NOTE: The discussion about facilities that process construction and demolition debris was so filled with misinformation I ended up doing research into the legal, scientific, legislative backgrounds, as well as becoming a subscribing member of C&D Recycler, the industry trade magazine. The material below is only partial to what I accumulated. At this point, I feel I know a bit about the Pandora's Box staff almost let loose on the Village.
Okay, Mark. Cite your sources...
Citations, case law, some references and links:
A lot of this zoning case law , as summaries written in plainer english can be found on the Illinois Municipal League website.
If you really want to get to the meat of zoning lawsuits, here is an index of 2,154 Illinois Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions on lawsuits involving every aspect of zoning law, and it's interpretation.
Our supreme court has developed a list of factors to be considered in determining the validity of a municipal ordinance:
-
The existing uses and zoning of nearby property;
-
the extent to which property values are diminished by the zoning restrictions;
-
the extent to which the destruction of property values promotes the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public;
-
the relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed on the plaintiff;
-
the suitability of the property for the zoned purposes;
-
the length of the time the property has remained vacant as zoned (La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook, 12 Ill. 2d 40 (1957));
-
the community need for the proposed use; and
-
the care with which the community has undertaken its development plan. Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Village of Richton Park, 19 Ill. 2d 370, 378 (1960); Racich, 254 Ill. App. 3d at 314.
Although no one factor is determinative, a primary concern is whether the property in question is zoned in conformity with surrounding uses and whether those uses are uniform and established. La Grange State Bank v. County of Cook, 75 Ill. 2d 301, 309 (1979). The validity of the ordinance in question will be determined in light of the circumstances of the individual situation. Lambrecht v. County of Will, 217 Ill. App. 3d 591, 594 (1991).
The 8 criteria show rationale, subsequently agreed to by two Illinois Appellate Courts.
A municipal regulation is constitutional, on its face, if it is rationally based. City of Carbondale v. Brewster, 78 Ill. 2d 111, 115 (1979).
If the regulation bears a rational relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare and is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the requirements of due process are met. City of Wheaton v. Sandberg, 215 Ill. App. 3d 220, 227 (1991).
The state has legitimately occupied the field with state legislation on this matter, the Supreme Court, in Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624, 93 S. Ct. 1854, 36 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1973), declared that state and local laws that interfere with comprehensive federal environmental laws and regulations are invalid. Like wise, local laws that interfere with comprehensive state environmental laws
and regulations are invalid. Here’s some folks who had their local government make similar mistakes and are now fighting for their future in Pawtucket, R.I.:http://pawtucketri.blogspot.com/2006/09/pads-meeting-926.html
This case looks at all levels of tests for zoning ordinances, explains them, and provides supporting citations for their validity.
No. 2--06--0390 Filed: 6-16-07 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT, NAPLETON v.VILLAGE OF HINSDALE
Plaintiff purports to state a facial challenge to the validity of the amendments, rather than a challenge to the validity of the amendments as applied to her property. An as-applied challenge represents a plaintiff's objection to how a particular ordinance was applied in the specific context in which the plaintiff found himself, while a facial challenge represents the plaintiff's claim that a specific ordinance cannot be constitutionally applied in any context. Lamar Whiteco Outdoor Corp. v. City of West Chicago, 355 Ill. App. 3d 352, 365 (2005). The distinction is important because the plaintiff's specific context, or the facts specifically applicable to the plaintiff's property, are relevant only in an as-applied challenge. Lamar Whiteco, 355 Ill. App. 3d at 365. Thus, if the plaintiff prevails in an as-applied challenge, he may enjoin the enforcement, against him alone, of the objectionable ordinance. Lamar Whiteco, 355 Ill. App. 3d at 365. By contrast, in order to pursue a successful facial challenge, the plaintiff must establish that the ordinance is invalid under any set of facts. People v. Garvin, 219 Ill. 2d 104, 117 (2006). The fact that the ordinance might operate invalidly under some circumstances and validly under others is insufficient to establish facial invalidity. Hill v. Cowan, 202 Ill. 2d 151, 157 (2002). If the plaintiff succeeds in the facial challenge, then the ordinance will be invalidated in its entirety and in all applications. Lamar Whiteco, 355 Ill. App. 3d at 365.
The test of an ordinance's constitutionality depends upon the nature of the right that is alleged to be infringed. In re D.W., 214 Ill. 2d 289, 310 (2005). There are three tiers of constitutional scrutiny. If an ordinance burdens a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification, it will be subject to strict scrutiny. People v. Botruff, 212 Ill. 2d 166, 176 (2004). The fundamental rights recognized for purposes of substantive due process and equal protection concerns are limited to "those that lie at the heart of the relationship between the individual and a republican form of nationally integrated government." People ex rel. Tucker v. Kotsos, 68 Ill. 2d 88, 97 (1977). Fundamental rights include the expression of ideas (i.e., speech), participation in the political process, interstate travel, and intimate personal privacy interests. Kotsos, 68 Ill. 2d at 97. Under strict scrutiny review, the challenged regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, otherwise it will be held invalid. Village of Lake Villa v. Stokovich, 211 Ill. 2d 106, 122 (2004). Intermediate scrutiny applies to an ordinance that is based on a gender or illegitimacy classification (In re Detention of Samuelson, 189 Ill. 2d 548, 561-62 (2000)) or that causes certain incidental burdens to speech (Desnick v. Department of Professional Regulation, 171 Ill. 2d 510, 521 (1996)). Under intermediate scrutiny review, the regulation must be substantially related to an important governmental interest. See Department of Public Aid ex rel. Cox v. Miller, 146 Ill. 2d 399, 408 (1992), quoting Pickett v. Brown, 462 U.S. 1, 8, 76 L. Ed. 2d 372, 379, 103 S. Ct. 2199, 2204 (1983) (classification based on illegitimacy is unconstitutional unless it bears a substantial relation to particular governmental interest). In all other instances, the court will review the ordinance under highly deferential rational basis scrutiny. Botruff, 212 Ill. 2d at 176-77. Under the rational basis test, the challenged regulation will be upheld if it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose and is not arbitrary or unreasonable. Stokovich, 211 Ill. 2d at 122.
We now address in turn plaintiff's specific contentions on appeal. Initially, plaintiff's arguments are directed at determining the proper level of scrutiny to apply to a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a zoning provision. As we have noted, this misstates the issue and the manner in which the issue should be resolved. The issue is not what scrutiny is universally applicable to a facial challenge but, rather, what right is violated and what level of scrutiny pertains to the right that is violated. As we have already explained our thinking in regard to this issue, we will not further address plaintiff's arguments that seek to establish that the nature of the challenge dictates the level
of scrutiny.
Next, plaintiff notes that, generally, most plaintiffs who challenge zoning ordinances do so by first attempting to secure a zoning change, being rejected by the local zoning authority, and then attempting to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional as applied to them. Plaintiff notes that she did not follow this general course, but that defendant amended its zoning ordinance and "foisted" it upon her "without valid justification." Plaintiff contends that, because of this, she deserves to have her challenge reviewed under the purported greater protection of the heightened scrutiny of the substantial relationship test. Plaintiff fails to cite any authority in support of her argument. Accordingly, we deem it forfeited. 210 Ill. 2d R. 341(h)(7).
This is a case of a developer who had zoning change before they decided to build, and about burden of proof:
It is the municipal body's prerogative to regulate the use of land within its borders, and a trial court should not gainsay such regulations unless they are arbitrary or unrelated to public health, safety, and morals. La Salle, 12 Ill. 2d at 46, 145 N.E.2d at 68. To ensure that it does not invade that legislative prerogative, the trial court should require the plaintiff to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the zoning restrictions "bear no real and substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, comfort[,] and general welfare." La Salle, 12 Ill. 2d at 46, 145 N.E.2d at 69.
This appellate court opinion supported the municipality and affirmed a lower courts decision that expenses already incurred don’t form the basis for a legal challenge.
Industrial National Mortgage Co. v. City of Chicago, 95 Ill. App. 3d 666, 670-71 (1981).
There is no bright-line test for determining whether a party's expenditures have been made in good-faith reliance on the probability that a zoning certificate or a building permit will issue. It has been stated that " '[a] probability that approval is forthcoming exists when the property at issue is zoned to permit the use requested by the landowner.' " 1350 Lake Shore Associates v. Mazur-Berg, 339 Ill. App. 3d 618, 632 (2003), quoting Bank of Waukegan v. Village of Vernon Hills, 254 Ill. App. 3d 24, 31 (1993); see also People ex rel. Shell Oil Co. v. Town of Cicero, 11 Ill. App. 3d 900, 904 (1973). "[E]xpenses incurred at a time when the current zoning permits the intended use and when the property owner has no knowledge that an amendment to the ordinance is being considered are incurred in good-faith reliance on the issuance of a zoning certificate and a building permit and, if substantial, create a vested right." 1350 Lake Shore Associates, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 632; see Illinois Mason Contractors, Inc. v. City of Wheaton, 19 Ill. 2d 462 (1960); O'Connell Home Builders, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 99 Ill. App. 3d 1054 (1981); Mattson v. City of Chicago, 89 Ill. App. 3d 378 (1980). "It has been held, however, that expenses which a property owner incurs with knowledge that an amendatory ordinance, pursuant to which the intended use would not be permitted, is pending, are not incurred in good-faith reliance on the probability that a zoning certificate or a building permit will issue." 1350 Lake Shore Associates, 339 Ill. App. 3d at 632-33; see VonBokel v. City of Breese, 100 Ill. App. 3d 956 (1981).
A misting system for dust suppression creates the potential for groundwater contamination.
CCA seen as crucial issue - C&D News - chromated copper arsenate Recycling Today, March, 2003
Wood treated with chromated copper arsenate (CCA) will present potential recycled wood products contamination, a regulator from the State of Florida told attendees of the C&D World conference in Fort Lauderdale.
Laws are being passed in several states confining scrapped CCA-treated wood to lined landfills, noted William Hinkley of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Hinkley, chief of the DEP's Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste, cited Florida, Virginia and New York as having identified CCA-treated wood as a potential hazard due to the presence of arsenic and hexavalent chromium.
CCA-treated wood is most often used in outdoor applications such as decking, fences and exterior stairways, said Hinkley, who added that most C&D recyclers who process wood currently try to hand separate CCA-treated wood before it is shredded or otherwise processed.
When treated wood enters a recycled wood product such as landscaping mulch, it can boost the presence of arsenic and hexavalent chromium well above levels identified as unsafe by the U.S. EPA. Hinkley related one anecdote of two homeowners in Key Largo, Fla., who contracted arsenic poisoning allegedly from a load of contaminated mulch.
CCA-treated wood became popular in the late 1970s because of its ability to repel insect infestations. One study conducted for Florida estimates that more than 30,000 tons of arsenic has entered the Sunshine State in the form of treated wood since the 1970s. "Recyclers are seeing it now because it is being retired as building stock," Hinkley noted.
The good news is that CCA is being phased out in favor of less toxic copper-based treatments. But recyclers will continue to face the challenge of identifying and sorting the material out when it enters their facilities.
CCA-treated wood is also bringing scrutiny to C&D recyclers because of its ability to cause ground water contamination problems.
Drywall causes H2S production and odor, and raises environmental concerns.
Moving Forward
|
By Timothy G. Townsend |
|
Gypsum drywall is a major component of modern buildings, yet it is often one of the least likely components of debris from building construction, demolition or renovation to be recycled.
Gypsum drywall typically makes up 5 percent to 25 percent of the weight of debris from building-related C&D activities. A typical rule of thumb for drywall generation from construction activities is one pound of drywall per cubic foot of construction.
The amount of post-consumer drywall generated in Florida C&D debris in 2000 was estimated at nearly 500,000 tons. Most of this was disposed in unlined landfills. Recovery and recycling is always desired in place of land-filling when feasible, but several environmental factors (odor, groundwater contamination) create added incentive for recycling drywall.
While several gypsum drywall recycling operations exist in North America at the current time, in many areas (Florida for example) drywall recycling is relatively nonexistent. This paper describes some of the issues facing the C&D debris industry and summarizes the current state of gypsum drywall recycling in North America.
DRYWALL BASICS
Gypsum drywall, often referred to as gypsum wallboard or sheet rock, replaced gypsum plaster as the major interior wall surface because of its ease of installation and its fire resistant properties.
Gypsum drywall consists of approximately 90 percent gypsum and 10 percent paper facing and backing. Gypsum is a mineral composed of calcium sulfate (CaSO4) and water (H2O). Drywall comes in many different types and sizes to meet specific construction needs. Several specialty products are manufactured including moisture resistant drywall (greenboard) and Type X drywall. Type X drywall contains small glass fibers designed to increase the board’s ability to withstand high temperatures from fires for a longer period of time.
Drywall enters the waste stream in several different locations, including the manufacturing facility, construction sites, renovation activities, building demolitions and manufactured housing plants. At the construction site, drywall is sometimes mixed in with the rest of the debris. In other cases, the drywall subcontractors are required to manage the debris themselves. Most drywall from construction is produced during a very short period of time, a positive trait from a separation and recovery standpoint. Because of its friable nature, gypsum wallboard is very difficult to recover from mixed debris resulting from standard demolition practices. It is certainly possible (and sometimes practiced) to first strip a structure of drywall (and other building materials) prior to the demolition of structural components. Drywall is in many cases the largest component of the waste stream at a manufactured housing plant; several drywall recycling companies have developed in the vicinity of these facilities.
AT THE LANDFILL
When gypsum drywall is disposed in landfills, a series of biological and chemical reactions can occur that have the potential for adverse environmental impacts. When drywall in a landfill gets wet, some of the sulfate from the gypsum dissolves into the water. If this "leachate" reaches the groundwater, contamination with sulfate may result. Granted, sulfate is not a risk on the same magnitude as chemicals such as lead or arsenic, but high sulfate concentrations do impart negative qualities to the water.
The U.S. federal secondary drinking water standard for sulfate is 250 mg/L. Concentrations above this level have been observed in the groundwater at unlined C&D debris landfills. The sulfate also contributes to the high total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations observed in groundwater at many C&D debris landfills.
Another issue results form the biological conversion of dissolved sulfate to hydrogen sulfide (H2S). H2S is a foul-smelling gas (often compared to rotten eggs). It is produced under wet, anaerobic conditions, such as those that often occur in landfills.
The presence of organic matter such as yard trash or cardboard is needed for the microorganisms to thrive, but even the paper on the drywall itself provides enough organic matter for the biological reactions to occur. H2S has been observed over a tremendously large concentration range at C&D debris landfills.
The human nose can detect H2S at relatively low concentrations (<0.1 part per million or ppm). H2S concentrations have commonly been measured in this range in the air above and surrounding C&D debris landfills, thus odor complaints are a common problem. Concentrations in pockets within the landfill have been measured at lethal levels (>250 ppm).
Usually by the time the gas reaches the atmosphere, it is diluted to below most currently accepted safety concentrations. Landfill operators should exercise extreme caution, however, any time undiluted C&D debris landfill gases might come in contact with a worker (e.g. excavation activities, confined spaces).
The odor problem alone has been enough to result in strict actions being required on the part of some landfill operators. Some C&D debris landfill operators have been required to install gas collection and recovery systems, and others have resorted to placing odor masking agents around their sites. In the Vancouver area, gypsum drywall was banned from disposal in landfills as a result of odor problems.
It is also worth noting for C&D debris recycling facility operators that the presences of gypsum drywall particles in the fines screened from C&D debris could on occasion also result in H2S production. Several operators have reported that odors are present when deep piles of C&D debris fines are disturbed. Care should be taken to reuse fines only in areas where they are not prone to getting wet in the future.
RECYCLING MARKETS
Several different markets have been proposed for recycling gypsum drywall. The primary markets that are reviewed here are the ones most commonly practiced in North America: in the manufacture on new drywall, as an ingredient in Portland cement manufacture, as a soil amendment and in compost.
The most established recycling operations are in the Northwestern U.S. and Southwestern Canada, and these rely on the new drywall manufacturing market. Other recycling operations are scattered across the country, with many of these relying on land application and compost addition as the major end uses. It is important to note that most recycling activities have focused on scrap drywall from new construction activities. It is certainly feasible to recycle drywall from demolition projects, but several quality and environment factors must be considered.
New Drywall Manufacture. Scrap drywall can be recycled back into the manufacture of new drywall. This is currently practiced by many wallboard manufacturers with their own post-manufacturer scrap. While a small amount of paper is tolerable, the majority must be removed. Typical recycled amounts range 10 percent to 20 percent. Recycling of post consumer gypsum wallboard into new drywall manufacture is currently being practiced in several areas of North America. Of note is the New West Gypsum company in the Northwest U.S. and Southwest Canada. In some areas, new drywall is manufactured with synthetic gypsum, a waste product of air pollution control technology at coal-fired power plants. This, along with the recycling of post-manufacturer scrap, could limit the ability (or desire) of some plants to recycle post-consumer scrap drywall.
Portland Cement Manufacture. Gypsum is an ingredient in the manufacture of portland cement, added to control the setting time of the concrete. Gypsum is added to the cement clinker from the kiln and is processed to a fine powder. Typical gypsum contents in portland cement range from 5 percent to 10 percent. Mined gypsum rock is typically used by the cement kilns, and the different physical form of processed drywall may necessitate adjustment of the plants material feeding system. The purity of gypsum in the wallboard is a major concern. Paper should be removed, and care should be taken during the collection of the wallboard to minimize the amount of impurities, such as soil, that are introduced.
Application to Soil. Gypsum is a common soil amendment, and has historically been applied for several different purposes. Gypsum provides a source of calcium and sulfur for plants; it is commonly applied to peanut crops in the Southeast U.S. as a source of calcium at rates of 600 to 800 pounds per acre. Many vegetables, including potatoes and corn, have been shown to benefit from gypsum application. Unlike lime, gypsum does raise the pH of soils, and it is thus preferred for crops that require calcium, but where the soils are already alkaline (and cannot accommodate pH adjustment). Gypsum has also been found to be useful for reclaiming very salty soils. The calcium in the gypsum substitutes for the sodium in the soils, allowing the sodium to leach away. Gypsum has the ability to flocculate clayey soils that have drainage problems. The processing requirements for gypsum drywall that is applied to soil may differ somewhat from the industrial processes cited above. While foreign materials, such as nails and corner beads, should be removed, agricultural uses can tolerate some ground paper in the mixture. The presence of trace components (such as lead from lead-based paint) might be of greater concern when land applied (relative to the industrial uses) because of the potential for human contact and soil or groundwater contamination. The method of gypsum application will control the size of the material and the degree of processing needed. With some application techniques, larger pieces of drywall may cause damage to plants as thrown from the spreader at high velocities. If the drywall is being tilled into the soil, large sizes may be permissible, as size reduction will also occur during the application process, and plant damage from application is not a concern. While some recyclers have marketed bagged gypsum products for soil and plant application, the largest uses are the bulk applications by farmers.
Use in Compost. Scrap gypsum drywall is currently added to composting systems in a number of locations. Many of these systems are located at waste processing sites that already have compost operations in progress. While the paper fraction of the drywall can certainly biodegrade as part of the compost, it is important to note that the gypsum itself will not biodegrade to any major extent and will instead be incorporated into the final compost product. The results is a calcium- and sulfur-rich compost, which may have a benefit for some crops (as described above). Gypsum also offers the potential to bind up odors associated with ammonia. On the other hand, if the composting system is not kept aerobic, anaerobic microorganisms can result in the production of hydrogen sulfide, a foul smelling gas. The application of gypsum wall board to mechanically agitated compost systems (e.g. a windrow turner) tends to work better than static systems (e.g. a forced air static pile) because the mixing and breakup of the gypsum that occurs.
PROCESSING SYSTEMS
Several processing methods have been utilized for preparing gypsum drywall for recycling. The two major objectives of processing are separation of gypsum from the paper and the size reduction of the gypsum.
A big issue associated with drywall processing is dust. This is addressed by containing (placing in doors) as much of the processing system as possible or by providing water in the form of a mist to minimize emissions. Drywall processing systems will in many cases require an air permit (appropriate regulatory authorities should be contacted). Several vendors market self-contained drywall processing equipment.
Many of these operators use some type of grinder followed by a screening system. A dust collection system is typically included. Standard size-reduction devices found at many waste processing sites (e.g. tub grinders, horizontal mills) can be used to process drywall. Dust issues may need to be addressed, and screening will normally be necessary. Trommel screens are frequently used screening devices, and, in fact, trommel screens have been used as stand-alone operations where drywall is both separated from the paper and size reduced.
A preliminary size-reduction step, such as using a loader or compactor to provide rough size reduction, is useful for increasing efficiency. A recent development is the use of small grinders directly at the construction site. The idea is to apply size-reduced gypsum directly at the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
As with the recycling of most construction materials, environmental and human safety issues must be addressed. Questions have been raised concerning the glass fibers found in Type X drywall.
Wisconsin researchers have reported that Type X drywall was not harmful to soil organisms (earthworms). Concerns have also been raised about the possible impact of the glass fibers on the human respiratory system. The size of the fibers might be too large to have an impact; however, this issue is currently being investigated further. When dealing with drywall from demolition projects, several other issues must be explored. The presence of lead-based paint could limit the recycling of wallboard, especially for soil application purposes.
Asbestos was used by relatively few wall board manufacturers in the past, but may be encountered in the joint compound associated with the wallboard installation. Mercury was used as a fungicide by some wallboard manufacturers in the past and may be encountered. While these health and environmental issues do certainly require added attention, with proper care, testing and removal procedures, much of the drywall removed from demolition projects should be able to be recycled.
The author is an associate professor of environmental engineering sciences at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Fla. He can be reached at ttown@ufl.edu.
We’re opening a can of worms
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/news.asp?ID=5260&SubCatID=19&CatID=7
http://www.cdrecycler.com/news/news.asp?ID=1217&SubCatID=106&CatID=12
http://www.cdrecycler.com/news/news.asp?ID=1247&SubCatID=106&CatID=12
http://www.cdrecycler.com/news/news.asp?ID=1333&SubCatID=106&CatID=12
Many of our seniors have reduced or impaired lung capacilty, and are susceptible to even the mildest irritations.
Particulate Matter |
April 2000
NATURE AND SOURCES OF THE POLLUTANT Particulate matter is the generic term used for a type of air pollution that consists of complex and varying mixtures of particles suspended in the air we breathe. Particles are present everywhere, but high concentrations and/or specific types of particles have been found to present a serious danger to human health. Particulate matter is a combination of fine solids such as dirt, soil dust, pollens, molds, ashes, and soot; and aerosols that are formed in the atmosphere from gaseous combustion by-products such as volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Particulate pollution comes from such diverse sources as factory and utility smokestacks, vehicle exhaust, wood burning, mining, construction activity, and agriculture. Particles of special concern to the protection of lung health are those known as fine particles, less than 2.5 microns in diameter. (For comparison, a human hair is about 75 microns in diameter.) Fine particles are easily inhaled deeply into the lungs where they can be absorbed into the bloodstream or remain embedded for long periods of time. A recent study showed a 17% increase in mortality risk in areas with higher concentrations of small particles. Particulate matter air pollution is especially harmful to people with lung disease such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Exposure to particulate air pollution can trigger asthma attacks and cause wheezing, coughing, and respiratory irritation in individuals with sensitive airways. Recent research has also linked exposure to relatively low concentrations of particulate matter with premature death. Those at greatest risk are the elderly and those with pre-existing respiratory or heart disease. NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS The Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the six major air pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. Localities where air pollution levels exceed the NAAQS are required to develop plans to reduce emissions. The current federal standard for particulate matter (PM10) is 150 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) of air averaged over 24 hours and 50 ug/m3 averaged over a one-year period. In July 1997, the EPA set a new stricter standard that will regulate fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for the first time: 65 ug/m3 measured over a 24-hour period and 15 ug/m3 averaged over a year. This new standard will be phased in over the next decade. For more information about the EPA's air quality standards, visit the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/cleanair.ht |
So Mark, what is this construction debris thing really about? Loopholes? Senior citizens? Laws? Make up your mind.
This issue has covered a lot of ground, and it still might end up with the same mess residents were staring at in January; a complete and utter disruption of their lives, with changes to make them miserable, to infringe upon their health, safety, and welfare, and for no good reason. I'm following the issue and doing my best to make sure it stays out in the open. I've tried to document this every step of the way so anyone can backtrack and find the same information, and see if they reach a different conclusion based on facts, law, precedent, and reality. The lack of transparancy on this issue is remarkable. It's disappointing in light of council's pledge to bring transparancy to process, and especially in light of how well the staff and council have done on almost every other issue before them so far. Why is that?
Why is this so important to you?
We are a society of laws, and existing state laws are there for a reason, and a village should take a long hard look before messing with that. Our village didn't take that long hard look. They made some assumptions that don't hold up under examination. When that's been pointed out to them, there's been no attempt to look further into it. It was treated as a closed case in April, and that was wrong. There was a wrong interpretation and application of local ordinance, and no attempt to look further. There's been repeated wrong assertions made in council meetings and in the press with no backing materials to support them. With the moratorium, maybe now they will pause long enough to give a long hard look at it, and get it right.
So have you looked further into it?
Yes, I have. A lot further than the village, or so it seems.
Mark, I take exception to your statement that wet drywall can cause H2S and that rotten egg odor. Clearly, it has to be in a landfill with organic garbage, and has to be sealed airtight for this to happen.
While I appreciate the comment, that is not a question. As Timothy G. Townsend, associate professor of environmental engineering sciences at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Fla. writes in Construction and Demolition Recyling Today, in a comprehensive May 2005 article about drywall recycling: "even the paper on the drywall itself provides enough organic matter for the biological reactions to occur." and "It is also worth noting for C&D debris recycling facility operators that the presences of gypsum drywall particles in the fines screened from C&D debris could on occasion also result in H2S production. Several operators have reported that odors are present when deep piles of C&D debris fines are disturbed."
Adding to the problem, with the indoor facilities is that the drywall gets sorted and stored in piles until there's enough to take a load to a processing facility. In the meantime, it can sit there for up to six months since it's clessified as non putrescible material.
Is that thing back?
Yes. There was a petition filed yesterday, 7/10/07, before council enacted a moratorium on new recycling collection facilities. I filled out a FOIA and will find out details within 7 days. Usually Village Clerk April Holden is pretty fast on that stuff, so I'll probably get it soon. It's too bad the village keeps calling that the wrong thing. It's a facility for construction and demolition debris, NOT a recycling collection facility. <<sigh>> never learn. Village should be using state supplied definitions; it's a higher authority, and it's accurate.
Hey, Mark, I read in the paper about this; are all those exemptions you're beefing about a new concept to prevent lawsuits?
NO. The threat of a lawsuit you read about in the paper does not exist in reality. At least, it has not been made public, and there is no reason to think one currently exists. Of course, the village gets sued all the time. They just settled with the Butterfield Homeowners Association of Lombard. Don't know the details, though; it was all in executuve session.
And now, like all good businessmen, since you said the "s" word, we're done on that topic here, now.
Exactly what is the debris recycling thing that's causing so much fuss?
Wall coverings
Plaster
-
Drywall
-
Plumbing fixtures
-
Non-asbestos insulation
-
Roofing shingles and other roof coverings
-
Reclaimed asphalt pavement
-
Glass
-
Plastics that do not conceal waste
-
Electrical wiring and components that do not contain hazardous substances
-
Piping
From the IEPA site:
What is construction and demolition debris?
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is nonhazardous, uncontaminated material resulting from construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition of utilities, structures, and roads. These materials include the following:
-
Bricks, concrete, and other masonry materials
-
Soil
-
Rock
-
Wood, including nonhazardous painted, treated, and coated wood and wood products
-
-
Metal materials incidental to any of the materials above
This is a brand new construction and debris sorting line manufactured by Lubo USA 
It's big, expensive, noisy, and generates so much dust a misting system is mandatory.
Workers wear respirators.
These are brand new collection bins that store putrecible and non putrecible materials. The bin in the foreground is a big one that gets winched up onto an 18 wheeler semi.
A facility for construction and demolition debris (C&D facility) sorts the different materials. Non-recyclables are supposed to be gone within 48 hours. Non-putrecible recyclable materials (they don't putrify and rot) can be stored on-site for up to six months. Materials that DO putrify and rot can be stored on-site up to 45 days.
What do other towns around us do?
The short answer is, they follow state law, and don't mess
-
Lisle simply prohibits anything like it. See their Muni Code here, and the pertinent section starts with "B. Prohibited uses." No waste salvage period.
-
Lombard does not list a CC&DD Facility as a Permitted or Conditional use in their "I" Industrial Zone; see thier list here and go down to page 68. They actually built in language that allows them to simply say no, on page 242, item 35.
-
Glen Ellyn does not have this this type of facility listed as a permitted or special use in any class C Commercial zoning ordinances.
-
Westmont does allow "Transfer of recyclable materials as approved by the village board" as a special use that has to go through a separate public hearing process. See Article VIII, Sec 8.03 (B) (30).
-
Woodridge is all over prohibiting odors, noise, air borne dust, decayable waste: allowable uses only, and they are spelled out and can be found here in Title 9, Chapters 7, 8, and 9 of their code.
-
Bolingbrook is part of the Will County Prairie View Landfill consortium and ships its CC&DD waste down to the Joliet Arsenal landfill site, which has a CC&DD Transfer Station as part of the landfill facility.
-
Darien defines recyclables, and it has nothing to do with C&D sorting and collection:
RECYCLABLES: Recyclable materials include, but are not limited to, aluminum cans, plastic milk and water jugs, newspapers, glass bottles and containers. The City may, from time to time, designate other household refuse items as recyclable materials based upon market conditions and available recycling technology. (Ord. 0-37-90, 6-18-1990)