2019-04-01 Committee on the Environment Minutes
EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!G7GBFDC9.C68G.59EG.97:8.96G8FD59E8C7
City of Denton
City Hall
MINUTES
215 E. McKinney Street
COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Denton, Texas
www.cityofdenton.com
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Monday, April 1, 2019 2:47pm City Council Work Session Room
After determining that a quorum of the Committee on the Environment of the Denton City Council was
present, the Committee on the Environment thereafter convened into an Open Meeting on Monday, April
1, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton,
Texas
Council Members: Chair Council Member Keely Briggs, Council Member Paul Meltzer and Council
Member John Ryan
Also Attending: Mario Canizares, ACM; Kenneth Banks, General Manager Utilities; Katherine
Barnett,Sustainability and Customer Initiatives Manager; James Douglas, Conservation Program Coord;
Ethan Cox, Director Solid Waste; Kim Mankin, Administration Manager
REGULAR MEETING
A. COE19-013 - Consider approval of the Committee on the Environment of the Denton City Council
Meeting minutes of March 7, 2019.
Approved as circulated.
B. COE19-014 - Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on request for support from
University of North Texas for a grant and receive update on requests submitted to North Central Texas
Council of Governments (NCTCOG).
James Douglas gave the presentation regarding the air monitors.
Background:
Air pollution requires attention at both the regional and local level for successful understanding and
mitigation.
Douglas showed some definitions relevant to air monitors.
Particulate Matter (PM) Air borne particles classified by size into categories of <2.5 (fine) or <10
microns.
Low-cost PM monitor Uses light to generate readings of PM 2.5 and PM 10 and reports to an open
data platform.
There were a couple of maps that showed the current locations of the low cost PM Monitors. There
were also a couple of maps that showed the TCEQ Air Quality Monitors.
UNT research
Dr. Liang and her research team requested a letter of support from the City of Denton to apply for a
grant.
EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!G7GBFDC9.C68G.59EG.97:8.96G8FD59E8C7
-The grant will help fund activities to: Improve data validity of low cost PM sensors, Utilize fine
spatial scale data to supplement air quality modeling (Multi-scale approach) and engage citizens in
real-world science learning.
-Staff recommends providing a letter of support
Council Member Meltzer asked who will the giving the grant. Douglas answered Alfred P. Slone
Foundation.
Meltzer then asked if there is a competition for the grant. Is it a general science and tech grant that is
open nationally?
Katherine Barnett gave this portion of the presentation.
NCTCOG efforts:
-Staff continues to seek collaboration on air quality issues with other cities in the region
-Denton (and other cities) have submitted requests to encourage NCTCOG to act as administrator in a
regional air monitoring effort.
-The goal is to increase the number of regional monitors beyond the current quantity operated by the
TCEQ.
-To increase regional sustainability efforts such as regional GHG inventories.
Barnett stated if there was a desire to put two monitors along the I-35 corridor they can. If we look at
the cost share and want to have five monitors in different locations around Denton we can. It would
be the data platform and the data sharing would be consistent and we could decide where we want the
monitors.
Briggs asked how accessible would the data be, would it be detailed or defined enough for us to
determine the policies that need to be passed. They are concerned with vehicle emissions and they
about air quality in several years. Will they be able to handle, sustain and
will be the host, they may coordinate the effort but we also have healthcare that staff is talking to
a third party would be the better administrator. Having the framework at the table is good. Also
having NCTCOG acting as the regional entity would be a good start.
Barnett went on to say the monitors will not be TCEQ level, not sure if they will be policy level but
some are. It will definitely give us more data and more localized data. The monitors will be co-
located with TCEQ monitors to see if the calibration is there. The first step would be to get some
deployed and see what data we get back.
Ryan stated
are not meeting, they are still having the meetings it is inside of another group. They are concerned
about air quality. C-Mac funds are constantly being used for this type of thing.
