At the forefront of the meeting was the debate surrounding the asphalt plant operated by PJ Keating. The company presented updates on its efforts to mitigate odors and environmental impacts, including the implementation of best available control technology and truck tarping policies. They reported improvements made to the loadout area, the use of warm mix asphalt, and the capture of excess fumes in the asphalt tanks. Despite these measures, the effectiveness of the plant’s odor control strategies was a contentious topic, with board members and residents expressing skepticism and frustration.

Residents expressed their distress over the odors, especially during nighttime, and questioned the acceptability of the odor levels. Some suggested that the plant’s operations should be halted during certain hours and called for a more in-depth investigation into the source of the odors. The impact of the plant’s operations on the surrounding environment, specifically air and water quality, was also a key issue raised by the community.

The board engaged in a discussion about the number of days the plant was in operation compared to the number of complaints received. There was disagreement over whether the complaints could be directly linked to the plant’s operations or if there were other contributing sources in the area. Specific incidents where the plant refused to load out trucks due to improper targets were highlighted.

During the meeting, an Alliance representative, Lou Rose, discussed the company’s environmental services, including odor measurement and quantification methods. Rose explained the use of devices such as the nasal ranger to assess odor strength and detailed the efforts to monitor odors at the facility through on-site visits and surveys. The timing of these odor tests, conducted primarily in the morning due to historical complaint patterns and favorable meteorological conditions, sparked debate about the representativeness of the data collected. A community member questioned why tests were not performed during peak business hours, bringing attention to the need for accurate and comprehensive odor measurement.

The correlation between the plant’s production levels and odor issues was another topic of debate. One individual challenged the claim that odor levels remain consistent regardless of production rates, prompting a request for documentation to support this assertion. The plant representatives discussed the impact of moisture on production capacity and the variability of their output based on customer demand and weather conditions. They cited a rule of thumb to reduce potential capacity by 15% for every inch of rain.

In addition to the discussions about the asphalt plant, the meeting addressed the impact of truck traffic from a nearby concrete plant. Concerns were raised about whether the level of truck traffic was within permitted limits and the potential effects on the community’s quality of life.

The Board of Health also provided an update on the introduction of an odor suppressant at the asphalt plant. However, they encountered challenges as the tanks had to be drained due to inconsistencies in the product, which was subsequently consumed in the asphalt. The board was cautious in providing details about the duration of the suppressant’s use, citing ongoing litigation and lawsuits against the board and town employees. This led to a discussion about the residents’ quality of life, property values, and whether tax abatements or credits should be considered for affected homeowners.

The possibility of relocating the asphalt plant was debated, along with the inherent difficulties in completely eliminating odors from such a facility. The meeting concluded with public comments expressing frustration and seeking assurance that the board was working to resolve the issues.