for the contaminants of concern in soil evaluated to
reflect potential future exposure from incidental ingestion of soils and inhalation of airborne
contaminants corresponding to the reasonable maximum exposure  (RME) scenario.  Only those contaminants
for which the RME risk estimate is greater than 1 x 10-6 is shown in the summary below.  Estimated risks
for all contaminants are presented in the Risk Assessment.
-------
                                   Table 5

                CARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR THE FUTURE INGESTION
                          AND INHALATION OF SOILS

     Contamin-        Concen-         Exposure          cancer
     ant              tration          Factor*       Potency Factor    Risk
                      (mg/kg)           (day)           (mg/kg/day)-1     Est.
     (class)             max                                             RME

    arsenic(A)              3.80      5.3 x 10-7      1.5              3 x 10-6
    beryllium(B2)           0.71      5.3 x 10-7      4.3              2 x 10-6
    benzo(a)pyrene  (B2)      0.82      5.3 x 10-7      7.3              4 x 10-6
                                                                      9 x 10-6
     Risks associated with the inhalation pathway are negligible and for
     simplicity are not presented here.
Noncarcinogenic risks for contaminants in soils are all well below a Hazard Quotient of 0.1 for each
chemical and, therefore, are not presented here.  The individual HQs are presented in the Risk
Assessment.

Summary of Risks

Ground Water

The carcinogenic risk associated with a future potential RME scenario is 4.3 x 10.  This risk is
attributable to one contaminant, arsenic.  The risk attributable to other compounds is at or below the
lower end of the acceptable risk range (i.e., 10 -6).   Although the risk associated with arsenic is at
the upper end of the acceptable risk range (i.e., 10 -4), the contaminant level is below the level
established as safe in the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The total Hazard Index is 3.3.  The majority of the risk is attributable to arsenic (Hazard Quotient of
2.3) which again, is present at half the level established as safe in the Safe Drinking Water Act and is,
therefore, already below the cleanup level.  No other contaminant has a Hazard Quotient above one.

Soil

The carcinogenic risk associated with a future potential RME scenario is 9 x 10 -6.  Arsenic, beryllium
and benzo(a)pyrene contribute to this risk.  The total Hazard Index is well below one.

The risk assessment for soils at this site was done using default parameters for a residential scenario
in EPA's Risk Assistant software as a conservative screen.  The default parameters and scenarios used for
assessing risk from contaminated soils may be more conservative than would be used in an assessment
tailored for this site. For example, an analysis of future land use may show worker exposure to be more
appropriate than residential exposure and the days per year of assumed exposure nay be somewhat lower.
Trespassing is a valid scenario regardless of land use, risks from this scenario would be lower than for
residential exposure.  Because the more conservative residential exposure scenario did not show a risk
outside the acceptable range, risks via trespassing were not guantified.

Surface water and Sediment

Surface water and sediment are not significant exposure media with respect to human health at this site
and, therefore, risks were not calculated.  A screening approach was used to make this determination as
described below.

The screening approach used for surface water was a comparison to the levels considered as safe in the
Safe Drinking Water Act or, in their absence, to risk-bated concentrations.  This is a very conservative
screen because the assumed potential future exposure is to children who may infreguently trespass and
wade in the pond and have skin contact with contaminants. The screening approach used for pond sediments
was a comparison of sediment contaminant concentrations to risk-based concentrations.   This approach is
also very conservative because exposure to the pond sediments was assumed to occur through infreguent
trespassing by children.
-------
The Ecological Evaluation consisted of a comparison of the data collected to specific surface water and
sediment criteria and guidelines.  In addition, contaminant were compared to the laboratory toxicity test
results.  Conclusions were drawn with respect to the potential for ecological risk to aguatic and benthic
receptors.

Surface Water

Concentrations of analytes; detected in agueous samples were compared to the Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (AWQC) which include values for both acute and chronic effects.  The acute AWQC, otherwise known
as the Criteria Maximum Concentration (CVC),  is the EPA national water guality criteria recommendation
for the highest instream concentration of a toxicant or an effluent to which organisms can be exposed for
a brief period of time without causing an acute effect (lethality).   The chronic AWQC or the Criteria
Continuous Concentration (CCC) is the EPA national water guality criteria recommendation for the highest
instream concentration of a toxicant or an effluent to which organism can be exposed indefinitely without
causing unacceptable effects  (e.g. decrease in survival,  growth or reproduction).  AWQC were developed to
provide protection for a majority of biota.  The acute value is expected to be fully protective for the
fastest-acting toxicants and even more protective for the slower-acting toxicants.  The chronic value was
derived based on the shortest duration in which chronic effects are sometimes observed for certain
species and toxicants, and thus should be fully protective even for the slowest-acting toxicants.

From all samples except for BG-3, the only chronic criteria which may have been exceeded were those for
which the reporting limits were greater than the criteria values.  These metals are silver, cadmium,
copper, lead, antimony, selenium and thallium.  No direct comparisons can be made due to the uncertainty
of the actual concentrations in the water samples.  Similar concentrations were detected in the reference
and site ponds, possibly indicating that these concentrations are indicative of regional levels.  Since
the actual concentration in the field samples may or may not exceed the criteria, this data should be
used with caution.  The remaining sample (BG-3),  collected from the large pond, was found to contain
concentration of copper which slightly exceeds the chronic AWQC, with the concentration being above the
lab's reporting limits.  The chronic AWQC  (taking into account the sample-specific hardness of 150 mg/1)
for copper is 16.7 ug/1; 17.2 ug/1 was detected in the sample.

Results of the surface water toxicity tests indicated a statistically significant difference in the
number of C. dubia neonates  (young) produced in the three samples from the large site pond (BG-1, BG-2,
BG-3) as compared to the reference pond.  This, however,  does not indicate that the decrease in neonate
production is biologically significant since the average number of young in those samples exceeds the
minimum test acceptability of an average of 15 or more young in the control samples (EPA 1989).   In
addition, percent survival in all samples was > 80 %.  Although all of the samples contained
concentrations of metals which may be above the AWQC, only one sample  (BG-3)  contained concentrations of
any metal (copper at 17.2 Ig/L) which was both above the labs reporting limit and in exceedance of the
chronic AWQC.  This sample also contained 8 Ig/L of 4-methylphenol.  However,  among the three samples from
the large site pond, BG-3 did not show the greatest toxicity response. It is most likely that the
suppressed reproduction response in these three samples was at least in part due to some uncontrolled or
unmeasured factor.

The survival and growth data for P. promelas showed no significant difference between the laboratory
controls, the site reference pond and the on-site ponds.

Sediment

Site-related sediment chemistry was compared to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE)  Lowest
Effect Levels  (LEL) and Severe Effect Levels  (SEL) (Persaud 1992). The OMOE define the LEL as a level of
contamination which has no effect on the majority of the sediment-dwelling organisms.  The sediment is
considered clean to marginally polluted.  Sediments which contain contaminants at concentrations which
exceed the LEL may reguire further testing.  In contrast, the SEL is defined as sediment which is
considered heavily polluted and likely to affect the health of sediment-dwelling organisms.

As with the surface water analytical data,  some detection limits were higher than some of the sediment
guality guidelines, making interpretation uncertain.   The chemical concentrations associated with the
reference pond sediments were lower than for the site ponds, showing possible exceedances of guideline
concentrations for only three  (arsenic,  cadmium,  nickel)  of the twenty target inorganics.   Only nickel
was detected above the reporting limit.   No direct comparisons can be made using the values for arsenic
and cadmium due to the uncertainty of these values.  No organic compounds were detected in this sediment.

Three of the four site samples (LT-1, BG-1 and BG-3)  were shown to contain levels of inorganics which
exceed the OMOE LELs, but not the SELs.   These metals include chromium, copper, iron,  manganese, nickel,
lead and zinc.  However, the remaining site sample (BG-2) exceeded the SEL for copper.  In addition,
these samples may contain concentrations of arsenic and cadmium which exceeded the LELs, however, due to
-------
the high reporting limits achieved by the lab for these analytes, direct comparisons can not be made.
Pesticides were detected in  sediments from all of the site ponds at levels which exceed OMOE LELs.   In
addition, sample LT-1 contains    levels of 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDE which exceeded the SEL values, after
taking into account the concentration of organic carbon in the samples  (average total organic carbon for
LT-1 = 4.3%) .

The results from the sediment toxicity test indicate an impact on survival of H. azteca at locations BG-2
and BG-3, as compared to the site reference pond.  It should be noted that one of the laboratory
controls, Saw Mill Brook, had a percent survival which was less than these two sites.  Chemical analyses
of these sediment samples indicated elevated levels of copper, 119 mg/Kg and 95.6 mg/Kg respectively; the
level of copper in BG-2 exceeded the OMOE SEL of 110 mg/Kg.  In addition, these samples contained
detectable levels of some pesticides; however, in concentrations not as high as that found in sample LT-1
where no significant mortality to H. azteca was observed.

The survival data analysis for C. tentans showed no statistically significant difference between either
the laboratory control and the on-site ponds, or the site reference pond and the on-site ponds, implying
no adverse effect on survival.  Analyses of growth data indicate a significant difference between the
laboratory control (artificial sediment) and the site reference and all on-site locations except BG-3.
However, when a comparison is made between the reference pond and on-site ponds there is no significant
difference with respect to C. tentans growth.

Summary of Conclusions Concerning Site Risks

The only samples which showed concentrations of chemical contaminants which were both above the labs
reporting limits and in exceedance of documented criteria were the sediment samples LT-1 (4,4'-ODD and
4,4'-DDE) and BG-2 (copper)  and the water column sample, BG-3 (copper).  Of these samples,  only LT-1
could not be correlated to any adverse effect demonstrated via laboratory toxicity tests. In addition,
surface water samples BG-1 and BG-2 did not contain significantly high levels of chemical contamination,
but were found to cause a significant effect on the survival of H. azteca.  The significant mortality in
these two samples, is not believed to be due to inorganic contamination because the AVS/SEM analysis
showed the metals are not available to sediment dwelling organisms.  The pesticides are likely
attributable to the former use of the property from agricultural purposes.

The Site specific conditions at the Cheshire Ground Water Contamination Site support the decision to take
no further action.  There are very low levels of contaminants in the media sampled at the Site.  All of
the estimated maximum cancer risks to human health associated with exposure to contamination at the Site
fall within EPA's acceptable risk range.  In addition, the human health risk assessment concluded that
non-cancer adverse health effects were not likely at this Site because the level of arsenic is present at
half the level established as safe in the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Results also indicated that aguatic organisms would not be harmed should they contact the contaminated
surface water or sediments.   This conclusion is based on the fact that the copper is not bioavailable to
the organisms and other effects seen are believed to be localized and not likely to result in adverse
effects to the community of organisms.

VII.  DESCRIPTION OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

There are no construction activities associated with the No Action decision.

VIII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

EPA presented a Proposed Plan (preferred alternative)  on October 24, 1996 for the Site based on the
results of both the human health risk assessment and ecological risk evaluation performed as part of the
remedial study. The Proposed Plan described EPA's proposal to take no further action at the Cheshire
Ground Water Contamination Site.  No significant changes have been made to the No Action recommendation
described in the Proposed Plan.

IX.  STATE ROLE

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the preferred alternative and has
indicated its support for the No Action decision.  The State of Connecticut concurs with the selected
remedy for the Cheshire Ground Water Contamination Site.  A copy of the declaration of concurrence is
attached as Appendix C.
-------
                                     APPENDIX A

                                ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX           01/02/97
                             CHESHIRE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION     Page     1
                                     All Operable Units
01.02
          PRE-REMEDIAL RECORDS - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
CT.
Title:

Addressee:
Authors:
Date:
Format:
AR No.
Letter Report:  Preliminary Assessment of Cheshire Associates Property, Cheshire,

DON SMITH.9 - EPA REGION 1
BARBARA FELITTI - NUS CORPORATION
September 20, 1985
LETTER                       No. Pgs:   7
                      01.02.1
                                                   Document No.
                                                                  000001
01.03
          PRE-REMEDIAL RECORDS - SITE INSPECTION
          Title:      Memo Concerning Cheshire Associates Property Final Site Inspection Report, with
                      Appendices.
          Addressee:  DON SMITH - EPA REGION 1
          Authors:    BARBARA FELITTI - NUS CORPORATION
          Date:       July 7, 1986
          Format:     MEMORANDUM                   No. Pgs:  73
          AR No.      01.03.1                      Document No.   000002
03.01
          REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - CORRESPONDENCE
          Title:      Letter Concerning Results of Recent Test of Residential Water.
          Addressee:  DOREEN FUSCO
          Authors:    TIMOTHY R. CARMODY - CARMODY & TORRANCE
          Date:       June 26, 1986
          Format:     LETTER                       No. Pgs:  3
          AR No.      03.01.1                      Document No.   000034

          Title:      Letter Concerning Report on Residential Well Sampling.
          Addressee:  DOREEN FUSCO
          Authors:    TIMOTHY R. CARMODY - CARMODY & TORRANCE
          Date:       July 18, 1986
          Format:     LETTER                       No. Pgs:  2
          AR No.      03.01.2                      Document No.   000037

          Title:      Correspondence Concerning Property at 657 West Johnson Avenue.
          Addressee:  JANE DOLAN - EPA REGION 1
          Authors:    JOSEPH A. WELLINGTON - CARMODY & TORRANCE
          Date:       October 25, 1994
          Format:     LETTER                       No. Pgs:  52
          AR No.      03.01.3                      Document No.   000086

          Title:      Letter Concerning Results of Residential Groundwater Samples.
          Addressee:  DOREEN FUSCO
          Authors:    JANE DOLAN - EPA REGION 1
          Date:       February 1, 1995
          Format:     LETTER                       No. Pgs:  1
          AR No.      03.01.4                      Document No.   000073
          Title:      Letter Concerning Results of Water Sampling at Erikson Metals Corp.
          Addressee:  SARAH DUBOIS - ERICKSON METALS
          Authors:    JANE DOLAN - EPA REGION 1
          Date:       February 1, 1995
          Format:     LETTER                       No. Pgs:  1
          AR No.      03.01.5                      Document No.   000074
-------
          Title:       Memorandum:  Cheshire Groundwater Contamination Site Request for Air Modeling.
          Addressee:  KIMBERLY N. TISA - EPA REGION 1
          Authors:     JANE DOLAN - EPA REGION 1
          Date:        May 19, 1995
          Format:      MEMORANDUM                   No. Pgs:   1
          AR No.       03.01.6                      Document No.   000008

          Title:       Letter Concerning Water Level Monitoring During Pilot-scale Remediation.
          Addressee:  JANE DOLAN - EPA REGION 1
          Authors:     J. JEFFREY STARN - U.S.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
          Date:        September 12, 1996
          Format:      LETTER                       No. Pgs:   6
          AR No.       03.01.7                      Document No.   000053
03.02
          REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS DATA
          Title:       Letter Report Concerning Soil Vapor Survey Results.
          Addressee:  FRANK J. GULISANO - LEMBO FEINERMAN CHESHIRE TRUST
          Authors:     KELLY L. MELOY, DENNIS WASLENCHUK - HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
          Date:        February 28, 1991
          Format:      REPORT,  STUDY                No. Pgs:  17
          AR No.       03.02.1                      Document No.   000015

          Title:       Environmental Site Assessment for the Holgrath Corporation.
          Addressee:  HOLGRATH CORP
          Authors:     HALEY & ALDRICH
          Date:        January 1993
          Format:      REPORT,  STUDY                No. Pgs:  102
          AR No.       03.02.2                      Document No.   000016
          Title:       Groundwater Investigation Report.
          Authors:     METCALF & EDDY
          Date:         1994
          Format:      REPORT, STUDY
          AR No.       03.02.3                      Document No.
                                                                  000077
          Title:       Letter with Enclosed Results of Laboratory Analysis of Soil Samples.
          Addressee:  WAYNE CURRY - PHILIPS TECHNOLOGIES
          Authors:     SUSAN A. STRAND - EEW MANAGEMENT, INC.
          Date:        March 14,  1994
          Format:      LETTER                       No. Pgs:      12
          AR No.       03.02.4                      Document No.   000017

          Title:       Memorandum:  Cheshire, CT - Groundwater - 657 West Johnson Avenue - Field VOA
                      Results.
          Addressee:  JANE DOLAN - EPA REGION 1
          Authors:     SCOTT CLIFFORD - EPA REGION 1
          Date:        December 29, 1994
          Format:      REPORT, STUDY                No. Pgs:  11
          AR No.       03.02.5                      Document No.   000075
          Title:       Fax Copy of Sampling Data.
          Addressee:  JANE DOLAN - EPA REGION 1
          Authors:     T.M. SPITTLER
          Date:        May 10, 1995
          Format:      MISCELLANEOUS
          AR No.       03.02.6
No. Pgs: 10
Document No.   000018
          Title:       Letter Containing Review of Soil Gas Data for Indoor Air Modeling.
          Addressee:  KIMBERLY N. TISA - EPA REGION 1
          Authors:     WAYNE WESTBROOK - PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC
          Date:        June 12, 1995
          Format:      LETTER                       No. Pgs:  2
          AR No.       03.02.7                      Document No.   000019
-------
 Title:      Memorandum:  Cheshire, CT - Groundwater - Field VOA Results.
 Addressee:  JANE DOLAN - EPA REGION 1
 Authors:    SCOTT CLIFFORD - EPA REGION 1
 Date:       June 20, 1995
 Format:     REPORT, STUDY                No. Pgs:  5
 AR No.      03.02.8                      Document No.   000076

 Title:      Memorandum:  Cheshire, CT - Soils -  Field VOA Results.
 Addressee:  JOHN TIMONY - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
 Authors:    SCOTT CLIFFORD - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
             DIVISION
 Date:       July 6, 1995
 Format:     MEMORANDUM                   No. Pgs:  4
 AR No.      03.02.9                      Document No.   000055

 Title:      Memorandum:  Analysis of Chlorinated Pesticides and PCBs in Aqueous Samples -
             Cheshire Association Wells.
 Addressee:  DANIEL S. GRANZ - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL  SERVICES DIVISION
 Authors:    PETER PHILBROOK - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL  SERVICES DIVISION
 Date:       July 14, 1995
 Format:     MEMORANDUM                   No. Pgs:  15
 AR No.      03.02.10                     Document No.  000062

Title:      Memorandum:  Cheshire Results
Addressee:  DANIEL S. GRANZ - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Authors:    MICHAEL DOWLING, SCOTT CLIFFORD - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Date:       July 19, 1995
Format:     MEMORANDUM                    No. Pgs:  10
AR No.      03.02.11                      Document No.  000063

Title:      Memorandum:  Gas Chromotography-Mass  Spectrometry Analysis of Extractable Organics
            in Soils and Sediments.
Addressee:  DANIEL S. GRANZ - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Authors:    AGNES VANLANGENHOVE - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Date:       July 19, 1995
Format:     MEMORANDUM                    No. Pgs:  25
AR No.      03.02.12                      Document No.  000064

Title:      Memorandum:  Gas Chromotography-Mass  Spectrometry Analysis of Extractable Organics
            in Agueous Samples.
Addressee:  DANIEL S. GRANZ - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Authors:    AGNES VANLANGENHOVE - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Date:       July 20, 1995
Format:     MEMORANDUM                    No. Pgs:  25
AR No.      03.02.13                      Document No.  000065

Title:      Letter Concerning Surface Water/Sediment Sampling Results.
Addressee:  ANTHONY PALERMO - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Authors:    DAVID F. MCDONALD - LOCKHEED ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS & TECH
Date:       July 24, 1995
Format:     MEMORANDUM                    No. Pgs:  50
AR No.      03.02.14                      Document No.  000056

Title:      Memorandum:  Analysis of Chlorinated  Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls  (PCBs)
            in Soil Samples - Cheshire Association Wells.
Addressee:  DANIEL S. GRANZ - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Authors:    PETER PHILBROOK - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Date:       July 24, 1995
Format:     MEMORANDUM                    No. Pgs:  13
AR No.      03.02.15                      Document No.  000066
Title:      Memorandum:  Cheshire Site, Cheshire, CT Volatile Organic Analysis by GC/MS
Addressee:  JOHN TIMONY - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Authors:    SURESH SRIVATAVA - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Date:       August 22, 1995
Format:     MEMORANDUM                    No. Pgs:  19
AR No.      03.02.16                      Document No.  000067
-------
Title:      Memorandum:  Cheshire Site, Cheshire, CT Soil -- Purgeable Organic Analysis by
            GC/MS.
Addressee:  JOHN TIMONY - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Authors:    SURESH SRIVATAVA - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Date:       August 22, 1995
Format:     MEMORANDUM                    No. Pgs:  14
AR No.      03.02.17                      Document No.  000068

Title:      Analysis of Water/Sediment for Total organic Carbon - Table of Results.
Authors:    NATHAN RAINES, JACK PAAR - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Date:       August 28, 1995
Format:     MISCELLANEOUS                 No. Pgs:  1
AR No.      03.02.18                      Document No.  000057

Title:      Memorandum:  Cheshire Groundwater Contamination Site Soil Data.
Addressee:  JANE DOLAN - EPA NEW-ENGLAND
Authors:    DANIEL S. GRANZ - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Date:       September 12, 1995
Format:     MEMORANDUM                    No. Pgs:  45
AR No.      03.02.19                      Document No.  000054

Title:      Groundwater Investigation Trip Report
Authors:    METCALF & EDDY
Date:       December 1995
Format:     REPORT, STUDY
AR No.      03.02.20                      Document No.  000078

Title:      Geohydrology and Conceptual Model of a Groundwater Flow System Near a Superfund Site
            in Cheshire Connecticut.
Addressee:  EPA REGION 1
Authors:    JANET STONE, PAUL M. BARLOW, J. JEFFREY STARN - U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Date:       1996
Format:     REPORT, STUDY                 No. Pgs:  96
AR No.      03.02.21                      Document No.  000022

Title:      Memorandum:  Cheshire - AVS/SEM Results
Addressee:  JANE DOLAN - EPA NEW-ENGLAND
Authors:    MICHAEL DOWLING, SCOTT CLIFFORD, KATHY POLGAR,
            BILL ANDRADE - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Date:       March 5, 1996
Format:     MEMORANDUM                    No. Pgs:  6
AR No.      03.02.22                      Document No.  000058

Title:      Memorandum:  Quality Assurance Review:  Evaluation of AVS/SEM Methods and Summary
            Data for Cheshire Associates, Cheshire, CT.
Addressee:  JANE DOLAN - EPA REGION 1
Authors:    ANDY BELIVEAU - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
            DIVISION
Date:       April 16, 1996
Format:     MEMORANDUM                    No. Pgs:  2
AR No.      03.02.23                      Document No.  000009

