|
<br />.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />RESOLUTION NO. 90-9
<br />
<br />WHEREAS, the State of Texas and the United States of America,
<br />through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have entrusted
<br />to the Texas Water Commission the protection of public health, air
<br />quality and water quality in Texas by designating the Texas Water
<br />Commission as the permitting agency for hazardous waste management
<br />facilities in Texas; and
<br />
<br />WHEREAS, in 1986 Houston Chemical Services, Inc. applied to
<br />the Texas Water Commission for a permit for a hazardous waste
<br />incineration facility, proposing to incorporate certain
<br />incineration equipment previously abandoned by the Quaker Oats
<br />Company at its plant site located near the City of La Porte in
<br />Harris County; and
<br />
<br />WHEREAS, after carefully evaluating the Houston Chemical
<br />services, Inc. proposal, Harris County and the City of La Porte
<br />joined various other entities in formal opposition to the Houston
<br />Chemical Services, Inc. application before the Texas Water
<br />Commission, and spent many months and over one million dollars on
<br />technical studies regarding the proposal and participating in the
<br />public hearing; and
<br />
<br />WHEREAS, during the course of the 68-day public hearing on the
<br />Houston Chemical Services, Inc. permit application (which resulted
<br />in 10,529 pages of transcript and 154 exhibits), Harris County and
<br />the city of La Porte presented a great amount of professional,
<br />credible, expert testimony clearly demonstrating many technical
<br />flaws and regulatory shortcomings of the Houston Chemical Services,
<br />Inc. proposal; and
<br />
<br />WHEREAS, the Texas Water Commission Hearings Examiner who
<br />conducted the entire public hearing and saw, heard and reviewed all
<br />of the evidence prepared a 76-page Proposal for Decision strongly
<br />recommending that the Commissioners deny the Houston Chemical
<br />Services, Inc. application based on at least five (5) separate and
<br />independent reasons, including: (1) incineration design problems,
<br />(2) siting problems, (3) waste analysis problems, (4) operating
<br />financial assurance uncertainties, and (5) uncertainties about air
<br />emissions; and
<br />
<br />WHEREAS, in spite of that recommendation, two members of the
<br />Texas Water Commission, Chairman Buck Wynne and Commissioner Cliff
<br />Johnson, voted on september 11, 1990 to issue a permit to Houston
<br />Chemical Services, Inc.; and
<br />
<br />WHEREAS, evidence in the public hearing established that if
<br />Houston Chemical Services, Inc. received a permit from the Texas
<br />Water Commission, Houston Chemical Services, Inc. would pay a bonus
<br />of at least $340,000 to the firm of Biggart and Soward, whose
<br />principals are Lee Biggart, former Chairman of the Commission, and
<br />Larry Soward, who was Executive Director of the Commission at the
<br />time the Houston Chemical services, Inc. permit application was
<br />submitted; and
<br />
<br />WHEREAS, the actions of Commissioners Wynne and Johnson in
<br />voting to issue a permit to Houston Chemical Services, Inc. raise
<br />serious questions regarding the bases for their decision and their
<br />ability and willingness to evaluate the Houston Chemical Services,
<br />Inc. permit application on its technical merits and in accordance
<br />with proper standards; and
<br />
<br />WHEREAS, the actions of commissioners Wynne and Johnson in
<br />voting to issue a permit to Houston Chemical Services, Inc. is
<br />direct contradiction to the information developed during the course
<br />of the 16 month public hearing and seriously jeopardizes the
<br />integrity of the permitting process at the Texas Water Commission;
<br />and
<br />
|