HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-NAC-Arlex Comments
Comments and Questions
About Arlex’s Proposed Noise Mitigation Measures
Prepared by the
NOISE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Submitted to the
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN
October 2004
A letter from Arlex Oil, dated August 14, 2004, outlined a range of options for mitigation
of noise at Arlex facilities. The Selectmen have asked the Noise Advisory Committee
(NAC) to review and comment on this letter.
Overall, it appears that Arlex is making some effort to address the concerns raised by
abutters to their properties. These efforts are appreciated by the NAC. However, by
Arlex’s own admission, their proposed mitigations will have an insignificant effect on the
noise emitted from their facilities.
Each of Arlex’s proposals is discussed in detail as follows:
Item #1: Regarding “Information about the operations and the location at Sudbury
facility.”
Arlex plans to direct its first tanker truck trip in the early morning to the Sudbury facility,
instead of to 275 Massachusetts Avenue in Lexington. It is unclear whether this would
make any difference to noise levels near Arlex’s Lexington facilities. Specifically, Arlex
stated that there would still need to be “early morning” deliveries to the Lexington
facility, even if the first truck trip was to Sudbury. This could mean, for example, that a
delivery to Lexington occurs at 4:00 am instead of 2:00 am, which would not help
abutters get a good night’s sleep. The committee concluded that a clear explanation of
what is meant by "early morning" was necessary.
The committee also had a question about who owns the Sudbury facility, since it can
influence the delivery times to Lexington. Arlex refers to it as theirs, but the name of the
company in Sudbury is Interstate Gas and Oil.
Arlex states that its need for early morning deliveries is largely out of their control. The
committee has a number of outstanding questions regarding this level of control. For
example, Arlex says: “… contracts with terminals require us to take deliveries when they
are available.” This does not necessarily mean, however, that Arlex must pick up the oil
in the middle of the night. The committee believes that a clear, compelling economic
model for their delivery process has not been presented.
The committee feels that it is entirely appropriate for Arlex to conduct very early
morning deliveries in anticipation of severe winter weather, such as cold snaps or
ice/snow storms. What is not yet clear is whether or not early morning deliveries are
really necessary throughout the entire winter (and parts of the fall and spring) when the
weather is not severely cold.
Item #2: Regarding “A copy of the posted instructions for truck drivers and
technicians.”
The NAC commends Arlex for putting up a sign, which states that
unnecessary engine idling in excess of 5 minutes is prohibited, but it does not have the
means for determining if drivers will actually comply. The Board of Health will need to
make a judgment on whether or not the sign is sufficient and whether periodic monitoring
of noise duration at 240 Bedford Street will be needed.
Items #3 & 4: Regarding “A plan and estimates for a proposed berm, trees and
fence.”
Alex states thatthey have been advised that “plantings, although pleasant to
view, are not an effective barrier for sound.” The NAC agrees with this assessment. In
addition, a fence would not provide adequate noise protection. Finally, the proposed berm
appears to actually refer to a berm already in place.