Search

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 9

Ms. Taylor | would say that is more likely if you remove it than if you built the secant wall.
Alderman Dowd

| don’t think some of the people here have heard your explanation of the approach that you are tending to use
and | think if you explain how you are going to contain that area and address the potential of not having leaks
and all of that and how it is built will probably answer a lot of questions that you might get.

Ms. Taylor Sure we can do that. We could have Darrin Santos who is the Environmental Consultant that will
be working on this should this go through, we could have him do it or we can explain it.

Alderman Dowd
| would say whoever knows the most about it.
Mr. Millan-Ramos | would defer to Darrin.

Darrin Santos, Geolnsight, Manchester, New Hampshire Good evening, my name is Darren Santos and I’m
with Geolnsight in Manchester, New Hampshire. | represent the developer Blaylock Holdings, Bernie Plante.
We have been working with EPA, pretty close, hand-in-hand in developing this containment approach. The
secant wall we find the most favorable for a few reasons. It is essentially a slurry wall and you all may know
about the Gilson Road Superfund site. They have a slurry wall there. That is traditionally done with an
excavator, where they trench down and mix cement slurry down while they are doing that. It is an effective
approach but at our site, the secant wall is essentially a controlled slurry wall installed with these shafts that
are drilled down.

So you drill the shafts down, there is a casing and an auger and it displaces the soil and then you pump the
cement grout into it. So when you reach your target depth and start pumping the grout in, you know you are
filling that shaft up, versus a trench system where you are down 25 feet and the wall could collapse on one of
the sides. For our site, if it is the riverside, then we have just breached the natural bank that is there, so again
a controlled manner here. Just quickly the way it is put in, is the skip every shaft and then they come back and
drill the ones they skipped on which then overlap the previous two and actually drills out and creates this
overlap.

Ms. Taylor Kind of like Olympic rings.

Mr. Santos They are, | would say traditionally seen in infrastructure projects, things like the Big Dig or down in
the city in Boston when you need to build a big building and you need a foundation, they do secant, you can do
reinforced concrete walls and parking garage structures, and it will hold back water and soil. The design here
is to go with what is called a cement bentonite slurry. It is called low strength and it has flexibility to it.
Reinforced concrete when it cures will tend to crack. This cement, the bentonite is an expanding clay so that
additive to it will cause these to expand and essentially self-heal to cracks. Kelsey, can we get the cross-
section?

So in pink or magenta you see the secant shafts that go down. These will be very impermeable to liquid. The
secant shafts themselves; they will also be seeded down into the glacial till, which is hard compact soil
compacted by the glaciers years and years ago. It is relatively impermeable itself. So that essentially creates
the bottom liner to the system. And then as Gerardo explained before, we have an actual reinforced concrete
panel or poured retaining wall that would be above grade to receive the Fimbel sludge and that then would be
capped with an impermeable cap that you would see in a landfill.

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

Ms. Taylor That capped area would be basically open space for anybody that was living there if there was
such a development that could be walked on and used for open space. There wouldn't be any structures that
would be built on that.

Mr. Santos And | just wanted to reiterate that the pictures of the sludge and the movement of this material,
Gerardo had the list of chemicals, the one that by far is the contaminant of concern in terms of the most mass
out there is chromium which is a metal and it is chromium II|, Hexavalent chromium or Chromium 6, is very
toxic and you don’t see that out here. It is Trivalent Chromium, Chrom Ill, low toxicity and there are monitoring
wells within 5 feet of the sludge that don’t have concentrations of chromium above the state standard.

Ms. Taylor In groundwater.

Mr. Santos And again the sludge, as some folks know, the Beazer sites, the Copper site down on the
Merrimack where they have the creosote sludge that is actually migrating through the soil getting up into the
river and we talked about that at the last public meeting and this is a different scenario. They need a cutoff
wall out there, a slurry wall to stop that. We essentially are putting this here to buttress the material that is
there and protect it against floods in the future. The added benefit is it will be impermeable, but that is almost a
secondary.

