Search

Proposed Amendments to Plan made at Infrastructure - 09/26/2018

LOCUS, MAP . \
“SCALES T2500" Wn
{ {20K
La
i
t
a #4 /
=
: = 7
= & 2 ‘ey RO
@ (eee 6 “
REE OLE 0" eS —
5 fgi't0" E
Sa é
Ele N = S
ic { Pa N fF Et avy
| _
| . —
a we
Sy Ee ESTRay oR
€-1770 \ hu
\ HR ay
y
Ce ¥y
| &
__———- s
a
#
>) g
®
g
C= 1769 ie >
S 6
8 se \
\ \
\
_ afr HIBISCUS Way
SOS
¥ ~
“AREA 5° & Rs
23 ROS? St g ~ABe ~
# (EASEMENT. &/ BAYLLY oR \
m4 BS SFL) SN
CHERRYWOOD OR ‘
So / ‘
PLAN NOTES:
CURVE TABLE 3. PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS TO ILLUSTRATE THE QISCONTINUANCE OF
= A PORTION OF CONANT ROAD. ALL PORTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO UTIUTY
CURVE LENE TH AND PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS.
cr 3ST 2. THIS PLAN IS TO ILLUSTRATE THE CONVEYANCE OF THOSE PORTIONS OWNED
Ce Brad" BY THE CY OF NASHUA TO LOTS C1708, C1767 AND C- 1052.
CF S56?" 3. PRIVATE, RIGHTS ARE TO BE EXTINGUISHED BY LOTS C- 767, AND
— ‘032 OVER THE DISCONTINUED RIGHT OF WAY, TO THe’ Pew wis
ce 70.06 ENFORCABLE
os 49.72" 4, CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT: R-9
C6 BioF MINIMUM SETBACKS: FROM
&7 SAFE REA
MIN. AREA:
MIN. FRONTAGE
LINE’ TABLE 5. HORIZONTAL ORIENTATION BASED ON HCRD PLAN #31848.
UNE DIRECTION | _OISTANCE
Ti |W 4es2ue" E | AsO" REFERENCE PLANS:
Tz |W 4espae"& | 59.6" 1. JEMNINGS, PACE, CONANT ROAD. NASHUA, MEW HAMPSHIRE DATED JULY 29, 1999 OWNER OF RECORD, PARCEL C-1032: OWNER OF RECORD, PARCEL C-1767:
2s |W grog2s"é | 46.79" pi 2. CARRIAGE HOUSE COMMONS AT MALEWGOD, SHEET. C LOT 2564, nn DUNSTABLE a ISSA te FO, SEBERTSON 25. Goniaat Ra & PATRICIA M. FALBO—TOUPIN
t4_ | $ 464026" & | 40.46" (eAgeMeN, FED JULY 1, 1999 AND RECORDED AT THE HCRD AS PLAN $3027: Ben te GB (BG ea
“AO 26" 7 ¥ 3 epee HOUSE COMMONS AT MAPLEWOOD, PHASE 4 ENA CONANT, SEARLES. AN C 2
aS oe a a % HEABONRGAD. BASED Fee 4 “S008 AnD RECORDED AP WHE HRD AS PLAN 731848. HEE HRD 8€. 7181 F6, 230 Fer HeRD aK. 3289 Po. 1818
Ero ~ 4 aun PARK, NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, FINAL Syston PON, (or 56 MAP C)
L7 S 604T0F" Ww FEGF D MARCH i980 AND RECORDED AF THE HCRD AS PLAN #16 x x
16 | S 441209 W | 6255" « %
7 Trig as* w | 99-987 ¥ OWNER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATE OWNER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATE
Lo “G40 EN a2" x OWNER OF RECORD, PARCEL C-2800; OWNER OF RECORD, PARCEL C-1768:
TEP ae = MICHAEL FOURNIER GRIAN_K, het enes & LYNNE T. GARABEDIAN
a SOS E6" E 9.40" C-2784 119 CONANT FORD Ee MCKENNA DRI
bz S 472425" 0 FIG NASHUA, NH NASt
Tit TN 422840" Ww 75" & Ror Heb ex’ 2200 PC. 2625 REP GRD BK BEBE PC. 230
btd S 294100" E HBT"
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1“=30" x x
OWNER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ‘DATE OWNER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BATE
REV. 6 | RIVISE LINES. AREAS, TEXT PER CITY RYW. | 9712/18 [BY: GRU
PREPARED BY: CERTIFICATIONS SURVEYORS SEAL PLAN LEGEND NASHUA ALDERMEN RE ee NS AREAS TAT ere
: REV. 4| ADD ELEC., GAS, WATER 7/24/18 _ | BY: GRE
|) eceartey tHar: APPROVED ae ZL a ~
THIS PLAN {S_A TRUE ANO ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF A TOTAL STATION , 3 | TE LINES, TEXT PER ENG. REVIEW 5/21/18 |BY: GRY
SUBDIVISION SURVEY PERFORMEO UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION IN JUNE & REV. 2 5/10/18 er
JEFFREY LAND SUR VEYitc JULY 2014. THE PROPERTY SURVEY IS BASED ON A RANDOM TRAVERSE WITH ABDITIONAL ADORESSES: f10/ Ye GRY
A CLOSURE OF GREATER THAN 1 IN 10,000. PREV 1 | Calcs FOR ADDITIONAL LOTS: 5/4/18
1 BURGESS DRIVE on PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE PLAN
LITCHFIELD, NH 03052
MELISSA GILBERTSON 5
(603) 424-4089 CERTIFY _THAT THIS SURVEY PLAT IS NOT A SUBDIVISION PURSUANT TO “iB OWNER LOT C-1032 & EINER Rr QuRMieR
THIS TLE AND THAT LINES OF STREETS AND WAYS SH( Rg 10 SEP CHAIRMAN
THOSE OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREETS AND WAYS ALREADY ESTABLISHED ®(705) arog Basi 421 CONANT ROAD 119 CONANT ROAD
AND THAT NO NEW WE SHON wee. UMS. NASHUA, NH
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY __ OATE: 4/16/18
mae SECRETARY SCALE: 2 22

APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR
OCTOBER 9, 2018

Airport_Authority

Brian H. Law (New Appointment) Term to Expire: August 31, 2023
78 Concord Street
Nashua, NH 03064

Cultural Connections Committee

Sylvia Gale (Reappointment) Term to Expire: February 28, 2021
4 Clergy Circle

Nashua, NH 03064

Energy and Environment Committee

James E. Pyle (New Appointment) Term to Expire: October 31, 2021
14 Elyston Circle

Nashua, NH 03064

Mine Falls Park Advisory Committee

Greg Andruskevich (Reappointment) Term to Expire: June 30, 2020

3 Caraway Lane

Nashua, NH 03063

Michael Watts (Reappointment) Term to Expire: October 31, 2021
10 Royal Drive, #10

Nashua, NH 03060

Nashua Arts Commission

Tina Cassidy (Reappointment) Term to Expire: September 1, 2021
36 Arlington Street
Nashua, NH 03062

Lindsay Rinaldi (Reappointment) Term to Expire: April 1, 2021
705 Belmont Street
Belmont, MA 02478

Nashua City Planning Board

Maggie Harper (New Appointment) Term to Expire: March 31, 2020
(Moving from Alternate to Full Member)

3 Taft Street

Nashua, NH 03060

Zoning Board of Adjustment

A. John "Jay" Minkarah, Alternate (New Appointment) Term to Expire: September 11, 2020
13 Mount Pleasant Street

Nashua, NH 03064

| respectfully request that these appointments be confirmed.

Jim Donchess
Mayor

A special meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, October 2, 2018, at 7:10 p.m. in the
City Hall Auditorium.

President Brian S. McCarthy presided; City Clerk Patricia D. Piecuch recorded.

Prayer was offered by City Clerk Patricia D. Piecuch; Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright led in the Pledge to
the Flag.

The roll call was taken with 14 members of the Board of Aldermen present; Alderman Gidge was recorded
absent.

Mayor James W. Donchess and Corporation Counsel Steven A. Bolton were also in attendance.
COMMUNICATIONS

From: Brian S. McCarthy, President, Board of Aldermen
Re: Special Board of Aldermen Meeting

There being no objection, President McCarthy accepted the communication and placed it on file.
PRESENTATION

Mohawk Tannery Presentation by EPA Officials

President McCarthy

Tonight’s agenda item is a presentation from the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the Mohawk
Tannery. | will introduce Melissa Taylor from the EPA who can introduce the other people who are with her
and deliver the presentation.

Melissa Taylor, EPA NH & RI Superfund Section Chief Thank you very much. My name is Melissa Taylor and
| work for EPA. | am the manager of the New Hampshire and Rhode Island Superfund Program of which
Mohawk Tannery is one of the sites that we have in our section. This is Gerardo Millan-Ramos, he is the
project manager for the Mohawk Tannery site. We also have Kelsey O’Neil who is our Community
Involvement Coordinator for EPA and that is it from the EPA.

I’m not sure what format you would like to have us work on but I’d like to say a few just opening points and
then maybe hand it over to Gerardo to kind of go through a few slides of the presentation if that is ok with you.

President McCarthy

That would be fine.

Ms. Taylor So the reason why we are here today | think is two-fold. The Mayor had a meeting back on
September 13" and a few things were raised at that meeting that we'd like to hopefully address today, if that’s
what you want. More importantly, we really believe that we are at the crossroads and that we have a unique
opportunity to work cooperatively with the State, the City and the developer on a common sense solution to the
site that takes it out of its current stalled state and returns it to productive use at a reasonable cost to the
taxpayers.

The administration recognizes this opportunity and placed it on their administrator's special emphasis list back
in 2017. We have been working with the City, had many conversations with the City, the State and the
developer over the past year on this approach to the clean-up.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 2

We hope that the City agrees to this approach, but if you do not, we will have to frank conversation with both
the City and the State regarding what the move forward with formally placing the site on the Superfund
National Priorities List or NPL which is basically the list of Superfunds sites that across the country.

We have worked diligently in partnership with the City to develop a plan that could clean up the site and return
the site to productive use. EPA alone has spent over $4 million dollars at this site since it was proposed for the
NPL back in 2000 which includes but is not limited to EPA’s payroll, State cooperative agreements and past
cost for the time critical removal actions that we have done at the site. EPA’s comment period closed on
September 7", we received about 18 comments from residents and/or City officials that were opposed to the
consolidation and capping of material on-site and would prefer off-site disposal.

That is pretty much all my opening comments. If you would like to have us proceed with the presentation?

Gerardo Millan-Ramos, EPA Remedial Project Manager Well good evening everyone and thank you for
hosting us here tonight. What | am going to present is a very, very brief presentation that is like a summary or
a nutshell version of what we consider the main points that we have laid out in previous meetings, both public
meetings and meetings with neighbors at neighbor’s requests just to make Sure we are on the same page.

So the Mohawk Tannery Site basically these are the main things | would like to briefly cover tonight before we
get into questions and answers. The first topic would be a summary of the recent past activities that we have
had. | will also be showing maps and figures to make sure we all understand where exactly this site is and
adjoining properties, the contaminants of concern that we are talking about and EPA’s recommended
alternative as we have laid out in an amended Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EE/CA).

Starting with the recent past and future events, back on July 25™ we had a public information meeting here at
the City Hall and we basically presented the EE/CA amendment. Then on August 29" we had the request of
some neighbors and an informal meeting with them to provide more technical information and answer some
questions that neighbors had. Then we closed the comment period for the EE/CA on September 7" and now
actually tomorrow we are having a site tour with a group of neighbors, again at the neighbor's request.

Ms. Taylor We'd also like to invite any of the Aldermen to attend that as well. It is at 5:00 at the site tomorrow.

Mr. Millan-Ramos Yes 5:00 at the site tomorrow. The idea of that tour is to show the main features of the site
and a general overview of what it is that we propose to do there. Then on March 29" that is when we foresee
the approximate date of finalizing our Action Memo. The Action Memo is our decision document that formally
documents what is it that we will do at the site, in full detail. It will be a public document once it is finalized.
We are certainly working and striving to do it as soon as possible, but that is the internal deadline we have set
ourselves.

We envision that if everything runs smoothly, construction would be starting the Summer of next year. To put
again in perspective where the site is in relationship to all the properties and the neighborhood, this is a very
good figure that shows, highlighted in green, you see two parcels there. Those two parcels in green is what we
call the Mohawk Tannery Site. Further to the north, immediately adjacent to it to the north you will see a
property highlighted in blue, that is the Fimbel Door property. It is a separate piece of property that houses a
landfill that has the exact same waste that is on the site. Further north of that property is a City-owned
property that houses asbestos that was primarily from the construction or found after the construction of the
Broadway Street Parkway.

Ms. Taylor Can you just point to where the lagoons are?
Mr. Millan-Ramos Sure | am going to try, let’s see if | can use this pointer here. The lagoons in the site are

right here where | am moving the cursor and | realize it is kind of hard to see. That’s where the former lagoons
are and those of you who will be able to join us tomorrow will see that of those two lagoons, only one is really a

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 3

lagoon, the other one is totally covered with sand and virtually solid in consistency, so much that you can walk
on top of it.

Ms. Taylor We have some pictures here too of the material and what it looks like, we can show them to you
now or we can show them to you afterwards.

President McCarthy

Whatever makes the most sense for your presentation.

Mr. Millan-Ramos We understand that when we use the term lagoon it is natural to think of these as liquid.
But in reality it is sludge that has been there for many, many years and it is virtually solid, earthlike
consistency. For members of the public, this is what | am referring to.

Ms. Taylor It just looks like dark soil more than anything else.

Mr. Millan-Ramos Yes, very dark soil. These are pictures from some test pits. Basically what | was saying is
that the consistency of this sludge, oh it went off, is it okay now? Alright, back again. So the idea of showing
you these pictures is to show you the consistency of this sludge in the former lagoons. As you can see it is
pretty much solid, granted in one of the former lagoons, lagoon number 1 is still open and when it rains you will
see liquid in there but the sludge as it has been tested numerous times, is pretty solid in consistency.

Ms. Taylor Show the Aldermen. This is kind of a weird set up.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

What is the top picture again, oh lagoon 2.

Ms. Taylor It is just a test pit so they basically dug, see that is an excavator there on the top, the second
picture.

Mr. Millan-Ramos | have another figure that shows better the location of the two lagoons it is in the
presentation but this one here is lagoon #1 that is the one that is liquid sort of speak.

Ms. Taylor Open, it is not closed.

Mr. Millan-Ramos Open, correct, the other one is totally covered with sand. And | think that is the whole
objective of these figures.

Ms. Taylor There was just a lot of misconception what the material actually looked like and was consisting of, it
was more like this gooey sludge kind of material and it is really not it is more like a soil.

Mr. Millan-Ramos Correct. So | think this is probably fairly obvious to most of you the location of the site, but
again there has been often confusion about what is the site, what is not and | just want to make clear with this
image that we call the Mohawk Tannery Site is what you see highlighted in green and that is what our cost
estimates are based on, it is just strictly work in there. There are other two properties, if this approach with the
current developer follows through, you know would be addressed as well. But there are other, they have
different ownership and we don’t have jurisdiction over them.

Let me move to the next one, this figure here and | realize it doesn’t show that quite well, but you see the two
lagoons....

Ms. Taylor Do you think it’s better in that one?

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 4

Mr. Millan-Ramos Yes, that one is probably better to look at. But the two lagoons, lagoon #1 which is the one
| am pointing to here, and lagoon #2 are right next to each other. So area 1, the open lagoon and area 2 the
closed lagoon right here. The plan as conceived right now is to basically contain all that waste that is already
in there, by building a containment structure or wall around it. We have three different technologies and we are
leaning to what is commonly called a secant wall, just to contain the waste in there and add the solid
contamination that is in satellite areas that you see here highlighted in beige as well.

One possibility that has been envisioned is to also add on top of that lagoon once it is contained, the waste
from the Fimbel Door landfill which you see here and the asbestos that is in the property owned by the city
would be dug into a cell adjacent to this site in here. So again the general idea or approach here is to basically
consolidate all this waste in this area by building that secant wall first up to the soil level and then on top of ita
containment wall that would hold the additional waste and then have it capped with an impermeable cap.

This figure here that Melissa is holding and before | go to that picture | just want to make sure the members of
the public here see this. This is what | was referring to. The two lagoons right here and satellite areas of
contamination and the Fimbel Door Landfill, all would be consolidated in this area. The southern parcel was
largely unused and the idea is for it to remain as open green space after the whole clean-up is done. So with
that | think we can move to the other figure.

Here is basically a cross-section of the area if you were to split the area in half and see it from the side, this
would be the river, this would be the neighborhood. It is a fairly steep grade, not as steep as shown in this
schematic, but still steep. The idea, as | said, is to contain the waste here with a secant wall, which is what
you see in purple and have the retaining wall would hold additional contamination on top of it and it would be
capped with an impermeable cap. Pretty much like you see here.

Ms. Taylor The only thing that this doesn’t really show is that the cap will go behind this wall. It is not going to
just be a wall that is holding the waste behind it. The cap is going to encapsulate all this material and then the
retaining wall is kind of like a belt and suspenders kind of thing. Same with the secant wall, that material is
staying where it is right now we just want to make sure nothing is going to happen to it at any point in the future
so we are kind of putting something extra on there.

Mr. Millan-Ramos Kelsey can you do me a favor and move in that direction so that the people here have an
opportunity to see. So the second cross-section of it, in purple, the secant wall in blue it would be that
retaining wall that would hold the additional contamination and it would be capped with an impermeable cap
and right next to it there would be a cell containing the asbestos from the other property. And it is just a
schematic to show a general depiction of what the remedy would be.

Moving on, | wanted to show you list of what we call contaminants of concern. This list is in order of toxicity
from the most toxic substance at the top to the last toxic substance at the bottom. The bulk of the
contamination is in those two former lagoons, areas 1 and 2. And basically some metal contamination in the
satellite areas that | showed you in the previous figure.

Ms. Taylor And even though that goes from the most toxic | guess you would say to the least toxic, it doesn’t
actually mean that this is the majority of the actual material that is in there. The majority of the material | think
is actually contaminated with what chromium, chromium and probably arsenic but we also think that a
component of the arsenic might be attributed to background.

Mr. Millan-Ramos Yes, correct.

Ms. Taylor Which is naturally occurring, I’m sorry, | am using scientific terms, | apologize.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 5

Mr. Millan-Ramos So in a nutshell what is our recommended alternative, again on the site, the Mohawk
Tannery site? As | said, consolidating all the waste, sludge and soils from those satellite areas at lagoon areas
1 and 2 using one of three vertical containment technologies, | already mentioned we are leaning towards the
so-called secant wall, backfilling those excavations with clean fill, protecting the integrity of the encapsulated
area and preventing the use of ground water, the land-use restrictions and ensuring the remedy effectiveness
stays with groundwater monitoring and regular maintenance.

| know that you probably have a lot of questions about the cost estimate that we put in the EC/CA and | think
the best source of information that we have to show the basis of those estimates, is what we call the Technical
Memorandum. That is a document, it is called Removal Alternatives Update Technical Memorandum. It is on
our website and | have put here a link to the document. | have shared this with the City already | am sure and
it is a public document, it shows how the cost estimates were developed. The cost estimates that we included
in that amended EC/CA.

I’ve also left in this presentation the repositories of materials that we have including our own websites, offices
and the Nashua Public Library. And, of course, if you have any questions, please just call or send me an e-
mail and we will do our best to clarify anything. | think that is basically the gist of what | wanted to make sure
you guys understood tonight. Thank you.

President McCarthy

So | had actually asked a question regarding removal of materials and moving them around and | am
paraphrasing what | heard from some of the neighbors. There seem to be some of the neighbors who were
reasonably content with the idea of the secant wall to retain what is in the lagoons but less so with the
containment on top with the retaining wall and moving the sludge.

| guess my question would be do we have any understanding of the cost difference of if we are going to dig
material up, and move it from one place on the site to another, what would it cost for the amount of material
that we are talking about, to dispose of it instead. To contain the two big lagoons and to remove the waste that
is on the Fimbel site for example instead of moving it?

Mr. Millan-Ramos | believe we do have preliminary estimates for that.

Ms. Taylor We do. EPA didn’t really have a contractor that we had available to do an additional cost estimate
for this type of work so we actually asked the developer themselves and his consultant who is actually in the
audience tonight, Darren Santos, from Geolnsight, to work on an estimate for this. So they did contact the
disposal facility up in Rochester, NH and got some estimates for transportation and disposal and with all the
other line items and | have to tell you it is a back of the envelope calculation, it is not detailed, but they believe
that it would cost about $6.5 million dollars to dispose of Fimbel Door off-site, at an off-site disposal facility.

President McCarthy

That’s incremental cost or is that just the cost of removing it because presumably there is some cost savings if
we are not capping that on-site because we don’t have to build the ...

Ms. Taylor Yes | mean | don’t think that has been clearly determined in my discussions with the developer. He
feels like possibly if he didn’t need a retaining wall there possibly could be about a $2 million dollars saving.
So | guess there would be then $4 to $4.5 million dollars. But again, that is back of the envelope, we didn’t do
anything in detail.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 6

President McCarthy

The other alternative and | don’t know if this one is possible is expand the size of the containment area so that
everything that is contained is below ground held in by the secant wall and not by the retaining wall above
ground.

Ms. Taylor At this time we have not evaluated that. So | can’t really speak to it. | Know initially we were
looking at just an expansion cell for a stabilization alternative that we were looking at, however, we didn’t look
at that because that would be a lot of material that you’d have to excavate in order to place that material
underneath the ground.

Alderman Lopez

So you made a reference to 18 public comments | believe? | know | made one and then | also made a second
one which Gerardo had acknowledged. My second one was explicitly asking for detailed information about full
cap and what that would look like. | was told that wouldn’t be available but we would be presented, as the
Board of Aldermen, on that. And | had asked for something to the level of what was presented to the
neighbors with regards to the secant walls. So that is not happening here tonight.

Ms. Taylor We are more than happy to do that.

Alderman Lopez

That was what my comment was and | wanted to clarify that it was being made because apparently it is a
substantial part of the public comment that was made. | know Alderman Laws also made some comment and
a number of neighbors made comments both at the forum and presumably through the e-mail, but maybe they
didn’t. | also know that they gathered a petition. So there has been considerable public comment, it just may
not have fit the framework of what you are documenting as public comment.

| also wanted to clarify that several references were made to meetings with the City and the Mayor’s comment
that he hasn’t had formal meetings and | am an Alderman for Ward 4 so | would consider myself the City, and |
haven't been in the loop with this at all. So the opening statements with regards to multiple conversations and
multiple contacts and $6 million dollars spent in the last 20 years....

Ms. Taylor $4 million.

Alderman Lopez

Ok so $4 million dollars in the 20 years, | mean that is taxpayer money so all of us have been contributing that
as well, including the neighbors who have been living next to this for 30 years. So we are at a crossroads and
| think looking at the whole picture and all of our choices is important rather than just moving forward without
looking both ways.

Ms. Taylor Well | just need to clarify on the conversations with the City, | understand that we haven't been to
the Aldermen and met with the Aldermen, but we have had conversations with the City, | believe that the
Mayor has designated one person in particular and possibly a couple of others that we’ve talked to, probably at
least once a month for well over a year. So those are the people we have been talking to.

Alderman Lopez

Right and | just wanted to clarify that I’ve reached out a couple times and | have not been in the loop so as a
representative of that neighborhood, | am only seeing what you are presenting publicly and the only record of it
is what you are choosing to present. Your presentation is pretty weighted towards just encapsulation. | was

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 7

approached by a pollution removal expert from Canada who just read in the paper that there were
conversations taking place and | did refer him. So I’m not sure whether you were in contact with him or not but
he did forward a thumbnail sketch of an estimate as well.

Ms. Taylor_| am unaware of that.

Mr. Millan-Ramos | haven’t received any communication in that regards.

Alderman Lopez

Well he might be in the audience so I’m sure he could make public comment.

Mr. Millan-Ramos The only thing | can think of is a gentleman that was advocating for digestion, you know
anaerobic digestion which is something that we are evaluating and preliminary results that we have so far
indicate that it is not a good fit for the nature of the contaminants we have in there.

Alderman Lopez

And | don’t want to stay contentious | just want to frame where my perspective was coming from and where |
think a lot of the neighbors are coming from, is we are getting a lot of contradictory information and they are not
entirely sure what the full scope of choices are. And they weren’t aware of that before they were able to make
public comment. But could you speak to the digestion issue and what some of the challenges would be with it?

Mr. Millan-Ramos Yes | do have information about that. Just to make sure we are accurate in what we are
saying. The feedback that we have received from our headquarter experts so far says that in terms of the
organic contaminants present in the sludge, many of the organic contaminants can be biodegraded under the
appropriate conditions. However, the organic contaminants in the tannery sludge are particularly recalcitrant to
biodegradation particularly in an anaerobic, meaning without oxygen, anaerobic environment in general
organic chemicals are more quickly degraded in the aerobic settings rather than the anaerobic approach
described in the proposed technology.

In addition, heavy metals in the sludge can inhibit the growth of microbes necessary to bio-remediate organic

containments. Anaerobes, that is microbes that grow under anaerobic condition, are particularly sensitive to
inhibitory compounds. So that is the summary of the research that we have done so far.

Alderman Lopez
This is the wrong kind of toxin and it wouldn’t go anywhere.

Ms. Taylor The materials that are contained in that sludge would basically kill the microbes if we put any
microbes in there. They don’t like that, so they don’t work well with it.

Alderman Lopez

They don’t kill naturally occurring microbes do they? Does that impact on the site?
Ms. Taylor No because that is all contained within the sludge itself.

Alderman O’Brien

Thank you Mr. President. Looking at the maps and being familiar with the property, | am extremely concerned
because it is adjacent to a river. The Nashua River flows into the Merrimack which also flows downstream and

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 8

it is a water supply for several communities that take their drinking water and their firefighting needs or
whatever from the Merrimack.

Can this be looked upon financially as a multi-state type of issue, because | imagine that there are toxins and it
gets into ... is this particular area prone to flooding within the 500,000 or biblical flood plain area? When you do
encapsulate it, can it potentially leak and can it be more of a problem downstream as well?

Mr. Millan-Ramos | would say the short answer to that question is yes, all of that can happen if it is not
properly designed and properly built.

Ms. Taylor Or if it stays the way it is.

Mr. Millan-Ramos Correct. If the appropriate design is made and it is built correctly, little or no chance of that
happening.

Ms. Taylor Part of our requirements are that any of these containment structures have to withstand at a
minimum of 500 year flood. So any of these containment structures that are built, whether or not it be the cap,
if it is in the 500 year flood plain or the secant wall which would be in the 500 year flood plain, needs to meet to
be able to meet technical specifications in order to be protective of a 500 year flood. Right now, this material
has been sitting there, when did Mohawk Tannery first start disposing there?

Mr. Millan-Ramos It was in the ‘20’s.

Ms. Taylor ‘20’s. Yes. So it’s been there since the ‘20s and it is still there. Not to say that some catastrophic
thing couldn’t happen, that’s why we want to try to deal with it sooner rather than later and this is the perfect
opportunity to do that. Whereas, if we went ahead and tried to list it on the National Priorities List it would be
fully funded by taxpayers and it could be sitting on that priority list for years because there are a number sites,
even as of 2017, there are about 1,200, 1,300 sites on the National Priorities List right now, about 20 of them
do not have any funding and haven’t for over 3 years at this point. So we would need to go through that route,
whereas this route, it basically is being dealt with next summer.

Alderman O’Brien
In your experience, or anybody in the EPA have had a similar situation where this could be multi-jurisdictional
within the different states. Because my question is whatever contaminates are now leaking and if it is getting

into the Nashua River is it getting down as far as the drinking supply in the other municipalities.

Ms. Taylor At this stage we have not seen that there is any contamination in the Nashua River either in the
sediment or the surface water. We have tested that historically at the site.

Alderman Klee

Adding on to Alderman O’Brien’s question, in anything that we do, whether we use a secant, whether we
removed it, whatever happens, is there any probably or possibility of that action itself creating a leakage into it.
It is so close to the edge, that’s my concern.

Ms. Taylor Would building the secant wall create ....?

Alderman Klee

Or even removing it? | have been to a couple of meetings where people have said remove it all. Would that

alone, the act of doing that, the act of building a secant wall, the act of anything, can that create a potential of
contaminating into the river?