By Thomas A. Mackie

The political leadership in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts continues to send mixed messages to markets for recycled C&D materials. Touted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) as having the “most advanced C&D recycling infrastructure in the nation,” Massachusetts is struggling with what to do with processed C&D materials. Until the state is able to convince itself and the general public that these materials are both safe and useful, the industry will be hamstrung by uncertain markets.

Two major developments regarding C&D wood in the last year illustrate how shifting state policy has rattled markets for materials produced by the Massachusetts C&D processing industry. In December 2009, Massachusetts’ environmental and energy regulators suspended review of any approvals for recovery of energy from C&D. Earlier in the year over 100,000 citizens signed and obtained certification of an initiative petition that will place an anti-biomass question on the November 2010 statewide ballot.

Since Massachusetts is perceived as a trend setter for national environmental policy, these two threats should serve as a rallying cry to the C&D processing industry nationwide.

On December 7, 2009, Ian Bowles, Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, the state’s top environmental officer, sent shock waves through C&D biomass markets when he “directed the MassDEP to suspend review of permit applications for facilities proposing to use construction and demolition materials as fuel for energy generation, including the proposed Palmer Renewable Energy facility, until a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts of using such material is completed.” He has directed that no further action be taken on any pending permit applications until the MassDEP has conducted a review, in coordination with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, of the potential health impacts associated with the combustion of C&D. The latter health agency has been highly critical of the MassDEP’s draft air and beneficial use permits for energy recovery from C&D.

To add insult to injury, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, another agency within Bowles’ secretariat, has suspended “its consideration of biomass energy applications for qualification of under the MA RPS program.” As a result, no project proposing to recover energy from C&D materials will be able to qualify for valuable Massachusetts renewable energy credits at least until a study on the sustainability of biomass is completed and new regulations are issued. Until then these key subsidies for biomass facilities using C&D wood will remain on hold. This extends beyond Massachusetts to out-of-state biomass facilities that would have qualified for these subsidies based on their sale of “renewable” electricity into the New England grid.

C&D industry insiders perceive these moves as political cover for Governor Deval Patrick in what promises to be a hotly contested 2010 Gubernatorial election. The Governor may be attempting to lock up Western Massachusetts, where most of the proposed biomass facilities and grassroots anti-biomass sentiment dwells. He was quoted in the Springfield Republican “that burning the stuff that is hauled out of old buildings is problematic.”  While he believes that biomass has a place in our renewable energy strategy he envisioned fuel sources such as switchgrass.  Apparently unknown to the governor, in 2009, the DOER announced that it will only process applications for biofuels made from waste feedstocks, which essentially rules out biofuels made from switchgrass.  Whether these moves will endear him to the same electorate that voted for Republican United States Senator Scott Brown remains to be seen. Regardless, the loudest voices are cheering these moves and will continue to be heard unless and until the industry offers an effective counterpoint.

Ironically, that industry counterpoint may be stirred to action by the anti-biomass ballot initiative. If passed, the ballot question will prohibit biomass facilities from obtaining any renewable energy credits unless they meet what are perceived as impossibly low carbon dioxide emissions limits. Because this would cripple the developing biomass industry in Massachusetts, and perhaps New England, C&D processors, biomass developers, and advocates of renewable energy all have a stake in spelling out the benefits of biomass including C&D wood.

The C&D industry has a unique opportunity to favorably influence the outcome of the MassDEP’s permitting suspension. During the suspension, the MassDEP will be conducting “an assessment of the potential for emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants related to C&D, an analysis of level of contaminants commonly found in C&D feedstocks, and a review of the most effective means for minimizing, sampling and monitoring of toxics and other contaminants of concern in those feedstocks.” Failure by the C&D industry to take advantage of the opportunity to engage with the MassDEP on this study may result in the same negative outcome experienced in New Hampshire, a ban on combustion of C&D wood.

There is no lack of support for a favorable outcome:
•    Since Massachusetts bans disposal of wood in landfills, rational policy demands that there be other viable outlets for C&D wood.
•    Recently available facility annual reports filed with the MassDEP show a further decline in the already minor portion of Massachusetts C&D wood that is used for energy production—out of approximately 900,000 tons of C&D accepted at Massachusetts processing facilities in 2008 well below 50,000 tons was shipped to biomass plants for energy recovery as compared to 140,000 tons in 2007.
•    This relatively minor quantity was shipped to Maine or Canada, which drives up costs and fuel consumption.
•    The natural conclusion to be drawn from these statistics is that most of the wood is either being landfilled or combusted in conventional waste-to-energy plants.
•    According to the life cycle analysis of C&D wood by Dr. Jenna Jambeck, then with the University of New Hampshire, landfilling of C&D wood has a much larger environmental impact than energy recovery.
•    Energy recovery from C&D wood avoids the sustainable harvesting and carbon neutrality issues inherent in virgin wood fuel.
•    Despite the State of New Hampshire’s ban on the use of C&D wood as fuel, other states and agencies have taken the opposite stance.
○    In May 2006, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Management (including Connecticut, Maine, Mas-sachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont) concluded that “a review of the data shows that the use of appropriately processed C&D wood is similar in emissions profile to that of virgin wood.”
○    In March 2007, the Maine Blue Ribbon Commission on Solid Waste Management issued a final recommendation to allow the use of 100% (increased from a limit of 50%) C&D wood as a substitute for conventional fuel in boilers.

It is very easy for a governmental entity to proclaim itself green by requiring recycling of C&D materials, as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has done. But until the state stops simply exporting its problems and supports domestic end markets for these materials, including
the use of C&D wood as fuel product, it should hesitate before declaring victory.

About the Author
Thomas Mackie practices renewable energy and facility siting law at the Boston firm of Mackie Shea O’Brien, P.C. He can be reached at (617) 266-5700; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .