SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
YAWORSKI W ASTE LAGOON SUPERFUND SITE
TOWN OF CANTERBURY
WINDHAM COUNTY, CONNECTICUT
£
<
30
O
\
pro"^°
T>
z
UJ
O
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
Boston, Massachusetts
Digitally signed by Olson,
Olson, Bryan D^e;2023.09.2608:13:14
-04'00'
Bryan Olson, Division Director Date
Superfund and Emergency Management Division
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
YAWORSKI WASTE LAGOON SUPERFUND SITE
TOWN OF CANTERBURY
WINDHAM COUNTY, CONNECTICUT
SECTION PAGE
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Site Background 1
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 4
Basis for Taking Action 4
Response Actions 4
Status of Implementation 6
Institutional Controls Summary 9
Systems Operation/Operations and Maintenance 10
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW 11
IV. FIVE YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 12
Community Notification and Involvement 12
Data Review 13
Site Inspection 17
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 17
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 17
Remedial Action Performance 17
Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures 18
Question B: Are the Exposure Assumptions, Toxicity Data, Cleanup Levels, and
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) Used at the Time of the Remedy Selection
Still Valid? 18
Changes in Standards and To Be Considered (TBCs) 19
Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics 20
Changes in Risk Assessment Methods 22
Changes in Exposure Pathways 23
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiv eness of the remedy? 23
VI. ISSU ES/RECOM M EN DATIONS 24
Other Findings: 24
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 25
VIII. NEXT REVIEW 25
-------
TABLES
NUMBER
1 Sludge Contaminants
2 Summary of Planned and Implemented Institutional Controls
3 Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2018 FYR
4 Status of Recommendations from the 2018 FYR
5 Exceedances of ACLs and Trigger Values: May 2018 - October 2022
6 Exceedances of MCLs for Wells Across the River: May 2018 - October 2022
7 PFAS Sampling Results
8 Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review
APPENDICES
A Reference List
B Chronology of Site Events
C Figures
D Groundwater Data
E Site Inspection Checklist
F EPA Five-Year Review Press Release
G Alternate Concentration Limits and Trigger Values
H Community Interviews
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREV IATIONS
ACL Alternate Concentration Limit
ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
CD Consent Decree
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMR Compliance Monitoring Report
CT AG Connecticut Office of the Attorney General
CT DEEP Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection
CT DEP Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
ELIJR Connecticut Environmental Land Use Restriction
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ER-L Effects Range-Low, a sediment benchmark
ER-M Effects Range-Medium, a sediment benchmark
GW Groundwater
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment
MCLs Maximum Contaminant Levels
M&E EPA contractor Met calf & Eddy
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operation & Maintenance
OU Operable Unit
PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCL Protective Concentration Limit
PFOA Pert!uorooctanoic Acid
PFOS Perfluorooctane Sulfate
PFBS Perfluorobutane Sulfonate
POC Point of Compliance
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
ppt parts per trillion
PPRTV Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RAOs Remedial Action Objectives
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
RSRs Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations
SLERA Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment
SWRAU Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use
TOC Total Organic Carbon
UU/UE Unlimited Use and Unrestricted Exposure
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
iii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance
of the remedy for the Yaworski Waste Lagoon Superfund Site in order to determine if the
remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods,
findings and conclusions of this review are documented in this FYR report. In addition, this
report identifies issues found during the review, if any, and documents recommendations to
address them.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this five-year review
pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Section 121, consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)) and considering EPA policy.
This is the sixth FYR for the Yaworski Waste Lagoon Superfund Site. The triggering action for
this statutory review is the signature date of the previous FYR, September 1, 2018. The Site
consists of one operable unit which will be addressed in this FYR. This FYR has been prepared
because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).
The Yaworski Waste Lagoon Superfund Site FYR was led by EPA Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs) Ronald Jennings and Benjamin Kuhaneck. Participants included Sarah Meeks, EPA
Senior Enforcement Counsel; Ayana Cunningham and Courtney Carroll, EPA Risk Assessors;
Aaron Shaheen, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator; and Anthony Allevo from the
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP). The review began
on December 19, 2022.
Site Background
The Yaworski Waste Lagoon Superfund Site ("the Site") is located on approximately 5 acres of
land between Route 169 and Packer Road in the Town of Canterbury, Windham County,
Connecticut. The Site is bordered by the Quinebaug River on the north, west, and south, and by
the State-regulated Packer Road (Yaworski) Landfill to the east. The lagoon is located within a
meander loop on the floodplain of the Quinebaug River. See Figure 1 below.
Land and Resource Use
The Site is a dewatered, backfilled, and capped lagoon measuring approximately 700 feet by 300
feet. Open fields that were once used for the production of corn silage are to the east and south
of the lagoon. Approximately 2,000 feet southeast of the lagoon is the State-regulated Packer
Road (Yaworski) Landfill (EPA ID Number CTD981204431). Wetland and wet areas are
located along the riverbank south of the lagoon.
The current land use immediately adjacent to the Site is undeveloped. Beyond this across the
Quinebaug River, the land use is predominantly residential (See Appendix C, Figure 1). The
Quinebaug River is used for recreational purposes, such as canoeing. A former, unpermitted
transfer station is located adjacent to the Packer Road (Yaworski) landfill.
1
-------
History of Contamination
Between 1950 and 1973, industrial wastes including solvents, paints, textile dyes, acids, resins,
and various other debris, were disposed of in the lagoon. Flammable waste was periodically
burned at the Site until 1965 when the Connecticut Department of Health ordered a halt to waste
burning activities. The combined efforts of local residents, as well as state and local officials,
led to the end of all disposal activities in 1973.
Table 1: Five-Year Review Summary Form
sni: idi:m ii ic a i ion
Site Name:
Yaworski Waste Lagoon Superfund Site
EPA ID:
CTD009774969
Region: 1
State: CT City/County: Canterbury/Windham
sn i: S I A I I S
NFL Status: Final
Multiple OUs?
No
Lead agency: EPA
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Ronald Jennings
Author affiliation: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Review period: 9/2/2018 - 9/1/2023
Date of site inspection: 3/30/2023
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 6
Triggering action date: 9/1/2018
Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 9/1/2023
Has the site achieved construction completion?
Yes
RKYIEW S I A 11 S
2
-------
-------
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
EPA performed the Remedial Investigation (RI), completed in April 1986, which concluded that
several areas needed further study before a cleanup decision could be made. EPA performed a
Supplemental RI and Feasibility Study in 1987 and 1988. The lagoon was found to contain
approximately 65,000 cubic yards of highly contaminated sludge, a mixture of water, dirt,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-VOCs, and heavy metals. Organic compounds
included 2-butanone, toluene, total xylenes, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Heavy metals
included arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury. Further, the sludge was covered by an
additional 60,000 cubic yards of contaminated debris, consisting of dirt, rags, trash, and
construction materials saturated with contaminated water perched above the sludge.
EPA performed a public health and environmental risk evaluation as part of the supplemental RI
which concluded that potential threats to human health and the environment could primarily
occur via physical contact with wastes, exposure to contaminated soils, sediments, and
groundwater, and discharge of contaminants to surface water, sediments, and the nearby wetland.
Dermal contact with contaminated leachate and sediments posed an incremental lifetime cancer
risk, and although contaminated groundwater was not being consumed at the time, ingestion of
groundwater would result in risks that exceed EPA's cancer risks target and exceed acceptable
reference doses for exposure to non-carcinogens. Concentrations of heavy metals in the wetland,
as a result of leachate which flowed from the lagoon, and erosion of contaminated sediments also
exceeded chronic and acute Ambient Water Quality Criteria and ecotoxicity criteria.
Contaminants of concern (COCs) were not specifically identified during the risk evaluation.
However, to protect the Quinebaug River from the potential discharge of contaminated
groundwater containing various site contaminants, the Record of Decision (ROD) required the
development of a groundwater protection standard, an alternate concentration limit ( ACL), for
each contaminant found at the Site that EPA determined to be representative of the most toxic,
mobile, and persistent chemicals found in groundwater. See the discussion on ACL development
in the "Response Actions" section.
Response Actions
Initial Response
In 1976, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP - now known as the
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP)), ordered the Site
owner, James Yaworski, Sr., to assess the environmental hazard posed by the Site. The order
required Mr. Yaworski to install monitoring wells adjacent to the lagoon which subsequently
identified groundwater contamination. In 1980, the CT DEP ordered Mr. Yaworski to employ a
professional engineering firm to conduct an environmental study of the property. The firm
concluded that most of the contaminants had migrated from the abandoned lagoon and
recommended capping the area. Subsequently, in 1982, Mr. Yaworski covered the Site with
paper, rags, rubble, and soil.
After a fire occurred at the Site in 1982, EPA determined that additional information was needed
to assess the potential threat to human health and the environment. EPA proposed the Site to the
4
-------
National Priorities List (NPL) on December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58476) and added it to the final list
on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658).
Remedy Selection
On September 29, 1988, EPA signed a ROD, with which the State of Connecticut concurred. The
remedial action objectives (referred to in the ROD as response objectives) included measures to
mitigate existing and future threats to public health and the environment. These objectives
included:
• Minimize exposure to contaminated groundwater;
• Ensure that contamination from the lagoon does not adversely impact the Quinebaug River;
• Protect environmental receptors in the wetlands;
• Minimize exposure to contaminated leachate seeps; and
• Attain Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs).
As outlined in the ROD, the selected remedy for the Site included:
• Construction of a permanent, multi-layer cap over the lagoon, including reinforcement of
the earthen dike surrounding the lagoon;
• Establishing Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs) as the groundwater protection
standard;
• Restriction of groundwater use both within the meander bend of the river and on three
properties located across the river from the Site; and
• Compliance monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and sediment for an estimated
period of 30 years.
The ROD required the development of ACLs to protect the Quinebaug River from potential
groundwater impacts from the various site contaminants. If ACLs were exceeded, or if certain
other conditions were not met, the ROD required the development of a corrective action
contingency plan which could include the installation and operation of a groundwater extraction
and treatment system or other necessary action. The other conditions that must be maintained,
and restored, if necessary, are outlined in the ROD as follows:
1. ACLs shall not be exceeded at the (point of compliance) POC monitoring wells (Well
clusters B, C, and G) located immediately adjacent to the lagoon (see Appendix C, Figure
2).
2. At the point of exposure (the Quinebaug River), the concentration of hazardous
constituents shall not pose a risk to human health and the environment.
3. Groundwater use restrictions shall be maintained to ensure:
a. that groundwater within the meander is not consumed; and
b. the Quinebaug River continues to serve as a hydraulic barrier to contaminated
groundwater. (This condition is evaluated by ensuring that MCLs are not
exceeded in groundwater monitoring wells located across the river from the
lagoon.)
4. The Quinebaug River shall not be adversely impacted by the discharge of contaminants
from the lagoon.
5
-------
Enforcement Actions
An initial Consent Decree (CD) to design, construct, and operate the remedy, as well as to
provide for response costs, was signed with 1 1 Settling Defendants and entered in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut on February 26, 1990. The 1 1 Settling Defendants
were Pervel Industries, Inc. ("Pervel"), generator of over 90% of the waste disposed in the
lagoon; three settling parties that can collectively be referred to as the Yaworskis,
owner/operators of the lagoon; five small generators, who collectively disposed of less than 3%
of the waste in the lagoon; and two companies which are now bankrupt or defunct. The CD
designated Pervel as responsible for performance of all work, and provided that the remaining
parties would be liable for the work should Pervel become unable to perform.
In late October 1993, after completion of lagoon cap and initiation of other work requirements,
Pervel notified EPA that it was financially unable to perform the remaining work at the site and
subsequently ceased ongoing site work. In accordance with the CD, EPA notified the remaining
parties (the five small generators and the Yaworskis) that Pervel was unable to perform and that
they were responsible for performing the remainder of the work at the site.
Subsequently, EPA and the five low volume generators entered into an agreement resolving their
liabilities under the 1990 CD for the remaining work at the site, for payment of a sum certain.
That agreement, memorialized in a Consent Agreement, was entered in court in July 1996, and
resulted in a financial settlement of $3 10,903, plus interest, which was placed in a site-specific
Special Account.
The Yaworskis continued to conduct quarterly compliance monitoring after Pervel ceased site
work. However, in October of 1996, the Yaworskis notified EPA that they could no longer
continue financing any cleanup activities at the site and all PRP site work ended.
EPA formally notified the Yaworskis and the other Settling Defendants in December 1996 of
EPA takeover utilizing federal funds for all site work, except for O&M of the lagoon cap, which
the State of Connecticut agreed to perform.
On December 2, 1996, the United States filed a complaint against Pervel and its parent company,
the Bern is Company ("Betnis"). After protracted litigation, the parties entered into mediation
and achieved a settlement resulting in a final cash-out of three million dollars ($3,000,000), to be
placed in a site-specific Special Account to be used, as necessary, for future response action at or
near the site. The CD formalizing this settlement was entered in court on August 11, 2000.
On April 7, 1999, the United States filed a complaint against the Yaworskis regarding
completion of work at the Site, among other issues. On August 2, 2000 (revoked and reentered
on September 25, 2000) the EPA lodged a Consent Decree with the Yaworskis requiring
payment of response costs ($1,425,000) and to execute and record in the land records an
easement granting EPA access and the right to enforce land and water use restrictions.
Status of Implementation
Completion of the permanent, multi-layer cap over the lagoon and reinforcement of the earthen
dike surrounding the lagoon was approved by EPA in the final Remedial Construction Report on
6
-------
March 31, 1992. Monthly inspections and ongoing maintenance were performed by the Pervel
and the Yaworskis from 1992 through December of 1996. During that time the development of
the ACLs was initiated in conjunction with a compliance monitoring program to sample
groundwater, surface water, and sediment. Protective Concentration Limits (PCLs) for surface
water, sediment, and porewater (within the Quinebaug River) were developed to protect against
ecologically sensitive receptors becoming potentially exposed.
In December of 1996, EPA and the State of Connecticut took over all work at the Site; EPA
performed further response work including ACL development and the State of Connecticut
assumed operations and maintenance (O&M) of the lagoon cap, dike, and fencing.
In September 2000, EPA established groundwater ACLs for 3 1 different contaminants at three
POC well clusters, each having a shallow, intermediate, and deep well, totaling 279 individual
ACLs (see Appendix G). Each ACL established a maximum concentration for each substance
that could exist in groundwater at each POC well without endangering human health or the
environment. The groundwater monitoring program was then modified to monitor for ACL
exceedances at the POC well locations. In addition, sediment sampling was tailored to monitor
for fewer compounds and was also limited to an annual event (PAHs and certain metals) and
surface water sampling was reduced to once every 5 years (certain metals only). In 2004, based
on historic sampling results, EPA eliminated surface water monitoring.
In 2009, a trend analysis of the contaminants in groundwater samples collected from the three
POC wells between 2004 and 2008 was conducted. Additional sediment sampling was
conducted upstream of the Site to evaluate the contribution of contaminants from upstream
sources. This review and sampling concluded that there was no evidence of groundwater
discharge from the Site to the river at concentrations that could adversely affect the quality of the
sediments in the Quinebaug River. Because of this, EPA eliminated routine monitoring of
sediment and refined the strategy for monitoring potential ecological impacts to the river. The
revised strategy focused on reviewing groundwater monitoring well data instead of sediments
based on the assumption that the only likely mechanism of transport for contaminants to
ecological receptors was via groundwater to surface water discharge. The strategy was based on
the premise that ACL exceedences in groundwater up to that point in time had not impacted the
river, and that future monitoring should focus on significant changes in groundwater
concentrations as an indicator that further study within the river might be needed.
Because ACL exceedences had not resulted in significant ecological risks, EPA developed
groundwater "trigger values" for 26 constituents consisting of nine VOCs, four SVOCs, and 13
inorganics, based on their presence in groundwater samples collected between 2004 and 2008 at
the three POC wells (See Appendix G). These groundwater trigger values were statistically
derived to serve as indicators of potential increases in contaminant concentrations such that
groundwater discharge to the Quinebaug River could potentially pose an unacceptable ecological
risk.
After deriving the trigger values, EPA developed criteria to evaluate the number of times an
analyte of concern in a POC well could exceed its trigger value before it would become
necessary to evaluate the need for sediment sampling in the Quinebaug River. The 2009
sediment sampling demonstrated that exceeding a groundwater trigger value intermittently was
7
-------
not a concern by itself since the occasional observed historical exceedances in POC wells had
not created sediment issues in the Quinebaug River over 15 years of monitoring. The analytical
data from the three POC wells sampled between 2004 and 2008 also showed that relatively large
variations in the concentrations of analytes of concern could occur across sampling depths at the
same location, as well as over time from the same well and depth. Therefore, EPA determined
that further evaluations of sediments might be needed only if the trigger value for one or more of
the analytes of concern were exceeded (a) at least three times during one sampling event across
different sampling depths and/or POC wells', or (b) in the same POC well and sampling depth
over three consecutive sampling events. When a trigger value is exceeded at or above this
frequency, it does not directly indicate an unacceptable ecological risk, but may indicate a need
for further evaluation to confirm that the remedy remains protective. This strategy is still in
place to determine potential impacts to the Quinebaug River.
Groundwater data reviewed for the 2013 five-year review found cadmium, lead, and selenium
exceedances above trigger values that met the criteria for further evaluation. However, further
review of the data determined that all of the exceedences were from a 2012 sampling round
which had used a new laboratory for analysis and results were determined to be biased high.
Because of this, no further action was taken. More recent groundwater data reviewed for the
2018 FYR observed lead concentrations again above trigger values which also met the criteria
for further evaluation.
Based on the 2018 lead levels, EPA Region 1 performed temperature profiling in July 2022 to
determine discharge locations where groundwater was likely entering the Quinebaug River.
Subsequently, nine porewater samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs without any
detections observed. In October 2022, 25 additional porewater samples were collected (sample
locations were again based on the areas thought to be points of groundwater discharge to surface
water based on temperature gradients) and analyzed for VOCs and metals. No VOCs were
detected; however, lead was detected at two locations (46 and 33 |ig/L) and chromium was also
detected at two additional locations (100 and 120 |ig/L). EPA's sampling protocol (i.e., site-
specific Sampling and Analysis Plan) did not require that porewater samples be filtered and, as a
result, the unfiltered porewater sample results were not representative of dissolved metals in
porewater. Dissolved metals are the most bioavailable and the most appropriate for determining
ecological risks. Additional sampling at these four locations with analysis of filtered porewater
samples should be conducted to assess ecological risk more accurately within the Quinebaug
River.
1 The criteria for exceeding a trigger value at least three times during one sampling event across different sampling
depths and/or POC wells would be met by:
a) exceeding a trigger value in a single POC well cluster at all depths or
b) exceeding a trigger value in all three POC wells, at any combination of depths or
c) exceeding a trigger value in any combination of three (or less) POC wells in any combination of depths.
8
-------
Institutional Controls Summary
As described in the ROD, groundwater use restrictions are required at properties within the
meander bend and at residential properties located within 100 feet from the river to the north,
west, and south (see Appendix C, Figure 1). An additional restriction, south of the Site—along
the Quinebaug River valley, is to prevent any production wells with a pumping rate greater than
50 gallons per minute within 1500 feet of the Site.
Properties within the meander:
Yaworski Waste Lagoon NPL parcel (Tract 3/Parcel 62-34): An ELUR was recorded on
September 2, 2020, with the Town of Canterbury Connecticut at Volume 261 Page 736 and
738. The ELUR restricts disturbance of soils within the former waste disposal area and
restricts actions that would interfere with the remedy and extraction/use of groundwater
within the entire parcel. See Appendix C, Figures 3 and 7.
Quinebaug Valley Regional Resources, LLC parcel (Appendix C, Figure 8, portion of
Track 2/Parcel 62-12A): A Notice of Environmental Contamination ("Deed Notice") was
placed on the deed to the parcel on September 2, 2020, with the Town of Canterbury
Connecticut at Volume 261 Page 753. The Deed Notice applied only to the portion of the
parcel that is not within the Packer Road (Yaworski) Landfill. The Deed Notice stated that
use of that portion of the parcel in a way that adversely impacted the remedial action and
extraction/use of groundwater could increase risk of exposure to contamination and lead to a
threat to human health and/or the environment.
Residential properties: See Table 2 below.
A summary of the ICs for each of the parcels is included in Table 2 below.
Table 2 - Summary of Implemented Institutional Controls
Media,
engineered
controls, and
areas that do not
support IJIJ/UE
based on current
conditions
ICs
Needed
ICs Called for
in the Decision
Documents
Impacted
Parcel(s)
IC
Objective
Title of IC
Instrument
Implemented
and Date (or
planned)
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
Map 54, lot 3
Restrict installation of
wells and access to GW
near river; protective 100
feet radius around
monitoring wells
ELUR. Vol
212, Pg 0471
January 4,
2011
9
-------
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
Map 54, lot 4
Restrict installation of
wells and access to GW
near river; protective 25
feet radius around
monitoring wells
ELIJR. Vol
210, Pg 0014
August 10,
2010
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
Map 54, lot 5
Restrict installation of
wells and access to GW
near river; limit
extraction of GW to 50
gpm for existing well;
protective 100 feet radius
around monitoring wells
ELIJR. Vol
209, Pg 0652
Aug. 10, 2010
Access
Yes
Yes
Map 54, lot 6
Provide access for
monitoring and site
investigations
Easement for
Grant of
Access. Vol.
210 pages 1-
13, Land
Records.
Town of
Canterbury.
CT August 10,
2010
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
Map 62, lot 34
(Tract 3)
Restrict disturbance of
soils within the lagoon
area, actions that interfere
with remedy, and
extraction/use of
groundwater.
ELUR. Vol
261 Pg.0738
Sept. 2, 2020
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
Portion of Map
62, lot 12A
(Tract 2)
Notice on property deed
that the use of the parcel
that adversely impacts the
remedy and that
extraction/use of
groundwater could
increase risk of exposure
to contamination and lead
to a threat to human
health and/or the
environment.
Deed Notice,
Vol 261. Pg.
0753 Sept. 2,
2020
Systems Operation/Operations and Maintenance
Remedy operations and monitoring began in March 1993, following approval of the Compliance
Monitoring Plan. Monitoring initially included sampling both surface water and sediments but
surface water was discontinued in 2004 and sediment monitoring was discontinued in 2009.
10
-------
Groundwater was monitored quarterly through December 1999 then the frequency was reduced
to three times per year beginning in April 2000. In September 2014, the frequency was reduced
again to once every nine months. Beginning in August 2020, the groundwater monitoring
program was further reduced to a 15-month sampling frequency, which is the current status.
Compliance Monitoring Reports prepared by the CT DEEP and reviewed for this FYR included
groundwater sampling results from May 2018 through October 2022, which includes six separate
sampling events. An additional sampling event to collect porewater samples was conducted in
2022 by EPA and is discussed in the "Data Review" section below.
CTDEEP performs O&M activities for the lagoon cap that consist of annual inspections,
verification of IC compliance, mowing the vegetative cover, ensuring the site is adequately
secured, and conducting repairs as necessary to ensure the ongoing integrity of the lagoon cap.
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determinations & statements, and the recommendations
from the last five-year review as well as the current status of those recommendations. The
protectiveness determinations and recommendations for the Site from the fifth (2018) FYR are
listed in the tables below.
Table 3 - Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2018 FYR
OH#
Protectiveness
Determination
Protectiveness Statement
Sitewide
Short-term Protective
The remedy at the Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
currently protects human health and the environment in
the short-term because: 1) there is no current human
health exposure to contaminated groundwater originating
from the site. 2) threats to human health receptors within
the Quinebaug River from site-related contamination are
not significant, and 3) the lagoon cap continues to be an
effective barrier to exposure to contaminated waste by
human and ecological receptors, and CT DEEP
continues to perform O&M on the lagoon cap. In order
for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the
follow ing actions need to be taken: 1) the
implementation of institutional controls on three PRP-
ow ned properties within the meander, and 2) an
evaluation of groundw ater ACL exceedances and trigger
values in POC wells to ensure that ecological risks are
not exceeded in river sediment.
11
-------
Table 4 - Status of Recommendations from the 2018 FYR
ou#
Issue
Recom m en dat ion s
Current
Status
Current Implementation
Status Description
Completion
Date (if
applicable)
ICs have not been
completed for the
three PRP owned
(Yaworskis)
properties within
the meander of the
lagoon.
Finalize and document
institutional controls for
the three PRP owned
(Yaworskis) properties
within the meander of the
site.
Completed
An ELIJR was placed on one
of the three PRP owned
properties and a deed notice
was placed on a second PRP
owned property.
(ICs are not required by the
ROD on the third PRP
owned property and will be
addressed by CT DEEP).
Sept 2, 2020
Exceedances of
ACLs and trigger
values
Perform further
evaluation of groundwater
trends. ACLs. trigger
value criteria, and/or
perform necessary field
studies before the next
fivc-ycar review to
confirm that the remedy
remains protective of
ecological receptors in the
Quincbaug River.
Ongoing
Porewater (nonfiltered)
sampling in 2022 found
elevated lead in two
locations and elevated
chromium in another two
locations. Additional
sampling of these four
locations with analysis of
filtered porewater samples
should be conducted.
ongoing
In September 2020, EPA made a determination of Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use
(SWRAU) as all cleanup goals in the ROD for reasonably anticipated future land use had been
achieved and institutional controls had been put in place.
IV. FIVE YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Community Notification and Involvement
Per Region 1 policy, a region-wide press release announcing all upcoming five-year reviews in
New England was issued. The press release was sent on January 18, 2023, and is attached in
Appendix F. The results of the review and report will be made available online and at the EP A
Records Center:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100
Boston, MA 02109-3912
Both the town and state were sent emails asking for their opinion of the Yaworski Lagoon Site.
Melissa Gil, the first selectman for the town of Canterbury, stated that she was aware of the site
and felt that the town was kept informed of the site's status - although she could not speak on
behalf of any abutters. She stated that the site is listed as a future industrial zone.
12
-------
Tony Allevo, the CTDEEP project manager for the site, stated that he felt the remedy was
effective at protecting human health and the environment and that there had been no issues with
maintenance (groundwater monitoring and mowing). He stated that there has been
communication with one abutter regarding potential groundwater impacts. He felt that the
remedy was working well.
See responses to interview questions in Appendix H.
Data Review
Groundwater (GW) flow at the Site is evaluated in three areas; immediately adjacent to the
lagoon (POC wells), the adjacent to the Quinebaug River (on the lagoon side), and across the
Quinebaug River. The majority of the monitoring wells evaluate three hydraulic zones; shallow,
intermediate, and deep. Water level elevations are measured during each groundwater
monitoring event to evaluate groundwater flow direction and the potential for contaminant
migration. The most recent potentiometric surface elevations are shown on Figures 4, 5, and 6 in
Appendix C, and indicate groundwater flow direction within each hydraulic unit.
Site groundwater contaminants include VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. Tetrahydrofuran (THF) and
1,4-dioxane generally accounted for the largest portion of the VOCs concentration, followed by
chloroethane and xylenes. These four compounds continue to account for 90% or more of the
total VOCs detected. In general, analytical results from the most recent sampling event (October
2022) show VOCs continue to be detected most often and at elevated concentrations in samples
from POC wells Bi, Bd, Gs, and Cs (although not always above ACLs). VOCs were not
detected in wells Cd, Gi, Gd, and Ns.
As was found in the last five-year review, the distribution of chloroethane near the lagoon
indicates there is a shallow radial flow component from the lagoon to the west and south (wells
Gs and Bs, respectively). The plume then extends to the south through the shallow flow zone
(well Ds). Transport of chloroethane to the south side of the Quinebaug River (wells Ki and Kd)
was very limited in the intermediate and deep flow zone, which is likely due to the relatively
shallow flow in combination with upward gradients at the D cluster and under the Quinebaug
River. In general, compared to previous monitoring rounds, concentrations of chloroethane
decreased proximal and radial to the lagoon and increased distally.
The total xylene plume is located in shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the lagoon, extending
downward into the intermediate and deep flow zones south of the lagoon and then outward to the
south through the intermediate and deep flow zones. Historically, total xylene concentrations
increased with depth near the lagoon at well cluster B. However, during recent groundwater
sampling rounds, this trend has changed such that well Bi has had the greatest concentration,
suggesting that the plume is now migrating more through the intermediate flow zone than the
deep flow zone.
The more water soluble and less reactive compounds, 1,4-dioxane and THF, tend to persist and
travel further along the plume line. The distribution of 1,4-dioxane and THF suggests that the
source of the plume is located in the vicinity of the lagoon and that the plume extends
predominantly downward into the deep flow zone near the lagoon and then southward and
13
-------
upward, distally, through the intermediate groundwater flow zone. 1,4-Dioxane results show
radial flow to the west and northeast in the shallow and intermediate flow zones. Radial flow of
THF to the west and northeast is observed only in the shallow flow zone at elevated
concentrations, but not in the intermediate or deep flow zones.
Sampling conducted in October 2022 found that 1,4 dioxane was detected in all fifteen of the
wells sampled at concentrations up to 2,300 (.ig/L. Of those wells, no samples exceeded their
respective ACL. This is unlike trends found between August 2013-August 2017 where 1,4-
dioxane was above the ACL of 5,500 |ig/L in three of eight samples collected from Well Bd.
Over the last five years of groundwater monitoring (six sampling events) the ACL for 1,4
dioxane was not exceeded in any of the POC wells.
Groundwater monitoring over the last five years for chloroethane (six sampling events) detected
ACL exceedences at well Bd (4 of 6 samples). The most recent sampling in October 2022 found
chloroethane at 200 |ig/L which also exceeded the ACL (110 |ig/L) at POC well Bd. No other
contaminants exceeded their respective ACLs in 2022. These results compare to the 2018 FYR
where chloroethane also exceeded ACL concentrations at well Bd (7 of 8 samples) between
August 2013-August 2017.
The trigger value for aluminum was exceeded at well Bs (3 of 6 samples) and for nickel at well
Ci (1 of 6 samples). See Table 5 below.
Data from the most recent 5 years (2018-2022) did not identify any exceedences of trigger values
for lead. The previous five-year review (2013-2017) found that lead exceeded its trigger value at
least twice in all POC wells thus necessitating the collection of porewater samples in 2022.
Although groundwater sampling in the past five years only included lead as a parameter in four
of the six rounds, no indications of elevated lead levels were identified.
Table 5 - Exceedances of ACLs and Trigger Values in POC wells:
May 2018 - October 2022
Human Health and Ecological
Number of ACL Exceedances
Ecological Only
Number of Trigger Value Exceedances
Well
Chloroethane
1.4-dioxane
Aluminum
(110ug/L)
Lead
(1.62 Ug/L)
Nickel
(72 jig/L)
Bs
0/6 (2,600 ng/L)
0/6 (500 (ig/L)
3/6
0/4
0/6
Bi
0/6 (130 (ig/L)
0/6 (4,900 ng/L)
0/6
0/4
0/6
Bd
4/6 (110 |xg/L)
0/6 (5,500 (ig/L)
0/6
0/4
0/6
Cs
0/6 (1,600 ng/L)
0/6 (50,000 (ig/L)
0/6
0/4
0/6
Ci
0/6 (50 (ig/L)
0/6 (500 (ig/L)
0/6
0/4
1/6
Cd
0/6 (50 (ig/L)
0/6 (500 (ig/L)
0/6
0/4
0/6
Gs
0/6 (4,900 ng/L)
0/6 (4,600 ng/L)
0/6
0/4
0/6
Gi
0/6 (50 ng/L)
0/6 (500 (ig/L)
0/6
0/4
0/6
Gd
0/6 (50|ig/L)
0/6 (500 (ig/L)
0/6
0/4
0/6
Notes:
1 - ACLs are contaminant and location specific. Each well's ACL is in parentheses next to the number of exceedances in that
well.
2 - Ecological trigger values are contaminant specific (i.e., do not vary by well depth)
3 - Lead was not analyzed in the February 2019 and November 2019 sampling rounds.
14
-------
Over the past 5 years, TCE, which is not site related, was found consistently at wells Ki and Kd,
located across the river from the Packer Road (Yaworski) Landfill. Cis-1,2-DCE was also
routinely found at week Ki. Although cis-l,2-DCE is site related, it was not detected in any of
the three POC wells. The presence of cis-l,2-DCE at the K wells may be a TCE degradation
product and not site-related. Future investigations should include whether there are reductive
dechlorination (anaerobic) conditions present in the K, L and M well clusters. See Table 6
below.
Well clusters K, L, and M, located southeast of the lagoon, likely reflect contamination from the
State-regulated Packer Road (Yaworski) Landfill. EPA continues to evaluate sampling results
and overall site conditions and discusses exceedances and the evaluation of these exceedances
with CT DEEP.
As for metals, as was found in the previous FYR, well cluster N, located across the river,
continued to have frequent MCL exceedances of aluminum, iron, and manganese in the shallow,
intermediate, and deep zones. MCL exceedences of these constituents were also found in
background well cluster H, located upgradient of the lagoon.
Table 6 - Exceedances of MCLs for
Wells Across the River: May 2018 - October 2022*
No. of MCL Exceedances
Well
TCE1
(5 (ig/L)
Cis-1,2-DCE
(70 (ig/L)
Aluminum2
(50 (ig/L)
Antimony
(6 (ig/L)
Iroir
(300 (ig/L)
Manganese2
(50 (ig/L)
Nickel'
(100 fig/L)
Ks
0/4
0/4
1/4
0/2
0/4
3/3
0/4
Ki
4/4
3/4
3/4
0/2
0/4
4/4
0/4
Kd
4/4
0/4
0/4
0/2
0/4
0/4
0/4
Ns
0/8
0/4
5/6
0/2
6/6
6/6
0/6
Ni
0/8
0/4
4/6
0/2
6/6
6/6
0/6
Nd
0/8
0/4
2/6
0/2
6/6
6/6
0/6
Hs
0/2
0/2
1/2
0/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
Hi
0/2
0/2
2/2
0/2
1/2
2/2
0/2
Hd
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
2/2
0/2
1 - TCE is not site related.
2 - Federal Secondary MCL.
3 - Connecticut MCL
*Notes:
Oct 2020 and Nov 2021 - did not sample wells K and 11
May 2018 and Nov 2019 - did not sample well 11
Feb 2019 - Well Ks not sampled for manganese
15
-------
PFAS sampling was conducted at three shallow wells (Bs, Cs, and Ds) in November 2019.
Results were non-detect at wells Bs and Ds. Detection limits and results at well Cs are shown tin
Table 7 below:
Table 7 - PFAS Sampling Results (ppt)
EPA CTDEEP
Drinking Drinking
Water
Screening
Level'
Water
Action
Level'
Well
Bs
11/25/2019
Well
Cs
11/25/2019
Well
Ds
11/26/2019
NEtFOSAA
na
na
<2.8
<2.8
<2.8
NMeFOSAA
na
na
<1.8
<1.9
<1.9
Perfluorobutajicsulfon ic acid (PFBS)
601
760
<1.8
<1.9
<1.9
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
na
na
<1.8
<1.9
<1.9
Perfluorododccajioic acid (PFDoA)
na
na
<1.8
<1.9
<1.9
Perfliioroheptarioic acid (PFHpA)
na
na
<1.8
3.1
<1.9
Perfl uorohexanesu 1 fon ic acid (PFHxS)
40
49
<1.8
4.2
<1.9
Perfl uorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
990
240
<1.8
4.6
<1.9
Perfl uorononanoic acid (PFNA)
6
12
<1.8
<1.9
<1.9
Perfl uorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
4
10
<1.8
14
<1.9
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
6
16
<1.8
16
<1.9
Pe rfl uo rotet radecanoi c acid (PFTeDA)
na
na
<1.8
<1.9
<1.9
Perfluorotridecajioic acid (PFTrDA)
na
na
<1.8
<1.9
<1.9
Perfluoroiindecajioic acid (PFUnA)
na
na
<1.8
<1.9
<1.9
1: Drinking water screening and action levels arc non-promulgated guidelines.
PFHxS was found below the EPA screening levels and state drinking water action levels. PFOS
exceeded the EPA screening level of 4 ppt and the CT DPH drinking water action level of 10
ppt. PFOA also exceeded the EPA screening level of 6 ppt and met the CT DPH drinking water
action level of 16 ppt. PFHxA was detected below its EPA screening level (990 ppt) and below
the CTDEEP drinking water action level (240 ppt).
A summary of all groundwater data from 2012-2020 can be found in the Seventy-ninth Post-
closure Monitoring Report (AECOM 2020). Groundwater data comparisons to ACLs, MCLs,
and trigger values for samples collected in 2021 are included in Appendix G.
As stated earlier, in July 2022, EPA Region 1 performed temperature profiling to determine
locations where groundwater may be discharging to the Quinebaug River. At that time nine
porewater samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs without any detections observed. In
October 2022, 25 additional porewater samples were collected (locations based on temperature
gradients) and analyzed for VOCs and metals. No VOCs were detected. Lead was detected at
two locations (46 and 33 |ig/L) and chromium was detected at two additional locations (100 and
120 |ig/L). However, EPA's sampling protocol at the time did not require that porewater
16
-------
samples be filtered. As a result, only unfiltered porevvater samples were analyzed and the results
are not representative of dissolved metals in porevvater. Additional sampling of these four
locations with analysis of filtered porevvater samples should be conducted.
Site Inspection
The inspection of the Site was conducted on March 30, 2023. In attendance were representatives
from EPA and CT DEEP. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the
remedy. See the site inspection checklist in Appendix E.
The lagoon cap, vegetative cover, gabion wall, and the fence with gates and locks all appeared to
be in good condition. Only minor deficiencies were observed. The fence was slightly damaged
on the western portion from a fallen tree; however, the damage did not appear to warrant
immediate repair. Signs posted along the fence were legible and did not require replacement.
The gabion walls looked to be intact. Multiple wells beyond the fenced lagoon had rusted or
broken locks and need replacement. The agencies did not observe anyone in the lagoon area
during the visit. Overall, the site is secured with fencing on three sides and has limited access
from the Quinebaug River. Ingress from trespassers is adequately restricted.
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Yes, the remedy is functioning as intended by the decision documents. Although the Site has not
yet met the condition that POC wells do not exceed ACLs, these exceedances have not been
found to present an unacceptable human health or ecological risk based on historic sediment and
surface water monitoring and ongoing groundwater monitoring. Groundwater use is restricted,
and sediments have not been found to present unacceptable human health or ecological risks.
Remedial Action Performance
As discussed in Section IV, data from 2018-2022 have documented ACL exceedances at various
POC wells, although these exceedances are somewhat sporadic, with perhaps the exception of
chloroethane at well Bd (4 of 6 exceedences). However, EPA has determined that the ACL
exceedances do not represent an unacceptable human health risk since there is no current
exposure to contaminated groundwater and exposure to potential contaminants in surface water
and sediment do not exceed human health levels of concern. Although the ACL exceedances
continue to be a concern for potential future impacts to river sediment, current ecological risk
levels are within acceptable levels.
Past five-year reviews found both lead and cadmium exceedences of groundwater trigger values.
The most recent five years of GW monitoring did not find exceedences of the trigger value for
lead (1.62 |ig/L). The trigger value for cadmium (1.34 |ig/L) was exceeded in 2019 at wells Bd
(2 |ig/L) and Cs (3 |ig/L), in 2020 at well Cs (2 |ig/L), and again in 2021 at well Cs (2 |ig/L).
The trigger value for nickel (72 |ig/L) was exceeded in 2022 at well Ci (599 |ig/L). Although
individual trigger values were exceeded, it should be noted that all of these exceedences were at
least a magnitude of order below the ACLs for these three wells (see Appendix G). The trigger
value for aluminum (110 |ig/L) was exceeded in well Bs in 2018 (645 |ig/L) and again in two
sampling rounds in 2019 (157 and 205 |ig/L). ACLs were not established for aluminum. While
17
-------
these exceedences identify the need for continued monitoring, none of these exceedences meet
the threshold criteria for requiring additional investigations (see Status of Implementation in
Section 2 for trigger criteria).
Sampling data from 2018-2022 at the N well cluster identified frequent MCL exceedances of
aluminum, iron, and manganese in the shallow, intermediate, and deep zones. However, similar
concentrations were also found in background well cluster H, located upgradient of the lagoon.
There is no current exposure to groundwater in the vicinity of well cluster N.
Sampling data from 2018-2022 at the K well cluster identified MCL exceedances of TCE, cis-1,2
dichloroethene, aluminum, and manganese (see Table 6). TCE is not a Site contaminant and is
only observed at the well K cluster, which is located downgradient from the State-regulated
Packer Road (Yaworski) Landfill. EPA has determined that these exceedances are not site-
related and originate from the adjacent landfill. This information has been shared with CT
DEEP.
EPA continues to evaluate sampling results and overall site conditions, and discusses
exceedances and the evaluation of these exceedances, with CT DEEP.
Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures
Groundwater use restrictions at properties within the meander bend and at residential properties
located within 100 feet from the river to the north, west, and south are now all in place. There
were two remaining parcels, the Yaworski Waste Lagoon NPL parcel (Tract 3/Pareel 62-34) and
the Quinebaug Valley Regional Resources, LLC parcel (Track 2/Parcel 62-12A) where ICs were
needed.
An ELUR for the Yaworski Waste Lagoon and a Notice of Environmental Contamination
("Deed Notice") for the Quinebaug Valley Regional Resources, LLC parcel were recorded with
the Town of Canterbury, Connecticut on September 2, 2020.
See Table 2 for a summary of all implemented institutional controls.
Question B: Are the Exposure Assumptions, Toxicity Data, Cleanup Levels, and
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) Used at the Time of the Remedy Selection Still Valid?
No. There have been changes in toxicity data and exposure assumptions, exposure pathways and
methods of evaluating risk, as well as potential standards and TBCs since the 1988 ROD was
issued.
The changes as described below are not expected to alter the protectiveness of the remedy
because the multi-layer cap remains in place and institutional controls are in place which prevent
exposure to Site contaminants.
Although the site is not yet meeting all of the remedial action objectives, the exceedences of
some ACLs do not present an unacceptable risk because ICs restrict groundwater from being
used as drinking water at the Site and at adjacent properties to the river. In addition, historical
sediment and surface water sampling has not shown unacceptable ecological risks.
18
-------
Additional porewater sampling is recommended, however, to ensure that elevated levels of lead
and chromium found in unfiltered porewater samples are not representative of dissolved metals.
Although these ACL exceedances continue to be a concern for potential future impacts to river
sediment, current ecological risks levels are within acceptable levels.
Changes in Standards and To Be Considered (TBCs)
In May 2022, EPA issued updated noncancer reference dose (RfD) values for several PFAS
compounds which result in the following Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) at HQ target 0.1:
• PFOA 6 ng/L
• PFOS 4 ng/L
• PFNA 6 ng/L
• PFHxS 40 ng/L
HFPO-DA (Gen-X) 6 ng/L
The RfD values for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS are based on Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for ingestion exposure.
In May 2021, EPA issued an updated noncancer RfD for Pert]uorobutanesulfoni c acid (PFBS).
PFBS has a chronic oral RfD of 3E-04.
In December 2022, EPA released a new oral reference dose (RfD) of 1.0E-03 mg/kg-day for
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) based on a new IRIS value. Previously, no RfD was available for
PFBA.
In April 2023, EPA released a new oral reference dose (RfD) of 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day for
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) based on a new IRIS value. Previously, no RfD was available
for PFHxA.
At this time, Connecticut has not promulgated drinking water or groundwater standards for any
PFAS. In June 2022, CT DPH updated its guidances on drinking water action levels for four
PFAS compounds: PFOA (16 ppt), PFOS (10 ppt), PFNA (12 ppt), and PFHxS (49 ppt) (all of
which are above EPA RSLs).
1,4-dioxane (Federal)
Using 2013 updated IRIS toxicity information and the standard Superfund risk assessment
approach, EPA's carcinogenic risk range of 10-6 to 10-4 for 1,4-dioxane equates to a
concentration range of 0.46 to 46 ug/L (ppb).
This emerging contaminant was not analyzed for at the Site prior to the ROD but has been
included in the VOC analyte list for the long-term monitoring analysis and has an ACL value. It
is a common contaminant found at sites with chlorinated VOC contaminants. At this time,
Connecticut has not promulgated drinking water or groundwater standards for 1,4-dioxane.
19
-------
Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics
There have been updates in toxicity values for some of the contaminants that were identified in
the ROD, which are discussed below. Additionally, new toxicity information is available for
several compounds found at the Site. Although cancer risks and non-cancer hazards from these
contaminants may change due to the updates in toxicity values, these changes would not be
expected to alter the protectiveness of the remedy because ICs are in place and prevent exposure
to groundwater. In addition, although perfl uoroalkyl substances (PFOA, PFOS, PFBA, PFBS,
PFNA, PFHxS, and PFHxA) were not evaluated in the 1988 HHRA, they are included in the
discussions below because the contaminants have been detected on the Site and because of their
status as emerging contaminants at landfill sites.
• 2023 PFHxA non-cancer toxicity value
In April 2023, EPA released a new oral reference dose (RfD) of 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day for
Perfl uorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) based on a new IRIS value. Previously, no RfD was available
for PFHxA. PFHxA was detected in Well Cs at 4.6 ppt. This value was compared the EPA
screening level of 990 ppt, which was calculated by using the EPA RSL calculator with RfD
listed above. This comparison showed no exceedances. The current detection of PFHxA does
not affect the protectiveness of the remedy as it is below the EPA screening level.
• 2022 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene non-cancer toxicity value
In October 2022, EPA released a non-cancer reference concentration (RfC) of 4.00E-02 mg/m3
for cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (Cis-1,2-DCE), based on a PPRTV screening value. Previously, no
RfC was available for Cis-1,2-DCE.
• 2022 PFBA non-cancer toxicity value
In December 2022, EPA released a new oral reference dose (RfD) of 1.0E-03 mg/kg-day for
Perfl uorobutanoic acid (PFBA) based on a new IRIS value. Previously, no RfD was available for
PFBA.
• 2022 PFOA non-cancer toxicity value
In May 2022, EPA released an updated oral reference dose (RfD) of 3E-06 mg/kg-day for
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) based on the ATSDR Minimal Risk Level (MRL). The new
value indicates that PFOA is more toxic from non-cancer health effects and would result in an
increased non-cancer risk. PFOA was detected above the EPA screening level in Well Cs during
sampling that took place in November 2019, however this result does not affect the
protectiveness of the remedy due to ICs in place that restrict the use of groundwater.
• 2022 PFOS non-cancer toxicity value
In May 2022, EPA released an updated oral reference dose (RfD) of 2E-06 mg/kg-day for
Perfluorooctanesulfoni c acid (PFOS) based on the ATSDR Minimal Risk Level (MRL). The
new value indicates that PFOS is more toxic from non-cancer health effects and would result in
an increased non-cancer risk. PFOS was detected above EPA and state standards in Well Cs
during sampling that took place in November 2019, however this result does not affect the
protectiveness of the remedy due to ICs in place that restrict the use of groundwater.
20
-------
• 2022 PFNA 11011-caiicer toxicity value
In May 2022, EPA released an oral reference dose (RfD) of 3E-06 mg/kg-day for
Pert!uorononanoic acid (PFNA) based on the ATSDR Minimal Risk Level (MRL). Previously,
no RfD was available for PFNA.
• 2022 PFHxS noil-cancer toxicity value
In May 2022, EPA released an oral reference dose (RfD) of 2.0E-05 mg/kg-day for
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) based on the ATSDR Minimal Risk Level (MRL).
Previously, no RfD was available for PFHxS. PFHxS was found below EPA and state standards.
Additionally, ICs are in place the restrict and prevent groundwater exposure. Therefore, there is
no impact to protectiveness.
• 2021 PFBS 11011-caiicer toxicity value
In May 2021, EPA released an oral reference dose (RfD) of 3E-04 mg/kg-day based on an EPA
Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV) (USEPA, 202 la). The new value indicates
that PFBS is more toxic from non-cancer health effects and would result in an increased non-
cancer risk.
• 2021 Updated Recommendations on the Use of Chronic or Subchronic Noncancer
values
In 2021, a memorandum was released from the Office of Land and Emergency Management
(OLEM) regarding the use of subchronic toxicity values rather than the chronic noncancer value
for 19 chemicals. This recommendation is based on OLEM's Human Health Regional Risk
Assessment Forum's (OHHRRAF) Toxicity Workgroup evaluation of the toxicity of 32
chemicals. The OHHRRAF Toxicity Workgroup identified 21 oral and 1 1 inhalation noncancer
toxicity values where a subchronic toxicity value was lower than its corresponding chronic
toxicity value. After review of relevant information, the OHHRRAF recommended use of the
subchronic toxicity value rather than the chronic value for 19 of the 32 chemicals, as follows
below.
• Subchronic inhalation RfC selected for the following chemicals (CASRN):
o Acrylic acid (79-10-7)
o 2-Ethoxyethanol (110-80-5)
o Ethyl-chloride (75-00-3)
o 2-Me thoxyethanol (109-86-4)
• Subchronic oral RfD selectedfor the following chemicals (CASRN):
o Acrylonitrile (107-13-1)
o Allyl alcohol (107-18-6)
o Atrazine (1912-24-9)
o Bromodichloromethane (75-27-4)
o Cadmium (7440-43-9)
o p-Chloroaniline (106-47-8)
o p-Cresol (106-44-5)
o Ethyl acetate (141-78-6)
o Ethylbenzene (100-41-4)
o Ethylene glycol (107-21-1)
21
-------
o Heptachlor (76-44-8)
o Hexachlorobenzene (118-74-1)
o Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma (58-89-9)
o 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene (95-94-3)
Of these chemicals, ethylbenzene, an initial COC at the Site, was considered. The use of the
subchronic value for this chemical would result in a higher noncancer risk estimate. This is
because the subchronic RfC for ethylbenzene is lower than the chronic value used previously
in risk assessment; however, this updated recommendation for ethylbenzene does not impact
the protectiveness of the remedy because exposure to Site COCs is prevented by ICs in place
which restrict groundwater use.
• Lead in Soil Cleanups
EPA continues to examine the science around lead exposure. Updated scientific information
indicates that adverse health effects are associated with blood lead levels (BLLs) at less than 10
|ig/dL. Several studies have observed "clear evidence of cognitive function decrements in young
children with mean or group BLLs between 2 and 8 (.ig/dL."
Based on this updated scientific information, EPA is including an evaluation of potential lead
risks with a goal to limit exposure to residential and commercial soil lead levels such that a
typical (or hypothetical) child or group of similarly exposed children would have an estimated
risk of no more than 5% of the population exceeding a 5 |ig/dL blood lead level (BLL). This is
based on evidence indicating cognitive impacts at BLLs below 10 |ig/dL. A target BLL of 5
|ig/dL reflects current scientific literature on lead toxicology and epidemiology that provides
evidence that the adverse health effects of lead exposure do not have a threshold.
EPA's 2017 OLEM memorandum "Transmittal of Update to the Adult Lead Methodology's
Default Baseline Blood Lead Concentration and Geometric Standard Deviation Parameters"
(OLEM Directive 9285.6-56) provides updates on the default baseline blood lead concentration
and default geometric standard deviation input parameters for the Adult Lead Methodology.
These updates are based on the analysis of the NHANES 2009-2014 data, with recommended
updated values for baseline blood lead concentration being 0.6 |ig/dL and geometric standard
deviation being 1.8.
Using updated default IEIJBK and ALM parameters at a target BLL of 5 |ig/dL, site-specific
lead soil screening levels (SLs) of 200 ppm and 1,000 ppm are developed for residential and
commercial/industrial exposures, respectively.
Given the ongoing review of information, the above SLs are considered in this Five-Year
Review for informational purposes. Exposures of lead in soil are prevented by the cap remedy.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methods
• Most Current RSL Tables
The Regional Screening Level Tables are updated twice/year and the most up-to-date tables are
available at: https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-whats-new. Although some
22
-------
of the toxicity values have been updated since the last Five-Year review, the changes in the RSL
tables do not impact the protectiveness on the remedy.
• Most Current VISLs Tables
The Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels are updated twice/year and the most up-to-date tables are
available at: https://www.epa.gov/vaporintrusion/visl-whats-new. Although some of the toxicity
values have been updated since the last Five-Year review, the changes in the VISLs do not
impact the protectiveness on the remedy.
Although calculated risks at the Site may differ from those previously estimated, the revised
methodologies described in the is section are not expected to affect the protectiveness of the
remedy. A review of Site information finds that these updates do not call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy.
• 2018 EPA VI SL Calculator
In February 2018, EPA launched an online Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (V1SL) calculator
which can be used to obtain risk-based screening level concentrations for groundwater, sub-slab
soil gas, and indoor air. The VISL calculator uses the same database as the Regional Screening
Levels for toxicity values and physiochemical parameters and is automatically updated during
the semi-annual RSL updates. Please see the User's Guide for further details on how to use the
V1SL calculator, https://www.epa.gov/vaporintrusion/visl-users-guide
The vapor intrusion pathway was not evaluated in the HHRA for the Yaworski site. There are
currently no occupied buildings either on the Yaworski properties or on properties near
downgradient monitoring wells located across the river. Currently, the vapor intrusion pathway is
incomplete. If site conditions change the VI pathway may need to be re-evaluated to confirm
there is no risk to human health.
