Travis County Commssioners Court
March 18, 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 29
29, receive, discuss, take appropriate action on staff report regarding hiring of consultants and consultant services to address gas emissions and odors in northeast Travis County landfills. There's john.
>> good afternoon, john kuhl environmental officer, Travis County. Hopefully, y'all have had the chance to look over the backup that was provided for you about the middle of last week. I guess as is typical with -- with a lot of the stuff that we do around here, particularly in the area of technical studies, we are forced to -- to generate backup and get things out to you all and then continue to keep refining that, which is what I have been doing. I have -- as I have told you all before, this is a very, very technical area of expertise and one that I am not super familiar with. So it's taken me some time and i've had to deal a -- to do a lot of chatting with various experts. I think what i'll start with is letting you know who I have talked to, what in general has been said before we go through some of the proposals that I have gotten and have provided you with. First of all, I guess the consulting community in the Austin area has been very helpful. And i've talked to some old friends and some new friends and so forth from that arena. And there are folks in town that do odor work. I've found that in general, most of their expertise is related to -- to in most cases wastewater treatment plants and in some cases confined animal feeding operations, but there are some who do have distinct and actually distinguished qualifications in landfill areas. Some of those folks have worked with b.f.i. And waste management or allied waste and waste management. In varying agrees. Not -- in some cases in insignificant ways, in other cases, in a lot of ways. I've also spoken with -- with the u.s. E.p.a., The environmental protection agency, and i've had probably some of the more interesting discussions with that group. There's a group in the research triangle park area of north carolina that is -- they are sort of research and -- their sort of research and development arm for many issues and landfill gas is one that they have a considerable amount of expertise on there. The individuals that I have spoken to there are susan thornlow and her boss and i, bruce harris, have been playing phone tag, too. It just happens that that particular branch of the e.p.a. Has been looking at this question of using the types of methodology that these particular landfills use, which basically is considered to be kind of a bio reactor level of technology. That means that you are putting the waste in these cells, you are adding water to it to sort of fuel the decomposition of the material, of the waste, and, you know, in the industry that seems to be the big movement and the way that things are moving right now. Because it does a couple of things that are advantageous to most operations. First of all, it hastens decomposition which allows for increased and more rapid compaction and it also enhances gas production. Gas production can be a good thing if it's managed well. And the reason that I say that is because it can -- it can be used for degeneration of power and other useful things. It's also, as we know, dangerous. And if it's not managed properly, it's not a good thing. So -- so this particular office, again of the e.p.a. Who is really keyed in on research and development and new -- as they should be -- new areas of technology and regulation, finds these operations and this particular dilemma intriguing. They actually expressed interest in perhaps even willingness in -- in conducting work here themselves along with the contractor, perhaps, because they want to gather more data on these operations and figure out if -- if the environmental impacts, be they both beneficial or negative, are being adequately addressed in the body of regulation that applies to these landfills. From the federal and then down to the state level. They use different technologies to get at the same answers that a lot of the local firms do. But anyway, we can just kind of run through real quick what general -- I'm already in the process of reevaluating and reworking this draft that I have given to you all. But much of it holds true. I think my recommendation right now is that there is a -- there is a first phase that we would go through that's -- that's fairly low ticket where -- where we actually visit these facilities, pick up the data, the relevant data on -- on areas used -- permit applications, odor complaints, compliance actions, obtain and review their design documents and operation records, and figure out which -- you know, which emission sources are relevant here. Are they just broad based fugitive emissions coming out of the landfill itself or are they point emissions that are coming from the actual gas extraction equipment or whatnot. And then once we have sort of gotten to that level of research, I'm proposing that an expert do this, okay, not myself. So that they can understand exactly where these potential problems are and then design the actual monitor and scope of work that would go with that. So that would actually be a preparatory scope document step that I think would be most appropriate. Then you would move into the monitoring and you could consider at that point whether or not it's appropriate to team with other agencies. I will add that I -- that I just this morning actually over lunch discussed this prospect of the e.p.a. Becoming involved with at least barry [inaudible] at the state agency. He is at this stage he can't speak of course for the whole agency, but he's not opposed to having them involved. In fact he was very supportive of that.
>> joe, what level of volume is he -- in other words I know that he can't speak for the rest of tceq, what level of involvement can he play in what you are requesting?
>> what I think would have to happen here, if -- if for example the environmental protection agency was involved would be-- there would be an interagency agreement that they would have to come to. Of course there is -- there is funding required for that. It's not a freebie. So they would have to figure out where that funding was going to come from and we would all figure out how that would be administered. But you don't have a figure as to how much it would cost right now?
>> in my backup I threw out 80 to $100,000 for a total services approach. I've had pretty good feedback, it's probably in the ballpark. That would give you more or less probably in terms of fuel work and monitoring, perhaps two to four weeks of actual monitoring work out there on the site. That could be divided into different time periods to take into account seasonality and other things like that. Now, who would pay for all of this. To me I think your strongest -- the line of reasons here is where are the odors coming from. I think we are all in agreement it's not from us. I would recommend to the court that you you give me the authority, you or joe gieselman or yourself to ask some questions of the operators out there. They have come forward to us in the past and say that they are not opposed to that at this stage. It's going to depend a lot on what the scope of work is, the results, what the intended results are, it's another little negotiation, we are familiar with those, we can do that.
>> if they pay, then -- then what will be in that study so that we will accept the results of the study and if they pay for it, are we going to say that it's -- that they got tweaked somehow? So when we get the study, we accept it.
>> first of all, let me be clear and remind the court that when we were here two weeks ago, we stated that we would administer the funding. In other words, they would apply funds to some sort of a -- of a trust, blind trust or what have you, you know, a mechanism where we have control over what the scope of work is, who the contractors are, and that we are comfortable with that. That's the way you try to achieve objectivity in this process.
>> and make sure whoever does the study will also use scientific results?
>> most certainly. I mean, that's why I'm -- to be honest with you, I'm a little bit enthusiastic about the involvement of the e.p.a. Because they are in a cutting edge research and development position. That is fairly unique. There could be -- I think there is actually a roll for, as I mentioned -- a role for, as I mentioned this first phase where there's some scoping that is done, I think that we could use a local contractor to facilitate that, make sure that -- it may be that these sites are so large and so complicated or something that that particular team of elite researchers would not be interested in -- in -- wouldn't fit their methodology. We would have to establish that by making an investment along those lines. Someone would.
>> let me tell what you I'm expecting to get. Something that will show the scientific manner in which to measure these odors. And if -- if -- I would think that the information that you come up with, in this study, can also be applied to other landfills in this area or in another area. Who is to say that what is creating the odors at these lapped fills is not going to -- landfills is not going to create odors at the other ones or others in Travis County. So I would want to have -- to have a study that I could fall back on to -- to figure out what's going to happen in the future.
>> ordinarily household trash, is it possible that's not what causes those gases, is it possible that the waste stream from other areas is what's causing those odors? And can those kinds of things be found out with the study?
>> yes.
>> I want it to be, though, so good that we will accept that study. And get moving on trying to find some solutions to this problem.
>> right, right. So far I haven't picked up on anything that is not in agreement with that kind of approach. I mean, from -- from the operators to certainly the affected community and from what I'm hearing, even the state elected officials. I mean, there's a lot of focus on this right now. And we certainly wouldn't be involved in something that was less than thorough and purely scientific. That's why your humble public servant is coming before you and telling you I'm not qualified to do it.
>> that's why this humble public servant is saying that we need to come up with some real good data so that we can stop spinning our wheels.
>> I agree.
>> and get about finding some solutions. It's 15 months since i've heard about this issue. We don't seem to be making any head way.
>> are you finished commissioner?
>> john, with the scope of services and the possibility of [inaudible] maybe wanting to become a part of this, so long with whomever you are looking at, at this points for an objective point of view, to map [inaudible] Austin landfills, these 80 to $100,000 range, is that I guess as far as looking at the scope and service, scope of work, stuff like that, is that basically related to these particular draft recommendations that you have?
>> yes, commissioner. It was related to -- I basically went through those -- that series of numbers one through 11 or whatever, assigned all dollar amounts to those. Let me back up by saying there were a few items in there that I had already sort of decided that were probably not going to be essential and I had -- I had kind of down played in my mind the need for those. And in particular those are probably number 7 through --
>> 7 through 9.
>> 7 through 9. Because I came, in my mind, I came to the conclusion, it was confirmed by some other experts that if you are going to go ahead and do the on the ground gas concentration sampling, perhaps even odor level analysis in addition to the gas concentration stuff, you don't need to pick up the soil and run an emissions model. So -- so I mean I think what I need to do is get back with you guys with a revised scope. I mooep, I literally was -- I mean I lit readily was still having conference calls this morning with e.p.a. And so forth trying to hammer this stuff out. It's not a simple cut and dried thing to do.
>> the second points, john, is that -- as I stated before, I don't feel that the Travis County landfill is the problem. However, I feel that the taxpayers should -- should get some type of relief. So therefore their willingness to of the adjacent landfills to the Travis County landfill, are they willing to foot this bill between 80 to $100,000 or if not all of it, have there been conversations made with them in this regard.
>> i've had informal conversations with them as long ago as a make to six weeks -- a month to six weeks, they indicate add favorable answer to your question. I would have to let them speak to that, whether it's today, tomorrow, whenever. It's their decision to make. They may not be ready to make that as I said until they see exactly what the objectives are, what the methodology is exactly going to be.
>> okay. Next question I guess, tom this is directed to you, in order -- [inaudible] -- something that we are requesting as far as trying to determine the source of odors, things like that, then coming to recommenddy, the source of the odors out of that area, what type of vehicle must be in place as far as the county is concerned to ensure that that actually is the case if they decide to pay for this by funding to -- the b.f.i. And wmi?
>> well, I suppose they could just write us a check and say do whatever you want to with it. I don't expect that would be what they would be willing to do. Frankly in the county's best interests, I think if an outside source were to agree to fund it, you would want some sort of contract that sets out everybody's expectations about exactly what's going to be happening, you know, how the money is spent, who the contractor is, what the protocols for the testing are.
>> and if we will accept the study after its done.
>> who owns the information from the study when it's all done.
>> right.
>> perhaps all of the lapped fills in Travis County would be interested in -- in being part of the study.
>> I guess this is just really in my opinion, in my view, it's about 50% of the picture, the total picture. I know this is the basic complaints coming from the residents is the high degree, level of odor. However, that he is still another 50% of the picture that still need to be put on the table. And that's basically looking at the water because now we are talking about two different things here. And of course I think water is probably a part of it. So in my mind I think we still need to at some time look at the point of -- one of the hydrologists, john what would your take be on that.
>> > hydrology is an issue that I have always, particularly as it relates to our site and boundary to waste management and the -- the industrial waste unit has always been an issue of concern for me. You know, I think that I have even said this to the court as a whole that this is an area that I had put as a next phase to get to once we got the leachate under control. Now, I say that because it's obviously it's a funding issue, it's a -- it's a -- it's a units of importance issue. I think that -- that it's something that -- that needs to be done. The question is should it be done in concert with this. I think it's very important to establish number one is ground water migration occurring. Number two, is that happening, if it is happening, is there any contaminant risk in order to protect ourselves in the future? That's -- I guess that's in a nutshell my position.
>> would it be I guess possible, going back to your draft recommendations, would it be possible as far as the length of time when you could probably have this back with the revised cleanup work on the drafted recommendations? I guess also along with the persons that are involved, the other landfill operators, that's involved to see what this -- what they are looking at as far as this draft is concerned, as far as them paying it. Of course the scope of work may be something that -- that they need to see and stuff like that, see if they want to fund it. Now I don't know. But you do -- you did state that you are going -- that you were going to have to modify this draft to some degree.
>> yes, sir.
>> I guess my question is how long will it take you to modify it, accordingly, so that we can get moving.
>> you know, I can be back next week with a modified version. Let me just say two things.
>> okay, go ahead.
>> I think that I would recommend that you keep this ground water aspect separate.
>> it will be.
>> I think that -- I think that it -- it probably should be funded by us. Purely.
>> I am not disagreeing on that. I'm saying as far as the participation on the looking for a -- for the source of the odors coming from the two landfill -- landfill sites and the -- the role that we tried to see who will play in this as far as what you have presented to us today.
>> right.
>> I think that our site should be in an odor study, one of those sites that is evaluated.
>> so we are included there in that observation that set of analysis. As far as the ground water stuff, I think that it's advisable, I think it should be done. I just think that it's a separate line of funding and study.
>> I wasn't trying to mix it up. I'm glad that you separated the two. Because I wasn't trying to pile it on to what we have here today. It's just a point of information as far as the other 50% of the picture.
>> one other thing that you asked about was time table. And, you know, when -- I know everyone is frustrated. I am too. Everyone that I have talked to, the agency, everybody. The agencies are -- one thing that is still to come out is the resolution of some of the -- of the enforcement actions that the tnrcc now known as tceq has taken against these facilities and I guess by way of analogy, I'm aware of some situations in the panhandle where there have been similar violations for nuisance odor that have required, for example, boundary testing for -- for emissions and odors. And, you know, I don't have privy to what this agreed order from tceq is going to say in it. But by way of analogy, I think that I could predict that that's a possibility. That the agency may require this work of those facilities or this level of technology to be installed at these facilities. So -- so I think that it's advisable, before we lay out any -- any commitments to dollars, that we wait for that -- for that -- barry caldell has told me that we were supposed to have this agreed order as early as last week or this week. I know for a fact that it's left the legal desk, is at the executive director's desk at this points. So I can't tell you with certainty whether they are going to require that of these facilities or exactly when that's going to come out. But I don't think we should get ahead of that.
>> john, if indeed that happens, let me just go to the next step then. If there's an order that requires that, wouldn't that take this whole thing outs of our hands? Because a higher authority, tceq, would be saying, I would think, be asking exactly the same kinds of questions.
>> yes.
>> and this would not then be a Travis County project, unless we still wanted to -- to collaborate with them because our landfill is still out there as well.
>> right.
>> if we are not part of that particular enforcement order, we have our own. But I'm just wondering if -- if some of this stuff gets yanked from us, if there is a higher authority that decides to proceed on its own.
>> I think it is. I mean, it's -- it's what happens --
>> do -- can we seriously think that the state regulatory agency would say specifically what needs to be done to address the problem? They have been saying fix the problem, fix the problem. But our study is supposed to be about specifically what can be done to address problems at these lands fills.
>> right.
>> it seems to me that this strategy was to put in place steps that would enable us to determine whether there are remedies that we have not tried that we ought to try out there and that are likely to be helpful. I'm sitting here thinking that I'm not envisioning an order coming from tceq that may do that. I see them maybe imposing a fine, maybe saying you have got to get on top of these problems out there and fix them. I have got to confess, I'm thinking if the landfills know specifically what to do to fix them, they would have done it. I don't them going through 14, 15 months of e-mails, complaints, hassling with us, meetings, et cetera and having -- having the knowledge to do it but simply not doing it.
>> right.
>> part of our strategy is for us to put our heads today, trying to get some additional expertise to figure out the source 7, what the orders are, I guess what makes them up, then really how to eliminate them or substantially get rid of them.
>> I agree totally. My answer was going to be that I didn't think it took our whole reason and initiative away from us. I just think it has a bearing on how we proceed. Having said that, commissioner Sonleitner, it makes all of the sense in the world to me to say "if you all are planning to do something, we wish that you would do it. By the way, we are putting in place a strategy that will cost a little money that in our view will give us another opportunity to get on top of these and do you all have any money to contribute?" Or resources. Right?
>> right.
>> if we are talking with e.p.a., What's to keep us from asking them ask you send two or three people down, whatever work you all pick up, take it back with you, we need money and resources, money or personnel, see what they say.
>> right. There's nothing to keep us from doing that, judge. I have already asked that question. They basically have alluded to me that two things, that it does cost money, they don't just inherntly do it for free. Secondly that there may be funds available at the state level or other places. These issues have bearing on the clean air act, all kinds of things. There may be some relationship that's have grant funding or other types of funding associated with them if we can't just get industry to pay for it.
>> that was the intent of my question is that if we could get greater certainty of funding partners because somebody else was involved in terms of the enforcement order, it's really not so much to get out of it, can someone else help pay for it.
>> this ought to be easily doable, if you've got three or four partners and certainly if you have five or six. Now, I would think that in view of the resources that tceq says it's been putting in out here, if they have cash available, they would be willing to -- to help us get some outside expertise to help. In the long run, it may well save them money if we really can fix it.
>> john, I'm sorry.
>> go ahead.