Ms. Taylor And also just to note that the groundwater flows from up here down to the river, that is typically how
groundwater flows. So | know there were some people in the past that were concerned about groundwater
contaminating their wells or anything like that. It would eventually go to the river, but if we are containing all
this then that material no longer goes to the river. As Darrin said we have monitoring wells right between where
the sludge is and the river, we are not seeing anything. So you know there really is not an issue with
groundwater; we would restrict it either through a town ordinance or groundwater management permit that the
state would issue to make sure nobody would drink the groundwater there. But since everybody is on City
water, there would be no reason for anybody to drink the water anyway.

Alderwoman Kelly

Thank you Mr. President. | actually wanted to know, Ms. Taylor you had said that it was probably more of a risk
to pull it away and contaminating the river during the process, versus the secant wall. | wonder if you could
just unpack that and explain why.

Ms. Taylor Yes sure. | think it is basically very similar to what Darrin was explaining whereas if you have a big
excavator in there you are having a huge hole essentially dug where it is very close to the river. Not only do
you have the river right there and the river bank but you actually have the City sewer system that is right there.
So if you are digging a huge hole right next to that, there’s a greater chance of collapse of not only the river
bank but the actual sewer line. Whereas if you are putting in these shafts, one at a time, there’s virtually no
way to have any of that collapse happen.

Alderman Jette

My concern is the material that is there. You talked about retaining walls around it to contain it. You seem to
hint that maybe you could explain further, what is going to stop it from going down, from the material going
down and into the river that way?

Ms. Taylor Sure. Well the cap that Gerardo explained will be an impermeable cap that is on the top of it. So
there wouldn’t be any infiltration going from say a rainfall event or anything through the cap into the sludge
after this was done. Right now, there is really nothing that is prohibiting that from happening and you are not
seeing any contaminated ground water 5 feet from where the sludge is. But with this, it would be like a geo-
synthetic liner that is essentially impermeable that would be covering all that material so you wouldn’t have any
leakage going inside.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 11

Alderman Jette
What about on the bottom? What on the bottom is going to stop it?

Mr. Millan-Ramos | wanted to add the geologic material that is right now at the very bottom, it is what we know
as till, it has a very, very low permeability, meaning rate of liquid going through it. So if anything, we are
improving what is already there. We are containing it laterally and vertically we are putting a cap on the top.
So we are essentially making sure that rain or flooding will not wash that out to the river. In all these years that
we have been testing the groundwater, we have not seen contaminants moving towards the river. So we don’t
have any reason to believe that it would be any different. If anything, it would be better, would be more
protected with this containment unit around it.

Alderman Jette

| have another question, the original owners of the Mohawk Tannery and its successors, | think Chester Realty
was the name, is there no source of money there to help pay for this?

Mr. Millan-Ramos Well there is a very, very minimal source of money. There was a settlement that was done,
an agreement between EPA and the Chester Realty Trust and it is money that has been used for investigation
of the site and other emergency activities as well. Right now, | don’t know the exact figure, but the last time |
saw it was $600,000.00 or something like that.

Ms. Taylor Which we would contribute.

Mr. Millan-Ramos We would contribute whatever remains towards the clean-up. Does that answer your
question?

Alderman Jette
Yes thank you.

Alderman Lopez

| just want to clarify because | have been misunderstanding this, comparing the risk of storing this in perpetuity
under like basically the cover you would get on a fancy meal, that’s one set of variables and the other one is a
removal event where for a period of time you need to focus on safety, transport, removal and all that kind of
stuff, the main factor is excavation? Because it seems to me that shooting a bunch of tubes around a circle
has the same risk of puncturing any kind of pipe leading in or out if you are not making sure you know where
everything is, that digging it up and removing it would have.

Mr. Millan-Ramos I’m not totally sure | understand your question.
Ms. Taylor The sewer line?

Alderman Lopez

You referenced the sewer line.

Ms. Taylor We have the drawings from the City we know exactly where the sewer line so we wouldn't ...

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 12

Alderman Lopez

But an excavator wouldn't?

Ms. Taylor it is not as precise is what I’m saying. It’s not even that it would come up next to the sewer line but
that if you have a big open space right next to that, the potential for that to collapse, to break, is much greater
than if you have one small part that is being, one secant pile is being drilled.

Mr. Millan-Ramos It is definitely a much more surgical approach and numerous test pitting have been done in
the past and we have a very good idea of where this waste is located.

Mr. Santos So on the cross section here you can see the sewer main there and you see the river here, so
you’ve got a very narrow swath here where the sewer main is where the sludge is, very close to the river. So if
you start excavating this, if this is an excavation rather than a wall here, you’ve got a potentially 25 foot sheer
wall, that would have to be supported with shoring or piling. It is certainly possible, the costs go way up to be
able to hold back, you are basically holding back the river. We have to be prepared, we get a 500 year flood
event while we are doing it, we have to hold that back too. So we are essentially preserving this little swath,
and if you can do the site walk tomorrow, you'll see, we walk right over the sewer main and you can see the
distance. We are talking 10 to 20 to maybe 30 feet to the edge of the sludge.

Alderman Lopez

| think that answers my question.
Alderman Tencza

Can | ask, Nashua can’t be the first City to dig a project like this, especially | would imagine that in Rhode
Island with all the industry that is down there with all the water that is down there, there are other examples of
clean-up sites that have either used a secant wall or have removed any toxins from the soil. Can you give us
examples of other projects that would be similar to this and projects that may have been around for 10 or 15
years and if there have been any studies that have been done to essentially prove the effectiveness of the
secant wall versus removing the soil from the area?

Ms. Taylor | don’t have any specific examples that are right next to a river or that have been implemented, at
least not in the region for say 15 years. But one of the sites | worked on before | became a manager of this
section was a site in Concord, Massachusetts, where we are essentially doing the same thing. It’s nota
cement bentonite but it is a bentonite clay that is going around radioactive material that is in essentially a
lagoon, we call it a holding basin, but it is essentially the same thing. We are basically the exact same remedy
there.

We are also, in terms of tannery sites, there are a couple of other tannery waste sites that we have in the
region where we have consolidated and capped on site and both of those are in relatively close proximity to
rivers in the State of Massachusetts.

Alderman Tencza
Is there a reason that you in those projects chose to cap the waste, was it just cost or were there other?

Ms. Taylor It was just the most effective remedy from looking at all the criteria that we evaluate. Cost is one of
the criteria that we evaluate, but in terms of its implement ability, its effectiveness and comparing cost with
other alternatives, it has been the best alternative that we have chosen at a couple of sites. We haven’t used
secant walls in those because they are not as close to the river as this, so as | said before, this is kind of like a
belt and suspenders kind of approach. Whereas other sites, we have just capped it and left it there with an

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 13

impermeable cap similar to what we would put here but not encapsulated it. So those are the tannery waste.
But with this case of depleted uranium that we were trying to contain that was leeching into the groundwater,
we are going to be putting a wall around that to inhibit groundwater flow.

Alderman Tencza

So if | may just follow up, tannery waste it must be a problem for the last couple of decades with tannery waste
| would imagine in the northeast. So have there been any studies done to say that the waste, once it is
capped, is not an issue going forward, 10, 20, 30 years after it is capped?

Ms. Taylor There have been reviews that | believe the one site in Woburn that | am referring to and there
hasn’t been any issues with that capping of that material.

Mr. Millan-Ramos | have to add there are other sites where a secant wall per se has not been used but a
slurry wall which is less surgical, less effective or secure if you will, many of those sites, at least all the ones
that | know for years, they have been able to successfully contain liquid waste, not nearly as solid as what we
have in here. So we don’t have any reason to suspect that this will not perform as we need it to be.

Ms. Taylor Yes | think Darrin had mentioned the Gilson Road site that has a slurry wall, that’s another
Superfund site, we call it the Sylvester Site that has that type of a slurry wall that has been in existence, | don’t
even know how long. I’ve only been a manager for 2 years.

President McCarthy

| would point out that the Gilson Road site is a little different in that the slurry wall was constructed to contain
the groundwater while it was being treated and that the VOC’s have been primarily removed. So there isn’t the
issue of long-term leeching out from inside the slurry wall in that case, as far as | understand it.

Mr. Santos You are correct and I’m not an expert on that site. They were containing and pumping and treating
but they just recently, the EPA had | believe internal experts outside of the region do a hydraulic study on the
flow of water through that wall. One of the reasons was that it was one of the first slurry walls done under the
Superfund programs. It performed very well even after 30 years. So in terms of reducing flow across it, it is
still performing.

President McCarthy

It also occurs to me that we are talking now about the alternative of removing the lagoons, we have not talked
about the cost of that alternative and what it would cost to actually dig up the two lagoons that are on the
tannery property. Do we have a delta number for those?

Ms. Taylor Well our number in the engineering evaluation cost analysis that we came up with for just the

Mohawk Material, which would be the two lagoons and any of the other satellite areas is approximately $32
million dollars.

President McCarthy
As opposed to what was the number for containment?

Ms. Taylor Between $7 to $10 million. Our estimates are slightly larger than what the developer thinks but we
think it is going to be about $10 million dollars.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 14

President McCarthy

| know that not everybody on the Board has been at all of the meetings and there is a $25 million cost
differential there that we are talking about.

Alderwoman Kelly

If you were going to remove it would only be on Mohawk is that correct? So if we went to full remediation it
would not include those other two sites that you were talking about?

Mr. Millan-Ramos If we did not have a developer on board to do it ourselves, the only thing we can touch is
the Mohawk Tannery site. The way that we see it that if for whatever reason we proceed that way, we would
clean the property, but the property would not be as conducive to redevelopment if the other adjoining
properties are addressed. So that’s why we say we have a unique opportunity here in front of us to make sure
the site is cleaned up, to make sure that the site is conducive to redevelopment and to make sure that this
costs the taxpayer the minimal amount of money possible; given that the developer is willing to put the bulk of
the funds that are needed.

Alderwoman Kelly

So would it be fair to say that that cost is actually almost $10 million dollars more because you said removing
Fimbel was $6.5 million plus the other site plus the cost if you were going to do the whole space, is that about
right?

Ms. Taylor Right.

Mr. Millan-Ramos It sounds right.

Ms. Taylor Yes our estimates that we have in our engineering evaluation and cost analysis did not include
either off site excavation or containment for Fimbel Door sludge or the City asbestos because we were only
dealing with what was present at the Mohawk property. So any additional cost associated with any of that is
going to be borne by the developer and would be in addition to what these costs are here. So it would be in
addition to the $32 million.

Alderman Dowd

So we have addressed these costs and | think you elaborated the additional costs for the other two sites. Can
you just tell us and those who have been at previous hearings probably know the answer, but who is picking up
which percentage of those costs? If we don’t do this, and this has to go into the Superfund pot that could take
years and years before you ever get federal funding, who would pick that up. And the other part of the
question is when you come to a final decision on how you are going to proceed, who gets a vote? That’s not to
mean that we are looking for a vote, because | don’t think we have a vote. Who is going to make the
determination as to how you proceed and give the go ahead for the developer to start?

Ms. Taylor Well perhaps | can answer the last question first. It is clear to us, it is critical that the City buy into
this idea because as you may or may not know, there is going to be some zoning changes that are needed,
there potentially as far as | understand the developer may need a TIF, which is a Tax Increment Financing, the
property may need to be subdivided so there are a number of things that the Aldermen would need to approve
in order to move forward. So it is critical that the Aldermen are on board with that. That said, it really is EPA’s
final decision as to what happens at the site in terms of the clean-up. That is what the regulations say.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 15
Alderman Dowd

And as | understand it, the TIF was to clean up the asbestos portion of this and do the interchange with Broad
Street Parkway?

Ms. Taylor I’m not clear on the details on that, that is really between the City and the developer but we do
understand that the developer will be looking to get some level of a TIF and | don’t know to the extent of that.

Mayor Donchess

The details of what the TIF would cover, it would cover whatever the City decides it should cover and for
whatever amount the City decides. | guess on the first question at least my thought would be any of the three
parties can stop the project in the sense the EPA decides that they don’t want to do it, there’s no money. If the
City decides we don’t want to do it, they can’t go ahead as we’ve already heard without the zoning, the TIF, the
subdivision, all these different approvals that would require both Aldermen approval and if the developer
decided he didn’t want to go ahead, there’s not private investment so that would stop the project. So any of
the three could really veto the approach.

Ms. Taylor The current approach yes.

Mayor Donchess

The approach we are talking about.

Ms. Taylor And in terms of the allocation, that is both EPA and the developer are contributing funds towards
this, like we said before, the developer is contributing the lion’s share of those funds. Any other participation
either by the State or the City has yet to be worked out or even between the developer and EPA. Those are all
part of negotiations that have yet to take place. We hope to start those negotiations shortly but they would be
confidential and we have to make sure we are on board with this approach first before we kind of move into the
negotiation phase.