Changes in Exposure Pathways
In addition to existing institutional controls, ICs on the remaining two parcels have been
completed and recorded with the Town of Canterbury in September 2020. The ICs will help
prevent further exposures by restricting land and groundwater use on the property resulting is
additional protectiveness to human health and the environment. See Table 2 for a summary of
all implemented institutional controls.
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
As discussed above, a non-site related contaminant, TCE, is routinely exceeding the MCL at well
cluster K across the river. EPA believes the source of the TCE to be from a plume emanating
from the State-regulated Packer Road (Yaworski) Landfill. EPA will continue to coordinate with
CTDEEP regarding the landfill.
23
-------
Regarding potential changes because of long-term climatic changes, the groundwater table
fluctuates with precipitation so the flow paths may shift slightly in response, but there is no
indication of significant changes.
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issues/Recommendations
OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
None
Tabic 8 - Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review
OU(s): 1
Issue Category: Monitoring
Issue: Exceedances of ACLs and trigger values
Recommendation: Perform further evaluation of groundwater trends, ACLs, and trigger
value criteria by resampling G\V seep locations in the Quinebaug River and analyzing filtered
porewater samples. Evaluate the results prior to the next five-year review to confirm that the
remedy remains protective of ecological receptors in the Quinebaug River.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA/State
EPA/State
9/30/2024
Other Findings:
The following are recommendations that were identified during this five-year review but do not
affect current and/or future protectiveness:
• Although TCE is not site related, levels of TCE and cis-l,2-DCE above the MCL continue at
well clusters K and L. An ELUR is in place (well K) to restrict the installation of wells near
the river and to limit extraction of groundwater to 50 gallons per minute for an existing well.
A deed notice is in place (well L) identifying that extraction/use of groundwater could
increase risk of exposure to contamination and lead to a threat to human health and/or the
environment. Further evaluation should be conducted to ensure that these restrictions are
sufficient.
• Once capping of the Packer Road (Yaworski) Landfill is completed by CTDEEP, EPA
should evaluate whether to replace or supplement the current deed notice with an ELUR for
the Quinebaug Valley Regional Resources, LLC parcel (Appendix C, Figure 8, portion of
Track 2/Parcel 62-12A) to ensure continued access to the Yaworski Waste Lagoon.
24
-------
VII. P ROT ECTIVE N ESS STATEMENT
Protectiveness Determination:
Short-term Protective
Addendum Due Date (if applicable):
Not Applicable
The remedy at the Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site currently protects human health and the environment
in the short-term because: 1) there is no current human health exposure to contaminated groundwater
originating from the site. 2) threats to human health receptors within the Quinebaug River from site-related
contamination are not significant, and 3) the lagoon cap continues to be an effective barrier to exposure to
contaminated waste by human and ecological receptors, and CT DEEP continues to perform O&M. In
order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term additional evaluation of groundwater ACL
exceedances and trigger values in filtered pore water samples is needed to ensure that ecological risks are
not exceeded in river sediment.
VIII. NEXT REVIEW
The next five-year review report for the Yaworski Waste Lagoon Superfund Site will be completed
in September 2028, within five years of the signature date of this review.
25
-------
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
-------
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
A
-------
References/Documents Reviewed
AECOM. 2018. Seventy-sixth Post-closure Monitoring Report for the 76st Compliance Monitoring
Round (May 2018) Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site, Canterbury, CT.
AECOM. 2019. Seventy-seventh Post-closure Monitoring Report for the 77nd Compliance
Monitoring Round (February 2019) Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site, Canterbury, CT.
AECOM. 2019. Seventy-eighth Post-closure Monitoring Report for the 78th Compliance
Monitoring Round (November 2019) Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site, Canterbury, CT.
AECOM. 2020. Seventy-ninth Post-closure Monitoring Report for the 79th Compliance
Monitoring Round (August 2020) Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site, Canterbury, CT.
November.
AECOM. 2021. Eightieth Post-closure Monitoring Report for the 80th Compliance Monitoring
Round (November 2021) Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site, Canterbury, CT.
AECOM. 2022. Eighty-first Post-closure Monitoring Report for the 81st Compliance Monitoring
Round (October 2022) Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site, Canterbury, CT.
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP). 2010. Nancy E.
Ed's Garage Declaration of Environmental Land Use Restriction and Grant of Easement.
August 10.
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP). 2010. Nancy E.
Stanley Wildowsky, Jr. Declaration of Environmental Land Use Restriction and Grant of
Easement. August 10.
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP). 2011. Nancy E.
MacGlaflin Declaration of Environmental Land Use Restriction and Grant of Easement.
January 4.
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP). 2020. Denis
Yaworski Declaration of Environmental Land Use Restriction and Grant of Easement.
September 2.
-------
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP). 2021.
Connecticut's Remediation Standard Regulations 22a-133k(1) - 22a-133k(3). February 16
M. Grippo, J. Hayse, I. Hlohowskyj, and K. Picel. 2021. Derivation of PFAS Ecological Screening
Values, Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, September 2021.
US ATSDR. 2021. Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls.
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf
US EPA. 1988. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Interim Final (Part 1)
EPA/540/G-89/006 August 1988.
US EPA. 2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard
Default Exposure Factors Memorandum. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120.
US EPA. 2021. Human Health Toxicity Values for Hexafluoropropylene Oxide (HFPO) Dimer Acid
and Its Ammonium Salt (CASRN 13252-13-6 and CASRN 62037-80-3) Also Known as "Gen-X
Chemicals." Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC, October
2021.
US EPA. 2021. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid
(PFBS) and Related Compound Potassium Perfluorobutane Sulfonate. Office of Research and
Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, EPA/690/R-21/001F,
2021.
US EPA. 2021. Recommendations on the Use of Chronic or Subchronic Noncancer Values for
Superfund Human Health Risk Assessments Memorandum, May 26, 2021. Office of Land and
Emergency Management, Washington, DC, 2021.
US EPA. 2017. Transmittal of Update to the Adult Lead Methodology's Default Baseline Blood Lead
Concentration and Geometric Standard Deviation Parameters Memorandum, May 17, 2017.
OLEM Directive 9285.6-56.
US EPA. 2018. Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (VISL) Calculator. Office of Land and Emergency
Management, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI), May
2018. https://www.epa.gov/vaporintrusion/vapor-intrusionscreening- levels-calculator
-------
US EPA. 1988. Yaworski Lagoon, CT Superfund Site, Record of Decision. September 1988.
US EPA. 2018. Yaworski Lagoon, CT Superfund Site, Fifth Five Year Review. September 2018.
US EPA. 2022. Yaworski Lagoon Porewater and Monitoring Well Sampling, Feb 23, 2023
US EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Available at https://www.epa.gov/iris
US EPA. Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values. Available at
https://www.epa.qov/pprtv
US EPA. Regional Screening Level Tables. Available at https://www.epa.qov/risk/reqional-
screeninq-levels-rsls-qeneric-tables
-------
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
-------
Chronology of Site Events
Event
Date
Industrial waste disposal on site
1950 to 1973
CT DEP orders environmental assessment of site.
1976 to 1980
Site covered with paper, rags, and rubble.
1982
Proposal to National Priorities List (NPL).
December 30, 1982
Final Listing on NPL.
September 8, 1983
Initial Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
1986
Supplemental Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
1987 to 1988
Record of Decision (ROD) signed.
September 29, 1988
Consent Decree (CD) with PRPs entered.
February 26, 1990
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) submit lagoon
closure plan and Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL)
Demonstration Report; EPA disapproves ACL
Demonstration Report and requires installation of
additional monitoring wells.
May 1990
EPA approves PRP lagoon closure plan.
May 3, 1990
PRPs award contract for lagoon closure.
June 5, 1990
PRPs conduct initial groundwater sampling round for
ACL Demonstration.
March 1991
PRP construction documentation report for lagoon cap
and dike.
March 1991
EPA approves PRP Post-Closure Work Plan for the
lagoon cap and dike.
April 8, 1991
EPA/CT DEP final inspection of lagoon cap and dike.
November 25, 1991
EPA approves PRP's final Remedial Construction
Report for lagoon cap and dike.
March 31, 1992
PRPs conduct second round of groundwater monitoring
for ACL development; results indicate benzene
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) exceedance
across the river in the intermediate N well (Ni).
October 1992
EPA confirms benzene MCL exceedance across the
river; requires PRPs to implement a Corrective Action
Program.
February 1993
PRPs submit revised ACL Demonstration Plan.
March 1993
PRPs begin quarterly compliance monitoring of
groundwater, surface water and sediment.
March 1993
PRPs submit Corrective Action Work Plan.
June 1993
EPA disapproves PRP Corrective Action Work Plan.
August 1993
PRPs submit revised Corrective Action Work Plan; EPA
disapproves.
September 1993
PRPs submit additional revised Corrective Action Work
Plan.
October 1993
Pervel Industries, Inc. (lead PRP responsible for all
work under the 2/26/1990 CD) notifies EPA that it is
financially unable to perform any remaining work at the
site.
October 27, 1993
[Type here]
B-l
[Type here]
-------
Remaining PRPs agree to finalize Corrective Action
Work Plan; EPA submits comments.
September 1995
EPA executes a Stipulation and Order with the site
owner/operators ("the Yaworskis"), under which they
agree to perform certain activities, including finalizing
the Corrective Action Work Plan.
October 20, 1995
Yaworskis' contractor submits significantly revised
Corrective Action Work Plan.
March 1996
Two of three off-site landowners accept EPA offers for
access and institutional controls.
June 1996
EPA submits comments on revised Corrective Action
Work Plan.
July 1996
U.S. enters de minimis-type Consent Agreement with
five low-volume generators resolving their liabilities
under the 2/26/1990 CD.
July 18, 1996
Yaworskis notify EPA that they are financially unable to
perform any remaining work at the site.
October 1996
U.S. files a complaint against Pervel Industries, Inc. and
its parent company, the Bemis Company.
December 2, 1996
EPA assumes all responsibility to perform further
response actions at the site, with the exception of
operation and maintenance (O&M) activities on the
lagoon cap which are to be performed by the State of
Connecticut. EPA contractor Metcalf & Eddy (M&E)
begins compliance monitoring activities.
December 1996
CT DEP begins O&M activities for lagoon cap and dike.
March 1997
EPA finalizes Corrective Action Work Plan; M&E begins
on-site field activities to investigate the nature and
extent of the benzene exceedance at well Ni.
June 1998
First five-year review; EPA certifies that the remedy
remains protective of human health and the
environment.
September 29, 1998
EPA increases offers to three off-site landowners for
access and institutional controls based on revised
appraisals; two of three landowners accept.
January 1999
U.S. files a complaint against the Yaworskis.
April 7, 1999
EPA human health and ecological risk screening
evaluations for surface water and sediment data.
December 1999
EPA approves the final Pre-Design Engineering Report
on the benzene exceedance at well Ni; monitored
natural attenuation is selected as the corrective action
measure.
December 1999
EPA approves the Final ACL Demonstration Report,
formalizing the methodology by which ACLs will be set.
December 30, 1999
U.S. enters CD with Pervel Industries, Inc. and the
Bemis Company formalizing settlement resulting in a
final cash-out of $3,000,000.
August 11, 2000
EPA/CT DEP perform final site-wide inspection for
construction completion determination.
August 23, 2000
[Type here]
B-2
[Type here]
-------
EPA approves 279 final ACLs for point of compliance
wells.
September 18, 2000
EPA approves Preliminary Close-Out Report
documenting completion of Remedial Action (RA)
construction; start of one-year Operational & Functional
period.
September 20, 2000
U.S. enters CD with the Yaworskis formalizing
settlement resulting in a final cash-out of $1,425,000.
September 25, 2000
EPA approves Interim RA Report documenting that all
necessary RA construction is complete and the start of
the Long-Term Remedial Action phase.
September 28, 2001
Second five-year review; EPA certifies that the remedy
remains protective of human health and the
environment.
September 30, 2003
EPA implements modifications to sediment sampling
program based on ecological risk evaluation and trend
analysis of concentrations of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs).
October 2004
EPA implements additional modifications to sediment
and surface water sampling program based on PAH
detections.
September 2006
EPA, CT DEP and Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
met with off-site landowners to initiate new appraisals
and survey maps for access and groundwater use
restrictions.
November 13, 2007
Third five-year review; EPA certifies that the remedy
remains protective of human health and the
environment.
September 29, 2008
EPA screening-level human health risk assessment
concludes recreational exposure to potential
contaminants in surface water and sediment do not
exceed acceptable levels.
March 24, 2009
EPA determination that the lagoon is not the source of
PAHs in the Quinebaug River.
May 4, 2009
Environmental Land Use Restrictions (ELURs)
providing access and institutional controls recorded for
two properties and an easement providing for access
recorded for a third property across the Quinebaug
River.
August 10, 2010
ELUR providing access and institutional controls
recorded for fourth property across the Quinebaug
River.
January 4, 2011
EPA memo outlining final long-term monitoring plan to
assess ecological risk in sediments; termination of all
surface water sampling.
January 26, 2011
CT DEEP takes over all operation & maintenance
activities, including compliance monitoring.
September 30, 2011
Public notice regarding start of Fourth Five-Year Review
published in the Norwich Bulletin.
January 4, 2013
[Type here]
B-3
[Type here]
-------
EPA and CT DEEP conduct site inspection
April 3, 2013
Public notice regarding start of Fifth Five-Year Review
February 16, 2018
EPA and CT DEEP conduct site inspection
April 23, 2018
Fifth five-year review; EPA certifies that the remedy
remains protective of human health and the
environment.
September 1, 2018
Environmental Land Use Restrictions (ELURs)
establishing institutional controls at an additional
property.
September 2, 2020
EPA documents sitewide ready for anticipated use
(SWARU)
September 25, 2020
EPA conducts temperature profiling in the Quinebaug
River.
July 25-28, 2022
EPA conducts pore water sampling in the Quinebaug
River.
October 11-12, 2022
Public notice regarding start of Fifth Five-Year Review
January 18, 2023
EPA and CT DEEP conduct site inspection
March 30, 2023
[Type here]
B-4
[Type here]
-------
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
-------
1. This Site Sketch was developed from the Town of
Canterbury GIS, October 2016. Aerial photo from CT
ECO web map service, 2016.
2. Locations of site features depicted hereon are
approximate and given for illustrative purposes only.
0 200 400
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
PROPERTY MAP
YAWORSKI LAGOON SUPERFUND SITE
CANTERBURY, CONNECTICUT
PREPARED BY: JH
PROJECT NO. 80079.10 DATE: JULY 2018
CHECKED BY:DC
-------
"V
ST-UMF
IFGFNTt
Montonng VMM - Sltailo w
" Flow Zone
A Monitoring VM - Intemiediate
* Flow Zone
H Mentoring We* - Deep
* Flow Zone
»M PtexomoHf
4 vwoe vvell Point
Product Monrtonnj Point
ai-uMt Samplir,fl Location (Sediment)
® Sampin g location {Surface Wete <)
River Transect (Sed.fr.en!)
Wootted Areei
Monro ring Locations-
Groundwater Samplaig and Water
Level Measurements
. Mon
-------
VOL 209 PAGE0 6 6 6
-------
LEGEND
MopRDr.ng wed - Shiio*
F:ow Zone
viornor.r>g wen - imerreaate
*¦
Pom zone
Monitomg Wen - Deep
Fow Zone
. M
Plezo
-------
>WQ&SKuki
WILDOWSKY
PROPERTY
LEGEND
. to
Monttonng Weil - Shallow
Ftow Zone
Monitoring weti - intermedate
Flow Zone
1 *
Monitoring Wen - Deep
Flow Zone
- *-1
Piezometer
f MSI
Sumacs Water station
Product Monltoitng Point
1 1
wooded Areas
River Flow Direction
Calculated
Contour
Inferred Contour
Access Road
H Paved
^ Unpaved
Omafi
>u Rlcvvsjn m Sea ilmt
MOTTO
A=COM
Figure 5
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE CONTOUR
INTERMEDIATE FLOW ZONE
AUGUST 2020
79* COMPLIANCE MONITORING ROUND
YAWORSKI LAGOON SUPERFUND SITE
CANTERBURY. CONNECTICUT
-------
LEGEND
Vocitorng WM - ShaBow
Flow Zone
Monloflng Wei - ir-emedate
Fo# Zone
MonEor,ng we;i-Deep
F?o# Zone
- *-1
»iezoTeter
f sMta
Guface water saaon
Product Monitoring Poire
1
Wooded Areas
~
River Flow Drecron
CalcJated
Contour
Inferred Contour
Access Road
H Paved
3 unpaved
nwtrr Efantro in fed «mi
M0W>?»
AECOM
Figure 6
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE CONTOUR
DEEP FLOW ZONE
AUGUST 2020
79* COMPLIANCE MONITORING ROUND
YAWORSKI LAGOON SUPERFUND SITE
CANTERBURY. CONNECTICUT
-------
-------
RECEIVED FOR RECORD ^
™f—DAY of-^2o3Pat^Pm
£Us6qj{?h~.
I OWN CLERK OF CANTERBURY '
DRAFT
-------
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
-------
Yaworski Waste Lagoon
May 2018 Groundwater Data
-------
Table 3-1
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Point of Compliance Wells -76th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Bd
Bi
Bs
Cd
Ci
Cs
Cs
Gd
Gi
Gs
Sample ID
ACL
Trigger
BD1805
BI1805
BS1805
CD1805
CI1805
CS1805
VS1805
GD1805
G11805
GS1805
Sample Date
5/3/2018
5/3/2018
5/3/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/3/2018
5/3/2018
5/3/2018
Laboratory Report Number
VOC (ug/l)
1,1,1,2-T etrachloroethane
NC
NE
SC46410
<634
SC46410
<634 U
SC46410
<0 32 U
SC46312
<0 32 U
SC46312
<0 32 U
SC46312
< 6 34 U
SC46312
< 6 34 U
SC46410
< 0 32 U
SC46410
< 0 32 U
SC46410
< 6 34 U
1 1 1-Tnchloroethane
NC
NE
<49 0
< 49 0 U
< 0 24 U
< 0 24 U
< 0 24 U
< 4 90 U
< 4 90 U
< 0 24 U
< 0 24 U
< 4 90 U
1 1 2-Tnchloro-1 2 2-trifluoroethane
NC
NE
<116
< 116 U
< 0 58 U
< 0 58 U
< 0 58 U
< 11 6 U
< 11 6 U
< 0 58 U
<0 58 U
<11 6 U
1 1 2-Trichloroethane
NC
NE
<618
<61 8 U
<0 31 U
<0 31 U
<0 31 U
<6 18 U
<6 18 U
<0 31 U
<0 31 U
<6 18 U
1 1-Dichloroethane
Varies
240
<58 4
< 58 4 U
< 0 29 U
<0 29 U
<0 29 U
< 5 84 U
< 5 84 U
< 0 29 U
0.62 J
9.20 J
1 1-Dichloroethene
NC
NE
<628
< 62 8 U
<0 31 U
<0 31 U
<0 31 U
<6 28 U
<6 28 U
<0 31 U
<0 31 U
<6 28 U
1 2 3-Trichlorobenzene
NC
NE
<762
< 76 2 U
<0 38 U
<0 38 U
<0 38 U
<7 62 U
<7 62 U
<0 38 U
<0 38 U
<7 62 U
1 24-Trichlorobenzene
NC
NE
<64 6
< 64 6 U
<0 32 U
<0 32 U
<0 32 U
< 6 46 U
< 6 46 U
<0 32 U
<0 32 U
< 6 46 U
1.2-Dibromo-3-chloroorooane
NC
NE
<94 2
< 94 2 U
< 0 47 U
< 0 47 U
< 0 47 U
< 9 42 U
< 9 42 U
< 0 47 U
< 0 47 U
< 9 42 U
1,2-Dibromoethane
NC
NE
<602
< 60 2 U
<0 30 U
<0 30 U
<0 30 U
<6 02 U
< 6 02 U
< 0 30 U
< 0 30 U
< 6 02 U
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
NC
NE
<490
<49 0 U
<0 24 U
<0 24 U
0.58 J
<4 90 U
<4 90 U
<0 24 U
<0 24 U
<4 90 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
NC
NE
<362
< 36 2 U
<0 18 U
<0 18 U
<0 18 U
<3 62 U
< 3 62 U
<0 18 U
<0 18 U
< 3 62 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
NC
NE
<578
< 57 8 U
<0 29 U
<0 29 U
<0 29 U
<5 78 U
<5 78 U
<0 29 U
<0 29 U
<5 78 U
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
NC
NE
<600
< 60 0 U
<0 30 U
<0 30 U
<0 30 U
<6 00 U
<6 00 U
<0 30 U
<0 30 U
<6 00 U
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
NC
NE
<54 4
<54 4 U
<0 27 U
<0 27 U
<0 27 U
< 5 44 U
< 5 44 U
<0 27 U
<0 27 U
< 5 44 U
1,4-Dioxane
NC
NE
<1160
<1160 U
<581 U
<581 U
438
1690
2150
<581 U
59.8
< 116 U
2-Butanone (MEKI
Varies
169000
< 141
< 141 U
< 0 70 U
< 0 70 U
< 0 70 U
< 14 1 U
< 14 1 U
< 0 70 U
< 0 70 U
37.4 J
2-Hexanone
NC
NE
<127
< 127 U
< 0 63 U
< 0 63 U
< 0 63 U
< 12 7 U
< 12 7 U
< 0 63 U
< 0 63 U
< 12 7 U
4-Methwl-2-oentanone
Vanes
12600
<70 8
< 70 8 U
< 0 35 U
< 0 35 U
< 0 35 U
< 7 08 U
< 7 08 U
< 0 35 U
<0 35 U
11.2 J
Acetone
NC
NE
<752
< 752 U
< 3 76 U
< 3 76 U
< 3 76 U
< 75 2 U
< 75 2 U
< 3 76 U
< 3 76 U
< 75 2 U
Benzene
Vanes
102
<67 8
< 67 8 U
< 0 34 U
< 0 34 U
0.63 J
21.0
24.8
< 0 34 U
< 0 34 U
< 6 78 U
Bromochlorom ethane
NC
NE
<67 8
< 67 8 U
< 0 34 U
< 0 34 U
< 0 34 U
< 6 78 U
< 6 78 U
< 0 34 U
< 0 34 U
< 6 78 U
Bromodichloromethane
NC
NE
<582
< 58 2 U
<0 29 U
<0 29 U
<0 29 U
<5 82 U
<5 82 U
<0 29 U
<0 29 U
< 5 82 U
Bromoform
NC
NE
<48 4
<484 U
< 0 24 U
< 0 24 U
< 0 24 U
< 4 84 U
< 4 84 U
< 0 24 U
< 0 24 U
< 4 84 U
Bromom ethane
NC
NE
<89 2
< 89 2 U
< 0 45 U
< 0 45 U
< 0 45 U
< 8 92 U
< 8 92 U
< 0 45 U
< 0 45 U
< 8 92 U
Carbon disulfide
NC
NE
< 140
< 140 U
< 0 70 U
< 0 70 U
< 0 70 U
< 14 0 U
< 14 0 U
<0 70 U
<0 70 U
< 14 0 U
Carbon tetrachloride
NC
NE
<784
<784 U
<0 39 U
<0 39 U
<0 39 U
<7 84 U
<7 84 U
<0 39 U
<0 39 U
<7 84 U
Chlorobenzene
NC
NE
<600
< 60 0 U
<0 30 U
<0 30 U
<0 30 U
<6 00 U
<6 00 U
<0 30 U
<0 30 U
< 6 00 U
Chloroethane
Varies
6000
<80 6
< 80 6 U
20.3
< 0 40 U
8.75
290
327
< 0 40 U
< 0 40 U
1590
chloroform
NC
NE
<572
< 57 2 U
<0 29 U
<0 29 U
<0 29 U
<5 72 U
<5 72 U
<0 29 U
<0 29 U
<5 72 U
Chlorom ethane
NC
NE
<720
< 72 0 U
<0 36 U
<0 36 U
<0 36 U
<7 20 U
<7 20 U
<0 36 U
<0 36 U
< 7 20 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
NC
54
<79 4
<794 U
< 0 40 U
< 0 40 U
< 0 40 U
<7 94 U
<7 94 U
< 0 40 U
< 0 40 U
<7 94 U
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
NC
NE
<656
< 65 6 U
<0 33 U
<0 33 U
<0 33 U
<6 56 U
<6 56 U
<0 33 U
<0 33 U
< 6 56 U
Dibromochlorom ethane
NC
NE
<582
< 58 2 U
<0 29 U
<0 29 U
<0 29 U
<5 82 U
<5 82 U
<0 29 U
<0 29 U
< 5 82 U
Dichlorodifluoromethane
NC
NE
<690
< 69 0 U
<0 34 U
<0 34 U
<0 34 U
<6 90 U
<6 90 U
<0 34 U
<0 34 U
< 6 90 U
Ethyibenzene
Varies
5800
344
344
<0 32 U
<0 32 U
