Travis County Commissioners Court
February 1, 2005
Item 29
Now, number 29 is to consider and take appropriate action on a notice of intent from the executive director of the Texas commission on environmental quality to issue a permit to magna flow international corporated for the land application of sludge at a site near the intersection of ta ver lane and 969 in precinct 1.
>> judge, we talked a couple of weeks ago. We had discussion on this particular item that's before us this morning. We then gave direction to come up with a letter to submit to the tceq officials looking at a contested case hearing and also looking at the affected parties in this particular regard and asking them for reconsideration of the executive director of this intend to issue a land application permit to magna flow international incorporated. So I wanted to ask for the Commissioners court and also the public, and I think we do have some persons here that we would also like to testify on behalf of the -- of the pond springs neighborhood group. I really would appreciate that.
>> sure. Good morning, judge and Commissioners, john cool, environmental officer for tnr. We I guess kind of 11th hour got an e-mail out to you and I'm just hoping that you did get the letter and have it in your backup, everybody got that?
>> was that in the e-mail yesterday?
>> anyone have center copies? O. -- extra copies?
>> I have mine.
>> I do have six or eight extra copies if anyone wants one. Essentially what we've done is taken a very simple letter that is divided into two areas, one on the motion to reconsider. The second focusing again on the request for a contested case. And we are also planning to attach to this letter the August 12th, 2003 comment letter which is -- which has got a lot more technical information in it. But we're pretty much using the laundry list approach, I guess you would say. We don't really feel like -- although there were -- there was a very lengthy response to comments from the executive director, we don't feel like logically this thing should go forward. So it's pretty straightforward letter. If you have any specific questions about it or if you want me to lay out the letter, I can do that.
>> would you please lay it out?
>> sure. We feel like there's several areas that this site conflicts with, just common sense. The land use, that is one of the more developing areas in Travis County. There are a number of brand new subdivisions coming online in that area. We've got a brand new park under construction right now that's very close. And of course the older weberville park's not too far away and certainly the river's just downstream. The land use conflicts, the technical problems with the soils, hydrology and just the floodplain enveloping the entire site. This land application site is pretty much 100% in the 100 year floodplain. And that conflicts, of course, with signing an ordinance on floodplain specific siting ordinance on solid waste facilities. And then we in the initial letter had documented all of the compliance problems that are -- that you get from their own files, from tceq's files. They've had things related to the application issues, how they apply this stuff to the land that's been sighted with problems there and also been cited with other problems. So what we're saying is look at this logically. It's in a floodplain, it's developing even more than it has. It's been there since 1999. It's only getting more pop plus. You've taken a bad situation and are making it worse by permitting this for the next five years. And tom also can speak to this. He felt like their interpretation of the area where they've got discretion to deny based on land use was just simply a misstatement or misapplication of the law, so we're reminding them of that as well. That's pretty much what we've got in a letter, Commissioners.
>> john, did we ever figure out I guess where the sludge, what part of the outside of the county? And I know that is an issue, it always has been, I guess, as far as some of these facts that was used, beneficial land use, to bring in sludge.
>> I was ready to answer that two weeks ago. Let me see if I have it. Yeah. What they've done in the application is san marcos wastewater treatment plant, blanco wastewater treatment plant, granite shoals water treatment plant, lago vista wastewater treatment plant, kingsland m.u.d. Wastewater treatment plant, johnson city wastewater treatment plant and wcid point venture waste treatment plant. That's the list.
>> that's the list of what, now?
>> those are the sources, judge, that will be taking the judge, either water treatment plant or wastewater treatment plant sludge. And bottom line is everybody has to maintain their treatment sludge. It has to go somewhere. We maybe had a problem with I suppose land application, per se. We just feel like it needs to be in remote up land settings. This is no longer remote nor has it ever been up land. It's in a bottom land. So that's pretty much it.
>> you say that in here also?
>> yes.
>> as a more remote location, nor upland?
>> yes. There's a source early on that says -- i'll read you two sentences. It appears that tceq is more concerned with the timing of the application than common sense. There are acres more remote and better suited to this type of industrial project, perhaps even under ownership of the subject landowner. So it may not be as clearly states ai did a minute ago, but it's referenced there. In other words, thousands of acres in remote upland areas.
>> okay. Yes, sir?
>> hi. I've lynn futrell, I'm a board member of the parks spring neighborhood association and a former president of that organization. And I'm here for two reasons today. First of all, I want to thank you for your past support of our neighborhood association and the general area out there on this particular issue. And I'm here to ask you to pass a resolution or take action so that you consider these requests toward the tceq. I'm going to reiterate what john has said that it does not make sense that tceq approve this permit application for the reasons he just stated. We all attended, and Commissioner Davis attended the same public hearing that we did, February 26th, 2004, and laid out our concerns and our issues then. Ordinarily they would respond to us in 30 days, not longer than 60 days. It took until January 5th of this year for them to respond to our concerns and comments, and they still side with the industry. This wreaks of a bad odor. I can't understand why a state agency charged with protecting the citizens of Texas and to protect our rivers and our water supply sources can side with the industry, who has violated, as john said, numerous rules and regulations on this site and a nearby site. This particular site has polluted a local well. The owner of that well is in the audience today. We have pictures of that well. You can see how close it is to his well. It cost him thousands of dollars. It made a tenant of his sick, and the tceq tips to ignore this kind of evidence. They have an option to support the county in its efforts to protect the floodplain, but they side with the industry. It does not make sense. I as an individual plan to try to get support to go to the legislature to try to change this legislation and to either cause tceq to do a better job of especially forcing it and adhering to the intent of the legislation or to get another agency to supplant tceq. I do not think they're effectively doing their job. We can answer any questions that you might want to ask, but I want to again thank you for your interest in this. I think you can all see that we as residents of eastern Travis County cannot understand why a state agency will allow sludge to come in here from other counties into our neighborhood where we have lived and are living and where we get our water supply. Manville has drilled a well within 500 to a thousand foot of this site. They are concerned, I believe in talking with them, they're going to request a contested case hearing and ask for reconsideration. Lcra also raised some concerns. Tceq is ignoring all of you folks, us and the other governmental agencies in this issue. And I cannot comprehend it. I thank you for your time.
>> thank you. You said you had some pictures within close proximity of one of the landowners? Does he happen to have those with him.
>> right here.
>> could you share that with the court?
>> yes. And mr. Glass is the owner of the well. He has more detail.
>> mr. Glass, can you help us? That's okay.
>> this is the well. You can see in the background the drainage ditch draining that sludge. Here's the sludge in that ditch. That's a close-up picture of what you're seeing in that ditch. This is another picture of the sludge draining nearby. You can see the proximity of the well to the drainage ditch right there. And these are the kinds of things that are hard to comprehend why a state agency can ignore this to the detriment of --
>> i've seen the pictures, but if you could hair share with the rest of the board members, -- court members, I would appreciate that. And judge, it just appears to me, and I think they brought up some good valid points. This is a day-by-day battle trying to maintain a sensible quality of life here in Travis County. And I -- it doesn't matter where you live in Travis County. I think you ought to have some quality of life. It just appears that the eastern portion of Travis County has been bombarded by a lot of things that shouldn't be there. And if it's getting more rapid, people are turning their backs on it and I agree with you as far as agencies not sometime looking the other way. It appears to me that not only this, but I think the state legislature, I represented to the delegation that represents Travis County will be just as involved as we are. I'm going to try to make sure that the letter, if the court approves it, hopefully we will. I want to make sure a copy of that letter gets to the Travis County dell gaights because it is -- delegation because it is a serious matter and I don't think any portion of Travis County ought to be exposed to these type of environmental hazards, public health and safety being jeopardized. I don't think anyone ought to be subjected to that type of tear any. And that's -- tyranny. That's what it is. It's a slap in the face and to the residents of Travis County so I would like to just go ahead and I would also like to include the state legislature as far as this letter is concerned and as far as the Travis County delegation because I think it's all our fight, not just Travis County's fight, but it's all our fight in this. So if we're going to maintain quality of life, let's do it from a holistic point of view instead of piece meelg around with this stuff. I'd like to, if there are no other comments --
>> would anyone else like to make comments on this item? Please come forward. Yes, sir.
>> while he's coming up, may I add a couple of things? We have spoken with our state representative and our state senator's office about this. They indicated that they would look into it and would talk with you about supporting you and us on this issue. So we will support you and I believe they will support you and us. And I think that's a start and a step in the right direction. If you stop and think about it, the people who rendered this decision probably live in western Travis County, not eastern Travis County. They're officed in downtown Austin, not eastern Travis County. They're not subjected to any of these dangers or risks. The scientists that have advised the state agency and the e.p.a. And those who work for the industry do not live in this area and they do not subject their children or themselves to these health hazards. Thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> morning. My name is ken moon. I'm a city Commissioner with the city of weberville. And I'm here today in support of the park hill group -- park springs group. And this is not directly in my jurisdiction, it's a couple of miles down the road from us, but we do have a similar situation directly adjacent to our city limits with the city of Austin's property where they're dumping sludge up there on the Austin energy property. If you were to draw a circle out there with a two-mile radius, you would include all three of the sludge dumping operations in Travis County. Also in that circle you would have two active sand and gravel quarries, one inactive one, plus three other tracts of about a thousand acres that are proposed to be sand and gravel quarries. Now, these kinds of situations is what drove us to incorporate back in '99. And it's been an going fight -- not in '99, but in 2003. But it's an an ongoing fight since '99. I was on an environmental committee with the weberville neighborhood association at that time, and we found out about this sludge dumping going on up there and we took a look at it, went to tceq and talked to them. And we got the same kind of response that he's been getting. When we're talking about some of the gravel permits, one of the people here at tceq told us that their job was to ensure passage of a permit request. And that told me that they have no concern over the safety and well-being of the people out there. What I would like to see in the legislature, which was proposed during the last legislative session, but was killed, is something that addresses the cumulative effect of all these different environmental things that are going on in our area or any area in the state for that matter. And see if there couldn't be something that could be done to limit the total amount of contamination and environmental destruction that's going on, especially along the rivers of this part of the state. If y'all have any influence with the legislature and can get them to do something to look at the cumulative effect of this, I think that would be a big help for us.
>> thank you.
>> I'm jermaine swenson and I'm with park springs neighborhood association. I'm convinced that if tceq were occasionally monitoring this sludge farm that we may not even be having this conversation because I'm sure that they would have been cited several times by now. From what I understand, there's not enough men out in the field monitoring activity like this. And there are certain rules that they're supposed to be following, like only dumping a certain amount, immediately tilling it in, and casting out lime to cut down on the smell. Obviously some of these things haven't been going on because we're having odor problems and we're having part of this going downstream, so from what I understand there hasn't been enough monitoring of the site. Also, as far as grandfathering them in just because they had an existing permit prior to the redesignation of this area and to the 100 year floodplain, I can understand if it's, for instance, a city outlawing mobile homes in their city boundaries, but allowing existing mobile homes to stay. Because that's not a public hazard. But in this case there is some kind of hazard or daipger from this continued activity now that it's in the 100 year floodplain, as if all the people that were taking vioxx were grandfathered in and allowed to continue to take vioxx after it was seen as dangerous to their health. I mean, it's a similar thing. Grandfathering I can understand in certain cases, but in this case wrong it should be allowed and the permit should not be allowed. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
>> thank you. Yes, sir?
>> I'm chris land here with the Austin resource group, the sierra club. I am speaking on my own behalf. We haven't been able to take this up as a group, but I would like to offer our support of the people in eastern Travis County in opposing sludge dumping.
>> thank you for your support.
>> can I say one more thing about the monitoring? It's our understanding that the industry is required to self-monitor and to report its violations to the commission. To me this is like the fox guarding the hen house or a paroled convict being required to monitor his own violations. It does not make sense, folks. But that's part of the situation that we're dealing with with tceq and the industry.
>> john or tom, what are the next steps that tceq will take on this matter? First I guess they'll decide whether to put it on the contested hearings docket. And that's the executive director, right?
>> [ inaudible ].
>> we got a letter from the executive director.
>> opposing the issue of permit.
>> so we're responding to the executive director's letter. So he will evaluate the responses that he gets and make a determination about whether they're meritorious or not. So what if he decides against us? What's the next step?
>> then the commission itself can overrule the executive director and say don't issue the permit. Or the commission can say, we would like to have a contested case on this permit at the state office of administrative hearings.
>> so is this facility in operation now?
>> it's operating under a registration, which was the procedure before the law was changed to require them to apply for a permit. That's my understanding. Tom, is that correct?
>> yes.
>> so they're doing the same thing, but it would be under a different kind of license, permit?
>> right. The legislature passed a bill that basically said sludge operations can operate under a -- can't operate under a registration any more. We're going to end all registrations and all of those facilities have to apply for a permit. But they were allowed to continue operating while they were going through the process of applying for their permit.
>> and the effect of their not responding from February 26th to January 5th of this year, 11 months, gave the industry an 11-month grace period to operate under that registration.
>> exactly.
>> so do we think we can argue that while they have been operating, they have been operating in violation of applicable standards?
>> no. I think the law was pretty clear that although their registration was being terminated, they were going to be allowed to operate during the pendency of the application process for the permit.
>> administratively, yes.
>> do we feel they have not been a good operator under the registration?
>> yes. I think that our -- their own file shows that, and we've reminded the tceq of that and we still observed, the neighbors observe and I observe things that I don't think comply with letter of even their existing registration.
>> when we requested the compliance record of the -- requested the compliance record of the industry, tceq's response was they determined they are of average compliance. That makes me a little concerned about how many of these sludge farms are actually complying very well with the requirements. If this one is average, we've got some problems statewide.
>> unfortunately we've kind of been here, done this, related to cap teks and with magna flow. Ought we feel like in terms of what is laid out in the letter from the chief clerk we ought to quality fi the persons who have -- qualify the persons who have the right to get that contested case hearings? In terms of the history of these things being granted, is it usual that they allow us to have a contested case or is there a higher bar that you have to reach and there really is more of the -- it's hard to get a contested hearing?
>> once upon a time it was hard to get it, but these facilities caught the attention of the legislature a couple of sessions ago and because this is not a problem that you have just in Travis County, it's happening in a lot of other places in the state. So hopefully tceq will reconsider the ease with which they have granted these type of authorizations before and will give them a little more scrutiny.
>> there's no doubt in my mind that we ought to sign this letter as quickly as possible and put everything in bold and underlined.
>> and the historical performance. Anybody else here on this item? If so, please come forward. Commissioner Davis?
>> yes, judge, I move that we send this particular letter and send it to the tceq personnel. And that we also -- if it's possible to get that hand delivered because I think that the time line --
>> it will.
>> if it's hand delivered so they can get it stamped in as far as postmarked before delivery. And also that we also send a copy of this particular letter to the Travis County delegation and let them know exactly where we are on these type of operations here at Travis County. And so i'd like to move approval of this particular item.
>> in the letter to the delegation do we ask them to join us in this?
>> exactly.
>> (indiscernible).
>> I caught that and I have to apologize to him alreadiment.
>> any more discussion of the motions? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
>> thank y'all.
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.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, February 2, 2005 9:40 AM