Free Exhibit - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

' _ _ Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 218-21 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 3
` ri 4`· ' ` 1:: _ 1-:
_\·L if STATE OF CONNECTICUT {-`%EC§i\·'ED
Ji it .
E` I)l£PAR'I`MI€N'I` OF PUBLIC HEALTH ]_ 8 · _
. J -
ia-s:;\f:e/if ·
WATER MAl*lP:GEiviENT BUREAU
TO: Leslie Balch, Director of Health, Quinnipiack Valley Health District A
FROM: Meg Harvey, Epidemiologist, Connecticut Department of Public l-lealth
SU BJ: . Newhall Street neighborhood surface soil sampling, Hamden —- referral infomation for lead results
DATE: June 14, 2001 -
' 1 am referring the following infomation to you for followup as you deem appropriate. 1ncluded_ in the list below are
homes with lead results in surface soil that exceed 400 mykg, where children younger than age 6 years reside or
‘ - visit regularly. In each case, lhave indicated the condition of the yard (i.e. whether areas of bare soil are present). I
have also included other information 1 considered pertinent to your follow up. The infomation presented here was
collected during visits with 59 homeowners (representing 61 properties). Visits were conducted by EPA (Tito ,
lrizarry) and me during the period of May 24°‘ to June 6*, 200]. There are approximately 14 homes sampled by `
EPA that we did not visit. EPA has provided sample results to those residents by mail. Over the next couple of
weeks, EPA and I will conduct followup phone calls to those residents. It is `possible that several additional referrals
will result from those followup phone calls. 1 will pass along such infomation as soon as it is available. When you
are ready to follow up on a particular home, contact Tito Irizarry at 617-918-1255 and he will forward you the data
package (including sample location sketch) for the home of interest
Please contact me at 860-509-7748 if you have any questions or need further infomation.
_ _ The following homes have contaminant levels exceeding EPA’s guidelines for immediate action. ln July/August
2001, EPA will conduct additional sampling and and soil removal actions at these homes to address the . I
contamination in surface soils.
- l
1. Mrs. Ruby Moore, 33 Marlboro St., 865-6570
Max. lead = 1900 ppm in bare area of backyard ‘
Grandchildren <6 yrs. visit occasionally. r
‘ 2. Mrs. Calhoun, 118 Bryden Ter., 776-7798 ` »
Max: lead = 1600 ppm in backyard
_ Some bare areas in backyard
Children <6 yrs. reside in home* . _ · ·
(*Note: homeowner was very reluctant to disclose this infomation, unsure of reason) _
3. Mr./Mrs. Jones, 115 Morse St., 776-7459 I _
Max. lead = 1300 ppm in bare soil under swingset. At our suggestion, owner placed sand over bare soil. »
Grandchildren <6 yrs. reside in home.
Owners interested in lead screening for children. I
-‘—. .
4. Mr./Mrs- waiters, 136 Bryaen Ter., 562-9767 . I
_ Max. lead = 1300 in backyard.
Good grass cover
Grandchildren < 6 years visit often. ·
5. Mr./Mrs. Oliver, 130 Bryden Ter., 777-0439
Max. lead = l900 in depressed area in backyard with moderate grass cover. Good grass cover elsewhere. 1
3 yr old grandson visits often.
Owners very concemed about child’s potential exposure and interested in blood lead screening for child.
4 I’hm1c: “ _
Talcplwuc I)cviccj?»r llw I)r·uf ($60) 509-7I‘)I
4IO Cupilnl Ai·4·nur· · MS if ______
I’.(). Box J-’l•’).f()8 Ilurrfnrd, CT U6 I}-I I
An Equal ()p]mrl1mil_v IZmpIu_rz·r

