HBspBWaUHSWSTiTWHSWSSPSffil^^K
SDMS DocID 455695
Superfund Records Center SITE: VJiluO 4kA^ptsUrt. BREAK: 3.,», COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAIff^^^R- i/!^C9S
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
NEW HAMPSHIRE PLATING COMPANY SITE MERRIMACK, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Halliburton NUS Environmental Corporation and Badger Engineers, Inc.
EPA Work Assignment No. 33-1LG1 EPA Contract No. 68-W8-0117 HNUS Project No. 0772
July 1993
««HALLIBURTON NUS Mii^ Environmental Corporation y ^ - ^ Environmental Technologies Group S^K HALLIBURTON NUS 187 BALLARDVALE STREET ™ " Environmental Corporation SUITE A-100 WILMINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01887 (508) 6.58-7899
0187-EPA-2635 Contract No. 68-W8-0117 July 8, 1993 Mr. Richard Goehlert (HSN-CANS) Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency J.F. Kennedy Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Subject: Transmittal of the Community Relations Plan, New Hampshire Plating Superfund Site, W.A. No. 33-lLGl Dear Mr. Goehlert: Enclosed are four copies of the New Hampshire Plating Company Superfund Site Community Relations Plan. I am also forwarding one bound and one unbound copy to Ms. Van Alstine. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely,
Betsy Home Community Relations Specialist
PMO & BH:gmb Enclosure cc: D. Kelley/C. Van Alstine (EPA) w/enc. A. Ostrofsky (HNUS) w/enc. R, Palermo (BEI) w/enc. File 0772-1.0 w/o enc./0772-8,2 w/enc, COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
NEW HAMPSHIRE PLATING COMPANY SITE MERRIMACK, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Halliburton NUS Environmental Corporation and Badger Engineers, Inc.
EPA Work Assignment No. 33-lLGl EPA Contract No. 68-W8-0117 HNUS Project No. 0772
July 1993
Prepared By: Approved By:
Betsy Home George D. Gardner Community Relations Specialist Program Manager TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMDNITY RELATIONS PLAN NEW HAMPSHIRE PLATING COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE MERRIMACK, NEW HAMPSHIRE
SECTION PAGE
A OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN 1
B CAPSULE SITE DESCRIPTION 2
C COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 4 1. Community Profile 4 2. Chronology of Community Involvement 4 7 3. Key Community Concerns D 9 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PROGRAM E 10 TECHNIQUES AND TIMING ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A LIST OF CONTACT AND INTERESTED PARTIES ATTACHMENT B LOCATIONS OF INFORMATION REPOSITORIES AND PUBLIC MEETINGS
FIGURES
NUMBER PAGE 1 NEW HAMPSHIRE PLATING COMPANY SITE MAP 3 2 SCHEDULE FOR NHPC COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES 11 COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN NEW HAMPSHIRE PLATING COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE MERRIMACK, NEW HAMPSHIRE
A. OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN This Community Relations Plan identifies issues of community concern regarding the New Hampshire Plating Company (NHPC) Superfund site in Merrimack, New Hampshire, and outlines community relations activities to be conducted during the site Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). In general, community concern about the site is low, although this has not always been the case. The manner in which removal program activities were conducted between 1989 and 1991 resulted in a serious rift between town officials and EPA. Because EPA's credibility is an issue, an effective community relations program for the NHPC site should be tailored toward repairing EPA's image as a responsible, responsive, and trustworthy agency, not only with town officials but with site abutters and residents living downgradient of the NHPC site. This Community Relations Plan (CRP) has been prepared to assist EPA in developing a comprehensive community relations program for citizens affected by the NHPC site. EPA conducts community relations activities to ensure that the local public has input to decisions about Superfund actions and is well informed about the progress of those actions. The following sections comprise the remainder of the CRP: Capsule Site Description Community Background Highlights of the Program Techniques and Timing Attachments: List of Contacts and Interested Parties and Locations for Information Repositories and Public Meetings The information in this plan is based primarily on discussions conducted in and around Merrimack in April and May of 1993. Participants in these discussions included the Merrimack Board of Selectmen, the Conservation Commission, the Town Planning and Health Directors, Commissioners of the Merrimack Village District (water supply) , as well as site neighbors and residents of Merrimack. Additional background information was obtained from files at EPA's Environmental Services Division (which oversaw the removal activity). EPA's Region I Office in Boston, Massachusetts, has lead responsibility for managing the RI/FS. The Region I Office of External Affairs will oversee all community relations activities at the site. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) will provide EPA with field and technical support during the RI/FS activities at the site. B. CAPSULE SITE DESCRIPTION The New Hampshire Plating Company (NHPC) Superfund Site is located on approximately 13 acres on Wright Avenue in Merrimack, New Hampshire, 600 feet west of the Merrimack River. Figure 1 depicts the site and its surroundings. From 1962 to 1985, NHPC conducted electroplating operations on site, discharging its waste into four lagoons in a wetland behind the NHPC building. The lagoons were unlined and had no leachate detection or collection system or other means to contain the plating waste. In the early 1980s, the NHDES and EPA began attempts to control the Company's hazardous waste disposal activities under the Resource Conseirvation and Recovery Act (RCRA) . The State issued a Notice of Violations and Order of Abatement in which New Hampshire Plating was required to treat its wastes prior to discharge into the lagoons. The Company ceased operations in 1985 because it was unable to meet the financial assurance provisions of RCRA and continue to pursue the field investigation necessary to determine the nature and extent of the contamination it caused. In 1987, a contractor for the State stabilized the plating waste in the lagoon system with lime and a sodium hypochlorite solution; removed debris, drums, and plating tank liquids; and conducted superficial decontamination of the NHPC building. The EPA "removal" action, which began in 1989, confirmed that a number of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including trichloroethylene (TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA); inorganics (metals) such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, zinc; and cyanide were present in the lagoon system. Since these contaminants were detected in monitoring wells on and around the site, in July 1991, EPA proposed to add the site to its National Priorities List (NPL), making it eligible for funds for long-term cleanup. Final NPL listing occurred in October 1992. The site has been designated a Fund-lead site for the RI/FS. i i I i ft I I i I I I i I 1 1 i I I t 1 I I I I I II II II II II I i
FIGURE 1 NEW HAMPSHIRE PLATING COMPANY SITE MAP C. COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 1. Community Profile The Town of Merrimack is located in Hillsborough County in south central New Hampshire. The community covers 33.8 square miles, and is composed of four villages: Merrimack, Reeds Ferry, Thorntons Ferry, and South Merrimack, which link Manchester and Nashua. The estimated 1990 population was 22,156. Located between the state's two largest cities, until relatively recently the Town was a bedroom community. However, Merrimack has grown significantly in the last thirty years, attracting the Anheuser-Busch brewery in the mid-1960s. In the 1970s and 1980s, several other major companies located in town, including the Nashua Corporation, Sanders Associates (now Lockhead Sanders Associates), Digital Equipment Corporation, Kollsman Instrument Company, and M/A-Com Omni Spectra (now M/A-Com Passive Components). Merrimack is governed by five selectmen, elected for staggered terms, at the annual election in May. The selectmen set policy, which is carried out by a Town Manager, who serves for an indefinite period. Town Meeting, also held in May, is open to all residents. The Merrimack Village District, which is charged with overseeing water distribution (including fire protection), has the power to levy taxes to support those responsibilities. The District is composed of five commissioners who are elected at an annual District meeting (separate from the Town election or Town meeting). WW 2. Chronology of Community Involvement in The level of community concern about the site was highest in 1990 and 1991 toward the end of the removal action. Town officials had been told that EPA would need to spend approximately $2 million to clean up the site within one year. A Village Crier article, dated June 5, 1990, indicates that among the activities planned were "fixation and stabilization of 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated sledge [sic] by mixing it into a concrete matrix for removal to an EPA-RCRA approved landfill." EPA conducted a public meeting on June 13, 1990. The sign-in sheet indicates that beyond the three state and federal officials in attendance, only six other individuals (four of whom were Town officials) were present. At the meeting, EPA announced that the cost of the clean-up work had increased from $2 million to approximately $6 million. The additional money was necessary "to remove a fuel tank from beneath the metal plating building, restore the excavated area to wetlands, transport and store the contaminated soil and treat the sludge and recycle its metals," according to a June 14, 1990, article in The Union Leader. -4 A July 3, 1990 article in the Union Leader noted that EPA was in the process of obtaining a more accurate estimate for recycling 2,500 square yards of sludge. Janis Tsang, EPA's Assistant On- scene Coordinator for the removal action, is quoted as indicating that the latest estimate would cost about $5 million. A week later Ms. Tsang replaced Paul Groulx as the On-scene Coordinator. On October 2, 1990, the same newspaper stated that EPA had authorized $5.9 million but again, Ms. Tsang indicated that amount might not be sufficient. She hinted that EPA was exploring whether the stabilized material could be exempted from federal disposal requirements so it could be "more cheaply shipped away and stored or remain at the site permanently". Correspondence and meetings between the State and EPA occurred through the remainder of the year and into the first half of 1991. Issues of concern included the fate of the fixed and not-yet-fixed sludges; EPA's effort to delist the site; assessment of public health implications of the site; and activity to expedite the site's NPL listing. A meeting with Town officials was held on June 18, at which time they were informed that 90 percent of the hazardous material had been removed or rendered harmless but that the remainder would be covered. The June 25, 1991 edition of the Village Crier reported that David Mclntyre, EPA's section chief in charge of the removal activity, indicated that the "(R)emaining piles of waste do 'pose a direct contact threat'... " and 'there is quite a bit more work than we envisioned' .... 'We have no estimation of total soil contamination...."and" 'a considerable groundwater problem needs addressing '". However, Mclntyre said his team only dealt with waste "removal" and that only after the site was placed on the NPL, which could delay action for "two to ten years", could further site activity proceed. Town officials quoted are clearly disgruntled. By late June 1991, the removal personnel had been demobilized.
In July 1991, EPA proposed to include NHPC on the NPL. On August 15, a meeting, hosted by Congressman William Zeliff (and a staff person for Senator Smith) was attended by EPA, NHDES, and Town officials to lobby EPA to remove any remaining hazardous materials. EPA's position was that the Agency would not request additional funds to continue the removal operation. In September 1991, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), an arm of the U. S. Public Health Service, conducted two meetings in Merrimack to identify the concerns of its residents about the NHPC site. Approximately 12 people attended these meetings. The result was the issuance in March 1993 of a draft Public Health Assessment, a document that evaluates data and information on the release of contaminants from the site to assess any current or future impact on public health. ATSDR anticipates releasing the final Health Assessment in September 1993. That document and responses to comments on the draft will be included in the Assessment's Administrative Record. The following is a chronology of community relations activities: 1990
May 15 EPA issued a press release announcing a public meeting for June 13 June 13 EPA conducted a public meeting on the removal action to discuss the status of activities and to inform the public that a request for additional funds would be necessary to continue the removal work
1991
June 18 EPA conducted a meeting with Town officials to announce the end of the removal activities July 25 EPA issued a press release announcing that 22 sites (including NHPC) were being proposed for inclusion on the NPL
August 15 EPA attended a meeting hosted by Congressman Zeliff, with NHDES and Town personnel to discuss removing the remaining waste September ATSDR conducted two public meetings to gather information for its draft Public Health Assessment 1993 March ATSDR released its draft Public Health Assessment March 29 ATSDR public comment period on draft Public Health April 27 Assessment April - May EPA conducted community interviews to develop the CRP May EPA issued a fact sheet on the remedial process June 9 EPA conducted a public meeting to discuss the remedial process and planned site activities 3. Key Community Concems Credibility of the Federal Bureaucracy: During the interviews conducted for this CRP, EPA's credibility was questioned repeatedly because of the Agency's posture toward Merrimack during the removal activities which took place from 1989 to 1991. Whenever the removal issue arose as a topic of conversation during the interviews, most interviewees used the first several minutes to vent their frustrations. Among the more severe words used to describe how Merrimack felt it had been treated included: deceived, mislead, fraud, a misappropriation of funds. Other concerns expressed involved the draft ATSDR Health Assessment. To some, it asked more questions than it answered. Other citizens were confused about how the information it contained could or would be used by EPA. An additional issue that was aired during the interviews was a concern about the use of federal tax dollars. Approximately $6 million was spent on the removal action. Although some contaminated sludge was disposed offsite, the bulk of the material remains on the NHPC site. Although a high percentage of the remaining sludge was solidified, Merrimack citizens sense there may be a continuing risk from the site and that the money that was expended was used just to push soil around. Contamination from Other Sources: One interviewee stated that the NHPC site "is blinding EPA from seeing the fire raging all around us." He and others are convinced that contamination is emanating from several other Merrimack locations and that EPA is being short-sighted in focusing only on the NHPC site. Among the probable culprits: the Harcross Chemical site, 441 Daniel Webster Highway (where NHPC was once located); a former tannery located 300 feet north of the NHPC site along the Merrimack River; the groundwater at the confluence of the Merrimack and Souhegan Rivers, where DuBois and King conducted a hydrogeologic study for Harcross; Jones Chemical off Railroad Avenue; and a host of former tannery and other industrial sites upriver in Manchester. This concern has a number of implications. If EPA plans to use the results of sediment, surface water, and groundwater sampling in and around Horseshoe Pond and the Merrimack River to determine the impact of the NHPC site, more than one interviewee suggested EPA's conclusions would be inaccurate. Some thought that much of the contamination that would be measured in the Merrimack River could have been produced from sources other than NHPC. Beyond that, since the Merrimack River reached flood stage regularly during this last wet spring, much of the water in Horseshoe Pond just prior to the interviews was Merrimack River water. The usual sources of Pond water are from a combination of stormwater run-off from the watershed across Daniel Webster Highway near the Shaw's plaza and from three natural springs beneath the Pond. Contamination could be entering the Pond from contaminated run-off or from contaminated groundwater entering the Pond (from NHPC or other sources) through the springs. Public Health: The draft ATSDR Health Assessment, which was in its public comment period as the interviews began, raised some public health issues which concerned several of the interviewees. Air monitoring conducted at the Avanti Day Care Center, operating during the removal action, indicated an impact from removal activities. Comments ranged from whether EPA was going to conduct a health study on the children (or other abutters) who would have been exposed to whether removal workers who ate wild berries would be effected. Others wanted to know if those who actually worked at NHPC when it was operating would be studied. Current concerns included whether the NHPC building itself posed a public health risk. Many interviewees wanted to know if it was safe to swim and fish (summer and winter) in Horseshoe Pond. The draft ATSDR Health Assessment indicated that sediment sampling would only be conducted on the north shore of Horseshoe Pond. One interviewee expressed concern that EPA should sample at locations where the public could be exposed: at Mackey and IDA Beaches on Island Drive. Two people interviewed identified potential risks during the remedial cleanup activity. They want to be assured that EPA will be mindful about protecting Merrimack citizens against airborne contamination and spills during transport of contaminants to an off-site location. Water Supply Quality: A widespread concern focussed on the present and future of the Town's potable water quality and distribution system, overseen by the Merrimack Village District (MVD), The issue is whether contaminated groundwater from NHPC (and other sources) has effected the aquifer(s) from which the Town draws its water supply. The majority of MVD water comes from underground sources. One interviewee questioned whether institutional controls could be effective in keeping residents from drilling their own wells as the cost of publicly-supplied water increased.
8 Currently the Pennuchuck Water District (Nashua) has a draw pipe in the Merrimack River near the Budweiser Plant and 43 private wells exist along the River in Litchfield. The MVD Master Plan envisions eventually withdrawing River water at a location south of the end of Thornton Street, just downriver from the NHPC site. Future Use of the Site: Three interviewees expressed concern about the potential for future uses for the site. Two focussed on restoring the tax- (and employment-) generating attributes of the site. An abutter was concerned about recreational opportunities that are being lost until the site has been remediated. D. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PROGRAM Establish and Maintain Support of Local Officials as a Link to Generating Confidence in Merrimack Citizens Regular communication between the RPMs and the designated Town and NHDES contacts will be a priority. Periodic site tours for Town officials during the RI/FS will be initiated at appropriate intervals. EPA recognizes that during periods of little or no site activity (for instance during the FS phase), out of sight is not out of mind. EPA will be sensitive to contacting Merrimack officials even during periods when site work is not underway since a lack of onsite activity does not mean that no activity is occurring. Local officials and the NHDES are most frequently targeted for telephone calls when citizens want to know what is happening on a site. Whether it involves questions about why there are five trucks on the site or whether a citizen is concerned about the possibility that his children's health is being effected by the site, these levels of government, not EPA, need to have a solid grasp of both the substantive and procedural issues concerning the remedial activities. If these officials are not part of the information loop, and are unable to answer basic site-related questions, Merrimack citizens may continue to question EPA's credibility. Although issues may arise during the remedial process that are within the jurisdiction of other federal agencies (ATSDR, US Fish and Wildlife Service), EPA will interact with them to clarify their roles in helping resolve issues and concerns associated with the NHPC site. Explain When and Where Sampling will be Conducted The ATSDR draft Health Assessment was written before the site work plan had been approved. As a result, the draft contained minimal information about EPA's actual approach to the Remedial Investigation. Issues raised in the draft, such as the representativeness of surface water samples, and the locations of sediment sampling in Horseshoe Pond, must be addressed. EPA should clearly discuss how it intends to screen out of its sampling effort the influence of contaminants other than those emanating from the NHPC site. Provide Timely and Understandable Evaluations of Sampling Results All information about the nature and extent of site contaminants will be available in the RI report anticipated in the spring of 1994. In the interim, however, as more data is gathered that focuses EPA's understanding of site-impacting features such as the direction and depth of contaminated groundwater, the Agency should be prepared to relate this information to the public. Data (without the evaluation that will be included in the RI report) will be made available for public review at the Information Repositories after it has undergone quality control review. The RI and FS reports should be written in clear prose, such that they are understandable by people who are not technically trained. It is particularly important that the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments be written in plain english. E. TECHNIQUES AND TIMING The following community relations activities are required for the New Hampshire Plating Superfund site community relations program. Figure 2 illustrates the timing of each activity during the remedial schedule. Maintain Information Repositories: Fact sheets, technical summaries, site reports (including the Community Relations Plan) and information on the Superfund program will be placed in the information repositories. An information repository is located at the Merrimack Public Library. Details about the technical assistance grants application process will be included in the information repository. Upon commencement of the remedial investigation, an administrative record file must be made available for public inspection. This file contains information that forms the basis for the selection of a cleanup action, including verified sampling data, quality control and quality assurance documents, chain-of-custody forms, site inspection and evaluation reports, and the ATSDR Health Assessment. It will also contain the Proposed Plan as well as the Record of Decision (ROD) and supporting information. A notice of availability will be published in a major local newspaper of general circulation. RI/FS and Proposed Plan Notification and Analysis: A notice of the availability of the RI/FS and Proposed Plan, including a brief summary of the Proposed Plan, must be published in a major local newspaper of general circulation. -10 • •>•• ft I i I < 1 i 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I i I 1
FIGURE 2 SCHEDULE FOR NHPC COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
Community Relations Technique Completion During Completion During FS Completion Completion Start of of the RI of RI of Draft FS of Final FS Remedial Work Plan Report Action
1) Information Repository/ -Update as needed Administrative Record 2) Naming of Information -Update as needed Contact 3) Meetings with Local Officials 4) Telephone Contact with -Provide as needed Local Officials 5) Informal Discussion with Residents 6) Fact Sheets/Technical Summaries
7) News Releases -Provide as needed
8) 30-Day Public Comment Period 9) Public Hearing/Transcript
10) Responsiveness Summary
11) Develop CRP
12) Revision of CRP
13) Fact Sheet/Public Briefing Public Comment Period on Draft FS and Proposed Plan: A minimum 30 day public comment period must be held to allow citizens to express their opinions on EPA's preferred alternative for the site. Community input should be encouraged by informing citizens that EPA will consider their opinions in selecting the ultimate site cleanup approach. Public Hearing/Meeting Transcript: A public hearing held during the public comment period will provide an opportunity for EPA to obtain public response to its preferred remedial alternative. This hearing might be held in the Courtroom at Town Hall, or if a larger location is needed, the Little Theatre at the High School should accommodate up to 250 people. A hearing transcript must be prepared and made available to the public. Responsiveness Summary: This document is required as part of the ROD for the site. It should summarize public concerns and issues raised during the public comment period on the draft FS and Proposed Plan. In addition, the Responsiveness Summary should document EPA and State responses to these concerns. The ROD and Responsiveness Summary will be available for public inspection and copying at or near the site prior to commencement of the remedial action. A notice of the availability of the ROD and Responsiveness Summary will be published in a major local newspaper of general circulation. Revision of the CRP: This Community Relations Plan should be revised when the ROD has been issued for the NHPC site to outline community relations activities appropriate to the remedial design and remedial action (RD/RA) phase. The CRP revision should: • Update facts and verify information in the CRP prepared for the RI/FS. • Assess the community relations program to date and indicate if the same or different approaches will be taken during the RD/RA. • Develop a strategy to prepare the community for future roles during the RD/RA and operations and maintenance. Community intejrviews should be held before the NHPC CRP is revised. Fact Sheet/Public Briefing: A detailed fact sheet describing the final engineering design must be issued, and as appropriate, a public meeting will be held prior to the initiation of the remedial action. In addition to these basic requirements for a community relations program at the NHPC site, a number of activities will be undertaken to ensure that the community is well informed about site activities and has the opportunity to express its concerns. -12 Establish Information Contacts: To meet the information needs of local officials and community members, EPA has designated three individuals as information contacts for the site: Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), Richard Goehlert and James DiLorenzo, and the Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC), Corrinne Van Alstine. Their addresses and telephone numbers (listed in Attachment A) will be included in all informational materials distributed to the public, including any facts sheets and press releases. Meet with Local Officials and Telephone Them Periodically: The Board of Selectmen has designated the Town Manager and the Health Officer as Merrimack's official EPA contacts and have requested that these officials be notified before activities occur at the site. On May 11, 1993, the RPMs issued a memorandum to EPA, State, and contractor personnel involved with the NHPC site, informing them that all activities other than a site visit should be preceded by a telephone call to the Town Manager's secretary, who, in turn will inform the Town Manager and Health Officer. Conduct Informal Meetings with Residents: Two neighborhood associations exist downgradient of the NHPC site. EPA has expressed a willingness to meet with either or both groups during the RI/FS activities. A town-wide public meeting could also be scheduled if any extraordinary developments occur during the RI activities or if the schedule for the RI/FS changes substantially. These meetings should include the EPA RPMs, the CIC, and technical and community relations contractor assistance, as necessary. Prepare Fact Sheets and Technical Summaries: One fact sheet was released at the beginning of the RI to inform area residents and other interested citizens about EPA's site plans and to explain the Superfund remedial program. Another fact sheet might be prepared to explain the findings of the RI and to outline each of the remedial alternatives considered for the NHPC site. A detailed description of EPA's preferred alternative(s) should also be provided. In addition, each fact sheet should list the location of information repositories where information is available for public review. Provide News Releases to Local Media: Prepared statements might be released to local newspapers, such as the Village Crier, the Bedford-Merrimack Bulletin, the Nashua Telegraph, and the Manchester Union Leader, and to local radio and television stations to announce discovery of any significant findings at the site during the RI/FS or to notify the community of any public meetings. Additional news releases are advisable when the draft FS report is completed and before remedial action starts. Addresses of local newspapers are included in Attachment A.
•13
ATTACHMENT A LIST OF CONTACTS AND INTERESTED PARTIES
A: Federal Elected Officials Honorable Robert C. Smith Honorable Judd Gregg Member, U. S. Senate Member, U. S. Senate 50 Phillipe Cote Street 99 Pease Boulevard Manchester, NH 03101 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Honorable William Zeliff Member, U. S. House of Representatives 601 Spaulding Turnpike Suite 28 Portsmouth, NH 03801
B: State Elected Officials Fred Ahrens Emma Dodge State Representative State Representative 25 Cathy Street 144 Baboosic Lake Road Merrimack, NH 03054 Merrimack, NH 03 054 Dennis Fields Gary Greenberg State Representative State Representative 5 London Court 565 Daniel Webster Highway Merrimack, NH 03054 Merrimack, NH 03054 Robert Kelley Robert L'Heureaux State Representative State Representative 5 Birchwood Drive 94 Back River Road Merrimack, NH 03054 Merrimack, NH 03 054 Robert Milligan Finlay Rothhaus State Representative State Representative 42 Patten Road 28 McGraw Bridge Road Merrimack, NH 03054 Merrimack, NH 03054 Sheila Roberge Bernard A. Streeter State Senator Executive Councillor Olde Lantern Road 26 Indiana Drive Bedford, NH 03001 Nashua, NH 03060 C: Local Officials Richard L. Borden, Jr. Nancy E. Bailey Town Manager Health Officer Town Hall Town Hall Merrimack, NH 03054 Merrimack, NH 03054 (603) 424-2331 (603) 424-3931 C: Local Officials (Continued) Tim Dutton, Chair Conservation Commission Town Hall Merrimack, NH 03 054 (603) 424-3531 D: U. S. EPA Region 1 Officials Richard Goehlert (HSN-CAN5) James DiLorenzo (HSN-CAN5) Remedial Project Manager Remedial Project Manager Waste Management Division Waste Management Division US EPA US EPA JFK Federal Building JFK Federal Building Boston, MA 02203 Boston, MA 02203 (617) 573-5742 (617) 223-5510 Corrinne Van Alstine Community Involvement Coordinator (REA) Office of External Affairs JFK Federal Building Boston, MA 02203 (617) 565-2428 E: State and Local Agencies Michael J. Robinette Department of Environmental Services 6 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 033 01 (603) 271-2014
F: Community Organizations, Environmental Groups, and Citizens Groups Merrimack Village District Charles Mower 5 Green's Pond Road Merrimack River Watershed Merrimack, New Hampshire 03054 Council 4 Depot Street Reed's Ferry, NH 03054 G: Media
News Desk News Desk News Ocpt. Union Leader Foster's DaUy Oemocrat WFEA-AM/UZID-FN 35 Amherst St. 333 Central Ave. SOO CooiMrcial St. Manchester, NH 03101 Dover, NH 03820 Manchester, NH 03101
News Editor United Press International News Director UKBR-AM 300 Harrison Ave. UKBK-AN 650 Elm St. Boston, HA 02118 13 Lamson St. Manchester, NH 03101 Keene, NH 03431
News Editor Associated Press News Director WXXK-FM P.O. Box 1296 WJTY-FM P.O. Box 1010 Concord, NH 03301 P.O. Box 1517 Mewport, NH 03773 Concord, NH 03302
News Desk WRCI-FH News Desk Cabinet & Uilton Journal P.O. Box 1950 Monadnock Ledger P.O. Box 180 Hillsboro, NH 03244 P.O. Box 36 Milford, NH 03055 Petersborough, NH 03458
News Desk News Editor News Desk WMDK-FH/WRPT-AM WTSN-AM Petersborough Transcript P.O. Box 389 P.O. Box 400 P.O. Box 419 Peterborough, NH 03458 Dover, NH 03820 Petersborough, NH 03458
News Desk News Desk News Editor iCeene Sentinel 1590 Broadcaster/WSMN-AM WOKO-FH P.O. Box 546 P.O. Box 548 P.O. Box 576 ICeene, NH 03431 Nashua, NH 03061 Dover, NH 03820
News Editor PSA Coordinator Program Director WMOK-AM/FH WCOT-Channel 60 UGIR-AM/FM P.O. Box 59 P.O. Box 60 P.O. Box 610 Milford, NH 03055 Merrimack, NH 03054 Manchester, NH 03106
News Director News Director Assignment Editor UKNE-AM/fH WKXL-AM/FH UMUR-Channel 9 P.O. Box 610 P.O. Box 875 P.O. Box 9 Mancnester, NH 03431 Concord, NH 03301 Manchester, NH 03105
News Desk Americable (Merrimack) News Editor Hillsboro Messenger P.O. Box 99 UEVO-FM P.O. Box 917 Merrimack, NH 03054 26 Pleasant St. Hillsboro, NH 03244 Concora, NH 03301
News Desk News Editor News Desk Bedford Merrimack Bulletin WNTIC-AM UNDS-Channel 50 PO Box 280 RRI, Box 249 TV 50 Place Goffstown, NH 03045 New London, NH 03257 Derry, NH 03038 B ATTACHMENT B LOCATIONS FOR INFORMATION REPOSITORIES AND PUBLIC MEETINGS
Information Repositories: Merrimack Public Library EPA Records Center 470 Daniel Webster Highway 90 Canal Street, 1st Fl. Merrimack, NH 03054 Boston, MA 02114 (603) 424-5021 (617) 573-5729 Contact: Dianne Hathaway Contact: Jim Kyed Hrs. M-Th 9:00 am - 9:00 pm Hrs. M-F 10:00 am - 1:00 pm F-Sat 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 2:00 pm - 5:00 pm (Sa in July and August: 9:00 am - 1:00 pm)
Public Meeting Locations: Courtroom High School Little Theatre Town Hall 36 McElwain Street Merrimack, NH 03054 Merrimack, NH 03054 (603) 424-2331 (603) 424-6224 Contact: Pat Blaisdell Contact: Shirley Lemay Capacity: Approx. 50 Capacity: Approx. 250