Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meetin Minutes <br />December 13, 1 88 <br /> <br />Page 15 <br /> <br />Council Business continued <br /> <br />Williams commen ed because Well #7 is located more on the Southerly <br />edge of the plu e; it might help to clean-up this part as a method <br />of additional pumping and cleansing of the aquifer. <br /> <br />Connor said this method has been brought up with some appeal, but <br />the Army IS tec ni ca 1 staff and also the State agreed that when <br />drawing water here is a possibility of gaps which may spread the <br />plume out even further. <br /> <br />Proper commente the pumping capacity of 11.5 mgd means if the pumps <br />coul d run 24 h urs per day, but in effect it can I t because the <br />demand occurs 0 er a 16 hour period. If you determine you need 7.5 <br />mgd a day duri g the 16 hour period, that factors out 11.5 mgd of <br />pumping capacit you need. The 11.5 mgd is needed to have adequate <br />reserve in stor ge for fire protection. <br /> <br />Connor stated, hat the figures he used do not include Well #7. If <br />Well #7 is used the production capacity goes back to 11.9 mgd. The <br />Army feels that when the GAC is running it will be a better system <br />than the City ad before. The Army had to do some substanti a 1 <br />reconstruction f the existing City wells, specifically, the baling <br />of sand from c rtain wells at significant cost. It was explained <br />to the Army tha the wells were not capable of running at the rate <br />of capacity fo any extended period of time because of the sand <br />problems. Pres ntly, the sand problems no longer exists. <br /> <br />Benke said the ity staff will provide the information needed by the <br />Army for the corrected analysis of the pumping capacity. Many of <br />the arguments y the EPA and the Army can be contributed to some <br />distinct differ nces of opinions that are very technical in nature. <br /> <br />On behalf of th City, Benke read the following position statement <br />regarding EPA's proposal to withdraw funding for Well #13: <br /> <br />The New Brighto City Council, staff, technical and legal advisors <br />disagree with he withdrawal of funding for Well 13. The City <br />believes that E A should honor the numerous promises and agreements <br />it has made t City officials to design and construct Well 13 <br />without further delay_ <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Presentation.of EPA <br />Covering Replacement <br />of Well #7 <br />Report 88-349 <br />