Title:      Memorandum:  Cheshire - Total Metals Results in Sediment.
Addressee:  JUSTIN PIMPARE - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Authors:    SCOTT CLIFFORD - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Date:       July 25, 1996
Format:     MEMORANDUM                    No. Pgs:  6
AR No.      03.02.24                      Document No.  000060
  *Attached to Document No. 000059 In 03.02
Title:      Memorandum:  Cheshire - AVS/SEM Results
Addressee:  DANIEL S. GRANZ - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Authors:    BILL ANDRADE, SCOTT CLIFFORD - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Date:       August 1, 1996
Format:     MEMORANDUM                    No. Pgs:  6
AR No.      03.02.25                      Document No.  000061
-------
         Title:       Memorandum:  Cheshire Sediment Sampling
         Addressee:  JANE DOLAN - EPA NEW-ENGLAND
         Authors:    JUSTIN PIMPARE - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
         Date:        August 12, 1996
         Format:      MEMORANDUM                    No. Pgs:   1
         AR No.       03.02.26                      Document No.  000059
3.07
         REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - WORK PLANS AND PROGRESS REPORTS
         Title:

         Authors:
         Date:
         Format:
         AR No.
Plan for Hydrogeologic Study of Two Contaminated Groundwater Sites, Cheshire,
Connecticut.
USGS
September 23, 1994
REPORT, STUDY
03.07.1
No. Pgs:  31
Document No.
                                                                 000003
         Title:       Quality Assurance Plan Short Form.
         Addressee:  MARTHA ZIRBEL - METCALF & EDDY
         Authors:    JANE DOLAN - EPA REGION 1
         Date:        October 24,  1994
         Format:      WORK PLAN
         AR No.       03.07.2
                              No. Pgs:  74
                              Document No.  000004
         Title:       Surface Water and Sediment Field Sampling Plan.
         Addressee:  ANTHONY PALERMO - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
         Authors:    DAVID F. MCDONALD - LOCKHEED ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS & TECH
         Date:        June 8, 1995
         Format:      WORK PLAN                     No. Pgs:  7
         AR No.       03.07.3                       Document No.  000005

         Title:       Work/QA Plan Short Form:  Cheshire Groundwater Contamination Site Soil Sampling.
         Addressee:  CHARLES PORFERT - EPA REGION 1
         Authors:    JANE DOLAN - EPA REGION 1
         Date:        June 26, 1995
         Format:      WORK PLAN                    No. Pgs:  7
         AR No.       03.07.4                      Document No.  000006

         Title:       Quality Assurance Plan Addendum:  Cheshire Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site.
         Authors:    JANE DOLAN - EPA REGION 1
         Date:        November 27, 1995
         Format:      WORK PLAN                    No. Pgs:  63
         AR No.       03.07.5                      Document No.  000007

         Title:       Work Plan/QA Plan Short Form - Cheshire Superfund Site Sediment Sampling.
         Addressee:  JANE DOLAN - EPA NEW-ENGLAND
         Authors:    ANDY BELIVEAU - EPA NEW-ENGLAND
         Date:        July 10, 1996
         Format:      WORK PLAN                    No. Pgs:  4
         AR No.       03.07.6                      Document No.  000069
03.09
         REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
         Title:       Preliminary Health Assessment for Cheshire Associates Site.
         Authors:     ATSDR
         Date:        June 25, 1990
         Format:     REPORT,  STUDY                No. Pgs:  14
         AR No.       03.09.1                      Document No.  000014
         Title:       Health Consultation by CT Department of Public Health in Conjunction with ATSDR.
         Addressee:  LOUISE HOUSE
         Authors:    CT DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
         Date:        October 11, 1996
         Format:      REPORT, STUDY                No. Pgs:  8
         AR No.       03.09.2                      Document No.  000102
-------
03.10    REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENTS

         Title:       Memorandum:  Preliminary Evaluation of Ecological Risk at Cheshire Associates,
                     Cheshire,   CT.
         Addressee:   JANE DOLAN - EPA REGION 1
         Authors:    PATTI TYLER - EPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
         Date:        November 4, 1995
         Format:      MEMORANDUM                   No. Pgs:  10
         AR No.       03.10.1                      Document No.  000010

         Title:       Memorandum:  Risk Assessment for Cheshire Soils
         Addressee:   JANE DOLAN - EPA NEW-ENGLAND
         Authors:    MARGARET MCDONOUGH - EPA NEW-ENGLAND
         Date:        March 14,  1996
         Format:      MEMORANDUM                   No. Pgs:  18
         AR No.       03.10.2                      Document No.  000070

         Title:       Memorandum:  Risk Assessment for Cheshire Sediment and Surface Water.
         Addressee:   JANE DOLAN - EPA NEW-ENGLAND
         Authors:    MARGARET MCDONOUGH - EPA NEW-ENGLAND
         Date:        September 12, 1996
         Format:      MEMORANDUM                   No. Pgs:  3
         AR No.       03.10.3                      Document No.  000071

         Title:       Memorandum:  Cheshire Groundwater Risk Assessment.
         Addressee:   JANE DOLAN - EPA REGION 1
         Authors:    MARGARET MCDONOUGH - EPA REGION 1
         Date:        September 24, 1996
         Format:      MEMORANDUM                   No. Pgs:  9
         AR No.       03.10.4                      Document No.  000079

04.09    FEASIBILITY STUDY - PROPOSED PLANS FOR SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION

         Title:       Proposed Plan for Cheshire Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site.
         Authors:    EPA REGION 1
         Date:        October 1996
         Format:      FACT SHEET, PRESS RELEASE    No. Pgs:  11
         AR No.       04.09.1                      Document No.  000090

05.03    RECORD OF DECISION - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARIES

         Title:       Responsiveness Summary.
         Authors:    EPA NEW-ENGLAND
         Date:        December 1996
         Format:      MISCELLANEOUS                No. Pgs:  13
         AR No.       05.03.1                      Document No.  000104

05.04    RECORD OF DECISION - RECORD OF DECISION

         Title:       Record of Decision for Cheshire Groundwater Contamination Site.
         Authors:    LINDA M. MURPHY - EPA NEW-ENGLAND
         Date:        December 31, 1996
         Format:      REPORT, STUDY
         AR No.       05.04.1                      Document No.  000105

09.01    STATE COORDINATION - CORRESPONDENCE

         Title:       Letter Concerning the Proposed Plan, Cheshire Groundwater Contamination Area
                     Superfund Site.
         Addressee:   JANE DOLAN - EPA NEW-ENGLAND
         Authors:    SHEILA GLEASON - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
         Date:        November 20, 1996
         Format:      LETTER                       No. Pgs:  1
         AR No.       09.01.1                      Document No.  000106
-------
10.03
         ENFORCEMENT - STATE AND LOCAL ENFORCEMENT RECORDS
         Title:       Three (3)  Interdepartment Messages Concerning Airpax Company.
         Addressee:   WES WINTERBOTTON - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
         Authors:     STANLEY ALEXANDER - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
         Date:        1983
         Format:      MEMORANDUM                   No. Pgs:   6
         AR No.       10.03.1                      Document No.  000024

         Title:       Consent Agreement with North American Philips Corporation.
         Authors:     STANLEY J. PAC,  K.M. LE FEVER - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
         Date:        May 16,  1984
         Format:      MISCELLANEOUS                No. Pgs:   2
         AR No.       10.03.2                      Document No.  000025

