Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, October 26, 2010,
Item 1
Item number 1 is a public hearing to receive comments regarding variance requests by synagro of Texas, cdr, for a proposed sewage sludge beneficial use land application site in precinct 4.
a, a variance under chapter 62 from the setback distance requirement to individual residences, and b, a variance under chapter 64 of the Travis County code from the setback distances from the 100-year flood plain.
>> move the public hearing be open.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
good morning.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
for the record, tom webber with t.n.r.
we also have with us a translator who will assist us on the english/spanish translation of citizen comments.
I wanted to -- I’ve got -- we spent a considerable amount of time the last time this came up talking in an overview fashion about what the sludge is, where it comes from and some of the aspects of the proposal.
I wanted to briefly just go through the specific variance requests that are before out this item before we hear from the public.
and I’ve got just a few slides here.
which make sure -- there, okay.
okay, so first of all, as the caption indicates, there's two -- two variances under our rules.
one is a setback to an individual residence.
the code says 1500 feet or greater from a residence.
the variance, if approved, would affect eight residences.
five of these eight are residents in this area who have actually signed affidavits saying they would except the sewage sludge close to their residences.
these are applications synagro received from landowners and provided those to tceq.
of the remaining three, one -- one of those individuals has responded to Travis County with a comment.
the other two did not respond to comments.
so then looking at what the proposed land application would be without a variance to the landowner residents, you see the shaded pink at the upper part of your screen is the area that would be excluded without a variance.
I’ll point out near the bottom -- or the side -- the side left of your screen, synagro has put in a 1500-foot buffer so there is no variance request for the side of this proposal that faces navarro creek road where we've had a lot of citizens indicate their disagreement with having that, so that part doesn't need a variance.
this is what the site would look like if the variance was granted.
in other words, the part of the land to the upper part of the screen would be available for land application.
now, the second variances is from the 100-year flood plain.
our regulations say that a solid waste facility must be 500 feet outside the 100-foot flood plain.
now, the variances that have been requested in that what we modified upon review would -- would instead set -- set the -- if approved, would set the setback from the waterway of 200 feet.
so there would be some land application in the flood plain.
in the northern parcels and 300 feet in the southern parcel.
we made it 300 feet in the southern parcel because upon assessment of the land out there, there do seem to be significant aquatic resources in that part of the land.
so this is -- this is what it would look like without a variance, and you can see that the southern parcel is that rectangle, the lower rectangle, which is a lot closer to a more significant body of water dry creek, and the upper flood plain areas are less significant aquatic resources.
this is what it would look like if the variances were granted on that, and so you can see there's an extra 100-foot around two creeks that we've identified there.
now, taken all together, if you didn't grant the variances, the combination of the setback from the -- from the residences and the flood plain, only the white areas within those -- those delineated rectangles would be available for land application.
I’ve estimated that's about 75 to 80 acres out of the 435 acres that would be -- would be left.
and this is what it would look like if you granted both the variances.
so in other words, the 200 or 300 feet from the creeks and 1500 feet from the corner nearest navarro creek road.
so with that, I think -- that ends what I wanted to present to you, but I’m, of course, available for any questions or any further details about this proposal.
>> when we looked at this before, you know we talked about the different classes of the state of the floods that would be applied out there and that folk do understand when we say we're talking sludge we're talking human waste.
there were a couple of classes, one if I can recall was class a and the other class b, and, of course, this particular sludge operation, in fact there's the vendor and, of course, the city of Austin is the person that will be supplying I think the majority of this particular sludge to be applied out there at this particular site.
class b being the worst of the two, if my recollection serves me faithful today, and, of course, meaning that that is the type of sludge that carry more significant odors to an area.
and yet if the permit -- do you have any numbers, per se, on the application of the number of tons that would be actually allowed per year if you look at the acreage?
I understand a little more than 300 some odd acres would be available for application of this particular sludge of the said amount of the 400 some odd acres you have set for the general area.
my question is under the particular application process, and that does not mean that Austin would be the only supplier of this sludge, but there could be other -- other sludge producing entities that would also be able to provide sludge to this particular site.
in other words, doesn't have to come from Austin, it could come from other places.
so knowing those and knowing those particular factors and, of course, looking at this particular situation, could you tell me the tonnage, in other words, how many tons could be applied -- allowed to be aemployed under the type of permit they are requesting today?
>> Commissioner, you had that question the last time and I said I would good back and research that.
the tons per acre would be 9.29 tons per acre.
>> 9.2 tons per acre.
>> 9.29 tons per acre.
so that --
>> what would it be for the total tract?
