Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Odors topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents report persistent odors from nearby Brox asphalt plant; DEP says tests meet EPA standards
Summary
At its June 9 meeting the Selkirk Board of Health reviewed resident complaints about odors from the Brox asphalt plant. Staff summarized mitigation equipment Brox installed; a DEP air official told the board prior test results were within EPA standards and that the company’s permit imposes few numeric limits.
At its June 9 meeting, the Selkirk Board of Health discussed continuing resident complaints about odors from the Brox asphalt plant near Southborough and Marlborough. Taylor, the town’s public health director, summarized a meeting Brox held with DEP, neighboring boards and residents about mitigation efforts and testing.
Taylor said Brox has added a closed‑loop system that redirects exhaust into the burner, EcoSorb in tanks and a mister system. Taylor said the closed‑loop system was installed in Ipswich at the end of April and in Southborough the weekend before Memorial Day; Brox reported complaints stopped in the Ipswich neighborhood after the change but residents near the Southborough site continue to report odors. She relayed residents’ descriptions — for example, residents emailing messages such as, “Smells like Brox again today” — and said residents report closing windows or going indoors when odors occur.
Taylor told the board that Brox has performed complaint‑triggered testing even when not required, and that those tests were within EPA standards. She reported the DEP air official’s assessment that, based on how permits are issued today, he would still be confident issuing Brox a permit and that “they’re not a bad actor.” The air official also told the board that current permits for the facility contain few explicit numeric limits and that Brox’s voluntary testing showed levels within applicable EPA benchmarks.
Board members and staff described differences between the Ipswich and Southborough situations that might explain the differing results, including neighborhood density and distance from the plant. Taylor said Ipswich recorded about 165 complaints over a three‑month span, with 87 coming from four households, and that complaints ceased there after the equipment change; that pattern did not replicate in Southborough. Board members said DEP encouraged residents to submit more detailed, time‑stamped complaints (for example: location, start time, duration, symptom notes) so the agency and Brox can correlate events to operations and weather data.
No new enforcement action or additional required testing was imposed by the board at the meeting. Staff said further testing would be Brox’s decision unless the permit or regulations changed; staff recommended continuing to collect detailed, real‑time complaints for DEP and the company to use in correlation studies.
The board said it will continue to monitor complaints, ask residents to send detailed incident reports to DEP, and discuss possible next steps, including whether regulatory changes are needed at a future meeting.
