Search

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 19
Alderman Klee

Actually | have two questions and again from Alderman O’Brien, when you said about the monitoring, basically
EPA kind of hands it over to DES so the State would do the monitoring or do you continue to do the monitoring.

Ms. Taylor We haven't determined, that’s part of the negotiations, we will determine who will be doing long
term monitoring at the site. Say if it were an NPL site, if it was a fund lead project, EPA would do it for the first
10 years and then the State would take it over. But in this case, you could have the developer do it, you could
have other entities do it, we just don’t know that yet.

Alderman Klee

Right that is part of the negotiation. My other question was and pardon me for not knowing this, but the Fimbel
and again apologize for going over to part 2 of this, but would the owner of that property have any
responsibility as far having to do the clean-up. | know they accepted the Tannery waste and kind of created a
dump and so on, but if we did have it removed you talked about the $6.5 million, would they in fact have any
responsibility. Could we tap them on the shoulder for any of that.

Mr. Millan-Ramos I’m not an attorney to answer with certainty that question but what | do know that the local
developer has a purchase & sale agreement with the property owner. And it is my understanding that he is
also interested in doing the same with the City property, | don’t know to what extent he has engaged in
conversations with the City, but that is my understanding.

Alderman Lopez

| just wanted to what we talking about a few minutes, that the EPA was under the impression that we were just
asking about clean-up of the asbestos property, | had explicitly mentioned the two lagoons in my e-mail, where
| was asking for a presentation on those expenses and | am under the impression that you weren’t able to find
any way to get you a direct quote. You just have the rough ballpark numbers so | just wanted to point out.

| also wanted to advocate for the neighbors in this kind of scenario, because again, the City in conversation
here has been continually been defined by one contact person within the Mayor's staff. The City asked us for
this, the City told us that, we have spoken to the City and the neighbors are not privy to all that conversation
and most of us here aren’t either. So when we do move forward with this, remembering that there are three
players, | think as a City we should be making sure we all know what is being proposed by each side. What is
going to be built, what we are going to be asked to approve, what the EPA is willing to present and why and
then what the City is able to do and how it is understood by the residents. Because | think it is not a very good
deal if we go through all this process and then decide we don’t want to give the zoning because he’s trying to
build a casino or whatever.

The presentation that was done informally suggested that it would be residential, so there is a big difference
between family housing, condos and elderly housing. | think these are all pieces that we need to understand.
Especially with respect to my fellow Aldermen, the initial informal presentation suggested that a gift would be
given to the City of the riverfront property upon which could be built the bridge and the waterfront, but | don’t
think | heard the developer actually say he planned to do that or that the TIF was even necessarily going to be
used about that. He was a little bit vague about what the TIF meant and that is rightfully so because we are
the ones who ultimately have to authorize it. So | think we should find out what is being proposed so that we
can gauge the value of what we are putting into it and what the clean-up options are.

My summary if | understand it correctly of what was originally being proposed in the informal meeting was the
two lagoons at the tannery site which are still with sludge, goo, gum, whatever you want to call it. And then
there was during the tannery’s operation, waste was removed from that and put on the Fimbel Door property
so that property as well has some contamination. But there is also the waste from | believe it was the Broad

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 20

Street Parkway or wherever, some pile of asbestos that also needs to be moved. So the proposal, as the
neighbors understand it, has not been to clean up the lagoons, it has been to add more to them and then cap
what is going on. There is a separate chamber that they are describing behind the two lagoons, but they also
had a plan to pile stuff higher on the secant wall if | understand correct.

Mr. Millan-Ramos Correct.

Alderman Lopez

So that is definitely where the bone of contention is for the neighbors in my understanding. For this
development to happen, the City basically needs to move its garbage over to the tannery project, pile it even
higher using some new innovative strategies, rather than full removal which is apparently cost prohibitive, but it
isn’t entirely clear as to why. Because there are a lot variable in place here that we should be working to
understand over the next couple of months before we make any final decisions.

