Travis County Commissioners Court
October 4, 2005
Item 31
Number 31, consider and take appropriate action on iesi, Texas landfill lp, request for variance from subchapter c, chapter 64, Travis County code, solid waste floodplain ordinance, for site at 9600 fm 812.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. John kuhl. Just to bring you back up to speed in what this project is, just to sort of give you the context, and then we'll turn it over to the owners of the facility and their consultants to describe it in more detail. Just to kind of give you a little perspective on this. They have been -- it's not a new project for us as a staff. Some of the members of the Commissioners court, they have always anticipated making these drainage improvements to their site, which would make it necessary for the floodplain ordinance, which is the one that requires that any solid waste activities be 500 feet from the 100 year floodplain.
>> just to give you context on their particular site, this is on fm 812 on precinct 4 and was originally actually permitted in the late 1980's and lay dormant for some time, was not fully developed into any type of a landfill until it was acquired in 1989 biesi and -- iesi and actually changed the permit to their jurisdiction and began landfilling in about the year 2000. It is a type 4 landfill and it is within the described distance to the airport that requires that they cannot use type 1 disposal means on that facility due to the concern for bird air strike hazards. And in addition to that, it is limited in terms of the elevation to which they can fill. They can give you the specifics on that. The bottom line is this is not a lateral or a vertical expansion, it is simply a site improvement. Back to the time line we passed our ordinance that we're talking about today October 2001, and that was about the same time that they were analyzing the need to make drainage revisions and do the necessary designs and submit to tceq. In January of 2003 they actually came us to with the need to do those types of improvements and we had to give them a site development plan. They also at the same time, of course, in the process were dealing with fema and the revision to the actual floodplain maps in that area. Because what they've done is taken -- if you can sort of imagine -- and you do have maps with you that were in the backup. It's just a very basic map. And did we hand the revised ones out? I must apologize. This thing has sat for a couple of years and I gave you a dated graphic that did not show the actual fema map revision that officially was approved in July of 2004. Basically they took a drainage channel that was permitted by the tceq that ran right down the middle of their site and decide to move to to the west site to both improve their operating processes there and also arguably to get the water that is being taken off of the site into arguably a more environmentally sound location, on the western perimeter where they've only got to worry about frankly one boundary with disposal cell that is to their east. So again, they came and dealt with us on the (indiscernible) and the map provision and the site development provision back in 2003. You may remember that because it came to Commissioners court at that time and we actually negotiated a maintenance agreement with them on their drainage easement, and that was approved with the understanding that they would be back here as they are today to talk to us about a variance to the so-called floodplain ordinance that pertains to solid waste. So that was 2003. The fema map revision took place 2004. Arguably, it would have been premature to bring it to you prior to July 2004 anyway because the map revision was not official and we couldn't really talk about the specifics of how much square footage would be within 5700 feet of the floodplain and so forth until we had that accurately met. You ask yourself, I know a year and a few month went by, and I think we could accurately describe as a mutually agreed upon delay. There was a hope at that time that the agenda at Travis County Commissioners court might kind of settle down, solid waste issues and they could come in during the time period where things were relatively calm and we've somewhat given up on that, and their plans need to be capitulated and finalized, so they're here today to discuss that with us. I think at this time, to just give you that context, it's probably appropriate to segue into the more detailed part of the project description, and I値l introduce what I should have done at the beginning is introduce the folks that here. The area marng for iesi is down mere to my far light. The engineer joe (indiscernible). To my right john (indiscernible) the attorney for iesi who you've seen here on many solid waste issues and fletcher kelly, he was an engineer who did the landfilling aspects of this particular phase of the project. And there was another consultant that's not represented here today, espy, who did the drainage plans for not only tceq, but the city of Austin. This project has gone through a number of reviews and approvals, and I would guess this may be the last one in terms of working with the agencies to officially and properly get this thing permitted. So at this point I think probably john veil will take you a little further into detail unless you have questions for me when we do that.
>> to cut to the chase, the recommendation by tnr is to?
>> to approve the variance.
>> thank you.
>> and last time we had a conversation with y'all, you were in close act with your neighbors. And some of that still has gone on, so they are still aware of what you are doing and they are still in communication with you and they're still in agreement with you about what you were doing.
