Asphalt plant still an issue

Proponents of the proposed asphalt plant at 540 Groton Road apparently still need to supply the Board of Health and the state Bureau of Environmental Health with information about how health-risk estimates were derived.

[Scott - Newport Materials]

Just a quick point of clarification. I attended the meeting Monday night. Margaret Round's comments were that she wasn't sure if all the documentation had been submitted - because it is in different places. This is more about getting all of the information organized in one file.

Newport has submitted all of the draft documentation and back-up for our studies - and we will submit final Health Risk Assessment this week. Throughout the process, we were directed by the Planning Board to submit all information through them to the Town's peer review consultants - Woodard & Curran. Some of the documents apparently have not been shared with the Board of Health.

We believe everyone will be on the same page with all of the same documents following Monday November 16th's Planning Board meeting at which Newport will make a presentation on our emissions modeling and Health Risk Assessment. It is our understanding that the Town's peer reviewers at Woodard & Curran will also make a presentation on their review of our studies.

Thanks,
Scott

[Hal]

blah blah blah Scott...why don't you save yourself some time and just say "F U" to everyone?!

[rt 40 neighbor]

"According to board Chairman Zac Cataldo, Deschenes' letter criticized the board because it had not discussed the proposed plant until the Route 40 Clean Air Coalition asked. "

Wow! Imagine that! the BoH reacts to the concerns raised by taxpaying residents of Westford. Cry me a river Deschenes. It is as it should be.

"Earlier in October, Stephen Richmond, another attorney involved in the Newport Materials application, told the board if it took steps to block the plant, "We will immediately go to court to stop you."

Bring it on! All the ZBA has to do is say that they are going to enforce the zoning bylaws as they are without issuing a variance for this noncompliant heavy manufacturing and all the NM lawyers won't be able to do a dam thing about it.

[Scott - Newport Materials]

Just to clarify. I was at the meeting on September 29th when Attorney Richmond spoke to the Board. Richmond was speaking specifically and only to the "site assignment" provision under Section 143. Richmond urged the BOH to not jump into the Section 143 process - but rather - to allow the experts to conduct the studies - and allow the Town's expert peer reviewers (Woodard & Curran) to weigh in on them.

Yes - Richmond said that Newport would challenge a Section 143 proceeding in court. That would be our only avenue of appeal. It's due process.

It is no different than the Coalition's actions. They have filed an appeal of our MA DEP Clean Air permit - although they appeal through DEP first.

The Health Risk Assessment will be presented at the next Planning Board meeting - and it is my understanding that Woodard & Curran will weigh in at that time.

Thanks,
Scott

[Gone Crazy]

Hal wrote:

blah blah blah Scott...why don't you save yourself some time and just say "F U" to everyone?!

blah blah blah to you coalition Hal, grow up you clown.

Good luck Scott on Monday, hope things go well, I hope Newport Materials gets the approval to operate an asphalt plant, we need one in the area.

[rt 40 neighbor]

Scott - Newport Materials wrote:

Just to clarify. I was at the meeting on September 29th when Attorney Richmond spoke to the Board. Richmond was speaking specifically and only to the "site assignment" provision under Section 143. Richmond urged the BOH to not jump into the Section 143 process - but rather - to allow the experts to conduct the studies - and allow the Town's expert peer reviewers (Woodard & Curran) to weigh in on them.
Yes - Richmond said that Newport would challenge a Section 143 proceeding in court. That would be our only avenue of appeal. It's due process.
It is no different than the Coalition's actions. They have filed an appeal of our MA DEP Clean Air permit - although they appeal through DEP first.
The Health Risk Assessment will be presented at the next Planning Board meeting - and it is my understanding that Woodard & Curran will weigh in at that time.
Thanks,
Scott

Well done hired hand. Spin, spin, spin. I'm getting dizzy.

[rt 40 neighbor]

Gone Crazy wrote:

<quoted text>
blah blah blah to you coalition Hal, grow up you clown.
Good luck Scott on Monday, hope things go well, I hope Newport Materials gets the approval to operate an asphalt plant, we need one in the area.

Are "the" area and your area one in the same? If not, maybe you would like this stink bomb in your back yard. Perhaps you don't mind the hit your home value will take when a prospective buyer steps outside to look at the yard just as a fully loaded 20 ton truck rolls buy with its steaming load of asphalt. Its real easy to support this when you're not the one stuck putting up with it.

[Scott - Newport Materials]

rt 40 neighbor wrote:

<quoted text>
Well done hired hand. Spin, spin, spin. I'm getting dizzy.

Were you at the meeting? Did you personally hear the conversation between the BOH and the attorney?

[Actual tonnage]

For months now, meeting after meeting, Newport has been saying we will be producing 1-2000 tons of asphalt per day. It has been noted by the opposition that the equipment being used could produce much much more. So after close to 8 months of 1-2000 tons being used, what happens at Monday nights BOH meeting, the principal of Newport(DeFelice) utters it could be 2600 tons on any given day as long as they stay on average for the 9 months they operate.
Now my question is, are all the air modeling, traffic studies and health risk assessment geared towards the 1-2000 tons per day or did they take into account these possible spikes in production on any given day?
I'm glad these processes are in place and it takes time to complete, the longer it goes on the more the truth comes to light.
It was also interesting to note Monday, that after the letter from attorney Doug Deschenes to the BOH, he didn't bother to show and face their displeasure at it's contents.
Final note, it looks like Chris Lorrain from Landtech is now also acting as an attorney for Newport as well, do they wear many hats there? The reason I mention this is because he(Lorrain) was fileding questions best answered by an attorney, like what are the other companies at 540 Groton, what do they do and can we get a list of them.
So Neighbor, I agree with you, the more that comes to light, the more I believe what you have stated, that if Newport gets their asphalt plant either by weaseling in or by lawsuit, it will be non-stop time and expense by the town of Westford, to make sure they stay in compliance.

[SANDY]

DONT BUILD THAT PLANT ALL YOU PEOPLE WILL DIE.
PEOPLE IN CHELMSFORD I SAW ABOUT 100 PEOPLE dIE SO FAR.
GET OUT AND MOVE WHERE THE QUILITY OF AIR IS GOOD.
THAT KIND OF SMELL WILL KILL

[rt 40 neighbor]

Scott - Newport Materials wrote:

<quoted text>
Were you at the meeting? Did you personally hear the conversation between the BOH and the attorney?

I don't think I need to be at every meeting and hear every word to know that you are going to shine the most favorable light possible on Newport Materials and what they say and do. Also, to avoid topics that point out their shortcomings. After all, its your job to do that, right? Kinda makes one want to simply consider the source before buying in.

By the way, why wouldn't NM simply assume that the BoH might also be interested in health related data that the planning board has requested and give it to them? It looks to me like NM continues to treat the dissemination of information the same way they did with the ZBA. Spoon feed each board and commission the least amount of information possible. Wouldn't want anybody making well informed decisions based on all the data. To the applicant, its always better to simply hold back on as much as possible except when touting the modern technology that will keep evrybody safe from polutants provided it is all properly maintained. But maintenance is a different topic all together. We'll get to that all in due time.

[Scott - Newport Materials]

rt 40 neighbor wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think I need to be at every meeting and hear every word to know that you are going to shine the most favorable light possible on Newport Materials and what they say and do. Also, to avoid topics that point out their shortcomings. After all, its your job to do that, right? Kinda makes one want to simply consider the source before buying in.
By the way, why wouldn't NM simply assume that the BoH might also be interested in health related data that the planning board has requested and give it to them? It looks to me like NM continues to treat the dissemination of information the same way they did with the ZBA. Spoon feed each board and commission the least amount of information possible. Wouldn't want anybody making well informed decisions based on all the data. To the applicant, its always better to simply hold back on as much as possible except when touting the modern technology that will keep evrybody safe from polutants provided it is all properly maintained. But maintenance is a different topic all together. We'll get to that all in due time.

So - I assume that means "no" you did not attend the meeting or hear the conversation directly. You read the article and assumed that the reporter's description was 100% accurate.

All I did was add context. Honestly - I could post "the sky is blue" and you would accuse me of "spinning"

If you don't believe what I posted - go watch the tape. Otherwise - stop attacking my credibility.

You could be anyone - a paralegal for the Coalition's attorney - or Alisa herself - for all anyone knows about you. You are so quick to insult people and attack their veracity - while you hide behind your cloak of anonymity.