<0 32 U
36.0
39.2
<0 32 U
<0 32 U
221
Isooroo^benzene
NC
340
70.0
117 J
< 0 30 U
<0 30 U
2.95
103
118
< 0 30 U
< 0 30 U
12.2 J
m o-X\<1ene
NC
NE
102
8480
< 0 47 U
< 0 47 U
0.81 J
445
501
< 0 47 U
< 0 47 U
1190
Methyl Tert Butyl Ether
NC
NE
<590
< 59 0 U
<0 30 U
<0 30 U
<0 30 U
<5 90 U
<5 90 U
<0 30 U
<0 30 U
< 5 90 U
MethMene chloride
NC
NE
<770
< 77 0 U
<0 38 U
<0 38 U
0.57 J
<7 70 U
<7 70 U
<0 38 U
<0 38 U
<7 70 U
o-X^ene
NC
NE
<820
< 82 0 U
<041 U
<041 U
<041 U
<8 20 U
<8 20 U
<041 U
<041 U
161
Stwene
Varies
NE
<656
< 65 6 U
<0 33 U
< 0 33 U
< 0 33 U
< 6 56 U
< 6 56 U
< 0 33 U
< 0 33 U
< 6 56 U
T etrachloroethene
NC
NE
<62 2
< 62 2 U
<0 31 U
<0 31 U
<0 31 U
< 6 22 U
< 6 22 U
<0 31 U
<0 31 U
< 6 22 U
Tetrahujrofuran
Vanes
NE
15400
3640
<0 50 U
<0 50 U
12.9
1990
3390
<0 50 U
<0 50 U
866
T oluene
Varies
1960
<58 0
< 58 0 U
< 0 29 U
< 0 29 U
<0 29 U
7.40 J
8.80 J
<0 29 U
<0 29 U
47.6
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
NC
NE
<760
< 76 0 U
<0 38 U
<0 38 U
<0 38 U
<7 60 U
<7 60 U
<0 38 U
<0 38 U
< 7 60 U
trans-1,3-Dichloroorooene
NC
NE
<612
<61 2 U
<0 31 U
<0 31 U
<0 31 U
<6 12 U
<6 12 U
<0 31 U
<0 31 U
<6 12 U
T nchloroethene fTCEl
NC
NE
<710
<71 0 U
<0 36 U
<0 36 U
<0 36 U
<7 10 U
<7 10 U
<0 36 U
<0 36 U
<7 10 U
T richlorofluoromethane
NC
NE
<552
< 55 2 U
<0 28 U
<0 28 U
<0 28 U
<5 52 U
<5 52 U
<0 28 U
<0 28 U
< 5 52 U
Vin^ Chloride
NC
NE
<804
<804 U
< 0 40 U
< 0 40 U
< 0 40 U
<8 04 U
<8 04 U
< 0 40 U
< 0 40 U
<8 04 U
X^eneitotah
Vanes
NE
<600
8480
<3 00 U
< 3 00 U
< 3 00 U
445
501
<3 00 U
<3 00 U
1350
A3G0M
-------
Table 3-1
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Point of Compliance Wells -76th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Bd
Bi
Bs
Cd
Ci
Cs
Cs
Gd
Gi
Gs
Sample ID
ACL
Trigger
BD1805
BI1805
BS1805
CD1805
CI1805
CS1805
VS1805
GD1805
G11805
GS1805
Sample Date
5/3/2018
5/3/2018
5/3/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/3/2018
5/3/2018
5/3/2018
Laboratory Report Number
WSO (ug/l)
N.N-Dimethvl form amide
Varies
SC46410
157
SC46410
102
SC46410
n /<
SC46312
n //;;l I
SC46312
Ill
SC46312
186
SC46312
118
SC46410
n /i;.'. I
SC46410
u /i;.'. I
SC46410
4io
A < 'I <
-------
Table 3-1
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Point of Compliance Wells -76th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Bd
Bi
Bs
Cd
Ci
Cs
Cs
Gd
Gi
Gs
Sample ID
ACL
Trigger
BD1805
BI1805
BS1805
CD 1805
CM 805
CS1805
VS1805
GD1805
G11805
GS1805
Sample Date
5/3/2018
5/3/2018
5/3/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/3/2018
5/3/2018
5/3/2018
Laboratory Report Number
SC46410
SC46410
SC46410
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SC46410
SC46410
SC46410
I
I
1
Diethvl phthalate
NC
NE
<0.605
< 0.593 U
< 0.588 U
< 0.605 U
< 0.623 U
< 0.623 U
< 0.623 U
< 0.593 U
< 0.593 U
< 0.588 U
Dimethyl phthalate
NC
NE
<0.736
< 0.722 U
<0.715 U
< 0.736 U
< 0.758 U
< 0.758 U
< 0.758 U
< 0.722 U
< 0.722 U
<0.715 U
Di-n-butyl phthalate
NC
NE
< 0.444
< 0.435 U
<0.431 U
< 0.444 U
< 0.457 U
< 0.457 U
< 0.457 U
< 0.435 U
< 0.435 U
<0.431 U
Di-n-octvl Dhthalate
NC
NE
< 0.394
< 0.387 U
< 0.383 U
< 0.394 U
< 0.406 U
< 0.406 U
< 0.406 U
1.06 J
< 0.387 U
< 0.383 U
Fluoranthene
NC
NE
<0.619
< 0.608 U
< 0.602 U
< 0.619 U
< 0.638 U
< 0.638 U
< 0.638 U
< 0.608 U
< 0.608 U
< 0.602 U
Fluorene
NC
NE
< 0.594
< 0.583 U
< 0.577 U
< 0.594 U
< 0.612 U
< 0.612 U
< 0.612 U
< 0.583 U
< 0.583 U
< 0.577 U
Hexachlorobenzene
NC
NE
< 0.554
< 0.544 U
< 0.539 U
< 0.554 U
<0.571 U
<0.571 U
<0.571 U
< 0.544 U
< 0.544 U
< 0.539 U
Hexachlorobutadiene
NC
NE
<0.377
< 0.370 U
< 0.366 U
< 0.377 U
< 0.388 U
< 0.388 U
< 0.388 U
< 0.370 U
< 0.370 U
< 0.366 U
Hexachl oroc vcloDentadi ene
NC
NE
<1.01
< 0.987 U
< 0.977 U
<1.01 U
< 1.04 U
< 1.04 U
< 1.04 U
< 0.987 U
< 0.987 U
< 0.977 U
Hexachloroethane
NC
NE
<0.620
< 0.609 U
< 0.603 U
< 0.620 U
< 0.639 U
< 0.639 U
< 0.639 U
< 0.609 U
< 0.609 U
< 0.603 U
lndeno(1.2.3-cd)Dvrene
NC
NE
<0.563
< 0.552 U
< 0.547 U
< 0.563 U
< 0.580 U
< 0.580 U
< 0.580 U
< 0.552 U
< 0.552 U
< 0.547 U
IsoDhorone
NC
NE
<0.569
< 0.558 U
< 0.553 U
< 0.569 U
< 0.586 U
< 0.586 U
< 0.586 U
< 0.558 U
< 0.558 U
< 0.553 U
Maphthalene
Varies (50. 68. 53]
NE
2.97
5.70
< 0.646 U
< 0.665 U
< 0.685 U
1.26 J
0.790 J
< 0.652 U
< 0.652 U
< 0.646 U
Mitrobenzene
NC
NE
<0.670
< 0.657 U
<0.651 U
< 0.670 U
< 0.690 U
< 0.690 U
< 0.690 U
< 0.657 U
< 0.657 U
<0.651 U
N-N itroso-d i-n-DroD^ am i ne
NC
NE
<0.561
< 0.550 U
< 0.545 U
<0.561 U
< 0.578 U
< 0.578 U
< 0.578 U
< 0.550 U
< 0.550 U
< 0.545 U
M-NitrosodiDhenvl amine
NC
NE
<0.632
< 0.620 U
< 0.614 U
< 0.632 U
<0.651 U
<0.651 U
<0.651 U
< 0.620 U
< 0.620 U
< 0.614 U
PentachloroDhenol
NC
NE
<0.362
< 0.355 U
< 0.352 U
< 0.362 U
< 0.373 U
< 0.373 U
< 0.373 U
< 0.355 U
< 0.355 U
< 0.352 U
Phenanthrene
NC
NE
<0.569
< 0.558 U
< 0.553 U
< 0.569 U
< 0.586 U
< 0.586 U
< 0.586 U
< 0.558 U
< 0.558 U
< 0.553 U
Phenol
/aries (50. 52. 220
300
<0.626
< 0.614 U
< 0.608 U
< 0.626 U
< 0.645 U
< 0.645 U
< 0.645 U
<0.614 U
<0.614 U
< 0.608 U
Pwene
NC
NE
<0.592
<0.581 U
< 0.575 U
< 0.592 U
<0.610 U
<0.610 U
<0.610 U
<0.581 U
<0.581 U
< 0.575 U
1,4-Dioxane (ug/l)
1,4-Dioxane
Varies
NE
1900
380
0.21
0.69
400
2200
2200
1.3
64
380
Aluminum
NC
56
48
645
58
75
43
44
28
26
32
Antimony
NC
NE
<3.0
<3.0 U
<3.0 U
<3.0 U
<3.0 U
<3.0 U
<3.0 U
< 3.0 U
< 3.0 U
< 3.0 U
Arsenic
Varies
320
27.4
103
< 4.0 U
< 4.0 U
<4.0 U
12.7
11.4
< 4.0 U
< 4.0 U
24.1
Barium
Varies (3.66, 2)
NE
446
90
32
9
11
67
69
43
17
99
3ervllium
NC
1150
<4.0
< 4.0 U
< 4.0 U
< 4.0 U
< 4.0 U
< 4.0 U
< 4.0 U
< 4.0 U
< 4.0 U
< 4.0 U
Cadmium
Varies
1.34
<1.0
< 1.0U
< 1.0U
< 1.0U
< 1.0U
< 1.0U
< 1.0U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
Calcium
NC
NE
187000
110000
12500
147000
70100
39500
39500
43100
38800
41300
Chromium
0.1
NE
< 10
< 10U
< 10U
< 10U
< 10U
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 10 U
Cobalt
Varies
176
56.9
18.3
5.6
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
CoDDer
1.3
22.8
<2.5
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
Iron
NC
150
24000
_ead
Varies
1.62
<0.5
<0.5 U
1.4
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
Vlaanesium
NC
NE
28500
14100
1400
10700
7190
6230
6160
4530
3980
5180
Manaanese
NC
12000
1910
2570
537
157
1280
4360
4050
63.2
103
698
Mercury
Varies (0.002,
0.0059)
NE
<0.2
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
< 0.2 U
< 0.2 U
< 0.2 U
< 0.2 U
Nickel
Varies
72
33
13.2
< 2.5 U
6.4
4
6
5.9
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
5
Potassium
NC
NE
10900
5100
1700
6600
3300
3800
3900
8900
4600
5400
Selenium
NC
5
< 10
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 1 U
< 1 U
< 1 U
< 1 U
< 10U
< 10 U
< 10 U
Silver
NC
NE
<1.0
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0U
< 1.0U
< 1.0U
Sodium
NC
NE
14300
11800
1680
22600
8900
9470
9430
8800
6190
9400
Thallium
NC
3
<0.5
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
< 0.5 U
< 0.5 U
< 0.5 U
Vanadium
Varies
<5.0
<5.0 U
65.5
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
6.9
7.8
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
Zinc
Varies
NE
<5
< 5 U
9
< 5U
< 5U
< 5U
5 J
8
< 5U
8
s compound was delected
s result or reporting limit exo
5 result or reporting limit exci
AECOM
-------
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells South of Lagoon - 76th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Dd
Di
Ds
Ds
Ld
Ld
Li
Ls
Md
Mi
Ms
Sample ID
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
Sample Date
DD1805
DM 805
DS1805
WS1805
LD1805
XD1805
L11805
LS1805
MD1805
Ml 1805
MS1805
Laboratory Report Number
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
VOC fug/1)
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
< 0.32 U
< 1.58 U
< 0.32 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
< 0.24 U
< 1.22 U
< 0.24 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane
< 0.58 U
< 2.90 U
< 0.58 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
<0.31 U
< 1.54 U
<0.31 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,1-Dichloroethane
< 0.29 U
< 1.46 U
< 0.29 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,1-Dichloroethene
<0.31 U
< 1.57 U
<0.31 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
< 0.38 U
< 1.90 U
< 0.38 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
< 0.32 U
< 1.62 U
< 0.32 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
< 0.47 U
< 2.36 U
< 0.47 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,2-Dibromoethane
< 0.30 U
< 1.50 U
< 0.30 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
< 0.24 U
< 1.22 U
< 0.24 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 0.18 U
< 0.90 U
< 0.18 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,2-Dichloropropane
< 0.29 U
< 1.44 U
< 0.29 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
< 0.30 U
< 1.50 U
< 0.30 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
< 0.27 U
< 1.36 U
< 0.27 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,4-Dioxane
153
< 29.0 U
<5.81 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2-Butanone (MEK)
< 0.70 U
< 3.52 U
< 0.70 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2-Hexanone
< 0.63 U
< 3.17 U
< 0.63 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4-Methvl-2-pentanone
< 0.35 U
< 1.77 U
< 0.35 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Acetone
< 3.76 U
< 18.8 U
< 3.76 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Benzene
< 0.34 U
1.75 J
< 0.34 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bromochloromethane
< 0.34 U
< 1.70 U
< 0.34 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bromodichloromethane
< 0.29 U
< 1.46 U
< 0.29 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bromoform
< 0.24 U
< 1.21 U
< 0.24 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bromomethane
< 0.45 U
< 2.23 U
< 0.45 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Carbon disulfide
< 0.70 U
< 3.50 U
< 0.70 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Carbon tetrachloride
< 0.39 U
< 1.96 U
< 0.39 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chlorobenzene
< 0.30 U
< 1.50 U
< 0.30 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chloroethane
< 0.40 U
7.95 J
4.53
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
chloroform
< 0.29 U
< 1.43 U
< 0.29 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chloromethane
< 0.36 U
< 1.80 U
< 0.36 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
< 0.40 U
< 1.98 U
< 0.40 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
< 0.33 U
< 1.64 U
< 0.33 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cyclohexane
< 0.44 U
< 2.18 U
< 0.44 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dibromochloromethane
< 0.29 U
< 1.46 U
< 0.29 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dichlorodifluoromethane
< 0.34 U
< 1.72 U
< 0.34 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ethvlbenzene
< 0.32 U
< 1.58 U
< 0.32 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Isopropylbenzene
< 0.30 U
< 1.51 U
< 0.30 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
m,p-Xvlene
< 0.47 U
< 2.37 U
< 0.47 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Methyl acetate
< 5.14 U
< 25.7 U
< 5.14 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Methyl Tert Butyl Ether
< 0.30 U
< 1.48 U
< 0.30 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Formatting Legend:
1 Bold text [indicates compound was detected,
NC No Criteria established for this parameter
NA Not Analyzed for this parameter
< xxx U Parameter not detected above listed detection limit (xxx)
MECOM
-------
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells South of Lagoon - 76th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Dd
Di
Ds
Ds
Ld
Ld
Li
Ls
Md
Mi
Ms
Sample ID
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
Sample Date
DD1805
DM 805
DS1805
WS1805
LD1805
XD1805
L11805
LS1805
MD1805
Ml 1805
MS1805
Laboratory Report Number
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
VOC (ug/1) (cont'd)
Methyl cvclohexane
< 0.39 U
< 1.95 U
< 0.39 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Methylene chloride
< 0.38 U
< 1.92 U
< 0.38 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
o-Xylene
<0.41 U
< 2.05 U
<0.41 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Styrene
< 0.33 U
< 1.64 U
< 0.33 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tetrachloroethene
<0.31 U
< 1.56 U
<0.31 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tetrahydrofuran
4.37
109
< 0.50 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Toluene
< 0.29 U
< 1.45 U
< 0.29 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
< 0.38 U
< 1.90 U
< 0.38 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
<0.31 U
< 1.53 U
<0.31 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Trichloroethene (TCE)
< 0.36 U
< 1.78 U
< 0.36 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Trichlorofluoromethane
< 0.28 U
< 1.38 U
< 0.28 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vinyl Chloride
< 0.40 U
<2.01 U
< 0.40 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Xylene (total)
LVOC lua/n
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
< 3.00 U
NA
<15.0U
NA
< 3.00 U
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.89 U
NA
< 1.89 U
NA
< 0.38 U
NA
< 0.38 U
NA
< 0.38 U
NA
< 0.38 U
NA
< 0.38 U
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.76 U
< 1.76 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.66 U
< 1.66 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.66 U
< 1.66 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
1,1-Dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.70
2.65
0.26 J
< 0.24 U
3.47
0.32 J
< 0.24 U
1,1-Dichloroethene
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.75
3.85
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
1,1-Dichloropropene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.41 U
< 1.41 U
< 0.28 U
< 0.28 U
< 0.28 U
< 0.28 U
< 0.28 U
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.70 U
< 1.70 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.12 U
< 1.12 U
< 0.22 U
< 0.22 U
< 0.22 U
< 0.22 U
< 0.22 U
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.89 U
< 1.89 U
< 0.38 U
< 0.38 U
< 0.38 U
< 0.38 U
< 0.38 U
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.78 U
< 1.78 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 2.38 U
< 2.38 U
< 0.48 U
< 0.48 U
< 0.48 U
< 0.48 U
< 0.48 U
1,2-Dibromoethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 0.82 U
< 0.82 U
< 0.16 U
< 0.16 U
< 0.16 U
< 0.16 U
< 0.16 U
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.00 U
< 1.00 U
< 0.20 U
< 0.20 U
< 0.20 U
< 0.20 U
< 0.20 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.38 U
< 1.38 U
< 0.28 U
< 0.28 U
< 0.28 U
< 0.28 U
< 0.28 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.34 U
< 1.34 U
< 0.27 U
< 0.27 U
< 0.27 U
< 0.27 U
< 0.27 U
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 2.16 U
< 2.16 U
< 0.43 U
< 0.43 U
< 0.43 U
< 0.43 U
< 0.43 U
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.23 U
< 1.23 U
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
1,3-Dichloropropane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.08 U
< 1.08 U
< 0.22 U
< 0.22 U
< 0.22 U
< 0.22 U
< 0.22 U
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.05
6.90
1.64
0.67
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
2,2-Dichloropropane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 2.09 U
< 2.09 U
< 0.42 U
< 0.42 U
< 0.42 U
< 0.42 U
< 0.42 U
2-Butanone (MEK)
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 2.76 U
< 2.76 U
< 0.55 U
< 0.55 U
< 0.55 U
< 0.55 U
< 0.55 U
2-Chlorotoluene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 0.86 U
< 0.86 U
< 0.17 U
< 0.17 U
< 0.17 U
< 0.17 U
< 0.17 U
2-Hexanone
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 2.64 U
< 2.64 U
< 0.53 U
< 0.53 U
< 0.53 U
< 0.53 U
< 0.53 U
4-Chlorotoluene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.19 U
< 1.19 U
< 0.24 U
< 0.24 U
< 0.24 U
< 0.24 U
< 0.24 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.76 U
< 1.76 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
Formatting Legend:
1 Bold text [indicates compound was detected,
NC No Criteria established for this parameter
NA Not Analyzed for this parameter
< xxx U Parameter not detected above listed detection limit (xxx)
MECOM
-------
Table 3-2
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells South of Lagoon - 76th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Dd
Di
Ds
Ds
Ld
Ld
Li
Ls
Md
Mi
Ms
Sample ID
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
Sample Date
DD1805
DM 805
DS1805
WS1805
LD1805
XD1805
L11805
LS1805
MD1805
Ml 1805
MS1805
Laboratory Report Number
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
LVOC (ug/l) (cont'd)
Acetone
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.9 J
4.85 J
0.84 J
1.89 J
< 0.80 U
0.97 J
< 0.80 U
Acrylonitrile
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 2.19 U
< 2.19 U
< 0.44 U
< 0.44 U
< 0.44 U
< 0.44 U
< 0.44 U
Benzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.50 J
1.45 J
1.06
0.42 J
<0.21 U
<0.21 U
<0.21 U
Bromobenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.66 U
< 1.66 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
Bromochloromethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.70 U
< 1.70 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
Bromodichloromethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1.51 U
<1.51 U
< 0.30 U
< 0.30 U
< 0.30 U
< 0.30 U
< 0.30 U
Bromoform
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 2.12 U
< 2.12 U
< 0.42 U
< 0.42 U
< 0.42 U
< 0.42 U
< 0.42 U
Bromomethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.88 U
< 1.88 U
< 0.38 U
< 0.38 U
< 0.38 U
< 0.38 U
< 0.38 U
Carbon disulfide
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.26 U
< 1.26 U
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
Carbon tetrachloride
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.82 U
< 1.82 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
Chlorobenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
26.5
26.6
10.2
474
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
Chloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.50
4.70
1.12
0.96
1.07
< 0.38 U
< 0.38 U
chloroform
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1.16 U
<1.16 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
Chloromethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.82 U
< 1.82 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
NA
NA
NA
NA
368
367
7.01
3.22
6.86
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.80 U
< 1.80 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
Dibromochloromethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.59 U
< 1.59 U
< 0.32 U
< 0.32 U
< 0.32 U
< 0.32 U
< 0.32 U
Dibromomethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.55 U
< 1.55 U
<0.31 U
<0.31 U
<0.31 U
<0.31 U
<0.31 U
Dichlorodifluoromethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 2.47 U
< 2.47 U
< 0.49 U
< 0.49 U
< 0.49 U
< 0.49 U
< 0.49 U
Diethyl Ether
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.00
6.80
1.58
0.95 J
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
Ethvlbenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1.16 U
< 1.16 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
Hexachlorobutadiene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 2.36 U
< 2.36 U
< 0.47 U
< 0.47 U
< 0.47 U
< 0.47 U
< 0.47 U
Isopropvlbenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.17 U
< 1.17 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
Methyl Tert Butyl Ether
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.05 J
< 0.76 U
0.45 J
< 0.15 U
< 0.15 U
< 0.15 U
< 0.15 U
Methylene chloride
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.75 U
< 1.75 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
Naphthalene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 2.00 U
< 2.00 U
< 0.40 U
< 0.40 U
< 0.40 U
< 0.40 U
< 0.40 U
N-Butvlbenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 2.06 U
< 2.06 U
<0.41 U
<0.41 U
<0.41 U
<0.41 U
<0.41 U
p-lsopropyltoluene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.40 U
< 1.40 U
< 0.28 U
< 0.28 U
< 0.28 U
< 0.28 U
< 0.28 U
Propvlbenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.72 U
< 1.72 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
Sec-Butylbenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.64 U
< 1.64 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
Stvrene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 2.02 U
< 2.02 U
< 0.40 U
< 0.40 U
< 0.40 U
< 0.40 U
< 0.40 U
Tert-Butylbenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.28 U
< 1.28 U
< 0.26 U
< 0.26 U
< 0.26 U
< 0.26 U
< 0.26 U
Tetrachloroethene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.94 U
< 1.94 U
< 0.39 U
< 0.39 U
< 0.39 U
< 0.39 U
< 0.39 U
Tetrahydrofuran
NA
NA
NA
NA
31.4
29.6
20.7
8.70
12.8
2.43
< 0.39 U
Toluene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.63 U
< 1.63 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.80
3.35
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.58 U
< 1.58 U
< 0.32 U
< 0.32 U
< 0.32 U
< 0.32 U
< 0.32 U
Trichloroethene (TCE)
NA
NA
NA
NA
116
117
0.41 J
< 0.38 U
20.5
< 0.38 U
< 0.38 U
Trichlorofluoromethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 2.44 U
< 2.44 U
< 0.49 U
< 0.49 U
< 0.49 U
< 0.49 U
< 0.49 U
Vinyl Chloride
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.70
3.45
1.51
0.63
< 0.45 U
< 0.45 U
< 0.45 U
Formatting Legend:
1 Bold text [indicates compound was detected,
NC No Criteria established for this parameter
NA Not Analyzed for this parameter
< xxx U Parameter not detected above listed detection limit (xxx)
MECOM
-------
Table 3-2
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells South of Lagoon - 76th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Dd
Di
Ds
Ds
Ld
Ld
Li
Ls
Md
Mi
Ms
Sample ID
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
5/1/2018
Sample Date
DD1805
DM 805
DS1805
WS1805
LD1805
XD1805
L11805
LS1805
MD1805
MM 805
MS1805
Laboratory Report Number
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
SC46277
1,4-Dioxane (uq/l)
1,4-Dioxane
220
380
0.48
0.50
140
NA
37
22
9.7
12
< 0.25 U
WSOIua/l)
Acetonitrile
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 1.8 U
NA
NA
< 0.4 U
< 0.4 U
< 0.4 U
< 0.4 U
Acrvlonitrile
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 2.38 U
NA
NA
< 0.48 U
< 0.48 U
< 0.48 U
< 0.48 U
N,N-Dimethylformamide
NA
NA
NA
NA
< 0.778 U
NA
NA
< 0.785 U
< 0.778 U
< 0.793 U
< 0.785 U
Metal (uq/l)
Aluminum
33
70
382
281
67
NA
39
30
NA
NA
NA
Antimony
< 3.0 U
< 3.0 U
< 3.0 U
< 3.0 U
< 3.0 U
NA
< 3.0 U
< 3.0 U
NA
NA
NA
Arsenic
<4.0 U
16.3
8.6
8.1
<4.0 U
NA
39.4
30.1
NA
NA
NA
Barium
21
172
15
15
266
NA
268
106
NA
NA
NA
Beryllium
<4.0 U
<4.0 U
<4.0 U
<4.0 U
<4.0 U
NA
<4.0 U
<4.0 U
NA
NA
NA
Cadmium
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
NA
2
< 1.0 U
NA
NA
NA
Calcium
41500
86600
14400
14600
199000
NA
57000
32800
NA
NA
NA
Chromium
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
NA
< 10 u
< 10 u
NA
NA
NA
Cobalt
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
NA
17.6
14.4
NA
NA
NA
Copper
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
NA
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
NA
NA
NA
Iron
1070
4340
11700
11500
4830
NA
35100
25700
NA
NA
NA
Lead
< 0.5 U
< 0.5 U
< 0.5 U
< 0.5 U
< 0.5 U
NA
< 0.5 U
< 0.5 U
NA
NA
NA
Maqnesium
5140
21800
923
879
37700
NA
16000
8880
NA
NA
NA
Manganese
80.4
733
1510
1550
6040
NA
3170
2090
NA
NA
NA
Mercury
< 0.2 U
< 0.2 U
< 0.2 U
< 0.2 U
< 0.2 U
NA
< 0.2 U
< 0.2 U
NA
NA
NA
Nickel
< 2.5 U
8.9
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
34.7
NA
18
8.4
NA
NA
NA
Potassium
4500
7100
1400
1400
18400
NA
22100
15500
NA
NA
NA
Selenium
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
<10U
NA
< 10 u
< 10 u
NA
NA
NA
Silver
<1.0U
< 1.0U
< 1.0 u
< 1.0 u
< 1.0 u
NA
< 1.0 u
< 1.0 u
NA
NA
NA
Sodium
7290
8470
2210
2190
112000
NA
103000
67500
NA
NA
NA
Thallium
< 0.5 U
< 0.5 U
< 0.5 U
< 0.5 U
< 0.5 U
NA
< 0.5 U
< 0.5 U
NA
NA
NA
Vanadium
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
NA
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
NA
NA
NA
Zinc
< 5 U
< 5 U
< 5 U
< 5 U
< 5 U
NA
< 5 U
< 5 U
NA
NA
NA
Formatting Legend:
1 Bold text [indicates compound was detected,
NC No Criteria established for this parameter
NA Not Analyzed for this parameter
< xxx U Parameter not detected above listed detection limit (xxx)
MECOM
-------
Table 3-3
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells Across River from Lagoon - 76th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Kd
Ki
Ks
Nd
Ni
Ns
Sample Date
KD1805
KI1805
KS1805
ND1805
N11805
NS1805
Sample ID
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
Laboratory Report Number
MCL
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
LVOC (ug/l)
1.1.1,2-T etrachloroethane
NC
< 0.38 U
< 1.89 U
< 0.38 U
<0.38 U
<3.78 U
< 0.38 U
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
200
< 0.35 U
< 1.76 U
< 0.35 U
<0.35 U
<3.51 U
< 0.35 U
1.1,2.2-T etrachloroethane
NC
< 0.33 U
< 1.66 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
<3.31 U
< 0.33 U
1.1.2-Trichloroethane
5
< 0.33 U
< 1.66 U
< 0.33 U
<0.33 U
<3.31 U
< 0.33 U
1.1-Dichloroethane
NC
2.90
5.25
0.44 J
<0.24 U
<2.41 U
< 0.24 U
1.1-Dichloroethene
7
< 0.36 U
< 1.82 U
< 0.36 U
<0.36 U
<3.63 U
< 0.36 U
1.1-DichloroDrooene
NC
< 0.28 U
<1.41 U
< 0.28 U
< 0.28 U
<2.82 U
< 0.28 U
1.2.3-Trichlorobenzene
NC
< 0.34 U
< 1.70 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
<3.41 U
< 0.34 U
1.2.3-TrichloroDroDane
NC
< 0.22 U
< 1.12 U
< 0.22 U
< 0.22 U
<2.25 U
< 0.22 U
1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene
70
< 0.38 U
< 1.89 U
< 0.38 U
< 0.38 U
<3.78 U
< 0.38 U
1.2.4-Trimethvlbenzene
NC
< 0.36 U
< 1.78 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
<3.56 U
< 0.36 U
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloroDroDane
0.2
< 0.48 U
<2.38 U
< 0.48 U
<0.48 U
<4.77 U
< 0.48 U
1.2-Dibromoethane
NC
< 0.16 U
<0.82 U
< 0.16 U
< 0.16 U
< 1.64 U
< 0.16 U
1.2-Dichlorobenzene
600
< 0.20 U
< 1.00 U
< 0.20 U
<0.20 U
< 1.99 U
< 0.20 U
1.2-Dichloroethane
5
< 0.28 U
< 1.38 U
< 0.28 U
<0.28 U
<2.77 U
< 0.28 U
1.2-DichloroDroDane
5
< 0.27 U
< 1.34 U
< 0.27 U
<0.27 U
<2.69 U
< 0.27 U
1.3.5-Trimethvlbenzene
NC
< 0.43 U
<2.16 U
< 0.43 U
< 0.43 U
<4.32 U
< 0.43 U
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
NC
< 0.25 U
< 1.23 U
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
<2.46 U
< 0.25 U
1.3-DichloroDrooane
NC
< 0.22 U
< 1.08 U
< 0.22 U
< 0.22 U
<2.15 U
< 0.22 U
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
75
< 0.25 U
1.65 J
< 0.25 U
<0.25 U
<2.47 U
< 0.25 U
2.2-DichloroDrooane
NC
< 0.42 U
<2.09 U
< 0.42 U
< 0.42 U
<4.18 U
< 0.42 U
2-Butanone (MEK)
NC
< 0.55 U
<2.76 U
< 0.55 U
<0.55 U
<5.51 U
< 0.55 U
2-Chlorotoluene
NC
< 0.17 U
<0.86 U
< 0.17 U
<0.17 U
< 1.73 U
< 0.17 U
2-Hexanone
NC
< 0.53 U
<2.64 U
< 0.53 U
<0.53 U
<5.28 U
< 0.53 U
4-Chlorotoluene
NC
< 0.24 U
< 1.19 U
< 0.24 U
<0.24 U
<2.38 U
< 0.24 U
4-Methvl-2-Dentanone
NC
< 0.35 U
< 1.76 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
<3.52 U
< 0.35 U
Acetone
NC
< 0.80 U
8.55 J
2.73 J
<0.80 U
<8.05 U
< 0.80 U
Benzene
5
<0.21 U
< 1.06 U
< 0.21 U
<0.21 U
<2.11 U
<0.21 U
Bromobenzene
NC
< 0.33 U
< 1.66 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
<3.33 U
< 0.33 U
Bromochloromethane
NC
< 0.34 U
< 1.70 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
<3.39 U
< 0.34 U
Bromodichlorom ethane
80
< 0.30 U
<1.51 U
< 0.30 U
< 0.30 U
<3.02 U
< 0.30 U
Bromoform
80
< 0.42 U
<2.12 U
< 0.42 U
< 0.42 U
<4.25 U
< 0.42 U
Bromomethane
NC
< 0.38 U
< 1.88 U
< 0.38 U
< 0.38 U
<3.77 U
< 0.38 U
Carbon disulfide
0.05
< 0.25 U
< 1.26 U
< 0.25 U
<0.25 U
<2.51 U
< 0.25 U
Carbon tetrachloride
5
< 0.36 U
< 1.82 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
<3.63 U
< 0.36 U
Chlorobenzene
100
0.26 J
4.60
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
<2.50 U
< 0.25 U
Chloroethane
NC
< 0.38 U
< 1.89 U
< 0.38 U
< 0.38 U
<3.78 U
< 0.38 U
chloroform
80
< 0.23 U
< 1.16 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
<2.33 U
< 0.23 U
Chloromethane
NC
< 0.36 U
< 1.82 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
<3.63 U
< 0.36 U
cis-1.2-Dichloroethene
NC
15.0
164
1.94
<0.33 U
<3.27 U
< 0.33 U
cis-1.3-DichloroDrooene
NC
< 0.36 U
< 1.80 U
< 0.36 U
< 0.36 U
<3.60 U
< 0.36 U
Dibromochloromethane
80
< 0.32 U
< 1.59 U
< 0.32 U
< 0.32 U
<3.18 U
< 0.32 U
Dibromom ethane
NC
<0.31 U
< 1.55 U
< 0.31 U
<0.31 U
<3.10 U
<0.31 U
indicates compound was detected,
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the MCL
No Criteria established for this parameter
Not Analyzed for this parameter
Parameter not detected above listed detection limit (xxx)
Page 1 of 4
AECOM
-------
Table 3-3
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells Across River from Lagoon - 76th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Kd
Ki
Ks
Nd
Ni
Ns
Sample Date
KD1805
KI1805
KS1805
ND1805
NI1805
NS1805
Sample ID
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
Laboratory Report Number
MCL
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
LVOC (ug/l) (cont'd)
Dichlorodifluoromethane
NC
< 0.49 U
< 2.47 U
< 0.49 U
< 0.49 U
< 4.94 U
< 0.49 U
Diethyl Ether
NC
0.77 J
4.30 J
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
< 3.38 U
< 0.34 U
Ethylbenzene
700
< 0.23 U
<1.16 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
< 2.32 U
< 0.23 U
Hexachlorobutadiene
NC
< 0.47 U
< 2.36 U
< 0.47 U
< 0.47 U
<4.71 U
< 0.47 U
Isopropylbenzene
340
< 0.23 U
<1.17 U
< 0.23 U
< 0.23 U
5.42
< 0.23 U
Methyl Tert Butyl Ether
NC
<0.15 U
< 0.76 U
<0.15 U
<0.15 U
< 1.53 U
<0.15 U
Methylene chloride
5
< 0.35 U
< 1.75 U
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
< 3.50 U
< 0.35 U
Naphthalene
NC
< 0.40 U
< 2.00 U
< 0.40 U
<0.40 U
< 4.00 U
< 0.40 U
N-Butylbenzene
NC
<0.41 U
< 2.06 U
< 0.41 U
<0.41 U
<4.12 U
<0.41 U
p-lsopropyltoluene
NC
< 0.28 U
< 1.40 U
< 0.28 U
< 0.28 U
< 2.79 U
< 0.28 U
Propylbenzene
NC
< 0.34 U
< 1.72 U
< 0.34 U
< 0.34 U
<3.44 U
< 0.34 U
Sec-Butyl benzene
NC
< 0.33 U
< 1.64 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 3.27 U
< 0.33 U
Stvrene
100
< 0.40 U
< 2.02 U
< 0.40 U
< 0.40 U
< 4.05 U
< 0.40 U
Tert-ButM benzene
NC
< 0.26 U
< 1.28 U
< 0.26 U
< 0.26 U
< 2.55 U
< 0.26 U
Tetrachloroethene
5
< 0.39 U
< 1.94 U
< 0.39 U
< 0.39 U
< 3.87 U
< 0.39 U
Tetrahydrofuran
NC
6.18
8.90 J
< 0.39 U
6.00
4140
< 0.39 U
Toluene
NC
< 0.33 U
< 1.63 U
< 0.33 U
< 0.33 U
< 3.26 U
< 0.33 U
trans-1,2-Dichioroethene
100
< 0.35 U
1.80 J
< 0.35 U
< 0.35 U
< 3.49 U
< 0.35 U
trans-1,3-Dichioropropene
NC
< 0.32 U
< 1.58 U
< 0.32 U
< 0.32 U
<3.15 U
< 0.32 U
Trichloroethene (TCE)
5
64.5
96.2
3.78
< 0.38 U
< 3.80 U
< 0.38 U
Trichlorofluoromethane
NC
< 0.49 U
<2.44 U
< 0.49 U
< 0.49 U
< 4.87 U
< 0.49 U
Vinyl Chloride
2
< 0.45 U
< 2.26 U
< 0.45 U
< 0.45 U
< 4.52 U
< 0.45 U
WSO (ug/l)
Acetonitrile
NC
<0.4 U
< 1.8 U
<0.4 U
<0.4 U
< 3.7 U
NS
Acrylon itri le
NC
< 0.48 U
< 2.38 U
< 0.48 U
<0.48 U
<4.75 U
NS
N,N-Dimethylform amide
NC
1.03 J
< 0.801 U
<0.801 U
< 0.801 U
<0.801 U
NS
SVOC (ug/l)
1,1-Biphenyl
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.473 U
< 0.473 U
NS
1,2,4,5-T etrachlorobenzene
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.725 U
< 0.725 U
NS
2,3,4,6-T etrachlorophenol
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.490 U
< 0.490 U
NS
2,4,5-Trichloropheno!
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.520 U
< 0.520 U
NS
2.4.6-Trichloropheno!
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.518 U
<0.518 U
NS
2,4-Dichlorophenol
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.530 U
< 0.530 U
NS
2,4-Dimethylphenol
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.653 U
< 0.653 U
NS
2.4-Dinitrophenol
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.561 U
< 0.561 U
NS
2.4-Dinitrotoluene
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.673 U
< 0.673 U
NS
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.593 U
< 0.593 U
NS
2-Chloronaphthalene
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.590 U
< 0.590 U
NS
2-Chlorophenol
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.748 U
< 0.748 U
NS
2-MethMnaphthalene
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.574 U
< 0.574 U
NS
2-Methyl phenol
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.665 U
< 0.665 U
NS
Formatting Legend:
color background
NC
indicates compound was detected,
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the MCL
No Criteria established for this parameter
Not Analyzed for this parameter
Parameter not detected above listed detection limit (xxx)
Page 2 of 4
AECOM
-------
Table 3-3
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells Across River from Lagoon - 76th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Kd
Ki
Ks
Nd
Ni
Ns
Sample Date
KD1805
KI1805
KS1805
ND1805
N11805
NS1805
Sample ID
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
Laboratory Report Number
MCL
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SVOC (ug/l) (confd)
2-Nitroaniline
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.606 U
< 0.606 U
NS
2-NitroDhenol
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.465 U
<0.465 U
NS
3.3-Dichlorobenzidene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<1.99 U
< 1.99 U
NS
3-Nitroaniline
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.543 U
<0.543 U
NS
4.6-Dinitro-2-methvlDhenol
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.319 U
<0.319 U
NS
4-BromoDhenvl-Dhenvl ether
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.602 U
< 0.602 U
NS
4-Chloro-3-methvlDhenol
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.501 U
<0.501 U
NS
4-Chloroaniline
NC
NS
NS
NS
<1.12 U
< 1.12 U
NS
4-ChloroDhenvl-Dhenvl ether
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.603 U
< 0.603 U
NS
4-MethvlDhenol (D-Cresol)
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.615 U
< 0.615 U
NS
4-Nitroaniline
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.374 U
< 0.374 U
NS
4-Nitroohenol
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.838 U
<0.838 U
NS
AcenaDhthene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.691 U
<0.691 U
NS
Acenaohthvlene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.683 U
<0.683 U
NS
Acetoohenone
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.305 U
<0.305 U
NS
Anthracene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.608 U
<0.608 U
NS
Atrazine
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.563 U
<0.563 U
NS
Benzaldehvde
NC
NS
NS
NS
<1.14 U
< 1.14 U
NS
Benzo(a)anthracene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.536 U
<0.536 U
NS
Benzo(a)Dvrene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.562 U
<0.562 U
NS
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.437 U
<0.437 U
NS
Benzo(a.h.i)oervlene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.530 U
<0.530 U
NS
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.480 U
<0.480 U
NS
bis(2-Chloroethoxv)m ethane
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.666 U
<0.666 U
NS
bis(2-Chloroethvl)ether
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.734 U
< 0.734 U
NS
Bis(2-chloroisooroDVl)ether
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.778 U
< 0.778 U
NS
bis(2-Ethvlhexvl)Dhthalate
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.638 U
<0.638 U
NS
Butvl benzvl Dhthalate
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.438 U
<0.438 U
NS
Caorolactam
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.639 U
<0.639 U
NS
Carbazole
NC
NS
NS
NS
<1.56 U
< 1.56 U
NS
Chrvsene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.532 U
<0.532 U
NS
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.450 U
<0.450 U
NS
Dibenzofuran
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.740 U
<0.740 U
NS
Diethvl Dhthalate
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.623 U
<0.623 U
NS
Dimethvl Dhthalate
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.758 U
<0.758 U
NS
Di-n-butvl Dhthalate
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.457 U
<0.457 U
NS
Di-n-octvl Dhthalate
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.406 U
<0.406 U
NS
Fluoranthene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.638 U
<0.638 U
NS
Fluorene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.612 U
<0.612 U
NS
Hexachlorobenzene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.571 U
<0.571 U
NS
indicates compound was detected,
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the MCL
No Criteria established for this parameter
Not Analyzed for this parameter
Parameter not detected above listed detection limit (xxx)
Page 3 of 4
AECOM
-------
Table 3-3
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells Across River from Lagoon - 76th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Kd
Ki
Ks
Nd
Ni
Ns
Sample Date
KD1805
KI1805
KS1805
ND1805
NI1805
NS1805
Sample ID
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
5/2/2018
Laboratory Report Number
MCL
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SC46312
SVOC (ug/l) (cont'd)
Hexachlorobutadiene
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.388 U
< 0.388 U
NS
H exa ch 1 oroc vc i op ent ad i en e
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 1.04 U
< 1.04 U
NS
Hexachloroethane
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.639 U
< 0.639 U
NS
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.580 U
< 0.580 U
NS
Isophorone
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.586 U
< 0.586 U
NS
Naphthalene
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.685 U
< 0.685 U
NS
Nitrobenzene
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.690 U
< 0.690 U
NS
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.578 U
< 0.578 U
NS
N-Nitrosodiphenvlamine
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.651 U
< 0.651 U
NS
Pentachlorophenol
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.373 U
< 0.373 U
NS
Phenanthrene
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.586 U
< 0.586 U
NS
Phenol
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.645 U
< 0.645 U
NS
Pyrene
NC
NS
NS
NS
<0.610 U
<0.610 U
NS
1,4-Dioxane (ug/l)
1,4-Dioxane
NC
21
86
3.8
180
850
0.40
Metal (ug/l)
Aluminum
50
30
69
45
79
130
58
Antimony
6
<3.0 U
< 3.0 U
<3.0 U
<3.0 U
< 3.0 U
<3.0 U
Arsenic
10
<4.0 U
< 4.0 U
<4.0 U
<4.0 U
< 4.0 U
<4.0 U
Barium
2000
< 5 U
82
24
23
116
31
Bervllium
4
<4.0 U
< 4.0 U
<4.0 U
<4.0 U
< 4.0 U
<4.0 U
Cadmium
5
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
Calcium
NC
29900
112000
74900
42600
116000
21500
Chromium
100
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 10 U
Cobalt
NC
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
Copper
1300
<2.5 U
< 2.5 U
<2.5 U
<2.5 U
< 2.5 U
<2.5 U
Iron
3002
< 10 U
103
13
837
17600
1550
Lead
15
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
< 0.5 U
<0.5 U
Maqnesium
NC
3210
17700
2390
4270
18800
5090
Manqanese
502
6
221
454
452
583
305
Mercurv
2
<0.2 U
< 0.2 U
<0.2 U
<0.2 U
< 0.2 U
<0.2 U
Nickel
100
<2.5 U
44.4
5.3
2.9
9.9
<2.5 U
Potassium
NC
8200
9000
3700
4300
8400
2900
Selenium
50
< 1 U
< 1 U
< 1 U
< 1 U
< 1 U
< 1 U
Silver
50
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
Sodium
NC
9760
15400
5160
10800
12900
9130
Thallium
2
<0.5 U
< 0.5 U
<0.5 U
<0.5 U
< 0.5 U
<0.5 U
Vanadium
NC
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
5.3
< 5.0 U
52.1
Zinc
5000
5
6
5
5 J
<5 U
<5 U
Formatting Legend:
color background
NC
indicates compound was detected,
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the MCL
No Criteria established for this parameter
Not Analyzed for this parameter
Parameter not detected above listed detection limit (xxx)
Page 4 of 4
AECOM
-------
Yaworski Waste Lagoon
February 2019 Groundwater Data
-------
Table 3-1
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Point of Compliance Wells - 77th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Bd
Bi
Bs
Cd
Ci
Cs
Cs
Gd
Gi
Gs
Sample ID
ACL
Trigger
BD1902
BI1902
BS1902
CD 1902
CI 1902
CS1902
VS1902
GD1902
GI1902
GS1902
Sample Date
2/19/2019
2/19/2019
2/19/2019
2/19/2019
2/19/2019
2/19/2019
2/19/2019
2/21/2019
2/21/2019
2/21/2019
Laboratory Report Number
GCC54492
GCC54492
GCC54492
GCC54492
GCC54492
GCC54492
GCC54492
GCC56142
GCC56142
GCC56142
VOCs (ug/l)
1,2,4-T rimethyl benzene
NC
NC
660
170
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
410
400
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
29
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
NC
NC
5.4
37
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5 U
< 5 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
Benzene
50
102
26
5.7
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
29
31
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
Chloroethane
50
6000
160
77
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
7.2
250
280
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
390
Cyclohexane
NC
NC
1.1 J
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5 U
< 5 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
Ethylbenzene
700
5800
330
180
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
28
31
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
24
Isopropyl benzene
NC
NC
61
25
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
130
140
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
5.6
m,p-Xylene
10000
30000
200
2100
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
320
350
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
230
Methylcydohexane
NC
NC
2.5 J
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
10
12
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
Methylene chloride
NC
NC
5.2
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5 U
< 5 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
Naphthalene
50
NC
24
5.6
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5 U
< 5 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
N-Butyl benzene
NC
NC
5.9
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5 U
< 5 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
O-CYMENE
NC
NC
5.2
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5 U
< 5 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
o-Xylene
10000
30000
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5 U
< 5 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
18
Propyl benzene
NC
NC
49
17
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
68
76
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
7.0
Sec- Butyl benzene
NC
NC
8.9
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5 U
< 5 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
Tetrahydrofuran
250
NC
8000
1000
<10U
<10 U
14
2500
2500
<10U
<10U
290
Toluene
1000
1960
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5 U
< 5 U
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
6.3
Xylene (total)
NC
30000
200.0
2100
<5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
320
350
< 5.0 U
<5.0 U
248.0
SVOCs (ug/l)
1,4-Dioxane
500
NC
1200
86
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
410
1600
1500
1.7
70
330
Naphthalene
50
NC
21
5.5
<4.8 U
< 5.0 U
<4.8 U
<4.7 U
<4.8 U
<4.7 U
<4.9 U
<4.9 U
Phenol
50
300
<4.9 U
<4.8 U
<4.8 U
< 5.0 U
<4.8 U
<4.7 U
<4.8 U
<4.7 U
<4.9 U
11
WSO (ug/l)
N, N- Di methylf ormami de
250
NC
33
19
9.0
<4.0 U
5.4
2100
2000
8.5
<3.9 U
24
Metal (mg/l)
Aluminum
NC
0.11
0.053
0.045
0.157
0.059
0.052
0.045
0.073
0.033
0.028
0.036
Arsenic
0.05
0.32
0.032
0.066
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
0.007
0.017
0.018
0.001
<0.001 u
0.038
Barium
2
1.15
0.429
0.052
0.023
0.012
0.025
0.067
0.069
0.047
0.018
0.077
Cadmium
0.005
0.00134
0.002
<0.001 U
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 u
<0.001 U
0.003
0.003
< 0.001 u
<0.001 u
< 0.001 u
Calcium
NC
NC
167
57.6
9.53
150
75.4
36.0
36.6
43.2
36.9
38.6
Cobalt
0.0025
0.176
0.0501
0.0234
0.0011
< 0.001 U
<0.001 u
0.0018
0.0016
< 0.0010 u
< 0.0010 u
<0.0010 u
Iron
NC
169.2
37.6
11.9
0.629
0.427
0.633
71.0
73.7
0.226
0.065
19.1
Magnesium
NC
NC
27.3
5.15
0.877
11.7
7.85
5.30
545
4.58
3.90
5.05
Manganese
NC
12
1.69
3.88
0.113
0.173
1.23
4.30
4.46
0.043
0.100
0.488
Nickel
0.0099
0.072
0.0286
0.0099
< 0.0010 u
0.0061
0.0044
0.0051
0.0045
< 0.001 u
<0.001 u
0.003
Potassium
NC
NC
9.2
3.0
1.6
7.0
3.2
3.5
3.6
7.8
4.4
4.9
Silver
NC
NC
< 0.001 U
<0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
<0.001 U
< 0.001 u
0.0011
<0.001 U
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 U
Sodium
NC
NC
14.6
5.40
1.88
22.3
7.65
6.57
6.83
8.50
6.02
8.90
Vanadium
0.0043
0.028
0.0029
<0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 U
<0.001 U
0.0056
0.0062
< 0.0010 u
< 0.0010 u
< 0.0010 u
Zinc
0.0735
NC
0.008
0.008
0.0028
< 0.002 U
<0.002 U
0.012
0.012
<0.002 U
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
Bold text
indicates compound was detected.
color background
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the ACL
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the Trigger
color background
NC
No Criteria
ND
Not Detected
NS
Not Sampled
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 3-2
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells South of Lagoon - 77th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Dd
Dd
Di
Ds
Fs
Sample ID
DD1902
DD1902-FF
DI1902
DS1902
FS1902
Sample Date
2/21/2019
2/22/2019
2/19/2019
2/19/2019
2/19/2019
Laboratory Report Number
GCC56594
GCC56594
GCC54492
GCC54492
GCC54492
VGC{ug/l)
Benzene
< 5.0 U
NS
7.5
< 5.0 U
NS
Chloroethane
< 5.0 U
NS
100
6.5
NS
Isopropyl benzene
< 5.0 U
NS
14
< 5.0 U
NS
Methylcyclohexane
< 5.0 U
NS
2.0 J
< 5.0 U
NS
Propylbenzene
< 5.0 U
NS
5.3
...
Tetrahydrofuran
<10U
NS
7200
<10U
NS
WSO {ug/lj
Acrylonitrile
Total Metal {mg/l)
Aluminum
0.034
0.054
0.367
Arsenic
NS
0.096
0.010
NS
Barium
0.023
NS
0.331
0.016
NS
Cadmium
<0.001 u
NS
0.001
< 0.001 u
NS
Calcium
34.1
NS
121
13.8
NS
Cobalt
<0.001 u
NS
0.0056
< 0.001 u
NS
Copper
0.003
NS
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
NS
Iron
9.57
NS
20.3
10.2
NS
Magnesium
4.97
NS
29.0
0.873
NS
Manganese
0.086
NS
0.608
1.57
NS
Nickel
<0.001 u
NS
0.0093
< 0.0010 u
NS
Potassium
5.2
NS
7.9
1.5
NS
Sodium
7.57
NS
8.37
2.05
NS
Zinc
0.0033
NS
0.007
0.0038
NS
Dissolved Metal {mg/l)
Aluminum
NS
0.030
NS
NS
NS
Barium
NS
0.021
NS
NS
NS
Calcium
NS
38.1
NS
NS
NS
Iron
NS
0.486
NS
NS
NS
Magnesium
NS
4.49
NS
NS
NS
Manganese
NS
0.064
NS
NS
NS
Potassium
NS
5.1
NS
NS
NS
Sodium
NS
7.06
NS
NS
NS
Vanadium
...
0 0015
...
...
...
1,4-Dioxane {ug/l)
1,4-Dioxane
180
NS
730
< 0.25 U
0.90
Formatti^_L^end^
j Bold text jindicates compound was detected.
ND Not Detected
NS Not Sampled
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 3-3
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells Across River from Lagoon - 77th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Hd
Hi
Hs
Kd
Ki
Ks
Ks
Nd
Ni
Ns
Sample ID
MCLs
HD1902
HI 1902
HS1902
KD1902
KI1902
KS1902
QS1902
ND1902
NI1902
NS1902
Sample Date
2/21/2019
2/21/2019
2/21/2019
2/20/2019
2/20/2019
2/20/2019
2/20/2019
2/20/2019
2/20/2019
2/20/2019
Laboratory Report Number
6CC56142
6CC56142
6CC56142
GCC54960
6CC54960
GCC54960
GCC54960
GCC54960
GCC54960
GCC54960
LVOC (ug/l)
1,1-Die hloro ethane
NC
NS
NS
NS
3.6
6.1
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.0 U
< 0.50 U
1,1-Dichloroethene
7
NS
NS
NS
0.55
1.2
<0.50 U
< 0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.0 U
< 0.50 U
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
75
NS
NS
NS
< 0.50 U
1.3
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.0 U
< 0.50 U
Acetone
NC
NS
NS
NS
<2.5 U
2.6
<2.5 U
<2.5 U
<2.5 U
<5.0 U
<2.5 U
Chlorobenzene
100
NS
NS
NS
< 0.50 U
5.6
<0.50 U
< 0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.0 U
< 0.50 U
Chloroethane
NC
NS
NS
NS
0.86
2.2
<0.50 U
< 0.50 U
<0.50 U
6.9
< 0.50 U
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
NS
NS
NS
21
200
0.78
0.87
<0.50 U
< 1.0 U
< 0.50 U
Diethyl Ether
NC
NS
NS
NS
1.0
4.0
< 1.0 u
<1.0 u
< 1.0 U
< 2.0 U
< 1.0 U
Isopropylbenzene
340
NS
NS
NS
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
<0.50 U
3.6
< 0.50 U
Propylbenzene
NC
NS
NS
NS
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
<0.50 U
1.0
< 0.50 U
T etrahydrofuran
NC
NS
NS
NS
12
8.5
<2.5 U
<2.5 U
8.7
2800
<2.5 U
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
100
NS
NS
NS
< 0.50 U
2.1
<0.50 U
< 0.50 U
<0.50 U
< 1.0 u
< 0.50 U
Trichloroethene (TCE)
5
NS
NS
NS
86
100
1.8
1.7
<0.50 U
< 1.0 u
< 0.50 U
Vinyl Chloride
2
NS
NS
NS
< 0.50 U
0.57
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 1.0 u
<0.50 U
Xylene (total)
10000
NS
NS
NS
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 1.0 u
< 0.50 U
WSO (UK/I)
N, N - Dim ethylf o rm am ide
NC
<3.9 U
<3.8 U
6.3
26
<4.0 U
<3.8 U
NS
<3.9 U
<3.9 U
NS
SVOCs (ug/l)
SVOCs
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
ND
ND
NS
1,4-Dioxane (ug/l)
1,4-Dioxane
NC
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
< 0.25 U
23
91
2.1
NS
200
1000
<0.25 U
Metal (mg/l)
Aluminum
0.05
0.029
0.112
0.061
0.028
0.059
0.063
NS
0.040
0.095
0.102
Arsenic
0.01
0.001
0.001
0.001
<0.001 u
< 0.001 u
<0.001 u
NS
0.002
0.002
<0.001 u
Barium
2
0.024
0.023
0.044
< 0.002 U
0.100
0.037
NS
0.023
0.126
0.049
Calcium
NC
24.6
20.9
7.20
31.2
121
114
NS
41.5
106
29.0
Cobalt
NC
<0.0010 u
<0.0010 u
<0.0010 u
<0.0010 u
0.0024
< 0.0010 U
NS
< 0.0010 U
0.0056
<0.0010 u
Iron
0.3
<0.010 u
0.240
1.31
<0.010 u
0.075
0.012
NS
0.661
15.9
1.46
Magnesium
NC
3.11
3.99
2.71
3.26
18.7
3.91
NS
4.10
17.6
6.63
Manganese
0.05
0.065
0.442
0.070
0.001
0.178
0.569
NS
0.381
0.516
0.405
Nickel
0.1
<0.001 U
0.001
< 0.001 u
<0.001 u
0.015
0.003
NS
<0.001 U
0.007
<0.001 U
Potassium
NC
4.2
4.6
4.3
7.2
9.3
4.4
NS
4.4
7.8
3.3
Silver
0.05
<0.001 U
<0.001 U
< 0.001 U
<0.001 U
< 0.001 U
<0.001 U
NS
0.001
<0.001 U
<0.001 u
Sodium
NC
5.29
5.52
4.75
8.79
18.0
5.61
NS
10.1
12.9
11.6
Vanadium
NC
<0.0010 U
0.0205
0.0495
<0.001 U
<0.001 u
<0.001 u
NS
<0.001 u
<0.001 U
<0.001 U
Zinc
5
< 0.002 U
0.003
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
0.0031
NS
< 0.002 U
0.006
0.007
Tentativley Identified Compounds (ug/l)
1,4-Dioxane
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
5.2 JN
NS
3-Octanone
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
18 JN
NS
3-Phenylbut-l-ene
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
14 JN
NS
Diethyl sulfide
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
36 JN
NS
Di-I so propyl Ether
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
2.6 JN
NS
Isobutane
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
2.2 JN
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Isopropyl Alcohol
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
5.8 JN
2 JN
NS
NS
NS
NS
Tert-butyl alcohol
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
220 JN
NS
unknown
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
3.1 JN
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Bold text
indicates compound was detected,
color background
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the MCL
NC
No Criteria
ND
Not Detected
NS
Not Sampled
Page 1 of 1
-------
Yaworski Waste Lagoon
November 2019 Groundwater Data
-------
Table 3-3
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells Across River from Lagoon - 75th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Bd
Bi
Bs
Cd
Ci
Cs
Cs
Gd
Gi
Gs
Sample ID
Trigger
BD1911
BI1911
BS1911
CD1911
CI1911
CS1911
VS1911
GD1911
GI1911
GS1911
Sample Date
11/25/2019
11/25/2019
11/25/2019
11/25/2019
11/25/2019
11/25/2019
11/25/2019
11/27/2019
11/27/2019
11/27/2019
Laboratory Report Number
GCE67182
GCE67182
GCE67182
GCE67185
GCE67185
GCE67185
GCE67185
GCE69273
GCE69273
GCE69273
VOC(ug/l)
1,1-Dichloroethane
50
240
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
6.8
1,2,4-Trimethyl ben zene
NC
NC
580
360
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
200
220
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
160
1,2-Dichloro ethane
NC
NC
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
6.7
1,3,5-Trimeth yl ben zene
NC
NC
< 5.0 U
110
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
33
Benzene
50
102
23
12
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
21
23
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
6.9
Chloroethane
110
6000
120
130
6.3
< 5.0 U
8.5
35
38
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
4100
Cyclohexane
NC
NC
< 5.0 U
1.1 J
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
Ethyl ben zene
700
5800
160
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
540
Isopropyl ben zene
NC
NC
51
61
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
120
130
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
17
10000
30000
260
2800
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
280
300
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
3400
Methyl cyclohexane
NC
NC
< 5.0 U
1.9 J
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
13
14
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
Naphthalene
50
NC
< 5.0 UJ
< 5.0 UJ
< 5.0 UJ
< 5.0 UJ
< 5.0 UJ
< 5.0 UJ
< 5.0 UJ
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
7.5
o-Xylene
10000
30000
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
65
p-lsoprop^ltoluen^^^_
NC
NC
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
7.4
Propylbenzene
NC
NC
39
43
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
54
57
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
25
Sec-Butyl ben zene
NC
NC
< 5.0 U
5.2
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
Tetrahydroluran
250
NC
11000
2000
<10U
<10U
15
6200
6000
< 10 U
< 10 U
3700
Xylene (total)
NC
30000
260
2800
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
280
300
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
3465
SVOC(ug/l)
1,4-Dioxane
500
NC
1300
150
< 0.20 U
2.3
230
2800
2300
1.3
40
590
2,4-Dimethyl ph en ol
50
112
<4.7 U
10
<4.9 U
<4.7 U
<4.7 U
<4.8 U
<4.9 U
<4.7 U
<4.7 U
<4.7 U
Naphthalene
50
NC
7.4
<4.8 U
<4.9 U
<4.7 U
<4.7 U
<4.8 U
<4.9 U
<4.7 U
<4.7 U
5.4
WSO (ug/l)
N,N-Dimethylformamide
250
NC
80
<4U
< 3.9 U
< 4 U
< 4 U
10
21
<3.8 U
<3.8 U
49
PFAs/PFOs(ug/l)
Perfluoroheptanoic acid
NC
NC
NS
NS
< 1.8 UJ
NS
NS
2.6 J
NS
NS
NS
NS
Perfl uoroh exan esu Ifonic acid (PFHxS)
NC
NC
NS
NS
< 1.8 UJ
NS
NS
4.2 J
NS
NS
NS
NS
Perfluorohexanoic acid
NC
NC
NS
NS
<1.8 UJ
NS
NS
5.1 J
NS
NS
NS
NS
Perfl uorooctanesu Ifonic acid (PFOS)
NC
NC
NS
NS
<1.8 UJ
NS
NS
13 J
NS
NS
NS
NS
Perfluorooctanoic acid
NC
NC
NS
NS
<1.8 UJ
NS
NS
16 J
NS
NS
NS
NS
Metal (mg/IJ
Aluminum
NC
0.11
0.042
0.031
0.205
0.033
0.061
0.078
0.099
< 0.020 U
0.071
0.034
Arsenic
0.05
0.32
0.038
0.127
0.001
< 0.001 u
0.010
0.026
0.025
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 u
0.035
Barium
2
1.15
0.414
0.071
0.024
0.010
0.024
0.081
0.074
0.045
0.018
0.156
Cadmium
0.005
0.00134
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
0.001
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
Calcium
NC
NC
172
67.5
9.58
122
66.3
40.1
36.8
44.8
39.1
69.4
Cobalt
0.0025
0.176
0.0661
0.0138
0.0031
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
0.0041
0.0034
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 u
0.0017
1.3
0.0228
0.0022
< 0.002 U
0.0035
0.0026
0.004
0.002
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
0.002
< 0.002 U
NC
169.2
43.9
40.9
1.13
0.808
0.808
86.9
81.9
0.280
0.172
43.4
Magnesium
NC
NC
28.1
7.90
1.03
9.87
7.23
5.81
5.42
4.55
4.06
9.34
Manganese
NC
12
1.66
3.64
0.245
0.147
1.34
4.65
4.66
0.050
0.110
1.56
Mercury
0.002
NC
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
0.0003
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
Nickel
0.0099
0.072
0.0384 J
0.0115 J
0.0040 J
0.0089 J
0.0093 J
0.0143 J
0.0067 J
0.0033 J
< 0.001 UJ
0.0070 J
Potassium
NC
NC
11.7
4.2
1.9
7.2
3.5
4.7
4.4
7.8
5.0
8.4
Sodium
NC
NC
15.5 J+
12.3 J+
2.43 J+
21.1 J+
8.72 J+
9.38 J+
8.85 J+
8.54
6.55
13.5
Vanadium
0.0025
0.028
0.0013 J+
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
0.0313 J+
0.0599 J+
0.0055 J+
0.0045 J+
0.0648 J+
0.0449 J+
0.0026J+
Zinc
0.0735
NC
0.006
0.006
0.005
< 0.002 U
0.002
0.011
0.013
0.0034
0.016
0.010
Tentatively Identified Compounds (ug/l)
Benzene, l-ethyl-2-methyl-
NC
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
59 JN
Bold text
ndicates compound was
color background
ndicates result or reporti
color background
NC
No Criteria
ND
Not Detected
NS
Not Sampled
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 3-2
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells South of Lagoon - 75th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring We!! ID
Dd
Di
Ds
Fs
Md
Mi
Ms
Sample ID
DD1911
DI1911
DS1911
FS1911
MD1911
MI1911
MS1911
Sample Date
11/27/2019
11/27/2019
11/26/2019
11/27/2019
11/26/2019
11/26/2019
11/26/2019
Laboratory Report Number
GCE69270
GCE69270
GCE68215
GCE69269
GCE68215
GCE68215
GCE68215
VOC (LIE/I)
Chloroethane
<5.0 U
67
< 5.0 U
NS
NS
NS
NS
Tetrahvdrofuran
< 10 U
4600
< 10 U
NS
NS
NS
NS
LVOC (ug/l)
1,1-Dichloroethane
NS
NS
NS
NS
3.0
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
Chloroethane
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.57
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
NS
NS
NS
NS
7.2
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
Tetrahydrofuran
NS
NS
NS
NS
12
<2.5 U
< 2.5 U
Trichloroethene (TCE)
NS
NS
NS
NS
16
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
1,4-Dioxane (ug/l)
1,4-Dioxane
160
430
0.64
0.65
6.3
3.7
0.34
WSO (ug/IJ
N,N-Dimethylformamide
NS
NS
NS
NS
4.6 J-
< 3.8 UJ
<3.8 UJ
Metal (mg/l)
Aluminum
< 0.020 U
0.027
0.138
NS
NS
NS
NS
Arsenic
< 0.001 U
0.074
0.013
NS
NS
NS
NS
Barium
0.025
0.256
0.017
NS
NS
NS
NS
Calcium
43.0
103
18.1
NS
NS
NS
NS
Cobalt
< 0.001 u
0.0154
0.001
NS
NS
NS
NS
Copper
0.0023
0.0032
0.0023
NS
NS
NS
NS
Iron
1.65
16.1
8.52
NS
NS
NS
NS
Magnesium
4.9S
23.9
2.49
NS
NS
NS
NS
Manganese
0.103
0.719
1.74
NS
NS
NS
NS
Nickel
0.0013 J
0.0106 J
< 0.001 UJ
NS
NS
NS
NS
Potassium
4.R
R.O
1.7
NS
NS
NS
NS
Sod .i-n
6.S7
7.90
3.12
NS
NS
NS
NS
V.n.id .i-n
0.0720 J+
0.0168 J+
0.0800 J+
NS
NS
NS
NS
Z -k
0.0025
0.233
0.006
NS
NS
NS
NS
PFAs/PFOs (uk/D
•
NS
NS
ND
NS
Tentativley Identified Compounds (ug/l)
Diethyl sulfide
NS
5.5 JN
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
iggggiaa«as[;
j Bold text [indicates com
ND Not Detected
NS Not Sampled
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 3-3
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells Across River from Lagoon - 78th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Kd
Ki
Ks
Ks
Nd
Ni
Ns
Sample ID
MCLs
KD1911
KI1911
KS1911
QS1911
ND1911
NI1191
NS1911
Sample Date
11/26/2019
11/26/2019
11/26/2019
11/26/2019
11/26/2019
11/26/2019
11/26/2019
Laboratory Report Number
GCE68211
GCE68211
GCE68211
GCE68211
GCE68208
GCE68208
GCE68208
LVOC (ug/l)
1,1-Dichloroethane
NC
3.8
6.6
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
1,1-Dichloroethene
7
0.59
1.5
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
1,2,4-T rimethy Ibenzene
NC
0.65
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
75
< 0.50 U
1.7
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
Chlorobenzene
100
< 0.50 U
7.0
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
Chloroethane
NC
1.0
2.3
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
11
< 0.50 U
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
22
190
1.8
1.7
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
Diethyl Ether
NC
<1.0 U
4.3
<1.0 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
Isopropy Ibenzene
NC
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
6.8
< 0.50 U
m,p-Xylene
NC
4.5
<1.0 U
<1.0 U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
<1.0U
Naphthalene
NC
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
0.97
< 0.50 U
O-CYMENE
NC
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
1.2
< 0.50 U
Propylbenzene
NC
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
2.2
< 0.50 U
Sec- B uty 1 be n zen e
NC
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
1.5
< 0.50 U
Tert-Buty Ibenzene
NC
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
0.63
< 0.50 U
Tetrahydrofuran
NC
11
10
<2.5 U
<2.5 U
8.0
2400
< 2.5 U
Toluene
1000
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
1.0
< 0.50 U
trans-1,2- Die h 1 oroet he n e
100
< 0.50 U
2.7
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
Trichloroethene (TCE)
5
79
79
4.4
4.3
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
Vinyl Chloride
2
< 0.50 U
0.87
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
Xylene (total)
10000
4.50
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
SVOCs (ug/l)
SVOCs
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
<3.4 U
<3.5 U
NS
1,4-Dioxane (ug/l)
1,4-Dioxane
NC
15
51
3.4
2.6
320
1200
< 0.20 U
WSO (ug/l)
N, N - Di methy If or m am ide
NC
14
<6.0 U
<3.9 U
NS
<3.9 U
< 4.0 U
NS
Metal (mg/l)
Aluminum
0.05
0.025
0.055
0.042
NS
0.030
0.091
0.080
Arsenic
0.01
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 U
<0.001 U
NS
0.002
0.001
0.001
Barium
2
< 0.002 U
0.093
0.029
NS
0.029
0.149
0.042
Cadmium
0.005
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
<0.001 u
NS
<0.001 u
0.001
<0.001 U
Calcium
NC
32.8
121
90.9
NS
69.6
140
23.2
Chromium
0.1
< 0.001 U
0.018
0.003
NS
<0.001 u
<0.001 U
<0.001 u
Cobalt
NC
< 0.0010 U
0.0027
< 0.0010 u
NS
<0.001 u
0.0049
0.0011
Copper
1.3
< 0.002 U
0.012
0.026
NS
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
0.003
Iron
0.3
< 0.010 U
0.146
0.066
NS
1.09
23.8
1.31
Lead
0.015
< 0.0005 U
< 0.0005 U
0.0005
NS
< 0.0005 U
0.0009
< 0.0005 U
Magnesium
NC
3.53
18.1
3.47
NS
7.09
25.3
5.15
Manganese
0.05
0.007
0.210
0.605
NS
0.615
0.583
0.378
Nickel
0.1
0.002 J
0.011 J
0.003 J
NS
0.002 J
0.008 J
<0.001 UJ
Potassium
NC
7.6
9.5
4.2
NS
5.5
9.6
3.3
Sodium
NC
9.13 J+
17.9
5.65
NS
10.1
12.6
11.9
Vanadium
NC
0.0523 J+
0.0651 J+
0.0660 J+
NS
0.0681 J+
0.0012 J+
0.0753 J+
Zinc
5
0.003
0.006
0.006
NS
0.0037
0.008
0.006
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table 3-3
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells Across River from Lagoon - 78th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Kd
Ki
Ks
Ks
Nd
Ni
Ns
Sample ID
MCLs
KD1911
KI1911
KS1911
QS1911
ND1911
NI1191
NS1911
Sample Date
11/26/2019
11/26/2019
11/26/2019
11/26/2019
11/26/2019
11/26/2019
11/26/2019
Laboratory Report Number
GCE68211
GCE68211
GCE68211
GCE68211
GCE68208
GCE68208
GCE68208
Tentativley Identified Compounds (ug/l)
1,2,4,5-TETRAMETHYLBENZENE
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
1.9 J N
NS
1,4-DIoxane
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
1.7 J N
14JN
NS
3-Octanone
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
20JN
NS
Benzene, {1-methyl-l-propenyl)-, {
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
11 JN
NS
Benzene, 1,2,3,5-tetra methyl-
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
11 JN
NS
Benzene, 2-butenyl-
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
9.8 J N
NS
Diethyl sulfide
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
54 J N
NS
Di-I so propyl Ether
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.95 J N
3.2 J N
NS
In dan, 1-methyl-
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
24JN
NS
Tert-butyl alcohol
NC
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
320 J N
NS
unknown
NC
NS
3.2 J N
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Bold text
indicates compound was detected.
color backRround
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the MCL
NC
No Criteria
ND
Not Detected
NS
Not Sampled
Page 2 of 2
-------
Yaworski Waste Lagoon
August 2020 Groundwater Data
-------
Table 3-1
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Point of Compliance Wells - 79th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring We!! ID
Bd
Bi
Bs
Cd
Ci
Cs
Cs
Gd
Gi
Gs
Sample ID
BD2008
BI2008
BS2008
CD2008
CI2008
VS2008
CS2008
GD2008
GI2008
GS2008
Sample Date
8/27/2020
8/27/2020
8/27/2020
8/28/2020
8/28/2020
8/28/2020
8/28/2020
8/27/2020
8/27/2020
8/27/2020
Laboratory Report Number
GCG63176
GCG63176
GCG 63176
GCG64331
GCG64331
GCG 64331
GCG64331
GCG63176
GCG 63176
GCG63176
VOCfuR/1)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
<0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 10 UJ
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
1,1-Dichloroethane
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
1,1-Dichloroethene
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 u
< 10 UJ
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 u
< 10 UJ
l,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
< 10 U
< 10 U
R
R
R
R
R
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 10 UJ
1,2-Dibromoethane
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 10 UJ
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 0.60 U
< 0.60 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 0.60 U
< 0.60 U
< 10 UJ
1,2-Dichloropropane
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
2-Butanone (MEK)
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
2-Hexanone
< 50 U
< 50 U
R
R
R
R
R
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
<50 UJ
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
< 50 U
< 50 U
R
R
R
R
R
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
<50 UJ
Acetone
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Benzene
29
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 0.70 U
< 0.70 U
19J-
19 J-
< 0.70 U
< 0.70 U
10J-
Bromochloromethane
< 10 U
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
Bromodichloromethane
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 10 UJ
Bromoform
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
Bromomethane
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
Carbon disulfide
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 10 UJ
Carbon tetrachloride
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
Chlorobenzene
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
Chloroethane
43
1000
< 1.0 U
4.1
110 J -
110 J-
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
4700 J-
chloroform
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
Chloromethane
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 u
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 u
< 1.0 u
< 10 UJ
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 u
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 u
< 1.0 u
< 10 UJ
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 0.40 U
< 0.40 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 0.40 U
< 0.40 U
< 10 UJ
Cydohexane
< 20 U
< 20 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 20 UJ
< 20 UJ
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
<20 UJ
Dibromochloromethane
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 0.50 U
< 0.50 U
< 10 UJ
Dichlorodifluoromethane
< 10 u
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
Ethylbenzene
530
< 10 u
18
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
46 J-
Isopropylbenzene
61
50
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
1.9
98 J-
110 J-
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
15 J-
m,p-Xylene
850
1500
35
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
160 J -
160 J-
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
1300 J-
Methyl acetate
< 50 U
< 50 U
< 25 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 50 UJ
<50 UJ
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
<50 UJ
Methyl Tert Butyl Ether
< 10 U
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
Methylcydohexane
< 20 U
< 20 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
< 20 UJ
<20 UJ
< 5.0 U
< 5.0 U
<20 UJ
Methylene chloride
< 20 U
< 20 U
< 10 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 20 UJ
<20 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
<20 UJ
o-Xylene
< 10 U
< 10 U
6.9 J
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
Styrene
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
Tetrachloroethene
< 10 U
< 10 U
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
Tetrahydrofuran
17000 R
1900
R
94 J+
1400 J
1300 J
< 2.5 U
< 2.5 U
3000 J-
Toluene
< 10 U
< 10 u
9.7
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
trans-l,2-Di chloroethene
< 10 U
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 u
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
trans-l,3-Di chloropropene
< 10 U
< 10 u
< 5.0 U
< 0.40 U
< 0.40 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 0.40 U
< 0.40 U
< 10 UJ
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table 3-1
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Point of Compliance Wells - 79th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Bd
Bi
Bs
Cd
Ci
Cs
Cs
Gd
Gi
Gs
Sample ID
BD2008
BI2008
BS2008
CD2008
CI2008
VS2008
CS2008
6D2008
G12008
GS2008
Sample Date
8/27/2020
8/27/2020
8/27/2020
8/28/2020
8/28/2020
8/28/2020
8/28/2020
8/27/2020
8/27/2020
8/27/2020
Laboratory Report Number
6C663176
6C663176
6C663176
GCG64331
6C664331
6C664331
6C664331
6C663176
GCG 63176
GCG63176
Trichloroethene (TCE)
< 10 U
< 10 U
<5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
Tr ichl orofluoromethane
< 10 U
< 10 U
<5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
Vinyl Chloride
< 10 U
< 10 U
<5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
< 10 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 10 UJ
SVOC (ug/l)
1,4-Dioxane
2300
150
3.9
3.7
260
3000
2400
1.5
47
1000
WSO (ug/l)
N,N-Dimethylformamide
< 9.8 UJ
< 9.5 UJ
< 9.5 UJ
< 9.5 UJ
< 9.5 UJ
R
R
< 9.6 UJ
< 9.5 UJ
< 9.8 UJ
Metal (mg/l)
Aluminum
0.033
0.024
0.026
0.022
0.067
0.042
0.030
< 0.020 U
< 0.020 U
0.022
Antimony
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
< 0.0012 U
< 0.0012 U
< 0.0012 U
< 0.0012 U
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
Arsenic
0.0353
0.118
0.0027
< 0.0008 U
0.0033
0.0152
0.0151
< 0.0008 U
< 0.0008 U
0.0540
Barium
0.532
0.076
0.041
0.010
0.024
0.081
0.080
0.045
0.017
0.202
Beryllium
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 u
Cadmium
0.001
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
0.002
0.002
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
0.001
Calcium
235
79.8
26.2
130
69.5
42.0
40.9
47.0
38.4
81.3
Chromium
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Cobalt
0.0705
0.0126
0.0120
< 0.0010 u
< 0.0010 u
0.0019
0.0019
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
Copper
< 0.0020 U
< 0.0020 U
< 0.0020 U
< 0.0020 U
< 0.0020 U
< 0.0020 U
< 0.0020 U
< 0.0020 U
< 0.0020 U
< 0.0020 U
Iron
58.2
38.3
15.7
0.493
0.623
81.1
79.8
0.270
0.062
51.4
Lead
< 0.0005 U
< 0.0005 U
< 0.0005 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0005 U
< 0.0005 U
< 0.0005 U
Magnesium
35.1
9.34
246
10.5
7.84
6.30
6.22
4.94
4.13
11.3
Manganese
1.83
3.35
1.99
0.154
1.05
4.82
4.88
0.052
0.102
1.66
Mercury
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
Nickel
0.040
0.008
0.002
0.003
0.034
0.007
0.007
0.004
< 0.001 U
0.007
Potassium
12.0
3.8
2.1
7.5
3.5
4.8
4.8
8.2
4.4
10.0
Selenium
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
< 0.002 U
Silver
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 U
< 0.001 U
Sodium
15.6
14.5
2.30
22.2 J+
7.87 J+
10.2 J+
11.9 J+
8.49
6.58
15.0
Thallium
< 0.0005 U
< 0.0005 U
< 0.0005 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0002 U
< 0.0005 U
< 0.0005 U
< 0.0005 U
Vanadium
0.0020 J
0.0014 J
0.0248 J
0.0286 J
0.0080 J
0.0056 J
0.0059 J
0.0591 J
0.0555 J
0.0016 J
Zinc
0.005 J
< 0.002 UJ
0.003 J
0.007 J
0.005 J
< 0.002 UJ
< 0.002 UJ
0.002 J
0.006 J
< 0.002 UJ
Fonr^tin^^gend^_
color background
color background
indicates compound was detected.
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the ACL (see Appendix E-l)
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the Trigger (see Appendix E-3)
No Criteria
Not Analyzed
Not Sampled
The sample results are unusable due
The analyte was analyzed for, but nc
Reported value may no1
Reported value may no1
The analyte was positively identified and the associated nur
of the analyti
3 the quality of the data generated because certain criteria were not met. The analyte may or may not be present in the sample,
detected at a level greater than or equal to the level of theadjusted Detection Limit (DL)for sample and method,
r precise, but the result may be biased high,
r precise, but the result may be biased low.
ical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample (due either to the quality of the data generated becau<
as below the Limit of Detection (LOD).
The a
alyte w
it detected a
i level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL H
er, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be
r imprecise.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table 3-2
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells South of Lagoon - 79th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring We!! ID
Dd
Di
Ds
Ld
Li
Ls
Md
Mi
Ms
Sample ID
DD2008
DI2008
DS2008
LD2008
LI2008
LS2008
MD2008
MI2008
MS2008
Sample Date
8/26/2020
8/26/2020
8/26/2020
8/25/2020
8/25/2020
8/25/2020
8/25/2020
8/25/2020
8/25/2020
Laboratory Report Number
GCG62723
GCG62723
GCG 62723
GCG62723
GCG62723
GCG 62723
GCG61537
GCG61537
GCG61537
VOC(ug/l)
1,1-Dichloroethane
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 UJ
1.8 J-
4.3 J-
< 1.0 UJ
2.8 J-
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
1,1-Dichloroethene
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 UJ
2.6 J-
1.9 J-
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 UJ
5.7 J-
2.8 J-
1.6 J-
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
Benzene
< 0.70 UJ
1.8
< 0.70 UJ
1.2 J-
1.1J-
0.89 J-
< 0.70 UJ
<0.70 UJ
< 0.70 UJ
Chlorobenzene
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 u
< 1.0 UJ
23 J-
11J-
10J-
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
Chloroethane
< 1.0 UJ
21
3.1 J-
14 J-
1.6 J-
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 u
< 1.0 UJ
260 J-
190 J-
< 1.0 UJ
7.0 J-
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
Isopropylbenzene
< 1.0 UJ
1.4
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
Tetrahydrofuran
3.1 J
1700J+
R
31J
17 J
18 J
8.2 J-
< 2.5 UJ
< 2.5 UJ
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 u
< 1.0 UJ
2.7 J-
1.8 J-
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
Trichloroethene (TCE)
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 u
< 1.0 UJ
40 J-
73 J-
< 1.0 UJ
15 J-
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
Vinyl Chloride
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 u
< 1.0 UJ
2.8 J-
5.4 J-
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
< 1.0 UJ
SVOC (ug/l)
1,4-Dioxane
160
270
0.63
110
110
29
7.7
7.1
2.0
WSO(ur/I)
N,N-Dimethylformamide
< 9.5 UJ
< 9.8 UJ
< 9.7 UJ
< 9.7 UJ
< 9.5 UJ
< 9.7 UJ
NA
NA
NA
Metal (me/I)
Aluminum
0.020
0.034
0.031
0.036
< 0.020 U
0.032
NA
NA
NA
Arsenic
0.002
0.003
0.014
0.003
0.048
0.085
NA
NA
NA
Barium
0.024
0.177
0.016
0.279
0.218
0.229
NA
NA
NA
Cadmium
<0.001 U
< 0.001 u
< 0.001 u
<0.001 u
0.001
0.001
NA
NA
NA
Calcium
44.9
86.8
17.9
214
121
63.2
NA
NA
NA
Chromium
0.001
0.001
< 0.001 u
<0.001 u
0.001
0.002
NA
NA
NA
Cobalt
< 0.0010 u
0.0015
0.0013
0.0042
0.0157
0.0265
NA
NA
NA
Iron
1.59
9.40
10.1
5.27
38.3
58.4
NA
NA
NA
Magnesium
5.16
19.1
144
40.0
28.4
15.1
NA
NA
NA
Manganese
0.120
0.816
1.77
6.22
447
3.70
NA
NA
NA
Nickel
<0.001 U
0.005
< 0.001 u
0.032
0.013
0.014
NA
NA
NA
Potassium
4.5
6.6
1.5
20.5
20.4
25.2
NA
NA
NA
Sodium
7.01
6.66
2.66
125
71.5
95.0
NA
NA
NA
Vanadium
0.0510 J
<0.0010 UJ
0.116 J
<0.0010 UJ
< 0.0010 UJ
< 0.0010 UJ
NA
NA
NA
Zinc
0.0031 J
0.136 J
0.026 J
<0.0020 UJ
0.0027 J
0.0031 J
NA
NA
NA
±eaaa»Jtmst
I Boid text [indicates compound was detected.
ND Not Detected
NA Not Analyzed
R The sample results are unusable due to the quality of the data generated because certain criteriawere not met. The analyte may or may not be present in the sample.
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected at a level greater than or equal to the level of theadjusted Detection Limit (DL) for sample and method.
J+ Reported value may not be accurate or precise, but the result may be biased high.
J- Reported value may not be accurate or precise, but the result may be biased low.
J The analyte was positively identified and the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample (due either to the quality of the data generated
because certain quality control criteria were not met, or the concentration of the analyte was below the Limit of Detection (LOD).
UJ The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 3-3
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells Across River from Lagoon - 79th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
I sop ropy lb en zene
Tetrahydrofuran
Trichloroethene (TCE)
MonfcorhgWellD
Sample ID
Sam pie Date
Laboratory Report Number
N-D im ethylf orm a m ide
color background
irdcates compcurcl was detected.
I irdcates res lit cr reporting limit exceeds the MCL
No Criteria
Not Analyzed
Th e sa m pie results are u nusable due to the qua lity of the data generated bee ause certain criteriawere not m et. The ana lyte m ay or m ay not be present in the sa m pie.
The analytewas analyzed for, but not detected at a level greaterthan or equal to the level of theadjusted Detection Limit (DL) for sample and method.
Reported value may not be accurate or precise, but the result may be biased hgh.
Reported value m ay not be a ccurate or precise, but th e result m ay be bia sed low.
Th e analytewas positively identified andtheassociatednum eric al value isthe approxim ate concentration oftheanalyteinthesample(due eith erto the quality of the data generated becau se certa in quality control
c riteria were n ot m et, orthe cone entration of the a nalytewas belowth e L im it of D etection (L OD).
The analytewas not detected at a level greaterthan or equal to the a dju
-------
Yaworski Waste Lagoon
November 2021 Groundwater Data
-------
Table 3-1
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Point of Compliance Wells- 80th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Weil ID
Bd
Bi
Bs
Cd
Ci
Cs
Cs
Gd
Gi
Gs
Sample ID
BD 2111-20211115
Bl 2111-20211115
BS 2111-20211115
CD 2111-20211115
CI 2111-20211115
CS 2111-20211115
VS 2111-20211115
GD 2111-20211115
Gl 2111-20211115
GS 2111-20211115
Sample Date
15 Nov2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov2021
15 Nov2021
Sample Type Code
N
N
N
N
N
N
FD
N
N
N
Laboratory Report Number
GCJ79003
GCJ79003
GCJ79003
GCJ77867
GCJ79003
GCJ77867
GCJ77867
GCJ79003
GCJ79003
GCJ79003
Metals (ug/L)
ACL
TRIGGER CONC
Aluminum
NC
110
31
29
<20
26
41
23
26
23
43
24
Barium
2000
1150
465
42
31
11
24
75
74
47
19
136
Beryllium
NC
1150
<1
< 1
< 1
<1
<1
< 1
<1
<1
< 1
<1
Cadmium
5
1.34
<1
< 1
< 1
<1
<1
2
2
<1
< 1
<1
Calcium
NC
NC
205000
40500
14700
139000
70700
40900
39300
49600
41400
56400
Chromium
100
NC
<1
1
< 1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
Copper
1300
22.8
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
3.4
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
2.2
<2.0
Iron
NC
169200
46200
12500
2500
757
645
82400
76500
263
109
34700
Magnesium
NC
NC
31100
2380
1260
10400
7640
5730
5440
4920
4190
7780
Manganese
NC
12000
1510
1620
516
171
955
4140
3990
61
100
998
Nickel
9.9
72
25
6
1
8
13
5
4
2
1
6
Potassium
NC
NC
10700
4200
1800
7200
3200
4500
4100
7900
4400
6700
Silver
NC
NC
<1
< 1
< 1
<1
<1
< 1
<1
<1
< 1
<1
Sodium
NC
NC
18500
4920
1780
25700
8080
7840
8380
8780
6640
12500
Antimony
NC
NC
< 1.2
< 1.2
<1.2
<2
< 1.2
<2
<2
< 1.2
< 1.2
<1.2
Arsenic
50
320
31.2
49.5
< 1
<1
2.4
17.0
16.7
< 1
< 1
33.5
Cobalt
2.5
176
64.2
24.2
3.8
<1
< 1
1.1
1
< 1
< 1
1.1
Lead
15
1.62
<0.2
0.3
<0.2
<0.5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.2
0.2
<0.2
Selenium
NC
5
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
Thallium
NC
3
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
Vanadium
4.3
28
1.1
1.7
< 1
<1
<1
< 1
< 1
2.9
< 1
1
Zinc
73.5
NC
<2
3
3
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
4
<2
Mercury
2
NC
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
VOCjug/L)
1,1,1-T rich loroetha ne
NC
NC
<10
<1.0
< 1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
1,1,2,2-Tetra chloroetha ne
NC
NC
< 10
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
< 0.50 J-
< 0.50 J-
< 0.50 J-
<0.50
<0.50
< 0.50 J-
1,1,2-Trichloro-l, 2,2-trif luoroetha ne
NC
NC
< 10 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
1,1,2 -Trich loroetha ne
NC
NC
<10
<1.0
< 1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
1,1-Dichloroethane
50
240
<10
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
1,1-Dichloroethene
NC
NC
<10
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
1,2,3-T richlorobenzene
NC
NC
< 10
< 1.0
<1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
NC
NC
< 10
< 1.0
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
1,2 -Dibromo-3-chloropropa ne
NC
NC
<10 J
<0.50 J
<0.50
<0.50 J
<0.50 J
<0.50 J
<0.50 J
<0.50
<0.50 J
<0.50 J
1,2- Dibromoetha ne
NC
NC
<10
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
< 0.50 J-
< 0.50 J-
< 0.50 J-
<0.50
<0.50
< 0.50 J-
1,2-Dichloroben zene
NC
NC
<10
<1.0
< 1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
1.4 J-
1.4 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
1,2-Dichloroethane
NC
NC
<10
<0.60
<0.60
<0.60
< 0.60 J-
< 0.60 J-
< 0.60 J-
<0.60
<0.60
1.9 J-
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table 3-1
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Point of Compliance Wells- 80th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Weil ID
Bd
Bi
Bs
Cd
Ci
Cs
Cs
Gd
Gi
Gs
Sample ID
BD 2111-20211115
Bl 2111-20211115
BS 2111-20211115
CD 2111-20211115
CI 2111-20211115
CS 2111-20211115
VS 2111-20211115
GD 2111-20211115
Gl 2111-20211115
GS 2111-20211115
Sample Date
15 Nov2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
Sample Type Code
N
N
N
N
N
N
FD
N
N
N
Laboratory Report Number
GCJ79003
GCJ79003
GCJ79003
GCJ77867
GCJ79003
GCJ77867
GCJ77867
GCJ79003
GCJ79003
GCJ79003
1,2 -Dichloropropan e
NC
NC
< 10
< 1.0
<1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
1,3- Dich loroben zene
NC
NC
<10
<1.0
< 1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
1.2 J-
1.1 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
1,4- Dich loroben zene
NC
NC
<10
<1.0
< 1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
2-Butanone(MEK)
50
169000
<50 J
<5.0 J
<5.0
<5.0 J
<5.0 J
<5.0 J
<5.0 J
<5.0
<5.0 J
<5.0 J
2-Hexanone
NC
NC
<50 J
<5.0 J
<5.0
<5.0 J
<5.0 J
<5.0 J
<5.0 J
<5.0
<5.0 J
<5.0 J
4-M ethy l-2-penta none
50
12600
<50
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
< 5.0 J-
< 5.0 J-
< 5.0 J-
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0 J-
Acetone
NC
NC
<50 J
< 10 J
<10
<10 J
< 10 J
< 10 J
<10 J
< 10
< 10 J
<10 J
Benzene
50
102
27
2.4
<0.70
<0.70
< 0.70 J-
33 J-
31J-
<0.70
<0.70
5.8 J-
Bromochl orometh an e
NC
NC
<1.0
< 1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
Bromodichloromet han e
NC
NC
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
< 0.50 J-
< 0.50 J-
< 0.50 J-
<0.50
<0.50
< 0.50 J-
Bromoform
NC
NC
< 10 J
< 1.0 J
< 1.0 J-
<1.0 J
<1.0 J
< 1.0 J
< 1.0 J
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J
< 1.0 J
Bromomethane
NC
NC
< 10 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0 J
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
Carbon disulfide
NC
NC
< 10
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
< 5.0 J-
< 5.0 J-
< 5.0 J-
<5.0
<5.0
< 5.0 J-
Carbon tetrachloride
NC
NC
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
Chlorobenzene
NC
NC
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
1.7 J-
1.7 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
Chloroethane
50
6000
130
54
22 J
< 1.0
5.4 J-
63 J-
67 J-
<1.0 J
< 1.0
2400 J-
chloroform
NC
NC
< 10
< 1.0
<1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
Chloromethane
NC
NC
< 10
< 1.0
< 1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
cis-1,2 -Dichloroeth en e
NC
54
< 10
< 1.0
<1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
2.2 J-
cis-1,3-Dichloropropen e
NC
NC
<0.40
<0.40
<0.40
< 0.40 J-
< 0.40 J-
< 0.40 J-
<0.40
<0.40
< 0.40 J-
Cyclohexane
NC
NC
<20
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
< 5.0 J-
2.5 J-
2.3 J-
<5.0
<5.0
< 5.0 J-
Dibromochloromet hane
NC
NC
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
< 0.50 J-
< 0.50 J-
< 0.50 J-
<0.50
<0.50
< 0.50 J-
Dich lorod ifluoromet hane
NC
NC
<10 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
Ethyl benzene
700
5800
290
9.6
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
8.8 J-
10J-
<1.0
<1.0
140 J-
Isopropylbenzene
NC
340
69
7.2
< 1.0
<1.0
2.1 J-
130 J-
120 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
14 J-
m,p-Xylene
10000
30000
380
220
< 1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
110 J-
110J-
<1.0
< 1.0
1200 J-
Methyl acetate
NC
NC
< 50 J-
< 5.0 J-
<5.0
< 5.0 J-
< 5.0 J-
< 5.0 J-
< 5.0 J-
<5.0
< 5.0 J-
< 5.0 J-
Methyl Tert Butyl Ether
NC
NC
<10
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
Methylcycloh exan e
NC
NC
<20
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
< 5.0 J-
15 J-
14 J-
<5.0
<5.0
< 5.0 J-
Methylene chloride
NC
NC
<40
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
<1.0
1.4 J-
o-Xylene
10000
30000
<10
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
1.1 J-
1.4 J-
<1.0
<1.0
6.7 J-
Styrene
100
NC
<10
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
Tetrachloroethene
NC
NC
<10
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
Tetrahydrofuran
250
NC
13000
210
<2.5
<2.5
16 J
690 J
940 J
<2.5
<2.5
1400 J
Toluene
1000
1960
<10
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
2.1 J-
2.6 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
1.3 J-
trans-1,2-Dichloroethen e
NC
NC
< 10
< 1.0
<1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
tran s-1,3- Dichloropr open e
NC
NC
<10
<0.40
<0.40
<0.40
< 0.40 J-
< 0.40 J-
< 0.40 J-
<0.40
<0.40
< 0.40 J-
Trichloroethene (TCE)
NC
NC
< 10
< 1.0
<1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
Trichloroflu oromethan e
NC
NC
< 10
< 1.0
< 1.0
<1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
Vinyl Chloride
NC
NC
<10
<1.0
<1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
<1.0
< 1.0
2.1 J-
WSO (ug/L)
N, N -Dimethylforma mide
250
NC
24 J -
< 9.5 J-
< 9.9 J-
<9.5 J-
< 9.5 J-
< 9.5 J-
< 9.5 J-
< 9.6 J-
< 9.5 J-
< 10 J-
SVOCjug/L)
1,4-Dioxane
500
NC
2300
27
0.24
1.9
290
2100
2000
1.7
64
710
Bold text
indicates compound was detected.
color background
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the ACL
color background
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the Trigger
Not Analyzed
Not Sampled
Reported value may not be accurate or precise, but the result may be biased low.
The analyte was positively identified and the associated numerical value is the approximate
certain quality control criteria were not met, or the concentration of the analyte was below the
of the analyte in the sample (du
of Detection (LOD).
either to the quality of the data generated because
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table 3-2
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells South of Lagoon - 80th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Dd
Dd
Di
Di
Sample ID
DD 2111-20211115
DD 2111-F-20211115
D! 2111-20211115
DI 2111-20211115
Sample Date
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
Laboratory Report Number
GCJ79003
GCJ79003
GCJ77867
GCJ79003
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum
0.026
0.012
0.025
1.02
Barium
0.025
0.026
0.187
0.021
Beryllium
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Cadmium
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Calcium
43.9
39.8
86.9
12.7
Chromium
<0.001 J
0.004 J
0.001
0.002
Copper
<0.0020
0.001
<0.0020
<0.0020
Iron
1.07
0.339
10.4
12.5
Magnesium
5.25
5.49
18.1
1.06
Manganese
0.098
0.100
0.868
1.16
Nickel
<0.001
<0.001
0.004
0.002
Potassium
4.6
4.2
6.3
1.6
Silver
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Sodium
7.59
6.76
6.43
2.16
Antimony
<0.0012
< 0.0006
<0.002
<0.0012
Arsenic
<0.001
<0.001
0.0037
0.0158
Cobalt
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.0011
Lead
<0.0002
<0.001
< 0.0005
0.0005
Selenium
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
Thallium
<0.0002
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
<0.0002
Vanadium
<0.001
<0.001
0.0017
<0.001
Zinc
0.315
0.0089
0.0038
0.012
Mercury
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
VOCs (ug/L)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
<1.0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
<0.50
NA
<0.50
<0.50
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane
< 1.0 J-
NA
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
<1.0
1,1-Dichloroethane
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
<1.0
1,1-Dichloroethene
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
<1.0
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
<1.0
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
< 1.0
l,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
< 0.50 J
NA
<0.50 J
<0.50 J
1,2-Dibromoethane
<0.50
NA
<0.50
<0.50
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
< 1.0
1,2-Dichloroethane
<0.60
NA
<0.60
<0.60
1,2-Dichloropropane
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
< 1.0
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
< 1.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
< 1.0
2-Butanone (MEK)
<5.0 J
NA
<5.0 J
<5.0 J
2-Hexanone
<5.0 J
NA
<5.0 J
<5.0 J
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
<5.0
NA
<5.0
<5.0
Acetone
< 10 J
NA
< 10 J
<10 J
Benzene
<0.70
NA
2.4
<0.70
Bromochloromethane
< 1.0
NA
<1.0
< 1.0
Bromodichloromethane
<0.50
NA
<0.50
<0.50
Bromoform
<1.0 J
NA
<1.0 J
< 1.0 J
Bromomethane
< 1.0 J-
NA
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
Carbon disulfide
<5.0
NA
<5.0
<5.0
Carbon tetrachloride
< 1.0
NA
<1.0
< 1.0
Chlorobenzene
< 1.0
NA
<1.0
< 1.0
Chloroethane
< 1.0
NA
27
< 1.0
chloroform
< 1.0
NA
<1.0
< 1.0
Chloromethane
< 1.0
NA
<1.0
< 1.0
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
<1.0
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
<0.40
NA
<0.40
<0.40
Cyclohexane
<5.0
NA
<5.0
<5.0
Dibromochloromethane
<0.50
NA
<0.50
<0.50
Dichlorodifluoromethane
< 1.0 J-
NA
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
Ethylbenzene
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
<1.0
Isopropylbenzene
< 1.0
NA
2.5
<1.0
m,p-Xylene
< 1.0
NA
2.0
< 1.0
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table 3-2
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells South of Lagoon - 80th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Dd
Dd
Di
Di
Sample ID
DD 2111-20211115
DD 2111-F-20211115
D! 2111-20211115
DI 2111-20211115
Sample Date
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
Laboratory Report Number
GCJ79003
GCJ79003
GCJ77867
GCJ79003
Methyl acetate
< 5.0 J-
NA
< 5.0 J-
< 5.0 J-
Methyl Tert Butyl Ether
<1.0
NA
< 1.0
<1.0
Methylcyclohexane
<5.0
NA
<5.0
<5.0
Methylene chloride
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
<1.0
o-Xylene
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
<1.0
Styrene
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
<1.0
Tetrachloroethene
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
<1.0
Tetrahydrofuran
3.6
NA
1400
<2.5
Toluene
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
< 1.0
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
< 1.0
NA
< 1.0
<1.0
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
<0.40
NA
<0.40
<0.40
Trichloroethene (TCE)
< 1.0
NA
<1.0
< 1.0
Trichlorofluoromethane
< 1.0
NA
<1.0
< 1.0
Vinyl Chloride
< 1.0
NA
<1.0
< 1.0
N,N-Dimethylformamide
< 9.9 J-
NA
< 10 J-
< 10 J-
1,4-Dioxane
260
NA
250
0.44
Formatting Legend:
j Bold text [indicates compound was detected.
ND Not Detected
NA Not Analyzed
J- Reported value may not be accurate or precise, but the result may be biased low.
J The analyte was positively identified and the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration
of the analyte in the sample (due either to the quality of the data generated because certain quality
< The result is considered a non-detect, reported as a concentration less than the reporting limit.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table 3-3
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells Across River from Lagoon - 80th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Nd
Ni
Ns
Sample ID
ND 2111-20211115
N1 2111-20211115
NS 2111-20211115
Sample Date
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
Laboratory Report Number
GCJ77867
GG77867
GCJ77867
Metals (ug/L)
MCL
Aluminum
50
109
104
73
Barium
2000
22
126
40
Beryllium
4
< 1
< 1
< 1
Cadmium
5
< 1
< 1
< 1
Calcium
NC
49700
124000
25100
Chromium
100
1
1
2
Copper
1300
< 2.0
<2.0
< 2.0
Iron
300
1990
19000
3050
Magnesium
NC
4760
19200
4740
Manganese
50
524
479
421
Nickel
100
2
9
1
Potassium
NC
4800
8900
3400
Silver
50
< 1
< 1
< 1
Sodium
NC
9770
12800
12300
Antimony
6
< 2
< 2
< 2
Arsenic
10
1.3
1.7
< 1
Cobalt
NC
< 1
3.8
< 1
Lead
15
<0.5
0.6
<0.5
Selenium
50
< 2
< 2
< 2
Thallium
2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Vanadium
NC
< 1
< 1
< 1
Zinc
5000
< 2
5
4.6
Mercury
2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
VOCs (ug/L)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
200
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NC
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane
NC
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
1,1-Dichloroethane
NC
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
1,1-Dichloroethene
7
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
NC
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
70
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
l,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
0.2
<0.50
<0.50 J
<0.50 J
1,2-Dibromoethane
0.05
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
600
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
<0.60
<0.60
<0.60
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
NC
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
75
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
2-Butanone (MEK)
NC
< 5.0
< 5.0 J
< 5.0 J
2-Hexanone
NC
< 5.0
< 5.0 J
< 5.0 J
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
NC
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
Acetone
NC
< 10
< 10 J
< 10 J
Benzene
5
<0.70
<0.70
<0.70
Bromochloromethane
NC
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Bromodichloromethane
80
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Bromoform
80
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J
< 1.0 J
Bromomethane
NC
< 1.0 J
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
Carbon disulfide
NC
< 5.0
<5.0
< 5.0
Carbon tetrachloride
5
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Chlorobenzene
100
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Chloroethane
NC
< 1.0 J
14
< 1.0
chloroform
80
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Chloromethane
NC
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
70
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
NC
<0.40
<0.40
<0.40
Cyclohexane
NC
< 5.0
<5.0
< 5.0
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table 3-3
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells Across River from Lagoon - 80th CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Nd
Ni
Ns
Sample ID
ND 2111-20211115
N1 2111-20211115
NS 2111-20211115
Sample Date
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021
Laboratory Report Number
GCJ77867
GG77867
GCJ77867
Dibromochloromethane
80
<0.50
<0.50
<0.50
Dichlorodifluoromethane
NC
< 1.0
< 1.0 J-
< 1.0 J-
Ethylbenzene
700
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Isopropylbenzene
340
< 1.0
7.9
< 1.0
m,p-Xylene
10000
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Methyl acetate
NC
< 5.0
< 5.0 J-
< 5.0 J-
Methyl Tert Butyl Ether
NC
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Methylcyclohexane
NC
< 5.0
<5.0
< 5.0
Methylene chloride
5
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
o-Xylene
10000
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Styrene
100
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Tetrachloroethene
5
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Tetrahydrofuran
NC
< 2.5
1200
< 2.5
Toluene
1000
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
100
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
NC
<0.40
<0.40
<0.40
Trichloroethene (TCE)
5
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Trichlorofluoromethane
NC
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Vinyl Chloride
2
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
WSO (ug/l)
N,N-Dimethylformamide
NC
<9.5 J-
< 9.6 J-
< 9.7 J-
SVOCs
1,4-Dioxane
NC
200
1000
0.27
indicates compound was detected,
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the MCL
NC No Criteria
< Not Detected, at a concentration less than the reporting limit
NA Not Analyzed
J- Reported value may not be accurate or precise, but the result may be biased low.
J The analyte was positively identified and the associated numerical value is the
approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample (due either to the quality of the
data generated because certain quality control criteria were not met, or the concentration
of the analyte was below the Limit of Detection (LOD).
^ormattmg_LegencL
Bold text
color background
Page 2 of 2
-------
Yaworski Waste Lagoon
October 2022 Groundwater Data
-------
Table 3-1
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Point of Compliance Wells - 81st CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Bd
Bi
Bs
Cd
Ci
Cs
Gd
Gi
Gs
Sample ID
BD2210
BI2210
BS2210
CD2210
CI2210
CS2210
GD2210
GI2210
GS2210
Sample Date
10/5/2022
10/5/2022
10/5/2022
10/4/2022
10/4/2022
10/4/2022
10/5/2022
10/5/2022
10/5/2022
Laboratory Report Number
GCM50901
GCM50901
GCM50901
GCM49165
GCM49165
GCM49165
GCM50901
GCM50901
GCM50901
Metals (uq/L)
ACL*
Triqqer Value
Aluminum
NC
110
<20
<20
<20
22
48
36
<20
<20
45
Arsenic
50
320
27.5
38.0
< 1
<1
1.9
16.0
<1
< 1
54.6
Barium
2000
NC
417
51
26
10
17
67
43
18
113
Calcium
NC
NC
163000
44100
13200
144000
57100
36500
43600
37100
47400
Cobalt
2.5
176
48.8
8.0
5
<1.0
< 1.0
142
109
1.8
<1
< 1
<1
Copper
1300
22.8
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
6.4
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
2.2
Iron
NC
169200
38700
21700
4680
1840
68100
120
46
15800
Lead
15
1.62
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Magnesium
NC
NC
26800
4340
1220
10200
5460
4900
4700
4130
7090
Manqanese
NC
12000
1580
1670
665
168
242
3860
48
105
339
Nickel
9.9
72
29
4
1
7
6
<1
< 1
5
Potassium
NC
NC
11200
4300
2000
7100
3000
3700
7200
5000
7400
Sodium
NC
NC
16500
10100
2920
22700
7640
7720
8400
7330
12800
Vanadium
2.5
28
2.7
<1
< 1
< 1
<1
4.1
<1
< 1
<1
Zinc
73.5
NC
2
4
3
<2
10
3
<2
5
4
VOCs (ug/L)
1,2-Dichloroethane
NC
NC
< 1.3
<0.60
<0.60
<0.60
< 0.60 J
<5.0 J
<0.60
<0.60
0.63 J-
1,4-Dioxane
500
NC
1900
50
<0.20
2.7
170
2200
1.6
35
320
Benzene
50
102
28
6.1
<0.70
<0.70
< 0.70 J
17 J-
<0.70
<0.70
4.4 J-
Chloroethane
50
6000
200 J
120
31 J
<1.0
<1.0 J
120 J-
<1.0 J
< 1.0
670 J
Ethylbenzene
700
5800
<5.0
<1.0
< 1.0
<1.0
<1.0 J
<5.0 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
28 J-
Isopropylbenzene
NC
340
63
31
< 1.0
<1.0
<1.0 J
82 J-
< 1.0
< 1.0
7.8 J-
Methylcyclohexane
NC
NC
<5.0
1.1
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0 J
12 J-
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0 J
m,p-Xylene
10000
30000
<5.0
17
< 1.0
<1.0
<1.0 J
20 J-
< 1.0
< 1.0
180 J-
o-Xylene
10000
30000
<5.0 J
<1.0
< 1.0
<1.0
<1.0 J
<5.0 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
1.0 J-
Total Xylenes
NC
NC
<5.0
17
< 1.0
<1.0
< 1.0
20
< 1.0
< 1.0
181
Tetrahydrofuran
250
NC
6600
240
<2.5
<2.5
4.8 J-
3200 J-
<2.5
<2.5
300 J-
WSO (ug/L)
N,N-Dimethylformamide
250
NC
<19 J
<9.8 J
<9.5 J
<9.5 J
<9.5 J
<19 J
< 11 J
<9.5 J
<9.5 J
Legend:
This is a summary table. Only detected compounds are shown.