>> yes, we were in communication, we did have a change in pastor of the church next door, but that's the only change we've had in the people that were out there in pretty much the whole period in day one.
>> and not only do you need to complai with our regulations here, but I think you still comply with the f.a.a. Regulations.
>> I don't want to get technical, but there's really not an f.a.a. Regulation necessarily. We are governed by the height, but yes, ma'am, it did say that. We also are in the Austin e.t.j., so we have to comply with the city of Austin, the county, the state and of course the f.a.a. Comes into play in a different fashion, but I値l let them comment on it more.
>> but that's because of your proximity to the airport?
>> and the height of the facility because it is in the vicinity of the airport. It could never be operated as a type 1 facility. It's clearly a type 4 facility, always has been, always will be. We are certainly limited with our height and we are in compliance with the agreement that was reached with f.a.a. And as well with the city of Austin that governs the airport operations.
>> and I知 glad that john pointed out, this is not a new project. This has been in the works for a good while and I think that I致e always appreciated the way that y'all have worked with our county staff in trying to reach agreement on what needed to be done out there to comply with our regulations.
>> and what I might do at this point, unless there are further questions, I may ask fletcher kel i, a consulting engineer for the company, to assist me in showing you an overview of the site and I値l try to have just the essential and not get into too much detail unless you prefer I get into the further details.
>> the main question for us is why is the variance required, one? And two, why is it a good thing for iesi and also Travis County residents?
>> both very fair questions, judge. This overview, of which I believe you have a copy, showed the entirety of our facility. This is fm 812 here and this is the enchance to the -- entrance to the facility. This is the landfill proper. And the dotted areas essentially are the areas for which this facility was previously approved by tceq many years ago. After eies acquired the facility in the 1999, 2000 time period, we looked at one aspect of this site as it was permitted by our predecessors and it was the fact that they had drainage that was going to cut right through the heart of the facility and we were going to operate a landfill astride that drainage channel. And we felt that that really presented two problems. One was environmental. It made more sense obviously not to be operating a landfill on both sides of a drainage channel. Effectively it would create some operational difficulties that as operators we would prefer not to contend with. So after we acquired the facility and went through the process of doing some initial upgrades and made the decision to take the graij from upstream of this facility, and instead of having it cut through the center of the facility, instead go around the perimeter of the facility and exit at essentially the same point. That is the aspect of this two step process that you all have previously seen. We are in approximately the end of 2000, first part of 2003, entered into a maintenance agreement, a restrictive covenant and also having worked with your staff very carefully as well as fema on the rerouting of this drainage to ensure proper environmental protection. When we made these drainage channel improvements, of course as you can see, we went through areas that the tceq had previously already authorized us to fill with type 4 construction demolition debris. So as a result of these improvements which y'all have previously reviewed and approved, we lost approximately 345,000 cubic yard of solid waste disposal capacity in and along this reach. We now have a situation where as a result of this revision we have the drainage, it's working marviously, we had a 100 year flood event last year and it worked as designed without difficulties. We also as part of our environmental protection can verify that we're getting good water quality coming in and around the facility. But we still had this area here in our facility where although this is not going to be a drainage channel, was not previously authorized for fill. So before we were thosed for certain disposal capacity by the tceq, y'all then subsequently passed the floodplain ordinance, an ordinance which we don't have any problem with. We certainly understand and appreciate the reasons why the county adopted that ordinance. We thought that it would be a good idea to take the disposal capacity that was lost through these drainage improvements and relocate that capacity within this channel here. So basically ask you to take the disposal capacity that we lost here what we consider to be doing an environmentalty and operationally beneficial activity and essentially relocate -- locate it outwards and relocate it to in channel. That allows us to recapture that capacity and we've done so in a way that we ensure that we are not increasing the capacity of this facility beyond that which was approved by tceq and which predated your passage of the floodplain ordinance. Also as you can see by taking this material and row evacuating it -- rotating it over into this area, we have what would have traversed the floodplain and extended it away and outward from the facility. So we again see that it's environmentally protected. We have a little point where the juncture of these two areas come. If you step off 500 feet backward in an easterly direction you will see the 500-foot radius here. So we will take this material, place it in this channel here and really it's this portion of that drainage channel that is technically within 500 feet of the floodplain. So even though we did what we consider to be the appropriate thing and I think the county staff would agree, technically because of the passage of the floodplain ordinance, this is an area which is new, albeit between two areas that were previously permitted for fill. And it's really the yellow area here, the 500-foot stretch from this point to this point here heading in an easterly direction for which we need approval. Technically it's outside the 500-foot, so it doesn't need the approval, but clearly we want to fill this entire channel to have a nice contour through here and then address those operational difficulties that I mentioned earlier. So that really is the project in a nutshell. If you wanted some more details in terms of things such as square footage or volume, as I indicated, the capacity is a no net gain in terms of capacity. The facility is not getting any big. We've assured that it's not getting any here: we're only stepping out and trying to recapture that lost disposal by going laterally in another area to an area that was not previously strailgdz stralgdzed by disposal capacity authorized by the tceq. So we thought this was the best way to address our drainage as well as to address the operational concerns and we did it in a way that we would not increase our capacity and we tried to do it in a way also where frankry we felt that it clearly met the criteria that the county set forth in its floodplain sorns where it imposes a hardship upon eisi. Our facility is in compliance with all applicable regulations and we will respectfully request that we have the authority to complete the second face of this project by filling this area. We've already received all the necessary approvals that we need from the tceq from fema. We've been inspected, we've received a well site development approvals from the city of Austin and from Travis County. So all approvals are otherwise in place. And I have several people here in case we get into this engineering questions which I知 clearly not qualified to answer.
>> so was the former drainage channel I guess what I would call a natural drainage feature?
>> I値l let fletcher kelly address that. I think it is not as designed, but that is the general area in which the drainage had historically been conveyed, but let me have fletcher kelly answer that question.
>> prior to any design done in the 1980's for this site, the natural drainage channel ran from fm 812 to this point and through the center of this -- and exited at the same exit point. The exit point never changed. The engineers who originally permitted the site chose to do a 90-degree turn, bring it around this direction and exit it at this point. They had their reasons. We looked at it and decided that it's exposed two different mounds of dirt, had more surface area for us to control. This was a shorter distance to the exit point. And more -- and in my opinion the best way as far as trying -- the least path of resistance, the least amount of turns and steps and changes. And that's what we did, tceq, had to go through the city development permit as well as y'all's development permit because we're in the e.t.j., but that original was this direction.
>> so if we were to go out today, what would we see?
>> you would see this channel completed and constructed. This area is flat, at natural grade as it was at any point in time as well as the old one is in this area, you see this right here, and that depression of course it kind of pans out in this area. And the water has been diverted around it on the original, god made.
>> I have two questions I need to ask you. I知 going to focus my attention on water quality. Can you tell me where that unknown creek, what tributary does it flow to off your site? I知 basically looking at the one that's in the 100 year floodplain area.
>> it's referred to as cotton mouth creek. It's a tributary of onion creek. It flows about a half a mile to three-quarter mile and curls back around toward 183.
>> thank you for that. Number two was that this at one time was a type 1 landfill.
>> no, this was permitted as a type 4 landfill.
>> it never has been a type 1 landfill? Never had anything on it as far as type 1?
>> no, sir. The tceq -- or then I think the Texas health department, the original permitter of this site, it was permitted by the health department in '88 or '89 as a type 4 construction, demolition only.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> Commissioner, the city's landfill, which is adjacent to this facility, was a type 1 landfill.
>> the neighbor was a type 1.
>> yes.
>> my concern is is there any influence that with this type of channelization, is there any influence of anything coming from that old city landfill into this?
>> no, sir. There's actually a drainage praik on our property line and the water from the city all drains to the east. The city's landfill, this is their property boundary. This is our dotted line, our eastern boundary is the boundary with the city of Austin. And their water all flows to the east and then to the north. That's a separate drainage area and they've actually had a separation. We're in two different drainage areas.
>> and just one other point, too. The city facility is located here. What we've done is taken the drainage and instead of running it between the two facilities we've actually taken the drainage and moved it around the west end of our facility. So we've actually moved the running water further away from the type one landfill that's owned by the city that's here rather than having it cut through. Not only our facility and their facility, but then bisecting our facility there here as well. If if
>> the filtration, are there any filtration mechanisms in place to -- even though the new drainage there that feeds into the creek system, is there any proposed filtration to ensure that whatever comes off of that, whether it's within the floodplain and also through the channel itself, is there any filtration mechanisms in place to deal with water quality?
