In Claremont, a plan to accept demolition waste at recycling plant is met with fierce resistance

Yahoo

10-03-2025

Around the corner from the facility site in Claremont stands a sign against the permit modification request. (Claire Sullivan | New Hampshire Bulletin)
Kipp Ryan was born and raised in Claremont, a western New Hampshire city of about 13,000. He describes himself as a proud resident, and stayed there to raise his children.
But that might change, he said, if the state agrees to let Massachusetts-based Acuity Management modify a 1987 permit for a small recycling facility to accept up to 500 tons a day of construction and demolition debris near a local elementary school and some 400 homes.
Residents have fought hard to break the stigma that Claremont is a dumping ground, and this project would undermine those efforts, Ryan said.
'If we allow stuff like this, we're out,' Ryan said of himself and his family. 'We're not going to stick around. There's not going to be a future here.'
How to submit public comments to DES
The public can submit comments on the permit modification request from now until 4 p.m. on March 27, a weeklong extension from the original date.
Comments may be submitted via email to [e-mail]; by postage to NHDES-SWMB Attn: Jason Evancic, PO Box 95, Concord, NH, 03302; or submitted in person to the agency's office at 29 Hazen Drive in Concord.
More information on the proposal, including links to the modification request, can be found online here.
He was one of dozens of residents who turned out to the Claremont Opera House Thursday evening for a three-hour public hearing hosted by the Department of Environmental Services. The agency is accepting public comment on the permit modification request until 4 p.m. on March 27, after which it has 30 days to make a decision on the company's request.
Like Ryan, many local residents feared what the project would do to a city that has fought hard to build itself up. They worry about harmful environmental contaminants like heavy metals and PFAS ending up in a nearby brook that feeds into the Connecticut River, as well as an aquifer that abuts the facility. They wonder how Claremont's roads — which in many places are already crumbling or littered with potholes — could withstand dozens of more trucks a day, and fear their taxes would rise to fund repairs.
They're also concerned about how the traffic and noise pollution could impact students at Maple Avenue Elementary School, less than a mile drive from the facility and even closer on foot. And for the hundreds who live in proximity to the lot, they worry the development would cause property values to plummet.
Some questioned why DES had deemed the application complete in the fall, the first step in the agency's permit review process, pointing to what they felt were scant details in the company's proposal. They also felt the 1.5-acre lot was far too small to accommodate the proposed activities, and pointed to facilities doing similar work that are many times larger.
But most of all, it seemed, residents wondered how many times they would have to tell the company 'no' after spending years fighting one iteration of the proposal or another. The opposition to the project was overwhelming; in the public comment portion of the hearing, 48 people spoke in opposition, while two voiced support. Beneath the ornate decor of the dim theater, residents applauded, cheered, and waved pink, homemade paper hearts as opponents enumerated their critiques of the company's proposal.
'I am very concerned that Acuity, who has heard 'no' again and again over these last six years, seems to not understand,' said Judith Koester, who lives near the facility. 'Which is it that you don't understand — the 'n' or the 'o'?'
The Claremont Conservation Commission, a representative of the school board, and several lawmakers spoke against the project. Executive Councilor Karen Liot Hill, a Democrat whose constituency includes Claremont, said she was there to observe.
Naomi Praul, a civil engineer who gave a presentation on behalf of the company, said the current permit allows the facility to accept 'paper, cardboard, metal, glass, plastics, automotive batteries, and tires.' The permit modification, if approved, would continue to allow the acceptance of those materials, as well as construction and demolition debris — also called C&D debris – which 'may be comprised of materials such as concrete, drywall, wood, roofing shingles – essentially, materials that could be generated during the home renovation project,' Praul said.
The company would take out recyclable materials, such as asphalt, wood, and metal, which would prevent them from ending up in a landfill, Praul argued. Nonrecyclable materials would be transported out of the state to be disposed of, she said.
'To be clear, C&D does not include asbestos or other hazardous waste,' Praul said, a point that faced questioning from residents, who feared that such hazardous material would not be discovered until it is sorted through at the Claremont facility.
Francesco Finocchiaro, vice president of Recycling Services Inc., of which Acuity is the parent company, said in an email to the Bulletin that 'there are many laws in place that prevent contaminants from entering our waste streams.'
'First, demolition permits are required by local building departments to contractors, prior to demolishing structures. This is our first line of defense,' he said. 'When contaminants are found, specialists are required and hired to remove the hazardous waste products. The materials are then taken (to) facilities that are permitted to accept them. We will not be one of them.' He said that incoming loads would be manually inspected for hazardous materials, and if found, the load would be rejected.
'We have spoken to people in the community who are not against these changes, but they are hesitant to speak publicly on our behalf,' Finocchiaro wrote. 'We are part of this community, and we value the trust we have been given. We believe we can effectively reduce landfill waste by increasing our recycling capacity.'
Some residents said they were excited when they first heard of the project, as they are supportive of more recycling. But as they dug into the proposal, they changed their mind.
For many, that was because of what they felt was simply a bad location for the project, due to traffic concerns, the lot size, and its proximity to the local elementary school and hundreds of homes.
Rep. Judy Aron, a South Acworth Republican and chair of the House Environment and Agriculture Committee, said she came to the meeting Thursday to listen and learn.
'Based on what I've heard tonight from members of this community, I absolutely agree that this particular site is inappropriate,' Aron said to loud applause. 'It may be a very good project, but it's absolutely the inappropriate site for it.'
Eric Peabody, a lifelong Claremont resident and father of two children at the local elementary school, said he came to the hearing in his capacity as a licensed land surveyor with 19 years of experience. He said the 1.5-acre lot was simply too small to handle processing seven times the material it is currently permitted for, drawing a comparison to a facility that does similar work in Epping that operates on 30 acres of a 75-acre property.
'If an airport doesn't meet the requirements to land a 747, you don't try to land it there anyway,' Peabody said. 'You keep flying until a suitable place to land is found. Acuity needs to find a different piece of land that properly meets the requirements for a C&D facility of this magnitude.'
Praul said a study from a traffic engineer had 'confirmed the adequacy of the intersections closest to the recycling facility,' and that 'truck circulation patterns through and around the facility have been evaluated to ensure queuing of trucks will not occur in Industrial Boulevard or interfere with surrounding traffic.'
However, residents expressed serious doubts about the ability of their roadways to handle the increased truck loads. Rep. John Cloutier, a Claremont Democrat, said he hears from his constituents constantly that 'roads are in bad shape.'
'Frankly, the city doesn't have the resources now to adequately maintain the road infrastructure, not even close,' said Rep. Hope Damon, a Croydon Democrat. '... This is an extremely unreasonable burden for the city of Claremont.'
For two local teenagers, the project felt like a threat to their future in Claremont and the environmental and public health of their community.
Connor Fullmer, a 17-year-old who heard about the public hearing in science class at Stevens High School, fears how potential pollution could impact local wildlife.
'When does this end? We've been saying 'no' for forever. Why won't they answer us? Why won't they take 'no' as an answer?' Fullmer said, choked with emotion. 'Why do they think they can come here and do all of this to us?'
Another Claremont teen, Gabriel Brown, expressed fears the project could spread environmental contaminants linked to a host of negative health effects.
'I am currently 16 years old, and this is my future,' Brown said. 'I can't live here if this is going to happen … in our city.'
Marilla Harris-Vincent, a Claremont resident and the New Hampshire river steward at the Connecticut River Conservancy, said the organization strongly opposes the modification request because of concerns it could lead to the contamination of Meadow Brook (a tributary of the Connecticut River), surrounding wetlands, and an adjacent aquifer.
Hayley Jones, the Vermont and New Hampshire state director of Slingshot, an organization that works with communities impacted by environmental health threats, said the project posed the risk of spreading PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a class of synthetic chemicals linked to numerous negative health outcomes.
'They are used to make thousands of products, including common construction materials, such as roofing glass, interior finishes, exterior coatings and sealants to make these all nonstick and waterproof,' Jones said. 'Hundreds of studies link PFAS exposure to health harms, including testicular, kidney, liver and pancreatic cancer, to reproductive problems, to weakened childhood immunity, low birth weight, endocrine disruption, increased cholesterol, and weight gain in children and adults.'
For Ken Burke, who has lived in Claremont since 2007, the health concerns feel especially personal.
Burke and his wife ran a small electronics recycling company in Claremont for about 15 years. Along the way, he developed leukemia that he still lives with today; he has been in remission for years, but there is no cure. He has wondered if his exposure to the electronics — working with them at his business and tearing them apart — contributed to his cancer. Toxins in electronic waste have been linked to health effects such as cancer.
Now, he fears for his neighbors and worries about what could be in the debris that would be trucked into his city under the proposal.
'Will it be your kids? Will it be your grandkids? Will it be you getting exposed? It only takes a tiny bit,' Burke said. 'The next thing you know, you live with — or you die with — what was dropped off in your neighborhood, and we can't have that. This can't happen.'