>> I'm not thinking about the train that's left town, but I am thinking that we should go ahead and move on it. For example, last year, when the weather got real, real warm, the problem kinds of went away over the summer months, didn't it? And then damp and cool seems to be when we get the worst problems. Dry and hot may well not give us the kind of evidence that we were hoping to find that we can really focus on and work at fixing.
>> right.
>> that says to me we need to go ahead and try to move. Otherwise the next window of opportunity may well be late fall.
>> yeah.
>> uh-huh.
>> I don't disagree at all. I think that you can do -- you can take a look of these steps simultaneously as we wait for the order, you have to be careful about ordering odor -- for the order to come out, we take the steps to go ahead and put a more refined scope of work together, have some conference quawls e.p.a., Tceq, calls with e.p.a., Tceq, look at funding options, talk to industry. All of those things can proceed.
>> john, you were also talking about there being kind of like a phase 1 here in terms of kind of low end dollar amount. Is some of that embed understand what you have gotten before us here, is that really separate and apart. I'm trying to get the scope narrowed down. I didn't know, especially number one, if that was part of your soft number 1 we would do as opposed to somebody else.
>> 1 and 2. After talking to a number of experts I have even refined that a little bit. Even the first stage of investigation I think is a little bit more site specific perhaps than the way it's drafted in your backup. It would be more along the lines of physically look an the sites, physically interviewing the operators, physically picking up all of the agency data trail that's there. And seeing what could provide us with some answers already. That would lead us to a better defined scope of work. 7 I think that what I'm picking up on is that there are many, two basic approaches, gas concentration measurement and then odor evaluations, which is actually using a panel of human beings that are trained to define a density and concentrations of odors and what -- actually categorizing them in different categories, so forth. It is possible that a combination of these two basic approaches could be used here. The thing that the -- that the environmental protection agency folks are talking to me about are really keen on is called optical remote sensing. There are different methods of study, open path, infrared based study, which is very good for a lot of different types of emissions, but perhaps not as good for hide den sulfide -- hydrogen sulfide which may be our leader odor causing gas. But the open path is very good at looking at methane, volume tire, organic -- volatile, organic [papers shuffling - audio interference] certainly harmful to health. So you use that plus perhaps another type of methodology to achieve a full set of results. That will help you in getting to -- to items --
>> we need to get -- [inaudible]
>> 10, 11, 12, which is where we need to get to.
>> we have an opportunity to let others to share that with others and give them an opportunity to provide input. Operators, residents, et cetera.
>> certainly. Yeah, I think that if I could I would revise this scope, use that as a beginning point for getting that input. Py point is that --
>> we are ready to get going.
>> I'm --
>> my point though is that I need to make sure that hearing from the residents, as they came down here on a regular basis on this item, on this issue, to ensure that we have some kind of control on selection of who we use in this process as far as determining the odors and things like that, also ways to recommend to remedy the odors, that means unbiased. I want to make sure has we do not lose that control. Number 2 is also the Travis County -- the Travis County enforcement authority. I think that will come into play because anybody that is selected should have an opportunity to know what Travis County's enforcement powers are as they exist today. Of course, those hands are hand in foot in my opinion. I want to make sure that we don't lose sight of those things. I'm ready to move forward with this so -- but anyway, those are my concerns. I want to make sure those things are not lost as we go through this process. Those two.
>> okay. I agree.
>> seems, also, get to a place where we all have a comfort level in terms of disclosure, rfqs, whatever you stick on it, there would need to be some kind of a disclosure if any company has had a past business relationship with any of the landfills or operators in question because we don't want that questioned after the fact that we didn't ask an extraordinarily relevant question.
>> I think that we would actually ask for not only yes or no, but the extent and agree to which they have been involved. Right.
>> based on what we have said today, I'm seeing basically a little time to refine the scope, incorporating comments that you have received today, acquiring partners, refining the cost, getting contributions, or allocating the cost to agreed partners, then i've got tceq here as a special category. As well as e.p.a. That's another category. And that is basically getting for them whatever -- from them whatever expertise, cash, they can give us and then bringing it back to court. You would be inclined to get this done in a week. But should we give you two.
>> two would help because of people's schedules, so forth. One of these, just give you an example, one of the e.p.a. Staff members is dealing with homeland security issues because she's a gas expert, you know, I mean these people are in demand. So it just takes some time. I know everybody wants to move ahead.
>> the war has the same effect as the landfills [laughter]
>> I'm not going there. But it certainly draws some the same expert pool.
>> we have our own war on the homefront.
>> so the source of odors what makes up the odors, the concentration of the different elements, possible fixes.
>> right.
>> and under possible fixes would be what's being tried already but apparently has not been successful.
>> uh-huh.
>> correct.
>> maybe it's been helpful, but successful. And then what else needs to be done?
>> right. And key in that is it may be that we -- that we are, you know, given in this agreed order a requirement for additional technology that will be on the site that will provide part of that, that solution.
>> now, unless other exents from the court, we can hear from others. Comments. What you are hoping to do is put this together as -- as best you can, six it and get comments. I guess on some of it you would be able to refine your scope there, incorporate comments today, maybe circulate those, while trying to get a better fix on the contribution, possible contribution from tceq.
>> correct.
>> so I'm thinking others can maybe be working, reviewing whatever you send out what a revised draft. While they are doing that, we can [papers shuffling - audio interference]
>> correct.
>> I can have as a goal for me to just, you know, let's say by Friday to have at least the next cut at this revised scope out or approach and for -- you know, for receiving input and then allow some time to receive that input, refine it perhaps again and then come back.
>> okay. Now, are there others who would like to give comments on this today?
>> good afternoon.
>> afternoon.
>> judge Biscoe and commissioners. My name is trek english. For the northeast action group. I wasn't really going to talk to, but something strikes me funny here. That is knowing what john just said, listening to what I just heard in the last hour or half hour, a lot of people have been involved in just in the last week. With john, talking about what could possibly be done. And -- and however we were not asked for any input. It was hard for us to come here, a a camera in our face, to give you our idea of what needs to be done. And yet you never have a landfill communicate openly, as openly as we are giving us an idea what was their thoughts are and I know they have been telling john what they think and how they feel and how they want to proceed or whatever, but we never get to hear it. So somehow I'm feeling a little bit off center here and I'm not sure exactly -- are we just going to be involved in the public forum only or -- I don't mean to complain. I'm just talking about what is being discussed with john and we are not privy to it. We come forward here and on the public forum and try to tell you --
>> my recommendation would be that if john gets this document ready Thursday or Friday, that it will be sent out to everybody has whoa has been getting the interested peppers notification. -- interested persons notification. What we suggest that you give your comments to john so that he can incorporate them, bring them back to court. The comments that john did not incorporate he ought to let us know. The other thing is if you give john comments, you think the court ought to see them directly, I think that you should send them to us. Now, I don't know that putting together the revised document that we are asking john to bring back in two weeks, but certainly I would be on more than -- more than happy to read whatever comments that you are sending into john. As to john sitting down with operators, residents, et cetera, we have tried that during the committees and nobody was really happy with the progress made. Apparently.
>> I'm sorry. I'm not explaining myself properly. What I'm trying to say not that john is speaking to conferences with the landfill, I don't have any problems with that, I have yet to hear the landfills since christmas time on any issue that's been brought in front of the court. I think that's my main complaint here is, you know, what is their role here. They just come and sit in the back and listen to everybody? We never get to hear exactly what they are thinking about. So it would be nice to hear a little bit of what they have to conclude on this or at least what they are proposing or the way they feel. I think that it's been my complaint for the last two or three weeks. I would like to hear some feedback from them, rather than being sent this nice newsletter telling us how wonderful everything is running over there. Now, in terms of what john talked about, I just -- as he was talking, I just threw out a couple of ideas. I have a concern about odors being studied when there is no odor. We've had this problem twice now, you know, with the tceq. The first time they start right before we had this huge odor event when you could get rid of for days. By then they concluded their study, all of the data was being analyzed without taking in new data. It happened in December where we had a terrible odor for a week there, they didn't do anything at that point. They started after that. That was my first concern. The other concern that I had also, coming from the top of my head, it's very easy, I'm not accusing, if I were in their shoes may be doing the same thing. Diversion of waste, offending waste, I believe you kind of alluded to this commissioner Gomez a little bit. A little while ago. Diversion of waste while the odor study is being done to where the offending waste may not be landfill at the time of the study and therefore if it was that waste we would never know if it was, you know --
>> are we able to define more specifically offending waste? This -- this is certain kinds of waste is what you are saying.
>> what I am saying is not so much that. If you bring in waste from -- from lots of miles away, you know, that we are not aware of right now, but that waste has, you know, gets to rot quite a bit more during the process, by the time it's landfilled here, it probably could be causing something of an odor that is more serious than the normal landfilling of Austin waste. It's during that time it's been diverted, then of course you wouldn't be able to pinpoint that this particular waste is causing or adding to the odors.
>> trek? I've been listening to you very carefully over all of these months, I have tipped to hear you -- continued to hear you allege that the primary source of all of this stuff is nothing that you just mentioned right there. That it is this trove of stuff that's been sunk underneath all of the miles of garbage. It's the industrial trove of stuff, it's not new stuff being brought in over the last couple of weeks and rotting faster. You have always maintained that your belief is that's sort of stuff, bulbing down there -- bubbling down there for years, years, years. I don't see where changing -- if that really is and you are correct that that is truly the source, then they are not going to be able to move that stuff. It's going to be there and it will be the subject of whatever studies that we do. Because if you are now saying that it's something else in terms of just the regular stuff that they bring in on a daily basis, then that's contrary to everything that you have been saying to us and i've been listening to you over all of these months.
>> could I address what you just said?
>> sure.
>> okay. First of all, if you go back to the tapes you will see what I have indicated is causing the problem is of these -- of these odors is -- I don't know how much I have said this stuff that's bubbling up. The stuff that's bubbling up is causing contamination of ground water. What I have accused them of is decaying infrastructure is that they have not landfilled properly for a number of years now, when we weren't aware of, it suddenly has come to a head to where the waste is so saturated that the production of methane has augmented to a level that they cannot extract it fast enough. That's what I have been saying. I'm still saying that. Now, what I was saying today is that would cause a gas to explode every so often. But there's days where there's actually a huge odor that overwhelms certain part of the -- of the -- of the -- of the northeast which is more of a garbage smell. I think at that point it may be waste that is being brought in from out of town or whatever, special waste, that may be diverted in the future. And the reason that I came to that conclusion is because that day when we were at their landfill and we had no odor and then the next day several people had come to visit the landfill and found no odor, that same evening it was a tremendous odor and at that point they said they had brought in waste from some -- some seafood restaurant or something.
>> okay. Billion, I'm just trying to keep it all -- well, I'm just trying to keep it all straight. I have been hearing you say that it's something that's been there for a long time. I understand in terms of the way previously permitted, not having the linings --
>> that's for --
>> and making a third layer on top of it, it could be one, two, all three, in terms of just the current way that they do things. It's -- I'm not challenging, just trying to keep -- I know.
>> I was just trying to clarify because maybe I confused everybody by saying -- I think my whole point has always been that the -- even though the garbage is supposed to decompose, the acceleration of what the -- what the landfill methods have used, have southwest conference sell rated a process, accelerated the process, is not causing a problem with their --
>> using [multiple voices]
>> I'm talking about the landfilling methods.
>> all of them now have stopped doing that.
>> right. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> if we say help us identify the source or sources and they come back with one or seven or eight, but I don't think we ought to tie the experts' hands. We ought to find what the sources are, what the source is. So I'm not ruling out anything. And it could well be that certain types of waste really contribute a whole lot more than they ought to to the overall waste problem, the odor problem. And if that is the situation, then our remedy ought to address that.
>> okay. I'm finished.
>> okay.
>> by the way, we have an open mic policy this week too. I have said that two or three times, but a lot of folks are a lot more inclined to communicate with john in e-mail and writing than in open court.
>> they kept saying they want to keep the discussion open, but they won't talk to us.
>> hello. Let's see. I want to start out with thanking commissioner daugherty for the article that he wrote in the westlake picaune. I thought it was a very good article and I appreciate it. I want to start off there. Let's see. I was also like craig, just jotting things down as quick as I could as I heard them, so this is too very spontaneous. What I understand, john, is that we will get a copy Thursday or Friday. Is that --
>> we'll start by giving you -- i'll e-mail out what I have developed for today. It's obsolete, so to speak, but a lot of the principles are going to be held to --
>> so what the commissioners looked at today?
>> yeah. I'll start by doing that.
>> okay. I want to make sure I had that straight. And then I don't know if there's any way to underline or italize what perhaps the industry has recommended to you in that report, what trek had alluded to so we can kind of get a feel for the communications there, if that's a possibility.
>> let me just tell you that I have not -- when you say industry, I have gotten recommendations from the consulting industry, but I have not gotten specific recommendations from allied or waste management folks.
>> in your report?
>> and i'd be happy to list the firms that i've spoken with.
>> okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.
>> let's see. Have you -- as you talk about the funding and the cost of $100,000, it sounds like you have talked to the industry about whether or not they would pay that. So it sound like there has been a little bit of talking with them. That got me thinking about, you know, what they expect in return. And then about if they are willing to spend $100,000 in the odor testing, how about exploring other tests. And if they won't pay for it, what does that say, and is that a direction we need to look at? I think there's some telling signs into what industry will pay and what they won't pay, and we need to find those questions out and try to answer those questions. So if it will pay for odor testing, but won't pay for groundwater testing, is that making a statement? I think that needs to be explored.
>> my own view on that is we ought to try to figure out what the cost is, figure out who the partners are and figure out what their contributions ought to be. And when I say we, I mean, I think that the Travis County landfill ought to be looked at early on, and if we are the source of the problem also, we have to be part of the fix. But if we're ruled out early on, then there's no reason to be fixing what ain't there. At the same time, if a certain landfill turns out not to be a contributor to the problem, then I don't know that we would insist that they adopt whatever fix we come up with. But we do want the financial commitment to be up front. If we think the county shares in x amount of money, we would agree to contribute that.
>> I guess that's not really the issue or the point I'm trying to make. I think what I'm trying to say is that other issues that we have brought up, such as the groundwater contamination, the toxic barrel, those kind of things that we think are so important for testing, I'm not hearing, you know, about that. If the industry will not test for that, I think there's something being said there.
>> I wouldn't read more into it than it is, and that that we are separating out the odor issue from the groundwater. And I have a feeling we're going to have a wonderful, long discussion on groundwater at some point related to testing, but that's something where Travis County may have some very specific reasons to want to get some very specific information on its own.
>> well, perhaps I will --
>> and control everything that relates to that study for darn good reason.
>> well, maybe we could have a letter of commitment from the commissioners that states we would like to have an odor study, and depending on the outcome of that, when would the groundwater testing -- the toxic barrel issues happen. At this point we feel like industry is not going to do it. We have gotten no indication that you have any desire to do it. So we're feeling something very different.
>> you're hearing things that we're not saying. There are things that we're not being clear on for very good reason, so please do not read anything sinister or anything into this. We'll get to it when we get to it and there will be a full discussion when we get to it, but it isn't today.
>> so when do you expect --
>> there are things going on that when they reveal themselves, you'll get it, okay?
>> when they reveal themselves. I'm not sure what that means.
>> in late fall when I counted by e-mails, odors at landfill were number one. That's why I thought let's pull it out and see if we can fix these problems.
>> so because you've not received enough e-mails about the groundwater --
>> no, no, no. [ laughter ] [everyone talking at once]
>> groundwater is steadily moving to the top of the list.
>> it's moving on its own accord.
>> don't read any more into it.
>> you're making stuff up on what's going on.
>> if you recall, I talked with john just recently on the groundwater issue as far as the hydrologist and stuff like that, and I wasn't trying to -- I wanted to make sure that we address that undergroundwater because I have said that the odors and things of that nature, we're talking about 50% of the picture. The other 50% is the undergroundwater situation. And as john said, right now we -- it's all encompassing to me. It's all one picture, 100%. The odors, of course, in my opinion is the 50% of where a lot of complaint have come from residents on odors; however, the undergroundwater situation, the hydrologist, the study on those -- from those particular -- and something that jumps out is more important. So it's all important, every bit of it. And thies why I posed the questions to john, and he basically said he would like to keep them separate.
>> I guess I'm just concerned on the timing of all this. It's been years and waste management has filed for a subdivision plat from the county, so things are rolling on. That's a big concern.
