Travis County Commssioners Court
March 4, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 9
Number 9 is to consider recommendations and strategy to address bad odors at landfills in northeast Travis County and take appropriate action. What I have in mind here is as simple now as it was when I put the agenda item on, and that was basically for the county to become a little bit more engaged, a little bit more proactive, especially in trying to determine what's causing the bad odors, as ms. Ascott asked during her comments this morning, where they're coming from, evidence of that rather than basically comments, how best to address what's the best remedy available, what modern techniques might we use that have not been tried already, add what cost and who should do it. In my view the money that would be spent would be the salaries of the individuals who work for the county who become involved in this. One question asked last week that staff said cld come back with -- they would come back with was basically what impact it would have on the transportation and natural resources work plan. Are you the one that answered that or joe?
>> actually, I didn't know that question was asked, but I could answer it.
>> that was one of my big questions.
>> maybe we ought to hear from joe, since the work plan involves a little bit more than your area.
>> certainly.
>> okay.
>> now, there are other issues regarding landfills that will be discussed at a later time. Today the question is what, if anything, do we do about bad odors that are not going away? Even if some of the other actions are taken, the odors problem stays there, in my view, so I think we ought to know whether something additional can be done, and if so, who should do it, at what cost, etcetera. What I really have in mind is something like a more specific proposal that would be brought back to us as soon as possible. And to be honest, in my view it could take three weeks or it could take five or six, but we would expect these individuals to take the time necessary to work on it expeditiously. I had suggested county staff, representatives from the landfills, the three of them, as well as residents, but my intention too was it would be voluntary and nobody would be forced to assist. My thinking was that we would get everybody interested at the table and at some point we would have to decide if there's a recommendation that we're presented with what we would do in response to it.
>> and I think it's important information to have because wherever we have landfills this question is going to come up. And I would sure like to know way ahead of time what it takes to keep those odors out. And regardless of whatever other information we have to consider, it would be good to have this sort of information. And if we can get staff to put that together for us and the volunteers as soon as possible, then we can start making some good decisions.
>> I think before we go in that direction -- and again, I appreciate what everybody is doing. I don't want you to think that I'm not appreciative. But I think looking at the landfill, looking at the Travis County closing landfills, bfi and also wmi. Now, john, I have to ask you some questions. And the reason why I'm asking these persons are because I think we may not have to get involved, per se as far as what we're looking at here this morning. Saying this: what is the disposition of the Texas commission on environmental quality, tceq, what is their position on odors emitting from the Travis County closed landfill? Can you give me an answer to that?
>> . Their position is that there is not an odor problem associated with that closed facility. Facility.
>> okay. And the reason why I ask that question is because tceq has already taken a position that Travis County landfill is not emitting any odors, it would appear to me that the other persons that are emitting odors -- like senator gonzalo barrientos said to this court, looking at the odor problems. However, I feel that if we venture into the arena of asking those private folks to do something about the odors, I don't know that we had the authority. I do know that tceq can mandate that, and I guess from the last time we looked at a lot of things here, I like to ask at this time legal what authority that tceq has now that they did not have when we first started looking at this solid waste ordinance or solid waste issues, odors, expansion, the whole nine yards. The landfill facility, stuff thriek. What is that authority now that they have now that they didn't have before?
>> help me understand what you're asking. Authority in what?
>> authority in the event of looking at having folks to come in compliance with those things that they fell out of line with before the commission, such as odors?
>> well, of course on compliance, I think the last -- the major development in terms of tceq over the last few years pursuant to a legislative mandate, they now develop a compliance history for each permitee. And any time any permitee comes in with an application for another authorization, they factor in the compliance his trivment and if the history is not good, then there are things that tceq is required to do in terms of requiring more stringent conditions on whatever authorization they grant or I think even in some cases they can even simply deny the authorization based on a person's compliance.
>> well, does the tceq have the authority to grant such action such as studies or altogether kind of things to determine why the odor is there and to have the facilities such as bfi and wmi to correct those type of situations even with the measuring equipment that would be necessary to determine the level of odor?
>> well, obviously tceq has enforcement powers and enforcement authority. And if they can -- if they can allege and support with facts and evidence that there's a problem in a landfill, they can require that landfill to do whatever is necessary to comply with the permit. So in a real broad general sense I think that tceq, if they document that there's an odor problem in a landfill, they can taken forcement action to require the landfill to figure out what the problem is and then go fix it.
>> okay. Where will, I feel strongly that Travis County, even though we have a landfill out there that's closed, but tceq has determined that Travis County is not the odor perpetrator to the community, then I feel that the compliance end of this as far as correcting odors still rests and remains with tceq. I don't know if we need to go into a situation whereby we're not producing odors, so why should we direct those people to do what they're supposed to do and we may not have the authority to do that? Now, on the 11th I'm asking that the commissioners court place on the agenda to discuss the full cadre of these particular items, such as the negotiated contract, the whole nine yards, so we'll have a chance to discuss all of this at length. However, dealing with the odor problem right now, Travis County don't have one. And I'm also asking that the Travis County attorney staff bring back enforcement powers that Travis County may have to ensure and regulate these type of situations. Right now I have not seen that report yet, even dealing with the Texas water code and also the health and safety code that we have on the books. Now, again, I don't want to get in my position, I don't want to get into a situation where we don't have an odor problem and yet we are going over to the tceq situation whereby we're trying to mandate a situation and we don't have the odor problem. John just basically said that tceq said no, Travis County, you are not putting out odor. Now, we do have a small leachate problem out there, and I think we've discussed that as far as to address that, but as far as the odor is concerned, we are not causing a problem.
>> but commissioner, it seems to me, though, that if tceq says we don't and the neighbors say we do, then who are we going to believe? And in that particular case, I don't think it hurts us to go ahead and set out our own -- do our own homework and gather our own information and let's challenge tceq on that. And I think this way, judge, we could start gathering our own information to do something definite. I'm really tired of spinning my wheels. And we need to approach this a step at a time. And I think that's why I support the judge on this process.
>> I support him as well. And I want to go back to the judge's memo related to this particular item. And these are his words, not mine, but I support them wholeheartedly. I strongly recommend we make the maximum efforts to ascertain precisely and with certainty where odors are coming from, where they're headed, how strong they are and other facts necessary to eliminate them. I'm going to stay very focus odd what the item is for us today, finding actions, stepping and agreeing on the methodology, fiengd the best tool or equipment to measure the source and level of odors, collaborating with tceq, establishing what approaches are best, observe a demonstration of any kind of equipment that may be out there, acquire the equipment, agree how and where monitoring and sampling should occur, something that echoes what his ascott said in her testimony, determine and eliminate the odors. How to replicate other success stories if available. Implement the best scenario here. And if we get that to occur, to me then it is time to address other things that you would want to put on the agenda for next week about other pieces of our ordinances or expansion agreements or contractual arrangements. To me it is extraordinarily premature to start talking about a lot of stuff like that until we get the answers to what the judge has very thoughtfully and very carefully and method cli laid out here in terms of we need to know what's going on here. And believe me, I pay attention to all of the e-mails that I'm getting on this issue related to the odors. But it is going to be more helpful for me if we can have something that is definitive about what is going on out there as opposed to somebody says, well, to me it's a five, to somebody else it's a two and to somebody else it's something else. I need something more definitive and I think you want something that is more definitive so that we can attack what truly is the source of the problem and to be able to speak with cernt on what's going on there and get an action plan as opposed to everybody. I think you said it well, we're spinning our wheels right now and I think all of us want to get to the bottom of this. And I think the judge has laid out an excellent strategy. And once we work our way through this, then it is time to deal with all those other issues that you talked about coming back next week. I think they ought to be tabled until we get the answers to the judge's memo.
>> let me say this, and thank goodness everybody has their independent thoughts, and that's what diversity is about as far as as far as this court is concerned, however, I disagree. And the reason why I disagree is because the tceq is saying that we're not causing the odor and they are saying that, and Travis County is not the problem, then the burden should be placed on the landfills that are causing the problem. Bfi and wmii why should Travis County taxpayers have to pay for something of the burden of proof ought to be on those other folks? Now, that makes sense to me. Now, if tceq has said that Travis County, you -- y'all don't have an odor problem, well, the odor is coming from somewhere. And it's not coming from Travis County landfill. So why spend taxpayers money to do something that those private sector and bfi and wmi ought to be funding this particular mechanism. And of course, I would not like to see -- the 11 eight problem I see. We do have 11 eight, but we also have included some very aggressive pumping mechanism to pump leachate out of the our closed landfills, which actually is going to the wastewater main of the city of Austin. That's been a very expensive process of the. We used to haul it out but truck, but now we're pumping it out. We're looking at a structure to act as channels so we can actually capture runoff or capture leachate that's coming out of that landfill. I think those are things that we're investing in to take care of Travis County's end of it, but as far as Travis County going on the other side and bfi and also wmi, I think it's something they should do and I think that tceq should mandate them to do that. I can't see us spending tax mayor money on something that we're not responsible for. And I don't think that we're responsible for the odors according to what tceq is saying. So that's my position on that.
>> what evidence do we have have tceq that the county has no bad odors?
>> actually field inspections results from them.
>> when?
>> just back in January. They responded to an odor complaint and decided that since there had been some mention of the county facility as being a source. They've been on there documenting our leachate issue.
>> let's assume that that's correct and the county is not contributing to the odors out there. Does that tell us do not become more proactive in frying to help residents deal with the bad odors?
>> not necessarily. I think your posting is pretty open, recommendations and strategy is what it's posted for. And it doesn't necessarily indicate that it would be funded by the county. I think that it's possible to be very open minded in the way you approach it.
>> I think I'm going to take the attitude that we have an absolute role in make taking a leadership role in trying to find out what is going on out there. If Travis County had taken the attitude of we didn't cause this problem, we don't have to contribute to a solution, then Travis County would not have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars going after the east Austin tank farms. They took a leadership role back then, even though they had nothing to do with the contamination of that land in east Austin. It was appropriate for Travis County to step forward and say, we will get to the bottom of this and we will make it right. I think we have a role in this as well.
>> I'm not denying that, commissioner --
>> do you have an answer to the question that commissioner Sonleitner asked? Then we have residents who have come down to testify on this issue. If I could get three of you to come forward now.
>> I have --
>> we'll get back to you, but we have residents who have come and let's let them respond first. Joe, if you could answer commissioner Sonleitner's question. Let's give the residents and then the members of the court one more opportunity and then I would like to make my motion. This is not a life or death issue for me. In my view I thought I responded to what residents were asking for, but I do think I agree with commissioner Gomez werks ought to vote it occupy are down. My memo was written back in January. I think we ought to vote it if we don't want to become more proactive on the bad odors, let's move on and get that behind us and move on to something else. We have two more seats for residents who plan to give testimony today. Joe?
>> first of all, what you are asking I believe is outside the technical expertise of my staff and we would hire out the monitoring equipment, whatever it would take to find out what it is about. So I'm looking at this as a contract service for which additional funding would have to be appropriated. At that I'm looking at contract administration. I would say probably this is going to take at least a quarter to a half f.t.e. To administer a contract depending upon the intensity and duration of the testing. If it's a one time in and out, that's one thing, if it's ongoing over a period of time, that's a different scope. So a lot of it depends on the scope of the services that you contract out.
>> can I interrupt you, joe? There are two phases here. One phase is to try to figure out a plan. What you're telling us is if the plan requires that the county really gets involved, you prefer to contract out that. Are you also saying that in order for us to work with residents, landfill operators, any other citizens interested in trying to figure out whether there are best practices that we have not attempted here, what they are, whether there's equipment that we would need, trying to figure out who has it, what it takes to require it. So on one hand, there is looking to try and see whether this is something additional that ought to be done, then there's a phase that says okay, let's do it. What resources do we need? Are you saying that they're so inclined that they're one and the same?
