Advisory Commission asks

Council to send WMI to TNRCC

Commission wants to stop dumping at northeast landfill

The city’s Solid Waste Advisory Commission is turning to a state agency for advice on what to do about the Austin Community Landfill (ACL), fully aware that the state may have no clear answers.

The ACL is a 200-acre municipal landfill in Northeast Travis County. Waste Management of Texas officials say the 10 acres that once served as an industrial dump are safe, but neighbors insist that the landfill site leaks benzene and other carcinogenic chemicals that could pollute groundwater.

Last night, the SWAC passed a resolution to ask the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to examine all the conflicting data. Chair Jerry Acuna admitted that the commission had been given so much information on both sides of the issue that the panel was compelled to seek professional counsel. That sentiment was echoed in a resolution drafted by Commissioner J.D. Porter.

“The more information we get, the less clear the issue is, and that doesn’t speak to a clear solution,” Porter said before he read the resolution. “The gist of this proposed resolution is that TNRCC has the technical expertise to become more actively involved in the process.”

The resolution, approved unanimously by the SWAC, asked the city to suspend the hauling of trash into the Northeast Travis County municipal dump until WMI starts voluntary well monitoring again and applies for the TNRCC's voluntary clean-up program, or gets a letter from TNRCC stating no clean up is needed.

Commissioners want the TNRCC to do what data cannot: assess whether the landfill is safe. Porter freely admitted that none of the commissioners consider themselves experts on this case and want outside counsel to finally put the issue to rest and minimize the city’s liability. But Chuck Lesniak, environmental program coordinator for the Watershed Protection Department, told the commission that TNRCC is unlikely to provide the definitive answer.

“My experience working with the TNRCC is that the TNRCC is generally very reluctant—and our own staff (is) as well—to get involved in voluntary projects if they don’t have (a) formal legislative or regulatory role in it,” Lesniak told the commission. “The VCP is typically a program where you have a known clean-up project. It’s not a monitoring program.”

The voluntary clean-up program was set up for landowners that wanted a “clean bill of health” on a questionable property they intended to sell, consultant Scott Crouch told commissioners. He said the commission’s request was fitting a square peg in a round hole.

A project is rarely accepted into the voluntary clean-up program without some sort enforcement action against it, added Lesniak. And the clean-up project stops any enforcement actions that an agency may have planned to file against the landowner. “If problems are found, they’re limited in what the state can do to them,” Lesniak said. “They’re protected from enforcement action.”

Despite these limitations—or even the strong possibility of no action at all—commissioners pushed forward with the resolution. Porter said the state agency could say yes or no, but that the agency’s reaction would allow the process to move forward, no matter what direction it took. He said it would give the city a sense of relief on the project.

WMI officials Ric Green and Mike Caldwell pointed to a letter from the TNRCC to WMI acknowledging the project’s groundwater monitoring plan, but Commissioner Jim Walker called the TNRCC reply nothing more than “a thank you letter for sending us what you’re doing.”

The commission outlined a half dozen sampling sites, including one on the southern edge of the landfill that WMI officials said would be impossible to monitor because it would require drilling through waste. Walker told WMI that the company’s refusal to drill at the site gave people the perception that WMI had something to hide. After some debate, the commission agreed to give WMI some leeway on the location of one of the monitoring sites. The resolution will be sent on to the city’s legal department and the City Council. If approved by the Council, WMI would have 90 days to start monitoring and apply to the TNRCC for the VCP program. The site could be used if and when TNRCC deemed the property safe.

“We are not the technicians or the professionals,” Porter said. “What we’re doing is asking that those people who are participate in the process.”

Environmental Board approves

Watershed protection master plan

Goals of watershed department to mirror plan

By Doug McLeod

With only the slight adjustment of a friendly amendment, the Environmental Board voted unanimously last night to recommend approval of the Watershed Protection Master Plan. The affirmative vote favored inclusion of recommendations by the board subcommittee and the Citizens’ Advisory Committee.

“The Environmental Board subcommittee supports this sheet of recommendations,” said Board Member Joyce Conner, a member of the subcommittee, as she made a motion for board approval. Board Member Phil Moncada, also on the subcommittee, made the second.

In a move to promote fiscal prudence, Board Member Ramon Alvarez offered a friendly amendment. “I’m struck by the challenge in front of us to (procure and spend) $800 million,” over 40 years, to implement the Master Plan, he said. To cut expenses, he suggested modifying a recommendation to supply “all” city boards and commissions with detailed information about the plan to only the “appropriate” boards and commissions.

Other board members agreed, and the amendment was accepted. However, Conner stated, “Public education is actually critical.” For the plan to be successful, people need to know what’s going on, she noted. “I was looking at it as educating the public,” she said of the recommendation to disseminate the plan widely, even to boards and commissions not directly related to watershed protection. “It helps to educate us to know there are problems in the creeks . . . It’s kind of like cross-training,” she said.

Five years ago, the board decided to create a master plan. A Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) was appointed and work began. The plan is a product of many hours of volunteer work, staff effort and input from citizens and consultants.

Mary Arnold, a former Environmental Board member and chair of the CAG, said the city has a great need for such a master plan and must aggressively pursue funding. “The Citizens Advisory Group strongly urges that the City Council adopt the master plan,” she said, referring to it as “a wonderful baseline of knowledge of current conditions.”

“The CAG supports staff findings and recommendations,” she noted, saying they “set the stage for how the master plan can become a document that will be used and not just set on the shelf.”

Jody Hamilton, with the Watershed Protection Department, said, “Our department’s five-year plan and the master plan should be meshed.” The goals of the department will mirror the goals of the plan, she said, noting that for the most part the full attention of her department will be focused on implementing the master plan. The only departure will be when emergency projects come up, she said.

Board Member Tim Jones asked Joe Pantalion of the Watershed Protection Department if the plan included special provisions for protection of the recharge areas within the Barton Springs Zone and the Drinking Water Protection Zone. Pantalion said goals for such protection were included in the plan, with special protections for seeps and springs.

Jones had opened the meeting by showing a video of massive algae blooms in a tributary of Slaughter Creek. He said the specific and isolated areas of profuse algae growth, along with sections devoid of algae, suggest nitrate concentration due to runoff from a nearby golf course. His video also showed Bermuda grass growing in a dry creek bed, another indication of unnatural seeding and fertilization, he said. His video documented recharge points along the creek bed where water seeps into the aquifer at the end of a tributary.

Since the video “indicated a negative impact” from the golf course, Jones said he wanted to make a recommendation to prohibit golf courses over the recharge zone. If it’s not possible to ban them, he said he wanted to find a way to limit the “fairways and fertilizer.”

Pantalion said there are new plans to mitigate the negative effects of golf courses in the recharge zone. He noted this is a master plan, broad in scope, and at this point very general, but it will deal more with specifics as time goes on.

Board Chair Lee Leffingwell said the plan is a “general document, and also a living document . . . I would put a priority on getting it approved.”

Leffingwell also announced the formation of a new subcommittee on erosion control and water quality. He said Jones’ exemplary fieldwork and researchqualify him to be chair of the new subcommittee. Leffingwell said he would join Jones on the subcommittee. Board Member Buzz Avery was absent.

LCRA Board approves lease

For Bergstrom Tech Center

Area growth drives need for space

Growth in Central Texas means growth for both the electric and water businesses of the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA). TENSCO, the acronym for the LCRA’s transmission and energy services company, will ink a deal to lease more than 61,000 sq. feet at the Bergstrom Technology Center. The LCRA Board of Directors voted yesterday to authorize the agency’s general manager to sign a 5-year $5.65 million lease, at a start-up cost of a little more than $2 million.

Ross Phillips, TENSCO executive manager, said growth has been so great that the building is needed in addition to the adjacent service center. The LCRA Board approved purchase of the service center last March and renovation of that building in August. Both buildings are on Burleson Road, close to Montopolis. LCRA spokesman Bill McCann said leasing the additional space would allow transmission employees to be co-located, while freeing up space in the Lake Austin Boulevard offices so that employees of the water business can stay in one location.

©2001 In Fact News, Inc. All rights reserved.

No spies here . . . Robert Hansen, an aquatic biologist with the city’s Watershed Protection Department, told the Environmental Board Wednesday night that yes, his name has been in the headlines a lot the last two days, but no, he has never worked for the FBI—nor is he a spy. He noted his name contains only one “S” and the alleged spy’s name has two. He also gave the board an update on the city’s permit with US Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the Barton Springs Salamander. Since the permit was issued two years ago, he said, the city has shown it can do a good job of walking the fine line between protecting the salamander and keeping the pool open for swimmers. Hansen said the pool would be closed from Feb. 26 to March 2 for routine cleaning . . . Street cuts . . . Texas Monthly publisher Mike Levy likely will be happy to know that Commissioner Michelle Brinkman has put street cuts and their repair on the Urban Transportation Commission’ s agenda next month. Also, Commissioner Tommy Eden asked for a count of bicyclists and pedestrians using the Lamar Avenue Bridge to get an idea of how the new bridge will impact area traffic.