Barnett added it is housed in transportation now with RTC.
Meltzer asked how this relates to the Downwinders Organization.
Jim Schermbeck with Downwinders at Risk stated he has been with this group for 25 years.
the region and have been for the last four years. This conservation is very frustrating because we
started this and were rolling and have been left out of the development ever since because we
EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!G7GBFDC9.C68G.59EG.97:8.96G8FD59E8C7
disagreed with the public participation aspects of this model that is being pushed on you now from
COG. We specifically started with elected officials in Dallas and Dallas County and other folks from
University of Texas at Dallas who would have already gone through this, there is no reason to
reinvent the wheel they just need to call UTD. Had a perfectly good system worked out for a limited
government cooperation to deal with this all that was agreed to by Plano and Dallas County and
ourselves and UTD and then at the last minute Dallas staff objected. They objected as far as we can
tell because there was too much public participation and heaven forbid groups like ours might be
involved. So they have been fishing around ever since to try to find out another model. First they
went to UTD and said well you host this all by yourself and UTD said no
capable of doing that. They talked to cities about another model and now finally they are talking to
JPS and Parkland and trying to do something with them, which is something I would encourage it is
more of a public health centric focus there when you have the hospitals in charge. COG is not
the state is in charge of smog planning and it is all they are interested in COG about its smog as it
relates to non-attainment funding and highway funding. So they are not interest in PMO and they are
to smog and so forth. Especially not interested in
toxic emissions. This is why taking it to COG is a very bad idea. Doing it through hospitals is a
better idea. Doing it through some kind of original and dependent group that has you as a participant
and adding your own elected officials in public representatives even better, which is what was being
proposed when Dallas backed out. So Dallas has taken this show on the road and then decided to get
these letters of support for COG but rhetorically they are talking about including citizens but of course
the one citizens group that has been leading the charge for the last four years is not included in these
controversy that is now lasted a year and gone over Fort Worth and Plano and Dallas and so on. It is
very regrettable because I think you ought to see the presentation that the City Council in Dallas saw
and voted 7-0 to endorse. People of all political persuasions endorsed this idea after Dr. Larry from
UTD and I presented it to them. It seems still sound and very much overlays with what is going on
here except it uses a better caliber of monitor that they are building at UTD, which by the way we are
buying like 30-40 of Plano has already bought. There is going to be a hundred of these things already
out in the environment by the time these folks get this grant. So my advice to you is to hold off, I
understand the home town aspect of voting for UNT money and all that but it seems like a very large
grant for what they are asking for I think you could do it for a lot less. There is a lot more
Time was up and Schermbeck was seated.
Meltzer stated he is happy for there to be more voices, he is interested in a future staff report or work
session comparing the alternative ways to go.
Briggs asked if someone on staff wants to comment as far as if it is one thing or another, if there is
only room for one type of monitor or if we can have different monitors and they can collaborate and
talk together. With the direction today separate from UNT, are you looking for direction from this
committee on one thing or is this for informational purposes on what is going on.
different programs that are talking
Schermbeck spoke about for Dallas Council but can watch it.
Briggs asked with this information we are not closing off our options we are allowing someone else to
have control of our air monitors for the future. Barnett agreed.
EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!G7GBFDC9.C68G.59EG.97:8.96G8FD59E8C7
Briggs does know that air monitors have been wanted for a while, she is glad we are talking about it.
Briggs stated yes on UNT grant. Ryan stated yes on the UNT grant and continue with COG from a
standpoint that they
Briggs added we many need to have a work session on this information.
Barnett answered as staff works through this they will come back with another presentation.
C. COE19-015 - Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the Solid Waste
Brian Boerner gave the presentation stating with the business case analysis that they are doing they
want to talk alittle about the program.
Enhanced Liquids Recirculation (ELR)
Purpose & Objectives
-Increase generation of LFG for Beneficial Reuse Produce electricity for use by DME customers.
-Increase Landfill Capacity Potentially expedite landfill settlement through accelerated decay of
organics.
-Liability Reduction Potentially reduce 30-year post closure care period associated with closure of
the landfill.
Participants include: DTA Electric generation contractor
Operations DME, Landfill, Environmental Services and Waste water
Definitions that Boerner included were:
Leachate - A liquid that has passed through or emerged from solid waste and contains soluble,
suspended, or miscible materials.
Leachate Recirculation Collection and delivery of leachate from and into the landfill to reduce
leachate treatment costs, accelerate landfill gas (LFG) production, and expedite landfill settlement.
Landfill Gas (LFG) Landfills produce methane gas due to the normal decay of trash/organic
material.
Boerner showed a photo and discussed how ELR it works.
As staff was working on the business case analysis they hired SCS Engineers to do an engineering
analysis of the operation of the facility.
Is the ELR system working? Staff has seen marginal success at the Enhanced LFG Generation. Gas
production has increased but not at full recovery potential. LFG to Energy equipment is at full
operational capacity, 64 percent is converted to energy and 36 percent is flared. There is not enough
capacity to bring on another engine, would have to have another 350 standard cubic feet a minute of
gas reliably produced.
Boerner then stated there is no benefits to the environment. The gas collection in our new cells is
difficult, there are no wells in place. With the cover on and off to manage the waste there is no way to
capture the minimal amount of methane that is occurring in the new cell. There are some leachate
seeps that are having to be managed as a result of adding the leachate back into the top. There are no
EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!G7GBFDC9.C68G.59EG.97:8.96G8FD59E8C7
LFG migration issues in Denton. There are potential increased odors due to accelerated gas
production.
Regarding Accelerated Incremental Landfill Settlement, it is a marginal success. Approximately five
sposal capacity was added in FY2017-2018. The estimation was 15,000 yd3 in total
settlement (natural settlement + ELR). It is c.
There is no reduction in the potential liability in doing the ELR system. TCEQ and EPA have not
enacted rules to reduce the 30-year post closure care period for ELR landfills.
Meltzer asked what was the theory that would make post closure shorter. Boerner answered basically
every landfill has a finite resource, only can produce so much gas. By allowing the leachate to work
faster the gas production would happen earlier in the life of the landfill. Currently the State requires
30 years after you close the landfill monitoring to allow all that landfill gas to occur. If you pull it out
on the front years while you are still operating that 30 years in theory could be reduced to twenty five
or twenty years. We have no realized any regulatory relief at the State or Federal level.
Meltzer then asked if this was done in the first place was to reduce that liability. Boerner answered
yes the first two liabilities were to increase capacity, staff has seen marginal success, and reduction in
liability.
Environmental Impact she asked if it has been fully vetted and the
benefits it can be. There is a landfill benefits calculator, has this been taken into account on this.
Boerner said they did not put it into the landfill benefits calculator but can do that for the next
presentation. Boerner then explained the emission comparison from the LFGE engine and the flare.
There is some benefit but from a cost standpoint that will be discussed soon, it is the most expensive
ade from a
contract that is until 2024.
Boerner then gave the financial overview.
The comparison Non-ELR vs ELR
ELR Operations were suspended in January 2018 because of operational issues. In the past year staff
has gone in and looked at how it is being operated, the cost and benefits.
Currently the net income is $12,500, if solid waste goes back in a re-starts the ELR and runs it
consistently for the remainder of the life of the landfill we would be obligated to $935,000 per year
based on what the annual cost would be for infrastructure improvements, gas well installations,
collection system improvements, system operation, monitoring and recordkeeping.
Currently there are about 3,500 landfills in the United States and there are only 33 that are either
considered bioreactors or ELR.
From a conclusions and recommendations standpoint, the primary objectives of ELR are not being
realized. Post closure liability has not been reduced. Accelerated landfill settlement is marginally
beneficial and difficult to quantify. LFG production has increased but has exceeded LFGE capacity.