[rt 40 neighbor]

Scott - Newport Materials wrote:

<quoted text>
So - I assume that means "no" you did not attend the meeting or hear the conversation directly. You read the article and assumed that the reporter's description was 100% accurate.
All I did was add context. Honestly - I could post "the sky is blue" and you would accuse me of "spinning"
If you don't believe what I posted - go watch the tape. Otherwise - stop attacking my credibility.
You could be anyone - a paralegal for the Coalition's attorney - or Alisa herself - for all anyone knows about you. You are so quick to insult people and attack their veracity - while you hide behind your cloak of anonymity.

Hey, nothing personal. Its your job to shine the most favorable light on NM. Anybody with the appropriate background could be doing it. It happens to be you. I am just pointing out to anyone who is concerned about all this that whatever comes from the hired PR guy is going to be colored in NMs favor. Even some of the things we don't see addressed by the PR guy quite possibly are being avoided so as not to get trapeed into telling one of the detractors "you may have a point". You are collecting a fee to put yourself in the position you are in. Stop crying about it when I point out the fact that we will hear nothing negative about asphalt manufacturing at 540 Groton Rd from you.

And by the way, I am a resident of Westford who lives close enough to smell this and breath whatever polutants are spewn from it when the wind is blowing in the wrong direction. The only vested interest I have in this whole thing is the health and safety of my family. My financial interest goes no further than the value of my home. That's all you need to know. What's your interest? Oh, thats right. You are being paid by Newport Materials for your concern. Thats the difference between you and me along with most of the people who read and post here (I'm not so sure about CS). We are not being paid for this. Dry your tears.

[ClueX4]

Scott - Newport Materials wrote:

It is no different than the Coalition's actions. They have filed an appeal of our MA DEP Clean Air permit - although they appeal through DEP first.

Get a clue Mr. Paid Public Spin Expert. The Route 40 Clean Air Coalition didn't appeal the DEP permit. They didn't want to be bothered in helping us. It's US Chelmsford abutters trying to protect our health and homes. You're apparently not as vested in telling the truth as you say you are.

[rt 40 neighbor]

ClueX4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Get a clue Mr. Paid Public Spin Expert. The Route 40 Clean Air Coalition didn't appeal the DEP permit. They didn't want to be bothered in helping us. It's US Chelmsford abutters trying to protect our health and homes. You're apparently not as vested in telling the truth as you say you are.

I find your assertion that the Route 40 Clean Air Coalition didn't want to be bothered to help you a bit troubling. Can you expand on that a bit? I hope that everybody who wants to protect our health, property and quality of life can work as one in running Newport Materials out of town.

Personaly, I have taken to monitoring these discussions and inject some real common sense when the poster who uses that moniker and Scott the spin doctor come on and poo poo the residents' and neighbors' legitimate concerns. Also, while keeping tabs on what is going on at the Planning Board and BoH, I am attending ZBA meetings in an effort to keep things honest, something that NM and their lawyer Deschenes appear to have some trouble with. It ain't much but if we all do what we can, this manufacturing proposal will fail as it should.

[Scott - Newport Materials]

rt 40 neighbor wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, nothing personal. Its your job to shine the most favorable light on NM. Anybody with the appropriate background could be doing it. It happens to be you. I am just pointing out to anyone who is concerned about all this that whatever comes from the hired PR guy is going to be colored in NMs favor. Even some of the things we don't see addressed by the PR guy quite possibly are being avoided so as not to get trapeed into telling one of the detractors "you may have a point". You are collecting a fee to put yourself in the position you are in. Stop crying about it when I point out the fact that we will hear nothing negative about asphalt manufacturing at 540 Groton Rd from you.
And by the way, I am a resident of Westford who lives close enough to smell this and breath whatever polutants are spewn from it when the wind is blowing in the wrong direction. The only vested interest I have in this whole thing is the health and safety of my family. My financial interest goes no further than the value of my home. That's all you need to know. What's your interest? Oh, thats right. You are being paid by Newport Materials for your concern. Thats the difference between you and me along with most of the people who read and post here (I'm not so sure about CS). We are not being paid for this. Dry your tears.

Why should anyone believe anything you post? There is no way of confirming you are who you say you are or that you live where you say you live. You are an anonymous poster. That automatically makes you less credible than me. Everyone knows who I am - and what I do.

I have challenged you to point to one post of mine that is not true - that is not fact or data supported by our studies. You have not. You continually say that I am not credible because I get paid to do a job. O.K.- we get it. Now prove it. Prove that something I have posted is untrue.

You claim to have no vested interest. You claim to be a volunteer. You claim a lot of things. But because you cower under the cloak of anonymity - none of it can be verified.

You could very well be a paid "spin doctor" being funded by a competitive asphalt company. They attend all of the meetings, that's for sure. And you spend more time on this blog than I do by looks of all your posts

[Scott - Newport Materials]

ClueX4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Get a clue Mr. Paid Public Spin Expert. The Route 40 Clean Air Coalition didn't appeal the DEP permit. They didn't want to be bothered in helping us. It's US Chelmsford abutters trying to protect our health and homes. You're apparently not as vested in telling the truth as you say you are.

No need to be nasty about it. Technically - you are correct. OK everyone? Scott is admitting that he made a mistake and was wrong. The appeal was filed by Groton Road neighbors - not under the banner of the "Coalition."

However - all of those neighbors have signed the Coalition's petition, right? Many of those neighbors huddle with Alisa and other Coalition members at Planning Board and BOH meetings to get their talking points in synch. Alisa is the floor leader - and she gives everyone directions about when to get up and what to say. They coordinate their attack together. Some of those neighbors have likely contributed to the Coalition.

Does that make them members of the Coalition? Maybe yes - maybe no. It's hard to tell because the Coalition is a shadowy group that is apparently not registered anywhere - is not disclosing any information about its contributors or leadership - and is telling people on their website to send their contributions directly to the Coalition's law firm.

In any event - I apologize for the error and will state it accurately on any posts regarding the appeal moving forward.

[rt 40 neighbor]

Scott - Newport Materials wrote:

<quoted text>
Why should anyone believe anything you post? There is no way of confirming you are who you say you are or that you live where you say you live. You are an anonymous poster. That automatically makes you less credible than me. Everyone knows who I am - and what I do.
I have challenged you to point to one post of mine that is not true - that is not fact or data supported by our studies. You have not. You continually say that I am not credible because I get paid to do a job. O.K.- we get it. Now prove it. Prove that something I have posted is untrue.
You claim to have no vested interest. You claim to be a volunteer. You claim a lot of things. But because you cower under the cloak of anonymity - none of it can be verified.
You could very well be a paid "spin doctor" being funded by a competitive asphalt company. They attend all of the meetings, that's for sure. And you spend more time on this blog than I do by looks of all your posts

I am anonymous to you and everyone at NM. You and CS spend a lot of energy trying to get your detractors to come out from behind what you call the cloak of anonymity. That begs the question, why? There are a lot of people railing against this. To you and CS, they are the locals. They are a shadowy coalition. When we stand up at meetings of various boards and committees to speak on this matter, it is required for the record, that each speaker state their name and street address. I have spoken at ZBA meetings and provided that information. Why would I want to provide information here for you to connect the dots to me. Newport Materials has some powerful and influential people on their side. For the sake of my family and property, I feel it would be reckless of me to put myself out there in the sites of NM's people. It goes back to the trust thing.

[Observation]

Seems to me that Deschenes is the problem here. Not surprising.

[Scott - Newport Materials]

rt 40 neighbor wrote:

<quoted text>
I am anonymous to you and everyone at NM. You and CS spend a lot of energy trying to get your detractors to come out from behind what you call the cloak of anonymity. That begs the question, why? There are a lot of people railing against this. To you and CS, they are the locals. They are a shadowy coalition. When we stand up at meetings of various boards and committees to speak on this matter, it is required for the record, that each speaker state their name and street address. I have spoken at ZBA meetings and provided that information. Why would I want to provide information here for you to connect the dots to me. Newport Materials has some powerful and influential people on their side. For the sake of my family and property, I feel it would be reckless of me to put myself out there in the sites of NM's people. It goes back to the trust thing.

Neighbor - it's nothing personal. But you continue to make my credibility an issue. You continue to attack my credibility because I get paid.

But you can't have it both ways. You are not credible on this blog because no one can verify anything you say about who you are, where you live, etc. If you were being paid by a competitor - or the Coalition - you would be wise to create the persona that you have created on this blog - to make yourself look legit.

I don't care if you remain anonymous or not - but if you are going to attack my credibility - you are a hypocrite for not realizing that you are not credible either - as long as you remain anonymous. You could be anyone posing as the person you say you are.

You are also a hypocrite if you refuse to apply the same standard to the paid consultants that represent the coalition - attorney Costello, Lynn Santos etc. They are getting paid to represent their client - exactly as I am.