President McCarthy

| think pragmatically the situation we are in is we need to decide whether we go forward with an approach that
caps some of the waste in place. | think if you try to pursue the complete removal, that is not going to happen
under the developer’s money | don’t think because it doesn’t make economic sense. So that means if you
don’t do this, then you are waiting for funding which may take years to do a full clean-up and we don’t know
what happens to the property.

Ms. Taylor Essentially there is no reason to think that the clean-up would be any different if it was listed on the
NPL.

President McCarthy

Pragmatically that’s the first decision we’ve got to make is do any of us want to pursue some variant of this
solution. Once we do that, we can talk about do we take some of the waste off-site, how does that get paid for,
can the TIF afford to pay for that. I’m not averse to the City kicking in some amount of money to make the site
cleaner and make the neighbors happy with it. | don’t think we can bond $32 million dollars to clean up a site
that we don’t even own. I’ve had some conversations with the Attorney’s office about whether that is either
feasible. | think we can make the case that if we are doing something that makes that a better part of the
community and has public interest as well as benefiting the private, that we can look at that.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 16

| think the first we’ve got to do is decide are we doing this or are we getting on the NPL? | mean that is a fairly
simply straight-forward decision. Then the second thing is to go ahead with understanding some of the costs
and what the City can bear in terms of what we get as a solution versus what we invest in it.

Alderman Dowd

If waste at the Fimbel site and the asbestos total removal rather than putting it on top of the existing lagoons, if
we wanted to take that approach and the developer didn’t want to pay for it, then it is either going to have to be
covered by the TIF or city funding, which we would have to address.

President McCarthy

Right. And | don’t think we have numbers yet but we can sit down and add those up and figure out, at some
point we have to do a revenue and cost analysis and figure out what works and what doesn't.

Ms. Taylor Could | just make a clarification, I’m sorry. It was my understanding that the City wanted to hear
what the cost was just to remove the Fimbel waste, that doesn’t include any of the City asbestos waste, so it
would be a separate cost for that. | believe that is about 22,000 cubic yards.

Mayor Donchess

My impression was that because removing asbestos is really dangerous to begin with, exposing it to the air, so
you wouldn’t want to move the asbestos, removal that is sort of never the approach in an asbestos situation.

Ms. Taylor Well we would be moving it. But it would be still on essentially the same property versus going off-
site.

Alderman O’Brien

To help me make a decision, when you said encapsulation, the site can be repurposed for recreational
purposes. Can you give us examples and what are some of those recreational purposes. Will it be safe
enough for children in this development to be able to walk on, play on and will it be monitored and the like. |
think to help me make the decision what do you recommend to make sure we handle it the best way we could.

Ms. Taylor Well to answer those two questions | could say yes and yes. Children would be able to play on it, it
would have a level of top soil with grass on the top and then there is a geo-synthetic or impermeable liner
underneath that so there is really no way to have contamination come up from underneath on to the top soil
and the grass. So kids could play on it; there would be full recreational use. There obviously wouldn’t be any
structures that would be built, there wouldn’t be any digging allowed, of course, because you would dig into the
cap. But other than that, there would be recreational use around that area.

| believe the developer at our last meeting did mention some other things that he wanted to do to increase the
recreational use of that area, potentially creating a walkway, maybe even building a bridge over the Nashua
River so that you could have access to Mine Rivers Park. | don’t know if there was anything else, | mean there
were a bunch of things that are kind of in the works. So he wanted to have a pedestrian walkway from the
Fairmont Street properties and they have access down there.

Mr. Millan-Ramos | think it is essentially that plus the possibility of handing over the southern parcel to the City
for open green space.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 17
Alderman O’Brien

We've had a company in Nashua that dumped a lot of asbestos and at one time it was considered darn good
fill, now we are more educated and stuff so | am not surprised it is around in our City. But from time to time it
shows up. Again, | know ask a lot of questions and one statement, but you didn’t touch base on the
monitoring, so what happens, is somebody going to come and make sure that none of this is getting exposed
or anything and who would be responsible for that?

Mr. Millan-Ramos Let me see if | understood your question. Are you asking what kind of monitoring would be
done to ensure that no one is exposed to the asbestos?

Alderman O’Brien

To be more direct and explanatory, what I’m saying is as time goes on, things where if it is a field ...
President McCarthy

Are you addressing the asbestos or the lagoons?

Alderman O’Brien

But this is what | am talking about, would the lagoons be repurposed?

President McCarthy

The lagoons will have monitoring wells around them and part of the management plan | assume is to check
those which is very similar to what is done out at Gilson Road.

Alderman O’Brien

Maybe | don’t completely understand because | thought that would be encapsulated as well and that is what
we were talking about being repurposed so people could walk on it.

Mr. Millan-Ramos Let me try to clarify. The asbestos that is in the City-owned property and the asbestos that
is on the Fimbel Door property would be put in a cell adjacent to the containment unit. It would be in the soil
and it would be covered with an impermeable capping.

Your question about monitoring of asbestos, every time asbestos is moved as Mayor Donchess mentioned,
there is possibility for friable asbestos to be inhaled and that is obviously a health hazard. So the way to deal
with that is to keep it wet at all times and then there is monitoring that is used on workers to make sure that no
one working with the asbestos, the people immediately dealing with it, are exposed at unreasonable number of
fibers that would cause the disease. In fact, that was the very first job | did out of college, before | joined EPA,
was monitoring asbestos air so | think | know a little bit about it.

Ms. Taylor That would be during the work though.
Mr. Millan-Ramos That would be during the work. If it is properly done and it is kept wet at all times and
people working on it are properly monitored, there is no reason to believe that people in the public would be at

risk.

Alderman O’Brien

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 18

Last one Mr. President, yes and the abatement | can understand that. Again, I’m thinking more nature erosion
time, five years down the road, ten years down the road.

Mr. Millan-Ramos On top of what we described already, there is also in consideration putting some sort of
wrip wrap in the existing edge of the river. We may or may not have figures showing that. We do? Do we?

Ms. Taylor And just to add on that, anytime EPA does an action where we are leaving waste in place, there
has to be an operation and maintenance plan, which would be in perpetuity. That is part of the negotiations
where we are going to figure out who would be responsible for that in the future. But there will be operation
and maintenance plan that needs to be implemented that will both check for whether or not there is any
degradation of the cap or any exposure of any materials or any further groundwater contamination that we
weren't expecting.

Mr. Millan-Ramos | just want to quickly show a depiction of what that wrip wrap and liner protection would look
like at the edge of the river. This was provided us graciously by Darrin Santos. And Darrin correct me if I’m
wrong, but the picture here below is an example of a retaining wall?

Mr. Santos That’s the panel retaining wall, we have shifted to do a full poured wall instead so we don’t have to
worry about the seams. But that is reinforced concrete so that would be above the secant wall.

Ms. Taylor And that material that is on the top, that is not like a containment unit, there is going to be grass
and other wetland species that grow through that. But that’s just to really solidify and keep erosion from
happening on the riverbank so you will have even less of an opportunity that a flood would wash that away.

Mr. Santos And | just wanted to add on the asbestos just so we have, well it is off the map here, but the City
property there is also asbestos in the southern parcel here of the Mohawk site that needs to be cleaned up at
the surface. The conceptual plan is to put it an containment rectangle behind that secant wall. So the
backside of the secant wall would form one side of the containment structure for asbestos. | shouldn’t have
said structure, it is going to be an excavation with a cap over it similar to how any site in Nashua is capped.

Further, the air monitoring — if Geolnsight works with the developer, we will have to have an air monitoring plan
written and approved by EPA and DES before we proceed and that would cover asbestos and any hydrogen
sulfide from the lagoon.

Mayor Donchess

One thing that | haven’t mentioned yet is that we did meet with the neighbors on the 13" which was several
weeks ago or so. There was some skepticism expressed regarding the capping solution and the request was
made that we, the City, engage someone to review the EPA’s findings as well as the cost estimates. We
fortunately have Sanborn Head.

Ms. Taylor Sanborn Head, we are very familiar with them, they do a lot of work for us too.

Mayor Donchess

Who does a lot of work for us at the landfill and they agreed and they have worked at this site before for some
reason. | think Ms. Belknap said that they did the work back in the 80’s or at some point. And anyway they
have agreed to review and they think they can do it quickly. So | think we have scheduled a meeting for
October 16" for them to meet with the Board of Aldermen and just present their conclusion.