Proposed Sheffield Asphalt Plant Continues to Cause Controversy
SHEFFIELD, Mass. — Greg Marlowe is not a suit-and-tie type of guy. The general manager of Century Acquisitions, a concrete production plant that straddles the border of Sheffield and Canaan, Conn., Marlowe oversees his rock-crushing operations with an almost-familial fondness.
Lately, however, troubles with the neighbors and some environmental groups have caused some major disruptions with Marlowe's plans to expand production. According to him, the dispute that began in 2008 when the plant applied for a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals (which was withdrawn) to produce hot-mix asphalt is a case of miscommunication, not environmental endangerment.
"I think what this is is a fear of the unknown," he said. "The [Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection] has to look at any operation like this and take the worst-case scenario. In this case, they have determined that we have the potential to produce 500,000 tons of HMA every year. That is a huge number but it's not something that we are even close to considering. We are a family-owned construction company, which is rare these days. This would be wonderful for my business. It would really strengthen us and the community as there is a huge need for an asphalt supplier that produces and delivers locally."
Despite the company's prominent role in the local construction industry, some residents and concerned citizens have formed the No Asphalt! Defense Fund in order to block the company's permit request. According to NADF spokeswoman Dr. Elaine Panitz, health and environmental concerns cropped up immediately, especially among those property owners who live adjacent to the rock-crushing operations.
"I was asked by the members of NADF to help with the scientific issues back in early 2008 when Century Acquisitions was applying for a special permit from the Sheffield ZBA," she wrote in an email. "We are very concerned with the noise and fugitive dust hazards for our community, associated with CA’s existing rock crushing and proposed HMA operations. CA’s existing operations (especially its rock-crushing operations) have produced unlivable noise pollution for the neighborhood located just 400 to 1,000 feet to the southeast of CA’s rock crushers."
Panitz claims that not only have the rock-crushing and concrete-batch operations been operating illegally, without proper permits, since the company purchased the property in 2001, they have doubled and quadrupled.
"Under [Massachusetts] law, CA must prove that their rock-crushing operation does not increase the neighborhood’s noise level more than 10 decibels above background (that is, when the plant is in shutdown)," wrote Panitz. "So far, CA has never measured the background noise level (with the plant in shutdown) in the southeast neighborhood. And, they have never measured the noise level in the neighborhood coming from the rock crushers while they are crushing 8-inch rock."
She said the company's assertion that an earthen berm will control noise hasn't been tested. "The neighbors do not feel the berm provides effective noise control."
 A 50,000 cubic-yard berm separates the gravel plant from its residential neighbors. |
In addition to the supposed noise and dust problem, Panitz said that she is also concerned about the presence of PM2.5, or fine particle pollution, that is already being emitted from the CA plant, not to mention the increased truck traffic — more than 100 roundtrips a day — if the HMA permit is approved.
Marlowe said he has gone above and beyond what is being asked of him in order to address these concerns, including the construction of the 50,000 cubic-yard berm that surrounds one edge of CA's 100-acre mining operation. He has also lined most of the stone-crusher chutes with rubber to reduce noise and makes sure that a "watering" truck frequents the property in order to quell dust issues.
"We think we've answered everything that the DEP has asked of us so far," he said. "We are taking steps that people wouldn't normally take in this industry," he said. "I told the residents that I would do it and I did it. We are a hard-working company that's trying to survive, but we also live in this community and this isn't just a number to us. The trickle down is an immense amount of capital that is going back into the community. I have 30 full-time employees all with health insurance, not to mention all of the family construction companies which rely on us for materials. There is construction everywhere in Berkshire County and we are the No. 1 local supplier for these jobs."
While CA has not filed a permit with the town, the company waits for the go-ahead from the state. In the meantime, Panitz and the NADF will continue to hold public "information" meetings although contact between the company and the advocacy group has been, according to Marlowe, nearly non-existent save for lawyers and some initial communication between NADF President Kim Casey and himself.
"So far no one from the opposition has visited the plant," Marlowe said. "They are welcome to give me a call or drop by any time to see what is happening here. Right now there is nothing pending. If it never happens, then so be it. We are just trying to keep these families going and to keep this capital circulating locally."
