Travis County Commssioners Court
December 2, 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 25
View
captioned video:
10:00am to 11:00am
11:00am to 12:00pm
25 is to discuss and take appropriate action on phase 1 landfill order study including recommendations and related issues, I added the including part because I understand there may be recommendations not covered in the ordered study, but we certainly ought to consider those today. Last week we basically took comments from the consultant. And the -- is the consultant here?
>> yes.
>> judge, I just got a page indicating tceq is tied up in traffic. Is there a way to delay just a tiny bit? They are en route.
>> I don't know --
>> [multiple voices]
>> I don't know whether we can delay this a tiny bit or not.
>>
>> (items 7 and 14 were discussed.)
>>
>> now let's go back to item no. 25. 25. Discuss and take appropriate action on phase I landfill odor study, including recommendations and related issues.
>> good morning judge and Commissioners, john kuhl environmental officers, bart aikman, our consultant on odor, I hadn't thought about what a charming title that is. I guess there are three main areas of discussion that we brought this back for. I think the big one is do we move forward with this, we will probably end up saving that for last. There was a request particularly from Commissioner Daugherty to have some questions for tceq. They are here today. And then obviously we needed to allow for industry and further industry citizen input on this. So what we could do is just go ahead and invite tceq up and move ahead with that. If you would like to do that. Whatever order that you would like to take that in. [multiple voices]
>> let's see if we have any more questions of the consultant. I have two or three. So in your study, did you find odors at the landfills?
>> again, the first phase was a scoping study to review the historical information. Yeah, there's lots of indication that there are odors at the landfill and common sense would suggest that you will expect to find odors at landfills, it's a very common occurrence. Tceq odor log that I looked at had I think 700 or hundreds of odor complaints, I can't recall the exact number.
>> 770 I think.
>> the little monitoring that you did was done during what months?
>> again, what we did one day inspection in August, mostly what I did was review the historical records. Tceq had done some fairly extensive monitoring in January and February of 2002. Again at the end of 2002, so there's -- there's a fairly extensive amount of monitoring data that tceq developed.
>> we have been left with the impression that the odors get worse during damp, cold weather. It's hard to make a finding on that in the summer. Part of the need to monitor further would be basically to investigate that?
>> right. There's two reasons why that occurs or is thought to occur. One the bugs that produce the gas that produce the odor tend to be limited by water or moisture. So the more moisture that's in the landfill, the happier the bugs are, the faster they produce gas and in general in Austin, it's dry in the summer, it's wetter in the winter. So just in terms of moisture content in the landfill, you would expect higher gas production in the winter potentially. The second effect is what happens when the gas gets released from the landfill, in the winter more temperature inversions, more times when we get calm, still, early morning occurrences and that's going to lead to higher concentrations around the landfill and more potential for odor complaints. So it's a combination of those two things which both are more likely to happen in winter. Going to lead to concentrations of the odorous compound downwind of the landfill.
>> okay. Any additional questions of mr. Eckland.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> so I went with the minimum number of monitoring locations because the equipment is expensive, monitoring is expensive, but in turn if you have fewer monitors, you want to monitor for a longer period of time so I was recommending a year. If you had more monitors, you might get data and could monitor for a shorter period of time, but that combination of the minimal number of monitoring locations with a year's worth of monitoring, I think, gives you the most cost effective program to address the odors.
>> okay. And that minimum approach for both sites, I guess is -- can you give me that bottom-line total number?
>> in terms of cost?
>> no, not money, but just a number of monitoring stations. In other words, if you were to --
>> yeah, I recommended five with --
>> that's what I was trying to get out of is the 5 or 10. I just wanted to you say it instead of me. And as you heard last week, when the question was posed to one of the landfill operators, w.m.i., I believe it was, they said that they weren't going participate as far as the cost and stuff like that because one of the things that we were wanting to figure out is who is going to pay for these things and how is it going to be paid for. And, of course, if that is the case, it would appear that at this time we would only be talking about two monitoring stations as opposed to the five that's being recommended. If w.m.i. Does not elect to participate in that monitoring process. Is that pretty fair assessment of that?
>> I believe that's correct.
>> okay. All right. So if that is the case, we're talking about 40% of a monitoring project that will be online for the site. How devastating would this be if you were to take two monitoring sites, two monitoring locations as opposed to a minimum recommendation that you suggested as being five? What kind of devastating -- or would that be a devastating impact or what kind of impact I guess is the question I need to get an answer to. With 40%.
>> the impact is that the study would now address primarily the b.f.i. Landfill and not the waste management landfill.
>> that was the answer I was trying to see if that was correct.
>> still get some information on waste management because the winds will at times be blowing from waste management over to the more southern monitor on the b.f.i. Property, but it wouldn't be as much or as useful information as if waste management was also participating.
>> okay. So a portion -- a partial reporting situation whereby the maximumization even from the minimal basis that is suggested may be [indiscernible] if you have two opposed to five. Is that correct? As far as the data collection.
>> right. So now we're looking at -- this is what I would recommend if we were just looking at the b.f.i. Landfill, but that wasn't the original charge I had.
>> right. Okay. And there's some costs associated with all of these things, and I guess -- and I guess I can come back with that later. As far as the costs breakdown of how the lack of implementation for the full [indiscernible] and if the court will decide to go with two monitoring locations as opposed to five. So that can be a later discussion with you, though, because I'm looking at costs also, as we all are. In this scenario. Okie-doke, thank you.
>> when I hear the word "monitoring," should I think monitoring and if there are problems treatment? I mean should I entwine the two, monitoring and treatment or should I just take monitoring, capture results, know what's happening? Sort of separate, isolated from other activities.
>> potentially it can serve both purposes. And I haven't had any kind of detailed discussions with the landfill operators. But the monitoring can serve two purposes. One, it can be a straight-forward compliance study. Is b.f.i. Or are both landfills in compliance or not in compliance with the state regulations on nuisance odors. And the -- but the second aspect of monitoring can be to serve as a yardstick for further improvement at the landfills. If the landfills review the data and observe when the concentration of hydrogen sulfide increases, can they tie that to any specific activities at the landfill and can they take any steps to try to minimize that happening in the future. Kind of getting towards what applied materials indicated that they would like to see as some process tornado continued improvement at the landfills.
>> well, from a government perspective, if you are monitoring and you were able to identify problems and the causes, it makes sense to go ahead and try to remedy the causes. Doesn't it?
>> in terms of compliance, it may or may not. In terms of public relations for the landfills, I would think it would.
>> in terms of problems staying with us or problems being addressed, though, I mean I guess I'm not just into this to study -- to gather information. Seems to me that our purpose really is to promote monitoring because it will help us identify problems. And to the extent that we do, try to figure out what it takes to address them, and then have them addressed so the problems will either go away or will be substantially reduced. As soon as possible.
>> correct.
>> I guess on one hand monitoring for the sake of monitoring seems to be academic. Monitoring to find out the problems so we can fix it seems to me to be what we would encourage at this point. And I'm not asking you to take a position. I guess I'm sort of seeing if the landfills would --
>> monitoring also serves the purpose of getting the two sides to reach some common ground as to the extent of the problem, the frequency of the problem and so on. And now I think the two sides are somewhat in disagreement as to the magnitude of the problem as it exists now. The monitoring essentially would develop minute by minute numbers. One thing waste management had indicated was monitoring generates huge amounts of data, and it does. There's 1440 minutes in a day. We would have the hydrogen sulfide concentration for each of those minutes, a wind direction for each of those minutes, and over the course of a year you would get about a third of a million data points at each location. And it becomes pretty apparent to see the trends of when the wind is out of this direction, what kind of concentrations do we see at each of the monitoring situations. Essentially it winds up being a tpeupbger to point back at where the sources are, and so we -- right now we're using fairly subjective tools to determine how well the landfills are doing, primarily odor complaints and, again, this would serve as a more objective yardstick to allow the landfills to seek further improvement if they so choose to. That part I don't have control over.
>> okay. Anything further of mr. Eckland?
>> mr. Eckland, I mean if we were to embark on this 12-month process for $240,000, do you think that we could identify on a daily basis -- I mean I guess we could because you said there were going to be monitored throughout the day. Can you -- or would you think that we could definitively identify -- we've monitored this in this year's time and on these certain days this -- I mean the odors exceeded the acceptable -- I guess when tceq comes up, I will get an answer as to what is -- according to tceq, acceptable with regards to odor. Is that something that if we did that that you could say yes on, this day date, this date, this date, this date, that we can definitively tell you that the odors were beyond -- is that what we're going to be able to tell for the $240,000 stud stpheu.
>> right. This is exactly I think what tceq would normally require for ann forcement action or monitoring to demonstrate compliance. Generally we ought mate the monitoring as much as poblg. Have phone lines connected into the monitoring stations. So that when I come into the office in the morning I get an e-mail message if there are any problems or if the concentrations in the previous day has exceeded some threshold. So we can set whatever number we want t state uses 80 parts per billion as acceptable level. We can pick half that, a third of that or whatever and have e-mails go to whoever cares to be involved in that process so we can get certainly next-day feedback for any certain concentration level we care to choose.
>> and would this be done at the property line or would it be done at various other places? Would it be on springdale road, blue goose road? I mean how many different places? Because I know that after having talked to the industry, they are very insistent on wanting these things done at their property line, meaning that if you can't show that there is not smell at their property line, then whatever somebody is smelling a mile away can't be us.
>> right. What I proposed was at the fence line, the property line, upwind and downwind of the working space. That gives us the most bang for the buck essentially. There's always -- it would always be nice in an academic sense to have more monitors. We could put one in the subdivisions. We could put more around the landfills, but, you know, it's probably $25,000 of capital equipment for each of the monitoring stations. So there's a fair amount of fixed costs so we would try to find a balance between how do we answer the questions we want answered with the least amount of time and the least amount of equipment required.
>> john, do you know this? How many residences in the given area -- I don't think the harris branches and those things probably are on central systems, but how many people like off of springdale road are on -- are you all on central or are any of you on septic? Are there any people that live in you all's area that have septic?
>> [inaudible].
>> societies that all have you. So would your monitoring be able to say, yes, we picked this odor up at this location and it's not the same smell that we had at the property line over here or if we didn't have a property line -- what I want to make sure of is if we're going to go through this process, that we really can identify the -- the real issue is the working space, the real issue is the landfill. I've been in many an area where septic is where smells are coming from versus, you know, what you would assume the other. But would we be able to identify that?
>> right. I things. And tceq saw that in your previous work. Some of the odor complaints, some fraction of them occurred when the wind wasn't blowing from the landfills. I don't mean to imply the landfills are the only source of hydrogen sulfide in that part of town. I think there's significant source. The same stagnant air around the landfills is also around everybody's septic systems or sewer systems. My neighbor gets smells on those cold winter mornings that I believe are due to the home sewage systems. And I would expect the same thing in the other neighborhoods.
>> thank you.
>> if there's anything I figured out in dealing with all these cases over nine years is it is all about documentation, documentation, documentation. And while it is exceptionally value toubl have the anecdotal evidence we've gotten from the neighborhood, what is going stand up with court or the tceq in terms of saying there is or is not a problem is going to be documentation. And I think it would give credence to what the neighbors have been saying if we have the empirical data. I'm glad to use the expression "poeupbgt of fingers" because that's what I'm trying to get at. I feel like I'm in the bermuda triangle. Everybody is pointing it's us, it's them, tceq is not doing its job, the county is not doing its job. It's this constant thing, and this data would give us something to base our conclusions upon. It is very difficult to give credence to the neighbors, and I think these are legitimate complaints that they've had, if you are coming in after the fact to say what's it doing now. Because it needs to happen during the event. It's almost like and when you've got an earthquake, I guess its value you believe for people to say yeah, it really did shake, but what is important the data you collect during the event in terms of the magnitude and finding out the epicenter. I'm trying to get down to what is the magnitude and the epicenter of what is going out northeast. And to me, why would we have ever started a collection of baseline data and designing a study if we weren't intending to do a study? I'm trying to recall back when we got all this started. What are we trying to do. To me I'm just getting back to documentation, documentation, documentation. Because that is what is going to ring with tceq is that it's important for these neighbors to anecdotally say what's happening, but if you've got the date tarbgs that's going to be what is going to ring with tceq in terms of if somebody is violating their permit or not. What is the magnitude, what is not. What is the epicenter of what's going out there and what is not. I'm just trying to separate fact from fiction and to me it's like phase 2 is where we need to go here related to this monitoring emissions. Let's separate fact from assumptions.
>> right. And --
>> I don't think it's fiction. I think what's going in that neighborhood is real, but separating -- what's the epicenter here? What's going on?
>> I assume when you talk about documentation, you are including that the data needs to be valid.
>> absolutely.
>> because what we don't want are people arguing over whether the numbers are correct or not. They may argue over the interpretation of the numbers. And that's usually our purpose is to be an independent third party that generates data that decision-makers can use and trust to make decisions eye guess that's my question to you is somebody who has testified, is the more important testimony anecdotal that you would get from the neighborhood or would it be empirical data that may be subject to interpretation, but it shows what's going on during the event as opposed to the interpretation after the fact?
>> to me they are both very useful. Anecdotal information will only take you so far. And in terms of the state having a standard -- i'll let tceq speak for themselves, but they can do enforcement both on their inspectors' objective interpretation, but I think they prefer to have objective numbers if they are available.
>> I'm sorry, Commissioner.
>> no, I'm finished.
>> you brought up a good point, and I think that the community is fearful of -- and I don't blame them, is that study after study after study and nothing happens. Now, of course, I think everyone knows what my position is, the remedy to the problem is for those particular landfills to shut down in northeast Travis County off of 290 east landfills, both of them, shut down completing and look for another location. Now, that's the recommend towed the problem and, of course, that's the goal I'm going to be striving for. But in the meantime, in the meantime, what do we do about the odors? Now, I'm really concerned about full participation in this process to determine where the odors -- the sources are coming from. You know, and we've got a pretty good idea of that in during certain times, peak parts of the year you get odors in the prevailing winds, a lot of other things that causes a very uncomfortable level of lifestyle that folks do not really enjoy. And I would be up in arms as anyone else with if you had to endure this on a day-to-day basis. Now, my question is go back to that original question, and I really haven't got an answer, I guess, to the satisfaction of those particular levels.
>> we will need that at the table. There ought to be another in the executive session room. Make yourself at home.
>> and the question is the participation level of everyone in that area that need to be hooked up to a monitoring device to detect the source of the odors and also the remedy of the source of the odor problems. Those subdivisions, the businesses and everyone else have been complaining for a long time. Now, my question is, to do an effective job to ensure that we get the full maximumization of the emissions of odors from those particular landfills, what would it take to do that? And also have a remedy in place to deal with the problem. Now, I know tceq is here, and I got some real good questions for them, but by the same token, I still need to have my hands around that answer to -- and I know you came up with a minimum of five monitors, but of course there are peripheral monitors that may need to be in place in that area. And to even see even into the neighborhood probably was another suggestion. I really don't tphoefplt but I think the folks in that community deserve some relief from the situation, and this particular study of which you have come up with the recommendations you have come up with maybe is something we can go in that direction. But I really need to isolate on the things that you are suggesting with the -- are you really sure that the five monitoring is -- that you recommended, the five monitoring locations is the actual thing that you really need to have to get the accurate information from both of those landfills? And that's the question I'm posing to you.
>> to design the study to look at both landfills, yes, that's my opinion that four monitors are needed to provide the minimum amount of information and we need a fifth one would provide additional cost effective information, in my opinion.
>> okay.
>> and i've designed a lot of monitoring studies, and I would be happy to have tceq or anybody comment upon the design. I think it's scientifically defensible.
>> okay. Well, let me just pose that next question to tceq when they come up.
>> speaking of tceq, we did invite representatives to come pw-fp us today and they accepted our invitation. If you all would come before us now, we do have a series of questions. I guess first we ought to give you the opportunity to make any comments you would like to. And if you don't have any comments you would like to make, we can just start with our questions. Let's get your name and I guess your position with tceq. We really appreciate you coming over.
>> good morning, Commissioners. My name is david speaker. I'm with the litigation division of the tceq.
>> I'm barry called we are the tceq Austin regional office. I'm the air and waste section manager.
>> good morning. I'm patty ray with the Austin regional office of tceq. I'm the regional director.
>> welcome to all of you and thanks for coming. Ms. Ray, if you would turn your microphone just towards you there. Your many friends and acquainted answers will be able to hear every word you say. Any comments or should we just start with our questions? You all had a chance to read the -- mr. Eckland's report?
>> yes, sir.
>> yeah.
>> does it strike you as being sound?
>> I have no arguments with it. Questions?
>> kind of the leftover one I had from last week. The enforcement orders came out with b.f.i. And with waste management are substantial one more than the other, but those are real enforcement orders. Why didn't the enforcement order include a requirement of monitoring given the magnitude of your action?
>> well, as noted in the enforcement orders, in response to when these violations, alleged violations were initially brought to their attention, both landfills under undertook certain corrective objections their own while the case was in processing. For example, they upgraded the landfill gas emissions systems and took other measures designed to reduce odors and correct the violations that we believed existed at the time. The reason that we didn't have any requirements for monitoring or actions in the orders themselves is that the type of actions that the landfills had already undertaken were the types of things that we would be asking them to do. So we felt that the actions that they were taking addressed our concerns with the violations and so that's why we don't have any technical requirements in the orders right now.
>> so that would seem to say, observer, that tceq thinks the problem is solved and resolved out at those landfills. Is that accurate or not?
>> I think it's more accurate to say that the actions that they have taken were the types of things that we would ask them to take in response to the violations. Whether or not those ultimately have resolved the situation remains to be seen. But those are the types of actions that we would ask them to take if further down the road do we continue to have these problems and we documented additional violations, at that point the potential exists for us to ask them to do monitoring or undergo additional testing requirements. At this time the types of things they've done are the types of things we would ask them to do in technical requirements. So essentially what we're saying is, okay, you've taken these actions to address the violations. It seems to be working. You know, further down the road if it's not, we'll revisit that.
>> in terms of understanding, what's the norm in this situation? Obviously you all have had to deal with this kind of situation before in terms of landfills. Is it normal to require after there has been some kind of a violation to include monitoring after the fact to ensure that what they did continues to work? Or is the norm that you do not put an enforcement on monitoring. I'm trying to get a sense of what is the industry practice, what the tceq's practice related to ordering on site monitoring and emissions testing.
>> my understanding is that generally we do not typically order monitoring as part of the -- I guess under certain select circumstances, and perhaps the regional officials can elaborate on that, we might. But typically we do not require monitoring as part of our agreed orders. I can't think of -- off the top of my head a circumstance in which we would.
>> really it would have been the exception you would have put that in an enforcement order.
>> yes.
>> I'm getting a nod from mr. He can land. What kind of case did it take for you all to require the monitor to go occur. Because if you didn't put tonight there, it may fall to the county or the operators, and if one or more operators say no, then it really falls to us to say somebody here has to ensure that what's happening [indiscernible]. What's that case?
>> I believe it was iowa beef packers in amarillo did require monitoring at their site after an enforcement case. That's.
>> why?
>> I believe they had several -- I think the difference there is that they have several documented nuisance odors. We have one documented nuisances odor, one that we felt like we could go to enforcement with where they had the iowa beef packers up in amarillo had several. I don't know how many they had. They were documented by the investigator.
>> my last question and then i'll let others get involved here. In terms of what would be persuasive evidence as one or more of these operators come forward to get an adjustment of their permit, ask for an expansion, it's going to be on the horizon, what is going to be pervasive with tceq about whether that should be granted or not? Anectdotal evidence or say a year's worth of testing and monitoring that either documents that there is something going there or that there is not anything going on.
>> I'm -- we're in the office of compliance and enforcement with the tceq. We probably should have brought somebody from permits as well because that is really more of a permitting question, and i've --
>> we can take that back.
>> we can ask our permitting engineers what kind of information they would take into account in evaluating a permit.
>> we may need a little more volume on these microphones out here, media.
>> thank you, judge. You mentioned a case in amarillo where it was required for the landfill operators to -- I hope I understood it correctly.
>> it wasn't a landfill, it was a beef paerbg plant.
>> whichever required monitoring. That has been, according to data, there has been several complaints of the landfills and the odors attributed to the 290 east landfills. Violations, et cetera. How many [indiscernible] will it take for you, tceq, to mandate monitorings of those sites? If the-a typical operators do not want to come into a voluntary compliance setting. How many of those kpwhraeupbtsz would it take.
>> well, there's several. It's not the number of complaints that we're looking at. We've had -- I'm sure that we've had -- I don't know how many complaints the phaefl office had, but it's the -- amarillo office had. But it's the number of times it would be documented as a nuisance odor. That would be what would drive we ever we would do through enforcement process.
>> I'm glad you brought that point up. That was my next question. Since you are looking at enforcement and then you ar also looking for documentation based on enforcement, to enforce, these particular monitoring locations, if you heard and have had a chance to review the recommendations brought to us by the gentleman that is looking into this, he suggested that five would be the minimal recommendation to ensure that data, the documentation -- for documentation purposes could be utilized properly. Now, as stated earlier, I understand that there may be a situation whereby one of the landfill operators do not want to participate in the process, paying for some things, that was my understanding. My question is since this is the recommendations, how and what can we do to encourage full cooperation from the particular person based on even if we can get something from the minimal of two? Two monitoring stations to suggest there is a problem out there. How would you address that to make sure the other party comes into compliance as far as area being monitored? Because that's what we're really getting down to right now. In my mind.
>> what you are talking about is how would we evaluate the monitoring?
>> yes. For the two -- the two monitors versus the five monitors that's been suggested as far as this particular recommendation is concerned. How could you make an assessment, evaluate that data?
>> well, I would have to implement our monitoring operations division that actually had done some monitoring out there on blue goose road and on the waste management facility as well. They've done a lot of monitoring down in the corpus christi area and they are familiar where the problems associated with side-by-side facilities much more than I am. And how would I identity? I don't know that I could do it, but I would certainly involve their help. I don't know that I would be qualified to do it and make a reasonable up or down decision.
>> well, I guess my problem and one of the points I'm trying to get to is the policing of that particular monitoring. Especially if you have persons not being cooperative in the effort of what we're trying to get to. Now, there's a level as far as something exceeding and going below that .08 standards that have you in place. As far as documentation is concerned, how many kurpbz does it have to go beyond the .08 as far as odors are concerned to get enforcement?
>> I believe it's a 30-minute period. It has to average that for 30 minutes.
>> average that for 30 minutes over what period to get that average?
>> over any 30-minute period, I believe. You know, if you find it, if you just happen to set up for 30 minutes and get it right then, I think that that would be -- yeah. The deal is when it gets to the monitoring, where the monitoring stations are, then you've got to show is it coming strictly from this one operator as opposed to the two operators. Simply being downwind and having one more tore, I know enough there that that's not going to -- that's not going to have the documentation for a successful enforcement case. Because you've got to have an upwind and downwind and find how much that one facility impacts it.
>> okay. Since you brought that point up, again, do you -- the recommendations that the consultant brought before us as far as the five monitoring locations on the landfills sites, would that be something that's adequate?
>> well, --
>> monitoring?
>> I would say that at the minimum what we do, whether it's water quality or air quality, is have you to have an up stream sample and a downstream sample. That way you can compare the two to find out what that impact is that that one entity is having. At the very minimum have you to have an upwind and downwind.
>> would there be -- and I don't hold no bones bit. I'm really pushing for relocations of both of these off 290, shut them down. In the meantime, as I stated earlier, there was a remedy, remediation of what we can end up doing out there. Now, if there are violations on them not coming in compliance with that .08 standard that we talked about before in a period of 30 minutes that you referred to, how many of those must it take before we actually look into the remedy of the problem, say, look, this is the source of the odor, whether it's hydrogen sulfide or whatever, as far far as emitting. What will be the enforcement to ensure that how many of these it takes to make them come into compliance to remedy the situation.
>> well, if we can document it, it would only be one. We would send them a notice of violation and ask them for the corrective action. So --
>> immediately?
>> yeah. I mean, it would be -- we would give them notice of violation and then we would tell them -- we would give them a certain amount of time to respond. At least as some sort of response in 30 days what they intend to do and get the corrective action rolling.
>> so what's acceptable -- this is my final question. What is acceptable to you in this scenario based on the recommendations of having five -- a minimal of five monitoring locations, what will be the acceptable monitoring location that would be able to bring about the proper -- well, the documentation that's necessary for you to evaluate? I remember you said one. One may not get it. Two, maybe. I don't know. In other words, I'm trying to look at a tier whereby you are able to give an assessment on evaluation and say, yes, for this 30 minutes of time, realtime here, this is what happened, and this will cause a notice of violation. What is the minimum that you need for that type of documentation to give a judgment call based on evaluation?
>> well, once again, I think it's -- unless I understand, you would have to have an upwind and downwind and together we could seeing the assistance of monitoring operations to take a look at all the data. What you are looking for is any 30-minute period where there is -- where it averages out to greater than .08. And once again, at a minimum you've got to have an upwind and downwind. It would be great to just have a monitor every 100 feet all along the fence lines and everywhere, but there's a cost involved with all of that.
>> about $25,000 per monitoring.
>> yes. So you've got an upwind and downwind at each facility and then the other one there, I would say that that is probably the minimum what you would want to go with. I don't think you can get by with any less.
>> you are answering the five.
>> Commissioner Davis, responding to your question about what's the remediation portion of a notices of violation and what can the landfills do to reduce or alleviate or try to alleviate the odors, I think based on your enforcement case and what the landfills have done up to this point, they expanded their gas collection systems last spring, and we've got graphs here that show the number of complaints that we've received based on the number of -- the increase in gas collection. From both landfills. And so there's a correlation between collection systems being placed in there and the addition of wells. So that is helping alleviate a lot of the odors. And it's reduced the number of complaints that we have been receiving. I'm sorry -- is that where you want to go in -- there's other --
>> en I welcome what you are saying, but i've also heard from the community, you know, you have a lot of complaints and complaints and complaints and complaints and complaint and complaints and complaints and nothing happens. Folks sort of don't complain as much because in the end there is nothing that will be done about the complaints. That's another factor that may need to be tossed into that, that the complaints have come in so many times and there has been no remedy to the situation. So, again, maybe some of them don't explain anymore.
>> that is another fact torment we also take that into consideration.
>> thank you.
>> Commissioner Daugherty.
>> thank you all for coming today. You know, this really boils down to one simple thing for me, and then since we have tceq, which you all are the industry that takes on these kind of issues, and we have all of the neighbors and we have the industry here. I would really like for you all to tell me before you leave what you honestly think is going to get this thing beyond where we are today. I mean because, you know, I don't know what is acceptable out there, you all. I don't know whether 10 days of smelling something that, you know, none of us would want to smell. I don't know 30 days. And I don't know that you all probably don't have a number that says if it exceeds this number of days in a year, another flag goes up. I guess is there anything like that for you all? Is there something --ist trau that breaks the camel's back so to speak that says okay, this is it, now we're moving into tier 2 of --
>> well, and it can be -- obviously it can be subjective. And field operations at the request of our executive director is reviewing what we call our odor investigation protocol, looking at everything from intensity, objectionableness, frequently, duration, and trying to put a little bit more objectivity into a subjective problem. So we are -- as per your request, we're going back, looking at everything from 1993 on. There was a task force that was done with the Texas air control board in 1993 that had citizen groups, agency personnel, industry groups associated with that, and that's where our odor protocol that we use right now came from. And we're reviewing all of that right now. We're going back to the drawing board. Back to the beginning and starting over. I don't know if we're starting over, but we're certainly looking at everything.
>> thanks, barry. Is it you all's opinion that we ought to try and promote the industry to spend this $240,000, and if they sent -- if they participated or however we found a wraoeu to do this 12-month program, is that a program that you all feel will be impact full enough for you all or do you all work alone -- I mean if it's u.r.s. That's doing this, is that going to give you all enough data that you are going to be able to make a definitive or have a definitive opinion about, you know, this is as good as it's going to get? Or, you know, we've got to continue to work with the industry to decrease the number of days that you have these odor problems. Would you you all promote this industry spending this $240,000 to do this monitoring? Is that something that you all would recommend to these people before you all leave today?
>> we're regulators. [laughter] we deal with compliance. You know, there's needs and wants. I don't know that -- we don't have -- we don't have anything in our regulatory handbook that demands that.
>> I mean, I'm looking for help from you all. I've got the folks that regulate this industry, and I really need something to come from you all that would say, yes, this would be a great amount of data that we could gather from this. I mean if I can't get tceq to say yes, I mean that would be great. Then I don't know how I can expect the destroy belly up to the bar and to do this. -- belly up to the bar and do this. I don't want to just go through the motions.
>> is there value in getting monitoring data?
>> there's always value in getting date attachment there's always srapl knew getting additional data points and something for us to evaluate. So yes, there's always -- I mean ...
>> is that kind of a yes?
>> well, not from tceq. I mean we can't -- you are putting us in a difficult position by asking us to give a recommendation on something that we're not -- regulatorily, we can't.
>> but you all can't -- patty, you all can't go out and do an independent $240,000 study on your oeupb, right?
>> no.
>> you all aren't going to do that.
>> we are not going to do that.
>> so if you are not going to do it and this is something that we need to have done, then maybe you don't want to say it, but I am going to ascertain that you all would find this to be quite helpful to have this kind of data before you. I mean unless you thought that the data that you were getting was flawed, and I'm sure that u.r.s. Would certainly sit down with tceq and say this is the information that we are going to gather. Now, is there anything else that you need here, so that whenever we give you this, you are going to be able to make some decisions. I mean you all know where we are. I mean you all are as frustrated with getting 700 complaints as we are. And we've got to somehow find a way to resolve this. And I don't know, if it's not you all, tell me where to go to get the answer. Because I'm about out of questions with regards to how we really deal with this.
>> I think we handed out the graphs of the complaints and then we cross-plotted that with the amount of gas flow -- the amount of gas the landfills have been able to recover, and as the gas recovery increases, the complaints have gone down. Directly, you flow know, inversely proportional there. So I think a large -- they've gone a long ways towards solving any kind of an odor problem pout there. Buns o. O. Problem out there. Once again we get back to the subjectivity of it. You know, is it 10 days where you might smell a little bit? I don't have a number for that either. And the weather will conspire even on the best-run wastewater treatment plants or anything with a capacity to have an odor, every once in a while the weather will conspire and you will have an odor sometimes. I have a colleague that saeuts, hey, it's not an odor free world. Now what's acceptable, that's what our agency has struggled all along with that. Information is great, but at what cost, I don't know.
>> barry, I don't there any there's any question -- I mean even the neighbors, that there have been a great decrease in the number of days. And I think the industry has certainly shown that they are willing and are trying to comply and trying to do the best that they can. At some point in time somebody is going to have to they will me here's the standards. That it goes beyond this number of days, then, you know what? This triggers us going in and saying we're not going to grant any sort of expansion capabilities, be it vertical land mass or whatever because that's really, I think, what we're all really looking for. I don't think anybody in this community thinks you can just goon automatically show this industry down, because we all have garbage, and whether we ever it here or in western Travis County, I think we're going to have people that don't -pbt garbage anywhere near them. So I'm looking for some acceptable -- you know what, that's the best we can do. If we can't burn it, and I understand that there are ways and technology today that weren't here 10 or 150 years ago in the -- 15 years ago and the environmental community probably had a problem with burning garbage. If that's something we need to look at, let's have somal terpb alternatives as to how we deal with garbage. I'm sure people in the industry are not necessarily interested in saying, you know what? We're not really looking for a way to not accept garbage. That's the business we are in. But we are really between a rock and hard spot with regards to how do we deal with the issue of garbage, where do we put it. And I think the odor to, me, is the issue. Soy suppose that i'll continue to ask it, I mean where are you comfortable with the number of days. And if I can see the number of days going down and they have -- I mean complaints, that is. Now, I don't know, I think there's still a factor in there that people are just somewhat anecessary that size to do complaining and it's not that people don't still smell it. If I have to go to the legislature and say let's give tceq a lot more teeth than what they have, then maybe that's one of the things we need. But we need to have somebody that definitively gives us answers that says this is it and this is how we identity. I realize thaw all get quick and tough spots where you go I really can't answer that. But it doesn't necessarily help my situation because, you know, these complaints continue to come. So that's all the questions have i.
>> Commissioner Gomez.
>> I guess the only thing I have to comment on is I believe we will all benefit from additional data. That way we're not guessing the causes of the odors. To me that documentation is really crucial to everyone involved, and think that we're probably going have to attack this problem together. All of us together. And if we have the same data with which to operate and make some decisions, I think we'll come out ahead and at least come a little closer to having -- excuse me -- for having the citizens who live in that area having the operators who have to continue taking the trash from us, and you aller ho hear the complaints and then you have to monitor and make some kind of issue, some kind of standards that would help us all try to resolve this problem. To me it's really important that we move ahead, and maybe we can take advantage of the time taken fact that winter is here. You had mentioned several times. And let's go through this -- these months when I think we'll have more moisture and in that way we can have this additional data with which to work for the following phase. So I really hope that we tkphot waste any more time and that we move to do what we need to do so we can all have access to the same data that we need in order to make some good decisions. I think that's one twaoeu also avoid the finger pointing, you know, and we'll have some good data with which to work. That's not going guarantee all of us are going to be happy with the data, but we need to have-it's an initial reason to have really good information, additional data than what we already have.
>> [indiscernible] documented [indiscernible].
>> we continue to take in frequency, intense teurbgs duration and objectionable ness, what we call f tkeufplt o.
>> you call it what now?
>> fido, like the dog. An easy twaoeu remember the four things that we look at. And that is what we currently do and that's what we're still looking at doing. We may amend the amount of weight you put on each consideration, but that's how we do it now.
>> we us -- go ahead, judge.
>> where does the .08 come into play?
>> well, have you to have a monitoring station at that point. People can smell way better than .08. We're a lot more sensitive than that equipment. But that is what -- that is the criteria where you would have a hard, fast, enforceable situation. After that is correct it's subjective -- after that, it's subjective and it's a difficult enforcement case.
>> so the oeufb standard is if you -- objective standard is if you meet or exceed .08 documented nuisance, short of that you look at the other factors?
>> correct.
>> barry, let me get this straight. If on January 1st, 2004 of this year, if your office gets 80 calls that there's a horrendous odor in the air, and you go out there, send an inspector out there and it meets the old 1993 air control board nuisance violation protocol, and I guess what you are calling fido, you would file a nuisance enforcement action. Send a nuisance n.o.e. Or n.o.v.
>> if we were able to document that, certainly.
>> if on January 1st, 2004, you get those same 80 phone calls and this monitoring program is in place and you've got the stations up there and they she exceedence of the 80 parts pwer billion standard, do you file a n.o.v. Or is that a different lie sraeugsz.
>> if we had an investigator out there, we would file multi citations.
>> the 80 parts per billion h2s standard it is necessarily a nuisance, it's essentially two different violations.
>> correct.
>> in either case, would you say tceq on January 1st you get those 08 phone calls in terms of determining whether to take enforcement action, is tceq better off with those monitoring stations in place to show whether there was an exceedence of the h2s standard or not?
>> certainly we would be better off. The more evidence the better. And so that's why we would be reluctant to turn down any evidence. And in a problem-solving situation, it would be handy -- he get a lost e-mail complaints and it would be very handy to correlate what was going on at the fence line at that time, which way was the wind blowing, the humidity, everything. It would be a great thing.
>> last question. If those stations are in place and they document h2s exceedence, will tceq have any reluctance or is there in any way thaw won't be able to use that data, that evidence in an enforcement case?
>> I don't -- yeah, I think we would be able to use that, yeah.
>> I think it depends on whether the monitors are inside the property line or outside the property line usually.
>> well, that's true. But there's no problem, simply the fact it's not tceq's monitoring station.
>> no, because us a know, we have citizen collected evidence rules, so that shouldn't be a problem at all.
>> thanks.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> it's been a long time, the negotiating process and agreed order has taken a long time.
>> but during the cold, damp season of '02 when most of the complaints came, right.
>> but the documented violation was not found during that period?
>> the -- the complaints peaked in I think the peak that you have got is really February. I think we had like over 250 complaints in February of '02.
>> okay.
>> and in April of '02, two months later, was when we documented the nuisance condition, it was in walnut place.
>> it was April 4, 2002.
>> okay. Is it true that the -- if gases cause bad odors at landfills, is it true that that's most likely to happen during cold, damp months?
>> well, the -- I think that -- I think that the --
>> based on the --
>> the deal is that I think that it goes with -- after a good, hot day, you know, the -- i've seen different reports on -- on effectiveness of -- of gas collection systems of the landfill. I think one of the -- one of the numbers that I have seen was around 70% effective. Seemed to be kind of an industry standard. There's an acceptance that you are not going to catch every last little bit of gas and have it go through its treatment system. So -- so you are going to have some emissions that are uncontrolled. And what we have noticed, certainly what the neighbors have noticed, is that usually after a -- it's after a fairly warm day, we get a lot of those in January, February, March, you get a fairly warm day, 70 or 80 degrees, then it gets down into the 30's or maybe below 30-degrees at night. That would cause the temperature inversion and that effectively just puts a lid on the whole area and the gas isn't able to dissipate as it normally would. Where nobody really notices it. It's a lid and then some of the observations, that the neighbors have had, it just seems to kind of go through the neighborhood. There's almost no wind, it would almost a packet of gas that would just kind of work its way through the neighborhood. That's -- I believe [indiscernible] could correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the temperature inversion is what really affects that, probably as much or more than anything.
>> so cold, damp, maybe so, maybe not. Could happen --
>> humid, humidity, I think, too. We get a lot of complaints, a lot of them when -- when it was misty and -- and that makes sense. Odors seem to carry more, linger more, even in some someone's house. If it's a -- if it's humid in your house, you notice some smells in there that you hadn't noticed before.
>> when does tceq monitor? A certain landfill?
>> air monitoring?
>> uh-huh.
>> y'all did some monitoring at the landfills out in northeast, right?
>> right.
>> we implemented --
>> how did you determine whether to monitor or not?
>> we did that as a result of the numbers of complaint that we received in December '01, I think we had gotten out there by either late December of '01 or certainly in January, February, March of '02. We don't routinely set our monitoring vans outside of the landfills. That was -- there was a special situation.
>> what where do you normally use them?
>> they do a lot of monitoring down along the gulf coast, along the refineries, petrochemical plants. I don't know where else they go, but that's generally where they spend most of their time, outside of petrochemical areas.
>> the -- your position is that's the best way to address landfill odors is to I guess capture the gases at the landfill?
>> there's -- there's -- the regulations require to cover the trash within 24 hours. So you want to have quick covering of the garbage, then that should take care of the garbage smell, then there's the gas smell that they are two distinct smells, actually. And then the gas smell is a separate issue which is from the breakdown of older garbage, actually. So there's two issues. Media covering -- immediate covering of the fresh garbage and then effective recovering of the gas that's being formed from the older garbage.
>> okay.
>> three more questions. What's the difference between the .08 and the 80 parts per billion for h 2 s.
>> I think it's two different ways of saying the same thing.
>> uh-huh.
>> .08 parts per million or 80 parts per bill, same thing, same number.
>> is that pretty much the standard that's been used in other states or is it Texas specific?
>> it varies from state to state. Some states don't have any standards like ohio is having problems with landfill odors, but they don't have an objective number, they are having some problems with enforcement for that reason. I think one of the -- one. References given in the report was an ats, [indiscernible], document on h 2 s, in that document there's a breakdown state by state of what the standards are. Generally they are around 100 parts per billion, though Texas is slightly towards the more stringent end of the scale of -- from state to state.
>> okay. So in terms of dealing with -- with best practices for reducing bad odors before they start, it's basically covering quickly fresh garbage or capturing the gases as they escape before they leave the landfill?
>> right. Have your gas collection wells installed, timely and properly.
>> any other remedial steps come to mind? Besides those two?
>> leachate.
>> well, control all sources of odor. You have leachate collection risers where you want to keep those sealed up as well.
>> is it like a -- sort of a beginners manual for dealing with landfill odors? Is there one that we can acquire?
>> I'm sure there is. Maybe bart --
>> we could probably write one. [laughter]
>> I think that I have seen a document similar to that, judge. I would be happy to try to get that for you guys.
>> okay. Any other questions of tceq?
>> just one more. That is that you mentioned earlier about, you know, the wind. How big of a factor is the wind. I'm going back to some data that was being collected with the monitoring, I guess basically the same thing as it was years ago when they were all situated around the gasoline storage tank farm in east Austin. And of course at that time we were looking, [indiscernible] tax air control board at that time, looking for ways to capture the emissions of through-put from the gasoline storage trucks that were actually hauling and distributing gasoline. But the through-put malfunctioned sometimes and you have a lot of emissions of odor and you have a lot of emissions that came out of that xylene, toluene, benzene, all of this other kind of stuff coming off of that. But the wind, I do remember that the wind in this type of setup poses some problems. I'm wondering is -- will that be the same case even with your monitoring trucks as I heard you say that you go to the coast and do petroleum setups, as far as the trucks. That same truck could be -- could be -- van could be used and brought into the landfill and if so how important is the wind in capturing data?
>> the wind direction will determine where the monitoring will be set up. Where the truck would actually park and set up monitoring. When we did our -- when monitoring operations did their 24 hour monitoring, they took into account the wind direction and weather conditions.
>> right.
>> when we had our strike team come out and do the seven day, 24 hour monitoring, they also took in the -- the wind conditions and weather conditions and then ran their route based on the wind direction.
>> and wind speed is an important --
>> [indiscernible]
>> -- that the more the wind blows, the more dilution and [indiscernible] you get. The -- but generally with odor problems, you see the most complaints from about 3:00 a.m. To a.m. In the -- 7:00 a.m. In the morning because that's when the atmosphere tends to be the stillest, so people at some sites will talk about being woken up in the middle of the night by odors. It's that -- the wind speeds tend to be driven by sunlight. If you look at a black highway in the summer you see that heat rising up. That's mixing the atmosphere, it's getting -- promoting higher wind speeds, you don't get that at the early morning hours.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> tom, [indiscernible], you want your own turn?
>> i'll pass.
>> if we could get you all just to wait around a few more minutes, can you do that. Now, we have landfill representatives here and we also have residents. Who is next.
>> thank you all. Or should the county judge start calling out? Would you all like comments or -- ms. English?
>> I have a prepared statement from walnut place neighborhood association. But first of all, I would like to say -- your name again.
>> I'm joyce thorison. I would like to say at least as far as I'm concerned there's a definite difference between a landfill garbage smell and a septic smell. Living in walnut place it's easy to tell the difference, believe me. When I walked out to get in my car this morning, there was a landfill garbage smell in the area. Will I report it? No. Because there's no point. We have to have someone from the tceq to document that. Sometimes we get them to come. Sometimes we don't. But with these ambient odors, you know, I can -- I have given up, I don't try to get them to come anymore. We believe phase 16 the odor statute is inadequate in several areas. It is based on information almost entirely from the landfills, most of the input from the residents was ignored or minimized, seconds the strong persistent odors at u.s. 290 and giles were largely ignored. Third, most steps taken by the landfills to mitigate odors can be reversed. Diversion of particularly odorous wastes can cease. Alternate covers can be used again. The working faces can balloon to previous proportions and leachate can be recirculated. When the close scrutiny ends, the landfills will revert to their old cheap techniques to save money because their permits allow them to. We question what good the odor study will do when this occurs. Another issue mentioned by not addressed in phase 1 is the misters. I believe the report calls them demisters. This attempt to cover up odors with other odors is an insult to our environment. Not only are we breathing various landfill gases, now we are being subjected to substances, the chemical composition of which is unavailable because of proprietary issues. The liquid being sprayed has not been tested by osha as an inhalant. Therefore we have no clue what the consequences to us, to our property, and to the environment might be. We consider this a major short coming of the phase 1 evaluation. We have concerned that phase 2 testing is not comprehensive enough, especially since phase 1 is somewhat flawed. Is it enough to monitor for hydrogen sulfide to the exclusion of other landfill gases? Or four or five north and south monitoring points enough? Especially since the assaulted neighborhoods are east and west. Our state standards -- are state standards high enough for two contiguous regional landfills in an urbanized area? On the other hand, skipping phase 2 and proceeding directly to phase 3 is completely unacceptable. Phase 3 recommendations include evaluating operations at the landfills to check for possible ways to improve. The landfills have at their disposals have ample expertise to do their job if they choose to. These evaluations should have been performed two years ago. It should not be the responsibility of Travis County or the northeast residents to be involved in this kind of expense and time commitment. We strongly oppose proceeding directly from phase 1 to phase 3. We have not made any specific recommendations because these are complex, difficult problems. We have requested only that you do not skip to phase 3 without any testing, albeit in advocate. We fear the landfills are seeking from you a clean bill of health so they can apply for their vertical and horizontal expansions. We are requesting the court to oppose any landfill expansions in northeast Travis County. The area is too populated, past population -- past pollution is too great, two regional landfills side by side have extracted too great of a toll on residents for too long. Even if you believe your opposition will have little effect, we are requesting again that you do the right thing when the time comes and join with the northeast residents in opposing expansions. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> so as to phases 2 and 3, what's the recommendation now? I understood the part about not going to 3 without 2.
>> last week waste management suggested that you should skip phase 2 testing and go directly to phase 3. We are opposed to that.
>> okay. Ms. English?
>> good morning, my name is treasure english.
>> good -- trek english.
>> good morning, trek.
>> frankly, I'm just -- I have to say this is going to be the third christmas that we are spending totally immersed into landfill problems again. And frankly these two landfills need to be looked at realistically. They have caused so much problems, so much money, so much time from everybody, and yet everybody is willing to give them the -- the benefit of the doubt or feel sorry for them. I don't feel sorry for them! They have put a lot of money in the bank in the last three years, but we were miserable. So frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing that. My next problem is isn't it amazing how much money was spent to remedy a problem when there was only one odor violation? If there was really only one odor violation issued why would the landfill spend millions of dollars trying to remedy a problem? Nobody has answered that one to me yet. Also, if you look at this fantastic graph here, which I don't deny is accurate, probably, I would like to know why the tceq during that peak period never managed to come to anybody's house. We couldn't get them to come in anywhere but at the landfill. They were in and out, in and out of the landfills, but never would come to our house, you can possibly have a documented odor violation during those months. Because they never came to document one. So there's already one big problem. And the second problem is to my shock and surprise and really I am so disappear pointed -- disappointed because that agency, it's probably the only agency in the united states to have done that, had never, never had a public hearing when they received 250 complaints in one month with people outraged at the odor in their homes, we never heard from them except through e-mail or telephone. But also on one to one. Never did they hold a public hearing telling the residents okay this is what we think the problem is, this is what we are making the landfills do, this is what we are going to try to implement, this is what we have noticed, this is what we have found. This was never conveyed to the citizens as a group. So that may also explain why there's such a reluctance from the residents to trust any kind of investigation or any kind of a -- of a -- of a move that the agency can do for us because frankly they have never had this one on one rapport where they could tell them for themselves this is my personal experience that I would like to tell you about. This was never done. The only time we saw a dramatic change in the agency's behavior is when we started, probably I started, e-mailing, you know, 200 people at a time. Then suddenly there was a big shift in their attitude which I think had to do with public relations. So -- so I apologize because I really didn't come here to blast the agency. But frankly I find there's just too many inconsistencies in what is being put forward at all of these meetings. We are also mixing everything. We are mixing the preor -- pre-gas extraction system put in place and post-gas extraction. We are mixing odors, complaints, the concentrations and whatever. I have a statement here that was -- it's actually a verbatim statement that I wrote down from dr. Lourie from the Austin Travis County health department. When he was addressing the city council sometime in 2002. He said the odor complaints appear to be related to hydrogen sulfide gas which can produce headaches, fatigue and nausea as well as irritation of eyes and mucus membranes. It is important to note, however, that these symptoms can appear at levels that do not necessarily exceed the regulatory levels. So that is to say that people can experience some of these symptoms and yet the levels may not be such that it would call for a regulatory action. This being said, I would like you to -- to tell me if you would put up with is. I mean, why do you have a ban on people smoking in buildings? Many of you have -- have any direct physical effects from it? No, but yet nobody can smoke in a building. In fact if we -- you know, if we -- if I hear what is being -- the message that's coming across our local authorities, there's not going to be smoking in Austin pretty soon. So why are we doing that? If I can hear and I lit a cigarette, I'm sure Commissioner Sonleitner would have an apoplexy, because -- I can understand that. But point is that this is a kind of effect now that a cigarette smoking has. Yet you expect me to believe that this guy was one cigarette in this corner is going to harm me, but these two guys with flairs, stacks and gas extraction and methane and carbon dioxide, whatever other gas is coming out of these landfills are okay, was in the compliance level, you know, there's no harm to our health. I would like you to make some sense out of this -- these two factors. Because we are way going -- going way too much to softening the impact that these two landfills can have against us. One of the things that I caught from last week's -- last week's Commissioners meeting is the number one problem that -- for -- for causing air emissions in -- or high emissions are smoke stacks. Well, you know, the flares are smoke stacks. And I don't see -- that's one of the things that I have a real problem with the urs study is I don't see where there's going to be some -- some monitoring of the -- of the gas flares. I don't know that it actually captured 98%. I'm just taking your word for it. You have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that -- that -- I mean this is what the book and literature said that it's 98% efficient. But if it was 60%, how would we know? And that's what I'm saying. If there's no monitoringings of the flares, we are not sure that -- that the flares are not a cause of -- of emission or odors. Because I think that there's a -- a lot of sour gas is being built, being burnt in those flares. And by sour gas is methane mixed with h 2 s or something like that. I'm simplifying it. But frankly I'm reading so much these days I don't know what I'm doing here, I should be going to try to get a doctorate or something. I have a problem with the compliance study. Okay because the compliance study is the same thing that we got with waste management, risk assessment study of the ground water monitoring of the industrial waste. You know, these risk assessments or these compliance are basically how much air pollution is acceptable. That's what -- that's what the bottom line is. Or how much damage can we get away with before we kill 'em. This is what a risk assessment study is. Guy, somewhere, a group of people in some building in another part of the country making up a decision that .08 is going to be acceptable for our noses or our brains or our mucus membranes or whatever or this little kid here that is exposed, you know, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, because he happens to live a little bit closer to the landfill or he may be just in that wind direction more often than most of us. So -- so I have many questions. I don't think there's been a real public -- forget the public. Auto real group -- a real group meeting since you ordered this work study. I would like urs to give us a powerpoint presentation, it doesn't have to be fancy, just a map with a stick, a light. Show me exactly where you are going to monitor, why, where, I think visually I can read all I want, but I want to hear it from him exactly why he feels he should be there and there and there. And I think that would help a lot. If we had at least more -- more meetings to where we could determine exactly what needs to be done.
>> uh-huh.
>> and -- I think that I will end my tirade here, thank you.
>> ms. Best.
>> my name is joyce best, I live in northeast Austin. I wanted to follow up with a word of explanation to the citizen response to something mr. Eckland mentioned last week in his report, that is that there was not a public hearing as had originally been discussed with this study. I wanted to point out as we went into this, we the public had the understanding that e.p.a. Would be involved in some way. That did not develop. We also understood as the process continued that the landfills were not interested in participating in the public hearing. Public meeting. So it boiled down to the neighbors and mr. Eckland and we felt that our opinions and concerns had been pretty adequately stated in the -- in the many hundreds of complaints that had already been filed. We saw no reason to get together and simply rehash that. So I wanted the Commissioners to understand that that is the reason that there was not a public meeting. And to clarify that. That we simply did not have the involvement from e.p.a. We thought would be there and we didn't see a reason just for those of us who had already filed complaints to get together and complain among ourselves. So that was that point. I also wanted to follow up on something trek mentioned and to reiterate a comment mr. [indiscernible] made, that is there are different kind of odors. And that at one point or another, we may be experiencing odors from various gases or we may be experiencing odors from garbage. I wanted to caution you that we don't get too caught up on what's happening at the working faces. I recall that one of the worst events was on a holiday when both landfills were closed. And those were gas odors. So simply having the working face closed will solve a particular type of odor, perhaps, but not all odors, I simply wanted to reiterate that, that we are talking about different kinds of odors under different conditions.
>> thank you, now, any comments from the landfills? Any landfill representatives? I think that the court needs to know what your response is to the study. And in your view where we go from here. Mr. Eckland made his recommendations, last week we talked about maybe end entwining steps two and three or phase his two and three. We heard various other recommendations, I think it would benefit the court to hear from the landfill representatives what their responses are if any to the study and where they believe we should go from here.
>> thank you, judge. My name it's paul gosselink, I have been representing the landfills -- sorry representing b.f.i. Throughout this matter. What I would like to make clear is b.f.i. Is committed to going forward with the study. We believe that the county's idea to proactively conduct an independent investigation of the odor situation at the landfills was a good idea when it was proposed. It has been a good idea during the phase 1 period and we think it still makes sense. There's been a lot of discussion today, but one thing that I think that you have heard is there still is some differing opinions as to whether or not there's still an odor problem at the landfills, we think this would provide some objective, scientific basis for an evaluation of those differing opinions. I think that I have listened closely and that I think everyone has agreed that -- that data can only help. That there's no one I think who said that the data would be harmful to county -- to learn what's going on out there or for the tceq to learn what's going on. We support going forward with that. I would like to address a few specific issues. First of all we have heard that waste management may not participate. We have not discussed that with waste management. But on the assumption that they may not participate, we want you to be clear that you understand that we will. We have a budget. But the budget should be used to give to you for you to employ mr. Eckland to conduct the county's odor study. We think that it is very important that the landfills not be -- have any control over this odor study at all. It needs to be objective, it needs to be done by someone other than the landfills. It needs to have that level of credibility. So we -- we would support an -- we would support your odor study.
>> so you would fund and we would basically --
>> we would fund and you would do.
>> okay.
>> how you would do would be up to you. There's been a lot of discussion about whether an upwind or downwind would be sufficient. We would like mr. Eckland to develop a study that is sufficient to evaluate our performance, b.f.i.'s performance. If you would like to have two monitors that's fine with us. If you would like to have four monitors, and spend more money to have four monitors rather than just the two monitors on us, that's up to you. It would be our funds and your study.
>> you would expect to agree with the study before you handed the money over, I take it.
>> there are some particular issues that we would obviously need to be sure of before we parted with the amount of money involved here. And we would look forward to discussing those with the county and its staff and with mr. Eckland and whoever you felt we needed to discuss it with. But we needed to be sure that the study is a study that has an achievable goal. In other words we don't want to pour a whole bunch of money into something that we are destined to not succeed at. We want to have a standard and a goal that is achievable. Doesn't have to be terribly lenient standard, but it does not have to be such a standard that anyone would take a look at it and say we can't get there from here. We need to be able to feel if we perform operationally, we will pass the study. That's I think a pretty common sense approach and it's one that b.f.i. Has. I think Commissioner Daugherty mentioned this, what are an acceptable level -- number of upsets, certainly one mistake should not put us in jeopardy of passing this study. Certainly we shouldn't shoot for 50% of the time. Dialogue with the county about what is an acceptable level and it should be a minimum level, if we think we need to get that straight before we write the check. You would like to either make a recommendation or -- I think that it is possible for combine phase 2 and 3 to this extent. To the extent we expect that the odor monitors will persistently show exceedingly low levels on a regular basis, even some non-detects, nonetheless there may be periods when they start to show increased levels. Clearly if they exceed the 80 parts per billion standard recommended, then something obviously needs to be done and indeed the state would require us to do something as you just heard. But what if we simply went to a level that was accelerated from where we have been on a regular basis down at the very low levels to say, 60 parts per billion? Well, we would submit that since the data will be coming in on a continuous basis, and it will be instantaneously and contemporaneously available to anyone who wants it, we will all know when something might be amiss, it is at that point that we think that the study should obligate the landfills to allow the county's representative to come in and investigate what's wrong and perform a phase 3 type analysis. Based upon that event. Come on in, something is not quite right, what is it, mr. Eckland come evaluate, find out what it is and further make a recommendation on how to remediate it. That seems to me to make some sense. It doesn't require us going into violation in order to trigger that type of action. That's the kind of -- that's the kind of further discussion to get the specifics down that we feel ought to be engaged in. And we are in favor of going forward with the odor study, we think we can provide some useful scientific information and we are prepared to cooperate.