>> they are intertwined. I think that from what I heard, you're trying to establish the source of the odors to begin with, and then to talk about best practices, having both of those require a certain level of outside expertise. We have not operated landfills in 15, 20 years. We do not have the expertise to tell you what are currently the best industry practices.
>> then the first thing you would recommend is that we try to figure out why we would get that expertise and what it would cost?
>> and I think we can do that in short order. If you come back to the court with a scope of services and estimated cost and basically a scope of a contract.
>> any more questions for joe?
>> yes, joe, in that regard -- and again, I'm going to stand firm on that Travis County is not causing the problem as far as voters are concerned. And i've heard the residents come down and testify and they have complained about bfi and also wmi more so than anybody else. And, of course, I wanted to make sure that we establish -- that we draw a line in the sand here and say look, Travis County community, residents in the area is not the odor problem. Now, I heard them -- I heard them say leachate. Leachate is a part of what our problem is, and we're addressing that, but I have not heard any residents -- and maybe i'll hear from them. If they're going to come in and say this morning that Travis County is part of the odor problem, that's one thing, but tceq is saying that we're not. So my whole question to you, joe, is that in -- as far as the funding and all the other things, the amount of money and things of that nature, it appears to me that those persons that are causing the problem ought to pay the bill. And so that's basically where I'm coming from. And we don't really know how much that will take to do the measuring and things like that. I don't disagree with that, I'm just saying that as far as who should be responsible for paying it. And, of course, those folks are part of the problem. And so that's basically what I would like to get from you is when do you think you will have some information ready for the court as far as how much it would cost the equipment to measure, the monitoring, all those things which they have to go on the property and a whole lot of other things will have to take place in that regard. So when can you have that type of information back to us.
>> I would say probably within one to two weeks we could probably come back with a pretty good estimate of who and how and how much. Secondly, and I need to ask legal this. Legal, if Travis County has the authority, even though we've been proactive, have the authority to actually enforce or either mandate monitoring equipment and all the other things for those other landfills in the private sector, do we have that authority of what we're asking you today? Because we're talking about a three-tier situation, you're talking about the county, the wmi and bfi. Do we have the authority?
>> commissioner, I think that would be a question we can answer better next week when you put that item on the agenda because right now it's going to take some discussion, let's put it that way.
>> that's what it boils down to. In other words, there are some mandates which I asked the county attorney to do, and that is to look at the authority that Travis County has -- do not have to do any of this stuff. Right now that's up in the air. Because we talk about private sector situations out there.
>> thank you.
>> before I make the motion today, joe, I want to ask you and john what Travis County can get done in-house without a consultant under phase 1. So if y'all could put your heads together on that and whatever the answer is, let me know. Would one other resident come forward and we'll work our way around. Either way 79 with me. Give us your name and we'll happy to get your comments.
>> [ inaudible ] I live in harris branch subdivision. I would like to just make a couple of statements briefly about the measuring process as I see it right now for being able to detect odors. I agree with the statements of the previous gentleman that there probably needs to be a method developed to be able to really tell what these odors are first in order to be able to detect where they're coming from. I had a recent experience with someone from tceq who came out to monitor odors in my neighborhood, and I believe it was also in January. His response was that according to his meter, he could not detect levels that were high enough according to their standards, to be able to say that there was an odor problem. However, he agreed with me that by his nose there was an unacceptable amount of odor there. However, their method or the types of odors that they're looking for, the gases that they were looking for, were not high enough to be able to detect it. So I think we really have to focus on the method in order to determine what are the odors themselves coming from, what chemicals. And then we can go find out the sources of them. I don't know in the case of commissioner Davis' example which landfill they decided that the odors were coming from. I kind of would like to see later if he might comment on that. If they're not coming from the county, which landfill did they detect that it was coming from.
>> let me say this to you on your comments, on your questions. And that is that I do know that you can operate a landfill without odors. I think Texas disposal system has demonstrated that perfectly. They have an active landfill where they've taken different things such as these here and yet they don't produce odors. So there is a way to do it. Now, of course, we've got two active landfills out there, wmi and also bfi. Travis County's is inactive. It hasn't been active in years. So it is a way to do it, technology does exist. And I don't see why we're dancing around this issue. There is a way to do it. And it's being demonstrated right now with Texas disposal system right there on 1327. We don't have no odors.
>> thank you sir.
>> I just want to say one thing, that I do also believe what was said that it is a Travis County responsibility to address these odors and I appreciate your concern. Thank you.
>> thank you. --
>> can we work our way left to right, please? And we need somebody to come and relays place that gentleman if possible. Possible. The county road has to have some role here, ms. Bets.
>> thank you, judge. My name is joyce bets. I live in northeast Austin. And I am here on behalf of my neighbors today and I want to say first of all that we do appreciate your concern about what is happening in our area of the county. And the fact that you are concerned about the odor situation and with the northeast landfills. We have a number of questions about any type of study that might be done. The first concern is that we believe that the odors are merely a symptom of deeper problems within the landfills resulting from poor practices over a number of years. My personal opinion is that these practices are -- have caused problems to the point that the odors will not be resolved so long as there is still landfilling at the sites. Another concern I have is the possibility of -- the probability of finding qualified engineers and experts who have not already done work for the two landfills, and who have some degree of impartiality in looking at the whole issue. And that is a concern that I think many of us have about who will actually do these studies and investigations. We're also concerned that if we only look at airborne emissions we may be missing a component of the whole problem. We sometimes believe that these odors and the gases that carry the odors may be transmitted by soil. Water is a question. We don't know. So there is a greater issue than just simply looking at what odors are borne through the air. And we want to make sure that a thorough investigation would take that into account. Also, we believe that monitoring of those two sites for industrial constituents as well as the municipal solid waste constituents that tceq now requests that they monitor for, that that in itself would be very helpful in determining what is actually coming from the landfill in terms of odors. I have with me today a letter from one of my neighbors who was not able to be here. He cites a number of problems, including odors, mud on the roads and those kinds of things, and then he has an important statement. I don't understand how trash, which is supposed to be covered up, can emit odors, which permeate entire neighborhoods. And this is from mr. Jamesson in my neighborhood. And that is the crux of the matter. I don't believe it is the trash that's covered up. I believe it's material that has been there for many, many years and has been causing problems and the odors are resulting from that, but only thorough investigation can determine that. And so I would urge be sure that we look at every aspect of what may be causing the odors, and that would mean studying what is happening in the neighborhoods and surrounding areas as well as simply on the landfill sites. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Ms. Edgewood. And there is a seat that ms. Bets is about to vacate that is available for another resident.
>> good morning, everybody. My name is ms. Israel and I'm a resident of walnut place neighborhood association, and believe me, we have been crying out for your attention, and I really appreciate you running this up the flag pole, so to speak, and trying to give us the attention that we've been craving. So thank you, first of all, for doing that. It seems to me that you have an opportunity to look at it from a long-term speaker architect aif as well of how well -- ultimately this landfill will no longer exist. Hopefully it is in my lifetime. But we do have to look at planning for future growth, northeast Travis County is a prime site for future growth. We have to be incorporating best practices in the future. And if it's not this particular -- I appreciate your desire to take it step by step. Let's look at the odor, but as joyce was alluding to, the owed ers was symptomatic of operational problems. We do have to ultimately come to some sort of plan for growth when it comes to dealing with our solid waste. We know that there are good operators within Travis County. We know that there are best practices either in Travis County or in this country that we ought to incorporate. Maybe this -- if not through your initial January memo, through a future initiative, we could use your help and engagement to come up with a long-term solution for everybody. And I know that that's our ultimate goal. So i'll let my other neighbors address some other specific points. I just wanted to thank you, but keep in mind the long-term needs that we have, and we're going to be standing ready to help you along those lines as well.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> judge, commissioners, I am not a resident of the area. My name is lee leppingwell. I'm a chairman of the city of Austin environmental board. Our board has heard complaints from these citizens on three occasions over the past two. Myself and several other board members have been out there to visit the site. I was out there only yesterday. There's no question that there' an odor problem there. And spraying deodorant does not solve the problem. It may cover it up, but some say the deodorant doesn't smell as good as the trash. There are many other problems with that landfill. It's just in a bad place. There's -- the soil doesn't act as a natural liner. It's too close to creeks. The leachate flows out of the sides of the landfill. The sides are not lined as you're requiring now in new land fildz. You require both the bottom and the sides to be lined. I understand that wmi has some water treatment facilities to treat the leachate, but bfi does not. And I often get these two reversed, so if that's the case, please indulge me. When I was out there yesterday just speaking of ancillary problems, there's mud all over the highway from these trucks that track in and out of the landfill to the point where even out on 290 there's a highway department sign that says, caution, mud on road. And believe me, there was plenty of mud on the road. So we have recommended to the city that they do everything in their power to not approve expansion of these landfills and make efforts to close it down as soon as possible. I respectfully request that you do the same. I believe that tceq will not approve -- probably not approve an expansion permit vertically or laterally if you disapprove it. So I ask you to do this and help restore a normal quality of life for these people. Thank you.
>> thank you. Yes, sir.
>> judge disbis co-, commissioners, my name is neal car man. I'm the program director of the sierra club in Texas and I was invited here by citizens from the northeast county neighborhoods and i've been working with them for about a year on the problems with the landfills. In particular, when I hear the word odors, since I have over 20 something years' experience, I worked with the state environmental agency and I work with local and county governments inspecting various kinds of operations, including landfills. And one of the things i'd like to point out is that there are many counties and city gorment r. Governments across the state that do enforce the state's nuisance odor regulation, 1010.4. In fact, in 1997 I testified to the legislature that the counties of harris, el paso, dallas, galveston and many more counties and city governments issue nuisance violations on an annual basis. And that's why in 1997 harris county officials testified that they wanted this nuisance regulation in place because they issue violations, the city of houston and many other governmental entities across the state. So I'm emphasizing that Travis County can use that authority which is in the state law because it's commonly used across the state, and this has been the case for over 25 years. This is nothing new. When I hear the word odors with respect to landfills, it's a scientific fact that many of these odors are known human cancer-causing agents, suspected human car sin generals, developmental toxins, reproductive toxins and neuro toxins. One of the best known gases is hydrogen sulfide. In the last 10 years there's medical research that document that it's a known neuro toxic agent, even at very low levels. So we come to the question, why does the agency go out and they do a certain amount of monitoring for hydrogen sulfide gas. It's commonly called to the ton egg gas because it smells like rotten eggs. And many studies have documented that the decomposition of the landfill material produces hydrogen sulfide gas. The state standard is a 30-minute upwind, downwind property line standard of 80 parts per billion. I would point out to you that in 1992 the agency itself actually approached its board to reduce that standard, which from 80 down to 10 parts per billion, which is kind of like comparing a speed limit of 80 miles per hour down to 10. And that proposal was made by the agency toxicologists, but that proposal was defeated because there was heavy lobbying by industry groups who didn't want to see a stricter standard. So when I hear the word odor, we're really talking about toxic chemicals, principally from one dpeg deg to another. And it's not adequate for the agency to go out with a hand-held h 2 s monitor because they're not as accurate as taking a 30-minute sample and then going back and seeing what the levels are. There should really be tipious monitoring out there -- continuous monitoring out there because 10 years ago there was a scientific paper published here in Texas by researchers at Texas tech that identified a variation in hydrogen sulfide levels. In other words, they found about two to three times as much h 2 s gas at ground level at night as they did in the daytime because the pollutant, the h 2 s tends to pool at ground level under cooler temperature conditions. And so this was documented and I think you probably will find the same phenomenon in terms of the h 2 s that is emitted from the landfills. But without continuous monitoring, it's really difficult to determine what the concentrations are all the time. I know that the state has done a certain amount of monitoring out there, but it's not continuous monitoring. And with the size of these landfills and the volume of the material in there, the potential for h 2 s or odor problems is in my opinion very, very high. However, the agency, the tceq, in recent years seems to be reluctant to issue violations for odor nuisance unless they can show exceedance of this standard, even though that standard is really not the best. Five years ago I petitioned the u.s. Environmental protection agency on behalf of about 140 organizations in the u.s. In the interest of public health for the e.p.a. To designate hydrogen sulfide gas as a hazardous air pollutant under the clean air act, under title three. It was supposed to be have been in that part of the clean air amendments in 1990, but under great industry pressure, that was one of a few chemicals that are not listed as a hazardous air pollutant. But nonetheless, there's many health studies that indicate it's a very dangerous chemical, even at low levels. And for the tceq to avoid issuing nuisance violations because the levels that they see out there are below this 80 part per billion gresh hold, I think it's really -- it's inappropriate, because after all, the standards are not based on -- not based on, for example, protecting pregnant women or children or sensitive individuals or persons who might have some type of debilitating illness in which exposure to a neuro toxin might adversely impact their illness. So I think there are some very significant issues, but because the tceq is a permitting agency as well as an enforcement agency, sometimes the enforcement end of the stick comes up short because the agency is more in my opinion interested in issuing these permits. This is a well-known issue. It was a problem that I encountered as a state investigator many times finding problems with the permits that came out of own only having to go out and enforce and issue violations and get some type of a consent decree or to sue a facility because they weren't complying with their permit conditions. I definitely agree that your position that more monitoring needs to be done I think to identify which of the landfills, if it's not all of them that are emitting these gases, that really needs to be better identified. I would point out last summer I reviewed some of the agency monitoring data that the neighborhood groups supplied to me, and there were times when the h 2 s levels were above the 80 part per billion standard trigger threshold that the agency would use to issue a violation. I'm not sure if those were for more than 30 minutes at a time, but, you know, I think this is kind of nitpicking because there's no doubt that there are some very harmful gases that are being emitted from the landfills. And this isn't to get -- also into the leachate problem. It's well-known that all the landfills in the united states leak, whether they have liners or not, at some point they're going to leak because those liners are mostly polly vinyl chloride. It's plastic. And the plastic eventually decays. And one of the concerns about the leachate of course is mercury. And I know in over two hundred landfills in Texas they've identified some type of groundwater problems with mercury. And mercury is another neuro toxin at extremely low levels that you don't want in the water supply. So I understand that you're dealing with some very agonizing problems. More monitoring I think is important, but also I would urge that the county does have enforcement powers that it has so far shied away from using. And those powers should be exercised. I think this would also send a message to tceq. Certainly the agency cop rates with local city and county governments across the state in enforcement efforts, although ultimately whatever fines tend to get issued are determined by the the tceq, the executive director and commissioners. Is that's kind of one of the catch 22's. I would also point out that there isn't any single monitoring device that could be used out there to identify all of the chemicals. H 2 s is a sulphur compound, so that takes a special kind of analyzer. But the organics, like vinyl chloride, benzene and many others, take a different kind of instrument package to go out there and monitor. I've just been communicating with citizens in new mexico about a 90,000-dollar state-of-the-art -- it's a laser system that you can put along the fence line of a plant and it will read the pollutant levels of levels of like your organic chemicals, like benzene, the chlorinated organics. The vinyl chloride. And you can tell basically how much of this stuff is in the air, the concentrations, and do is on a continuous basis. So the technology is available and it's going to be used to pinpoint the problem. Because it's not going to go away. But anyway, I'm here to basically support the concerns of the northeast neighborhoods and those residents. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> well, that's why the environmental protection agency, under its subtitle d regulations a number of years ago, require all of active landfills to put in gas collection systems. So obviously if there was odor problems, there's gases that are escaping from the landfills, they generate huge volumes of gas because after all, you have a -- a system that's cooking at around 135 degrees. In the ground. Pretty much year round. So the gases are being generated 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. That's why an adequate gas collection system is needed and yet one of the dilemmas is once these landfills begin to leak on the sides and down below, these gases can travel. They can escape out of the landfill at a quarter of a mile, half a mile. I heard from people here in Texas who had fires from the methane gas seepage underground. Even a mile away from the landfills. And reported, you know, high methane levels. So methane, of course, is very explosive. And that is a -- a different kind of concern, but I think it's still a legitimate concern because if the landfills are leaking, then these gases, you know, if you are smelling it, there's a good chance there's also some methane gas, there. But gas collection systems are mandatory and so I haven't really looked at this situation out there. But my suspicion is that the gas collection systems are not adequate. They are not doing the job. But these are very large, you know, gas generating systems.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much. We have two seats for other residents who want to give testimony today. Ms. Macafee.
>> I have to say I feel a little bit like we are having a benzene moment and we are back to square 1, which I find a little frustrating. Also, I -- I also feel, I think, a -- a little insulted as we talk about stink. As neil just said, I think there's lots more than that. I have been reading about chemicals and health this week and would like to share my findings. There are more than 65,000 chemicals in u.s. Commerce today. About a thousand chemicals are being developed each year. Only about 200 are regulated and measured in studies.
>> municipal solid waste land fill contamination. There is growing evidence that there are over 100 diseases and conditions of our time in which chemical exposures either do or may well play a contributing role. If you remember, scientists -- furthermore scientists have begun to establish that low levels of these chemicals in our bodies, once thought to be safe, can have significant health effects. John peterson myers, senior advisor to the united nations foundation says, a scientific research has focused on mechanisms of message disruption. It has implicated a -- a wide array of chemicals. Some of the most troubling discoveries about new actors is that they involve compounds in wide-spread use in consumer products. Another important issue is the powerful interactions that can occur within mixtures of chemicals. Which is exactly the landfill situation. There are shifts happening in our ideas about all of these illnesses such as breast cancers, parkinson's, non-hodge contends limp foam I can't -- non-hodgkins lymphoma and many, many others. Lower dose does not always produce less effect. During development of organisms there are windows of vulnerability. In the real world chemicals are not isolated and often mixed together. Multiple chemicals can induce similar effects, the same chemical can cause different effects depending upon when exposure occurs. There may be long lags between exposure and effects. For example, a research scientist at the university of florida did a study of kids in the yaquis valley of new mexico. They embraced the use of herbicides, pesticides, in the foot hills there were the traditional agricultural method. This group shunned pesticide. She examined the two groups of children to uncover hidden impacts she asked the children to perform a series of play activities. She found the pesticide exposed kids less proficient at catching a ball, reflective of poor eye-hand coordination. They had lower stamina levels measured by jumping contests when. Asked to recall a gift of a balloon and its color many could not remember the gift and very few remembered the color. The children who had grown up without exposure to agricultural chemicals always remembered the gifts and usually its color. Most striking were the drawings of people. Two years later, the studies continued, the children continued to lag behind. Breast cancer, does our communities have more? Breast milk is a marker of community health. Perhaps that's the test, which we should be looking into. Mean while this odor, this pollution, is becoming personal. Perhaps we should be talking about the precautionary principle. This principle says that evidence of harm rather than proof of harm should be the trigger for action. Haven't we known for a long time that incinerators, toxic waste dumps and chemical plants all across america are making people sick? Do we really need tests to tell us that? I have a daughter who has asthma. No family history. Another daughter who has bells palsy. A weird nerve condition that makes one side of your face droop. They don't know why. No family history. My kids played in walnut creek in the '80's. My best friends daughter farther died of mylo malaysia. Benzene exposure is a mobile reason people get this. Our cousin developed hodgkin's lymphoma, he worked for b.f.i. This is just my small inner circle. As I have gotten to know the neighbors, I hear about other stories. What is happening? Do the odors affect our memories or sense of smell? How do we test for that? Is there a teachable moment here? After reading about all of the tests possible detect ground water pollution and the severity of the odors, I have learned that it is unbelievably complicated. I have a copy of environmental testing that gets into the nitty-gritty of it all. It's produced by the folks who exposed love canal. If you would like a copy, I will get it to you. This represents our viewpoints and points out hundreds of loop holes that industry can hide behind. If testing is done fairly, I support it. I think the bottom line is really the war against ourselves, we make trash, lots of it, it does have to go somewhere. The question is not if the landfill leaks but when. Are these old landfills leaking? I believe that is really the testing that needs to be done. Who should design the test? Industry is not the answer. The solution for our time is to create buffers. Big ones that can protect surrounding communities. As we learn how to slowly move toward zero waste, and rethink our throw away society, landfills are a necessary evil. The ordinance is desperately needed. Expansion is needed to be treated like new landfills. Industry needs to take more responsibility for the situation. It is necessary that the landfill be cited with the adequate landfill owner owned land buffer of at least one mile about the outer regions of the landfill. The landfill buffer would be used to dilute the adverse impacts of the landfill. We have paid the price long enough. Who will be, what will be the price of the loss of our health? There is time now for landfill sites to be found. And if you pass the ordinance soon and encourage our entire capco region to do the same, then the next landfill will not be the nightmare it has become for northeast Austin. With the stakes so high, what will you do?
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Mr. Macafey.
>> I will cut mine short. Good morning, commissioners, judge. I want to read a very short -- because most of what I was going to cover has already been said here. This is from a study conducted in california by g. Fred lee. Dfert from har vart -- doctorate from harvard, I have something to hand out to you guys and girls. The -- I will read you one paragraph, the rcra set forth a minimum post closure ... However, 30 years is an ll and insignificant part of the time that msw, municipal solid waste landfills in subtitle d dry [inaudible] landfills will be a threat to the public health, grounds water resources. The subtitle d landfilling approach and requirements aadopted by the e.p.a. Are superficial and only serve as a stopgap measure. They enable today's society tonight joy sold waste disposal with without the responsibility and expense of preventing them from Austin causing future problem. This is being enjoyed at the expense of future generations, public health, ground water resources and [inaudible] without the implementation of more ground water quality and he resource protection provisions associated with municipal solid waste management, future generations will look back on this generation as being exceedingly selfish in its zeal to have the least expensive solid waste management at the expense of properly managing these wastes so that they are not a threat to the future generation zest health, economic and social welfare. I didn't prints up the entire study, but I can certainly get this to you all in its entirety. This was about 8 years ago we conducted this. They estimated to run a landfill properly would cost, they had -- by properly, it was a very different system than what we are doing right now. Totally. And they estimated that it would be 10 to 15 cents per person per day extra to not pass this nightmare on to future generations. So I think that -- in addition to the -- that's the end of that part. But I would like to say that I think there's going to be a -- a -- it's going to be very hard to get a good, unbiased test done. Most of the testing agents, testing companies, their biggest customers are these guys. So -- so I urge you to find someone who is totally impartial. Who has a record of going up against them rather than doing work for them. And absolutely, let's get to the bottom of it, not just the odors, find out where the leachate, I don't believe you all's leachate problem -- I think certainly there's still leachate being formed on your landfill, but I think from our studies the leachate flow, it flows straight towards you from the waste management landfill. And I believe that part of your problem is coming from them. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> ms. English?
>> good morning. Judge Biscoe and commissioners. A landfill is not like a compost pile where the purpose is to bury trash and in such a way that it will decompose quickly. The purpose of a landfill is to bury the trash in such a way that it will be isolated from ground water, kept dry and will not be in contact with air. Under these conditions, trash will then decompose very slowly. So now we have a problem because that is not what happened here. What happened here is we have a soup because of what has been permitted to bypass normal land filling methods. I will request one thing for you. If you do anything for us, you will ask your lobbyist to tell the legislature -- I will repeat that because I need your attention on this point. I would like the county to get their lobbyist to ask the legislature to ban alternative [inaudible] cover and recirculating of leachate. I think this is a key point as to what's been happening in the state of Texas, in other places. These create a soupy condition where the garbage decomposes much faster that you can cope with. You cannot extract methane out of water and therefore if their garbage is full of liquids, you cannot extract the methane fast enough. They have gone from 500 parts per -- what is it? Minute or whatever it is. To 2500. Actually it's cfs. Which is cubic feet per second or something like that. So they have tried to -- to go and extract as much as they can. But I don't think that they are actually extracting enough gas out of it to make a difference. And I think the gas is migrating and escaping. My second request to you is let's turn off the misters. First of all, we don't like what they are putting in it, second of all I would really like to know if the odors are gone. You can put all of the suntan lotion you won't, you won't burn, but the sun is still there. It doesn't mean there is no danger. No odor does not equate to no danger. We are still exposed to the gases. So I would think that leaving the misters off so we can tell there's still odors would make our agency and our local officials more responsive to the situation. And third, I would like to mention that I still think they need to make some of their record available as to where the waste extreme is coming from. I know -- waste stream is coming from. I know all of you know that [inaudible] in new york has been closed. Barged to new england and trucked out to parts of the south and central portion of the united. Who is taking that landfill, that waste in their landfills? Many states have actually started banning out of state waste. And if they are doing that, then who is taking in all of this waste? And I'm thinking that if you get waste that goes on a barge and trucked all the way here, that by itself would increase substantially in this area. -- increase the stench in this area. So I think that you need to look at a lot of factors here that have changed in the last year and have caused or the last two or three years perhaps, but that are resulting in what's happening today. And I would repeat what mark said is that I -- I have a hard time believing that we can find somebody that would be totally impartial that could actually do the study for us and I'm certainly -- I certainly am not going to have the agency do it. But -- but someone that would be so impartial that -- I'm not saying that you would be biased. Someone totally impartial that doesn't have any type of problem with saying the truth, which we found to be almost impossible in the last 10 years to find people that -- that were professionals that could get completely detached from these landfills.
>> trek? I heard mark mention that also to find someone impartial. I feel the same way as far as that's concerned. We would like to conduct the test, how long would it take, things of that nature. As you know, this solid waste ordinance has been on the agenda several times. We need to get the solid waste ordinance pass bid this particular court. I think it would govern a whole lot of thing, as far as the operating agreement, contracts or situations with those particular landfills, of course, I'm -- I'm still going to -- I still don't agree with it, I'm not going to support it. But I think we need to look at this, but I do not want this to carry on until we end up not doing anything and we run into the budget cycle, all of the other kind of things, then again nothing is still done, the community continues to suffer as far as [inaudible] the odors and everything else. I'm trying to bring this to closure as quickly as possible, if there needs to be a study done, how would it be done, how long would it take? Next week, next week on the 11th will there will be an item on the agenda where the county attorney can come back with enforcement powers that we may have that we can utilize. I don't know what all of those things are, I won't know until next week. If we have enforcement powers, I would like to look at that very closely to ensure that there may be things that we can do under those enforcement powers. Until then I don't really know what that is. I just want to let you know that we are still in the hunt. We are still in the hunt and I appreciate you coming down and everyone else coming down and making the comments that you made this morning.
>> thank you.
>> did you get a chance to finish, ms. English.
>> yes. Basically I would like to have more detail about what is going to be put together here after you vote, I guess.
>> okay. Did you and john get a chance to get together on the -- what the county may be able to do short of hiring an outside consultant?
>> we did, judge. There's very little, I think, that staff can do short of helping to prepare a proposal that is a very complex area and technology and [inaudible] complex. I have a lot of trust in my staff and confidence in their ability. But they will have to come up on a learning curve and I think that will take so much time and dedication, I think we would be far better off just going ahead and hiring the expertise. The other issue here is at some point they are going to be talking benefit -- talking about enforcement, [inaudible] outside expertise when that comes. You will want outside expertise when that comes.
>> that's way down the road isn't it? Seems to me there are two issues much one is what more can we do to contain gases now escaping from landfills. Two is what more can we do to really eliminate or dramatically reduce the odors. Now, you were saying we need -- just in order to put together a strategy that has specifics, we teed to get outside help.
>> yes, sir.
>> how many phone calls would it take to determine whether that help is available locally and about what it will cost?
>> I think in two weeks, I think there's some people here in town that we -- that we can make those phone calls to. I think there is expertise in this area. And -- in Austin. I think we can get you those answers fairly quickly.
>> what about the impartiality, though, that's very important. Someone what does not have any die-in with the landfill -- tie-in with the landfill industry itself and can give us an unbiased opinion. That's what I am really concerned about and what the residents have been stating. There are folks that exist that do that. And I think we need to look in that direction if winter going to -- if we are going to look for experts outside of Travis County as far as consulting is concerned.
>> I think -- I think impartiality is -- is an important issue.
>> it is, very important.
>> but I think what's more important, to get the impartiality, is that Travis County be the contractor for the service. Irregardless of who pays for it. I think there's an impartial technical expertise that you can purchase in the market. I think it's important who the client is. And in that regard I would recommend that Travis County be the client.
>> next week, joe, if the Travis County attorneys' office, staff, comes back with a report that we have bona fide enforcement powers dealing with -- with Texas -- Texas water co, not only that, but the -- but the health and safety code, Texas water code, under those type of situations there may be enforcement powers that we may possess, I won't know that until next Tuesday, court will actually review that next Tuesday, now, how would that come into play in the county has those type of powers to -- to actually invoke those powers if deemed necessary? How will that come into play with what we are looking at?
>> you will absolutely need the data to support enforcement action. You will need unbiased professional expertise to do any enforcement whatsoever.
>> what will you need to get answers to -- to the questions in two weeks? Do we need to put together a formal r.f.p. Or any directions from the court to -- to just go ahead and -- and do the best that can you to make that determination?
>> I think that we have a pretty good idea. My goal here would be to give you at least two levels of service on -- on monitoring and some type of finding from that research.
>> my motion then is to authorize staff specifically joe's office, to do the necessary follow-up action and help us determine whether we can retain a -- an appropriate consultant top determine whether we can better contain the gases escaping from the northeast Travis County landfills, whether we can do more to add gaseous odors, who should be part of the working group, the approximate cost, the service level, they mentioned moptoring and any other steps -- monitoring and any other steps consistent with our discussion today and during previous voting sessions of the commissioners court. What we have in mind basically is they will bring back to us a plan with costs so we will know exactly what it is that we are getting into.
>> second.
>> thank you.
>> if it takes joe two weeks to do that we will have it back on the agenda and the items that commissioner Davis mentioned, including the legal advice would be on next week, that means that we will have both answers before joe comes back. All right. Seconded by comeaz.
>> I would like to -- seconded by commissioner Gomez.
>> the only thing that I would like to make sure, those two levels that you mentioned, of course again I would like to -- to reiterate what the quhiewn the community has asked, very critical, impartiality.
>> it matters to all of us.
>> yes.
>> if it's not objective, it won't be valuable to us.
>> exactly.
>> we want to be able to rely on whatever the product is.
>> this is one of the purchasers, we are going to want to have --
>> with that, I would like to also know if we end up having to find somebody, how long will this process take? Because as I stated earlier, those folks out there have suffered long enough. Enough is enough. Dealing with this particular landfill issue. How long will this process take? Because it was going to drag out for six or seven or eight months down the road, in my opinion that's not [inaudible] I think we need to look at some time lines on this process. What that time lines are, I do not know. But I do know that we need to get an ordinance in place here as quickly as possible. Without an operating agreement. So those are my comments on it.
>> the sooner we get going, the sooner we can get started.
>> I guess I'm fine with going along with this. But I'm missing something. I mean there's a source of odors. It is several thousand tons of garbage that's put at a south korean location in this community. -- at a certain location in this community. There's nobody. The industry people are not questioning as to whether or not that stinks. I mean, you can have one pound of garbage in your garbage can in your house and in three days are willing to yell calf rope. We are talking about several thousand dollars tons of garbage, we know that. The issue is can odors be eliminated? Notwithstanding that there are other major obligations that a community has with regard to ground water and all of the other things. I mean, we understand that. And that is certainly something that we need to tackle as well. To me, it's a very simple deal. Can the industry stop the odors? There will be a -- a point in time when I will say, time out, i've had enough, I don't think that you all can stop the odors. Therefore, I will work diligently on not issuing any more permitting, lateral, vertical, whatever you want to call it, that will be my stance. But I don't understand why we have to get in and do an extensive study but I mean maybe there is something that I don't know so I'm not going to go up against the motion and the recommendation of what we are doing. But to me it is a very simple deal here. We are trying to stop odors, if we can't stop the odors, I think that we have an obligation as an elected body to do everything that we can to -- to minimize and to at least slow down whatever life span these -- these landfills have. So I'm -- I guess that I'm -- [ applause ] I'm willing to wait and see. If this process is going to do something. But I can see where people -- I don't think it's just a -- residents. I think industry is kind of like I mean say what? But there is a time that -- and I haven't exactly honed in it, yes, I do think there's a major issue on getting people that have -- that are totally unbiased. But I have spoken with several people and I do think that there are even industry people that are willing to say, "we will help fund, because hey, we want to participate in that as well." I do not think that industry just said "we don't care, you all live with it, we are going to stuff it down your throats." I don't get that impression. Now, I don't also have the impression that they are convinced that they can stop it. If they can't stop it, then I'm going to go the other way and say, then, we have got to stop the industry from going any further. Whatever you have permit-wise on the ground or whatever, I don't know that I can do anything about that. But I certainly can get on the band wagon to stop it and to say we are not going any further. So I'm -- I mean, I'm frustrated that we have got to continue to go into this. But I mean maybe there's something that I don't understand and why I respect your thought process on this and I guess that I will deal with that. But I mean it's going to take a lot of somethings to get me to change my opinion what I have -- about what I have just states understand the last -- stated in the last three minutes. I think it's very obvious to people in this room in the community that I want it taken care of. I'm willing to let them take care of it if they can. If they can't, then I'm willing to call that shot and say, you know, we can't go any further. So --
>> commissioner, it can be done. It can be done. I know that's still -- Texas disposal systems doesn't have any odors out there. How is it, they are an active landfill such as b.f.i., Wmi, they don't have odors.
>> commissioner let me say that, I don't think it's -- that the other landfill doesn't have odors.
>> I --
>> the other landfill does have odors. I mean, because they also have several hundred thousand tons of garbage. It's not like somebody has it, somebody doesn't. If that was the case you would go out and do this. There are issues in the middle of 700 acres, out there away from an awful lot of folks and there are some issues that do not translate. That one out there is not the same as the one out here.
>> no.
>> so it's not just -- I mean, I think there probably is a great operator out there. I think that, you know, you have got some other giant people in the industry that could be just as good of operators. We may have a situation here given where this -- these two are versus where the other one is that that is the issue. I'm not willing to say, hey, the group up northeast can't -- they can't do something that somebody else can. I do think that the other one has some issues as well. We just don't have the issues that we have northeast. Now, that being said, northeast has a major problem that we need to take care of. I would fight just as much if somebody came on the southeast side and said, I have these issues. I don't want them to deal with it any more than I want the northeast people to deal with it.
>> remember, they are all east of i-35.
>> pardon me?
>> and they are all east of i-35.
>> yes.
>> why should we accept that?
>> they definitely are.
>> I call the question, judge.
>> all in favor of the motion? Show commissioners -- I will support this.
>> that passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much. We will see you all in two weeks, joe, john.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM