Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> i <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> TO: Senior Management Board <br /> Plume Containment Team <br /> Program Implementation Team <br /> Mashpee Board of Selectmen <br /> FROM: Juan A. Bacigalupi <br /> 162 Hooppole Road <br /> Mashpee, MA 02649 <br /> Phone (508) 477-7197 <br /> DATE: March 181, 1996 <br /> Comments on Memorandum"Achieving SUBJECT: g Consensus on Key Plume Containment <br /> Design Issues Emergency Joint PAT Meeting Scheduled for Monday, March 181, <br /> with attached DRAFT white Paper titled Peer Review Team Charter <br /> rr-wwwrw-rwwwrrrw^rr--rrw----r--rrw--rwsrw--r---ww-w---rw.ww--rw-w-w--ww--w-rww--rw-ww-ww•rw--+rw--r.rw--rwwrrr r.r-rr--wrr . <br /> have stated in previous correspondence, the plumes emanating from the <br /> Aslha p P <br /> Massachusetts Military Reservation pose a threat to the environment and to the economic well- <br /> being communities surrounding the installation. After reviewing the DRAFT white Paper <br /> being oft g� . <br /> titled"Peer Review Team Charter," I submit the following comments. <br /> We are well aware of the critical stage the design process is in. At the February 22 <br /> � � <br /> meeting of the Senior Management Board (SMB), Mr. VanGasbek suggested the need for a <br /> white Paper"Peer Review Team," an action supported by the SMB. The role of this new"peer <br /> review ane)" is to "address outstandin design issues." As a resident of the community affected <br /> P g . . . <br /> b the greatest number of plumes, I feel that too many outsiders are making decisions that will <br /> Y g <br /> affect m family and m neighbors. My first impression, based on my association with the <br /> Y Y Y g <br /> Installation Restoration Pro ram and the clean up process is one of mistrust and"wait and see." <br /> g <br /> Unfortunate) the base and the regulatory agencies will select the process that best suits them. <br /> Unfortunately, � <br /> My first concern deals with the document titled"NI R Plume Response Design Team <br /> Organizational Chart" dated March 14, 1996. An organizational chart usually outlines process <br /> and hierarch It usual) has a legend to explain unusual markings and ideas. This proposal looks <br /> Y• Y g P <br /> like some kids drawing P of multiple lines with no purpose, other than to have several government <br /> . - <br /> employees workin throughout the chart, with minimal community involvement. Many questions <br /> g g . . f <br /> come to mind. First what is the difference in role in organizations or entities that lines o <br /> ' 3 `� what is the purpose of arrows pointing in <br /> dri�erent thickness connect [or are dashed)? Second, p rp <br /> usual) the dashed ones)? Third, what is the new role of <br /> two directions or pointing at each other[ y <br /> P g � this the r action teams and of the community? Fourth, who will decide? Finally, is this <br /> process act o Y <br /> eyewash? <br />