CAPCOG Solid Waste Advisory Committee Conformance Review Subcommittee Report on MSW Permit No. 2398 Background January 9, 2018 Under Texas law all solid waste management activities and state regulatory actions are required to conform to a regional solid waste management plan (RSWMP) adopted by a council of governments and by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) (see Texas Health and Safety Code 363.066 and 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 330.641). Volume I of the Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) RSWMP includes goals and objectives for the region, and was adopted by the TCEQ on May 31, 2007. Volume II of CAPCOG s RSWMP provides an action plan for achieving these goals and objectives. In accordance with this requirements of 30 TAC 330.643(a)(3)(O), CAPCOG s action plan includes, identification of the process that will be used to evaluate whether a proposed municipal solid waste facility application will be in conformance with the regional plan. As required under state law, Lealco, Inc. submitted parts I & II of its application for a solid waste transfer station in Williamson County (MSW permit application number 2398) to CAPCOG in order to request a conformance review. CAPCOG received this information on August 11, 2017, and subsequently provided the applicant with a copy of CAPCOG s Conformance Review Checklist, guidance document, and Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. Lealco Inc. provided a completed checklist to CAPCOG on September 7, 2017. At the September 15, 2017, Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) meeting, CAPCOG staff requested the formation of a subcommittee to prepare a conformance review recommendation for the SWAC. The subcommittee consisted of: 1. Pete Correa, Williamson County 2. Joey Crumley, At-large Education Representative 3. Michael Mnoian, At-large - Private Industry The subcommittee members were provided copy of the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, the applicant s completed checklist, a spreadsheet to use in documenting observations, CAPCOG s conformance review guidance document, and the to an online copy of the application: (http://www.scsengineers.com/state/williamson-transfer-station/). In order to obtain information for this review, on November 2, 2017, CAPCOG emailed letters to Williamson County and the City of Hutto requesting information pertaining to this application 12/1/2017. CAPCOG received responses from both jurisdictions, and copies of these responses were provided to the Conformance Review Subcommittee members. On November 2, 2017, CAPCOG also sent a public comment to TCEQ on this application indicating that CAPCOG was initiating a conformance review of this application, requesting copies of all relevant information for our review, and the Page 1 of 7
opportunity to complete the conformance review process before the application being presented to the commissioners for action. CAPCOG indicated that it intended to bring the issue to its SWAC in January and seek a final determination and recommendation from its Executive Committee on February 14, 2018. Under CAPCOG s conformance review process, CAPCOG s Executive Committee, with input from the SWAC, may make one of the following determinations: 1. The permit conforms to the RSWMP and either: a. CAPCOG recommends approval of the permit b. CAPCOG recommends approval with specific conditions attached 2. The permit or registration does not conform to the RSWMP and either: a. CAPCOG recommends denial of the permit b. CAPCOG recommends withholding approval until specified deficiencies are corrected 3. CAPCOG lacks sufficient information to make a qualified conformance determination CAPCOG convened the Conformance Review Subcommittee meeting on December 5, 2017, in order to review the application and make a recommendation to the SWAC. The subcommittee recommended a determination that MSW permit application no. 2398 does not conform to CAPCOG s RSWMP and a recommendation that the TCEQ deny the permit application. This memo explains CAPCOG s staff observations on this application, which were conveyed to the subcommittee members, as well as an elaboration for the technical basis for the subcommittee s recommendation. CAPCOG also notes that on December 6, 2017, in response to a November 6, 2017, request for comment on the application from TCEQ that was due within 30 days, CAPCOG sent a 2 nd letter to TCEQ reiterating CAPCOG s intent to complete a conformance review by February 14, 2018, and conveying the recommendations and findings of the conformance review subcommittee. Copies of both of CAPCOG s letters to TCEQ are included as additional reference information on this item. Subcommittee Recommendation to the SWAC The subcommittee made a recommendation for a determination of non-conformance and recommendation of denial of the permit application. This was based upon the following: 1. Incompatibility with the City of Hutto s Intended Land Use for Area: The City of Hutto has identified processing of MSW at this location, which is within its near-term growth boundary, as an incompatible land use, based on the Future Land Use Map adopted by the City. This map identified the appropriate land use for this area to be Industrial/Business Park, which refers to research laboratories, trade uses, and wholesale and distribution of manufactured products, but not processing or disposal of MSW (This is inconsistent with CAPCOG s Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (RSWMP) objectives 15A and 15C). 2. Incompatibility with Williamson County s Intended Land Use for Area: While there appears to be a disagreement between Williamson County and TCEQ regarding whether Williamson County s 2015 order restricts the processing of MSW, the County s response to CAPCOG s request for information and other input received from the County demonstrate that the County did not intend to allow for processing of MSW waste at the proposed location due to health and Page 2 of 7
safety concerns. The applicant failed to identify this as a potentially applicable regulation or explain why it contends that it does not apply to this proposed facility. Therefore, locating a transfer station at this location would be incompatible with the County s intended land use within this area (This is inconsistent with CAPCOG s RSWMP objectives 15A and potentially 15B) 3. Incompatibility with Existing and Future Land Use: Apart from items 1 and 2 listed above, the application does not appear to adequately account for existing and planned future land use within 1 mile of the facility, including areas that the City of Hutto is in the process of annexing, and Hutto Independent School District s (HISD s) plan for locating a school on the southeast corner of County Road 130 and Chandler Road. This specific planned future land use does not appear to be accounted for in this application, nor is there documentation that the applicant has communicated with the school district regarding this application. (This is inconsistent with CAPCOG s RSWMP objective 15A) 4. Lack of Documentation of Compliance with Local Land Use Regulations Generally: The applicant has not provided documentation that the proposed facility meets local land use regulations, and both Williamson County and the City of Hutto have indicated that they have not provided any such documentation to the applicant. (This is inconsistent with CAPCOG s RSWMP objective 15B and a material omission from its response to CAPCOG s Checklist, item 2.8, which requires that the applicant provide documentation from the applicable zoning or siting entity stating that the proposed facility will be in compliance with its regulations. ) 5. Concern About Facility Design and Potential Nuisance Conditions: The facility s design, which involves only two walls rather than full enclosure, would fail to eliminate or minimize the risks of nuisance odor conditions, controlling excessive noise and light pollution, and windblown litter, and would need, at a minimum, to fully enclose the building and install active emission controls in order to adequately address the concerns attributable to the facility design (This is inconsistent with CAPCOG s RSWMP objectives 15F and 15H) 6. Risk to Local Groundwater: Based on local geology (Blackland Prairie), there is a risk of the concrete slab, used for the tipping floor, could crack, which would generate a risk of liquids leaching into the soil and groundwater underneath the facility. (This is inconsistent with CAPCOG s RSWMP objectives 15G and 15H) 7. Impacts on Transportation Infrastructure, Safety, and Traffic Conditions: Transportation issues on County Road 130 and Chandler Road are not adequately assessed or addressed. These issues include: a) the impact of the expected 300 trucks a day on traffic congestion on these roads and at the intersection of County Road (CR) 130 and Chandler Road, b) safety concerns on these same roads, particularly in light of the fact that these are only 2-lane roads and the segment of CR 130 where the trucks would enter and exit the facility lack any lighting, and c) the adverse impact on the conditions and need for added maintenance to these roads and the bridge on CR 130 that traverses Mustang Creek. County officials have suggested that, at a minimum, widening CR 130, adding turn lanes on Chandler road at its intersection with CR 130, adding a full stop light at that intersection, reinforcing the bridge over Mustang Creek, and adding lighting to CR Page 3 of 7
130 at the facility s entrance would be needed to address these concerns. County officials also indicate that the applicant has not directly spoken with the County s Road and Bridge staff regarding this facility. Furthermore, the applicant s submittal of documentation of required coordination with the County, as provided in Appendix I/II-A-3, stating their conclusion that no public roadway improvements are necessary, is hardly coordination and is more like a letter of notice with little to no effort to coordinate with the County. (This is inconsistent with CAPGCOG s RSWMP objective 15C) 8. Lack of Coordination with Williamson County and Risks of Litter and Illegal Dumping: Risks associated with illegal dumping and windblown litter from the transportation of waste to the proposed site are not adequately addressed. Since there tend to be illegal dumping problems nearby MSW facilities if citizens do not have convenient and legal means to dispose of their waste, the addition of a citizens collection station would help deter illegal dumping that would likely otherwise occur nearby. As noted above, Williamson County officials state that the applicant has not directly spoken with or coordinated with the County s Road and Bridge staff regarding this facility, and the applicant has not addressed the County s concerns regarding abatement of litter along County rights of way due to the transportation of waste to and from the site. The County has noted that it requires the operator of its own landfill to abate litter within a 2-mile radius of that facility, and that it would expect this operator to abate litter within at least a 1-mile radius of the proposed facility. (This is inconsistent with CAPCOG s RSWMP objectives 15E and 15H) CAPCOG Staff Observations The following is a list of CAPCOG staff observations on items reported by the applicant on their conformance review checklist. As mentioned above, CAPCOG staff provided conformance review subcommittee members with a copy of these observations ahead of the December 5, 2017, subcommittee meeting. CAPCOG staff are amending these observations as indicated in mark-ups below. These observations are not directly part of the subcommittee s report, but do provide additional information that the SWAC may wish to consider in its consideration of this item. 1.6 Class 2 non-hazardous industrial waste and/or special wastes, as identified in the Application Section 2.2.1, may require special handling procedures and is not to be exposed to the elements which may pose a threat to public health and the environment as may be the case in an un-enclosed building open to the potential for such waste to be washed or blown offsite. Application Section 2.2.1 defines special waste as: any solid waste or combination of solid waste that because of its quantity, concentration, physical of chemical characteristics, or biological properties requires special handling and disposal to protect the human health or the environment. The applicant should identify special handling procedures for each special waste to be received. 1.7 Section 2.2.1 currently allows the facility to accept the following special wastes: dead animals; drugs, contaminated food, or contaminated beverages, other than those contained in normal household waste; pesticide (insecticide, herbicide, fungicide, or rodenticide) containers; discarded materials containing asbestos; waste from oil, gas, and geothermal activities subject to regulation by the Railroad Page 4 of 7
Commission of Texas when those wastes are to be processed, treated, or disposed of at a solid waste management facility authorized under 30 TAC 330; waste generated outside the boundaries of Texas that contains: any industrial waste, any waste associated with oil, gas, and geothermal exploration, production, or development activities, or any item listed as a special waste in 30 TAC 330. Essentially, this creates a situation where the facility bans in-state industrial waste, but not out of state industrial wastes. The facility has an intent to accept certain special wastes that are known carcinogens, e.g., asbestos and pesticides. As well, dead animals are very odorous, and pesticides, asbestos, and oil/gas/geothermal wastes are dangerous to the environment if allowed to be washed or blown off the tipping floor where they may mix with storm water, groundwater, or the atmosphere. These items are best handled appropriately, which is in an enclosed facility with active environmental controls to ensure no migration is allowed and the air is scrubbed prior to release to the elements. The applicant should identify special handling procedures for each special waste to be received. 1.8 Emphasis of this question needs to be placed on "odorous" wastes, as this facility is currently proposed to be an open aired structure with only two enclosed sides which provide no protection from odorous conditions. As well, Tthe facility has an intent to accept certain special wastes that are known carcinogens, e.g., asbestos and pesticides. Applicant should take measures to ensure adequate engineering to curtail odors from leaving the facility boundary. The applicant should identify special handling procedures for each special waste to be received. 1.11 30 TAC 330.9(e)(2) requires the applicant to identify landfills within a 50-mile radius [Removed because applicant did provide names of each landfill facility within the CAPCOG region. Comal County is greater than 50 miles away. CAPCOG staff believe that this is no longer a compliance issue] 2.1 30 TAC 330.213 addresses operational requirements for a Citizen s Collection Station CCS. The facility cannot be open to the public unless they include provision for such. In response to the Conformance Checklist item 2.1, the applicant states The facility will be available to the general public. 2.2 The applicant may plan to address illegal dumping prevention by participating in the Regional Environmental Task Force, posting 1-877-NO DUMPS signs on property. 2.5 Lealco should provide more information on contracted customer's recycling programs, to ensure the required 10% is being diverted through local recycling programs. 2.6 See 2.5. 2.7 On July 21, 2015, Williamson County adopted an Order Regulating Solid Waste Disposal pursuant to Texas Health and Safety Code Sections 363.112 & 364.012 regulating the disposal and processing of solid waste. A copy Copy of this order has been provided to CAPCOG and the TCEQ. The County has stated it is their opinion this ordinance precludes allowing disposal or processing. Per TCEQ staff have indicated their opinion that correspondence received, this ordinance would preclude disposal only and not processing. The applicant has not acknowledged nor taken steps to abide by local government zoning or siting restrictions. Since this is a Williamson County order, deference should be given to the County s interpretation of its applicability. 2.8 Applicant has not provided "documentation from the applicable zoning or siting entity stating the proposed facility will be in compliance with its regulations." Williamson County reports: 1) order Regulating Solid Waste Disposal, stating the applicant would need to seek a variance from the Page 5 of 7
Williamson County Commissioners Court; 2) Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance - Williamson County follows the NFIP, except in a couple instances where they are more stringent (e.g., requires a finished floor elevation 1' higher than the BFE), and states the parcel does not infringe on a regulated floodplain; 3) If construction requires road closure of CR 130, it would need to be approved in Commissioner's Court before closure. Other authorizations required would include: a) County would request to review the site plan as per policy to review commercial sites; b) driveway application; c) certificate of compliance; d) review of ESD #3/Hutto Fire Rescue; e) Assignment of address; f) Onsite sewage permit, if applicable. Per the City of Hutto, at this time the City does not have any zoning requirements for the proposed site. The Future Land Use Map adopted by the City indicates the appropriate use for this area to be Industrial/Business Park. This refers to uses such as research laboratories, trade uses, and wholesale and distribution of manufactured products. Processing or disposal of municipal solid waste would not be compatible with that plan. The applicant has not acknowledged nor taken steps to abide by local government zoning or siting restrictions. Recommendation is in support of each local government s position. 2.10 Not certain how a two sided building protects from the wind. ensures the control of windblown litter, stormwater runoff, birds and disease vectors, odor, excessive noise, or light pollution. Applicant also needs to consult with the County on cleanup of rights of way per 30 TAC 330.235, not just TxDOT as stated here. The application does mention the County, but fails to provide documentation of consultation with the County. 2.11 The applicant indeed sent the County a letter, but this does not serve as documentation of demonstration or documentation from the County that the applicant has complied with any requests the County may have. The letter sent the County does not ask for such documentation. 2.12 See 2.8 2.15 The applicant s this response does not address the highest elevation natural feature within two miles. Rather it only speaks to the highest elevation currently on the property. Notes on TCEQ Notices of Deficiencies and Amendments There have been several amendments to the application since it was initially filed August 8, 2017, in response to notices of deficiency (NOD) issued by TCEQ staff. A complete list of these are available at: http://www.scsengineers.com/state/williamson-transfer-station/. August 22, 2017: TCEQ administrative NOD issued to applicant September 8, 2017: Lealco response to administrative NOD October 10, 2017: TCEQ s first technical NOD issued to applicant October 31, 2017: Lealco response to first technical NOD December 6, 2017: TCEQ s second technical NOD issued to applicant January 2, 2018: Lealco response to second technical NOD CAPCOG staff had reviewed the correspondence up through October 31, 2017, ahead of the subcommittee s meeting on December 5, 2018, and that review informed CAPCOG staff s written observations provided to the subcommittee members for that meeting. CAPCOG staff have reviewed Page 6 of 7
the additional correspondence between TCEQ and Lealco on December 6, 2017, and January 2, 2018, and determined that the applicant s changes do impact the subcommittee s findings. Options for SWAC Action The SWAC may consider the following actions in light of the recommendation from the subcommittee: Move the subcommittee s recommendation forward to CAPCOG s Executive Committee unmodified Move a modified recommendation forward to CAPCOG s Executive Committee Table consideration of action on the conformance review until a future date (backup for the February 14, 2018, Executive Committee meeting needs to be finalized by Friday, January 26, 2018.) Page 7 of 7