Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-NACArlexComments_5 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.