Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Exxon Mobil Corporation ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Shell Oil Company

ACCEPTED
03-14-00667-CV
3957344
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
1/29/2015 6:24:01 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
NO. 03-14-00667-CV

FILED IN
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 3rd COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS
AT AUSTIN 1/29/2015 6:24:01 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,

Appellant,

v.

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION, PENNZOIL-QUAKER
STATE COMPANY, AND SHELL OIL COMPANY,

Appellees.

APPELLEES’ BRIEF

John R. Eldridge
State Bar No. 06513520
john.eldridge@haynesboone.com
Kent Rutter
State Bar No. 00797364
kent.rutter@haynesboone.com
Adam Sencenbaugh
State Bar No. 24060584
adam.sencenbaugh@haynesboone.com
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2100
Houston, Texas 77010
Telephone: (713) 547-2000
Telecopier: (713) 547-2600

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
 DESIGNATION OF RECORD REFERENCES

This brief follows the format suggested by the Bluebook: e.g., Clerk’s

Record: “(CR:1.)” See THE BLUEBOOK, A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION,

Practitioners’ Note P.7 at 19-20 (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al. eds., 18th ed.

2005).

The record in this appeal consists of the clerk’s record, a supplemental

clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and an administrative record. The

supplemental clerk’s record has been requested but has not yet been filed with the

Court. This brief uses the following conventions in citing the record:

Clerk’s Record:

CR:[page]

Supplemental Clerk’s Record:

Supp. CR at [page]

Reporter’s Record:

RR [vol]:[page]

Administrative Record:

AR [page]

-i-
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DESIGNATION OF RECORD REFERENCES ........................................................i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v 

RESPONSE TO ISSUES PRESENTED ..................................................................ix 

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................ 1 

A.  History of the Voda Site ........................................................................ 1 

B.  EPA performs a removal action for the Voda Site................................ 1 

C.  The TNRCC initiates the state listing process without
reevaluating the Voda Site following the EPA’s removal
action ..................................................................................................... 2 

D.  The TCEQ issues an administrative order for the Voda Site
pursuant to § 361.188 and § 361.272 of the SWDA ............................. 3 

E.  PRPs named in the AO seek a rehearing but are denied ....................... 5 

F.  ExxonMobil and Shell challenge the AO in Travis County
District Court ......................................................................................... 6 

G.  The parties engage in broad discovery at the trial court ....................... 7 

H.  The State reverses course and argues that review is limited
to an administrative record .................................................................... 8 

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 9 

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........................................................................ 11 

ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 13 

I.  Appellees’ Response to Appellant’s Issue One ............................................. 13 

A.  The TCEQ can issue administrative orders under § 361.188
and § 361.272, and both share common attributes relevant
to this appeal ........................................................................................ 13 

- ii -
 B.  The statutory history of the SWDA shows that
administrative orders have always been subject to the same
appellate standards .............................................................................. 15 

1.  The original SWDA established a permitting
program to regulate solid waste ................................................ 15 

2.  Following the Congressional passage of CERCLA,
the Texas legislature amended the SWDA to create a
Texas state Superfund program ................................................ 17 

3.  The codified SWDA makes all administrative orders
subject to these same provisions ............................................... 22 

C.  The current statute does not create mutually exclusive
orders with separate waivers of sovereign immunity.......................... 23 

1.  Appearing in different sections using different
language does not make the orders mutually
exclusive.................................................................................... 23 

2.  The SWDA appellate provisions distinguish between
appeals of Superfund orders and appeals of
permitting decisions, not separate kinds of Superfund
orders ......................................................................................... 25 

3.  Forcing all appeals of Superfund orders into
§ 361.321 creates an absurd result ............................................ 28 

II.  Appellees’ Response to Appellant’s Issue Two ............................................ 29 

A.  The language of the AO demonstrates the Order was issued
under § 361.188 and § 361.272 ........................................................... 30 

B.  Counsel for the Executive Director asked the
Commissioners to issue the Order under both § 361.188 and
§ 361.272 ............................................................................................. 32 

C.  Understanding that the AO invokes both § 361.188 and
§ 361.272, the State described the Order as having been
issued under both sections for years.................................................... 33 

- iii -
 1.  The TCEQ repeatedly and unequivocally described
the AO as being issued under § 361.188 and
§ 361.272 ................................................................................... 33 

2.  The State disclosed that it issued the AO under both
sections to obtain advantages of a § 361.272 order .................. 36 

D.  Following the listing procedures of Subchapter F does not
insulate the AO from review under Subchapter K .............................. 37 

E.  Reviewing an administrative order under § 361.322 does
not make Subchapter F redundant ....................................................... 38 

F.  If the Commission is correct that it exceeded its powers
under the SWDA then the AO must be set aside ................................ 40 

III.  Appellees’ Response to Appellant’s Issue Three .......................................... 41 

A.  Texas courts are not constitutionally limited to review of
administrative orders only as to matters of law .................................. 42 

B.  The Texas Supreme Court’s decision in City of Waco is not
controlling in this SWDA appeal ........................................................ 48 

C.  The APA provisions authorizing pure substantial evidence
review on a contested-case record are not applicable to this
appeal ................................................................................................... 53 

1.  The APA does not apply, and the available guidance
leads to different conclusions than advocated by the
State ........................................................................................... 54 

2.  Outside of threshold standing questions, pure
substantial evidence requires a true contested-case
record under the APA ............................................................... 55 

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 59 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 61 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 62 

APPENDIX .................................................................................................. Tabs A-K 

- iv -
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue,
34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000)................................................................................. 11

City of El Paso v. Heinrich,
284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) .............................................................................. 12

City of Waco v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality,
346 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, pet. granted) .................................. 49

Collins v. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n,
94 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.) ............................................ 58

Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Tex. State Bd. of Ins.,
808 S.W.2d 552 (Tex. App.—Austin 1991, writ denied).......................43, 44, 46

County of Cameron v. Brown,
80 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. 2002)................................................................................. 12

Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Petty,
482 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.) .................... 46

G.E. Am. Commc’n v. Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist.,
979 S.W.2d 761 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) ................... 56

Gen. Servs. Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.,
39 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2001)................................................................................. 42

Gerst v. Nixon,
411 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. 1967) ........................................................................ 47, 48

Heat Energy Advanced Tech., Inc. v. W. Dallas Coal. for Envtl. Justice,
962 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. denied) ................................... 41

Heckman v. Williamson Cty.,
369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) .............................................................................. 11

Houston Mun. Emps. Pension Sys. v. Ferrell,
248 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. 2007) .............................................................................. 11

-v-
Key Western Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Ins.,
350 S.W.2d 839 (Tex. 1961) ........................................................................40, 46

Macias v. Rylander,
995 S.W.2d 829 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.) ..............................44, 45, 46

Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex. v. City Pub. Serv. Bd. of San Antonio,
53 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2001)................................................................................. 41

R.R. Street & Co. v. Pilgrim Enters.,
166 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. 2005) .............................................................................. 18

Ramirez v. Tex. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs,
927 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, no writ) .............................. 55, 56, 59

Smith v. Houston Chemical Services, Inc.,
872 S.W.2d 252 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994, writ denied)................................... 57

Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc.,
84 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. 2002)................................................................................. 40

Tex. Comm’n of Licensing & Regulation v. Model Search Am., Inc.,
953 S.W.2d 289 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no writ) ......................................... 43

Tex. Dep’t of Ins. v. State Farm Lloyds,
260 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, no pet.) .......................................... 59

Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Mega Child Care, Inc.,
145 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004) ........................................................................ 42, 43

Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. Sierra Club,
70 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2002)........................................................................... 27, 28

Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. City of Waco,
413 S.W.3d 409 (Tex. 2013) .......................................................................passim

Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. Kelsoe,
286 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009, pet. denied) ..................................... 57

Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. Sierra Club,
No. 03-12-00335-CV, 2014 WL 7464085 (Tex. App.—Austin
Dec. 30, 2014, no pet. h.) ........................................................................51, 52, 56

- vi -
Tex. State Bd. of Exam’rs in Optometry v. Carp,
388 S.W.2d 409 (Tex. 1965) .............................................................................. 47

Texas Water Comm’n v. Dellana,
849 S.W.2d 808 (Tex. 1993) .............................................................................. 51

TJFA, L.P. v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality,
No. 03-10-00016-CV, 2014 WL 3562735 (Tex. App.—Austin
July 16, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) ...................................................................... 27

United Copper Indus., Inc. v. Grissom,
17 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. dism’d) ............................... 57, 58

United States v. Bestfoods,
524 U.S. 51 (1998) .............................................................................................. 18

STATUTES
TEX. CONST. art. II, § 1 ............................................................................................ 42

42 U.S.C.A. §§ 9601–9628 ................................................................................17, 18

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.003(24) (West 2010) ....................17, 26, 28

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.061 (West 2010) ....................................... 27

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.181 (West 2010) ...........................13, 14, 31

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.188(b) (West 2010) ............................23, 24

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.271 (West 2010) ....................................... 15

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.272 (West 2010) ................................. 14, 31

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.274 (West 2010) ...................................5, 36

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.275 (West 2010) ....................................... 15

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.276 (West 2010) ................................. 15, 36

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.321 (West 2010) ....................................... 26

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.322 (West 2010) ................................ passim

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 401.229(a) (West 2010) .................................. 52

- vii -
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 2001.171-178 (West 2008) ............................................ 54

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 2001.060 (West 2008)...................................................... 55

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 2001.174(2)(E) (West 2008) ............................................ 55

Tex. Water Code Ann. § 5.351 (West 2008) ........................................................... 51

SECONDARY SOURCES
Act approved June 2, 1969, 61st Leg., R.S., ch. 405,
1969 Tex. Gen. Laws 1320, 1320 (repealed 1989) recodified by
Act approved June 14, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 678,
1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 2230 ...........................................................................15, 16

Act approved June 15, 1973, 63rd Leg., R.S., ch. 576,
1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 1595 ...........................................................................16, 17

Act approved June 12, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 566,
1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 2166 (repealed 1989) recodified by Act
approved June 14, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 678,
1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 2230 ...............................................................18, 19, 20, 21

Act approved June 14, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 703,
1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 3212, 3217 ..................................................................21.22

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at 857 (7th ed. 1999) ................................................... 11

- viii -
 RESPONSE TO ISSUES PRESENTED

1. The Solid Waste Disposal Act authorizes the Commission to issue
administrative orders under § 361.188 and § 361.272, but these orders are
not mutually exclusive and are subject to the same appellate provisions.

2. The Commission issued the Administrative Order for the Voda Site pursuant
to § 361.188 and § 361.272 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

3. Judicial review of the Administrative Order for the Voda Site is
constitutional and appropriate under § 361.322 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act.

- ix -
 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. History of the Voda Site.

The Voda Petroleum State Superfund Site (the “Voda Site”) is comprised of

approximately 6.12 acres located in Gregg County, Texas. (AR 2907.) The Voda

Site was historically used by Voda Petroleum, Inc. as an oil blending and recycling

facility from approximately 1981 to 1991, when all operations ceased and the Voda

Site was abandoned. (AR 3126.)

B. EPA performs a removal action for the Voda Site.

In the mid-1990s, both the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and

the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (“TNRCC”) investigated

the Voda Site to determine whether historic operations had resulted in the release

of hazardous substances. (AR 3030, 3495.) Part of this investigation included a

Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) evaluation of the Voda Site. (AR 3495.) The

Voda Site scored a 23.6 on the HRS scale, which was too low to qualify the Voda

Site for the federal Superfund program. (AR 3509.) Instead, the Voda Site was

referred in 1995 to EPA for an immediate removal action. (AR 3029.) EPA’s

Action Memorandum seeking approval for the removal action indicated that

following the removal action “there is no potential for further state/local response.”

(AR 3033.)
 EPA conducted the removal action in 1996, removing drums and above-

ground tanks of grease and corrosive wastes, including associated soil exposed to

these materials, and backfilling with clean soil. (AR 943.) After the removal action

was complete, EPA’s contractor sampled both on-site soils and groundwater as

part of a post-removal assessment. (AR 3127.) EPA issued a post-closure report

confirming the removal action had abated the imminent and substantial

endangerment and that cleanup activities at the site had met EPA’s health based

cleanup standards for industrial land usage. (AR 3128, 61877.) Following its

removal action, EPA sought recovery of its costs and entered into Administrative

Orders of Consent (“AOCs”) with companies that EPA had named as potentially

responsible parties (“PRPs”) for the Voda Site. (AR 61852.)

