Search

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.

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