President McCarthy

Alderman Lopez, the questions | had asked before were based specifically on that, to cap the lagoons in place
and what would the cost be of not moving anything to the lagoons, but if we are going to dig it up to remove it
from the site.

Alderman Lopez

And | understood that to be the case, but | wanted to reframe so that number one, the neighbors understood
that some progressive step had been taken and for the Board of Aldermen who haven't all gone to every single
meeting or been as intricately involved in this, they may not have been aware that the genesis of the
neighbor’s that were outraged basically was because the presentation wasn’t to their best interests. It wasn’t
cleaning up the site next to them, it was encapsulating it with more stuff. So | think with that understanding,
moving forward becomes possible because you kind of understand where everybody is coming from.

President McCarthy

When we had set this meeting up, | had specifically not invited the developer per se, because | wanted to talk
about the waste on the site at this meeting and the cost of the alternatives. He is more than willing to come at
some point and give us a presentation on the proposed development itself and what we would and wouldn’t get
out of it.

Alderman Lopez

| think that’s fair and probably wise, because at the last two meetings the combination of the environmental
issue and the development issue became very contentious and | mean it is a really awkward spot for a
developer to be put in to be asked “so are you going to pay for this, are you going to clean it up”. We even had
a developer looking at an adjacent property asked if he would be kicking money in which is very difficult for a
developer. So | think it was wise to separate the two meetings. | am just saying that as we progress with this
we should have a clear understand because frankly this wouldn’t be the first developer who suggested a water
front be put in. We want to make sure we know what we are doing before we get into any agreements.

President McCarthy

As | said before, | think the issue is if the only alternative we will accept is removing the two lagoons from the
tannery site, then the development deal is off the table and we just go simply to the NPL. If we are willing to
talk about a capping solution then the question is which capping solution is it and we have some play there
with what we can and can’t do to remove some material and make the solution more acceptable.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 21

Alderman Lopez

| recognize the dilemma as presented, | just feel like we could have done more to explore the removal so that
people would feel better at least that there was a reason, just dropping a huge number down isn’t quite as
compelling. And there is the engineering study that is on the web site but there isn’t somebody who has the
same expertise as the gentleman who is ready to do the encapsulation here to also say “well this is what you
would do, this is how we prevent spills, this is our insurance plan, this is the one time the truck has accidentally
backed into the river and polluted it”. You know, we didn’t have that level of expertise.

Mr. Millan-Ramos May | interject? | just to make very, very clear our estimate are very, very conservative and
they take a lot of contingencies into it and they are fully detailed both in the EC/CA and in the technical memo
that | mentioned. You are more than welcome to review them, submit it to any other contractor you may want
to double-check it, we are not opposed to that. And any questions you may have about it, we are more than
willing to explain. But again, the full excavation of everything was seriously considered, not only in this EC/CA
amendment, in the old EC/CA that was done way back in 2000. So | have to tell you that my understanding is
that we have fully and very thoroughly assessed that option.

Alderman Lopez

| appreciate your position but | also recognize that in your presentations you have steered away from that even
when | have explicitly requested that.

Mr. Millan-Ramos The EC/CA itself is an analysis of all those options and a selection of the best one, not only
in terms of cost but as of effectiveness and implement ability. So the whole process is detailed in there and
why we selected that one. It was basically the thrust of the presentation was to show the preferred alternative
and again if you need any more information, we are than willing to provide it. But we feel that everything has
been laid out in detail.

Alderman Lopez

| agree that there were videos, there were detailed presentations, all of these pictures and an expert in the
room for that approach.

President McCarthy

I'd actually like to, before it gets too late, |’ll allow some time for the public to speak. So if anybody would like
to address the committee, please come forward to the microphone and give your name and address and
comments or questions.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Elisabeth Caswell, 48 Fairmount Street, Nashua, NH. In talking at the meeting you weren’t there with the
Mayor, but a lot of us were quite taken with the idea of continuing with the secant wall and seeking full removal
of the Fimbel Door Lagoon so that we don’t have the risk of that 6 foot wall, especially after the meeting that
we had where Darrin had mentioned that they didn’t actually have a design quite yet, they were working on it.
The pictures that were provided showed seams and steel beams that are going to leak. So | just wanted to put
on public record that a lot of the neighborhood supports the secant wall as long as we can prevent it from
building up, if it stays at river level and that 6 foot wall is not added on top of that, we would be completely
behind you.

Bill Eaton Good evening my name is Bill Eaton and | live in Westford, Massachusetts but | have been in the
waste disposal business since about 1987. | work for a company in Canada and we specialize in dioxin

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 22

complete destruction of dioxins, exceeding of destruction. | at least wanted to offer as an alternative to what is
being discussed here is removal of areas 1 and 2, our facility would be able to accept that material given the
levels of dioxin and the other constituents’ concern, typically at a rate that would be less expensive than is
typically found in incineration, basic quotes that you can find in day-to-day basis by calling up a consultant or
what not. So from a geographic standpoint, we are located north of Quebec City, we have done work on
Superfund sites, we have done work on Circle Sites, Private Sites, Torte Sites, all revolving around heavily
contaminated soils that are contaminated with dioxins, pesticides, the more dangerous types of materials. So
we can offer that service, that assistance with hopes that it would lessen the financial burden on the taxpayers,
the City, the Federal Government and the developer, to hopefully find a consensus for all that would help out
and move this project forward. Thank you.

Harold Solomon, President of Universal & Environmental Technologies | am Howard Solomon, President of
Universal & Environmental technologies. | have a couple of questions. The containment is going to be airtight,
is that correct?

Mr. Millan-Ramos Airtight? Not airtight. It is certainly as we indicated in the previous meeting, there would be
some degree of seepage to be expected, but nothing that would be putting people in harm’s way.

Mr. Solomon What about pressure limits, interior?

Mr. Millan-Ramos Pressure limits, as we explained at the meeting as well, those are things that would be at
the design stage, we are not at that point yet.

Ms. Taylor We would have vents that would prevent any pressure build-up underneath. | am assuming you
mean due to methane gas? Typical landfills have that.

Mr. Solomon Have you done bio methane potential tests?
Ms. Taylor No we haven't done any of that yet, any of those potential studies would be during design.
Mr. Solomon So you haven't been able to evaluate the amount of biogas that will be delivered from the waste?

Ms. Taylor No we don't, but this material again has been there for over 60 years so the amount of degradation
that is still occurring is probably relatively minimal.

Mr. Solomon Do you feel it is gone?

Ms. Taylor I’m assuming it is relatively minimal, | don’t know exactly what the levels are at this point.

Mr. Solomon | don’t understand how you can assume that when you haven't done any tests. That is my
concern is that you said it was impermeable at the last meeting | attended. And if it could build, based on the

literature, it could be pressure build ups of substantial amounts, they would have to be vented.

Ms. Taylor Yeah they would be vents placed in there. | mean anytime you build any type of cap you have to
have venting for any pressure build up.

Mr. Solomon When do you plan to do BMP tests? Or are you planning it? Bio methane Potential Tests.

Ms. Taylor We haven't discussed any of that yet, we are still at the stage where we are trying to make a final
decision.

Mr. Solomon | submitted comments and I’m wondering if you can tell me when | might expect a response or
will | get a response?

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 23

Ms. Taylor Yes you absolutely will get a response. Our process is to respond to the comments when we issue
the action memorandum, it is usually an appendix to the action memorandum which is a decision document.
And all of those questions and comments will be answered as part of that document.

Mr. Solomon That's all the questions | have, thank you.

REMARKS BY THE ALDERMEN

Alderman Dowd

Just for clarification, you said when they are doing the asbestos removal they keep it wet to keep any particles
from escaping, but when they are doing that, it is pretty close to the Broad Street Parkway. When they are
removing that asbestos would they have to close the parkway while they are doing it, or not?

Ms. Taylor | don’t believe so.

Mr. Santos We would be required to, if any of the air monitoring which is essentially continual while the work is
being done, triggered anything, we would have to shut the job down and mitigate the problem. Gerardo
mentioned wetting the soil and that is effective and essentially have a couple personnel there dedicated with
hoses to water down as things are getting excavated and transported.

Alderman Jette

So on the question of asbestos, | am wondering, my understanding is that asbestos as long as it is in the
ground, poses no threat. Why are we moving it around, why are we removing it, what is the purpose.

Mr. Millan-Ramos It is strictly to facilitate another way of egress into the site other than Fairmount Street. You
see if again we move forward with the local developer, he would need access to the site in that particular area.

If we were to do it ourselves alone with no developer, we would have to do all the trucking, all the moving of
equipment and materials through Fairmount Street. So it is an opportunity to use that particular section.

President McCarthy

The asbestos is in inconvenient place with regard to the site is what the basic issue is.
Mr. Millan-Ramos Correct.

Alderman Jette

To the disturbance of the asbestos would only be in areas that there is going to be construction of roads or
other things?

Ms. Taylor | believe that the developer would like to do some other commercial, that is my understanding

anyway, that he wants to do some type of commercial development in that area as well. So that is another
reason to move the asbestos.

President McCarthy
It is a pretty valuable piece of land to store asbestos on.

Mr. Santos You are right it is valuable and | believe that is exactly why he wants to move it, but more so, you
can see from this plan the areas that Gerardo talked about, satellite sludge areas and then also you see the

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 24

other highlights here which are impacted, small impacted areas. The plan is to consolidate everything down
into the lagoon area, so essentially the three sites after will have no impact such that residential use could
occur. So it is really to get everything down to the smallest area possible where there will be a use restriction
and monitoring wells and deed restriction and keep it there rather than having it housed across the property.

Ms. Taylor Yes it is essentially altogether with the Mohawk site as well as the other areas, it is about 40 acres
of land and we would only be restricting 2 out of the 40 acres. So 38 acres would be unrestricted for use.

Alderwoman Kelly

| have two questions. First question is what is the average time a site spends on the NPL list?

Ms. Taylor It depends. | believe we have, | have that data somewhere, in the hundreds of sites that have
been deleted from the National Priority List, | actually have that data somewhere. But sites can remain on the
NPL for quite some time, especially if you have groundwater contamination where groundwater remedy is
needed. Those remedies can sometimes take decades. So it certain sites can be on the NPL for decades.

President McCarthy

It is safe to say that there are more sites left on the NPL than have been removed from it.

Ms. Taylor Oh yes. Yes there are still about 1,300 sites on the NPL.

Alderwoman Kelly

My second question is just a point of clarification, Mr. Mayor you talked about having an outside contractor
evaluate. Can you just explain what they would be evaluating specifically?

Mayor Donchess

Sure, so when we met with the members of the neighborhood back in September, they asked can we trust the
EPA findings and the solution and how do we know that this is good and all this kind of thing. So | think what
they are doing is they are reviewing the EPA report in light of the work that they have already done there and
will be able to comment on its validity and may be able to offer thoughts regarding the costs of the various
solutions which could either | suppose agree or even disagree with the EPA’s estimates.

Alderwoman Kelly

So when you say the EPA report, you are talking about EC/CA? Is that correct?

Mayor Donchess

If this is the EC/CA it is about this thick and highly technical, a number of different documents, but that whole
package of material, | think is what they are looking at.

Kelsey Dumville Hi everybody | am sorry | am Kelsey Dumville and | just wanted to reiterate what Melissa said
at the beginning. | work as a Community Involvement Coordinator and the Liaison to the Congressional
Delegation. We've heard a lot concerns about kind of shoving this proposal at the community. | just want to
be clear for one about the process, which is that this is the process we take and that is why we go through the
public comment. | understand that a lot of people are unfamiliar with the site in the beginning and it can appear
as if we are just saying this is it or nothing.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 25

In this case, we do just want to make clear tonight that without the support of the City, we don’t intend to move
forward in this direction with the developer. Like Melissa said, we want you to understand that this is a really
unique situation, this isn’t something we see all the time. We want to make very clear to you that this is, and |
hope we’ve done that tonight, that this is addressing more than just the Mohawk Tannery Site. It is addressing
these other parcels that otherwise would go untouched by EPA.

You could speak to the State and Robin Mongeon from DES is here tonight, but those properties are
considered protected. You could never re-develop on them as they are now. We are hoping that this
developer is coming in to give the City an opportunity to do that. That said, and | don’t mean to be
inconsiderate, it is really not up to us and it doesn’t, we want to see this happen because we care about
communities we work in. At the same time, if we have to backtrack and go back and list this on the NPL, that
is what we will do. Like Melissa said, likely we will come up with the same solution. And I’m not trying to say
that like we’ve heard that we are throwing this solution at you, but that is, in all probability, wnat is going to
happen.

So we just want to make that abundantly clear that this process is not considered an NPL proposal listing,
however it is very similar to the process that we would go to. And we would probably come up with the same
solution, but in this case it wouldn’t be addressing these other properties, there would not be a developer on
board, these properties wouldn't likely to be able to be reused and as Gerardo just mentioned it could be
decades from now before you see anything happen there.

So | apologize for sitting back and being blunt, but we just really wanted to make sure that we got that across.
The other piece is that Alderman Lopez asked a couple of times about responses to the comments that you
made and we certainly weren’t ignoring or not responding to those, but they were taken as part of the public
comment, which as Gerardo mentioned, we will be responding to in a package when we do come out with the
action memorandum.

| would encourage you to just understand that we are here for you, we are happy to talk through any of this, we
know it a lot of information to take in. But we do want you to understand that we are here now with the
developer in this potential opportunity to move forward on the site. We can’t speak for him obviously but our
understanding is that this is a financially limited and potentially time limited depending on when decisions are
made; so just to make that very clear. Thank you very much for having us here tonight, we hope it was really
helpful.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

Thank you. So to follow up on your comment about you are here for any questions we have. If a member of
the Board of Aldermen had a question or wanted further clarification, who would they contact and how would
they go about doing that to make sure their comment, like Alderman Lopez about his comments were just
there, whether he wanted them to be part of public comment. | think maybe people didn’t realize that they
would have to wait until March to get responses. So if they wanted more immediate responses how would they
go about doing that?

Ms. Dumville Those comments were just counted as the public comment period and stated so in e-mails to a
number of people including community members. You are welcome to pick up the phone and call Gerardo or
myself anytime with questions. Alderman McCarthy has my e-mail address as does Sue Lovering who helped
set this up. I’m happy if you’d like to share that around with everyone.

President McCarthy

| would suggest that if you have questions, get them to Sue and have Sue give them there and then we can
make sure responses get sent to the full Board and published so that we all have the same information.

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

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

Yes thank you and | guess that’s my concern. If 5 people have the same question, you only need to hear it
once. But people also need to know there is a process to exchange information.

President McCarthy
Work it through Sue and we will get answers.
Ms. Dumville That is what we do so we are happy to answer any of your questions.

Alderman Lopez

Can | just point out in the EPA’s defense | did get a response to my request, it just didn’t actually happen but |
got a response. So | am not accusing you of anything at all, | made the comment and then | was actually
asked do you want this on the public comment and I’m like “yes” but | also wanted the presentation. So here
we are. Not what! was hoping for, but it was a response.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO ADJOURN
MOTION CARRIED

The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

Attest: Patricia D. Piecuch, City Clerk

Mohawk Tannery

Meeting with Board of Alderman

Mohawk Tannery Site
Nashua, New Hampshire
EPA Work Area

Toll Free 888-372-7341 —
=

SEPA

New England

Cranes

October 2, 2018
City Hall Auditorium, Nashua NH

Melissa Taylor, NH & RI Superfund Section Chief
Gerardo Millan-—Ramos, Remedial Project Manager

Mohawk Tannery
Presentation Overview

¢ Recent Past Activities
¢ Maps & Figures
¢ Contaminants of Concern

¢ EPA’s Recommended Alternative