         Title:       Letter Supplying Information Required by Consent Agreement.
         Addressee:   STANLEY J. PAC - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
         Authors:     ELMER MADSEN - AIRPAX CORPORATION
         Date:        May 18,  1984
         Format:      LETTER                       No. Pgs:   2
         AR No.       10.03.3                      Document No.  000026

         Title:       Consent Agreement Between State of Connecticut and Cheshire Associates.
         Authors:     STANLEY J. PAC,  SAMUEL FEINERMAN - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
         Date:        June 7,  1984
         Format:      MISCELLANEOUS                No. Pgs:   3
         AR No.       10.03.4                      Document No.  000027

         Title:       Letter Approving the Report on Inground Fuel/Chemical Storage Tank Integrity.
         Addressee:   JAMES C. SCHROEDER
         Authors:     ROBERT E.  MOORE
         Date:        June 20, 1984
         Format:      LETTER                       No. Pgs:   1
         AR No.       10.03.5                      Document No.  000028

         Title:       Letter Concerning Residential Well Monitoring.
         Addressee:   STANLEY ALEXANDER - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
         Authors:     TIMOTHY R. CARMODY - CARMODY & TORRANCE
         Date:        July 17, 1984
         Format:      LETTER                       No. Pgs:   3
         AR No.       10.03.6                      Document No.  000029

         Title:       Letter with Attachments Concerning Disposal of Contaminated Soil at Airpax Corp.,
                     Cheshire,  CT.
         Addressee:   MARINA CRAWFORD - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
         Authors:     TIMOTHY R. CARMODY - CARMODY & TORRANCE
         Date:        August 24, 1984
         Format:      LETTER                       No. Pgs:   9
         AR No.       10.03.7                      Document No.  000030

         Title:       Letter Concerning Residential Well Monitoring.
         Addressee:   STANLEY ALEXANDER - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
         Authors:     TIMOTHY R. CARMODY - CARMODY & TORRANCE
         Date:        June 21, 1985
         Format:      LETTER                       No. Pgs:   4
         AR No.       10.03.8                      Document No.  000031
         Title:       Letter Concerning Residential Well Monitoring.
         Addressee:   THEODORE STEVENS - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
         Authors:     TIMOTHY R.  CARMODY - CARMODY & TORRANCE
         Date:        February 27,  1986
         Format:      LETTER                       No. Pgs:  3
         AR No.       10.03.9                      Document No.  000032
-------
         Title:       Letter Concerning Attached Report from Northeast Laboratories.
         Addressee:   DOREEN FUSCO
         Authors:     TIMOTHY R. CARMODY - CARMODY & TORRANCE
         Date:        April 17,  1986
         Format:      LETTER                       No. Pgs:   2
         AR No.       10.03.10                     Document No.  000033

         Title:       Letter Concerning Report on Contamination of the Well at 657 West Johnson Avenue.
         Addressee:   BRIAN CURTIS - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
         Authors:     TIMOTHY R. CARMODY - CARMODY & TORRANCE
         Date:        June 26, 1986
         Format:      LETTER                       No. Pgs:   2
         AR No.       10.03.11                     Document No.  000035
13.03
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - NEWS CLIPPINGS/PRESS RELEASES
         Title:       Public Notice:  The United States EPA Proposes No Further Action Needed at the
                     Cheshire Groundwater Contamination Site.
         Authors:     EPA REGION 1
         Date:        October 1996
         Format:      NEWS CLIPPING                No. Pgs:  1
         AR No.       13.03.1                      Document No.  000091

         Title:       "EPA Announces No Risk at Cheshire Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site."
         Authors:     EPA REGION 1
         Date:        October 10,  1996
         Format:      NEWS CLIPPING                No. Pgs:  2
         AR No.       13.03.2                      Document No.  000093

         Title:       Public Notice:  The United States Environmental Protection Agency Announces Record
                     of Decision for the Cheshire Groundwater Contamination Site.
         Authors:     EPA NEW-ENGLAND
         Date:        December 1996
         Format:      FACT SHEET,  PRESS RELEASE    No. Pgs:  1
         AR No.       13.03.3                      Document No.  000107

13.04  COMMUNITY RELATIONS - PUBLIC MEETINGS
         Title:       Public Hearing Transcript.
         Date:        October 24,  1996
         Format:      NOTES-MEETING
         AR No.       13.04.1
                                        Topic:  Contamination Sites in Cheshire.
                                         No. Pgs:  4
                                         Document No.
                                                                000103
17.04  SITE MANAGEMENT RECORDS - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS/MAPS

         Title:       Site Analysis Cheshire Ground Water Contamination Site & Study Area, Cheshire, CT.
                     [Available for review at EPA Record Center, Boston, MA.]
         Authors:     EPA EMSL
         Date:        February 1991
         Format:      REPORT,  STUDY                No. Pgs:  36
         AR No.       17.04.1                      Document No.  000051
17.(
       SITE MANAGEMENT RECORDS - STATE AND LOCAL TECHNICAL RECORDS
         Title:       Documents Related to Valley National Corporation, West Johnson Ave, Cheshire, CT.
         Date:        1967
         Format:      REPORT,  STUDY                No. Pgs:  17
         AR No.       17.08.1                      Document No.  000052
         Title:       Potable Water Collection Examination Reports.
         Addressee:   CHESPROCOTT HEALTH DISTRICT
         Authors:     CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
         Date:        May 6,  1977
         Format:      FORM                         No. Pgs:  3
         AR No.       17.08.2                      Document No.  000023
-------
Title:      Report to General Electric on Ground Water Quality at a Site in Cheshire, CT.
Authors:    GROUNDWATER ASSOCIATES
Date:       December 1980
Format:     REPORT, STUDY                No. Pgs:  70
AR No.      17.08.3                      Document No.  000011

Title:      State of Connecticut DEP Industrial Survey -- North American Philips Controls Corp.
Date:       1982
Format:     MISCELLANEOUS                No. Pgs:  11
AR No.      17.08.4                      Document No.  000072

Title:      Six  (6) Oversized Drawings or Blueprints of the West Johnson Avenue Area.
Date:       1982
Format:     MAP                          No. Pgs:  6
AR No.      17.08.5                      Document No.  000092

Title:      Permit to Discharge Wastewater.
Addressee:  MATTHEW ZIEBKA - AIRPAX CORPORATION
Authors:    STANLEY J. PAC - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
Date:       July 18, 1984
Format:     MISCELLANEOUS                No. Pgs:  14
AR No.      17.08.6                      Document No.  000044
  *Attached to Document No. 000042 In 17.08

Title:      Letter Concerning Possible Sources of Contamination of Residential Wells.
Addressee:  BRIAN CURTIS - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
Authors:    TIMOTHY R. CARMODY - CARMODY & TORRANCE
Date:       July 18, 1986
Format:     LETTER                       No. Pgs:  2
AR No.      17.08.7                      Document No.  000036

Title:      Cheshire Associates Offers to Hook Up Property to Town of Cheshire's Water Line and
            Cap Well.
Addressee:  DOREEN FUSCO
Authors:    MARK J. MALASPINA - CARMODY & TORRANCE
Date:       November 10, 1986
Format:     LETTER                       No. Pgs:  1
AR No.      17.08.8                      Document No.  000087

Title:      Letter Concerning Meeting and Review of Plant #2 Cooling Water System.
Addressee:  WAYNE CURRY - AIRPAX CORPORATION
Authors:    DAVID A. GEARHART
Date:       May 4, 1987
Format:     LETTER                       No. Pgs:  5
AR No.      17.08.9                      Document No.  000045
  *Attached to Document No. 000042 In 17.08

Title:      Letter Concerning the Bids Received for Installation of Water Service.
Addressee:  ELSIE PATTON - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
Authors:    MARK J. MALASPINA - CARMODY & TORRANCE
Date:       July 14, 1987
Format:     LETTER                       No. Pgs:  4
AR No.      17.08.10                     Document No.  000038
Title:      Letter Reguesting Modification of Permit Issued to Airpax Corporation.
Addressee:  LESLIE CAROTHERS - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
Authors:    WAYNE CURRY - AIRPAX CORPORATION
Date:       August 3, 1987
Format:     LETTER                       No. Pgs:  2
AR No.      17.08.11                     Document No.  000042
-------
Title:      Laboratory Report No. 14152 Concerning Waste Effluent Sample received August 28,
            1987.
Addressee:  WAYNE CURRY - AIRPAX CORPORATION
Authors:    ROBERT SILVESTRI
Date:       September 8, 1987
Format:     LETTER                       No. Pgs:  1
AR No.      17.08.12                     Document No.  000049
  *Attached to Document No. 000046 In 17.08

Title:      Solvent Management Plan with Transmittal Letter.
Addressee:  ROBERT KALIZEWSKI - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
Authors:    PAMELA KATZ
Date:       September 21, 1987
Format:                                  No. Pgs:  7
AR No.      17.08.13                     Document No.  000047
  *Attached to Document No. 000046 In 17.08

Title:      Letter Concerning Finalization of Discharge Permit and Suggested Improvements to the
            System.
Addressee:  WAYNE CURRY - AIRPAX CORPORATION
Authors:    PAMELA KATZ
Date:       September 21, 1987
Format:     LETTER                        No. Pgs:  1
AR No.      17.08.14                      Document No.  000048
  *Attached to Document No. 000046 In 17.08

Title:      Letter Concerning Analytical Results and Sampling Recommendations.
Addressee:  ELMER MADSEN - AIRPAX CORPORATION
Authors:    KEVIN J. O'REILLY - GOLDBERG ZOINO & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Date:       September 23, 1987
Format:     LETTER                        No. Pgs:  10
AR No.      17.08.15                      Document No.  000039

Title:      Approval of Solvent Management Plan.
Addressee:  WAYNE CURRY - AIRPAX CORPORATION
Authors:    MICHAEL HARDER - CONNECTICUT  DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
Date:       September 28, 1987
Format:     LETTER                        No. Pgs:  1
AR No.      17.08.16                      Document No.  000046

Title:      Letter Regarding the Scheduled Watermain Work to Begin October 14, 1987.
Addressee:  FRANK J. GULISANO
Authors:    CHRISTOPHE BOWMAN
Date:       October 1987
Format:     LETTER                       No. Pgs:  1
AR No.      17.08.17                     Document No.  000088

Title:      Permit to Discharge Metal Finishing Wastewater and Cooling System Blowdown.
Addressee:  WAYNE CURRY - AIRPAX CORPORATION
Authors:    JOHN ANDERSON - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
Date:       October 19, 1987
Format:     MISCELLANEOUS                No. Pgs:  4
AR No.      17.08.18                     Document No.  000043
  *Attached to Document No. 000042 In 1708

Title:      Letter Concerning Cheshire Associates Payment of $100 Per Year Towards Doreen
            Fusco's Water Bills.
Addressee:  DOREEN FUSCO
Authors:    MARK J. MALASPINA - CARMODY & TORRANCE
Date:       January 21, 1988
Format:     LETTER                       No. Pgs:  1
AR No.      17.08.19                     Document No.  000089
-------
Title:      Letter Report on the Results of Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling at Airpax
            Corp.
Addressee:  ELMER MADSEN - AIRPAX CORPORATION
Authors:    KEVIN J. O'REILLY, KENNETH W. MILENDER, THEODORE VON ROSENVINGE - GOLDBERG ZOINO &
            ASSOCIATES, INC.
Date:       June 22, 1988
Format:     REPORT, STUDY                No. Pgs:  14
AR No.      17.08.20                     Document No.  000040

Title:      Letter Providing Notice That Airpax Corp. Plant II Has Eliminated the Permitted
            Discharge at its Facility.
Addressee:  KEN MAJOR - CONNECTICUT DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
Authors:    WAYNE CURRY - PHILIPS TECHNOLOGIES
Date:       May 29, 1992
Format:     LETTER                       No. Pgs:  2
AR No.      17.08.21                     Document No.  000050
Title:      Amended Complaint. Docket No. CV 90-0385318 S, The Lembo-Feinerman Cheshire Trust
            and Cheshire Associates vs Charles E. Heilig.
Authors:    JAMES K. ROBERTSON - CARMODY & TORRANCE
Date:       November 12, 1993
Format:     LITIGATION
AR No.      17.08.22                     Document No.  000041
-------
                                         APPENDIX B

                                  HEALTH EFFECTS SUMMARIES

1.1 Dichloroethylene.  1,1 Dichloroethylene  (1,1 DCE) may cause both carcinogenic and noncancer effects.
This chemical is rapidly absorbed, has limited solubility and is not stored in body tissue.  Effects
occur via oral exposure or via inhalation.  With respect to noncancer effects, animal experiments have
shown that the liver is the organ most sensitive to 1,1 DCE.  The Reference Dose  (RfD) of 9 x 10
mg/kg/day is based on a rat drinking water study.  Other rodent studies have shown 1,1 DCE to be toxic to
developing fetuses.  1,1 DCE is also an eye and skin irritant.  The health effects following prolonged or
repeated dermal exposure to this compound are not known.

1,1 DCE is classified as a possible human carcinogen (Class C) based on tumors in mice exposed via
inhalation.  Animal data is considered limited because studies were not designed for maximum sensitivity
to detect carcinogenic effects.  The inhalation unit risk (5.0 x 10 5 per m 3) is based on the mouse
inhalation study and the oral slope factor (0.6 per mg/kg/day) is based on a rat drinking water study.
(U.S. EPA, IRIS October 1996).

Bis  (2 ethyl hexyl) phthalate Human ingestion exposures to bis(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate (BEHP)  results in
adverse effects to the gastrointestinal tract (Sax, 1989).  The chronic oral RfD  (2.0 x 10 2 mg/kg/day)
and oral CSF  (1.4 x 10 2 per  (mg/kg/day)) available for BEHP are based on animal studies detecting
adverse non-carcinogenic liver effects and liver tumors in test animals (guinea pigs)(U.S. EPA IRIS,
March 1994).  BEHP is categorized as a Class B2 carcinogen  (probable human carcinogen) and is an
experimental teratogen.

Beryllium. Skin exposure to beryllium can cause a skin rash at the point of contact.  Short term exposure
to beryllium by inhalation can cause formation of scar tissue in the lungs, breathing difficulty, and
weight loss.  Inhalation exposures to beryllium have also been associated with lung cancer.

A chronic oral RfD of 5 x 10 -3 mg/kg/day has been established for beryllium based upon changes noted in
the hearts, livers, kidneys and spleens of rats administered beryllium via drinking water. Mice
administered beryllium in another study showed only changes in body weight.

Beryllium is currently classified as a probable human carcinogen(Class B2) based on the results of
occupational studies and animal studies  (rats) demonstrating a possible relationship between beryllium
inhalation exposure and lung cancer.  Other cancers have also been noted.   A chromic oral cancer slope
factor and an inhalation unit risk of 4.3 (mg/kg/day)-1 and 2.4 x 10 -3 up/me, respectively, have been
established for beryllium exposure  (U.S. EPA IRIS, March 1994).

Arsenic. Arsenic is classified as a known human carcinogen  (Class A) based on lung cancer mortality
observed in multiple populations exposed primarily via inhalation.  Increased mortality from multiple
internal organ cancers (liver, kidney, lung and bladder) and increased skin cancer were observed in
populations consuming drinking water high in inorganic arsenic.   Arsenic is also carcinogenic via
inhalation.  The inhalation slope factor is based on studies of smelter workers.  (U.S. EPA, IRIS October,
1996).

Noncancer effects in humans have also been observed in populations exposed via arsenic in drinking water.
These effects are primarily on the skin including keratosis (formation of horny growths on the skin) and
hyperpigmentation.

Benzo(a) Pyrene  (B(a)P).  B(a)P is chemically classified as a polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH).
PAHs are a large, diverse class of chemicals found in the environment as complex mixtures.  Several PAHs
have been classified as B2 carcinogens, including B(a)P.  The cancer slope factor for B(a)P is derived
based on animals studies demonstrating tumors of the respiratory tract and stomach in test animals
exposed orally and via inhalation, respectively.  Many PAHs cause tumors in the skin and epithelial
tissues of test animals.

                                          APPENDIX C


-------
                                      APPENDIX D

 1

 2

 3

 4              ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HEARING

 5

 6              TOPIC:  Contamination sites in Cheshire

 7

 8

 9              Held at:  Cheshire Town Hall

10                        84 South Main Street

11                        Cheshire, Connecticut

12              On:       October 24, 1996, 7 p.m.

13

14  APPEARANCES:

15
                     Sarah White
16                   Mary Jane O'Donnell
                     Jane Dolan
17

18

19

20
                        Elzbieta Kozlowski, RPR
21                  Registered Professional Reporter

22

23          NIZIANKIEWICZ & MILLER REPORTING SERVICES
                        972 TOLLAND STREET
24            EAST HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT  06108-1533
                         (860) 291-9191
25
-------
 1            MS.  O'DONNELL:   Well seeing there aren't any





 2       other questions,  I guess I'd like to open the





 3       formal part of the hearing to see if there are any





 4       formal questions  people would like to make for thee





 5       record





 6            I know that  Liz has been transcribing,  but





 7       she's going to continue transcribing the formal





 8       questions that people want to add.





 9            Seeing that  there aren't any, we appreciate





10       your coming here  tonight --





11            GAIL COLLINS:  I guess I have one.





12            MS.  O'DONNELL:   If you could just state your





13       name.





14            GAIL COLLINS:  Gail Collins, representing





15       Cheshire Land Trust.  I'm here primarily because





16       we were notified, and we do have property at that





17       intersection of Nodder Drive and West Johnson





18       Avenue, and so I  am phrasing my comment as a





19       question which is simply raising the possibility,





20       is there not a possibility that further





21       contamination be  present at this site and if so,





22       how would we learn about it.





23            MS.  O'DONNELL:   Any other questions or





24       comments?  Seeing that there aren't any, we thank





25       you all for coming tonight.  We appreciate it.
-------
 1       We'll be here as long as people want to talk to





 2       us.   So please feel free to stay if you like.





 3       We'd be more than happy to answer any questions





 4       that you might have.   Thank you again.




 5





 6





 7
 9





10





11





12




13





14





15





16





17




18





19





20





21




22





23





24





25
-------
 1

 2                                 CERTIFICATION

 3

 4

 5                I,  Elzbieta Kozlowski,  RPR,  Notary

 6      Public within and for the State of Connecticut,  do

 7      hereby certify that the testimony was

 8      stenographically reported by me and subsequently

 9      transcribed as thereinbefore appears.

10                I further certify that I am not related

11      to the parties hereunto or their counsel and that

12      I am not in any way interested in the  event of

13      said cause.

14                Witness my hand and seal as  a Notary

15      Public this 6th day of November,  1996,  a Plainville,

16      Connecticut.

17

18

19                                 ELZBIETA KOZLOWSKI, RPR
                                   NOTARY PUBLIC
20

21      My commission expires:  August 31, 1999

22

23

24

25
-------
                                 APPENDIX E


                          RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

               CHESHIRE GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION SUPERFUND SITE

                                DECEMBER 1996


                               TABLE OF CONTENTS


I      THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

II     BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS

       SITE HISTORY

       HISTORY OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

III    SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND EPA RESPONSES

       ATTACHMENTS

  A    WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC

  B    COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON OCTOBER 24, 1996

                            PREFACE

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a 30-day public comment period from October 21, 1996
through November 20, 1996 to solicit comments on EPA's Proposed Plan for the Cheshire Ground Water
Contamination Site  (the "site")  in Cheshire, Connecticut.  In the Proposed Plan, issued on October 10,
1996, EPA announced a preference for No Action at the site.  A collection of all documents used by EPA in
choosing this alternative were made available for review at the EPA Records Center at 90 Canal Street in
Boston, and at the Cheshire Public Library at 104 Main Street in Cheshire, Connecticut.  These documents
are known collectively as the Administrative Record.

The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to document EPA's responses to the guestions and comments
raised during the public comment period.  EPA considered all of the comments summarized in this document
prior to its decision on this action.

This Responsiveness Summary is organized into the following sections:

Section I - No Action Alternative - This section explains the criteria used by EPA to select the No
Action alternative.

Section II - Site History and Background on Community Involvement and Concerns - This section provides a
brief history of the site an overview of community interests and concerns regarding the site.

Section III - Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period And EPA Responses - This
section summarizes and provides EPA's responses to the verbal and written comments received from the
public during the comment period.

In addition, two attachments are included with this Responsiveness Summary.
Attachment A contains the written comments submitted by the public.  Attachment B contains a copy of the
transcript from the public meeting held on October 24, 1996 in Cheshire, Connecticut.  All comments
submitted during the comment period have been added to the Administrative Record.

I THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

A No Action preferred alternative is being selected by EPA due to the low levels of contaminants detected
on-site and the results of the human health and ecological risk assessment.  EPA proposes that no further
cleanup under CERCLA at the Cheshire Ground Water Contamination site is needed because:
-------
     1.  Contaminated soil was removed from the site in 1984;

     2.  Recent monitoring found that contaminant levels in the groundwater are decreasing through
         natural degradation processes;

     3.  The site does not pose an unacceptable current or potential threat to human health or the
         environment.

Exposures resulting in cancer risk within the range of approximately one in ten thousand to one in a
million  (1 x 10 -4 to 1 x 10 -6)  are considered acceptable cancer risks by EPA.  EPA selected the No
Action alternative primarily because the cancer risks associated with exposure to contaminated
groundwater, soil, surface water and sediment are not greater than 10-4.   (The carcinogenic risk
associated with a future residential ingestion of ground water scenario is 4.3 x 10 -4.  The risk is
attributable to one contaminant,  arsenic.  The risk attributable to other compounds is at or below the
lower end of the acceptable risk range (i.e., 10 -6).  Although the risk associated with arsenic is at
the upper end of the acceptable risk range (i.e., 10 -4),  the contaminant is at levels below the levels
established as safe in the Safe Drinking Water Act.)  EPA also concluded that non-cancer adverse health
effects were not likely at this site.  In addition, no environmental risks are currently occurring as a
result of site contamination.

II   BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS

SITE HISTORY

The Cheshire Ground Water Contamination site, located in the northwestern corner of Cheshire, New Haven
County, Connecticut, includes the industrial property at 604 West Johnson Avenue where disposal of waste
material was conducted and, in addition,  those places where waste material emanating from the property
has come to be located in the groundwater.  The Site is immediately bounded by vacant land to the east,
industrial property to the south, and Knotter Drive and Route 691 to the west and north, respectively.

The Site is primarily occupied by an industrial building at 604 West Johnson Avenue. Immediately
surrounding the approximately 70,000 ft 2 building are paved parking areas to the south, west and north.
Two ponds are located on the property.  A single-family residence and a manufacturer of stainless steel
medical needles are located immediately south of the 604 West Johnson Avenue property across West Johnson
Avenue.

Residences and businesses within the immediate vicinity of the site receive, public water from the South
Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority  (SCCRWA).   The SCCRWA operates a cluster a five
public-supply wells at the North Cheshire Well Field about 2 miles southeast of the Site.

For an undetermined period of time prior to 1966 the Site was used for agricultural purposes The property
was developed in 1966 and has been leased to manufacturers of custom injection molding and
electro-mechanical and electronic devices until 1995.

Initial investigation of the property in 1980 indicated a petrochemical odor and oil and grease in
monitoring wells installed onsite and a sheen around the edges of the large pond and in water seeping
from the pond banks.  Additional test holes installed to guantify the distribution of petrochemicals
onsite indicated the highest levels of hydrocarbon contamination near the northwest corner of the
building.  Low levels of volatile organic and extractable organic compounds were also detected in water
samples.  Twenty cubic yards of volatile organic- and oil-contaminated soil was excavated from two areas
on the property in October 1983.

EPA involvement with the Site commenced in 1985 after the Site was identified through a review of
background information for another property in Cheshire.  EPA sampled ground water, subsurface soils,
surface water, and sediment on the 604 West Johnson Avenue property, and ground water from two
residential drinking water wells, in support of a Site Inspection of the property completed in 1986.  In
1990, the Site was placed on EPAs National Priorities List  (NPL)  of hazardous waste sites, making it
eligible for federal funding for investigation and cleanup.  The Site was defined as a plume of
contamination from an unknown source detected in wells on property located at 604 West Johnson Avenue and
in a nearby residential well.

Several sampling events and a geohydrologic study were conducted by EPA over 1994-1996 at the site in an
effort to determine whether significant levels of contamination still existed in the soils, sediments,
surface water and ground water.  The results of these sampling events led to the initiation and
subseguent completion of EPA's remedial studies in 1996.
-------
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS

EPA's community relations program for the Cheshire Ground Water Contamination site began in 1992, which
coincided with the start of site investigations being conducted by EPA.

The community relations program for the site has included community interviews,  the dissemination and
sharing of analytical data, the preparation of a fact sheet, and a comment period during which the public
was invited to review and comment on the Proposed Plan.  EPA has also maintained information repositories
at the EPA regional office in Boston, MA and the Cheshire Public Library in Cheshire, CT to provide easy
access to reports and other documents pertaining to the site.  Community involvement in recent years has
been relatively low.  Approximately 12 people, including local officials, and a representative from
Congressman Franks' office, attended the public information session and meeting on October 24, 1996.

Ill  SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND EPA RESPONSES

This Responsiveness Summary addresses comments received by EPA during the public comment period  (October
21 to November 20, 1996).  One individual offered verbal comments at the public meeting on October 24,
1996.  Written comments were received from two individuals, and the State of Connecticut.

Comment 1:  A representative of the Cheshire Land Trust (with property in close proximity to the site)
raised the possibility that further contamination could be present at the site and, if so, guestioned how
they would be made aware of the contamination.

EPA Response:  Low levels of contamination remain in the ground water at the 604 West Johnson Avenue
property, however, EPA's comprehensive investigation of the site reveal that the levels pose no
unacceptable threat to public health or the environment.  The site remains eligible for Fund-financed
remedial actions if conditions at the site warrant such action.  Records of contamination at other
locations within the Cheshire Industrial Park exist and are available for public review at the EPA
Records Center at 90 Canal Street in Boston, MA and at the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection's office at 79 Elm Street in Hartford, CT.

Comment 2:  An individual commented that they are the owner of property near this site which has shown
"background levels" of contamination.  They guestioned whether it is possible that contamination migrated
onto their property from the site.

EPA Response:  The Cheshire Ground Water Contamination site is limited to contaminated soil, surface
water and sediment on the industrial property at 604 West Johnson Avenue where disposal of waste material
was conducted and, in addition, those places where waste material emanating from the property has come to
be located in the ground water.  The ground water at the site is downgradient (downhill)  from the
commenter's property and would not have affected that property.

Comment 3:  The Vice President of Sima Drilling Co., Inc.  asked that all monitor wells that are no longer
needed by properly abandoned.

EPA Response:  All monitor wells that are no longer needed will be properly abandoned following State and
local reguirements.

Comment 4:  The State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) commented that the
State supports EPA' s recommendation that no remedial action under CERCLA is warranted.  Any additional
action which may be reguired in the future to satisfy State reguirements can be addressed under State
authority.

EPA Response:  No response necessary.  However, EPA would like to acknowledge the assistance and
cooperation of the CTDEP throughout the investigation.
-------
             Attachment A





Attachment A - Intentionally Omitted
-------
                              Attachment B

 1

 2

 3

 4                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HEARING

 5

 6                  TOPIC:  Contamination sites in Cheshire

 7

 8

 9                     Held at:  Cheshire Town Hall

10                               84 South Main Street

11                               Cheshire, Connecticut

12                     On:       October 24, 1996, 7 p.m.

13

14  APPEARANCES:

15
                            Sarah White
16                          Mary Jane O'Donnell
                            Jane Dolan
17

18

19

20
                              Elzbieta Kozlowski, RPR
21                        Registered Professional Reporter

22

23                    NIZIANKIEWICZ & MILLER REPORTING SERVICES
                                  972 TOLLAND STREET
24                      EAST HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT  06108-1533
                                   (860) 291-9191
25
-------
 1           MS.  O'DONNELL:   Well seeing there aren't any





 2      other questions,  I guess I'd like to open the





 3      formal part of the hearing to see if there are any





 4      formal questions  people would like to make for the





 5      record.





 6           I know that  Liz has been transcribing,  but





 7      she's going to continue transcribing the formal





 8      questions that people want to add.





 9           Seeing that  there aren't any, we appreciate





10      your coming here  tonight —





11           GAIL COLLINS:  I guess I have one.





12           MS.  O'DONNELL:   If you could just state your





13      name.





14           GAIL COLLINS:  Gail Collins, representing





15      Cheshire Land Trust.  I'm here primarily because





16      we were notified,  and we do have property at that





17      intersection of Nodder Drive and West Johnson





18      Avenue, and so I  am phrasing my comment as a





19      question which is simply raising the possibility,





20      is there not a possibility that further





21      contamination be  present at this site and if so,





22      how would we learn about it.





23           MS.  O'DONNELL:   Any other questions or





24      comments?  Seeing that there aren't any, we thank





25      you all for coming tonight.  We appreciate it.
-------
 1      We'll be here as long as people want to talk to





 2      us.   So please feel free to stay if you like.





 3      We'd be more than happy to answer any questions





 4      that you might have.   Thank you again.




 5





 6





 7
 9





10





11





12




13





14





15





16





17




18





19





20





21




22





23





24





25
-------
 1

 2                                 CERTIFICATION

 3

 4

 5                I,  Elzbieta Kozlowski,  RPR,  Notary

 6      Public within and for the State of Connecticut,  do

 7      hereby certify that the testimony was

 8      stenographically reported by me and subsequently

 9      transcribed as thereinbefore appears.

10                I further certify that I am not related

11      to the parties hereunto or their counsel and that

12      I am not in any way interested in the  event of

13      said cause.

14                Witness my hand and seal as  a Notary

15      Public this 6th day of November,  1996,  a Plainville,

16      Connecticut.

17

18

19                                 ELZBIETA KOZLOWSKI, RPR
                                   NOTARY PUBLIC
20

21      My commission expires:  August 31, 1999

22

23

24

25
-------