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 218-21 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 3
The following homes do not have contaminant levels high enough to trigger EPA action. They will likely be part of
the second phase of investigations that will occur over the next several years by one or more potentially responsible i
parties, overseen by DEP. 1
l
1. Mr. Conte, I3 Harris St., 772-0160 ‘ ' U l
Max. lead = 740 ppm in far backyard near shed and fence. ' l
Remaining 3 samples from backyard closer to house and patio are less than 400 ppm. 1
One yr old child resides in home. ` . l
Very poor grass cover in yard, lots of bare soil. Owner complains of badly eroding soil in yard.
~ Owner very concemed about potential exposure to child. Owner very anxious for QVHD followup.
2. Mr./Mrs. Brock, 634 Newhall St., 773-3706 7
Max. lead = 700 ppm in backyard _ _ .
5 year old child resides in home V . 1
Minimal bare areas in yard. _ i
Noted several candles buming inside home.
‘ 3. Mrs. Webb, 124 Bryden Ter., 562-2946
Max. lead = 960 ppm. Other lead results from backyard = 580 ppm, 480 ppm. i
Good grass cover in yard, no bare soil. · i
` Grandchildren <6 yrs visit every day.
Owner very concemed about potential exposure to children and interested in lead screening for children. l 1
4. Mrs. Clemens, 90 Bryden Ter., 562-2013, work:789—889l i
Max. lead = 860 ppm in bare soil next to deck. r
2 yr. old child resides in home.
5. Mrs. Johnson, 1071 Winchester Ave., 787-9380
Max. lead = 680 ppm in bare soil in backyard. l
7 year old resides in home but has lived there her entire life. .
Owner interested in blood lead screening for child. l
l
6. Mr!Mrs. Barrett, 1035 Winchester Ave., 562-0328
Max. lead = 530 in front yard. Max. lead in backyard = 490 ppm. Good grass cover in front and back yard. 1
Grandchildren <6 yis. visit very often and play in backyard. Several years ago, grandchildren <6 years resided
at home for as long as 3 years.
Owners very concemed about grandchildren’s potential exposures. Interested in lead screening for
grandchildren. ~ `
7. Mn/Mrs. Jones, 1030 Winchester Ave., 777-5267 4 _
Max. lead = 540 ppm in backyard with good grass cover. 1
I Grandchildren and niece <6 years visit regularly.
. Owner very concemed about potential exposure to kids who visit.
The following homes have lead concentrations that exceed EPA’s guideline of 1200 mg/l However, EPA is not planning to conduct further actions at these properties because EPA has determined that the
most likely cause of elevated lead in soil is lead paint rather than landfill material. e l
l. Mr. Haughton, 481 Newhall St., 865-2130 l i
_Max. lead = 1700 ppm next to garage with peeling paint, low lead in soil at depth. p
EPA test of paint chip on ground confirms lead.
` No children reside in home. ‘ , .
1 encouraged owner to address garage. ` "
_ 2

i mo-asé 3:03-cv-00945-CFD · -
. · Document 218-21 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 3 of 3 1

2. M¤=.n Max. lead = 1700 ppm near fence with next door neighbor. _ ‘
Fairly good grass cover. ` 1 `.
1 Several grandchildren <6 yrs visit every day. ` · . 1 ‘
EPA depth samples indicate very low lead. No paint chips visible in soil. EPA believes lead is from paint, not
_ landfill material. This theory is supported by condition of next door neighbor’s house (on comer ofNewhall and
Morse). Neighbor‘s is a historic home- Paint was sanded from house several years ago. Mr./Mrs. Sims report 1 _
that paint removal was messy, with visible dust in their yard. They also report that asbestos shingles were ' `
removed from neighbor’s home apparently without proper precautions. Mr./Mrs. Sims very concemed about
their grandchildren’s potential exposures. Very interested in QVI-ID followup of their home and neighbor’s 1
home.
_ t 1
The following is additional infomation (not lead-related) that may be of interest to you. -
. The following individuals are interested in methane screening andlor had questions or concerns about the methane
consent form. I encouraged them to contact you. ‘
' Mr. Patterson at 116 Morse St. ` _
Mr. Wright at 9 Remington St.
Mr./Mrs. Harris at 142 Bryden Ter. 1
Cc: Tito lxizarry, EPA
Shannon Windisch, DEP A
- 1
1
1
— 1