My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/11/1997 FINANCE COMMITTEE Minutes
>
2/11/1997 FINANCE COMMITTEE Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2018 2:30:20 PM
Creation date
4/23/2018 2:29:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/11/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Originally when this pollution issue was brought to the attention of the board, I <br /> believe the discussion by Augat was that plume was the result of a spill or release that <br /> occurred in the early 1990's. They did not have any records to document what <br /> chemicals had been used in their manufacturing process from the start of their <br /> operations in 1966 until that time (or at least when the chlorinated solvents were used). <br /> What we found out from the discussions at the meeting was that it would take about 20 <br /> plus years for the ground water to flow from the site of the Augat building to Shoestring <br /> Bay. Second question is "how could the release in the early 90's have made it to the <br /> Bay?" It couldn't. What has been defined, is that an earlier release or series of releases <br /> starting sometime in the 1970's occurred and resulted in this plume which is shown <br /> extending to the bay on Augat's maps. You can do some research to determine what <br /> the environmental regulations were back in that decade, but suffice it to say that the <br /> stringent handling and reporting requirements for hazardous materials and hazardous <br /> wastes that we have today were not in existence then. Third question is "how do we <br /> know with the limited sampling that has been done on the lower portion of the plume (for <br /> which no cross-section information was available at the meeting) that there is not in fact <br /> an area or areas of higher concentration that have yet to be defined?" What if there <br /> were levels like have been found on the upper portion of the plume (1000 ppb), how <br /> would that affect the proposal to let nature run it's course? Fourth question is "what <br /> would be the impact of a contaminant concentration level of 1000 ppb discharging to the <br /> marine environment?" <br /> There are other questions that could be asked. The Mashpee Water District <br /> (MWD) has had their engineers look at the zone two (supply area) for their public water <br /> supply well. It's close to the plume and maybe unaffected in the future. What the MWD <br /> looked at, however, only considers the portion of the plume closest to their supply well <br /> (which is the pollution source). Fifth question is "who in Mashpee is looking at the <br /> remainder of the plume and what it's impacts may be in order to ensure the protection of <br /> the town's residents and the ecological community (which is the environment around <br /> us)?" I think we know that it's not Augat's contractor. <br /> I think that the board should consider obtaining some outside consulting support <br /> to evaluate the adequacy of the remediation plan that Augat will be submitting to the <br /> DEP very shortly. It's probably a small investment that will pay dividends by alleviating <br /> the anxiety of the Mashpee residents not only within the plumes' path but also those in <br /> town who are concerned about protecting our natural resources. <br /> Sincerely <br /> MICHAEL E. MINIOR <br /> Belfast Lane <br /> cc: Mashpee Board of Selectmen <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.