>> yes, sir. There are different mats that are actually laid on top of the soil to prevent erosion. The channel is -- much of it is concrete where the high erosion would be is all concrete, going to doun a bunch of rocks -- like chain-link fence filled with huge boulders to further filter the water and then there's silt fencing at the end to meet the city, county and federal requirements for the filtration. And any area that we disturb that doesn't have at least 75% grass coverage, which I think you have as well as the city has to have filtration. And we're in construction a lot there. We have those all in place.
>> and lastly, can you possibly tell me what did you-- the old channel that was there before -- of course, as far as the waste area, disposal area, that old particular channel that was -- that's going to be filled, has that been filled? And if so, what has it been filled with?
>> are you talking about the channel that was originally designed or the one that --
>> the original one.
>> the old creek there. Theold creek bed which began here, once we diverted the water around, then we have filled in a portion of the old creek bed. Eventually we'll fill in about 90% of that portion. We've actually excavated below the fill line of that channel to remove any silt and previous water that had gone through here and we're below that and we actually fill part tf. But not until we divert the channel, of course.
>> on the -- can you tell me type 4 landfills can accept?
>> yes, sir. It's a list of information. Basically what they cannot accept are things that basically rot or have a pew trid odor -- putrid odor. That means construction debris that have not been contaminated with sheetrock, things that people do in construction demolition, bed springs from homes, things that will not rot and smell. That's what we get a lot of. People bring out their garages. We take paper, cardboard, wood material like pallets that have not been contaminated with anything else, just wood pallets. And we do a lot of those as well and we recycle some of those. We have a recycling process. And the basic thing is anything that doesn't smell and decay. Which would be normal garbage from your home.
>> I think under the tceq's regulations, I think they define a type 4 facility as limited to construction and demolition debris, brush and rubbish that is free of putriscible household waste.
>> there is a list of stuff but it goes back to paper, cardboard and steel.
>> it's been brought to my attention that there have been birds flying around out there, which is a hazard to the flight operations out at the new airport. I have no basis of proving that, but it's been brought to my attention that that is something that has been going on. And I didn't know if it is, why are those birds there flying around? That's why I pose that question as far as the type of stuff that you can accept.
>> onion creek is a normal -- it's great bird sanctuary almost. There's so many birds in the onion creek area we have to make sure we don't bring them in. We have a bird control program that was approved by the city and they inspect us as well on a weekly basis or more often than necessary. Some of the lighting structures, they have to go through our property everyday to review the structures for instrument approach. They're in our property on almost a daily basis and I知 sure they confirm it each time that there's not a bird issue: and we have an active bird patrol program.
>> are there wood peculiarers? [ laughter ]
>> one of the things, too, I might add, Commissioner, certainly some concerns were expressed about the possibility of birds at the facility, so iesi tried to respond to those concerns. I値l say initial will that f.a.a. Investigated those, f.a.a. And the city of Austin investigated those. The operators have taken additional measures that were not required by the permit. They've increased the use of soil, particularly at the close of business on Saturdays to make sure that there are no areas that are exposed over the weekend, notwithstanding the fact that state requirements only require you to cover type 4 waste once a week, so they're doing it more frequently than that. As well they initiated or developed a wildlife and bird management plan to consciously go out there and undertake efforts to try to scare away birds or remove areas that might be attractive to the birds, roosting habitat. We are down and along onion creek, and as they they engaged an or thinologist out of minnesota to come down and evaluate their plans, and he did so and made further recommendations. We take the issue very seriously. We don't consider there to be a problem, but we want to make sure we don't contribute to that. We have attempted to address that and I think we've done a good job. The regulatory agencies have been out there and they have not determined that there are any significant problems or any violations that they have asserted on that issue.
>> there's been some concern also brought on the recycling efforts to look at a lot of these operations, especially in the construction debris efforts as far as recycling a lot of that stuff. Have y'all basically entertained any of that stuff?
>> yes, sir. We just got a new approval about six months ago to -- to change our operating plan to allow us to separate uncontaminated wood waste and cardboard and we're grinding to make mulch to have use at the landfill as well as for outside sources who want them. And we are already recycling all the metal that gets pulled from the waste stream, white goods, which are like iceboxes, things like that, they're called white water heaters and metal of any kind, we take that out of the waste and we have done that since the beginning. It was in the original permit. The recycling of woody waste was not in our permit that we modified six months ago.
>> staff, I have one more question. How can we guarantee -- what can we do to guarantee that the water quality coming off this site is what it should be before it gets into onion creek? How can we guarantee that that water quality is where it should be?
>> well, specifically I would say by inspection and/or sampling in coordination with the city of Austin. Technically this is in their jurisdiction for water quality review.
>> I understand that.
>> but yeah, those are the two primary ways, visual inspection and/or sampling.
>> I might also add, Commissioner, in addition to the items that mr. Kelly has mentioned, we also had a storm water pollution prevention plan at this site which originally started as a federal requirement, it's now being implemented by tceq. But in addition to all the management practices and the engineering controls that we already have in place to help protect water quality, we also sample out there on a regular basis and we report those results. We maintain those on site and we make those available to the regulatory agencies. I think initially during the first two year period we were doing quarterly sampling. I think now semi annual. Now that we're further into the life of the --
>> we are taking samples. We're having the samples analyzed and thing that we're within the limits.
>> do we have the results?
>> yes. The first two years they established background and ron. We can't exceed the original background before the landfill operation began. And we have been in the background, including solids, everything.
>> so it's not a part of this backup, though?
>> say again, sir.
>> I said it's not a part of this backup.
>> it's one of the many other permits that are in place on this site.
>> I壇 like to see that.
>> we would be happy to provide that to you. When we were here a couple of years ago I think you had requested subpoena some of that and we provided that. We can give you updated packets of information.
>> it's up for action today.
>> right. Commissioner Davis, we also in our declaration of of covenants that we have and that we negotiated as part of the maintenance agreement for this particular drainage easement, we have a series of protective requirements. Probably somewhat duplicative to what your requirements are from tceq not only in the waste division, but the tpdes storm water plan as well as the city. You probably have, count them, four -- four layers of oversight.
>> in water quality. You have the ooep, the tceq, the -- the e.p.a., the tceq, the county and the city. You have enforceable against us and don't have to rely on tceq or another agency to address some of the concerns because you have an agreement with us.
>> and that's why I specifically answered your question about personally inspecting or sampling because if you want a guarantee, that would be the only way I can personally give you that. But I wanted to let you know that there are other layers of protection there.
>> just figure out oh to get rid of the grackles and let the hyatt know. Birds are a problem in terms of stuff and it has nothing to do with the landfill.
>> yesterday I was driving through shady hollow and say ieis garbage cans. Do you have an agreement that you take household waste to one of the other landfills? And is mid-tex and isi the same?
>> yes.
>> but that's what -- so y'all just contract or you pay a --
>> we have a reciprocal agreement with waste management and also with bfi. So a good amount of the waste stream is -- [inaudible - no mic]. What we're trying to do in Williamson county is put everything in Williamson county landfills. And which is owned by Williamson county, ran by waste management. A very good facility. The other two -- [inaudible - no mic].
>> the construction debris that y'all have taken from Travis County and Williamson county?
>> yes, ma'am. It gets to a point you start looking at the distance that you truck it and the traffic that we deal with on the north side of Austin coming south, you kind of have to draw a line. [inaudible - no mic]
>> I suspect some portion may come from other counties. I don't know what that is.
>> absolutely and south coming north too as well because my old company was in san marcos, which is now located in seguin, so some of the stuff around the san marcos area will come up to our c and d site or construction sites from the home builders. We do kb homes, all of their sites, basically from new braunfels up through Round Rock. So all of their stuff could be come intoog our site. But if it's too far you take it to one of the other facilities and we obviously want to put it in our own facility for cash flow reasons, but sometimes truckingwise it's not economically feasible.
>> based on the recommendation of staff and make sure that we coordinate with the city of Austin and all other regulators to make sure that we have samplings that Commissioner Davis had disd, I would move approval of this variance for iesi.
>> second.
>> discussion of the motion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty and yours truly voting in favor of it. And opposed, Commissioner Davis. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you, Commissioners.
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, October 5, 2005 8:54 AM