Proponents of Senate Bill 381, which would partially lift the ban on the incineration of construction and demolition debris at the Wheelabrator trash-to-energy plant in Penacook, have a lot of explaining to do.
Is a yes vote merely a pig poking a snout in the garbage can or the first step of New Hampshire going whole hog toward becoming a regional debris disposal center?
The state’s ban on incinerating construction debris was enacted in 2007 for fear of exactly that. Opponents were also concerned that not all of the toxins in the waste stream would be captured by an incinerator’s pollution-control equipment.
Construction debris, particularly pre-1970s boards, can be coated with lead-based paint and loads, if not scrupulously screened, could include lumber pressure-treated with arsenic or other preservatives.
The prevailing winds at the incinerator site, according to the National Weather Service, are from the northwest, though winds from the northeast are common, too. Emissions in a northwest wind blow toward Concord Heights; from the northeast, to downtown Concord. It did not escape our notice that none of the sponsors of the incinerator bill live in or near Concord.
The Wheelabrator plant is the state’s only trash incinerator. The company closed a smaller facility in Claremont in 2013 because it became unprofitable. The Penacook plant burned 191,000 tons of trash in 2015. The bill, whose lead sponsor is Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley of Wolfeboro, would permit Wheelabrator to burn up to 10,000 tons of ground wood from material pre-sorted by a recycling company with facilities in Epping and Salem.
The state Department of Environmental Services reviewed the data submitted by Wheelabrator and concluded that emission levels for most of the 11 metals that would potentially be released would not increase. Levels of two, chromium and arsenic, would go up slightly.
“NHDES chose arsenic for more in-depth ‘worst-case scenario’ analysis and based on dispersion modeling determined that while potential emissions levels may increase, they would still fall 36 times below the ambient air limit,” Commissioner Tom Burak wrote.
Anyone who has ever tended a fire stoked with damp wood can understand why the company wants to burn ground, dry wood during the five winter months permitted under the bill. Because municipal trash tends to be damp or even snow-covered, Wheelabrator must burn expensive propane to guarantee that the waste fully combusts.
Adding wood would reduce or eliminate the need to do that.
Would the incinerator run cleaner and produce fewer emissions in winter if wood were burned instead of propane? Would the resulting ash be significantly more toxic when sent to a landfill? Would there be environmental benefits from burning the debris rather than trucking it to a distant landfill? Has emission control technology improved significantly since most states banned burning construction debris? Will there be closely monitored test burns before a full-blown permit is issued?
These and other questions need answers before the House votes on the Senate bill and the governor signs off on it.
Recycling construction debris is by far the best option; landfilling it is the worst. Incinerating it, if the technology is up to it, may be a good way to deal with what can’t be recycled.