1,500 sign petition opposing asphalt plant in Westford

[Common Sense]

mike westford wrote:

<quoted text>ageed .I think thay are not.The hazards of this type of product are well known.

In an attempt to validate that claim, would you be willing to direct us to a study that speaks to the same technology as the applicants proposal, and that deems it a health hazard?

I am not talking about some obscure law in Illinois, I am talking about something that speaks directly to the newer technology facility that Newport proposes?

Also, lets not lose sight of the fact that as years progress, safety standards, and technologies advance. IE, lead paint. Just because something might have once been hazardous, does not mean that its current form is.

[Smokestack Lightning]

You mean lead paint is no longer hazardous? When did that happen?

[Common Sense]

Smokestack Lightning wrote:

You mean lead paint is no longer hazardous? When did that happen?

You obviously missed the concept, so I will explain it to you- assuming you are open to ideas other than your pre-concieved notions regarding this proposal.

Over time, products, and operations become more efficient, and safety improves with technology. IE, paint once laced with lead, no longer enters our homes.

This facility is no different. To look at a plant constructed in 1970, which might have had all of the characteristics that residents worry about (noise, odor, pollution) and compare it to the brand new state of the art 2009 facility - claiming that it too will possess those characteristics is inaccurate.

That is why it is essential for anyone claiming it will have those characteristics,(in this case, Mike Westford) to provide studies depicting the right technology. The burden of proof is on them, as Newport has already provided their reports.

It is like comparing a 91 Civic to a 2010 BMW. Apples and oranges. A real life example would be that of comparing this proposal to the Chelmsford plant on 110. They should not be considered in the same catagory.

This is why Scott is always referencing Portsmouth NH. That is where the facility with the most similar technology is home to.

[Smokestack Lightning]

So - in a discussion of asphalt, you write

IE, lead paint. Just because something might have once been hazardous, does not mean that its current form is.

Pardon me for not recognizing that you changed the subject somewhere. Is asphalt's current form hazardous?
Let's see. oops, I guess not:
http://docs.google.com/gview...

WARNING: HYDROGEN SULFIDE (H2S) AND OTHER HAZARDOUS VAPORS MAY EVOLVE AND COLLECT
IN THE HEADSPACE OF STORAGE TANKS OR OTHER ENCLOSED VESSELS. HYDROGEN SULFIDE IS AN
EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE, TOXIC GAS. IN THE ABSENCE OF H2S, INHALATION OF VAPORS, MISTS OR
FUMES (GENERATED AT HIGH TEMPERATURES) MAY CAUSE IRRITATION TO THE NOSE, THROAT, AND
RESPIRATORY TRACT.
BREATHING ASPHALT AEROSOL OR ASPHALT SMOKE FOR PROTRACTED PERIODS OF TIME HAS
PRODUCED DAMAGE TO THE LUNGS OF MICE. AMONG THE CHANGES OBSERVED WERE
BRONCHITIS, PNEUMONITIS AND ABSCESS FORMATION.

[mike westford]

Common Sense wrote:

<quoted text>
In an attempt to validate that claim, would you be willing to direct us to a study that speaks to the same technology as the applicants proposal, and that deems it a health hazard?
I am not talking about some obscure law in Illinois, I am talking about something that speaks directly to the newer technology facility that Newport proposes?
Also, lets not lose sight of the fact that as years progress, safety standards, and technologies advance. IE, lead paint. Just because something might have once been hazardous, does not mean that its current form is.I agree times have changed.and all npm has to do is please the people if westford that thier plant wont pose a hazard.which thay are stating a lot of facts .I learned thay wont have a problem with zoning.Its not light industrial .It can be used for any thing except hazmat.look up IT some time we all most had a hazmat dump un that site 30 or so years ago. that will explane the zoning to everybody.

bye

[Scott - Newport Materials]

For those who are interested in the facts - the asphalt production facility will not emit any Hydrogen Sulfide - H2S - in its production process.

As for whether H2S will build up inside the fully enclosed liquid asphalt plant - and what it would mean if it does - I am looking into that with the engineers and will report the facts as I learn them.

Thanks,
Scott

[Scott - Newport Materials]

In post #172 - I meant to write - "inside the the fully enclosed liquid asphalt tanks..." not "plant"
ST

[rt 40 neighbor]

When you start off with an empty "fully enclosed liquid asphalt tank" then add the liquid asphalt, where does the displaced air get vented?

[kevin]

When you heat a petroleum product you get organic vapors, most hazardous, many with unknown hazards. If you do not trap the organic vapors they get into the air, people breath air.
The vapors are carcinogenic, that means causes cancer. Glad I don't work there.

[rt 40 neighbor]

Scott - Newport Materials wrote:

For those who are interested in the facts - the asphalt production facility will not emit any Hydrogen Sulfide - H2S - in its production process.
As for whether H2S will build up inside the fully enclosed liquid asphalt plant - and what it would mean if it does - I am looking into that with the engineers and will report the facts as I learn them.
Thanks,
Scott

For those who are interested only in the facts that won't make asphalt manufacturing appear as dirty, smelly and dangerous as it actualy is, Scott and his sidekick, "common sense" will answer carefully selected questions and tell you to trust them on the rest.

[Scott - Newport Materials]

FYI - just an update - I am not an engineer or a scientist - so I have checked with the engineers and scientists on our team about the potential for H2S to build up in the liquid asphalt tanks - and if it did - what we would do about it.

If I post that I will answer a question - I will do the research and answer with facts. I am not always able to meet the strict scheduling demands of anonymous sock puppets for the opposition - but I will answer it.

Also - it's important to remember that just because the material data sheets says something "could" occur - doesn't mean it will - even if the opposition sock puppets say it will to help paint their worst-case scenario.

When I have the information that answers this question - I will post it.

It's like when one sock puppet accused Newport of violating a wetlands ordinance. It took me a couple days - but I found out and proved that it wasn't Newport - it was another company. Of course - the sock puppet accused me of hiding information and still claimed Newport did it - despite the facts that proved him/her wrong. But that's what sock puppets do.

Thanks,
Scott

[Arnold]

Just the fact that when i traveled by the site yesterday,i couldn't believe all the sand and gravel at the entrance/exit to the place.
My thought was,no way will i vote for this project,as i can't afford to have my taxes raised to repair that stretch of road as it appears its taking a beating already without the Asphalt plant.
I can just imagine how the family chariot will look like going by the place with flat tires,dings, dents

[Smokestack Lightning]

Arnold wrote:

Just the fact that when i traveled by the site yesterday,i couldn't believe all the sand and gravel at the entrance/exit to the place.
My thought was,no way will i vote for this project,as i can't afford to have my taxes raised to repair that stretch of road as it appears its taking a beating already without the Asphalt plant.

Again - how would this asphalt plant benefit the Town of Westford? Why should the Town make an exception for this industry? There are already several asphalt plants nearby. Let Newport Construction of Nashua, NH get their asphalt from one of those places.

[Common Sense]

Arnold wrote:

Just the fact that when i traveled by the site yesterday,i couldn't believe all the sand and gravel at the entrance/exit to the place.
My thought was,no way will i vote for this project,as i can't afford to have my taxes raised to repair that stretch of road as it appears its taking a beating already without the Asphalt plant.
I can just imagine how the family chariot will look like going by the place with flat tires,dings, dents

Luckily for you, Newport is a paving company, and I'm sure they would provide that service that to the town free of charge, if their 75 daily trucks were contributing to the wear and tear, along with the other 13,200 vehicles that travel it daily.

[Smokestack Lightning]

Common Sense wrote:

<quoted text>
Luckily for you, Newport is a paving company, and I'm sure they would provide that service that to the town free of charge, if their 75 daily trucks were contributing to the wear and tear, along with the other 13,200 vehicles that travel it daily.

Now you're assuring us that Newport Construction will provide free paving services to the Town. And you have no connection to the company? How do you know these things? Not that I believe they will do any such thing as you predict, of course.

[Scott - Newport Materials]

Hold on. As the spokesperson for Newport Materials, I can tell you that Newport has not promised anything in the way of free paving. If the Town were to approach us with some type of request in this regard - perhaps as mitigation - I would imagine that we would consider it. Those things typically get agreed to at Planning Board level. Sometimes the Board sets "conditions" that an applicant must adhere to under the permit.
Thanks,
Scott

[Smokestack Lightning]

Well, there you go. Common Scents was "sure they would provide that service that to the town free of charge," but he was wrong. I wonder what other things he is sure of that are wrong.

[Scott - Newport Materials]

For those interested in the facts about the potential for Hydrogen Sulfide - here they are.

One anonymous opponent previously posted that our facility will emit dangerous hydrogen sulfide - H2S - because he/she read in a materials data sheet that H2S "could" potentially build up inside a liquid asphalt tank.

First I checked with our emissions experts/environmental scientists about the plant emitting hydrogen sulfide during production. It does not.

Then I researched about the possibility of H2S building up inside a liquid asphalt cement tank. I was told by a plant engineer that the newer technology prevents this from happening. The tanks are vented with fume arresters that simultaneously prevent the build-up of H2S and break down any that does occur. Thus - no H2S is released to the outside.
thanks,
Scott

[Common Sense]

Smokestack Lightning wrote:

<quoted text>
Now you're assuring us that Newport Construction will provide free paving services to the Town. And you have no connection to the company? How do you know these things? Not that I believe they will do any such thing as you predict, of course.

That is not what I said. I was responding to the poster above who claimed that Westford cannot afford to repair the roads that 'will be destroyed' by Newport's mere 75 trucks a day. As if that is a reason to deny the permit.
One would have to assume that if Newport's vehicles tore up the entrance way to the property, that they would fix it, and that that burden would not fall on the Town of Westford. Any good company would do the same thing.
That is all I was referring to. How you spin filling a potential pothole to 'providing free paving services to the town' is your own issue.

[Smokestack Lightning]

Common Sense wrote:

<quoted text>
That is not what I said. I was responding to the poster above who claimed that Westford cannot afford to repair the roads that 'will be destroyed' by Newport's mere 75 trucks a day. As if that is a reason to deny the permit.
One would have to assume that if Newport's vehicles tore up the entrance way to the property, that they would fix it, and that that burden would not fall on the Town of Westford. Any good company would do the same thing.
That is all I was referring to. How you spin filling a potential pothole to 'providing free paving services to the town' is your own issue.

It doesn't pay to lie when the evidence is right there on the same page. Your comment was in answer to Arnold writing this:

...i can't afford to have my taxes raised to repair that stretch of road as it appears its taking a beating already without the Asphalt plant.
I can just imagine how the family chariot will look like going by the place with flat tires,dings, dents

See where he says "road" and "going by the place"? He wasn't talking about the driveway, and neither were you when you wrote

I'm sure they would provide that service that to the town free of charge, if their 75 daily trucks were contributing to the wear and tear, along with the other 13,200 vehicles that travel it daily.

13,200 vehicles do not travel on the driveway every day.

You wrote it. Tell me again how I should admit when I am "wrong." Scott says what you were 'sure' about was wrong, and he should know. Instead of admitting it, you decided to lie about what you wrote. Do you think we're all that stupid?