C. The TNRCC initiates the state listing process without
reevaluating the Voda Site following the EPA’s removal action.

More than four years after the EPA removal action, the TNRCC proposed

the Voda Site for listing on the Texas Superfund registry on November 17, 2000.

(AR 46233.) Although the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act (“SWDA”) requires

the agency to ensure that a site exceed 5.0 on the HRS score to proceed with

listing, the Commission did not re-score the Voda Site to account for the EPA’s

work. The Commission sent correspondence to certain entities it believed had

historically shipped materials to the Voda Site. (AR 16708-16710.) The

Commission asserted that each recipient was potentially responsible for

-2-
environmental investigation and eventual remediation at the Voda Site, informed

the recipients of the proposed listing, and included a Notice of Opportunity to

Make Good Faith Offer to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

(“RI/FS”). (AR 08614-46109.) Several parties submitted written comments and

objections, noting that there was no empirical data to support an imminent and

substantial endangerment finding and no evidence to support listing the Voda Site

on the Texas Superfund registry. (AR 41577-41578.) Nevertheless, the State went

forward with its plan to list the Voda Site.

D. The TCEQ issues an administrative order for the Voda Site
pursuant to § 361.188 and § 361.272 of the SWDA.

A draft administrative order for the Voda Site was docketed for

consideration by the Commissioners at a public meeting of the Texas Commission

on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”)1 on February 10, 2010. (AR 51125.) Agenda

Item No. 7 pertaining to the Voda Site was described on the docket as

“Consideration of a Final Administrative Order (Final Order) pursuant to Texas

Health and Safety Code Sections 361.188 and 361.272 for the Voda Petroleum,

Inc. State Superfund Site….” (AR 51127.)

Charmaine Backens, counsel for the Executive Director of the TCEQ,

presented the draft administrative order to the Commissioners. Following a brief

1
The TNRCC was renamed the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality effective
January 1, 2004.

-3-
description of the Voda Site and the remedial action plan, Backens testified that

“the Executive Director respectfully requests…recommends [sic] issuing this

Administrative Order for remedial activities at the Voda Petroleum State

Superfund Site pursuant to Chapter 361, sections 188 and 272 of the Health and

Safety Code.” (AR 50382.)

A handful of PRPs were granted approximately five minutes to address the

Commissioners regarding the agenda item, in which they argued that the

Commissioners should delay issuance of the administrative order and allow the

parties to present evidence to the Commission. Id. Counsel for the Executive

Director responded that “the law governing this case does not provide for an

adjudicatory hearing at this time” and noted that the Executive Director would not

directly address these objections, suggesting instead that the appropriate remedy

was to appeal to the district court. Id.

The Commissioners followed the Executive Director’s recommendation and

on February 12, 2010, issued a unilateral administrative order for the Voda Site

pursuant to § 361.188 and § 361.272 of the SWDA (“the Order” or “AO”).

(CR:29-108; App. A.) The AO named ExxonMobil and Shell—among

-4-
approximately 350 other entities—as responsible parties and ordered them to pay

the TCEQ’s response costs for the Voda Site.2 Id.

E. PRPs named in the AO seek a rehearing but are denied.

On March 12, 2010, Luminant, one of the parties named in the Order, filed a

motion for rehearing before the Commission. (AR 50870.) Luminant argued that

the SWDA requires the Commission to determine “the lowest cost alternative” to

remediate the Voda Site and that another contractor was prepared to present a

lower cost alternative remedy than had been adopted in the AO. (AR 50864.)

The TCEQ filed a written response to Luminant’s motion, first noting that

“the Commission issued the Order pursuant to Tex. Health and Safety Code §§

361.188 and 361.272 (West 2010).” (AR 49650; App B.) The TCEQ then argued

that Luminant was “not entitled to a rehearing because the law did not afford it a

hearing in the first instance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.274 (West

2010) (stating that ‘[a]n administrative order under Section 361.272 does not

require prior notice or an adjudicative hearing before the commission’.”) Id. To

drive the point home, the TCEQ concluded that “[b]ecause the Order was issued

under Sections 361.272 and 361.188 (Administrative Order 1), it did not require an

adjudicative hearing before the Commission.” (AR 49650; App. B.) The

2
Appellees ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Pennzoil-Quaker State
Company, and Shell Oil Company are referred to collectively as “ExxonMobil and Shell”
throughout this brief.

-5-
Commission did not timely grant Luminant’s request, and the AO became final on

April 8, 2010. (AR 10.)

F. ExxonMobil and Shell challenge the AO in Travis County District
Court.

On March 26, 2010, ExxonMobil and Shell filed their First Amended

Original Petition appealing the AO in Travis County District Court. (CR:4-27;

App. C.)3 ExxonMobil and Shell challenged the AO and the Commission’s actions

under the SWDA as well as § 37.001 of the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments

Act. Id.

On August 1, 2011, the TCEQ filed its Original Counter-Petition and Third-

Party Petition, pleading as follows: “On February 12, 2010, the TCEQ issued an

administrative order (“the Order”) under §§ 361.188 and 361.272 of the Act….”

(CR:127-169; App. D.)4 The TCEQ brought claims for cost recovery against

ExxonMobil and Shell and other PRPs pursuant to § 361.197(d), an action to

enforce the AO pursuant to § 361.321 and § 361.322(g), and injunctive relief

pursuant to § 361.273(2). Id.

3
Appellees filed their Original Petition on March 12, 2010. On May 18, 2010, the Amended
Petition was consolidated, along with nine other lawsuits filed by a number of other entities
named in the AO, into a new cause number. (CR:112-26.)
4
The TCEQ has filed two “supplements” to its Original Petition. However, neither supplement
revised or amended the factual allegations discussed herein. (CR:450-54.)

-6-
 G. The parties engage in broad discovery at the trial court.

Although the State now argues judicial review of the AO is limited to the

TCEQ’s administrative record for the Voda Site, the State’s discovery at the trial

court contained no such limitations. Consistent with their live pleadings5 and each

successive amended scheduling order, the State spent nearly four years pursuing

unrestricted discovery on ExxonMobil and Shell. The Commission propounded

extensive written discovery on ExxonMobil and Shell and deposed corporate

representatives for both entities on a wide variety of issues outside the

administrative record. (Supp. CR at ___ [TCEQ’s First Written Discovery to

ExxonMobil Corporation and Shell Oil Company (served on September 10, 2013)];

(Supp. CR at ___ [TCEQ’s Notice of Oral Deposition (served on Sep. 20, 2012));

TCEQ’s Notice of Oral Deposition (served on Oct. 4, 2012)]. The State also

engaged in extensive expert discovery, designating eight state employee expert

witnesses, five non-state employee retained expert witnesses, and two non-retained

testifying expert witnesses which are presently identified to testify at trial, despite

the Commission’s current claim that the testimony of their own experts is actually

irrelevant to the case. (Supp. CR at ___ [Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality’s Amended Designation of Experts (served on May 10, 2013)].

5
Shortly before filing current Plea to the Jurisdiction, the Commission filed a Motion for
Leave to Amend Pleadings and Discovery. However, the trial court denied this motion via
written order on July 31, 2014.

-7-
 H. The State reverses course and argues that review is limited to an
administrative record.

On December 18, 2013—approximately four years after the case was filed—

the State filed a Motion for Revised Discovery Control Plan in the trial court.

(Supp. CR at ___ [Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s Motion for

Revised Discovery Control Plan (filed December 18, 2013)]. For the first time, the

State advanced the argument that: (1) the AO was issued exclusively under §

361.188 of the SWDA; and (2) judicial review of the AO was therefore limited to

an administrative record the TCEQ was in the process of compiling. Id. The trial

court rejected the State’s arguments and denied the motion via a written order

signed on March 4, 2014. The Commission did not seek an interlocutory appeal of

this order. (Supp. CR at ___ [Order Denying Motion for Revised Discovery

Control Plan (filed March 4, 2014)].

On July 15, the TCEQ recycled precisely these same arguments in a new

motion restyled as a “Plea to the Jurisdiction.” (CR:729-859.) Although the State’s

newly-filed plea did not contain any reference to sovereign immunity—in fact, the

words “sovereign immunity” did not even appear in the motion—the State argued

in a reply brief and at a subsequent hearing that because the AO was a strictly “188

Order” judicial review under any standard other than § 361.321 violated the state’s

immunity from suit. Following a hearing on this motion, the trial court rejected the

motion via written order on October 1, 2014. (CR:1151.)

-8-
 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The TCEQ issued a unilateral administrative order pursuant to two

provisions of the SWDA—§ 361.188 and § 361.272—ordering ExxonMobil and

Shell to pay millions of dollars to reimburse the State’s remediation of the Voda

Site. ExxonMobil and Shell were denied an adjudicatory hearing prior to issuance

and had no opportunity to present experts or cross-examine the State’s witnesses

regarding liability. Instead, the TCEQ invoked its broadest powers under the

SWDA to block any hearing and attempted to hold persons named in the order

jointly and severally liable for response costs. For nearly four years, these were

uncontested procedural facts while the parties litigated the case at the district court.

Following the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in City of Waco, the TCEQ

made a strategic decision to expand the boundaries of that holding in this case.

Although the AO was subject to judicial review based on a preponderance of the

evidence at the district court, the State attempts to whitewash the AO’s history and

the Commission’s own pleadings by claiming that it actually issued the Order

solely under § 361.188, which the State believes now entitles it to pure substantial

evidence review. But regardless of whether the Commission issued the Order

pursuant to § 361.188, § 361.272, or both, the SWDA presents the same appellate

remedy for both orders, and nothing from the statutory history or current text

indicates that these orders are mutually exclusive. Even if the SWDA did intend to

-9-
split appellate remedies between different SWDA administrative orders, there is no

doubt the TCEQ issued the AO for the Voda Site under § 361.272, and therefore

§ 361.322 is the appropriate appellate provision.

The Texas Supreme Court’s decision in City of Waco does nothing to change

this analysis. The City of Waco holding is limited to a threshold determination of

whether a third-party seeking to intervene in a permitting case is an “affected

person” sufficient to trigger a contested-case hearing. That case has no application

to an appeal by parties named responsible in a unilateral administrative order,

particularly when the relevant statute already provides an appropriate standard of

review.

After spending an enormous amount of time and money prosecuting this

case as both a § 361.188 and § 361.272 Order, the State is now erroneously

emboldened by City of Waco to believe it can simply issue Superfund enforcement

orders demanding millions of dollars in response costs without an agency hearing

or de novo review at the district court. Instead, the State suggests that pure

substantial evidence review of its own record is sufficient. But City of Waco deals

solely with a permitting issue rather than the more onerous cost recovery

enforcement. Moreover, the plain language of the SWDA unequivocally waives

sovereign immunity to judicial review of the Order and provides for de novo

review based on a preponderance of the evidence. In this type of action, City of

- 10 -
Waco does nothing to relieve the State of its ultimate burden to prove liability.

Potentially responsible parties are entitled to their day in court, and the trial court

has the power to hear their claims under a preponderance of the evidence standard.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
ExxonMobil and Shell believe the Court is without jurisdiction to hear this

appeal. A plea to the jurisdiction challenges the trial court’s power to adjudicate

the subject matter of the controversy. Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d

137, 149 (Tex. 2012); Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex.

2000). Black’s Law Dictionary defines “subject-matter jurisdiction” as

“[j]urisdiction over the nature of the case and the type of relief sought; the extent to

which a court can rule on the conduct of persons or the status of things.” BLACK’S

LAW DICTIONARY at 857 (7th ed. 1999). In the context of judicial review of an

administrative order, the issue of sovereign immunity requires an examination of

whether a statute provides a right to judicial review of agency action. Houston

Mun. Emps. Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 248 S.W.3d 151, 158 (Tex. 2007).

There is no question that the SWDA authorizes judicial review of the AO in

this case and that the State has waived immunity from suit. The trial court has the

power to either uphold or set aside the Order and to award attorneys’ fees to the

prevailing party. What the parties actually dispute is precisely what evidence the

trial court may consider in reviewing the Order. The State asserts the trial court is

- 11 -
limited to the Commission’s administrative record, while ExxonMobil and Shell

argue that the trial court can consider new evidence through a trial de novo. The

State’s plea is not a challenge to the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction, but

instead a maneuver to set the procedures the trial court will use to enter an order

that it unquestionably has the power to enter.

Assuming this evidentiary question did implicate the court’s subject matter

jurisdiction, the State cannot maintain a plea to the jurisdiction in this case because

its own pleadings defeat its claim. In deciding a plea to the jurisdiction, the court

must not weigh the claims’ merits but should look to the pleadings and determine

if they allege facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction to hear

the case. City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 378 (Tex. 2009); County of

Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex. 2002). The State’s live pleadings

indicate that “[t]he Texas Legislature has defined the sole method for appealing the

Order at Tex. Health & Safety Code § 361.322.” (CR:675-87: App. E.)

ExxonMobil and Shell agree, as their Amended Petition invokes § 361.322 and

challenges the TCEQ to prove—by a preponderance of the evidence—that

Appellees are liable for the elimination of any release at the Voda Site. Therefore,

the court need not look past the parties’ own pleadings to determine that they have

alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate both that the Court has jurisdiction to

- 12 -
hear this case and that the appropriate standard of review and burden of proof can

be found in § 361.322 of the SWDA.

ARGUMENT

I. Appellees’ Response to Appellant’s Issue One.

The Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act (“SWDA” or “Act”) does not create

mutually exclusive Superfund orders with separate waivers of sovereign immunity.

Although the Act empowers the Commission to issue an administrative order

before a remedial investigation/feasibility study has been conducted or at the

conclusion of the state Superfund listing process, either type of administrative

order is subject to the same appellate provisions.

A. The TCEQ can issue administrative orders under § 361.188 and
§ 361.272, and both share common attributes relevant to this
appeal.

The SWDA permits the Commission to issue an administrative order under

Subchapter F regarding a site “that may constitute an imminent or substantial

endangerment to public health and safety or the environment due to a release or

threatened release of hazardous substances into the environment.” Tex. Health &

Safety Code Ann. § 361.181 (West 2010). Pursuant to the Act, an Order issued

under § 361.188 comes at the conclusion of the listing process, which would

include investigating the site proposed for listing and recommending a remedial

action to cleanup any hazardous substances identified. Id. Such an order lists the

- 13 -
identified site on the state registry and provides the necessary details regarding the

proposed remedy for the hazardous substances found during the investigation. Id.

The Act also permits the Commission to issue an administrative order under

Subchapter K “to a person responsible for solid waste if it appears that there is an

actual or threatened release of solid waste that presents an imminent and

substantial endangerment to the public health and safety or the environment.” Id. at

§ 361.272. This administrative order need not necessarily come at the conclusion

of the Commission’s investigation of a site believed to harbor hazardous

substances. Instead, the order issued under § 361.272 must only identify a party

allegedly responsible for “solid waste”—not hazardous substances—and order the

party “to take any action necessary to provide and implement a cost effective and

environmentally sound remedial action plan designed to eliminate the release or

threatened release.” Id. at § 361.272(b)(2).

Although the power to issue administrative orders is found in two separate

sections of the SWDA, the two provisions are not mutually exclusive. Nothing in

the statute forbids the Commission from issuing an administrative order listing a

site alleged to contain “hazardous substances” and to issue that same order to a

person responsible for “solid waste” that presents an imminent and substantial

endangerment. Moreover, both types of orders share elements outlined in

Subchapters I, K, and L of the Act, including but not limited to:

- 14 -
  The four-part definition of a “person responsible for solid waste.” Tex.
Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.271 (West 2010);

 Statutory defenses to liability. Id. at § 361.275;

 Apportionment of liability among potentially responsible parties. Id. at
§ 361.276; and

 An appellate provision. Id. at § 361.322.

Although the power to issue administrative orders can be found in two parts

of the SWDA—and orders under each subsection can arise at different times in

response to different threats to human health or the environment—the essential

features relevant to this appeal remain the same, and nothing within the SWDA

makes § 361.188 and § 361.272 orders mutually exclusive.

B. The statutory history of the SWDA shows that administrative
orders have always been subject to the same appellate standards.

1. The original SWDA established a permitting program to
regulate solid waste.

The SWDA was enacted in 1969 to control “the collection, handling,

storage, and disposal” of solid waste. Act approved June 2, 1969, 61st Leg., R.S.,

ch. 405, 1969 Tex. Gen. Laws 1320, 1320 (repealed 1989) recodified by Act

approved June 14, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 678, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 2230 (App.

F.) In its original form, the SWDA divided powers between two state agencies—

the Texas State Department of Health was tasked with regulating municipal solid

- 15 -
waste while the Texas Water Quality Board was assigned industrial solid waste. Id.

at 1321 (App. F.) The original statute gave broad power to these agencies to:

 “require and issue permits authorizing and governing the
operation and maintenance of sites used for the disposal of solid
waste,” including the power to “revoke or amend any permit
issues.” Id. at 1322. (App. F.); and

 “establish minimum standards of operation for all aspects of
the management and control” of solid waste, including the
“collection, handling, storage, and disposal by incineration,
sanitary landfill, composting, or other method.” Id. at 1323. (App.
F.)

To effectuate enforcement, the Act imposed civil penalties for entities that

engaged in the “collection, storage, handling, or disposal of solid waste, or the use

or operation of a site for the disposal of solid waste, in violation of the Act.” Id. at

1326-27. (App. F.) Any “person affected by any ruling, order, decision, or other act

of the department or the board” enjoyed the right to “appeal by filing a petition in

the district court of Travis County.” Id. at 1328. (App. F.) The original SWDA

contained no definition for the term “person affected,” opening the door for a

broad judicial interpretation of standing to appeal permitting decisions. However,

the Legislature addressed this shortcoming in the following session, adding a

definition for “person affected” as:

“any person who is a resident of a county in which a site, facility, or
plant is to be located including any person who is doing business or
owns land in the county or adjacent or contiguous county and any
local government. Such person affected shall also demonstrate that he
has suffered or will suffer actual injury economic damage.”

- 16 -
Act approved June 15, 1973, 63rd Leg., R.S., ch. 576, 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 1595

(current version at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.003(24) (West 2010))

(App. G.)

Missing from the original statute was the power to issue administrative

orders like the Order at issue in this case. As enacted, the SWDA did not empower

the state to clean up sites contaminated with solid waste or hazardous substances

and to order persons the state believed responsible for solid waste to execute and/or

fund such a cleanup. Instead, the statute regulated solid waste through the

permitting program. Although a person affected by a permitting decision could

seek judicial review under 8(g), this clause was not applicable to an administrative

order to clean up a contaminated site simply because the SWDA did not grant the

power to issue any such order under the terms of the original act.

2. Following the Congressional passage of CERCLA, the
Texas legislature amended the SWDA to create a Texas
state Superfund program.

The United States Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) in 1980, giving the

federal government the power to identify parties responsible for the release of

hazardous substances and compel those parties to clean up the sites via

administrative orders or civil actions. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 9601–9628. CERCLA also

permitted the government to clean up contaminated sites using the Superfund—a

- 17 -
trust fund—and then recover costs from responsible parties through civil litigation.

Id. CERCLA was triggered by the presence of abandoned hazardous waste dump

sites like the infamous Love Canal site in New York. A critical feature of

CERCLA was the creation of a broad liability scheme under which parties who

arranged for disposal of waste (i.e, a dump site’s customers) and transporters of the

waste could be found jointly and severally liable for all remediation costs. No

longer was liability limited to the site’s permit holder or operator. United States v.

Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 55-56 (1998).

Five years after the passage of CERLCA, the Texas Legislature created the

state’s own Superfund program through a 1985 amendment to the SWDA. Act

approved June 12, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 566, 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 2166

(repealed 1989) recodified by Act approved June 14, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch.

678, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 2230 (App. H.). Like CERCLA, the new provisions of

the SWDA created a broad liability scheme under which those who arrange for

disposal of waste or transport of waste can be held liable for remediation costs at

sites they do not own or operate. See, e.g., R.R. Street & Co. v. Pilgrim Enters.,

166 S.W.3d 232, 238 (Tex. 2005) (“SWDA, like CERCLA, provides mechanisms

for the clean-up of solid waste and for both governmental entities and private

parties to recover clean-up costs from those responsible for the waste.”). However,

instead of having the new liability scheme stand separately from the existing solid

- 18 -
waste permitting statute as Congress had done, the Texas Legislature embedded

these new provisions into the SWDA.

The 1985 amendments expanded the SWDA beyond permitting and

empowered the state to issue administrative orders to persons responsible for solid

waste,

“restraining such person or persons from allowing or continuing the
threatened release and requiring those persons to take actions
necessary to provide and implement a cost effective and
environmentally sound remedial action plan to designed to eliminate
the release or threatened release.”

Act approved June 12, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 566, 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 2166,

2176 (repealed 1989) recodified by Act approved June 14, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S.,

ch. 678, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 2230 (App. H.)

The 1985 amendments further empowered the state to survey and list “every

hazardous waste facility which may constitute an imminent and substantial

endangerment to public health and safety or the environment” and provided

guidelines for the “cleanup of a facility identified.” Id. at 2178, 2180 (App. H.)

Within those guidelines, the state was empowered as follows:

“whenever the department of water resources finds that there exists an
actual or threatened release of hazardous wastes at a hazardous facility
listed on the registry that presents an imminent and substantial
endangerment to the public health and safety of the environment, it
may order the owner and/or operator of such facility and/or any other
person responsible for the release or threatened release at such facility
(A) to develop a remedial action program, subject to the approval of
the department of water resources, at such facility; and (B) to

- 19 -
 implement such program within reasonable time limits specified in the
order.”

Id. at 2180 (App. H.) To ensure the same basic elements for all administrative

orders issued under the new amendments, the statute made clear that “[t]he

provisions in Sections 8(g), 9, 10, and 11 of this Act relating to administrative

orders shall apply to orders issued pursuant to this paragraph.” Id. (App. H.)

The 1985 amendments also added a new appellate provision to the SWDA to

exclusively cover administrative orders issued pursuant to the new Superfund

program. While leaving the earlier appellate provision for the permitting program

unchanged, the new Section 9 placed the burden of proof on appeal of an

administrative order squarely on the state, providing that:

“The district court shall uphold an administrative order issued
pursuant to Section 8(g) if the department or the department of water
resources, by a preponderance of the evidence, proves: (1) that there is
an actual or threatened release of solid waste that is an imminent and
substantial endangerment to the public health and safety or the
environment; and (2) that the person made subject to the
administrative order is liable for the elimination of the release or
threatened release, in whole or in part.”

Id. at 2177 (App. H.)

In short, the 1985 amendments established the modern state Superfund

program, empowering the state to issue administrative orders and seek to recover

its costs under a handful of different circumstances, but made both types of orders

- 20 -
subject to certain procedural baselines, found in sections 8(g), 9, 10, and 11 of the

revised statute, including:

 A standard definition for persons responsible for solid waste. Id. at 2176
(App. H.);

 Allowing persons responsible for solid waste to prove a statutory defense by
a preponderance of the evidence. Id. (App. H.);

 Allowing persons responsible for solid waste to prove that the release is
divisible, therefore avoiding the consequences of joint and several liability.
Id. at 2176-77 (App. H.); and

 Granting the right to appeal an administrative order and placing the burden
on the state based on a preponderance of the evidence for the appeal. Id. at
2177 (App. H.)

Nothing in the 1985 amendments gave the State the power to issue

administrative orders under the new Superfund program without these provisions.

Subsequent amendments to the SWDA further clarified both the burden of

proof for an appeal of an administrative order and the class of persons who could

file such an appeal. The Legislature narrowed the standing for appeal of an

administrative order in 1989 to “any person subject to an administrative order

under 8(g),” replacing earlier language that effectively allowed any person to file a

petition appealing an administrative order issued under that provision. Act

approved June 14, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 703, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 3212, 3217

(current version at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.322 (West 2010)) (App.

I.) The same bill clarified the standard of review for challenging the remedy

- 21 -
selection, adding a subsection “(h) If the appropriateness of the selected remedial

action is contested in the appeal of the administrative order, the remedial action

shall be upheld unless the court determines that the remedy is arbitrary or

unreasonable.” Id. at 3217 (App. I.) The bill also revised subsection (e), clarifying

that an appeal “does not prevent the state agency issuing the administrative order

from proceeding with the remedial action program under Subchapter F unless the

court enjoins the remedial action under its general equity jurisdiction.” Id. (App. I.)