Staff recommends discontinuation of ELR operations to prevent additional costs required to operate a
compliant facility. Staff would also propose to begin research on other opportunities to utilize LFG.
The DTE contract ends in 2024 after that explore other options: LFGE, high BTU, vehicle fuel
conversion, etc.
Briggs stated she is not prepared today to say stop, there are other things that can be considered.
When Briggs first got on the Council, Denton landfill was considered forward thinking nationally
EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!G7GBFDC9.C68G.59EG.97:8.96G8FD59E8C7
recognized landfill for all the things we are doing. Understand somethings were not implemented
correctly but still think the intention was there for environmental purposes. She appreciates all the
costs concerns but still trying to balance and weigh environmental versus costs.
Meltzer to energy it is the leachate circulation, Boerner
agreed.
Briggs stated she has had people reach out to her and say this is part of the same, the leachate and the
waste energy is one in the same. Boerner responded that landfills always have gas and right now we
have enough gas to power the landfill to energy plant. Be eliminating the ELR system it does not
impact the operation or the amount of energy that will come from the DTE power system. We will
continue to run that engine, continue to provide the energy to the homes. What we will not be doing
is generating exceptionally more landfill gas that what can be burned in this engine. The remainder
will be flared off.
Briggs would like to know what other things we can do with that extra gas in the meantime besides
right to all the gas. If there is additional gas that is being flared off, we would have to purchase it back
from them. Right now the wastewater treatment plant uses the gas that they generate off of its
in the winter time they are short gas, we could potentially divert some of the gas from the landfill over
to the wastewater treatment plant digesters. That would be a beneficial reuse. Unless there is
something on site or we are able to generate significantly more gas in a short time, we are at our best
option at this point.
Briggs reiterated that this was put on hold January 2018 then asked if it has been put on hold since.
Boerner stated we have not operated it since that time. The infrastructure is still there could be spun
back up but there would have to be significant funding needed for additional infrastructure.
Additional funds would be needed annually to be a compliant system.
Briggs then asked if we did all those things would we still need to flare. Boerner stated we would
always have to flare, there will always be some incremental piece that is in excess of what our
capacity is. Briggs asked if we would have been operating the ELR if we would have enough for
another engine. Boerner answered there still would not be enough for an additional engine.
Meltzer stated he
out of the landfill if we do nothing. Boerner stated Federal and State law requires to have the landfill
gas collection system. That is what we have right now, what we are doing with that is what we need
to do to be in compliance with the air permits under the landfill permit. The gas is collected that is
coming up, minimize the emissions (currently three tons a year), we are extremely low compared to
standards.
Meltzer aske
answered that Solid Waste has seven programs that is being brought to this committee, this is the next
one in line. Meltzer stated that there is an indication that there is a better way to do landfill to gas that
Ethan Cox stated the reason that staff is talking about this now is this was a portion of the Blue Ridge
report, recall Councils direction was to bring back most of the recommendations of that report and
revisit it. Staff has brought in SCS Engineering to come in, they the industry experts on designing
landfill gas management systems. The DTE contract will come to an end in 2024, there are
environmental benefits to flaring versus the engine but may not be true for other options. Staff will
EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!G7GBFDC9.C68G.59EG.97:8.96G8FD59E8C7
explore the options and come back, this will take several months. The recommendation today is to not
spin back up the circulation of liquids that does not shut down the engine. The engine will continue to
run and the excess will be flared. The biggest thing in terms of staff direction is we are working on
the budget, if we are going to re-start the ELR operation it will require a significant investment to do it
generating gas it just generated more than we could contend with.
upside to running the ELR, you are accelerating the gas generation up to the front of the gas curve
which means you are less able to normally collect that gas in the early years. What we have is very
efficient in collecting the gas in the out years. Staff is not building this system back into the budget
unless there is direction otherwise.
Briggs asked on the contract, does it prohibit us from asking for upgrades to their generator to make it
more environmentally friendly to reduce the emissions. Cox stated DTE is required to maintain the
infrastructure we can see if there is more environmentally they can do. From a business position they
have seven years left of the contract, any investment they put in will probably not see a return so Cox
believes we will be at an impasse with the way the contract is worded. Boerner added that engine
requires a permit to run by the State and they are in compliance.
Meltzer asked if it is possible to store the gas. Boerner answered it is but extremely expensive.
Briggs would like to see the options. She would also like to see the percentage of flaring both before
the program was halted in 2018 versus now. Boerner state they have looked at that earlier in the day
and they are consistent with what is being flared now. Briggs asked what it means that it is consistent.
Boerner answered in the six to seven years that the liquid has been run through the system and had
been enhanced, the bugs are working and doing their job. If it had been enhanced a little more there
may have been an uptick. Briggs stated that with this information she believes there may be enough
gas to have another engine. Boerner agreed in four to five years.
Meltzer stated if we were to have a city wide composting program would that tend to right size the
amount of gas production to the energy capacity. Boerner answered no, the reason being the way the
current program is set up our permit to compost is a wastewater permit to manage the bio-solids which
is very restrictive on what it can take. What can be taken is yard waste and pre-consumer organic
materials. As a result we cannot mix the materials, we could go and permit and spin a composting
operation that could manage the materials. There is additional factors because you would be dealing
with meats, fats and oils. Outside of the true solid waste piece if you install masticators or high end
food processors in a lot of these restaurants you could run it down the sink and the organic load would
go to the wastewater treatment plant. They would produce more gas to heat and the solids would be
out, the bio-solids would be in and then we could compost in the existing program.
Meltzer then added if you took the organic materials out of the landfill to compost so that it is not in
the gas generating would we then be more right sized in terms of the amount of gas that comes out of
the landfill. Boerner answered at some point yes, it would be hard to hard to get there.
Briggs asked Barnett to comment on the Greenhouse Gas Inventory difference for our landfill, do we
have numbers on that since before the program and after. Barnett answered Douglas is working on the
2018 numbers now, Douglas added those numbers came in last week from TCEQ. That information
should be available at the next meeting.
Ryan left the meeting at 3:45
D. COE19-016 - ACM Update:
1.!Update Sustainability, Recycling, and Learn 2 Conserve events
EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!G7GBFDC9.C68G.59EG.97:8.96G8FD59E8C7
2.!Matrix
Canizares stated Matrix items 2, 5 and 7 will be at the May meeting.
CONCLUDING ITEMS
Under Section 551.042 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, respond to inquiries from the Public
Utilities Board or the public with specific factual information or recitation of policy, or accept a
proposal to place the matter on the agenda for an upcoming meeting AND Under Section 551.0415 of the
Texas Open Meetings Act, provide reports about items of community interest regarding which no action
will be taken, to include: expressions of thanks, congratulations, or condolence; information regarding
holiday schedules; an honorary or salutary recognition of a public official, public employee, or other
citizen; a reminder about an upcoming event organized or sponsored by the governing body; information
regarding a social, ceremonial, or community event organized or sponsored by an entity other than the
governing body that was attended or is scheduled to be attended by a member of the governing body or an
official or employee of the municipality; or an announcement involving an imminent threat to the public
health and safety of people in the municipality that has arisen after the posting of the agenda
Briggs curious have there been any reduction in contamination in the last month.
Briggs asked about an earth day event to partnership with a small business to use Denton reusable
bags instead of plastic bags.
Briggs would like to start recording the meetings. Canizares responded that there is an item going
to Council as a supplemental from Communications office as part of their budget to video more of
the meetings.
Adjournment: 3:54pm
Approved: May 6, 2019
_________________________________ __________________________
Chair, Council Member Keely Briggs Date