>> paul, how do you feel about the -- the neighbors' insin situation that if something -- insination if something is done in a positive manner, you take the days and they do continue to decrease, but, you know, if that goes -- and the neighbors' complaints basically go away, how do you feel that the industry needs to I suppose guarantee if those thingsment be maintain -- if those things will be maintained -- put nurse the other spot. How would you respond to that? Put yourself in the other spot. How would you respond to that? What would you think that the industry would need to do to guarantee, you know, their -- their good blessing, if you will.
>> let me -- let me do something that I forgot to do just to start. John rodgers is with me from b.f.i., He may want to add to this answer. In fact you -- do you want to take it over? I would be pleased. If -- if Commissioner Daugherty you are talking about the -- the list of things that I heard like there's diversion of waste and that's merely going to be temporary, as soon as we get whatever it is that we want we are going to start taking this waste back in, is that what you are referring to?
>> yeah, those are the kind of questions that you all get asked.
>> well, I picked that one because I would like to say we are not diverting any waste, so that's not an issue with us. We haven't changed what we are taking. Still taking in sludge, mixing it with sawdust, regulating its odors. On leachate recirculation, a way to -- a way to -- we are trucking that away. A way to obligate us to truck that away is through an agreement with the county or through a special provision in our permit. And that answer is the same answer for any event that you can think of. Now, that's -- I do want to be fair. I don't know that I should say any event because we may disagree with you as to whether that particular event is a problem source and if you want to us do x with it and it costs us a ton of money, we are going to say gee since it's not a problem since it costs us a ton of money, we don't really think that's a good idea. But for things that are or are arguably problem sources, that's a way to handle it.
>> anything else?
>> questions of b.f.i.? In addition?
>> final question, judge, would be, paul, would you say that you all are willing to spend the money -- I mean y'all aren't willing to spend the two $240,000 -- the whole $240,000, what you are saying is we want this project done on our property line or whatever so that's obviously going to be less than the $240,000, right?
>> we have looked at the study and had saw the 240. Decided we would be half-sies on the study and have put aside 120,000 for the purpose of this. Odor study.
>> can that be done, ms. Trek? Where -- where if they were to say were -- we are going to do our site, do you feel comfortable, especially since they are right next to each other, is that something that you feel comfortable being able to go out and monitor and say, you know, we are signing off on the b.f.i. Site.
>> right, we can still determine whether b.f.i. Is in compliance or not and give them data to -- to -- towards improving their operations. But as the state pointed out, it's a net ground level, there's going to be times where there may be some upwind numbers that are above zero and what you do is you take the difference between the two, if the wind is blowing in the right direction. So we are going to still get some information about what's happening south of the b.f.i. Landfill, but the answer to your question is yes.
>> okay.
>> thanks, paul, john for the comments. Can you possibly tell me what is your life capacity under the current msw permit at the landfill.
>> the current remaining site life is six years.
>> six years.
>> right. At the current volume.
>> your current msw permitted. All right. As you know the neighborhoods continue to say this, we have been struggling with this issue for a while, this issue here was here before I got here, of course I hope we can bring it to closure. About expansion of course they oppose expansion, in the same vein, though, we are -- we are -- they are we are I guess hopefully looking for relocation, relocation of -- of the 290 east landfills. I remember in previous conversation, if my memory serves me correct, there was no objections to -- to -- I hope I'm accurate on this, to you looking for relocation sites in the future as -- the remedy in my mind is just that. With the six year left on your capacity, to operate under this permit, that is and I think tceq maybe can vouch for this, I'm glad tceq is here today, that there is enough time under that for you to -- to seek another green fill, a new landfill itself in another location under a new permit in a regional approach to these things. Would you have any objections pursuant to that, I think that's really the crux in the meantime we are trying to remedy the odors that are being emitted out there now.
>> if you don't mind.
>> sure.
>> when you refer to in the meantime, I think taking it in that kind of chronological progression makes sense. Right now, no question, this landfill needs to be run as a good neighbor. We are trying our very best to do that. This study will enable you to evaluate whether we are succeeding or not. Where should we go from here? Well, we have two steps in mind. One is to try and find a green field site. And that can -- can be facilitated by the waste summit that we are going to attend on the 3rd and see if anybody, if any of the other counties are interested. That will be an important piece of information for us.
>> right.
>> even if they are not, you know, even -- even if we get an expansion to this site, that expansion would only last 11 additional years and we would have to be looking anyway. So we are constantly looking for someplace. But we also need and intend to seek an expansion of this landfill. Because there's -- as we all heard at the waste summit, there is no place that nobody cares. And if we -- if we said we are going to not pursue this expansion, getting them to come, that the other one will come through. And it doesn't, then we have an [indiscernible] Commissioner Davis, so we are going to proceed on this, see what we can do and pursue the other.
>> let me ask tceq a quick question. Do we have a representative.
>> yes, sir, they are here until noon.
>> I need to ask a quick question and that is with the six-year capacity, life capacity for -- under their current msw permit, b.f.i., Is that enough time for them to seek green fill permit procedures that's required by tceq to actually issue a permit for relocation? Within that time frame. I have heard it takes three years, sometimes I heard it even take four years, but somewhere in there.
>> it probably is, we can't say definitively how much time that will take, but that's probably sufficient time to look into those issues.
>> I would like to sort of echo that. I would state is as maybe. It really depends on the level of opposition, we have all been here together for more than two years, nothing is filed yet. It can take a long time. It -- get involved in landfill permit applications that have been done in as little as three years as long as 14.
>> hopefully I'm an optimistic, being optimistic as I am, I'm going to lean toward the three years within that time frame or shorter. Secondly, the neighborhoods aren't comfortable right now with some of the aspect of the recommendations, they would like an opportunity to check and talk with the urs personnel. Would you have any objection to that.
>> with the neighbors talking to mr. Eckland.
>> yes, for a brief presentation overview.
>> no. I don't think even if I did it should matter.
>> well the point is some of the things that they objected to -- I think it does matter -- is some of the things that's being recommended especially under phase 3, that's what I'm hearing from them. I think what you do say does matter. [laughter]
>> well, my opinion as to whether they should be allowed to talk to mr. Eckland, that's something certainly that mr. Eckland and the county and neighbors can do with or without b.f.i.'s blessing. We may have a different opinion about something substantively, but as to whether or not there should be open dialogue, we have no objection andments no standing.
>> okay. That's -- no ax and also no -- no objection and also no standing.
>> can I get you scwon to sit on the front row there.
>> let me see waste management representatives. Any response to the study? Or the question where do we go from here for waste management? I take it that the answer is no. Tds? Bob, anything? Okay. Tceq? Final words? I understand you all have to leave at 12 noon. Anything? Anything in addition, any questions of tceq since we have them here.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> really appreciate you being here, all of y'all, really appreciate you --
>> please keep answering our phone calls. [laughter] thank you very much for coming down. Mr. Mac fee?
>> judge, I'm mark mcfee, I have a question I guess on the -- bart on the odor study. I just heard paul up here state that they were accepting the same waste extremes as they have -- waste streams as they have been in the past. I guess on section 3, page 5, the table showing the waste streams, the -- when there's a little line, a dash in there, that means there is none.
>> none reported.
>> okay. So in 1999, waste management -- I'm sorry b.f.i. Accepted 12,600-tons over 12,600-tons of sludge and yet in 2002 they accepted zero? Or zero reported?
>> what I did was reproduce what is in the --
>> right.
>> documents they submit to the state. In talking with ray shull he said there may have been differences in how they report the numbers in 2002 in some cases more than how they categorized it rather than what they actually accept. The one that I focussed on primarily was there had been a fairly significant amount of dead animals and that's the kind of waste that could produce some objectionable odors above and beyond an equal amount of municipal garbage and apparently they had a contract with the city of Austin that ended so that's one small example where there's a difference from one year to another.
>> yeah. That's -- sludge is considered one of the more obnoxious waste streams.
>> it can be.
>> as it grease trap, I know I'm in restaurant business, I have a grease trap they are not nice when opened up. It appears they have cut those types of waste streams by 60, 70% since 1999. '97, '98, '99. My calculations show they accepted more than three times as much of the grease, sludge, grit trap waste during those three years, '97, '98, 99 as they did in 2001 and 2002 yet we are going to run a test on odors. It strikes me as sort of like letting -- arresting somebody for a dwi, putting them in jail, let them sober up, then letting them drink less than a third of what they had the night before and running a test on them.
>> I think there's a factual explanation, I would like to ask mr. Schull to provide it, please.
>> okay. I guess the question is why and how the reduction in grease trap waste and sludge --
>> the bigger question is are we really testing a neighbor that is going to continue being this kind of a neighbor or are we just running a test on them while they are clean and sober. Again. You know, sit there and said just a few minutes ago that their waste stream is the same as it was before. Something is not adding up, either the report is not accurate or his explanation will do.
>> well, let's get that explanation.
>> good morning, ray shull.
>> I think the information that he is alluding to was the categorization by the landfill in 99, 2001, 2002. The quantities for 2002 did show no amounts for some categories where there were significant amounts in the previous years. And the reporting for that year was done differently. Those amounts were include understand that report in the streams for residential commercial institutional and recreation wastes rather than broken down by incinerator ash, dead animals, asbestos and such. Paul I think did indicate correctly I believe it was in late 2001 a contract ended for b.f.i. Where they were taking dead animal waste from the city of Austin. But john rodgers can correct me. To my knowledge there's been no waste streams diverted or not accepted by the landfill purely on the basis of odor control or abatement. We are taking the same waste streams that we could. I think the site has maybe lost contracts for certain waste streams and the breakdown of the waste has changed over time. But developed -- wasn't developed as a conscious effort to try to [papers shuffling - audio interference] natural [indiscernible]
>> the sludge and grease trap waste would be under residential or commercial.
>> that's right.
>> rather than separately -- [multiple voices]
>> reported as sludge or grease trap waste were in the year 2002 it was reported as commercial or institutional waste. Does that help any.
>> well, it -- I guess it's an explanation of why on the report it's not there. But I just don't understand -- I don't know how we can know that we are testing something that we are going to be -- the same type of waste stream as we are going to really be accepting if it's not broken down into separate categories and could be, the way it can be reported could be moved around -- it doesn't -- again it just doesn't make much sense to test them after giving them a two or three years. If you look it's gone down steadily, went down by 50% last year from the previous year before that. I'm sorry, in 2002 there was a 50 percent reduction I believe or yeah, people two-thirds as much -- approximately two third as much of those categories were received as were received in 2001. And 2001 it was substantially less than -- as about the same as 2000, but both of those substantially less than 1999. Perhaps there was some of that would be -- was being reported as residential waste in 2001 and 2002. I'm sorry 2000 and 2001, perhaps y'all are in the process of changing how you reported because there was some of those waste streams. It went from 15,600-tons of those three waste streams in 1999 at b.f.i., It went down to 1900 hundred. Quick math, I would say you cut out 80 something percent of those three waste streams either got cut out or it just wasn't reported as the same.
>> again, for the year 2002 the reporting was different. The -- the remaining years and even the year 2002 that's just the market conditions, that's the waste that the landfill received.
>> I guess I was backing up, since you reported differently, I was backing up to 1999 and 2000 where it dropped by almost 90%. I'm wondering was the reporting different that year or was there only 1900-tons of those three waste streams at b.f.i. Compared to 15,600-tons the year before.
>> to my knowledge the numbers reflect what happened there.
>> okay.
>> at the site.
>> okay. So then I don't -- there is a reason why 80 something% of that waste stream would die out in 2000.
>> I'm not aware of the reason behind that.
>> [indiscernible] think so. So --
>> let me ask you this question. In terms of which one is more, of a problem, do we think that fresh waste would cause more problems, odor problems, than old waste degrading below the surface? Or does it depend on how you treat it?
>> once it's below the surface, I think they are probably all fairly equivalent and the treatment is to remove the gas from the landfill and treat that gas. I --
>> the fraction of the odors that eyed again sulfide probably increases as the waste ages, fresh garbage has some additional acid, there kinds of that sweet smell that you get or considered a sweet smell around a garbage can, not everything would concur necessarily.
>> you have been in the business too long.
>> but it is a fairly complex mixture of things that makes up the odor, hydrogen sulfide is a big part of it, consistent from fresh to old garbage, it's a good indicator compound to use to track it.
>> your question --
>> I am glad to have the interaction and gotten the feedback. Another point that I would like to make, before we go to all of this expense on one of the major, major things that brought us all here to begin with was the industrial waste unit. If we are going to go to all of this expensive monitoring and we are not going to monitor the industrial waste unit I have a serious problem with that.
>> that's waste management?
>> yes.
>> they were not interested in coming here today, I don't know what their position is. I assume their position is no position. That's what we've heard.
>> again from an odor standpoint, in terms of doing a health effect study --
>> yeah. That's one of the major, if you go back to my first time to ever speak here, that's the major part of what I spoke about the very first time, it's still a huge concern of mine and I think that it's negligent on our part to do a major study of what's coming off those areas and for the study that -- not study of that type of thing, too.
>> but mark it's not a major problem or wouldn't be for b.f.i., B.f.i. --
>> no, I understand that.
>> b.f.i. Is looking for a way to say you know what you may not have the issue with us. Now if waste management doesn't want to do the deal, then, you know, obviously we deal with that differently. But I mean I'm pleased that b.f.i. Is coming forth and saying test us. If we've got an issue, we'll deal with it. If we don't we want to be dealt with that yeah.
>> yeah. Would it be possible to find -- to take those records -- again, I'm concerned that we are not really testing the animal that we are trying to test. Is it possible to break out that residential stream and go back through and find out how much grease trap waste was delivered during that time frame, how much sludge was delivered during 2002 is that possible?
>> I think we will have records for the time period we do the monitoring. There is an advantage in doing a longer term monitoring study, not only to get variations and seasonal conditions, but if we went out and did a one-day study, there's more chance that we would see something non-representative in terms of the garbage that's accepted at the landfill. Over the course of a year, I assume you all don't have very much control over what you accept. You document what it is as long as it's non-hazardous, you can't store up garbage until the end of this 12-month monitoring period, for example. Correct.
>> that's correct.
>> one issue that didn't come up, I guess, is the -- the schedule phase 3 which I assume b.f.i. And waste management would co-fund that engineering evaluation is relatively inexpensive and there's no reason that would have to wait until the end of monitoring, if anything -- if there's benefit to be gained the sooner the better. And that could be done condition currently with the monitoring, I would think.
>> [indiscernible] the engineering part for b.f.i.
>> and waste management, too, they had expressed an interest -- again, if -- if there's a -- if there's some solutions to be had, I think everybody is in agreement, they should be implemented the sooner the better. Okay.
>> mr. Mcafee.
>> I wanted to agree with what Karen -- what Commissioner Sonleitner said a moment ago. We need to find out, document what's going on during an event. We neighbors we know when the events occur, you know. Why do we not get a test done when we have an occurrence and find out what's in there?
>> if you have a monitor 24 hours a day we'll be there.
>> I understand.
>> if you monitor for 12 months, if an event occurs during that 12 month period, the monitor should be in place, right. To the extent that you can document -- if the monitoring is accurate it outing to document what's taking place.
>> I think everyone was in agreement that a continuous study is better than trying to mobilize and get out quickly because the odors can be intermitt department in nature, there one day and not the next. I don't want the 3:00 a.m. Phone calls that say rush out there now and collect data. If we can automate it, make it continuous, I think that it's better for everybody.
>> that was the last question.
>> anything further today?
>> judge.
>> yes, sir.
>> out of courtesy, I would like one week postponement on this before we take any action.
>> I wasn't about to suggest action anyway. But I do think that we ought to mull over b.f.i.'s response and in the mean time I will contact the waste management representatives and make sure that we are not interpreting -- misinterpreting their lack of response today. The other thing is that we heard paul outline i've's response and I -- b.f.i.'s response and I think we ought to determine what our response to that is. And if we -- if we are thinking about going to phases 2 and 3, with b.f.i. Alone, then what I would like to see us do is in a week or two, come up with a written sort of a memo of understanding with b.f.i. And you know play ball with them. Tceq does not include that they recommend monitoring, but it seems to me in order to secure appropriate documentation, of whatever is occurring out there, the monitoring makes all of the sense in the world, my own view is that if you are monitoring and treating when problems surface, you know, and knowing when problems do not, that in and of itself makes a lot of sense and if we -- my concern was us taking some action in December, so when the cold damps come, everybody seems to be saying cool and damp is good, but also humid, hot, et cetera, if you do it during a 12-month period I guess you pick up all of the seasons.
>> also something that I think is very, very relevant also as far as what I ascertain as far as what tceq was saying that was the basic recommendation that -- that urs had before us now and the minimum requirement of the monitoring stations that's needed. Of course we just got one better than, one landfill operator that's agreeing to, you know, to deal with that and the others, the other three are just as significant, we are really talking about 40%. I understand that he can probably -- urs can probably gather the data point that's necessary for evaluating for tceq to look at. However, I think we are still missing significant data that's being admitted as far as the emissions are concerned that is being emitted from those landfills.
>> we are talking about 100% of b.f.i. If we go along with their -- [multiple voices]
>> b.f.i., Waste management that we have to mull over, taking them out of the picture altogether if their lack of response today was intended to indicate that to us.
>> judge, I'm for the going to be here next Tuesday. So if we are going to do something it may need to be two weeks. [indiscernible]
>> okay. I think our position ought to be to direct staff to work further with b.f.i. To try to put in place a sort of draft understanding of its response. And -- two weeks, court consideration for two weeks. What I would do immediately after today is contact waste management's representatives and indicate to them that we -- that we interpret their failure to respond as basically an unwillingness to go along with the recommendation from mr. Eckland and if there is something more definitive that we should know, suggest that they put it in writing and then come before us probably next -- next week. I mean --
>> exactly.
>> not to take action, but to get their response next week, try to put it on an actual schedule, snools with that direction to staff, judge, I really would hope that staff continue to keep the neighborhoods involved. John I'm really depending on y'all even if you are thinking at things with b.f.i. And anything else, I think it's very, very significant as far as getting my support on any of this that the neighborhoods must continue to be involved in this process. Not out of this process at all.
>> I guess my vision of that is we get a draft that we believe is technically supportable, we perhaps meet with the neighbors and just present that to them. And then we go from there.
>> please include mr. Eckland, too.
>> well, he's, right.
>> your contract hasn't expired yet, has it?
>> the budget has. [laughter]
>> we have to look at that too, then, I guess.
>> was your suggestion there in the form of a motion.
>> I second that.
>> direction.
>> just direction, okay. [multiple voices]
>> just direction, okay. Thank you all, thank you, john.
>> thank you.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner moves we recess to 1:30, seconded by Commissioner Daugherty. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote with Commissioner Gomez away.
Last Modified: Tuesday, December 3, 2003 6:52 AM