1,500 sign petition opposing asphalt plant in Westford

Too bad you did not get to the root source of the Asphault problem, the land "use variance" in your bylaws, which is authority to supercede any town bylaw in the matter of land use. Westford is in the 15% minoirty of towns permitting use variance in Mass., and will come an important tool in the ongoing land exploitation of Westford. MAPC won't be happy until Mass is wall to wall city.

I agree with the Planning Board regarding the concerns of fire protection/suppression at the proposed site. The asphalt plant on 110 in Chelmsford had a large fire in June of 2006, see related fire report:
www.city-data.com/fire/fire-Chelmsford-Massac...

Another article on the fire here: http://www.aggregateresearch.com/print.aspx...

Newport will now post a comment that will say something like, "their proposed plant is newer technology than the 110 plant", if that is so, I'd love to see the fire/safety layout/measures of this "newer generation" equipment and storage silos they are planning on building in Westford.

FA

Forced and uninformed......

Spoken like a true paid mouthpiece

You've just outed yourself as part of the Newport Public Relations machine, for sure.
Thankfully, I subscribed to receive emails from the Route 40 clean air folks and got an email about this over the weekend, warning us Newport might spin the news about the DEP permit they just got.
Quoting from the same permit, "This Approval does not negate the responsibility of the facility to comply with this or any other applicable federal, state, or local regulation now or in the future."
So, please don't suggest those were 1,500 forced signatures. I signed the petition gladly and no one forced me. It's quite arrogant of you to suggest those were "uninformed signatures". You really don't know much about Westford, do you?
Westford residents have a long standing history of being well informed.
We have a right to let our elected officials know where we stand on this issue.
If anyone else wants to sign this petition or reach out and help the route 40 people, you can find their email address on their website. It's route40cleanair.info.
Hey, Northern Oracle, you should email them and explain this bylaw thing directly to them. So far, they seem successful in assembling an army to deal with these issues. Maybe they can be convinced to look at that too.

"For Christ's sake get off it...."

That's a response for calling the folks who signed a petition "forced and uninformed"

Perfect..

Don't take this the wrong way--But if I need to be spoken to like that, I would have stayed married.

Ooops....I forgot the "you people" part

Five Alarm wrote:

I agree with the Planning Board regarding the concerns of fire protection/suppression at the proposed site. The asphalt plant on 110 in Chelmsford had a large fire in June of 2006, see related fire report:
www.city-data.com/fire/fire-Chelmsford-Massac...
Another article on the fire here: http://www.aggregateresearch.com/print.aspx...
Newport will now post a comment that will say something like, "their proposed plant is newer technology than the 110 plant", if that is so, I'd love to see the fire/safety layout/measures of this "newer generation" equipment and storage silos they are planning on building in Westford.
FA

Five Alarm - thanks for posting this information. I think these reports on the fire at the Chelmsford plant are very instructive.

Many opponents have stood up at meetings and claimed that our facility - if it were to experience a fire - would blow up and cause an extreme hazard to residents. Last night, one opponent suggested that a fire at our facility would cause a massive forest fire that would destroy the area around us.

This incident in Chelmsford seems to have started in the drum mixer and spread all the way up to the control tower. It was a serious fire. Yet there was no explosion, no danger/damage to neighbors (which are closer than any neighbors would be to our facility)- and the fire department extinguished the blaze in 45 minutes.

I think the Planning Board is doing the right thing in asking the Westford Fire Chief and Fire Prevention Safety Officer to come to the next meeting and talk about their concerns with respect to our project. We have met with them several times - and they have told us that we are not an "explosive threat" - nor would our project propose any threats that they couldn't address. But don't take our word for it. Let's hear from them at the October 5 meeting.

Thanks again for the information.
Scott

Talking about Facts wrote:

You've just outed yourself as part of the Newport Public Relations machine, for sure.
Thankfully, I subscribed to receive emails from the Route 40 clean air folks and got an email about this over the weekend, warning us Newport might spin the news about the DEP permit they just got.
Quoting from the same permit, "This Approval does not negate the responsibility of the facility to comply with this or any other applicable federal, state, or local regulation now or in the future."
So, please don't suggest those were 1,500 forced signatures. I signed the petition gladly and no one forced me. It's quite arrogant of you to suggest those were "uninformed signatures". You really don't know much about Westford, do you?
Westford residents have a long standing history of being well informed.
We have a right to let our elected officials know where we stand on this issue.
If anyone else wants to sign this petition or reach out and help the route 40 people, you can find their email address on their website. It's route40cleanair.info.
Hey, Northern Oracle, you should email them and explain this bylaw thing directly to them. So far, they seem successful in assembling an army to deal with these issues. Maybe they can be convinced to look at that too.

For the record - me and Matt are the "PR Machine" for Newport Materials. I honestly have no idea who Common Sense is - or anyone else who has posted support for our project on these forums - other than me or Matt.

I think the Coalition has worked hard on their petition. I remain concerned that some of their statements and positions irresponsibly create fear and are not based on facts or data. Fear is a great motivator - and a great way to gather signatures. But I will always respect their right to ask questions and express concerns.

I hope others will recognize that we have rights as well as landowners and property tax payers - and will keep a truly open mind to the studies and data and experts that are speaking on this.

As for the MassDEP clean air permit - this is a significant step. We fully recognize that we need additional permits - but for the Coalition to pass this off as nothing is just "spin" from them - something I get accused of often on these forums :)

This permit is validation that our facility will not be a major source of air pollution. Yes - we will emit some pollutants - as do all homes and businesses in Westford that burn natural gas for heat or power - or oil for that matter. As do all automobiles and trucks. As do anyone who burns wood in a fireplace. The point is - we will emit pollutants that are WELL UNDER the allowable limits imposed by federal and state regulators. Our technology will capture 99.99% of all particulate emissions. We have emissions control equipment on the mixer, the exhaust stack, the conveyor belts, the top of the silos where asphalt is loaded and the bottom of the silos where asphalt is loaded into trucks.

We will not create an air quality health hazard for anyone in Westford or Chelmsford. This is a fact - validated by the permit. I suspect the Coalition and others will now argue, "well the regulations aren't strict enough." Well - all we can do is abide by the law and follow the rules that are set in place for us. Which we have.

Thanks,
Scott

This clean plant will emit about 6.5 tons of VOC annually and more of other hazardous materials. It will add about 300 truck/trips a day during the summer on route 40.

Common sense, these are facts.

I assume you think that you qre unbiased. So, it looks like you know me personally. Could you tell me then who you are?
My question haven't been ever answered. I don't live in oxygen bubble. The facts are the ones I pointed in my previous post. And people understand that.
People don't trust you, Scott and NM.

Scotty Hollow resident wrote:

I assume you think that you qre unbiased. So, it looks like you know me personally. Could you tell me then who you are?
My question haven't been ever answered. I don't live in oxygen bubble. The facts are the ones I pointed in my previous post. And people understand that.
People don't trust you, Scott and NM.

Dear Scotty Hollow Resident,

Please do not lump me in with other anonymous posters (like yourself) that people can't "trust." Everyone know who I am, and what I do. I post facts and information from our studies and I try to use them to support our arguments. I am not unbiased - I get paid to help my client communicate more effectively with the community - but unlike you - I am transparent and open about who I am and what I am doing. No one has any idea who you are - or even if you are a Scotty Hollow resident. You could be a paralegal at the big Boston law firm hired by the Coalition. You could be an employee at a competing asphalt production company. You could be someone who works at the environmental consulting company hired by the Coalition.

I have been told by several people in Westford that the Coalition is receiving funding or other assistance from competing asphalt companies or other interests that want to stop Newport. I have no idea if its true or not - I'm not saying it is. I have asked the Coalition twice to let us know what type of organization they are, and where they are registered (AG's office or Secretary of State)- so everyone could see where their funding is coming from. The Coalition has refused to respond to both inquiries - and they removed me from their email distribution list.

So - when it comes down it - who can people trust? Anonymous posters who say they are from Scotty Hollow but actually could be anyone posting from anywhere in the world? A Coalition that may or may not be receiving assistance from companies that want to prevent competition from Newport? Or the transparent representative from Newport who uses facts and data from public studies and documents to make his argument?

Scott, I assume you mean "Common Sense", who said that knows me? Why don't you ask him about me?
Why are you starting new dirty rumors to discredit the Coalition?
I know why. Because, you want to suppress all the resistance from the community.
Do you think that by using such dirty ways you can achieve your goals?

Common Sense wrote:

Furthermore, if you do not trust the applicants studies, I will just copy and paste what I said to you earlier:
I suggest that you refer to the ones that have already been completed by the experts. If you do not believe the experts, then review the peer reviews. If you do not believe the peer reviews, then reference the Mass. DEP clean air permit that Newport received on 9/18.

Appeal

Common Sense wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you better have pretty solid grounds to do so, as well as a large pocketbook .... both for the appeal process, as well as any punitives that could result from it.

Who are you trying to frighten and what is there to hide?

Common Sense wrote:

<quoted text>
Dirty rumors? Kind of like:
You will kill our children!
Agent Orange!
Smokestacks!
Pollution!
How about the propaganda filled brochure handed out with the large smokestack on the front? Mind you, this plant does not even have a smokestack.
Two can play that game - so dont insult everyones intelligence and act like the coalition cares only about the health of the Westford citizens.
Your leader has been involved in protesting projects for years. It is what they do. If it wasnt this plant, it would be something else. I would love to know what big threat Walmart had posed.
The coalition is discredited on their own merit. Simply by arguing against documented studies verified by industry experts -- for the sake of seeing this project fail.
Hopefully you are right, in that the coalition is not excepting monies from industry competitors. The legal ramifications of such actions are not something I personally would want to deal with...

Desperate for some work aren't you

Scotty Hollow resident wrote:

Scott, I assume you mean "Common Sense", who said that knows me? Why don't you ask him about me?
Why are you starting new dirty rumors to discredit the Coalition?
I know why. Because, you want to suppress all the resistance from the community.
Do you think that by using such dirty ways you can achieve your goals?

Scotty Hollow - or whoever you are. No - I meant you. You stated that people don't trust me, Common Sense or NM. For the record - I have no idea who Common Sense is. Or any other poster who posts anonymously - like you. Why should anyone trust your posts? You could be anyone. Why don't you tell us who you are? People who have never met me personally have suggested that they post anonymously because they think that I am going to do some harm to them in the middle of the night. Talk about dirty, unfounded accusations.

Look - I am a professional communicator - a former journalist - and a guy in his mid forties who grew up in Nashua and has a wife and two kids. I have told everyone on this forum quite a bit about my personal and professional life. why? Because credibility is all I have in my profession. Anonymous people post that I lie because I am being paid for a service. That's fine - I can take a punch. But I challenge anyone to prove one fact that I have posted on all these forums as untrue. You may not agree with me or what I write - but don't call me a liar or untrustworthy unless you can back it up with some facts. The fact is - I don't lie. I communicate information. If I lied in this business - I wouldn't last very long. My credibility with communities in which I work, leaders, and the press is the most important thing I can offer. So I get paid to communicate - there are worse professions.

I respect posters like Merle Adelman from Scotty Hollow. She and I have had respectful conversations. We agree to disagree - but we respect each other's roles and opinions.

The fact about the Coaltion is what I posted - I have heard from multiple sources - so I asked them about it - multiple times. They have refused to even respond. Why? They demand transparency from everyone else - and they have no problem getting up in public and accusing us of trying kill children. Yet when they are asked to be open about who they are or where their funding is coming from - they refuse. The Coalition doesn't want to live by the rules that they demand from everyone else. That's not a rumor - its a fact. It would be in their best interest to be transparent and put the issue to rest.

If the research data being attained by everyone on all sides of this issue (Planning, ZBA, BOH, Building, Fire)is closely examined objectively, I believe the Planning Board will deny the permit and there will be no asphalt plant.

Does anyone know what kind of chemical they have to spray in trucks to prevent the asphalt from adhering to it?

In the mix wrote:

If the research data being attained by everyone on all sides of this issue (Planning, ZBA, BOH, Building, Fire)is closely examined objectively, I believe the Planning Board will deny the permit and there will be no asphalt plant.

And what is it in these studies that leads you to believe this?

Honest question. Which aspect of the studies do you not agree with?

Common Sense wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, deflecting because you cannot actually defend yourself with facts or data.
Now hit me with: "You are a paid lackey!"

No need for name calling but your are obvious.