3/18/1996 BOARD OF SELECTMEN Minutes

Home Browse Search

t ' r } Other concerns deal with the DRAFT white Paper titled"Peer Review Team Charter." The first line states that the"Peer Review Team(PRT)will rapidly and thoroughly review the current design, investigate other alternatives, identify criteria, and analyze impacts on the environment." I thought that this was what the contract for OPTECH required? why the duplication? why duplicate the work of the newly created and already operation Scientific Advisory Board created by the Barnstable County Commission? If the ANGB had included this PRT in the early aspects of the plume design, we would not be facing the massive opposition that has appeared lately. "The project must clean the plumes to acceptable levels without undue impacts to the environment" is at the heart of all concerned with this project. whose standards -� will we follow, since the communities do not want water dumped at MCL, but at non-detect? Since the project is still considering infiltration galleries at some distance from where the water will be withdrawn, it appears that the ecological impact is not that important. The draft states that the PRT will"present its findings on various elements of the design to theP ublic, the Process Action Teams (PATs), and the Senior Management Board (SMB) for review and acceptance." Review and acceptance does not imply ability to comment or to make recommendations. The PCT argued long and hard for this role. why has Mr. VanGasbek's design eliminated this function? Is this a win-lose situation, where one either accepts or rejects a proposal? This notion of review versus making recommendations is evident in the role of the Air Force Review Team. The Air Force/Secretariat has tasked it with"evaluating the design and providing comments to the Program Manager and NGB for review and consideration." why? With the deletion of the 95 percent design documents, the ability of community members to comment iseats limited. The Installation Restoration Program will just tell us the � Y documents requested are"draft and part of the draft remedial investigation for those sites. Draft documents cannot be released to theP ublic" (see the letter from the Installation Restoration Program, dated March 11, 1996, on a request for a document titled"Revised Risk Assessment Update, Installation Restoration Program, Remedial Investigation, Storm Drainage Disposal Site No. 5 (SD-5) Includin Fuel S ill No. 5 (FS-5)," dated Ma 1995). If the community is to be an g P Y active participant, it must give knowledgeable consent to the actions. Since final comments are P P � due by April 15, 1996, and since the IRP has a tendency to refuse to release selected documents while in draft, the process is totally flawed. The draft schedule is not satisfactory. y It totally eliminates the PATs from participation after the original"Emergency Meeting" scheduled for March 18. With only two public meetings scheduled, they �will ignore which communities this time? Last time Mashpee was not considered until a PAT and an SMB member demanded action. Arnold Hall is a lousy location for Presentations. Attendingmeetings at this location is inconvenient for community members. The only item that I agree with is the"Rey Design Issues" page. Finally, the NGB and the IRP have listed the key issues that the members of the Process Action Teams have been demandin� Y. Finan , theY will be considered. Unfortunately, I feel that the final decison will not be based on the needs and desires of the community, but on the design scheme of a few. 2