Laserfiche WebLink
the plant to meet the permit on a daily basis. Mr. Bennett confirmed that sampling was <br /> conducted and provided to the State to show that they were addressing issues. Mr. Balzarini <br /> recommended that the Association receive reports and Mr. Mooney confirmed that they received <br /> the report electronically on a monthly basis. <br /> The Chair referenced the Ground Water and Surface Water Quality Monitoring Plan and <br /> inquired about the number of Windchime's monitoring wells. Mr. Bennett confirmed that the <br /> Mashpee Commons' plant and monitoring wells appeared on the plan. Mr. Bennett added that <br /> the information needed to be considered because the Mashpee Commons plant was located up <br /> gradient of Windchime's plant, creating co-mingled plumes. It was confirmed that there were 5 <br /> MW wells for Windchime and 3 piezometers and 3 surface water monitoring areas. A schedule <br /> of sampling was located in the Annual Report. The Chair requested a chart of well testing, <br /> including dates and parameters. If the project proponent was requesting monitoring reductions, <br /> the Board would need to review exactly what was being conducted presently in each test site. <br /> Mr, Bennett confirmed that each location was tested. In the monitoring wells (5), static water <br /> level was tested monthly, civic conducts was tested monthly, pH was tested monthly, Total <br /> Nitrogen was tested quarterly, Phosphorus, ortho phosphorus and volatile organic compounds <br /> were tested annually. Surface water and piezometers tested nitrogen, Phosphorus and dissolved <br /> oxygen quarterly. Monthly testing was to confirm ground water plume direction. <br /> Mr. Weeden inquired whether all monitoring wells were functioning, referencing 132R being <br /> destroyed. Mr. Bennett confirmed that B2 was up gradient and had been replaced, but was <br /> monitored by Windchime. Mr. Bennett stated that they were not requesting a reduction in what <br /> they monitored, but the number of times that they do so. The Chair suggested that Mr. Bennett <br /> make a recommendation as to how specifically they would reduce their monitoring. The Chair <br /> stated that the Planning Board would be interested in reviewing the monitoring to ensure that the <br /> upgrades to the system were effective. The Chair stated that she would consider relaxing the <br /> monitoring now, until the new system was installed, and then review the testing before <br /> identifying a new testing protocol. <br /> Mr. Mooney inquired about the release of funds. The Chair responded that they could not <br /> provide a decision on just part of their application, until the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. <br /> Bennett inquired whether they could withdraw the request for a reduction in monitoring. The <br /> Chair responded that sufficient information had not been submitted for the Board to make a <br /> decision regarding the monitoring but that the request could be withdrawn without prejudice. <br /> Mr. Mooney expressed his preference to withdraw the request for monitoring reductions because <br /> it was most critical that they be in receipt of their fiends, being held by Mashpee, to assist with <br /> the upgrade of the plant. Mr. Bennett stated that he wanted to provide testimony now in case the <br /> monitoring could be reconsidered at a later date, specifically that surface water and piezometer <br /> monitoring be changed from quarterly to annual. Mr. Balzarini expressed his preference to <br /> receive reports in July and December. The Chair stated that, beyond the raw data, nothing <br /> simplified had been provided in the plan to show the parameters of the monitoring. Mr. Mooney <br /> expressed his preference that the funds only be addressed at this time. Mr. Bennett retracted the <br /> 4 <br />