>> well, I think you really have to multiply that out.
if you -- if you went with a -- what was proposed to tceq, I think that comes out to be total tons over 2800 tons.
so this -- this comes -- but, of course, we're talking about less than that because of the variances and the additional setbacks that synagro proposed.
that comes out about .43 pounds per square foot.
so if you want to think of it in that way.
>> which is significant.
and, of course, we heard from the residents, we heard from several of them, and, of course, during their testimony, if my memory serves me correctly, I hope it doesn't fail me this morning, is that there was a lot of opposition to this and, of course, there was certain folks that did not want to have this type of exposure as far as human waste in their backyards.
>> that's correct.
>> so I’ve heard from the community, and, of course, my mind isn't changed as far as this particular -- allowing this particular variance.
but based on the testimony and the research on the type of application for this particular operation is just over bearing and I don't think we need to grant a variance.
but again that's my assessment in trying to look at the integrity of a community and also looking at the class and the state of the affair of the characteristics of the sludge, the human waste that's being applied out there.
so
>> [indiscernible] use permits are something we have to deal with, but in the meantime, I think we also have to protect the integrity of the community.
that's why we have these particular chapters to make sure we have situations to set up the safeguards for the communities.
and I think by waiving particular things we pull out the nuts and bolts of the hard work that we have in to -- to -- to approve these particular chapters as far as ensuring those folks come and apply actually abide by that.
that's the reason for them.
now, again, that's me, and I heard what the community has said and so my -- my position has not changed and I will not support this particular items on the agenda today.
>> speaking of residents, yesterday I was delivered a petition.
>> exactly.
>> nine pages, and you got this?
>> yes.
that was something that we could have put in the backup earlier, but we -- given to you earlier.
that -- that -- that petition, judge, ended up being the reason why we're having the meeting today.
>> okay.
but this has probably 60 to 70 names.
>> yes.
>> and then there is a -- the cover letter here says the families of navarro creek road, I assume that residents got together and basically these are the ones that oppose it.
now, we discussed this once before and then we learned from legal that we -- by law we had to post and advertise a public hearing.
and that's why we're back today.
that public hearing would have to be 30 days in advance of -- notice 30 days in advance of the hearing itself, right, and that's why we're back today.
would the applicant like to give any comments?
>> not at this time.
>> [no mic on] if you have questions, we would be glad to try to answer those.
>> we may have some in a few minutes.
we did get a summary of the residents who testified in Commissioners court last week too, right, mr. Webber?
that was prepared by t.n.r., clerk.
>> I’m sorry, I was looking the other way.
>> the little summary of minutes.
>> yes, yes we did.
I submitted that to you based on the testimony that was recorded.
>> okay.
some residents have come down on this item.
if you would like to give comments at this time, please come forward.
and if you would give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> [speaking in spanish]
>> once I spoke to you and just again to repeat that we don't want this project to move on.
>> what's her name?
>> maria esav.
les.
we sent a letter with all the names of the people that are in disagreement of this to you.
the person who went to evaluate the land I believe is incorrect for two reasons.
this project is not going to affect just eight people or nine people, it's going to affect 60 people in that area.
I’ve lived there for more than 24 years.
and I know how the water runs through there.
it doesn't run to the south like they are saying.
instead it goes towards in a navarro creek where we live.
about 23 years ago there was a flood in that area.
and the water was coming from garfield where this project wants to be installed.
the water raised about one meter above -- close to their house.
if this project is approved, then it's not just going to be dirty water but you know whatever else they are going to be putting in there.
in that aspect it would just affect the nine residences exactly.
but in other respects like the smell and flies being attracted to that area is going to affect the rest of the residences.
it's also just 50 minutes away from Austin so it seems to me inappropriate, the subject property inappropriate so close to the city and the other residents.
that's all I would like to say.
>> tell her that we received the petition and we appreciate the input.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> [speaking in spanish]
>> my name is renando reyes and he just wanted to be thankful to the city of Austin because of all of your concerns.
what I see in this project is that they want to do it in a place where there's too much water runs through there.
this project is going to affect a lot of people because the water runs through a lot of residences and I’m just asking the city of Austin to just be careful with this project.
I’ve seen the maps and I see that a lot of water runs through there.
as she addressed and commented, we're a bit worried about the odor and the flies that would be attracted to the area.
I’m just asking the city of Austin to please to pay attention and be careful with this because it's going to affect a lot of people.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> just tell them also that the city of Austin is one of the
>> [inaudible] for this particular project and it's come before the Commissioners court as far as issuing a permit.
I’m just trying to make sure that the sequence of involvement is understood by all parties.
because the city of Austin is a client for this potential vendor that will be applying this human sludge if a permit is granted by this Commissioners court.
thanks.
>> mr. Priest.
>> morris priest speaking on my own behalf.
I did want to say that many of the residents mentioned that the prevailing wind predominantly blow year round in the direction of these homes and the enormous tonnage with us looking at the topo map and the terrain, there also are pit wells dating back to when the indians were out there and just the terrain itself is, you know, not really conducive for a project such as this because of the fact when they are spreading this tonnage out there, it's going to be having high levels of concentrations in the areas.
and with the floods and being in the waterways that we've seen recently what happened in georgetown and various parts of travis and Williamson county, this is just, you know, asking for an environmental disaster with town lake already turning septic and many of the e-coli levels in our waterways and things that we've seen such out at hamilton pool.
but this is ill-advised project on health and safety and environmentally and I would hope the Commissioners court would reject this.
there's no support for it and there's other places that would be suitable for this -- for a project of this type, but this particular area is really posts some catastrophic situations that aren't conclusive, not only just to mention the social injustice of not everything has to be in precinct 1.
and I know that Commissioner Davis has fought real hard against so many issues that he's been confronted with from everything from toll roads to tank farms to dumps, you name it.
and I just think that the outcry from this community is not just from these residents but from the county as a whole.
thank you.
>> thank you.
would anyone else like to give comments during this public hearing?
if so, please come forward.
any questions for the applicant?
>> hi, may name is raquel and first of all we didn't get notices through letters of this project going on.
we just wanted a little more information, but like hearings like this I only found out through my neighbors and I’ve also heard that there's residences where they don't get informed about this so they might even come forward if they were notified.
>> thank you very much.
any questions for the applicant?
mr. Simmons and mr. Roke were here last time.
now, this is a request for a variance, so even if we turn it down, there is a small tract of land that the request does not cover.
so if the applicant wants to use that under the code, the applicant can.
it's just that that tract is a lot smaller than the total acreage looked at now.
right?
>> that's correct.
I estimated about 75 or 80 acres that would be outside of any areas that are with a variance.
and I guess secondly it's worth pointing out that there's permits pending at tceq, so they would also have to approve -- they've approved one of three permits.
they've processed these in three separate packets.
so that's what remains.
>> so we control the variance but not the outcome.
>> that's correct.
>> any questions for our staff or the applicant?
yes.
>> with regard to our regulations, those are above and beyond what tceq provides, correct?
>> that's correct.
>> and if memory serves, the applicant had testified last time that the application would be once annually.
is that correct?
>> that is what they stated.
>> is there any limitation in the tceq permit with regard to the frequency of application or is it just the volume?
>> there's -- it's the rate per acre.
there's other limitations relating to the quality, which doesn't seem to be a factor looking at the city of Austin numbers.
this is -- as sewage sludge goes, this is of a very good quality.
but things like inclement weather and things like that could restrict it and it could very well be, and I think the applicant would have to address this, that they apply the amount that they are permitted for in one -- in one load and then they have to wait until the next year and take soil samples, make sure that they haven't overfertilized the field and things like that.
before they come back.
>> so there are quantifiable objective measurements inside the permit that would at least if there were folks out there to review the documents, they could assure that no more than this annual allotment would be applied?
>> yes.
I think the records that the applicant -- that the permitee in that case would have to keep would have to verify they did it within the strengths and limits of those application rates.
>> and I believe you had told me at the last hearing, although we weren't sure of the actual numbers, the number of inspectors for sludge operations in the state?
by tceq?
>> well, I think I estimated that for the tceq region that covers several areas surrounding Austin and Travis County, that there's probably less than one full-time equivalent that would handle sewage sludge.
number 1, there aren't a lot of sites in this area, and --
>> now, as far as the city of Austin's quality, I mean in many regards the local governments are having to step into the breach for -- because of the lack of capacity of tceq's regulatory apparatus.
they have regulatory authority, but they don't have the warm bodies to actually exercise it to its fullest extent.
with regard to the city of Austin's quality of the sludge, I mean the city of Austin certainly has a vested interest in making sure that that quality remains high because this is agricultural land servicing our region.
but I understand that there -- well, let me ask, are there any limitations on other sources of sludge being disposed of by synagro?
can they go and get sludge from, you know, corpus christi or --
>> they -- they can, yes.
there's an approval process and administrative process through tceq where they identify a new source and provide information on the quality of that new source of sludge, and, of course, the nature of it, you know, to verify that it is municipal sewage sludge, not something else.
and then they get that approved as a new source and they can use it on this site.
>> now, if the -- if these -- if these farmers don't utilize sludge to augment their soil quality, the assumption is they will use commercial fertilizer to condition the soil instead.
what are the relative -- what's the relative threat between the use of -- the large scale use of fertilizers versus amending the soil with sludge particularly with regard to the two individuals who commented on the -- you know, if there's a flood, you're going to have -- you're going to have water -- you're going to have runoff and what's the relative threat between large scale use of fertilizer versus amending with sludge?
>> okay, I guess I’d look at it from the standpoint of maybe three factors.
one being odor.
so that's not really a water quality impact, that's more an aesthetic.
the other would be nutrients, things like phosphorous and nitrogen.
and inorganic fertilizers, those dissolve very easily into water and run off more easily than the nutrients that you would find in sewage sludge which would be more organic, more bound up into the soil matrix.
so there's a plus in terms of the impact of nutrients getting into our waterways.
>> so sludge is preferable in a flood circumstance?
>> in my judgment, sludge would be preferable in terms of that standpoint.
in terms of bacteria, again, inorganic sludge wouldn't have have bacteria in it.
the best practice of applying sludge on to the land and it sits there and dries kills off the bacteria.
I mean the bacteria that would be of interest here, bacteria that like to live in a warm, moist, warm animal gut, you lay it out in the Texas soil, that bacteria should decline quite fast.
that being said, there still could be -- if not managed with the right buffers, you could get some runoff of bacteria from the sludge.
>> uh-huh.
>> anything else?
>> no.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> the -- back to the monitoring and enforcement, when the application is made, does tceq or anybody have a monitor on site to be sure the proper setbacks are followed?
>> that would be something that would be inspected.
you would have to go out to the site and look at that.
I think we heard from synagro last time that they put flags out.
those flags and whether there's application on this side or the other of the flag could be verified and staff including the county staff could review whether or not they are land applying as they are supposed to.
but there's nothing -- remote is what I think you might be suggesting that I can think of.
>> is that monitoring something that county staff usually does?
>> no.
in the two years I’ve been here, we haven't been involved in looking at sewage sludge sites in the county.
we do, however, have an active program to monitor industrial activities or activities of this sort all over the county as a part of our storm water program.
>> because when I look at the map with the location of the variances, it looks like it's kind of weaving all over the place so a challenge to apply within the constraints.
one other question, do you know if the sludge treated is tested for pharmaceuticals and does tceq have any requirements along those lines?
>> I spoke with the city of Austin regarding their testing.
they -- they have -- at one point in time they tested their sludge for a whole suite of organic constituents to make sure that somebody wasn't dumping something into the sewer and it was ending up accumulating in the sludge.
and there were no concerns out of that.
now, there aren't a lot of test methods and standards and analytical procedures for a lot of those compounds, especially in something like a sludge matrix.
so you -- I don't think there are anything like that, but I think for the -- for an exhaustive list of organics and the heavy metals that are regulated and have to be adhered to, I think the city of Austin has gone beyond what is the minimum requirements of the state.
>> but other sources might not necessarily have gone as far as the city of Austin since they are just minimum requirements of tceq.
>> that's correct.
some folks would just say what's the rule and I’ll meet it.
>> and just to refresh my memory, are all the homes or most of the homes out there on well water?
>> what we heard last time was that they are supplied by garfield water supply corporation.
>> thank you.
>> anything else?
>> I had two others questions raised by the dialogue there.
what's the difference between dillo dirt and sludge?
>> I think, Commissioner Davis was alluding to that.
dillo dirt is a class a sludge product.
it's of a higher quality and it doesn't have any restrictions in terms of use, in terms of buffers or anything -- it can be sold to the public in bulk or bag form.
worth pointing out I think is the city indicated that they would like to have the capacity to -- to process all their sludge to class a, but that doesn't exist at this time so they do -- they converted as much as they can to a.
the remainder is b and it doesn't go to a landfill, it goes to sites like this one.
>> and the actually would be a question for legal, but it's not -- I don't think it's privileged.
with regard to if we were to grant these variances and there was a violation of the water code, there's no compromise to our prosecution for water code violations?
and we also would have -- to what degree do we have any legal, civil or prosecutorial over odor nuisance?
>> I’d have to check, but I don't think that would be compromised by the
>> [inaudible].
there are some issues we would like to discuss with you in executive session regarding the request for variances.
>> okay.
>> that you would like to discuss with us today?
>> in executive session, if you would like.
before you take action on the request.
>> we believe that discussion is critical to our decision.
>> okay.
>> that's a question.
>> yes, okay.
yes, it is.
sorry.
>> move the public hearing be closed.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Huber and your truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis reluctantly joining us.
>> you got a little
>> [inaudible].
>> number 8, if we take number 8 into executive session, that throws it into the afternoon.
>> okay.
>> and if I were a betting man, I would guess around 3:30 or 4:00 rather than 1:30 or 2:00.
>> right.
>> thanks.
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:
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 2:00 PM
