Permission Granted

As many new construction projects nationwide involve green building practices, such as the use of recycled materials, and an increasing number of states and local governments approve construction and demolition recycling legislation, the need for additional C&D facilities and material recycling facilities has increased.

Despite the rise in demand for these facilities, recycling companies and demolition companies attempting to receive approvals for a new C&D facility, a new material recycling facility, or an expansion of an existing facility are faced with a permit process that can be costly and take anywhere from two years to more than a decade.

The length of the permit process typically depends on the type of facility being proposed, the location of the facility, and the ability of the company to address NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) concerns of neighboring communities, and the concerns of various politicians and department representatives charged with approving the facility.

However, every permit process is different and presents unique hurdles for an applicant.

According to William Turley, executive director of the Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA), obtaining a permit for a new mixed C&D recycling facility poses the greatest difficulty, as the applicant must acquire a solid waste permit.

In order to receive that permit, the applicant must make it through an environmental review process, which includes public hearings, and often the hiring of consultants and lawyers.

"It’s difficult and expensive...and you’re not sure you’ll get one (permit)," Turley says, adding that in his home state of Illinois he has seen recyclers spend up to $500,000 in fees and consultant/lawyer expenses prior to obtaining a solid waste permit.

Environmental review can prove costly for an applicant, and public hearings can also make the process time consuming and frustrating.

Typically residents’ concerns surrounding a proposed facility’s proximity to residential development (NIMBY-ism), and its impact on traffic, noise and dust are all raised during public hearings, Turley says.

This portion of the environmental review process also enables community groups, environmental organizations and competing businesses and special interests to oppose the new C&D facility, sometimes by making false claims.

Mike Griffin, president of North Carolina-based Griffin Brothers Cos., is well aware of the long-term political impact a citizens’ group or special interest group opposing a new C&D facility can have.

Currently Griffin technically has the permit necessary to begin construction of a new C&D facility, plans for which will also include a yard debris processing center and aggregate crushing plant. However the permit is currently being appealed.

In 2003 Griffin Brothers, which operates three C&D facilities in North Carolina and three in South Carolina, was notified by York County, S.C., that there was a need for four new C&D facilities within the county.

This prompted Griffin Brothers to locate a piece of industrially-zoned land in the city of Rock Hill, which could be used for a proposed C&D facility, yard debris processing center and aggregate crushing plant.

"It’s one of the best sites we’ve found," Griffin says, explaining that the site is close to ongoing construction and would have very little residential impact.

Following public hearings and work with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) and Rock Hill staff, Griffin Brothers submitted its permit application in August 2005.

The permit process required a tremendous amount of due diligence prior to applying, Griffin says.

With permit issuance on the horizon for Griffin Brothers, the firm began noticing, in the winter of 2005, that signage and fliers opposing the facility were being put up around town by a group called Concerned Citizens of Rock Hill.

The fliers eventually caught the attention of state senators and representatives, who requested that the DHEC coordinate two community hearings prior to the final DHEC public hearing.

According to Griffin, it was discovered during the two community hearings and the final hearing that the Concerned Citizens of Rock Hill was not comprised of community residents, but instead was a group created by a fellow landfill competitor.

During the DHEC public hearing, representatives from the landfill competitor opposed the facility and it was established by the DHEC that Griffin Brothers would be approved or denied the permit within 120 days following the hearing, which occurred in May 2006.

This 120-day gap gave the opposition group time to question aspects of the project, such as zoning, with the DHEC and work with certain county council members to influence the change of York County’s Solid Waste Management Plan.

Regardless of the opposition group’s questioning, the DHEC eventually determined that Griffin Brothers’ zoning was properly done and promised to issue the permit by Jan. 4, 2007, Griffin says.

However, on the day of issuance the county council went into an executive session, during its regular meeting, and passed an emergency ordinance stating there could be no new landfills permitted within York County for the next 60 days.

Griffin Brothers then sued the county for $15 million, claiming that the ordinance was not binding.

A judge became involved and ruled that the issue was a state matter, meaning only the DHEC had the right to issue the solid waste permit.

In February 2007, Griffin Brothers was awarded the permit, only to have the issuance of the permit be appealed by the county council.

Since March 2007, Griffin Brothers and the county council have been in appeals court, Griffin says, adding that by early to mid-December 2008 a final decision will be handed down. If the council’s appeal is approved Griffin Brothers can take the matter to another judicial system.

"We have enough resources that we will prevail," Griffin says.

While it can be difficult to acquire the permit necessary for a new C&D facility within any state, Turley says California, Florida and Massachusetts are known as some of the most difficult states when it comes to navigating the permitting process.

Judy Cohen, director of facility operations for Massachusetts-based Devens Recycling, can attest to that statement, as it took the company five years to acquire the land and necessary permit to construct the state’s largest C&D facility, which opened in September 2007.

"Our process was pretty fast compared to others," Cohen says.

She attributes the "fast" permitting process to the amount of advance preparation by Devens Recycling’s owner, who attended town meetings; spoke with those who expressed reservations with the proposed facility, such as environmental groups; and discussed with them what Devens Recycling was doing to mitigate traffic and noise impacts. "There was never a large public outcry," Cohen says.

However, there were environmental studies and specific building and design requirements that lengthened the permit approval process.

According to Cohen, the land that the C&D facility currently sits on was previously a military base and is owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Because Devens is a community of Massachusetts Development, buildings within the area must comply with strict landscaping and design codes, including specific types of signage, lighting and building colors.

Prior to permit issuance, studies had to be done at the site to determine that a certain type of plant that was growing there was not endangered. A botanist was called out and determined the plant was not endangered, however it took more than three months to come to that conclusion.

A five-year process to open a new C&D facility may seem long lasting for some, however Cohen adds that a C&D facility in Andover, Mass., took nearly eight years to permit.

For companies wishing to establish a new concrete recycling facility or a recycling facility that accepts certain construction debris the main hurdle standing in their way is not acquiring a solid waste permit but rather zoning issues.

"It’s a problem everywhere," says Mike Richard, vice president of Dallas-based Big City Crushed Concrete, adding zoning issues are most difficult in major cities that are undergoing redevelopment.

Currently Big City operates four concrete recycling facilities. However its Dallas facility is reaching capacity and has been selected as a redevelopment site.

Having foreseen the eventual closure of its Dallas facility, Big City began looking for a site within Dallas proper that could accommodate a new concrete crushing facility.

In two years the recycler has been unable to find a properly zoned piece of land that Dallas representatives would deem suitable for a concrete recycling facility.

Richard says concrete recycling facilities are required to be in heavy industrial zoned areas, which are becoming harder to come by because cities prefer areas be zoned for light industrial, office or residential mixed use.

"Heavy industrial is being eliminated, but the need for heavy industrial is there," Richard says.

Recently Big City applied for a location near an existing city landfill, however the city said the facility could not be on this site because that area is a "gateway to the city," according to Richard, adding this site was the company’s third or fourth choice.

"If you can’t be right near a landfill, where can we go?" he asks.

Despite Big City’s failed attempts to find a suitable piece of land, the city does recognize the need for an additional concrete crushing facility during its time of redevelopment and has agreed to work with the firm in locating a site or rezoning a piece of land.

For Pennsylvania-based Glenn O. Hawkbaker Inc., an aggregates production and highway construction firm, the rezoning of a site by Patton Township enabled the firm in June 2008 to make an agreement with State College to operate a recycling facility that will take in concrete, asphalt and whole trees.

According to Jeff Sturniolo, project manager for Hawbaker, the township changed the zoning of a now closed dump from industrial to heavy industrial in order to accommodate the new facility, which will be Hawbaker’s first such recycling plant.

Rezoning of the land was influenced by the area’s need for a construction debris recycling facility near Penn State University, which has a significant amount of construction ongoing and must build according to green building standards.

Currently the firm has submitted zoning plans and is in the process of getting the necessary permit to construct and operate the facility.

"We wanted to get it to this stage and if the need arises for a C&D facility we will go further," Sturniolo says, adding the process of locating the land, rezoning and applying for permits has taken five years.

The permitting process can be equally challenging for companies looking to expand current operations.

In November 2007, New Jersey-based Grinnell Recycling received approval to expand its existing Sparta concrete and material recovery facility so it could take in mixed C&D materials.

However the process of rezoning and acquiring a solid waste permit took nearly 12 years.

According to Jarrod Cofrancesco, co-owner and general counsel for Grinnell, obtaining approval for expansion involved a long process with the Department of Environmental Protection that included addressing air, water, noise, traffic and machinery issues.

"We did all that while still maintaining an existing business," Cofrancesco says, adding this likely extended the length of the process.

From that point it was a matter of becoming part of Sussex County’s solid waste plan, so Grinnell could operate a C&D facility.

"There’s a tremendous amount of work that goes into providing the agencies with the comfort level needed to receive approval," he says. C&DR