Updated Community Relations Plan Savage Municipal Well Site Milford, New Hampshire

UPDATED

COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN

SAVAGE MUNICIPAL WELL SITE

July 18, 1988

Prepared for:

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I

Prepared by: o-t BOOZ-ALLEN & HAMILTON INC. O" Jl Under Subcontract No. TESK-TEAM-013, W.A. 736 "U EPA Contract No. 68-01-7331 TABLE OF CONTENTS Updated Community Relations Plan Savage Municipal Well Site Milford, New Hampshire

Page Number

Section A — Purpose of Plan 1 Section B — Site Background and Key Issues 2 1. Site Background 2 Site Location Map 4 2. Community Profile 7 3. History and Analysis of Community Concerns 8 4. Summary of Key Issues and Community Concerns 11 Section C — Community Relations Techniques and Objectives 13 Section D — Schedule and Timeline 18 Appendix A — List of Contacts and Interested Parties 'A-l A. Federal Congressional Officials A-l B. Federal Agency Officials A-l C. State Elected Officials A-2 D. State Agency Officials A-3 E. Local Officials A-3 F. Other Interested Parties A-5 G. Local Media A-6 Appendix B — Suggested Locations for Information Repositories and Public Meetings B-l

11 REVISED COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN SAVAGE MUNICIPAL WELL SITE MILFORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE

This Community Relations Plan (CRP) for the Savage Municipal Well site updates an initial Community Relations Plan that was prepared in June 1985 for the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) Region I Office. Prepara- tion of a Community Relations Plan is required under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA also known as Superfund) as amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The Federal program developed to carry out these laws is commonly referred to as the Superfund program. A. PURPOSE The purpose of this plan is to encourage constructive interaction and meaningful two-way communication between the agencies conducting remedial activities for the Savage Municipal Well site in Milford, New Hampshire, and the community affected by the site. The plan describes community concerns related to the site and outlines community relations activities EPA Region I proposes to conduct during the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and cleanup of the site. These activities are" designed to provide interested citizens, officials, the companies involved, and local organizations with general information about site plans, developments, and findings. Because community relations is a dynamic process, this Community Relations Plan is currently being updated to reflect the present site cleanup circumstances and com- nity interests and concerns. Should these circumstances or interests change appreciably over the course of the Superfund cleanup program, the plan may again be revised.

The first major activity scheduled for the Savage Municipal Well site is an RI/FS. The goal of this activity is to characterize the nature, extent, and source of contaminant releases, and to select the appropriate remedy for contaminated ground water and soil. This Community Relations Plan is designed to provide EPA with the appropriate information and mechanisms for responding to existing community concerns or concerns that arise during the RI/FS. The EPA Region I Office in Boston, Massachusetts' has the lead responsibility for ensuring that comprehensive and accurate technical work, and effective community relations work is performed at the site. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Waste Management Division (NHDES), which was formerly the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (WSPCC), will oversee day-to-day technical work at the site under a Cooperative Agreement with EPA. Particularly in light of this intensive dual-agency involvement, this Community Relations Plan reflects the need for regular interaction among EPA, State and local officials, company representatives, and interested citizens in the community. Preparation of this Community Relations Plan involved the review of numerous documents about the site, as well as personal and telephone interviews with local citizens, NHDES officials, pertinent EPA staff, and local officials. The documents used include materials obtained from the EPA Region I site file, such as the June 1985 Draft Community Relations Plan, the June 1986 Remedial Investi- gation/Feasibility Study Work Plan, and the August 1987 Administrative Order by Consent issued by EPA Region I. The 1984 Town of Milford Master Plan was also used in developing portions of this plan. In addition, newspaper articles from The Milford Cabinet and Wilton Journal (Milford, New Hampshire) and The Nashua Telegraph (Nashua, New Hampshire) were reviewed. The first section of the Community Relations Plan outlines the site history, a profile of the affected co'm- munity, and the history and an analysis of community concerns. This section is followed by a section that dis- cusses community relations objectives and techniques and includes a proposed schedule of activities. Appendix A of the plan is a list of organizations and individuals who are interested in activities associated with the site. Appendix B lists suggested locations for public information repositories and public meetings.

B. SITE BACKGROUND AND KEY ISSUES The following brief history of the Savage Municipal Well site, together with a profile of the community relations history, and summary of community concerns provides the context for EPA's proposed community relations activities. 1. Site Background The Savage Municipal Well site consists of the well and an underlying aquifer, located in the Town of Milford, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire. The well is approximately two miles north of the town center. It is located in the Souhegan River floodplain, approximately 1,000 feet from the river channel, (See Map on following page.) The Savage Municipal Well (or "the Savage Well") operated from 1960 to 1983. While in operation, it yielded 800,000 gallons of water per day, supplying 40 to 45 percent of Milford's water. The town's remaining water was supplied by the Keyes and Kokko wells, a few miles east. Land around the site area is used for heavy industry, agriculture, and private residences. Four major industrial facilities are in proximity to the well: Hendrix Wire and Cable Corporation; Hitchiner Manufacturing, Inc.; New England Steel Fabricators, Inc.; and O.K. Tool Com- pany, Inc. O.K. Tool Company, Inc. sold its production lines and phased out its operations over the course of the past year due primarily to economic circumstances un- related to the site. A mobile home park is approximately 1,600 feet west of the well. Several single family residences are located southwest of the site on Old Wilton Road and Perry Road. As a part of a statewide water supply sampling program, developed by the (then) New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (WSPCC), the Savage Municipal Well site was sampled for the first time on February 3, 1983. High concentrations of several volatile organic chemicals commonly used as solvents were found in the sample. The specific chemicals found in the Savage Municipal Well site and another nearby well that" supplied water to the mobile home park were: tetrachloroethylene; 1,1,1 trichloroethane; 1,2 trans-dichloroethylene; and 1,1 dichloroethane. The initial test was followed by two' subsequent tests by WSPCC on February 14 and 15, 1983. These confirmed the results of the first test. Consequently the Savage Municipal Well site and the well supplying water to the trailer park were shut down. In March 1983, at the request of the State of New Hampshire, EPA used CERCLA (Superfund) emergency funds to connect the trailer park to the town's water supply and to provide bottled water to the 75 residents of the trailer park. During the later part of February WSPCC inspected each of the major industrial facilities in the Savage Well area and several of the smaller commercial establishments to assess the waste managing practices of each facility and any potential impacts of these practices on ground-water quality. Subsequent sampling by WSPCC of additional wells supplying water to site area residences and businesses revealed contamination in all of them. WSPCC, in conjunction with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Welfare (NHDHW), initiated investigations into the potential sources of the contaminants. 3 SITE MAP - TOWN OF MILFORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE

TOWN OF MILFORD

NEW HAMPSHIRE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

THE SAVAGE MUNICIPAL WELL SITE

100 200 0 SCALEMFEET

Adapted by Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. from NUS Corp. With the loss of over 40 percent of its water supply, as a result of closing the well, the Town of Milford was forced to initiate emergency water conservation measures and the Milford Board of Selectmen began evaluating other sources of municipal water. Though the Keyes and Kokko wells were sufficient to meet the town's basic immediate needs, the supply was inadequate to respond to an emergency such as a major fire, or to provide for increased growth. By July 1983, the town put another well field known as the Curtis Well Field in operation to supply water to the Town of Milford. The Curtis Well Field is located within the adjacent Town of Amherst. In August 1983, Amherst filed suit against Milford because private wells in the vicinity of the Curtis Well Field reportedly were not yielding as much water as they had prior to the installation of the Curtis Well Field. Milford lost the case and now must supply water, if the need occurs, to Amherst residents living near the well field. In September 1984 the Savage Municipal Well site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). Potential sites are scored using the Hazard Ranking System which is a mechanism that was created by CERCLA to score hazardous waste sites according to their potential environmental or health impacts and rank those requiring priority attention. Those sites that score 28.5 or higher are placed on the NPL and are eligible to be studied and cleaned up using Federal funds, or the "Superfund." r * Also in the fall of 1984, the Keyes well was discovered to be contaminated with volatile organic chemicals. The Keyes well was supplying 15 percent of the town's water at the time. WSPCC advised Milford to take the well off-line except for emergency use. This was done and the Town of Milford was once again forced to evaluate alternative sources of water. The Town of Milford is currently negotiating a contract with the Pennichuck Water Works of Nashua, New Hampshire for a water supply of that will double the town's present capacity. As part of a preremedial effort in the fall of 1984, the State conducted a hydrogeologic investigation of the well area. In addition, two local industries initiated hydrogeologic studies within their facilities' boun- daries. The State's study was completed in May 1985 and EPA used the findings to develop a scope of work for the RI/FS. In June 1985, EPA notified Hitchiner Manufacturing Company, Inc., Hendrix Wire and Cable Corporation, O.K. Tool, Inc. and New England Steel Fabricators, Inc. that they may have contributed to the well contamination and therefore may be responsible parties under CERCLA. EPA and representatives of the four companies proceeded to negotiate a work plan for a remedial investigation and feasibility to determine the exact nature, extent and source(s) of the contamination. In 1986/ EPA and the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) renegotiated the work plan as a result of changes in the National Con- tingency Plan, the nation's blueprint for responding to releases of hazardous substances. The work plan was also redeveloped to include new requirements to ensure greater environmental and health protection mandated by SARA. The changes invoked by SARA emphasized such aspects as treatment rather than containment of hazardous wastes, per- manent remedies and adherence to applicable or relevant and appropriate standards called for in other Federal or State environmental and health regulations. These and other measures in SARA made it necessary for EPA and the companies to reconsider technical approaches to the Savage Well site as well as projected costs. Based on the work plan derived from the negotiations, the four companies and EPA signed an Administrative Order by Consent in August 1987 in which the companies agreed to carry out the RI/FS. In July 1986, the companies proposed to buy the Savage Well field site from the town of Milford in order to streamline the cleanup process. The townspeople voted against this proposal, but in the fall of 1987 approved a subsequent offer by Hitchiner to trade the 14-acre well site for 8.3 acres of its own property including an office building. The preliminary surveying, ground water and soils sampling, and air monitoring program for the RI/FS are scheduled to begin in early spring, 1988, as weather con- ditions permit. At the suggestion of the companies the RI/FS will include pilot studies on pumping and treating the aquifer as well as pilot studies on soil treatment methods. 2. Community Profile The Town of Milford is located in south-central New Hampshire, approximately ten miles northwest of downtown Nashua and roughly eight miles due north of the Massachu- setts border. The town area consists of 26 square miles. The town's focal point is the Souhegan River Valley, a plain averaging a mile in width where industries, commercial establishments and agriculture are concentrated. The river valley gives rise on either side to hilly ter- rain composed predominantly of granite. Milford's high quality granite once supported over 50 quarry operations earning Milford the title "the Granite Town" in "the' Granite State." This resource was marketed extensively, and, notably, Milford's granite forms the columns of the U.S. Treasury Building in Washington, D.C. The Souhegan River, which originates in Massachusetts, cuts across the northeast corner of the town flowing southeasterly then north before emptying into the Merrimac River. The Souhegan is a recreational resource for the town, used for canoeing and fishing. It is also part of the recharge system for aquifers that supply water to Milford's municipal wells, including the formerly operated Savage Municipal Well. Local leaders describe Milford as distinctive in maintaining a small town character with a strong industrial base. It was formerly a milltown. Currently, industrial manufacturing firms represent a principal source of employment for Milford residents and commuters from the surrounding region — a few from as far away as Boston. Products manufactured at these firms vary from industrial-capacity wire and cable to steel castings for a variety of uses, for example, to make components for auto- mobile production. Milford's population rose from approximately 6,600 in 1970 to approximately 10,100 in 1986 and regional planners conservatively estimate that by the year 2000 it will exceed 15,000. The town's growth in part reflects the outward-spiraling development of high-technology and other businesses from the Boston metropolitan area northward." The effect of growth and development on Milford takes a number of forms. The unemployment rate is only two percent. Recreational and cultural resources have expanded; for example a large commercial fitness center and a new wing to the public library are recent additions to the town. Growth has also resulted in certain pressures. Schools are filled to capacity; there are increased demands for roads and utilities; and competing demands for land exist among commercial and industrial development, housing, and farming interests. Though several farms continue to operate, the Milford area has experienced a decline in the number of dairy farms since 1986 when over a dozen succumbed to the combined economic factors of overproduction in other parts of the United States, drain of farm labor to other employment in the region, and pre- mium prices offered by developers for land. A few farms in Milford have been protected from development by the transfer of development rights to the State or the Town Conservation Commission. The Conservation Commission is one of a few citizen advisory groups, appointed by the town elected leaders. The Commission's role is to study the town's natural resources and provide counsel to decisionmakers on the protection and wise use of those resources. A private citizen organization, the Souhegan Valley Land Trust, has also facilitated the placement of 240 acres of non-farm lands in conservation trusts for the town. Since 1985, when contamination was discovered in the Keyes Well, Milford's backup water supply, the town has enforced a moratorium on any building permit involving an added demand for town water. Currently, several hundred building applications are suspended pending approval of and connection to the Pennichuck Water Works system. Milford residents are served by a five member Board of Selectmen whom they elect at large to serve two-year terms. Citizens vote on town laws, policies and the town's operating budget in an annual participatory town meeting. When necessary, special town meetings are con- vened to decide on matters that require more immediate attention, such as the proposal to buy Pennichuck water. In 1984 Milford revised its town master plan and en- gaged the services of a town Planning Commissioner as part of its efforts to deal effectively with growth and water resource issues. The Planning Commissioner and the town's Planning Board and Conservation Commission review development proposals to evaluate the potential impacts on the natural resource base. r , 3. History and Analysis of Community Concerns The community first became aware of contamination 'of surface water in the vicinity of 'the Savage Municipal Well Field site in June of 1980, three years before the dis- covery of contamination in the well itself. The WSPCC received a complaint from a farmer who pastured cows in the area of an unnamed tributary to the Souhegan River. This unnamed tributary is within 1/4 mile of the Savage Municipal Well site. The farmer reported that four of his cattle had died as a result of drinking water from the unnamed tributary. WSPCC investigated the complaint and observed a reddish-brown substance flowing in the tributary. Hendrix Wire and Cable Corporation and Hitchiner Manufacturing Company, Inc. had permits to discharge wastes into the tributary. Sampling of the water and facilities by WSPCC identified heavy metals in the water and a high pH level. Hitchiner Manufacturing was identified as the source of the contamination. The company altered its waste handling practices, removed sludge from the unnamed tributary, and reportedly buried the sludge in a lined landfill nearby. The identification of volatile organic chemicals .in the Savage Municipal Well site in 1983 resulted in immediate community concern. Special meetings were held to discuss the loss of the Savage Well. The identification of the same contaminants in a well supplying water to the trailer park intensified community concern. Residents of the trailer park drank bottled water until EPA used emergency funds under the Superfund program to connect the park to the town's water supply. Local officials reported that the loss of 40 percent of the town's water supply necessitated emergency conservation measures until 1985 when the Curtis well field in Amherst, New Hampshire, was put into use. The court case that resulted from this well installation kept public attention focused on the serious- ness of the town's water supply problems. Representatives from the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission and Department of Health and Welfare met with town representatives to discuss the well at the time the contamination was discovered. Since 1983, WSPCC officials met with town officials on at least three occasions at meetings that were open to the public. The purpose of the meetings was to inform the town of the condition of the site and of any plans for, or findings from, technical studies conducted by the State. At least one of these meetings, held in the Fall of 1985, was initiated by the town to discuss options for obtaining an alternative water supply. The town had investigated a treatment option for the Savage Well which consisted of a combination of pumping^- air-stripping, and activated carbon filtration. This option was presented to State officials. WSPCC hazardous waste management officials subsequently corresponded with town officials and described the technical requirements necessary to implement the suggested treatment approach. WSPCC Water Supply Branch officials .discussed the option with town representatives and encouraged the town to choose another alternative, such as interconnection with another water supply system. Water Supply Branch officials based their recommendation on several factors: treatment systems are vulnerable to failure; the Savage Well was in close proximity to upgradient and upstream heavy industries; the well was also close to a heavily- used road where hazardous spills or salt run-off could result in seepage to ground water. From 1983 to 1985 most of EPA's contacts in the town related to the emergency action and determining who was potentially responsible in order to proceed with the RI/FS. As a result most interaction occurred between EPA, the State, and the four companies eventually identified as potentially responsible parties. During the Fall of 1985, EPA Representatives met .with the Town Board of Selectmen and citizens at an open meeting to inform the town that a RI/FS would be necessary for the site and to inform them of the projected schedule of RI/FS activities. Town officials stated their interest in installing a treatment system at the Savage Well, rather than to impose the significant cost of the RI/FS on local industries. Town officials reported having heard one EPA official indicate that the Agency would consider the treatment option. Since Milford has voted to approve plans for connecting to the Pennichuck Water Works system and traded the well site for Hitchiner property, citizen attention for the most part is no longer concentrated on the Savage Municipal Well site. Citizens and officials are not pleased to have to give up the preferred taste of well water and purchase water from an outside source, lessening Milford's self reliance. Nor are they pleased to bear the cost of constructing a well (Keyes) that became contaminated, and the costs associated with the Pennichuck hook-up. When asked directly about the Savage Well, the common response among officials and residents is the expressed hope that the well can be cleaned up and used again. At the same time, several interviewees questioned the financial investment and time devoted to studying a water resource that has become a private use and which they believe is not projected to ever again be a public water supply. In view of these many factors, civic leaders and officials expressed surprise that EPA is seeking their per- spectives at this time. Presented below is a brief summary of the key issues and concerns related to the Savage Municipal Well site and EPA's activities. 4. Summary of Key Issues and Community Concerns Interviews with Milford area residents and officials revealed that concerns related to the Savage Municipal Well site centered around the technical and procedural approach planned to remedy the contamination, economic impacts on the companies involved in the RI/FS, EPA's role and the extent to which EPA will involve town leaders and citizens in the process of resolving the contamination problem, and potential health risks. A more detailed explanation of these concerns is provided below. a. Technical/Procedural Approach to Remedy Contamination Officials and some area residents stated clearly that

10 treating the Savage Well water by a system of pumping, air-stripping and activated carbon filtration was a reasonable approach to remove the contamination in the aquifer and the well. They reported that EPA worked with the State of Massachusetts to install such a system in the town of Acton, Massachusetts. It is the perception of Milford officials that Acton has a contamination problem similar to Milford's and that the town is now using the activated carbon filtration system effectively. They described frustration over what appears to them as EPA's and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Service's refusal to consider use of the carbon treatment system for Milford's contamination problem without another study, which the town leaders consider unnecessary. Town leaders stressed that they are looking for ways in which the water can be used, if not for a drinking supply, then perhaps for other uses. Reportedly the State informed local officials that if the Savage Well were to be proposed as a drinking water supply today, even if the well were pure, it would not be be permitted because of the proximity to industries and a heavily-used road. A few area landowners expressed concerns related to EPA's technical approach for dealing with the site. They wondered to what extent RI/FS testing and survey proce- dures would damage their property. Specifically, they wanted to know where and when testing would take place and the number of people and type of equipment that would be involved. These matters are particularly significant to a farmer whose 68 acres near the site is used to raise corn for his dairy herd. He asked about the number of test wells that would be installed on the property. Each installation would necessitate leaving approximately a half an acre buffer to ensure that neither the well nor the farm machinery are damaged. Currently the field contains one sampling well installed by the State; numerous wells are placed at the perimeter. Rumored proposals to pump the aquifer extensively beneath the Savage Well also concern the farmer because of the potential loss of yield he fore- sees from the cornfield due to a diminished water supply. b. Economic Impact Officials and some residents are also concerned that EPA's present remedial investigation/feasibility study, which is to be funded by potentially responsible parties that are key area employers, constitutes a prolonged, expensive research effort that will only culminate in the need to treat the water, at an additional cost to the companies. Officials and civic leaders stated that they feared the economic impact this could bring to these major employers. Though not blaming the recent closure of O.K.

11 Tool Company on the problems associated with the Savage Well, interviewees stated that the company was not helped by the situation. c. EPA's Role Local officials repeatedly raised the question, "Who is in charge?" in relation to the Savage Well site. The extent of the State's authority in deciding the use of the well was unclear to town officials, as was the division of responsibility between EPA and the State under the Super- fund Program. Many interviewees see the Acton, Massachusetts situation as an example of EPA, the State, and the town working together to arrive at a practical solution and it is unclear to them why this is not occurring for Milford. According to town leaders EPA representatives have seldom contacted them with information regarding the site. Furthermore, these leaders say they have been unable to get a response from EPA to their proposal for treating the well water. They stated that a former EPA site project manager indicated that EPA might consider the proposal, but this initiative seems to have been abandoned. Local officials are also sensitive to EPA's approach to the town following a 1986 meeting in which EPA's presentation was described by interviewees as "heavy-fisted". Local officials referred to this incident and the Agency's failure to keep them informed about the site when describing their skepticism that EPA will involve the town in decisions or consider the town's needs. Town officials stated they -• would like information about EPA's plans for the site, the treatment concept proposed by the town and the status of the site in general. Officials also stated they would like roundtable dialogues with EPA as well as informationon how the town could play a role in affecting decisions about the well and water resources in general. Several interviewees also reported that the delineation of the State's role and EPA's was unclear. When seeking information, for example, they found that one agency or branch of an agency would frequently indicate that the information or responsibility for a decision lay with another agency or branch. This was confusing and aggravated a sense of distrust as to whether any agency was responsive to the town's situation. The majority of the interviewees acknowledged that contaminants in the aquifer and water supply are a problem. Beyond this acknowledgment, a few people asked if the community was in danger. A few others strongly objected to the suggestion that the water was unfit to drink. Many civic and elected leaders were aware that if it had not been for the State using more sophisticated

12 testing instruments on the Savage Well water in 1983,than for all previous years, the town would still be using the well. Several interviewees stated that the issue deciding "how clean is clean" presents a real dilemma for Milford. The Nashua Regional Planning Commission, Hillsborough County Extension Service, area League of Women Voters, and the Milford Planning Board and Conservation Commission are each focusing on this issue and they see Milford as a case in point of how land use decisions and the impact of these decisions on natural resources ultimately involve an assessment of health risks. Officials and residents said they would like information describing the kind and degree of risks involved in using the Savage Well water. Opinions were divided, however, as to whether, once informed of the risks, a town or individuals should be able to decide whether to drink the water. C. COMMUNITY RELATIONS TECHNIQUES AND OBJECTIVES There is a high level of community awareness regarding the Savage Municipal Well site and a history of dissatis- faction in the town over interactions with EPA. The following community relations objectives are recommended to develop meaningful two-way communication between the community affected by the site and those performing remedial activities. 1. Establish Regional EPA Information Contacts *'» Objective: To coordinate community relations activities and to answer questions regarding scheduling and policy matters related to the site. Method: Ms. Diana Lettro, The EPA Remedial Project Manager for the Savage Municipal Well site, in coordination with the EPA Region I Community Relations Coordinator, will be available to respond to questions from interested parties regarding EPA's activities and responsibilities. To ensure that Milford officials are kept informed, Ms. Lettro will maintain principal contact with the Town's Administrative Assistant, Lee Mayhew. (See page A-l for contacts, addresses and phone numbers.) 2. Establish and Maintain Information Repositories Objective: To ensure that accurate, understandable information is available to interested parties. Method: Fact sheets and site reports (i.e., Community Relations Plan, RI/FS report), the Administrative Record which is a compilation of key site documents from the time the RI begins until the final cleanup plan is selected,

13 and other pertinent site information, as well as general information on the Superfund program will be made available for public review in repositories. These repositories will be located in Milford, New Hampshire. (For the locations, see Page B-l.) If the need develops, additional repository(ies) may be established. 3. Fact Sheets and Updates on Site Progress for Area Residents and Other Interested Parties Objective: To provide the community with factual information about Superfund, the Savage Municipal Well site, and site activities. Method: Basic information about the Superfund program will be provided. This activity may be satisfied by using existing EPA brochures or other materials, or may be included as part of site-specific fact sheets. A site- specific fact sheet will be developed by EPA technical staff to explain the purpose of an RI/FS, and general activities during the RI/FS. Additional fact sheets may be prepared as needed, based upon guidance provided by local officials and civic leaders listed in Appendix A of this plan. Such fact sheets could address technical and health-related issues, explain and summarize the findings of the RI, and describe the next steps to be taken at the site. A Record of Decision (ROD) fact sheet will be prepared that explains the rationale for EPA's remedial action plans and other pertinent facts or any questions that remain regarding the site. Since community members are interested in risk evaluation, this may be featured in a separate fact sheet. EPA will work with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to ensure that accurate information on potential health effects is reported. In addition to mailings, EPA may distribute fact sheets by working in cooperation with local leaders or residents, for example, the Milford Rotary, local chapter of the League of Women Voters, and Cooperative Extension, the Nashua Regional Planning Commission, and the Milford Con- servation Commission and Planning Board. 4. Informal Meetings with Local Officials, Area Residents, Citizen Groups, and State Officials As Needed Objective: To continue to monitor and assess concerns, and promote communication with local officials and community members. Method: Small and informal meetings or round-table discussions may be held with local officials, civic

14 leaders and area residents as work progresses. The - purpose of the meetings would be to: (a) strengthen and reconfirm EPA's presence in the community, (b) brief area leaders and interested citizens on key developments pertaining to the site cleanup, and (c) answer officials' and interested citizens' questions about the status of the cleanup and findings at the site. If there is interest/ a meeting may be held before completion of the RI/FS to explain the purpose and rationale for EPA's activities and to answer questions. These meetings may be held at the homes of interested citizens, if they volunteer to do so, the Milford high school, or at the local library. These meetings are especially important because of the previous miscommunication between the town and EPA officials. Because there is particular interest in potential health effects and ground-water quality, it is recommended that representatives with knowledge of health and technical issues attend these meetings (i.e., ATSDR staff or another risk assessment specialist). 5. News Releases Objective: To ensure that the media and general public receive accurate information on the findings and developments as they occur. Method: News releases will be issued as needed and upon completion of major milestones such as the remedial investigation. 6. Coordination of Potentially Responsible Party Involvement Objective: To integrate involvement of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) actively into the public involvement process. Method: Prior to each planned community relations activity, EPA representatives will inform representatives of the PRPs of the upcoming actions. Representatives of the PRPs will be requested to participate in site public meetings, especially when PRP actions are planned as an agenda item, to allow Milford citizens and officials to request answers to questions or other information directly from PRPs. The Region I project and community relations staff will also seek other opportunities to involve PRPs in the community relations program, as appropriate. 7. Public Notice and Mail-In Coupon Objective: To provide official notice of public

15 meetings and public comment periods and to provide a'con- venient means for area residents to receive site information. Method: EPA Region I Community Relations staff will be responsible for providing public notice at least one to two weeks prior to a public meeting or public comment period. This public notice may take the form of a display ad and/or an announcement in the legal notice section of area newspapers and broadcast via local radio and television public service announcements. The public notice in the newspapers will be accom- panied by a mail-in coupon. Interested persons can send in the coupon to EPA Region I, requesting that they be placed on the mailing list. The mail-in coupon extends EPA's outreach effort through a means that meets the privacy needs of interested individuals. 8. Public Meetings Objective: To facilitate public input on major agency decisions concerning the site. Method: Once the RI/FS is completed and communication has been achieved in the community through informal contacts/ a public meeting will be held to explain the major conclusions of the RI/FS. Public meetings may also be held earlier in the process, if the EPA Community Rela- tions Coordinator and Site Project Manager along with local officials agree that a meeting would be of benefit to Milford residents. The degree of public participation and information available for public comment may change subject to the development of EPA's enforcement efforts. Because Milford has a strong fabric of community participation, illustrated in part through the Town Meeting and its active citizen organizations, public meetings will be coordinated through local leaders such as the Town Admini- strator, Board of Selectmen, and Conservation Commission. When the public hearing is held to accept oral comments on the FS, the services of a court reporter will be obtained to record proceedings in an official meeting transcript. 9. Public Comment Periods Objective: To provide for public input on site- related issues and decisions. Method: When the remedial investigation and feasibility study is completed, a minimum thirty-day public comment period will be held to allow the public to comment on the draft feasibility study report and EPA's proposed remedial action plan. In addition, public comment periods may be provided prior to EPA decisions on

16 other major site actions, for example, possible deletion of the site from the NPL, or cleanup activities. 10. Responsiveness Summary Objective: To ensure that public input and comments are considered by EPA decisionmakers. Method: Following a public comment period, a responsiveness summary will be written, summarizing public concerns and issues raised during the public comment period. The responsiveness summary will accompany the appropriate decision document. 11. Community Relations Plan Revisions Objective: To reflect changes in the level and nature of community concern during the RI/FS process and especially following selection of a final cleanup alternative prior to remedial action. Method: The Community Relations Plan will be revised if there are indications of major changes in the enforcement process or community concerns.

17 o •o O T3 c I/I i- id r- U id C u ,^ 01 u id _ - C 01 r- O.

U I/I ai — -o c i-> vi c 01 o in id .* u IB id 4JI4- L. « id c •- u a 01 •o U o 01 01 c

0) 3 ^ I. vi id aC> in uai o u S3 id 4J u 01

o ut« d "4- c

01 4idJ

3 E VI Q * 41 ae

vi a>

c t/> O U. «^id ae sr- N a. ^S_, id 4J i. 5^S u. o

!£

I/I I X V. 4J id ai VI r- 3 c I/I •o o

£5 c Perio d 01 posltor y c ntact s d Update s I id gi o 0) c ^ c ai ^j VI id vi u oe « 4J VI *J 01 O c c C (/I T- C 01 01 10 u a 01 O c C in VI i_ i ae f o o z HB. •^ O QJ (£ B 1 in 01 01 •a ou U 01 Q > 4-1 0) V. 01 c VI o -~ U u U c cS ! 1 us o 4J i VI r- •" o 0 o r— ^ ^ a. § c 14- <*- U It. a-r- J3 VI E id Ul c c c I 1 3 id 3 3 3 a* H4 U. 1-1 z a. Z a. a. ae u a O

8 id ai t- o a. jo z APPENDIX A LIST OF CONTACTS AND INTERESTED PARTIES

A. Federal Elected Representatives Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Washington, DC Office 531 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-2841 Regional Office One Eagle Square Suite 507 Concord, NH 03301 (603) 228-0453 Senator Warren B. Rudman Washington, DC Office 530 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-3324 Regional Office Norris Cotton Federal Building Manchester, NH 03103 (603) 666-7591 Representative Judd A. Gregg Washington, DC Office 308 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-5206 Regional Office 1 Spring Street Nashua, NH 03060 (603) 883-0800

A-l B. Federal Agency Officials Diana Lettro Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I, Waste Management Division John F. Kennedy Federal Building HSV CAN3 Boston, MA 02203 (617) 573-9612 Paul Knittel Community Relations Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I John F. Kennedy Federal Building RRC 2203 Boston, MA 02203 (617) 565-1473 Richard McAllister Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I John F. Kennedy Federal Building RRC 2203 Boston, MA 02203 (617) 565-3441

C. State Elected Officials Governor John H. Sununu Office of the Governor 208-214 State House Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271-2121 Senator Jean T. White Home Address Hampshire Road P.O. Box 119 East Ridge, NH 03461 (603) 889-5532 Office Address State House Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271-2115

A-2 Representative Lester R. Perham Legislative Office Building Room 307 Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271-3125 or 271-3126 Representative Bartolo V. Prestipino Legislative Office Building Room 302 Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271-3520 or 271-3529 Representative Kenneth P. Wheeler Legislative Office Building Room 201 Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271-3565 or 271-3566

State Agency Officials Carl Baxter Administrator Superfund Site Management Bureau New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Hazen Drive P.O. Box 95 Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271-2905 Richard Pease Remedial Project Manager Superfund Site Management Bureau New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Hazen Drive P.O. Box 95 Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271-3649 Ellen Cavalier Environmentalist Environmental Health Risk Assessment Unit Division of Public Health Health and Human Services Building Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271-4664

E. Local Officials 1. County/Regional Robert Courage Director of Public Works

A-3 Town Hall Nashua Street Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-4383 (H) (603) 673-1662 (0) Mark Fougere Planning Commissioner Town Hall Nashua Street Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-2257 May Gaffney Board of Selectmen Amherst Street Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-4869 Peter Leishman Chairperson Board of Selectmen Beech Street Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-7181 Richard Mace Board of Selectmen Osgood Road Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-1486 Lee Mayhew Town Administrator Town Hall Nashua Street Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-2257 Richard Medlyn Vice-Chairperson Board of Selectmen Nashua Street Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-3506 Rosario Ricciardi Board of Selectmen Osgood Road Milford, NH 03055 (602) 673-2751

A-4 Harry Smith Environmental Planner Nashua Regional Planning commission Box 847 115 Main Street Nashua, NH 03031 (603) 883-0366 Richard P. Tortorelli, Chief Milford Fire Department School Street Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-3136

F. Other Interested Parties Elizabeth Blacklock, Vice President League of Women Voters, Milford Area Chappell Drive Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-3886 Richard Bucknam Treasurer New England Steel Fabricators, Inc. P.O. Box 9 Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-1553 Kevin Devine Devine & Nyquist Attorneys At Law 66 Hanover Street Daily Mirror Office Building Manchester, NH 03101 (603) 668-5888 John Ferguson County Coordinator Hillsboro County Extension Service Chappell Professional Center Rte. 13 South Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-2510 Kenneth Ghazey, General Manager Hendrix Wire and Cable Company P.O. Box 326 Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-2040

A-5 Fred Lofgren Director of Administration Hitchiner Manufacturing Company, Inc. Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-1100 Russ Monbleau Chairperson Milford Conservation Commission Chappell Drive Milford, NH 03055 (603) 884-5656 (H) (603) 673-5508 (0) Greg Smith, Esquire McLane, Graf, Raulerson, and Middleton 40 Stark Street P.O. Box 326 Manchester, NH 03105 (603) 625-6464 (603) 625-5650 (Telecopier)

G. Media 1. Newspapers Manchester Union Leader 35 Amherst Street Manchester, NH 03103 (603) 668-4321 Managing Editor: Charles Perkins Editor: Joseph McQuaid Cost: £16.60 per column inch Deadline: 3-4 days prior to publication Circulation: 75,000 (Daily) 98,000 (Sunday) The Milford Cabinet and Wilton Journal (Weekly, Wednesday) P.O. Box 180 Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-3100 Editor: Wendy Stotz Cost: $5.95 per column inch Deadline: 12:00 noon, Monday Circulation: 9,000 Nashua Telegraph 17 Executive Drive Hudson, NH 03051 (603) 882-2741 Managing Editor: Ken Frizell

A-6 Metro Editor: Steve Sakson Milford Reporter: Hattie Bernstein Cost: Open regular rate = $13.12 per column inch Open classified rate = $9.80 per column inch Deadline: 5:00 pm, 2 days prior to a Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday publication 5:00 pm, 3 days prior to a Sunday publication 11:00 am, 4 days prior to a Monday or Tuesday publication Circulation: 30,200

2. Television WBZ-TV Channel 4 1170 Soldiers Field Road Boston, MA 02134 (617) 787-7000 News Director: Stan Hopkins Environmental Reporter: Paul Erickson Public Service Director: Lois Roach Deadline: 2 weeks in advance WMUR-TV Channel 9 P.O. Box 9 Manchester, NH 03109 (603) 623-8061 New Assignment Editor: Jerry Little Deadline: 2-3 weeks in advance )••» 3. Radio WBZ Radio (AM) 1170 Soldiers Field Road Boston, MA 02134 (617) 787-7000 News Director: Bob Salsburg Public Service Director: Ana Shahrik Deadline: 2 weeks in advance WEVD (FM) 26 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 (603) 228-8910 News Director: Jim Van Dongen Environmental Reporter: Margaret Landsman-Weiner Deadline: 2 weeks in advance WFEA (AM)/WZID (FM) 500 Commercial Street Manchester, NH 03101

A-7 (603) 669-5777 News Director: Alan Peduzzi Deadline: None established WGIR (AM and FM) P.O. Box 610 Manchester, NH 03105 (603) 432-8555 News Director: Kevin Hamilton Deadline: 2 weeks in advance WHOB (FM) 55 Lake Street Nashua, NH 03060 (603) 889-1063 News Director: Joan Stylanios Deadline: 1 week in advance WMDK (AM and FM) P.O. Box 389 Peterborough, NH 03458 (603) 889-6775 News Director: Randy Kennedy Deadline: 2 weeks in advance WSMN (AM) P.O. Box 548 Nashua, NH 03061 (603) 882-5107 News Director: Ken Ozoonian Deadline: 2 weeks in advance

A-8 APPENDIX B SUGGESTED LOCATIONS FOR INFORMATION REPOSITORIES AND PUBLIC MEETINGS Information Repositories Wadleigh Memorial Library 21 Nashua Street Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-2408 Director: Arthur L. Bryan Assistant Director: Mary Anne Doyle Hours: 9 :30 - 8:30, Monday through Wednesday 9 :30 - 5:00, Thursday through Saturday 1:00 - 5:00, Sunday (Copying facilities are available to the public - 10 cents per page) Town Hall Nashua Street Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-3403 Town Administrator: Lee Mayhew Executive Secretary: Joan DeGuise Hours: 8:00 - 5:00, Monday through Friday (Copying facilities are available to the public -- fee set by Selectman's Office) Public Meetings Town Hall Nashua Street Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-3403 Town Administrator: Lee Mayhew Secretary: Joan DeGuise Seating Capacity: Meeting Room, 30 to 50 Cost: No charge Access: Facility accessible to persons with physical handicaps Audiovisual: Audiovisual equipment is available

B-l Wadleigh Memorial Library 21 Nashua Street Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-2408 Director: Arthur L. Bryan Assistant Director: Mary Anne Doyle Seating Capacity: Small Conference Room, 8; Meeting Room, 50 Cost: No charge Access: Facility accessible to persons with physical handicaps Audiovisual: Audiovisual equipment is available Chappell Professional Center Route 13 South Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-2408 Contact: John Ferguson Seating Capacity: 25 to 40 Cost: No charge Access: Facility accessible to persons with physical handicaps Audiovisual: Audiovisual equipment is available Milford Area Senior High School West Street Milford, NH 03055 (603) 673-4201 Contact: George Edwards, Vice-Principal Seating Capacity: Auditorium, 500; Lecture Room, 100; Classroom, 20 Cost: Minimum charge of $50 Access: Facility accessible to persons with physical handicaps Audiovisual: Audiovisual equipment is not made available

B-2