*ACLs vary for each well. Refer to Appendix E-1 for ACLs
Bold text indicates compound was detected.
I indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the ACL
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the Trigger Value
ug/L micrograms per liter
ACL Alternative Contaminant Limits
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
WSOs Water Soluble Organics
NC No Criteria Established
< 1.0 Not Detected, at a concentration less than the reporting limit
J- Reported value may not be accurate or precise, but the
result may be biased low.
J The analyte was positively identified and the associated
numerical value is the approximate concentration of the
analyte in the sample (due either to the quality of the data
generated because certain quality control criteria were not
met, or the concentration of the analyte was below the Limit
of Detection (LOD).
-------
Table 3-2
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Lagoon Wells - 81st CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Dd
Di
Ds
Sample ID
DD2210
DI2210
DS2210
Sample Date
10/5/2022
10/5/2022
10/5/2022
Laboratory Report Number
GCM50901
GCM50901
GCM50901
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum
< 0.020
< 0.020
0.204
Arsenic
< 0.001
0.002
0.0130
Barium
0.024
0.148
0.015
Calcium
41.9
67.0
12.1
Cobalt
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
Copper
< 0.0020
< 0.0020
< 0.0020
Iron
0.770
7.36
10.6
Lead
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
< 0.0005
Magnesium
5.01
15.7
0.932
Manganese
0.099
0.773
1.32
Nickel
< 0.001
0.004
0.001
Potassium
4.9
7.0
1.4
Sodium
7.78
6.92
3.39
Vanadium
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
Zinc
0.109
0.004
< 0.002
VOCs (ug/L)
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 0.60
< 0.60
< 0.60
1,4-Dioxane
170
130
< 0.20
1,4-Dioxane-d8
75
71
75
Benzene
< 0.70
1.8
< 0.70
Chloroethane
< 1.0
18 J+
1.6
Ethylbenzene
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Isopropylbenzene
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Methylcyclohexane
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0 J
m,p-Xylene
< 1.0
1.1
< 1.0
o-Xylene
< 1.0 J
< 1.0
< 1.0
Total Xylenes
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Tetrahydrofuran
3.3
310
<2.5
WSO (ug/L)
N,N-Dimethylformamide
<9.5 J
< R
<9.7 J
Legend:
This is a summary table. Only detected compounds are shown.
Bold text indicates compound was detected
ug/L micrograms per liter
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
WSOs Water Soluble Organics
< 1.0 The result is considered a non-detect, reported as a
concentration less than the reporting limit
J+ Reported value may not be accurate or precise, but the result
may be biased high
J The analyte was positively identified and the associated
numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte
in the sample (due either to the quality of the data generated
because certain quality control criteria were not met, or the
concentration of the analyte was below the Limit of Detection
(LOD).
< R Value was rejected due to data quality concerns. Refer to
Appendix D for DQA evaluation
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 3-3
Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results - Wells Across River from Lagoon - 81st CMR
Yaworski Lagoon Superfund Site
Canterbury, Connecticut
Monitoring Well ID
Nd
Ni
Ns
Sample ID
ND2210
NI2210
NS2210
Sample Date
10/4/2022
10/4/2022
10/4/2022
Laboratory Report Number
GCM49165
GCM49165
GCM49165
Metals (ug/L)
MCL
Aluminum
50
27
29
50
Arsenic
10
< 1
< 1
< 1
Barium
2000
30
145
38
Calcium
NC
81900
161000
25300
Cobalt
NC
< 1.0
3.6
1.3
Copper
1300
< 2.0
< 2.0
< 2.0
Iron
300
1890
25000
7590
Lead
15
< 0.2
< 0.2
0.2
Magnesium
NC
7520
23600
4160
Manganese
50
701
534
614
Nickel
100
2
10
< 1
Potassium
NC
5800
9600
3000
Sodium
NC
9990
12900
12800
Vanadium
NC
< 1
< 1
2.5
Zinc
5000
3
<2
3
VOCs (ug/L)
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
<0.60
<0.60
<0.60
1,4-Dioxane
NC
300
1100
<0.20
Benzene
5
<0.70
<0.70
<0.70
Chloroethane
NC
< 1.0
20
< 1.0
Ethyl benzene
700
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Isopropylbenzene
340
<1.0
11
< 1.0
Methylcyclohexane
NC
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
m,p-Xylene
10000
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
o-Xylene
10000
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
Total Xylenes
NC
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Tetrahydrofuran
NC
2.7
580
< 2.5
WSO (ug/L)
N, N-Dimethylformamide
NC
<9.5 J
< 9.6 J
<9.5 J
Legend:
This is a summary table. Only detected compounds are shown.
Bold text
ug/L
MCL
VOCs
WSOs
NC
<1.0
J
indicates compound was detected.
indicates result or reporting limit exceeds the MCL
micrograms per liter
Maximum Contaminant Levels
Volatile Organic Compounds
Water Soluble Organics
No Criteria Established
Not Detected, at a concentration less than the reporting limit
The analyte was positively identified and the associated numerical value is the
approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample (due either to the
quality of the data generated because certain quality control criteria were not
met, or the concentration of the analyte was below the Limit of Detection
(LOD1.
Page 1 of 1
-------
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
E
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
Five-Year Review Site inspection Checklist
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: YaworsM Lagoon
Date of inspection: 3/30/2023
Location and Region: Canterbury, CT
EPA ID: CTD009774969
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
review: EPA - Reg. 1
Weather/temperature: Overcast / 40"F
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
X Landfill cover/containment
X Access controls
X Institutional controls
~ Groundwater pump and treatment
~ Surface water collection and treatment
~ Other
Attachments: ~ Inspection team roster attached ~ Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
1. O&M site manager: Anthony Allevo. Environmental Analyst II. CTDEEP 3/30/23
Name Title Date
Interviewed X at site ~ at office ~ by phone Phone no:. 860-424-3649
Problems, suggestions; ~ Report attached
2. O&M staff : O&M performed by CTDEEP'S contractor. AECOM
Name Title Date
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office ~ by phone Phone no.
Problems, suggestions; ~ Report attached
X Monitored natural attenuation
~ Groundwater containment
~ Vertical barrier walls
D-l
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.
Agency
Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached
Agency
Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached
Agency
Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached
Agency
Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached
4. Other interviews (optional) ~ Report attached.
D-2
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
1.
O&M Documents
~ O&M manual ~ Readily available ~ Up to date X N/A
~ As-built drawings ~ Readily available ~ Up to date X N/A
~ Maintenance logs ~ Readily available ~ Up to date X N/A
Remarks:
G\V monitoring is performed every 15 months. Lagoon is mowed annually. Access fence and Gabion
retaining wall arc maintained as needed. Site is an open field - documents arc brought on-site when
work is conducted.
2.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan ~ Readily available ~ Up to date
~ Contingency plan/emergency response plan ~ Readily available ~ Up to date
Remarks:
Site is an open field - documents arc brought on-site when work is conducted.
~ N/A
~ N/A
3.
O&M and OSHA Training Records
Remarks
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
X N/A
4.
Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit
~ Effluent discharge
~ Waste disposal, POTW
~ Other permits
Remarks
~ Readily available
~ Readily available
~ Readily available
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
X N/A
X N/A
X N/A
X N/A
5.
Gas Generation Records
Remarks
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
X N/A
6.
Settlement Monument Records
Remarks
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
X N/A
7.
Groundwater Monitoring Records
Remarks
X Readily available
~ Up to date
~ N/A
8.
Leachate Extraction Records
Remarks
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
X N/A
9.
Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air
~ Water (effluent)
Remarks
~ Readily available
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
X N/A
X N/A
D-3
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
10. Daily Access/Security Logs
Remarks
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
X N/A
IV. O&M COSTS
(MM Organization
~ State in-housc
~ PRP iu-housc
~ Federal Facility in-house
~ Other
X Contractor for State
~ Contractor for PRP
~ Contractor for Federal Facility
O&M Cost Records
X Readily available ~ Up to date
~ Funding niccliaiiisni/agrccnicnt in place
Original O&M cost estimate
~ Breakdown attached
From
From
From
From
From
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
To
Date
To
Date
To
Date
To
Date
To
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Total cost
Total cost
Total cost
Total cost
Total cost
~ Breakdown attached
~ Breakdown attached
~ Breakdown attached
~ Breakdown attached
~ Breakdown attached
Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS X Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing: X Location shown on site map X Gates secured
Remarks: Minor brush clearing needed, nothing significant.
~ N/A
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and other security measures
Remarks
~ Location shown on site map
XN/A
D-4
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
c.
Institutional Controls (ICs)
1.
Implementation and enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented ~ Yes X No ~ N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced ~ Yes X No ~ N/A
Type of monitoring (e.#., self-reporting, drive by):
Frequency
Responsible party/agency
Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Reporting is up-to-date ~ Yes ~ No X N/A
Reports arc verified by the lead agency ~ Yes ~ No X N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met ~ Yes X No ~ N/A
Violations have been reported ~ Yes X No ~ N/A
Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached
ICs still needed on two properties owned by owners (Yaworskis). Waiting for CTDEEP to cap an
abutting landfill before implementing.
2.
Adequacy X ICs arc adequate ~ ICs arc inadequate ~ N/A
Remarks
D.
General
1.
Vandalism/trespassing ~ Location shown on site map X No vandalism evident
Remarks
2.
Land use changes on site X N/A
Remarks
3.
Land use changes off site X N/A
Remarks
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A.
Roads X Applicable UN/A
1.
Roads damaged ~ Location shown on site map X Roads adequate ~ N/A
Remarks
Four wheel drive recommended for access.
D-5
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
B.
Other Site Conditions
Remarks
VII. LANDFILL COVERS X Applicable UN/A
A.
Landfill Surface
1.
Settlement (Low spots) ~ Location shown on site map X Settlement not evident
A real extent Depth
Remarks
2.
Cracks ~ Location shown on site map X Cracking not evident
Lengths Widths Depths
Remarks
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map X Erosion not evident
A real extent Depth
Remarks: Gabions on retaining wall observed to be in good condition and in working order.
4.
Holes ~ Location shown on site map X Holes not evident
A real extent Depth
Remarks
5.
Vegetative Cover X Grass X Cover properly established ~ No signs of stress
~ Trees/Shrubs (indicate si/c and locations on a diagram)
Remarks: Vegetation cover changes seasonally, but is maintained properly by CTDEEP
6.
Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) ~ N/A
Remarks: Gabions on retaining wall observed to be in good condition and in working order.
7.
Bulges ~ Location shown on site map X Bulges not evident
A real extent Height
Remarks
D-6
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
8.
Wet Areas/Water Damage
~ Wet areas
~ Ponding
~ Seeps
~ Soft subgrade
Remarks
X Wet areas/water damage not evident
~ Location shown on site map A real extent
~ Location shown on site map A real extent
~ Location shown on site map A real extent
~ Location shown on site map A real extent
9.
Slope Instability ~ Slides
A real extent
Remarks
~ Location shown on site map X No evidence of slope instability
B.
Benches ~ Applicable X N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
channel.)
1.
Flows Bypass Bench
Remarks
~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A or okay
2.
Bench Breached
Remarks
~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A or okay
3.
Bench Overtopped
Remarks
~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A or okay
C.
Letdown Channels ~ Applicable X N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1.
Settlement ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of settlement
A real extent Depth
Remarks
2.
Material Degradation ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of degradation
Material type A real extent
Remarks
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of erosion
A real extent Depth
Remarks
D-7
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
4.
Undercutting ~ Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of undercutting
A real extent Depth
Remarks
5.
Obstructions Type
~ Location shown on site map
Size
Remarks
~ No obstructions
Area! extent
6.
Excessive Vegetative Growth Type Grass and Shrubs
~ No evidence of excessive growth
~ Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
~ Location shown on site map A real extent
Remarks:
D.
Cover Penetrations X Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Gas Vents ~ Active ~ Passive
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance
X N/A
Remarks
2.
Gas Monitoring Probes
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks
~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition
~ Needs Maintenance X N/A
3.
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
X Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning X Routinely sampled X Good condition
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks
4.
Leachate Extraction Wells
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks
~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition
~ Needs Maintenance X N/A
5.
Settlement Monuments ~ Located ~ Routinely surveyed X N/A
Remarks
D-8
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable X N/A
1.
Gas Treatment Facilities
~ Flaring ~ Thermal destruction ~ Collection for reuse
~ Good conditionU Needs Maintenance
Remarks
2.
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
~ Good conditionU Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
~ Good conditionU Needs Maintenance U N/A
Remarks
F.
Cover Drainage Layer U Applicable X N/A
1.
Outlet Pipes Inspected U Functioning U N/A
Remarks
2.
Outlet Rock Inspected U Functioning U N/A
Remarks
G.
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds U Applicable X N/A
1.
Siltation Areal extent Depth U N/A
U Siltation not evident
Remarks
2.
Erosion Areal extent Depth
U Erosion not evident
Remarks
3.
Outlet Works U Functioning U N/A
Remarks
4.
Dam U Functioning U N/A
Remarks
D-9
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
H. Retaining Walls X Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Deformations ~ Location shown on site map X Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement
Rotational displacement
Remarks: Gabian wall on north side of lagoon (abutting river) is good condition. Minor evidence of
rust.
2.
Degradation ~ Location shown on site map X Degradation not evident
Remarks
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ~ Applicable X N/A
1.
Siltation ~ Location shown on site map ~ Siltation not evident
A real extent Depth
Remarks
2.
Vegetative Growth ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A
~ Vegetation does not impede flow
A real extent Type
Remarks
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map ~ Erosion not evident
A real extent Depth
Remarks
4.
Discharge Structure ~ Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS X Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Settlement ~ Location shown on site map X Settlement not evident
A real extent Depth
Remarks:Gabions arc in good, working condition.
2.
Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring: Visual
~ Performance not monitored
Frequency: Annual U Evidence of breaching
Head differential
Remarks
D-10
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
IX. GROUN DWATER/SU RFACE WATER REMEDIES X Applicable ~ N/A
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines X Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical
~ Good conditionU All required wells properly operating ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remark: No dedicated well pumps.
2.
Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
~ Good conditionU Needs Maintenance
Remarks: Dedicated tubing in wells. Replaced as needed.
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
~ Readily available ~ Good conditionU Requires upgrade U Needs to be provided
Remarks: No dedicated site equipment.
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines ~ Applicable X N/A
1.
Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical
U Good conditionU Needs Maintenance
Remarks
2.
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
U Good conditionU Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
U Readily available U Good conditionU Requires upgrade U Needs to be provided
Remarks
D-ll
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
c.
Treatment System ~ Applicable X N/A
1.
Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
~ Metals removal ~ Oil/water separation ~ Biorcmediation
~ Air stripping ~ Carbon adsorbers
~ Filters
~ Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)
~ Others
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
~ Sampling ports properly marked and functional
~ Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
~ Equipment properly identified
~ Quantity of groundwater treated annually
~ Quantity of surface water treated annually
Remarks
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
~ N/A ~ Good conditionU Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
~ N/A ~ Good conditionU Proper secondary containment ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
4.
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
~ N/A ~ Good conditionU Needs Maintenance
Remarks
5.
Treatment Building(s)
U N/A U Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) U Needs repair
U Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks
6.
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
U Properly secured/locked U Functioning U Routinely sampled U Good condition
U All required wells located U Needs Maintenance U N/A
Remarks
D. Monitoring Data
1.
Monitoring Data
X Is routinely submitted on time X Is of acceptable quality
2.
Monitoring data suggests:
X Groundwater plume is effectively contained U Contaminant concentrations arc declining
D-12
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
D.
Monitored Natural Attenuation
1.
Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
~ Properly secured/locked X Functioning X Routinely sampled X Good condition
X All required wells located ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks: Well Clusters outside of the fenced Lagoon property need to have locks replaced. Multiple
wells were unlocked due to old rusty locks.
X. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A.
Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume,
minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).
• The remedy is operating as expected to minimize leaching. Monitoring data shows there are
cxcecdances of ACLs in some monitoring wells close to the river. However, there arc no signs of
erosion, soil movement, and the gabions are in good condition. The remedy continues to protect
human health and the environment.
B.
Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protect iveness of the remedy.
• CTDEEP maintains and controls vegetative growth on the lagoon and conducts annual mowings.
Monitoring wells arc sampled every 15 months. Site access is well maintained and the gabion
retaining wall is routinely inspected. No O&M issues.
D-13
-------
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
c.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protcctivcness of the remedy may be
compromised in the future.
• No early indicators arc observed during this site inspection.
D.
Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
• G\V monitoring frequency was decreased to 15 month intervals in 2020.
D-14
-------
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
F
-------
1 /18/23,1:1 f to Review Cleanups at Four Connecticut Super und Sites this Year | US f
I An official website of the United States government f
&EFVV
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
| Search EPA.gov f
News Releases: Region 01 f
226161> f
EPA to Review Cleanups at Four Connecticut f
Superfund Sites this Year f
January 18,2023 f
Contact Information f
Mikayla Rumph (rumph.mikayla@epa.gov) f
(617) 918-1016 f
BOSTON (Jan. 18,2023) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will conduct comprehensive reviews of completed cleanup f
work at four National Priority List (NPL) Superfund sites in Connecticut this year, f
The sites will undergo a legally required Five-Year Review to ensure that previous remediation efforts at the sites continue to protect public f
health and the environment f
"Throughout the process of designing and constructing a cleanup at a hazardous waste site, EPA's primary goal is to make sure the remedy f
will be protective of public health and the environment, especially for communities that have been overburdened by pollution, said EPA f
New England Regional Administrator David W. Cash. "It is important for EPA to regularly check on these sites to ensure the remedy is f
working properly and Connecticut communities continue to be protected." f
The Superfund Sites where EPA will conduct Five-Year Reviews in 2023 are listed below with web links that provide detailed information on f
site status as well as past assessment and cleanup activity. Once the Five-Year Review is complete, its findings will be posted to the website f
in a final report, f
Five-Year Reviews of Superfund sites in Connecticut to be completed in 2023: f
Barkhamsted-New Hartford Landfill, Barkhamsted f
Beacon Heights Landfill, Beacon Falls f
Laurel Park, Inc., Naugatuck Borough f
Yaworski Waste Lagoon, Canterbury f
More information: f
The Superfund program, a federal program established by Congress in 1980, investigates and cleans up the most complex, uncontrolled, or f
abandoned hazardous waste sites in the country and EPA endeavors to facilitate activities to return them to productive use. In total, there f
are 123 Superfund sites across New England, f
Superfund and Other cleanup sites in New England f
EPA's Superfund program f
Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem, f
LAST UPDATED ON JANUARY 18,2023 f
Discover, f
Accessibility Statement f
f
Contracting f
f
Connect, f
DSt2l.gOV f
Inspector General
f
Jobs f
Newsroom!
f
Ask. f
Contact EPA f
f
EPA Disclaimers f
f
Hotlines f
FOIA Requests f
f
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-review-cleanups- our-connecti cut-super und-sites-year f
SEMS Doc ID 671772
-------
1/18/23,1:1 f f to Review Cleanups at Four Connecticut Super und Sites this Year | US f
EPA www Web Snapshot f
f
Mo FEAR Act Data f
f
Plain Writing f
f
Privacy f
Privacy and Security Notice f
f
Regulations.gov £
f
Subscribe f
f
USA.gov E f
White House B
f
Frequent Questions f
f
Follow, f
BOB
Dl
https://www.epa.gov/newsreieases/epa-review-cieanups- our-connecticut-super und-sites-year f
2/2 f
-------
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
G
-------
EPA MCLs, Alternate Concentration Limit, and Trigger Values for Point of Compliance Wells
Alternate Concentration Limits
Contaminant
Unit
EPA MCLs
2018)
Trigger
Values
Bs
Bi
Bd
Cs
Ci
Cd
Gs
Gi
Gd
VOCs
acetonitrile
ug/L
NA
250
13000
250
50000
250
250
2500
250
250
acetophenone
ug/L
NA
50
69
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
benzene
ug/L
5
102
50
100
290
180
50
50
50
50
50
beta-bhc
ug/L
NA
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
ug/L
6
50
50
50
50
71
50
50
50
79
2-butanone
ug/L
NA
97
6400
180
180000
50
50
7200
65
50
chloroethane
ug/L
NA
6000
2600
130
110
1600
50
50
4900
50
50
1,1-dichloroethane
ug/L
NA
240
140
50
50
99
50
50
2050
50
50
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
ug/L
70
54
n,n-dimethylformamide
ug/L
NA
250
203000
1550000
383000
8500
250
210000
3900
250
1,4-dioxane
ug/L
NA
500
4900
5500
50000
500
500
4600
500
500
ethylbenzene
ug/L
700
5800
850
7760
1900
8000
700
700
13300
700
700
isopropylbenzene
ug/L
NA
340
4-methyl-2-pentanone
ug/L
NA
12600
250
2400
270
9300
50
50
1450
50
50
naphthalene
ug/L
NA
50
68
50
53
50
50
50
50
50
styrene
ug/L
100
100
260
230
214
100
100
100
100
100
tetrahydrofuran
ug/L
NA
330
31200
75100
99900
250
250
21500
1920
250
toluene
ug/L
1000
1960
1300
1000
1000
3400
1000
1000
1250
1000
1000
total xylene
ug/L
10000
30000
10000
13100
21400
31400
10000
10000
67700
10000
10000
SVOCs
2-methylphenol
ug/L
NA
56
2,4-dimethylphenol
ug/L
NA
112
50
120
78
84
50
50
50
50
50
4-methylphenol
ug/L
NA
280
50
90
50
120
50
50
97
50
50
phenol
ug/L
NA
300
50
52
50
50
50
50
220
50
50
Metals
aluminum
ug/L
50-2001
110
arsenic
ug/L
10
320
50
1140
226
114
50
50
220
50
50
barium
ug/L
2000
1150
2000
2000
3660
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
cadmium
ug/L
5
1.34
5
14.9
16
12.2
5
5
5
6.1
33.2
chromium
ug/L
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
cobalt
ug/L
NA
176
69.3
390
379
38.1
2.5
2.5
44.9
2.5
21.5
copper
ug/L
1300/1000 2
22.8
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
iron
ug/L
300 1
169200
lead
ug/L
15
11.62
15
32.5
28.5
52.2
15
15
15
15
15
manganese
ug/L
50 1
12000
mercury
ug/L
2
5.9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
nickel
ug/L
100 3
72
12.8
86.7
91.6
117
2590
10.7
149
16.6
9.9
selenium
ug/L
50
5
thall ri
ug/L
2
3
vanadium
ug/L
NA
28
4.3
11
13.6
136
15.8
2.5
11.7
8.9
28.3
zinc
ug/i
=ssaL=
73.5
141
253
156
243
105
115
75.5
218
1 - Federal secondary MCL
2 - Federal MCL and CT MCL/Federal MCL
3-CTMCL
-------
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
-------
YAWORSKI WASTE LAGOON SUPERFIJND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: Yaworski Waste Lagoon
EPA ID: CTD009774969
Interviewer name: Aaron Shaheen
Interviewer affiliation: U.S. EPA Community
Involvement Coordinator
Subject name: Melissa Gil
Subject affiliation: Canterbury. CT, First
Selectmen
Subject contact information: mgil@canterburyct.gov
Interview date: 5/17/2023
Interview time: 10:21 AM
Interview location: N/A
Interview format (circle one): In Person Phone
Mail
Other:
Interview category: Local Government
1. Are you aware of the historic environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have
taken place to date'.'
• Yes
2. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site's activities and remedial progress'.' If not. how
might EPA convey site-related information in the future'.'
• Yes
3. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as
emergency response, vandalism or trespassing'.'
• No
4. Are you aware of any changes to local regulations that might affect the protectiveness of the
Site's remedy'.'
• No
5. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site'.'
• Not currently, but listed as property to be considered for a future industrial zone
6. Has EPA kept involved parties and surrounding neighbors informed of activities at the Site'.' How
can EPA best provide site-related information in the future'.'
• Town is kept well informed. I can't speak on the abutters.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the project'.'
• No
8. Do you consent to have your name included along w ith your responses to this questionnaire in the
FYR report'.'
• Yes
-------
YAWORSKI WASTE LAGOON SUPERFIJND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: Yaworski Waste Lagoon
EPA ID: CTD009774969
Interviewer name: Aaron Shaheen
Interviewer affiliation: U.S. EPA Community
Involvement Coordinator
Subject name: Anthony Allevo
Subject affiliation: CTDEEP Environmental
Analyst
Subject contact information: anthony.allevo@ct.gov
Interview date: 5/16/2023
Interview time: 3:14PM
Interview location: N/A
Interview format (circle one): In Person Phone
Mail
imaii
Other:
Interview category: State Agency
1. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse
activities (as appropriate)'.'
• The remedy has been effective and stable in the protection human health Maintenance of
the cap has remained constant and there have been no issues to date.
2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site'.'
• The remedy remains protective of human health
3. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding site-related environmental issues or
remedial activities from residents in the past five years?
• An adjacent property owner has contacted the EPA and CT DEEP regarding potential
groundwater impacts.
4. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five years? If
so. please describe the purpose and results of these activities.
• Continued site inspections, routine groundw ater monitoring, annual mow ing of the
property.
5. Are you aware of any changes to state laws that might affect the p reflectiveness of the Site's
remedy'.'
• No
6. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site'.' If not. what are the
associated outstanding issues'.'
• Yes. the institutional controls remain protective of human health.
-------
7. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site'.'
• No, known changes in use are planned for the site.
8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or
operation of the Site's remedy'.'
• No, all appears to be operating well.
9. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the
FYR report'.'
• Yes
------- |