>> and I don't want you to think that -- personally I can't speak on it for myself. It's a big deal I think from jump street as far as what we've been looking at, the things that have been brought to the court from way back from former commissioner david samuelson when he used to come to my office. He's passed on now, but it started way back then. So this thing has been moving for a long time, hoping to come to an end that we can all move and -- I think i've said that over and over again. I started looking at the chronological events that have taken place here from the first ordinance that we had put here before this commissioners court. And it's not that, you know -- I know all of us have been working. I know I have a particular interest and not just in my precinct, but because I respect the quality of life in all of Travis County. And it's a big deal. So I don't want anyone to think that this is more important, odors is more important than groundwater, groundwater more important than this. I think it's all the same as far as equally important.
>> okay. Well, I hope the entire court agrees with you. I'll just make two other points real quick. I've heard a lot about-- it sound like the studies are moving so that I know what I'm hearing, especially from you, judge Biscoe, is that you're trying to get all these partners in this study so that more technology can be installed to correct the situation. And I would like to implore that instead of going that direction, that equally as important to the study is that it's not just to figure out what the new e.p.a. New toys are, but that we look at a study that can address whether or not this is a landfill that has gone bad. And I would think that that would be different conditions and criteria in the study. So I'm hearing a lot about technology fixes. I have done a lot of readings and studies on where liners leak and there's other problems. And the tests are going to be set up different. So I see two different roads going down. And then last, trek has already touched on, is the landfills are paying for all of it or part of it. What is to keep the landfill from limiting the selection of waste that they receive? I don't know if it's possible to disclose where their waste has been coming from, because I also agree that that can be manipulated. And if they're paying for it and they know when the study is going to happen, that would be very easy to do.
>> thank you.
>> judge, commissioners and commission you are daugherty, thank you very much for that -- [ inaudible ]. A lot of folks consider it a local, very local problem, but it really should be everyone's concern. And ron, thank you always for your dogged support of our cause. I'm concerned about the odor test for a couple of reasons. What we read -- now we're trying to bone up on air tests, and we're finding that they can be considered unreliable. And we're worried because the nose is an awfully good instrument to detect odors with, and we're worried that some less qualified instrument may show something that all of our noses are telling us is there. So that's one of my concerns. And it's been already harped on for two speakers before we, so i'll just barely touch on it, but I am concerned about the leachate. And from the very start i've been maybe more concerned than anyone else about the toxic nature of this particular landfill out there. And the record of migration from that area over the years, I have a letter from the state agency in charge of overseeing it, and it's talking about a study that shows migration from the former industrial waste disposal area into the surface and groundwater. I think it's -- if we do break it into two areas, I sure hope that the grow water might -- groundwater migration phase of this study won't lag behind by far.
>> thank you.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> I just have a couple of comments for the court's consideration and this study. I think I understood john to say that it might be wise to wait until we have word from tceq as to what exactly they're going to cite as requirements in their remedies for the violations.
>> what I said was that it may be by way of analogy, that to another case in the panhandle where actual boundary gas emissions equivalent or monitoring was required of that particular industry, that that may be the case here. And in ensuing conversations primarily with judge Biscoe, we came to the conclusion that we didn't need to put a halt on progress, just that that was an important guiding factor, perhaps, in how we perform.
>> my question has to do with if, for example, tceq would come back and not require them to do the type of study that we're talking about, would we then be in the situation where it is considered by tceq to be a voluntary effort on their part. And as you know, we've already been down that road on a voluntary testing and monitoring. And that's not a road we particularly want to go down again. So my question is what is the authority of the court to require that some of these things be done if the court and the consultants believe that it's necessary? That's my first question. And secondly, I would like to know -- I think I heard some discussion of part of the process being to give you records reports and all sorts of data from the landfills. And I am interested in knowing if they're going to be willing to disclose all of their records, even those things that have not been disclosed to tceq that perhaps should have been, because we've also been down that road and we are aware that there are a number of things that seem not to be available to tceq that might be very important in this type of a study.
>> can I ask the court just one question? Something that joyce brought up that definitely needs to be exercised a little bit. She was concerned about -- and she may have said it right, I just want to make sure I reinforce that. I hope that if this study is being funded by them, that it is not done under the voluntary program. On okay. This is not -- as soon as you do that, you cannot tell them to do anything. You need to understand how the voluntary program works. And I understand it's a voluntary action and that they're participating, but you literally remove any type of -- no, not enforcement for sure, but any kind of input from the tceq is totally circumvented. In order, they will not participate in this because it's a voluntary program. We had a rough time with this voluntary program while they were investigating the industrial unit because we kept saying, well, they're proposing this, but yet this is what's reflecting in their records. So if they should be doing this instead, and tceq or trcc at that time would say you're right, but we can't make them do this because it's a voluntary program. So in order, you end up with the wrong data because tceq may want to participate in it and add to what could be done, but they won't if it's done under a voluntary program. It's just a point we're bringing up. I'm not saying this is going to happen, I'm just saying if it is done that way, let's look at all the ramification of the voluntary program. I thought it was a great idea to start with, the voluntary program. It's just turning out the more you read -- it's got ramification that sometimes turn against you. That's all. I don't know if i've polluted the waters or made myself more clear.
>> I know what they're talking about. Those are good points for folks that have been there.
>> we get to the point where Travis County has to flex some muscle, I assume we have some leverage, and we would just use that. But my approach to this is if we're all interested in determining what the problem is, scope of it, and then fixing it, then you want to get as many partners as you can. And if the regulatory agencies are as serious as some of their written communications have indicated, you would think that they would jump on this opportunity. I guess I'm not real concerned about enforceability and stuff because, you know, we have leverage in various areas that so far we have not used. And my guess is it hard to use it without evidence. Part of this effort is to get out there and gather the facts, best practices of what we ought to do here and then try to figure out how to do it. So somebody in the middle of us there say i've been a partner up to this point, but I don't want to be a partner any more, there are consequences for everything. And maybe it may be at that point that there's nothing Travis County can do about it besides call them bad names, but I'm willing to do that. But I feel that we have more leverage than that. Oart thing is that I can't believe that tceq and e.p.a. Have not had other landfills in the state, other parts of the country with similar problems, so they could well use this effort to benefit them elsewhere is why I'm thinking they may want to be -- they may be interested in partnering up with us. But after the landfills here, they have all indicated a willingness to work with us on trying to fix this. And I'm assuming they gave those ashurntss in good -- assurances in good faitz and that they plan for follow through on them. At the same time from the county's perspective, and the sauce is good for the goose and good for the gander and at times identifying the source, and if we are one of the sources, then we ought to be part of the fix.
>> and if we're not part of the sources, we want to know that information.
>> we want to know.
>> what this voluntary program that we were bringing up, I'm not trying to get fines or anything out of you. It's something they're voluntary and willing to do. That's what I thought it meant, that you were going to go and determine whether there was a problem and fix it rather than get fined for it. I thought that was really what the intent of the voluntary program is. But its ramifications are much more than that, and that's where I --
>> it may chill the state's willingness to work with us is what you're saying.
>> no, by law they are not supposed to. That's really kind of amazed me that it was that way, to where they would not, you know, recommend it. But anyway, I guess we can see as we go what happens.
>> the motion was to give those directions. I've broken it down in different parts. Do you have all those?
>> yeah. Refine partners, refine the cost, get contributions or allocate the cost, get whatever partnering commitment we can from tceq and e.p.a., Namely cash resources, expertise, writing, etcetera, from the state and federal regulatory agencies. And the other thing is Thursday, Friday of this week let's share the revised scope of services with operators, residents, other interested persons. I apparently -- are y'all on my e-mail or dan's e-mail? I'd be happy -- you ought to have the same e-mail list as dan in my office. If not, let me know and i'll be happy to send it out.
>> right. I think it's the same list where you told them what time the posting was today, for example. So I think i've got that.
>> that's the motion.
>> just a second, judge. We have a report back on the non-landfill solid waste facilities ordinance. Should we put that down for two weeks from today, have both of these items the same day?
>> that would be great.
>> I have a question on that.
>> we're not really supposed to set it up, but on scheduling matters we can go to without it being post, otherwise we've got to post it by law. The reason I threw it out here is I was going to have it on next week, but if it makes sense to cover both in one meeting, we would have it on two weeks from today. And commissioner Sonleitner's out next week too.
>> I'm looking forward to being out next week. [ laughter ]
>> is it a possibility at this point to still have a vote on whether the ordinance will be in one or two parts, or is that issue lost and gone?
>> I don't want to say lost, but it's gone. It can be brought back up by a member of the court two weeks from today when the item is posted. Because it will be posted for us to consider adoption of the ordinance. And so that opens up the door for any motions related to it, not to do it, to do it, but to do what's there, to modify what's there.
>> thank you.
>> and I guess with that, judge, I want to make sure that, again, i'd like to reiterate the unbiased process as far as selecting an individual to do the study. I think, again, having the ability to know what the enforcement powers are, that Travis County have, because if there is a leverage with this. So if you're suggesting that this come back here two weeks as far as john's direction, but also the direction of bringing back the ordinance in two weeks time -- is that --
>> I think from our perspective, we'd appreciate the extra week to work on the ordinance. We were scheduled to have it on next week. We're more than happy to do it in two weeks, along with john's report back on the scope. Again, just to give us the extra week. Things are pretty hectic with the legislature. We would just appreciate the additional time.
>> and again, that ordinance excludes the existing type 1 landfills and we're still having discussions as to how we're going to handle any existing or proposed type 4 landfills, how we handle those folks.
>> whatever will be proposed two weeks from today, if it would be good to get that i'd say next Monday or Tuesday so people can look at it.
>> we can do that.
>> but do not keep out of sight and out of mind anything that may overlook the original draft of the landfill -- of the ordinance that did include the landfill. Of course, I think it's something that we still need to look at, so I don't want to -- I want to make sure that we do that. But anyway, judge already made a motion.
>> but in terms of I'm thyming, if we're delaying not doing that other stuff next week, then the type 4 people need to be made aware of that because they were the ones that could be included within the recycling/other stuff, these non-type 1's, I should say.
>> commissioner daugherty?
>> I just want to say I will end up voting for this thing today, but I will tell you that I'm just about at wit's end as to what we need to be doing and how we need to continue going about with this. I think there is some information here that I do want to see, and for that reason I'm going to vote for this maybe the last time that i'll vote for something and to kind of prolong something that I think is inevitable. If I have to hear the word source again, I mean, I think I figured out source a long time ago. You don't have to get into the source and you don't have to get into the hunt unabridged or the abridged to find out what source means. I think we all know that and we're beating around the bush with the inevitable, but I look forward to seeing some of the information that you're going to bring back. If we have to go through a through e, whatever there are in this particular motion, I will vote for it, but I look forward to us getting a lot further down the road than where we are right now.
>> amen.
>> I think within two weeks we'll have some decisive stuff. I'm heading the same direction, commissioner daugherty. We need to give some relief to this community.
>> all in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote with commissioner Gomez temporarily away. Are you here on this item?
>> judge, I wanted to ask on behalf of the group, if it pleases the court, if you could set it for the same time in two weeks. In the afternoon is probably better for all of us and then you could get your work done in the morning, if that's available.
>> okay. Thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM