By BOB MARTIN
Eagle Times Staff
CLAREMONT, N.H. — The Claremont Opera House was packed with residents of the city and surrounding areas who vehemently opposed a permit application by Acuity Management to build a facility at Recycling Services that would allow collection of construction and demolition debris.
Concerned residents came out in droves for the public hearing held by New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services on March 6, where dozens of people spoke out against a storage and transfer facility estimated to received 500 tons of mixed construction and demolition waste a day. It is also estimated that there will be between 50 and 80 trucks per day, which has residents worried about the conditions of their already ailing roads. Materials would then be sent via railroad to a landfill in Ohio.
The proposed new facility would be in the footprint of the current spot at 43 Industrial Boulevard.
While the zoning board and city council have both made votes to stop the project, Acuity Owner Peter Cameron said there have been appeals set in motion. The company has since filed a Type-1 A permit application with NHDES to increase the permitted capacity and allow for the collection of construction and demolition debris, as well as the recyclables that are already permitted.
The hearing started off with NHDES allowing elected officials to speak first, which included Rep. Brian Sullivan and Rep. Hope Damon. Sullivan spoke about how the truck traffic will affect his constituents in Grantham and was also concerned about the possibility of spillage.
Another concern was the amount of space provided to undergo this increase, as it is only about an acre-and-a-half of land. Damon also said it would put a strain on the city’s infrastructure.
“It is very clear this site is simply not adequate in size,” Damon said and added, “It is an unreasonable burden for the city of Claremont.”
John Tuthill of Acworth was the first and final speaker at the hearing from the general public and was one of several members of A Better Claremont to voice their concerns. He noted that this is the third application that Acuity has filed since 2017. The first time it was proposed for 500 to 800 tons per day on an open concrete slab, but this was withdrawn quickly. The second application was denied by NHDES in 2020, and this one was filed 18 months ago with a new engineering firm and one of the largest engineering companies in the northeast, he said.
Tuthill said this application looks “too good to be true.”
At the end of the meeting, he returned to the microphone to speak after three hours of testimonies and suggested that Acuity withdraw their application that night. This garnered much applause, but no action was taken by the company.
Many of the comments echoed each other, with residents concerned that there isn’t enough information being provided in how the company will handle an uptick of seven times the amount of waste.
“I don’t see any details,” said Edgewood Road resident Kathy Savage. “There isn’t anything specific.”
Ken Lownie asked everyone to picture a plot of land in the size proposed and fill it with dozens of dumpster loads. He said to recycle construction waste, it needs to be spread out, and that their proposal isn’t practical. He suggested that the company “go away, because we are all in this for the duration.”
Katie Lajoie of Charlestown said she worked as a public health nurse at the Department of Health and Human Services for many years, and she knows just how small an amount of lead it takes to poison a child. She said this project, involving this amount of demolition waste coming into the city on a weekly basis, could lead to exposure risks.
“Flooding the City’s streets with 3000 tons of toxic construction and demolition waste each week will undermine that progress by increasing lead-exposure risks,” she said. “This is unnecessary and unacceptable, and that is why DES needs to deny Acuity’s proposal.”
This sentiment was later echoed by Ken Burke, who said he ran a small electronic recycling company in Claremont and did a lot of industrial recycling in the Upper Valley. Somewhere along the line he developed leukemia, which he still has to this day.
“I often wonder if my exposure to electronics could have caused it,” he said.
Burke said exposure should be considered, because he doesn’t want people handling the waste to be in his shoes someday. He said people don’t pay attention to what they are throwing out, and it could be harmful for workers. This, along with the potential wear and tear on the roads, was why he also opposed the project.
Jerry Cross lives on Maple Ave, “literally right around the corner.” He said Maple Ave heading toward South Street is “starting to look like a cow path,” and that the city already suffers from a lack of funds to fix roads. He said this project would accomplish nothing for Claremont residents and diminish quality of life.
“I would hope that you deny this application,” he said.
Marilla Harris Vincent is a N.H. River Steward at the Connecticut River Conservancy, as well as a resident of Claremont, and she said the project is concerning with how it will affect aquifers. She said the modification proposed “raises significant environmental concerns.”
Eric Peabody is a licensed land surveyor in New Hampshire and Vermont, and said 43 Industrial Boulevard isn’t deep enough for a 50-foot setback. He also said another comparable operation in Epping operates on 30 acres of a 75-acre property, also showing that this location is too small. He said he is pro-business and supports Recycling Services to continue their operations as is but not expand them at this location.
“If the airport doesn’t meet requirements of a 747, you don’t try to land it there anyway,” Peabody said. “You keep flying until a suitable piece of land is found.”
While Damon and Sullivan started off the meeting, there were also testimonials from Reps. Judy Aron, Michael Aron and John Cloutier asking for DES to deny the application.
Claremont School Board member Candace Crawford also announced that the board agreed to publicly oppose the project.
NHDES officials were on-hand to hear the testimonies, and not one resident spoke in favor of the project. However, Cameron was in attendance and spoke to the audience, which actually ended up in boos by the end.
Cameron said the facility will only be operating with materials from New Hampshire, and not out of state, which had been rumored. He explained that material from construction sites needs to go somewhere, and without facilities like being proposed, it usually ends up in landfills.
“Our perspective is we’re going to do what we said we’re going to do, treat it the way we said we’re going to treat it, and we’re actually not putting material into landfills,” Cameron said.
After the meeting, Cameron said he was disappointed that there was so much misinformation going around about the project. He said Acuity did not sue the city, but rather, it is appealing decisions. He also said there have been rumors about where the materials are coming and going, and he confirmed it is all coming from New Hampshire.
The public comment period is continuing until March 27.
