Laserfiche WebLink
_ From:Juan A.Bacigalupi To: Robert Whritenour Date:219196 Time:09:36:54 <br /> - Page 2 of 9 <br /> f. . <br /> February 9, 1996 <br /> Senior Management Board <br /> Installation Restoration Program <br /> ATTN.: Mr. Michael Minior <br /> ANGICE VRo, Box 41 <br /> 322 East Inner Road <br /> Otis ANGB, MA 02542-5028 <br /> Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. <br /> Southeast Regional office <br /> ATTN.: Mr. Leonard Pinaud <br /> 20 Riverside Drive <br /> Lakeville, MA 02347 <br /> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency HAN/CAN 1 <br /> ATTN.: Mr. Paul Marchessault <br /> JFK Federal Building <br /> Boston, MA 02203 <br /> The following is a summary of concerns and questions raised by members of the Plume <br /> Containment Team at a meeting held after the sixty(60)percent plume containment design briefing <br /> held at the Arnold Dining Hall on Otis Air National Guard Base on February 6, 1996. Members of <br /> the Plume Containment Team began their meeting at approximately 10:30 p.m.. Present at that <br /> meeting were Michael Minor, Leonard Pinaud, Paul Marchessault, Thomas Cambareri, Joel <br /> Feigenbaum, James Finney, J. Harry Donald, Ray Taylor,Greg"Yogis, Steve Hurley, Juan <br /> Bacigalupi, Greg Taylor, and Greg Sobel (facilitator). The meeting concluded at approximately <br /> 11:30 p.m. <br /> Several team members will be submitting individual comments in the future regarding the 60 <br /> percent design and briefing. <br /> I. General Conunents <br /> In reviewing the 60%design analysis plan, some members focused on potential impacts to the <br /> areas ponds and rivers and associated aquatic resources. Others focused on specific items of the plan. <br /> Members were astonished to find that no specific data was presented on predicted draw downs and <br /> impacts on surface water bodies and their associated natural resources! However,the average draw <br /> downs and mounding predictions contained in Figure 4.3 (Final Distributed Recharge Scenario)were <br /> sufficient to raise grave concerns over impacts to the surface water resources of the Upper Cape. Cape <br /> Cod residents and visitors highly value these water bodies. Many water bodies support rare wetland <br /> associated species protected under the states wetlands Protection Act. The 60%design stated that <br /> Predicted draw downs of water bodies would be presented in the final DAP. This is much too late for <br /> r� <br />