3. The codified SWDA makes all administrative orders subject
to these same provisions.

Following codification, the SWDA retained the same procedural framework

outlined above. The procedure to list a site on the state Superfund list was

reorganized under “Subchapter F: Registry and Cleanup of Certain Hazardous

Waste Facilities.” The procedural building blocks of an administrative order

discussed above were reorganized into “Subchapter I: Enforcement, Administrative

Orders Concerning Imminent and Substantial Endangerment.” The appellate

provision was reorganized under “Subchapter K. Appeals; Joinder of Parties.” The

Commission retained the power to issue an administrative order either before or

after the listing process, but all administrative orders retained these elements.

- 22 -
 C. The current statute does not create mutually exclusive orders with
separate waivers of sovereign immunity.

The State’s brief traces largely the same statutory history, but erroneously

concludes that the Legislature intended to create “two types of Superfund order”

that the State argues are “separate and distinct.” (Appellant’s Brief at 9.) The State

argues that the two types of orders are mutually exclusive for three reasons:

(1) they are contained in different sections; (2) they are expressed in different

language; and (3) they are subject to different appellate provisions that present an

irreconcilable conflict. Id. But as discussed below, none of these factors support

the conclusion that the Legislature intended to create mutually exclusive Superfund

orders with separate appellate provisions, and the statutory history combined with

the current structure of the Act lead to precisely the opposite conclusion.

1. Appearing in different sections using different language
does not make the orders mutually exclusive.

Although the Act empowers the TCEQ to issue orders in more than one part

of the statute, the text is clear that parties named in both § 361.188 and § 361.272

orders are subject to certain procedural protections which the TCEQ cannot

revoke. This was true when the 1985 amendments creating the Superfund program

were passed and remains true through the modern codification of the statute.

Pursuant to § 361.188(b), “the provisions in Subchapters I, K, and L relating to

administrative orders apply to orders issued under this section.” Tex. Health &

- 23 -
Safety Code Ann. § 361.188(b) (West 2010). This is the same cross-reference that

was in the statute when it was enacted in 1985. This incorporation of Subchapters

I, K, and L into “orders issued under this section” is not limited to what the State

self-servingly identifies as “relevant provisions.” (Appellant’s Brief at 16.) Instead

it is open ended and inclusive, and demonstrates that the Legislature intended all

“administrative orders” of the SWDA to share common procedural attributes,

including the same appellate provisions. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.

§ 361.188(b) (West 2010).

The structural link between orders issued under § 361.188 and § 361.272 is

not limited to this provision. Just as section § 361.188 of Subchapter F directly

incorporates Subchapters I, K, and L, a similar link between the two types of

orders is found within Subchapter K at § 361.322. That appellate provision—

limited to administrative orders issued under the Superfund program—states that

“[t]he filing of the petition does not prevent the commission from proceeding with

the remedial action program under Subchapter F unless the court enjoins the

remedial action under its general equity jurisdiction.” Tex. Health & Safety Code

Ann. § 361.322(e) (West 2010). Therefore, if the Commission issues an

administrative order before it has commenced with the remedial action program

under § 361.272, that cleanup program can continue just as it would have if the

order was issued under § 361.188 during the pendency of the appeal.

- 24 -
 Although they appear in different sections of the Act and are expressed in

different language, § 361.188 and § 361.272 do not create mutually exclusive

orders. Instead, regardless of whether a Superfund order comes at the conclusion of

the listing and remedy selection process through § 361.188 or instead prior to the

remedial action program through § 361.272, the SWDA guarantees certain

protections to persons the state believes are responsible for solid waste.

2. The SWDA appellate provisions distinguish between
appeals of Superfund orders and appeals of permitting
decisions, not separate kinds of Superfund orders.

The State contends that because there are two separate appellate provisions

contained within the SWDA, the Legislature must have intended that a different

appellate provision would apply to each type of Superfund order, and thus the

orders are mutually exclusive. However, the State’s argument misunderstands the

structure of the SWDA and the role both provisions play in the context of the entire

Act. The two appellate provisions are principally aimed at different types of orders

or actions of the Commission. Therefore, they grant appellate remedies to different

categories of parties, establish different timetables to perfect an appeal, and feature

different burdens of proof and standards of review.

Section 361.321 of Subchapter K tracks the language of the 1969 Act and

states that “a person affected by a ruling, order, decision, or other act of the

commission may appeal the action by filing a petition in a district court of Travis

- 25 -
County.” Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.321(a) (West 2010). The appeal

must be perfected within 30 days of the date that the offending act of the

Commission occurs. Id. at § 361.321(b). The provision grants an appellate remedy

not limited to formal commission orders, but to virtually any action by the

Commission. An appellant under § 361.321 is not a named party subject to an

administrative order, but instead is “a person affected” by the actions of the

Commission. Id. at § 361.321(b). The SWDA defines a “person affected” as one

who “has suffered or will suffer actual injury or economic damage and, if the

person is not a local government: (A) is a resident of a county, or a county adjacent

or contiguous to the county, in which a solid waste facility is to be located; or

(B) is doing business or owns land in the county or adjacent or contiguous county.”

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.003(24) (West 2010).

The modern § 361.321 does not state that it is limited to—or even applicable

to—administrative orders for Superfund cases. Id. at § 361.321(b). This is entirely

consistent with its statutory history, as the provision was adopted with the original

version of the SWDA in 1969, which did not empower the state to identify parties

responsible for the release of solid waste and to compel those parties to clean up

waste sites. As discussed above, the codified SWDA retains a solid waste

permitting program distinct from the Superfund program that allows the

Commission to issue permits for the construction, operation, and maintenance of

- 26 -
solid waste disposal facilities. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.061

(West 2010). Hence, § 361.321 is directed at parties aggrieved by this permitting

process who can show that they meet the economic injury test under the statute—it

is not directed at parties named liable in Superfund orders. Both its statutory

history and its current role in the SWDA demonstrate clear legislative intent that

§ 361.321 is the appellate provision for the permitting program, not the Superfund

program. See, e.g., Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. Sierra Club, 70

S.W.3d 809, 811 (Tex. 2002) (appeal of solid waste permitting decision under

§ 361.321 following contested-case hearing at the agency); TJFA, L.P. v. Tex.

Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, No. 03-10-00016-CV, 2014 WL 3562735, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Austin July 16, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same).

In contrast, § 361.322 applies to “an administrative order issued under

361.272” of the SWDA. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.322(a) (West

2010). Instead of 30 days under § 361.321(b), the appeal must be perfected within

45 days of receipt of the order. Id. The section does not authorize appeals of solid

waste permits or other Commission actions, but is limited to administrative orders

issued under the Superfund program. Id.; see also Sierra Club, 70 S.W.3d at 812

(noting that § 361.322 was “not applicable” to appeal of permit decision). Instead

of restricting appeals to a “person affected” by a Commission action as defined in

the statute, § 361.322 is limited to a person “subject to” the administrative order on

- 27 -
appeal. Id. This too is consistent with the statutory history of the SWDA, as the

Legislature created both the power to issue administrative Superfund orders and

the right to appeal those orders within the 1985 amendments, granting the same

appellate remedy for all Superfund orders. The State has never enjoyed the power

to issue these administrative orders without the appellate provisions of the modern

§ 361.322.

3. Forcing all appeals of Superfund orders into § 361.321
creates an absurd result.

Ignoring the plain language of § 361.188(b)—which incorporates “all

provisions relating to administrative orders” into § 361.188 orders—the State

suggests that “[t]he proper reading of this section is that the relevant provisions of

the other subchapters apply to Section 361.188 orders, to the extent they do not

create contradictions or absurd results.” (Appellant’s Brief at 16.) Yet at the same

time, the State asks the Court to force Superfund appeals into an appellate

provision explicitly limited to entities surrounding the geographic area in which “a

solid waste facility is to be located.” Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.

§ 361.003(24) (West 2010). But the statutory history of both appellate provisions

shows that the Legislature never intended to force appeals of Superfund orders into

the preexisting regime for permitting decisions. The separate appellate provisions

of Subchapter K were adopted alongside their respective programs—the permitting

- 28 -
program and the Superfund program—to provide appellate remedies to parties

aggrieved by either type of agency action.

Taking the State’s argument to its logical conclusion, a party’s standing to

appeal a Superfund order under the SWDA would not depend on whether or not

the entity was named in the administrative order per § 361.322, but instead would

turn on the entity’s geographic nexus to the site at issue pursuant to § 361.321.

Assuming the site in question even qualified as a “solid waste facility” under the

Act, parties who owned land or did business within the defined geographic zone

would have a right to appeal, while parties missing this geographic link would

have no clear appellate remedy. At the same time, the Commission is free to

identify and name in an administrative order persons it believes responsible for

solid waste without regard to their geography, and order them to remediate the site

or pay the State’s response costs. No such concept exists in the CERLCA

jurisprudence, and the Legislature never intended to create such an anomalous

appellate scheme for the Texas program.

II. Appellees’ Response to Appellant’s Issue Two.

The Administrative Order for the Voda Site was issued under both § 361.188

and § 361.272 of the SWDA. The AO is directed at both solid wastes and

hazardous substances, and plainly invokes the TCEQ’s powers under § 361.188

and § 361.272. Immediately before and after the AO was issued, the Commission

- 29 -
unambiguously declared that it issued the Order pursuant to both sections of the

Act, and the TCEQ has unequivocally pled the same procedural facts throughout

this litigation. In fact, the Commission’s live pleadings state that the Order was

issued under both § 361.188 and § 361.272 and that the sole method for appealing

the Order resides at § 361.322. Therefore, even if the State were correct that

§ 361.188 and § 361.272 orders are subject to different appellate provisions, the

AO for the Voda Site was issued under § 361.272, making application of § 361.322

appropriate for this Order.

A. The language of the AO demonstrates the Order was issued under
§ 361.188 and § 361.272.

The language used by the TCEQ in the AO demonstrates the Commission’s

intent and action to issue the Order under both § 361.188 and § 361.272. The very

first paragraph of the AO invokes the Commission’s power to issue the Order “as

authorized by Sections 361.188 and 361.272 of the Act.” (CR:29; App. A.) In

detailing the Chemicals of Concern at the Voda Site, the AO specifically invokes

“Sections 361.271 through 361.277 and 361.343 through 361.345” of the SWDA.

(CR:48; App. A.) The Order also names ExxonMobil and Shell as “responsible

parties (‘RPs’) pursuant to Section 361.271 of the Act” (CR:29; App. A.) and

announces the TCEQ’s conclusion that the “release or threatened release… has not

been proven to be divisible pursuant to Section 361.276 of the Act.” (CR:50; App.

A.) In the event there are disagreements between the Agreeing Respondents and

- 30 -
the Executive Director, the AO states such disagreements will be handled pursuant

to “Sections 361.321 and/or Sections 361.322 of the Act.” (CR:86; App. A.) And

the AO orders Respondents to preserve records “relating to each Respondent’s

potential liability or to any other person’s potential liability for the Site under

Section 361.271 of the Act.” (CR:78; App. A.) All of these provisions flatly

contradict the State’s position that the AO was issued solely under § 361.188.

The dual nature of the AO is even more apparent when looking at the

materials the Commission alleges are present at the Voda Site. Subchapter F of the

SWDA authorizes the TCEQ to identify and list sites where the release of

“hazardous substances” has allegedly endangered public health. Tex. Health &

Safety Code Ann. § 361.181(a) (West 2010). The term “solid waste” does not

appear within §§ 361.181-361.188 of the SWDA, which instead is focused

exclusively on the listing, cleanup, and remediation of sites containing “hazardous

substances.” Id. In contrast, Subchapter K authorizes the Commission to issue an

order to a person responsible for “solid waste” if a release of “solid

waste…presents an imminent and substantial endangerment.” Id. at § 361.272.

This provision makes no mention of hazardous substances.

The AO for the Voda Site is not limited to “hazardous substances” as would

be expected for an order limited solely to § 361.188, but instead declares parties

responsible for “the solid waste and/or hazardous substances at the Site.” (CR:29;

- 31 -
App. A.) The AO declares that certain substances “which are found at the Site, are

solid wastes as defined in Section 361.003(34) of the Act” and further alleges that

the PRPs are responsible for “solid wastes [that] were stored, processed, disposed

of, or discarded at the Site.” (CR:50; App. A.)

B. Counsel for the Executive Director asked the Commissioners to
issue the Order under both § 361.188 and § 361.272.

The State argues that “the TCEQ intended to issue a Section 361.188 order.”

(Appellant’s Brief at 23.) Yet the words of the counsel for the Executive Director

of the TCEQ—immediately before, during, and immediately after the AO was

issued—demonstrate the Commission’s intent to issue the AO pursuant to both

§ 361.188 and § 361.272, and a clear understanding that the TCEQ had done just

that. The Commission’s agenda item for the Voda Site was docketed as

“Consideration of a Final Administrative Order (Final Order) pursuant to Texas

Health and Safety Code Sections 361.188 and 361.272 for the Voda Petroleum,

Inc. State Superfund Site….” (AR 51127: App. J (emphasis added).) When counsel

for the Executive Director presented the administrative order to the Commission,

she asked the Commissioners to issue the order “pursuant to Chapter 361, sections

188 and 272 of the Health and Safety Code.” (AR 50382 (emphasis added).) And

when the TCEQ opposed Luminant’s rehearing request, it argued that “[b]ecause

the Order was issued under Sections 361.272 and 361.188 (Administrative Order

- 32 -
1), it did not require an adjudicative hearing before the Commission.” (AR 49650;

App. B (emphasis added).)

C. Understanding that the AO invokes both § 361.188 and § 361.272,
the State described the Order as having been issued under both
sections for years.

Since this case was filed in 2010, the State has understood the true nature of

the Order by repeatedly and unequivocally pleading that the AO was issued under

both § 361.188 and § 361.272 of the SWDA. These statements appeared in the

TCEQ’s Original Counter-Petition and Third-Party Petition, Response to Plea in

Abatement, Motions for Entry of Default, and their Motions for Entry of Agreed

Final Judgment. (CR:127-69; Tab D.) Following denial of the TCEQ’s Motion for

Leave to Amend, they remain the Commission’s live pleading in the case. The

State’s claim that the Commission intended to issue a purely § 361.188 Order is

flatly contradicted multiple times by the text of the Order and by the Commission’s

own justification for its actions.

1. The TCEQ repeatedly and unequivocally described the AO
as being issued under § 361.188 and § 361.272.

In its Original Counter-Petition and Third-Party Petition, the State pled that:

“On February 12, 2010, the TCEQ issued an administrative order (“the Order”)

under §§ 361.188 and 361.272 of the Act….” (CR:158; App. D.) The State further

pled that ExxonMobil and Shell “were ‘liable for the elimination of the release or

threatened release, in whole or in part,’ within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH &

- 33 -
SAFETY CODE § 361.322(g)” and that “the Order should be upheld pursuant to

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 361.321 and 361.322(g).” (CR:164; App.

D.)

The State unequivocally repeated the same description of the AO—as an

order issued under § 361.188 and § 361.272—in myriad other filings at the trial

court:

 On October 20, 2011 Third-Party Defendant Howard Frelich filed a
Plea in Abatement along with his Original Answer. In its Response to
this Plea in Abatement, the TCEQ stated that “The Order was issued
pursuant to two sections of the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act:
Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 361.188 & 361.277 (sic).” As proof
that the AO relied on both sections, the State cited to the very first
paragraph of the AO—“Order sec. I at 1.” (Supp. CR at ___
[TCEQ’s Response to Plea in Abatement by Third-Party Defendant
Howard Freilich and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 9-10
(filed November 14, 2011) (emphasis added) (attachments omitted)].

 On July 30, 2012, the State moved for entry of an agreed final
judgment between the TCEQ and a group of approximately 154
potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”). In the agreed final judgment,
the State pled that “the TCEQ issued the Order under Sections
361.188 and 361.272 of the Act….” (Supp. CR at ___ [Agreed Final
Judgment, Cause No. D-1-GN-12-002297, Young Chevrolet, Inc., et
al. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, in the 345th
Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas at ¶ III. B. (filed July
30, 2012) (emphasis added) (attachments omitted)].

 On May 3, 2013, the State moved for entry of another agreed final
judgment between the TCEQ and a single PRP, Ark-La-Tex Waste
Oil Company, Inc. Once again, the State pled that “the TCEQ issued
the Order under Sections 361.188 and 361.272 of the Act….” (Supp.
CR at ___ [Agreed Final Judgment, Cause No. D-1-GN-13-003373,
Young Chevrolet, Inc., et al. v. Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, in the 345th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas

- 34 -
 at ¶ III. B. (filed September 26, 2013) (emphasis added) (attachments
omitted)].

 On February 4, 2014, the State moved for entry of default against
PRPs Billy D. Cox Truck Leasing, Inc. and SBC Holdings, Inc. f/k/a/
the Stroh Brewery Company. In ¶ 3 of those motions, the State noted
that “The TCEQ issued a Superfund Order on February 12, 2010,
(“the Order”) under Tex. Health and Safety Code §§ 361.188 and
361.272….” (Supp. CR at ___ [Motion for Partial Default Judgment
Against Billy D. Cox Truck Leasing, Inc. at ¶ 3 (filed February 4,
2014) (emphasis added); Motion for Partial Default Judgment Against
SBC Holdings, Inc., f/k/a The Stroh Brewery Company at ¶ 3 (filed
February 3, 2014) (emphasis added).].

Though the State has filed a handful of supplements to its pleadings at the

trial court, the Commission’s live pleadings directly contradict their core

arguments on appeal. The State’s Third Amended Answer acknowledged that

“[t]he Texas Legislature has defined the sole method for appealing the Order at

Tex. Health & Safety Code § 361.322.” (CR:678; App. E (emphasis added).) The

TCEQ concluded this Answer by pleading that “the standard of review in the

appeal of this Order is…whether: (a) TCEQ can prove, by a preponderance of the

evidence, the two factors listed in § 361.322(g)(1) and (2); (b) Plaintiffs can show

that the selection of the remedy by TCEQ was arbitrary or unreasonable; or

(c) Plaintiffs can show that the Order as a whole is ‘frivolous, unreasonable, or

without foundation with respect to a party named by the order.’ Id. at § 361.342.”

(CR:683; App. E (emphasis added).)

- 35 -
 2. The State disclosed that it issued the AO under both
sections to obtain advantages of a § 361.272 order.

The State’s discovery disclosures make clear why the Commission chose to

issue the AO under § 361.272 as well § 361.188. Pursuant to § 361.274, “[a]n

administrative order under Section 361.272 does not require prior notice or an

adjudicative hearing before the commission.” Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.

§ 361.274 (West 2010). In stating why ExxonMobil and Shell were not entitled to

an agency hearing prior to issuing the AO, the State disclosed that “a party does

not have a right to an adjudicative hearing prior to a § 361.272 Order, pursuant to

Tex. Health & Safety Code § 361.274.” (Supp. CR at ___ [Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality’s Response to Request for Disclosure at 3-4 (served

September 6, 2012) (attachments omitted)].

Moreover, the State has steadfastly argued that ExxonMobil and Shell, as the

well as other PRPs, are jointly and severally liable for contamination at the Voda

Site. The statutory basis for joint and several liability under the SWDA is found in

§ 361.276, which states that “[i]f the release or threatened release is not proved to

be divisible, persons liable under Section § 361.272 or § 361.273 are jointly and

severally liable for eliminating the release or threatened release.” Tex. Health &

Safety Code Ann. § 361.276 (West 2010) (emphasis added). Nothing in

Subchapter F for a § 361.188 order establishes joint and several liability for

responsible parties, and § 361.276 does not state that persons declared by TCEQ to

- 36 -
be a responsible party under a § 361.188 order are jointly and severally liable. At

the trial court, the State disclosed that: “[t]he TCEQ is not required to prove

allocation of liability, because the responsible parties are jointly and severally

liable unless they can prove ‘divisibility’ by a preponderance of the evidence.”

(Supp. CR at ___ [Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s Response to

Request for Disclosure at 3-4 (served September 6, 2012) (attachments omitted)].

In other words, the Commission invoked § 361.272 in an attempt to hold the PRPs

for the Voda Site jointly and severally liable under the SWDA.

D. Following the listing procedures of Subchapter F does not insulate
the AO from review under Subchapter K.

Despite explicitly referencing numerous provisions of Subchapter K

throughout the AO, the State argues that the AO arose exclusively under § 361.188

because the agency followed the listing requirements of Subchapter F of the

SWDA. Therefore, the State argues, the AO can only be reviewable under the pure

substantial evidence rule. But as discussed above, the issuance of an order under

§ 361.272 does not preclude the Commission from the listing process of § 361.181-

188. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.322(e) (West 2010). Thus, § 361.322

authorizes the Commission to proceed with investigation and remedy selection

during the appeal of the administrative order under § 361.322, and nothing in

§ 361.322 indicates that once the TCEQ proceeds with the remedial action program

of Subchapter F, the appellate remedies of § 361.322 are mooted.

- 37 -
 E. Reviewing an administrative order under § 361.322 does not make
Subchapter F redundant.

The State suggests that if an administrative order issued under § 361.188

were subject to review based on a preponderance of the evidence, it would make

the listing procedures of Subchapter F effectively redundant. This suggestion

misapprehends what occurs prior to issuance of an administrative order compared

to what occurs at the district court upon judicial review.

The TCEQ purposefully invoked § 361.272 and § 361.274 such that

ExxonMobil and Shell were not afforded a contested-case hearing prior to issuance

of the AO for the Voda Site. The Commission did not prove—by a preponderance

of the evidence to a neutral third party—that ExxonMobil and Shell were persons

responsible for solid waste at the Voda Site. Had ExxonMobil and Shell been

granted an adjudicative hearing, some procedures would be duplicated through

judicial review. However, the AO was issued without any such hearing, and the

district court will present the first opportunity for ExxonMobil and Shell to

challenge the AO and the first time the Commission will be required to carry its

statutory burden to prove ExxonMobil and Shell are responsible for solid waste.

The State further suggests that the extensive procedure to list a site on the

Superfund registry should entitle the Commission to substantial evidence deference

because the agency spent significant time and effort investigating the Site and

choosing an appropriate remedy. Yet from the perspective of a party subject to an

- 38 -
administrative order, virtually none of the Commission’s purported expertise is

brought to bear on issues most relevant to the responsible party—namely, whether

they are in fact a person responsible for solid waste or hazardous substances. In

practice, the agency’s identification of persons responsible for solid waste consists

of little more than collecting invoices or manifests, many of which are decades old,

and making a list of every entity mentioned in the paperwork. The SWDA does not

mandate any standard for how this identification must take place nor what

evidentiary threshold must be crossed before a party is named in an order.

Although the Commission can issue administrative orders without

adjudicatory hearings, the potentially responsible party’s opportunity to establish

its innocence is delayed—not abrogated—by the SWDA. The appellate structure of

the SWDA allows those parties to challenge their status as PRPs and places the

burden on the Commission to ultimately prove them responsible at the district

court. When liability for such Sites routinely reaches into the millions of dollars,

the Legislature never intended the Commission’s unilateral order to be the final

word on liability.

In contrast, the Commission does expend technical resources in developing a

remedy it believes suitable for a proposed site. This can occur either before the

issuance of the administrative order under § 361.188 or after the issuance of the

administrative order under § 361.272. In either event, the SWDA makes review of

- 39 -
that remedy selection subject to greater deference than whether a party is

responsible for solid waste or whether the waste is divisible pursuant to the Act.

When a person subject to the order challenges the selected remedy, the

Commission is not required to prove it chose the best remedy by a preponderance

of the evidence, but instead the selected remedy is upheld “unless the court

determines that the remedy is arbitrary or unreasonable.” Tex. Health & Safety

Code Ann. § 361.322(h) (West 2010). In short, the Commission already receives

greater deference for issues where technical expertise was brought to bear, but the

Commission is not entitled to greater deference when simply naming parties it

believes responsible for the release of solid waste or hazardous substances.

F. If the Commission is correct that it exceeded its powers under the
SWDA then the AO must be set aside.

If the State is correct that “[a] single order cannot arise under both Sections

361.188 and 361.272” (Appellant’s Brief at 18.) the proper course of action is not

to grant the plea to the jurisdiction but to overturn the Order as a violation of law.

Administrative agencies “may exercise only those powers the law, in clear and

express statutory language, confers upon them.” Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David

McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212, 220 (Tex. 2002). Agencies cannot “create

for themselves any excess powers” and courts avoid implying any additional

authority to them. Id. (citing Key Western Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Ins., 350

S.W.2d 839, 848 (Tex. 1961)). When an agency exceeds the authority granted it by

- 40 -
statute, the court should set aside the agency action. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex. v.

City Pub. Serv. Bd. of San Antonio, 53 S.W.3d 310, 315 (Tex. 2001); Heat Energy

Advanced Tech., Inc. v. W. Dallas Coal. for Envtl. Justice, 962 S.W.2d 288, 290

(Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. denied).

The Commission intended to and did issue an administrative order under

both § 361.188 and § 361.272. Now, the State argues that the Commission has no

such power under the statute. If this Court agrees that the Commission is without

power to issue the AO under both § 361.188 and § 361.272, then the Court should

set aside the Order as exceeding the Commission’s power under the statute.

III. Appellees’ Response to Appellant’s Issue Three.

Review of the AO pursuant to § 361.322 of the SWDA is proper under the

Act and the Texas Constitution. The SWDA contains the applicable standard of

review, placing the burden on the Commission to prove, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that ExxonMobil and Shell are responsible for solid waste. The pure

substantial evidence review procedures found in the APA are not applicable to this

appeal, and the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in City of Waco regarding certain

threshold questions of standing for affected persons under the Texas Water Code is

not relevant to this Order.

- 41 -
 A. Texas courts are not constitutionally limited to review of
administrative orders only as to matters of law.

The State argues that courts are empowered to review administrative orders

only “as to matters of law” and that to do otherwise would offend the separation of

powers doctrine of the Texas Constitution. (Appellant’s Brief at 35.) Yet the

separation of powers doctrine only prohibits the Legislature from authorizing de

novo judicial review of quasi-legislative acts that address broad questions of public

policy or promulgate rules for future application. The AO is not a quasi-legislative

act, and thus judicial review under § 361.322 does not violate the separation of

powers doctrine.

The Texas Constitution divides the state’s government into three coequal

branches, and forbids any branch from exercising a power properly vested in a

coordinate branch. Gen. Servs. Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d

591, 600 (Tex. 2001). Article II, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution provides as

follows:

The powers of the Government of the State of Texas shall be divided
into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a
separate body of magistracy, to wit: Those which are Legislative to
one; those which are Executive to another, and those which are
Judicial to another; and no person, or collection of persons, being of
one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached
to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly
permitted.

TEX. CONST. art. II, § 1.

- 42 -
 Under Texas law, “a person may obtain judicial review of an administrative

action only if a statute provides a right to judicial review, or the action adversely

affects a vested property right or otherwise violates a constitutional right.” Tex.

Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d

170, 172 (Tex. 2004). The separation of powers doctrine generally prohibits a court

from reviewing the actions of an administrative agency absent statutory

authorization. Tex. Comm’n of Licensing & Regulation v. Model Search Am., Inc.,

953 S.W.2d 289, 291 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no writ).

This Court explained the test for determining whether judicial review of an

agency’s order violates the separation of powers doctrine in Commercial Life

Insurance Company v. Texas State Board of Insurance, 808 S.W.2d 552, 554-55

(Tex. App.—Austin 1991, writ denied). The plaintiff in Commercial Life sought

judicial review of a final order issued by the Texas State Board of Insurance. Id. at

553. The insurance code provided that “such causes of action ‘shall be tried and

determined upon a trial de novo’ and, moreover, ‘the substantial evidence rule shall

not apply.’” Id. at 553-54. The Insurance Board argued that the statute violated the

separation of powers doctrine and the Insurance Board’s decision was subject only

to substantial evidence review. Id. at 555. The trial court in Commercial Life

accepted the Insurance Board’s argument, refusing to hold a trial de novo as

- 43 -
required by the statute, and, based on the record, sustained the Insurance Board’s

order on the ground that it was supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 554.

This Court reversed. This Court first identified the proper test for

constitutionality as “whether the reviewing court is required to exercise a function

that is deemed nonjudicial.” Id. at 556. Explaining this dichotomy, the Court

wrote:

An inquiry by a court is nonjudicial and unconstitutional if it looks to
the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule
which is to be applied thereafter. However, a court engages in a
judicial inquiry if it investigates, declares and enforces liabilities as
they stand on present or past facts and under laws already in
existence. Thus, the court’s action is adjudicatory in nature if its
action is particular and immediate rather than general and future.

Id.
The Court held that the Insurance Board’s decision was “quasi-judicial and not

legislative in nature” such that trial de novo at the district court was permissible

under the separation of powers doctrine. Id.

This Court reiterated the appropriate test for determining whether review of

an administrative order violates the separation of powers doctrine eight years later

in Macias v. Rylander, 995 S.W.2d 829, 832-33 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no

pet.). In that case, the Texas Comptroller issued an order temporarily suspending

Macias’s broker’s license. Id. at 831. Macias sought judicial review of the

Comptroller’s order. Id. Although the statute called for judicial review via trial de

- 44 -
novo, the Comptroller convinced the district court to review the Comptroller’s

order pursuant to the substantial evidence rule, arguing that pure de novo review

violates the Texas Constitution. Id. at 832. The district court upheld the suspension

based on substantial evidence review and Macias appealed. Id.

Writing for the Court, Justice Yeakel framed the issue on appeal as “whether

a trial de novo of the Comptroller’s charges against Macias violates the

constitution, allowing only substantial-evidence review confined to the agency

record.” Id. at 832. Justice Yeakel first identified the relevant separation of powers

doctrine, noting that “[i]f the function of the agency is legislative, judicial review is

constrained by the substantial-evidence rule because the court may not substitute

its judgment for that which is considered to be a legislative function.” Id. at 832. In

contrast, “when an agency has acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, a court

may conduct a trial de novo without violating separation-of-powers principles.” Id.

at 833.

Drawing the distinction between the legislative and judicial, Justice Yeakel

explained that “an administrative agency acts in a legislative capacity when it

addresses broad questions of public policy and promulgates rules for future

application ‘to all or some part of those subject to its power.’” Id. But a “judicial

inquiry…typically involves an investigation of present or past facts and a

determination of liability based on laws already in existence.” Id. Applying this

- 45 -
framework to the facts of Macias, Justice Yeakel held that the Comptroller’s

actions were judicial in nature because instead of “promulgating rules that would

broadly affect customs brokers as a whole,” the Comptroller had only “engaged in

a factual inquiry into the conduct of a particular individual.” Id. Finding that “the

district court erred in conducting a substantial-evidence review of the

Comptroller’s order” the Court decided to “remand this case to the district court for

consideration by trial de novo.” Id.

The State advances the same argument presented by the Insurance Board in

Commercial Life and the Comptroller in Macias, suggesting that the separation of

powers doctrine requires that the trial court may only review the AO under the

substantial evidence test as to matters of law. Yet the State makes no effort to

explain how issuance of the AO was a quasi-legislative, as opposed to a quasi-

judicial, act. Unlike a quasi-legislative action, the AO does not address “broad

questions of public policy” nor promulgate “rules for future application.” Macias,

995 S.W.2d at 833. Instead, it fits squarely within the quasi-judicial framework

because it “investigates, declares and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or

past facts and under laws already in existence.” Commercial Life Ins. Co., 808

S.W.2d at 556. The AO purports to make specific factual findings about materials

ExxonMobil and Shell shipped to the Voda Site, the alleged release of those

materials, and the harm allegedly caused—all predicates to alleged liability under

- 46 -
the SWDA. Therefore, review of the AO under the statutory provisions of the

SWDA does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. See also Key W. Life

Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Ins., 350 S.W.2d 839, 847 (Tex. 1961); Dep’t of Pub. Safety

v. Petty, 482 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

The State relies upon Texas State Board of Examiners in Optometry v. Carp,

388 S.W.2d 409, 415-16 (Tex. 1965) to argue that review of the AO under

§ 361.322 would violate the separation of powers doctrine. Yet the Texas Supreme

Court explicitly identified the activity at issue in Carp—adopting a code of

professional responsibility applicable to all Optometrists in the state—as “quasi-

legislative in nature.” Id. at 414. The facts presented by Carp have no application

to the AO, and the holding only highlights the distinction between quasi-legislative

acts that set rules applicable to all parties and quasi-judicial acts that determine the

rights of responsibilities of the parties subject to the particular order.

The State also relies on the 1967 decision in Gerst for the sweeping

suggestion that all judicial review of agency decisions is limited to questions of

law. Gerst v. Nixon, 411 S.W.2d 350, 352 (Tex. 1967). That case dealt with an

application to the Savings and Loan Commission for a charter to open a new

savings and loan association. The Court in Gerst defined certain acts—including

the issuance of permits to do business under the Savings and Loan Act—as

administrative functions that were not subject to judicial review de novo. Id. at

- 47 -
354. (“The granting or withholding of a permit, certificate or authority to do

business in a statutorily regulated commercial endeavor is an administrative

function.”). Following the opportunity for a formal hearing at the agency level, the

court in Gerst held that de novo review of this type of administrative function was

impermissible, and determined that the trial court should review the decision on the

application under the substantial evidence rule. Id. In short, Gerst was directed at a

permitting decision that was reached following the opportunity for a hearing at the

agency level, and has no application to the facts of this AO.

B. The Texas Supreme Court’s decision in City of Waco is not
controlling in this SWDA appeal.

The State relies on the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality v. City of Waco, 413 S.W.3d 409 (Tex.

2013) (App. K) to argue that judicial review of the AO is limited to the

“administrative record” provided by the TCEQ. Yet the State misapprehends the

significance of that decision at both the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court

levels.

The central issue in City of Waco was a threshold determination on whether

a third-party could intervene and force a contested-case hearing for an existing

permit modification. Under the Texas Water Code, interested third-parties may

object to requested permit modifications during a comment period and may attempt

to intervene and force the applicant into a contested-case hearing. However, only

- 48 -
an “affected person” has standing to receive a contested-case hearing. Therefore, a

threshold determination must be made as to whether the objecting party is an

“affected person” with standing to request a contested-case hearing.

In City of Waco, a concentrated animal feeding operation sought to modify

its existing water-quality permit from the TCEQ. The City objected to the proposed

permit modification and sought to initiate a contested-case hearing. The

Commission determined that the City was not an “affected person” entitled to force

a contested-case hearing, and the Executive Director issued the amended permit.

The City appealed to the district court, which affirmed the Commission’s decision.

This Court reversed, holding that the Commission acted arbitrarily as a matter of

law. City of Waco v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 346 S.W.3d 781, 827 (Tex.

App.—Austin 2011, pet. granted). This Court also summarized and restated a prior

line of cases which held that pure substantial evidence review was not possible

absent the opportunity to develop a record through a contested-case or adjudicative

hearing. Id. at 818. However, this Court based its holding on its conclusion that the

agency had “acted arbitrarily by relying on a factor that is irrelevant to the City’s

standing to obtain a hearing.” Id. at 823. Therefore, the Commission’s decision

could be overturned as arbitrary “independently and apart from whether substantial

evidence could be found to support those findings.” Id. at 819.

- 49 -
 The Texas Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the Commission’s

decision to deny the City’s request. City of Waco, 413 S.W.3d at 425. The Texas

Supreme Court found that the Commission’s actions were not arbitrary and that

there was evidence in the record to support the Commission’s conclusion that the

City was not entitled to force a contested-case hearing. Id. In finding that the

Commission’s action was not arbitrary, the Texas Supreme Court did not articulate

what standard of review it used to uphold the TCEQ’s threshold determination on

whether the City was an affected person entitled to force a contested-case hearing.

Nor did the Texas Supreme Court address this Court’s extensive analysis regarding

the inapplicability of pure substantial evidence review in the absence of a factual

record developed in a contested-case proceeding. In fact, the words “substantial

evidence” are absent from the Texas Supreme Court’s analysis of the agency’s

actions. Instead, the Texas Supreme Court gave deference to the agency’s answer

to the threshold statutory question of whether the permit was exempt from the

hearing requirement under the statute.

The State suggests that City of Waco should be interpreted to mean that all

the Commission’s actions are subject to review only under the substantial evidence

standard, regardless of the statute involved or the procedures afforded the

aggrieved party at the agency level. But this over-reads the limited issue at stake in

City of Waco. The issue on appeal was not the agency’s ultimate decision on the

- 50 -
merits of the permit, but what the Texas Supreme Court characterized as a

“threshold determination of whether the party is an ‘affected person’” sufficient to

intervene in the application process of a third party. Id. at 410. While both cases

involve activities by the TCEQ, their similarities largely end there, as the present

case has no connection to the Texas Water Code, permitting, or the standing of

third parties—rather it involves the appeal of an agency order under liability-

declaring provisions of the SWDA. The TCEQ’s determination on right-to-hearing

decisions for third parties is not analogous to enforcement of a unilateral

administrative order against an entity that the agency alone has determined to be

responsible for environmental contamination.

More importantly, the decision in City of Waco came in the context of an

appeal under § 5.351 of the Texas Water Code, which itself does not supply any

standard of review. Tex. Water Code Ann. § 5.351 (West 2008). Through case law,

the Texas Supreme Court has held that such decisions are subject to “substantial

evidence review.” Texas Water Comm’n v. Dellana, 849 S.W.2d 808, 809-10 (Tex.

1993). In contrast, this case is brought under the appellate provisions of the

SWDA, which places an affirmative burden of proof on the agency to prove certain

facts by a preponderance of the evidence to the satisfaction of the district court.

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.322 (West 2010).

- 51 -
 The State further argues that a post-City of Waco decision from this Court,

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Sierra Club, No. 03-12-00335-

CV, 2014 WL 7464085 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 30, 2014, no pet. h.), “reinforced

[the State’s] interpretation.” (Appellant’s Brief at 39.)6 In that case, a waste control

company applied to the TCEQ for a permit to construct and operate two facilities

for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste under the Texas Radiation Control

Act (“TRCA”). Similar to the Water Code provisions at issue in City of Waco, the

TRCA requires the TCEQ to hold a contested-case hearing on the merits of an

application if a “person affected” requests one. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §

401.229(a) (West 2010). Two members of the Sierra Club sought to intervene and

force the applicant to defend its permit application through the contested-case

process. Id. at *2. This Court identified “the critical, or threshold, inquiry in

contested-case hearing requests—and importantly the focus of the parties to this

appeal—is whether the person requesting the hearing is an ‘affected person.’” Id.

at *4. Applying the holding from City of Waco, the Court held it must review “a

TCEQ determination regarding affected-person status for an abuse of discretion.”

Id. Upon review, this Court found a reasonable basis for the agency’s decision to

deny the hearing request. Id. at *9. And consistent with City of Waco, this Court

6
The opinion cited by Appellant was withdrawn by the Court on December 30, 2104, and
substituted with the opinion discussed herein.

- 52 -
determined that the Commission was not required to hold a contested-case hearing

simply to determine whether or not it was required to hold a contested-case

hearing. Id. at 10.

No court interpreting or applying City of Waco has adopted the State’s

position that all TCEQ decisions—including those with specific statutory appellate

provisions to the contrary—are subject to review only through pure substantial

evidence. The cases citing City of Waco only reiterate its application to the limited,

threshold inquiry of whether a party is an affected person sufficient to trigger a

contested-case hearing. Consequently, the issues before the Court are neither

controlled nor informed by City of Waco or its limited progeny.

C. The APA provisions authorizing pure substantial evidence review
on a contested-case record are not applicable to this appeal.

Ignoring the statutory language for judicial review of the AO, the State tries

to shoehorn judicial review of the case into pure substantial evidence review under

Texas Government Code § 2001.174 with the claim that the Court should “look to

the APA” to “interpret the existing law of administrative review.” (Appellant’s

Brief at 36.) Yet by its express terms, Texas Government Code § 2001.174 does

not apply because there was no contested-case hearing at the TCEQ and because

the SWDA already provides the appropriate standard of review. If the Court does

choose to look to the APA, the lessons drawn should only reinforce the trial court’s

decision denying the State’s plea.

- 53 -
 1. The APA does not apply, and the available guidance leads
to different conclusions than advocated by the State.

The statutory basis for pure substantial evidence review advanced by the

State is found in the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), Texas Government

Code Chapter 2001. Texas Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 2001.171-178 (West 2008). By its

express terms, this APA provision is limited to the appeal of a contested-case

hearing. Id. at § 2001.171. When an aggrieved party appeals an administrative

order issued after a contested-case hearing, the APA provides that the scope of

judicial review “is as provided by the law under which review is sought.” Id. at

§ 2001.172. If the law under which review is sought grants a right to trial de novo

of the administrative order, the APA provides the relevant procedures for this de

novo review under § 2001.173. If the law under which review is sought instead

allows only substantial evidence review of the contested-case order—or if it does

not define a scope of review—the APA outlines the procedures for that review in

§ 2001.174. None of these three situations are applicable to the AO in this case.

Absent express application, to the extent the APA offers any guidance for

how the Court should determine the proper procedure for the appeal of the AO, the

State draws precisely the wrong conclusions. First, the Commission suggests the

Court should ignore the statutory appellate provisions of the SWDA and simply

substitute substantial evidence review under § 2001.174. But even when the APA

applies, it does not supplant the statutory provisions of the law under which review

- 54 -
is sought as reflected in § 2001.172, but is expressly subject to the specific statute

under which the administrative order is being reviewed. Second, the State has

argued that administrative orders can only be reviewed as to questions of law based

on the separation of powers doctrine. Yet Subchapter K of the APA establishes that

administrative orders can be reviewed via trial de novo at the district court, even if

they are issued following a contested-case hearing at the agency.

2. Outside of threshold standing questions, pure substantial
evidence requires a true contested-case record under the
APA.

The APA standard of “substantial evidence” permits the reviewing court to

reverse if the decision is “not reasonably supported by substantial evidence

considering the reliable and probative evidence in the record as a whole.” Texas

Gov’t Code Ann. § 2001.174(2)(E) (West 2008) (emphasis added). The “record as

a whole” within which the court looks for substantial evidence is the contested-

case record, not any type of informal record developed in a non-contested-case

proceeding. In fact, the items identified as part of such a record in the APA—

pleadings, evidence received, offers of proof, etc.—demonstrates that the “record

as a whole” is an adjudicative record. Id. at § 2001.060. Therefore, pure substantial

evidence review under the APA presupposes an open, adjudicative hearing where

both sides may present evidence and cross-examine testifying witnesses. See, e.g.,

Ramirez v. Tex. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 927 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Tex. App.—

- 55 -
Austin 1996, no writ) (rejecting argument that Legislature created right of judicial

review under substantial-evidence rule while depriving parties of opportunity for

contested-case hearing); G.E. Am. Commc’n v. Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist.,

979 S.W.2d 761, 767 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.)

(“Substantial evidence review cannot have been the proper standard because there

is no record from the appraisal review board hearing.”).

The City of Waco case recognized a limited exception to the link between

pure substantial evidence review and a contested-case hearing, i.e., the “threshold

determination of whether the person seeking the [contested-case] hearing is an

affected person” sufficient to challenge a permitting decision. Sierra Club, 2014

WL 7463875, at *5. Those decisions can be reviewed by the trial court for abuse of

discretion. None of the features applicable to this limited exception are present in

this case. This is a Superfund case in which the TCEQ has declared ExxonMobil

and Shell liable, not a permitting case brought by a third-party. ExxonMobil and

Shell challenged a unilateral administrative order, not a denial of their contested-

case hearing request. Perhaps most importantly, the relevant statute contains a

standard of review, and there is no basis for substituting a standard of review other

than the one called for in the statute.

The State ignores these prerequisites for pure substantial evidence review

and points to a handful of cases to argue that the Court should apply pure

- 56 -
substantial evidence review to this appeal of a state Superfund order. Those cases

are readily distinguished. The aggrieved party in Smith v. Houston Chemical

Services, Inc., 872 S.W.2d 252 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994, writ denied) was

appealing a permitting decision under § 361.321 following a contested-case

hearing on its application for a solid waste disposal permit. Likewise in Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality v. Kelsoe, 286 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2009, pet. denied), the aggrieved party challenged a decision of the

executive director about the administrative completeness of his application for a

solid waste permit. However, the case was not decided on substantive grounds

because the party failed to timely appeal the executive director’s decision. Id. at

97.7

The State also relies upon United Copper to claim that the AO should only

be reviewed under the pure substantial evidence rule. United Copper Indus., Inc. v.

Grissom, 17 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. dism’d). But like City of

Waco, United Copper was focused on whether a third-party was an affected person

sufficient to intervene in a permitting matter, and more specifically, what formal

procedures the agency must adopt to make that threshold determination. United

Copper applied to the Commission for an air quality permit to construct and

7
The Court’s observation in Kelsoe about whether a contested-case hearing was required
before the executive director could determine if a permit application was administratively
complete—even if it were somehow relevant to this Superfund case—was dicta.

- 57 -
operate two copper melting furnaces. Id. at 799. Shortly after receiving notice of

the application, Grissom, an adjacent landowner, sought a hearing on United

Copper’s permit. Id. at 800. The Commission denied his request, and Grissom

appealed to the district court. Id. at 800-01. The district court found that the

Commission erred by denying Grissom’s request without first providing him an

opportunity to present his evidence at a preliminary adjudicative hearing, and

remanded the case to the Commission for such a hearing. Id. at 801. This Court

affirmed, determining that Grissom was an affected person under the rule and that

the agency had erred by denying Grissom a meaningful opportunity to present

evidence in support of his hearing request. Id. at 806.

United Copper was curtailed by Collins two years later (which the State also

relies upon) which itself was distinguished by the Texas Supreme Court in City of

Waco. Whereas the landowner in United Copper was given a hearing to prove he

was an affected person sufficient to intervene in the permitting process, the

landowner in Collins (who received no such hearing) was unable to show that he

was an affected person under the statute, and this Court upheld the agency’s

decision to deny his request for a contested-case hearing on the permit. Collins v.

Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 94 S.W.3d 876, 885 (Tex. App.—Austin

2002, no pet.). In either event, the relative rights of third-parties to intervene in a

- 58 -
permit dispute has no application to an administrative order naming parties liable

under the Superfund program.

This case is not an appeal of a permit decision under § 361.321 following a

contested-case hearing, but instead challenges a unilateral state Superfund order

under § 361.322. Because parties subject to the order have not been afforded any

hearing prior to issuance of the AO, the trial court may only uphold the order if the

Commission “proves by a “preponderance of the evidence” the factors in

§ 361.322(g). The “use of the term prove” suggests that the Legislature intended

evidence to be presented—and that the agency could not rely on its own non-

adjudicative agency record to justify its actions. See Ramirez v. Tex. State Bd. of

Med. Exam’rs, 927 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, no writ); Tex.

Dep’t of Ins. v. State Farm Lloyds, 260 S.W.3d 233, 245 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008,

no pet.) (“Absent an administrative record, no substantial evidence review is

required or even possible.”).

CONCLUSION
For each of the reasons discussed above, Appellees request that this Court

affirm the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s Plea to the Jurisdiction, or in the

alternative, overturn the Order as a violation of the Commission’s power under the

SWDA.

- 59 -
Dated: January 29, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John Eldridge
John R. Eldridge
State Bar No. 06513520
john.eldridge@haynesboone.com
Kent G. Rutter
State Bar No. 00797364
kent.rutter@haynesboone.com
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2100
Houston, Texas 77010-2007
Telephone: (713) 547-2000
Telecopier: (713) 547-2600

Adam H. Sencenbaugh
State Bar No. 24060584
adam.sencenbaugh@haynesboone.com
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
600 Congress Avenue, Suite 1300
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 867-8489
Telecopier: (512) 867-8606

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES EXXON
MOBIL CORPORATION, EXXONMOBIL
OIL CORPORATION, PENNZOIL-
QUAKER STATE COMPANY, AND
SHELL OIL COMPANY

- 60 -
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(3)

I hereby certify that this Brief contains a total of 14,210 words, excluding
the parts of the brief exempted under TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1), as verified by
Microsoft Word 2010. This Brief is therefore in compliance with TEX. R. APP. P.
9.4(i)(2)(B).

/s/ Adam Sencenbaugh
Adam Sencenbaugh

- 61 -
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
In accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, certify that a
true and correct copy of the Appellees’ Brief, with appendix, was served by
electronic service on the following parties or attorneys of record on this 29th day
of January, 2015:

Attorneys Parties

Thomas H. Edwards Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality
Craig J. Pritzlaff
Linda Secord
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Environmental Protection Division
P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711-2548

NON PARTIES TO APPEAL:

Janessa M. Glenn Cabot Norit Americas, Inc.
R. Steven Morton
MOLTZ MORTON & GLENN, LLP
5113 Southwest Parkway, Suite 120
Austin, TX 78735-8969

John E. Leslie Howard Freilich/ d/b/a Quick Stop
JOHN LESLIE | PLLC Brake and Muffler
1216 Florida Dr., Suite 140
Arlington, TX 76015-2393

Cynthia J. Bishop Baxter Oil Service
C BISHOP LAW PC
P. O. Box 612994
Dallas, TX 75261-2994

- 62 -
Paul Craig Laird II Frank Kosar, d/b/a Rite Way Truck Rental
ASHLEY & LAIRD, L.C.
800 W. Airport Fwy., Suite 880
Irving, TX 75062-6274

Billy D. Cox Billy D. Cox Truck Leasing, Inc.
128 Red Oak Ln.
Flower Mound, TX 75028-3501

David F. Zalkovsky, Agent Central Transfer & Storage Co.
11302 Ferndale Rd.
Dallas, TX 75238-1020

George E. Kuehn SBC Holdings, Inc., f/k/a The Stroh
BUTZEL LONG Brewery Company
301 E. Liberty St., Suite 500
Ann Arbor, MI 48102-2283

/s/ Adam Sencenbaugh
Adam Sencenbaugh

- 63 -
 APPENDIX

App. A — Administrative Order (CR:29-108)

App. B — TCEQ’s Response to Motion for Rehearing

App. C — Plaintiffs’ First Amended Original Petition (CR:4-27)

App. D — Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s Original
Counter-Petition and Third-Party Petition and Request for
Disclosure (CR:127-169)

App. E — TCEQ’s Third Original Answer, responding to Shell and Exxon
Mobil, and Plea to the Jurisdiction (CR:675-687)

App. F — Act approved June 2, 1969, 61st Leg., R.S., ch. 405, 1969 Tex.
Gen. Laws 1320, 1320 (repealed 1989) recodified by Act
approved June 14, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 678, 1989 Tex.
Gen. Laws 2230

App. G — Act approved June 15, 1973, 63rd Leg., R.S., ch. 576, 1973
Tex. Gen. Laws 1595 (current version at Tex. Health & Safety
Code Ann. § 361.003(24) (West 2010)

App. H — Act approved June 12, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 566, 1985
Tex. Gen. Laws 2166 (repealed 1989) recodified by Act
approved June 14, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 678, 1989 Tex.
Gen. Laws 2230

App. I — Act approved June 14, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 703, 1989 Tex.
Gen. Laws 3212, 3217 (current version at Tex. Health & Safety
Code Ann. § 361.322 (West 2010)

App. J — TCEQ Agenda, February 10, 2010

App. K — Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. City of Waco,
413 S.W.3d 409 (Tex. 2013)
 APP. A

Administrative Order
(CR:29-108)
 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

DOCKET NUMBER 2009-1706-SPF

IN THE MATTER OF § BEFORE THE
THE SITE KNOWN AS § TEXAS COMMISSION ON
VODA PETROLEUM, INC. § ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
STATE SUPERFUND SITE §

AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

I. Introduction

On February 1 Q, 201 Q , the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
("Commission" or "TCEQ") considered the Executive Director's ("ED") allegations of the
existence of a release or threat of release of solid wastes and/or hazardous substances into
the environment on, at or from the Yoda Petroleum, Inc. State Superfund Site ("Site") that
poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health and safety or the
environment pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE,
Chapter 361 (the "Act"), and the ED's requested relief including issuance of a Commission
order to require persons responsible for such solid wastes or hazardous substances to perform
the Work, including conducting the Remedial Activities, as authorized by Sections 361.188
and 361.272 of the Act.

After proper notice, the TCEQ makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law:

II. Findings of Fact

A. For purposes of this Administrative Order ("AO"), TCEQ has ideµtified the
following persons that are potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") for' the solid
waste and/or hazardous substances at the Site:

AAMCO Transmissions

AR Oil Co

A T P Results Inc

29
 AT&T

Adena Exploration Inc

Allstate Transmissions

Amber Refining Inc

American Airlines Inc

American Auto

American Marazzi Tile Inc

American Norit Company Inc

American Spill Control Inc

Andrews Motor & Transmission

Anvil Shop

Aratex Services Inc

Archer Auto

Arco Oil and Gas Corporation

Ark-La-Tex Waste Oil Co Inc

Ashco Production Inc

Auto Precision Motors Inc

Autohaus

Aviation Properties Inc

Axelson Inc

Aycock Oil Corporation

B B Wells Waste Oil Inc

Page 2 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., Stale Superfund Site

30
BE &Kinc

Basil Oil Field Service Inc

Baxter Oil Service

Bayou State Oil Corporation

Ben E Keith Company

Ben Griffin Tractor Company

Big Three Industrial Gas Inc

Billy D Cox Truck Leasing Inc

Bishops Auto

Blake Janet DBA D & D Radiator & Muffler

Borden Inc

Bright Truck Leasing Corporation

Brookhollow Exon Car Care

Brown & Root Inc

Brown Express Inc

Brunson Oil

Brushy Creek Saltwater Disposal Inc

Buck Resources Inc

Bule Diamond

Burland Enterprises Inc

CPL Industries

Cabot Corporation

Page 3 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

31
Can-Am Distributors and Warehouse Inc of Texas

Capacity of Texas Inc

Carraway Co

Carrier Air Conditioning

Cematco Inc

Central Power and Light Company

Central Texas Iron Works

Central Transfer & Storage Co

Champie Hill Mobil

Champion International Corporation

Channel Shipyard Company Inc

Chaparral Steel Company

Chief Oil & Chemical

Cities Service Company

Cities Service Pipe Line Company

City Motor Supply Inc

City of Dallas

City of Garland

City of Jefferson

City of Plano

City of University Park

Clarke Checks Inc

Page 4 - Yoda Petrolewn, Inc., State Superfund Site

32
Clements Oil Corporation

Cliffs Automotive

Coker Automotive Center Inc

Collin County

Complete Auto Transit Inc

Continental Can Company USA Inc

Continental Car Wash

Continental Trailways Inc

Converter Shop Inc

Coors Distributor

Custom-Bilt Cabinet and Supply Inc

Custom-Crete Inc

Daljet Inc

Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Dallas Dressed Beef Company Inc

Dallas Lift Trucks Inc

Dallas Power & Light Company

Damson Gas Processing Corp

Davison Petroleum Products

Davison, TM

Delmar Disposal Co

Deloach Texaco

Page 5 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

33
Delta Distributors Inc

Diamond Shamrock

Dillingham & Smith Mechanical and Sheet Metal Contractors Inc

Dixie Oil

Donco Saltwater Disposal System

Double A & Y Corp

Dowell Schlumberger Incorporated

Dunlap-Swain

Durham Transportation Inc

EC Incorporated

East Texas Gas

Eastern ECC Company

Fina

The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company

First Interstate Bank of Dallas

Fort Sill

Fox &Jacobs

Franks Oil Service

Fred Jordan Inc

Fred Taylor GMC Truck Sales Inc

Freilich Howard DBA Quick Stop Brake & Muffler

Fruin-Colnon Corporation

Page 6 - Voda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

34
G B Boots Smith Corporation

Gelco Truck Leasing Division Gelco Corporation

General Electric Company

General Telephone Company of the Southwest

General Tire Inc

General Truck Leasing Inc

Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Gifford-Hill Cement Compariy of Texas

Goff Willie

Grantham Oil Service

Greyhound Lines Inc

Grubbs Enterprises Ltd

Gulf States Oil & Refining Co

Gulf Stream Oil

H & H Oil Services

H &P Trans

Halliburton Energy Services Inc

Harris Bros Co

Harry Vowell Tank Trucks Inc

Hartsell Oil

Haynes Resources Inc

Hearne Ave Exxon

Page 7 - Yoda Petrnlewn, Inc., State Superfund Site

35
Herod Oil Inc

Hertz Penske Truck Leasing Inc

The Highland Pump Company Inc

Holloway Welding & Piping Co

Hunt Oil Company

Hydraulic Service and Supply Company

Industrial Lubricants Co

Industrial Solvents Gulf Division of Industrial Solvents Corporation

Ingersoll-Rand Company

Inland Container Corporation

International Electric Corporation

International Paper Company

J & E Die Casting Co Division of Cascade Die Casting Group Inc

Jam es T Gentry Inc

Janks Texaco

Jeffco

J errys Waste Oil

John Crawford Firestone Inc

Johnson Controls Inc

Jones Environmental Inc

Joy Manufacturing Company

Jubilee Oil Service

Page 8 - Yoda Petrolemn, Inc., State Superfund Site

36
Juna Oil & Gas Co Inc

K & F Oil & Gas Management Inc

KRNN

Kayo Oil Company

Kel.lys Truck Terminal Inc

Kennys Mobil

Ko:mr Frank DBA Rite Way Truck Rental

LA Transit

L D Baker Inc DBA Baker Gulf Service

L & J Recovery Ltd

LTV Energy Products Company

Lake Country Trucking Inc

Lance Inc

Larry Gulledge Exxon

Las Colinas Service Center Inc

Lockheed Missiles & Space Company Inc

Lone Star Dodge Inc

Lone Star Logistics Inc

Long Mile Rubber Co

The Lubrizol Corporation

M Lipsitz & Co Inc

M & M Oil Salvage Inc

Page 9 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

37
 MacMillan Bloedel Containers

Manvel Salt Water Disposal Company

Manville Sales Corporation

Marathon Battery Company

Martin-Decker

Mathews Trucking Company Inc

McAlister Construction Company

McBane Crude

McDonalds

Mega Lubricants Inc

Melton Truck Lines Inc

Metal Services Inc

Metro Aviation Inc

Metro Ford Truck Sales Inc

Millers Gulf

Minit Oil Change Inc

Mobil Oil Corporation

Modem Tire Service Inc

Mohawk Laboratories

Monsanto Company1

Moore James

1
Only to the extent that Solutia Inc. is not excluded under applicable federal bankruptcy law.

Page 10- Voda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

38
Morgan Oil

Morgan, Troy L Jr

Mr Transmission

Murphy Brothers Service Center Inc

National Oilwell Inc

National Scientific Balloon Facility

National Supply Co

Naval Air Station Dallas

Navarro Petroleum Corp

Nobles Transmission

North Highland Mobil

Northwest Oil

Norwel Equipment Company

Nucor Corporation

Occidental Chemical Corporation

Oilwell Division of United States Steel Corporation

Olympic Fastening Systems Inc

On the Spot Oil Change

Owens Mobil

Oxendine, Von K DBA Oxendine Transmission

Oxy Cities Service NGL Inc

P N B Corporation

Page 11 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., Stale Superfund Site

39
Pantera Crude Inc

Paramount Packaging Corporation Texas

Parawax

Parrott Oil Corp

Pauls Oils Service

Pearl Brewing Company

Pelican Energy of LA Inc

Pen Roy Oil of Odessa Inc

Pengo Industries Inc

Pennwalt Corporation

Pepsi Cola

Performance Friction Products Formerly Coltec Automotive Products
Division of Coltec Industries Inc

Peterbilt Motors Company

Petro Chem Environmental Sen·ices Inc

Petroleum Distributors Inc

Petroleum Market Products

Petroleum Refiners Unlimited Inc

Petroleum Stripping Inc

Pipes Equipment Co Inc

Pitts

Pool Company

Post Office Vehicle Maintenance Facility

Page 12 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

40
Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas

Prestige Ford

Preston Management Company

Preston Oil Service

Production Operators Inc

R & C Petroleum Inc

R & K Auto Repair Inc

Ralph Wilson Plastics

Rayco Oil Company

Reed Tool Company

Reeves Oil Co Inc

Repetro Inc

Retail Graphics Printing Company

Rhodes Oil

Richards-Gebaur AFB

Roadway Express Inc

Robison Cecil

Rock Tenn Converting Company

Rockwall

Rollins Leasing Corp

Royle Container

Ruan Leasing Company

Page 13 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

41
Ryder Truck Rental Inc

SETI

SKI Oil Incorporated

The Sabine Mining Company

Safeway

Santos Radiator

Schepps Dairy Inc

Schlumberger Well Services Division of Schlumberger Technology
Corporation

Sears Roebuck and Co

Senco Marketing

Service Oil Co

Servion Inc

Shell Oil Company

Shippers Car Line Inc

Shore Company Inc

Shreveport Truck Center

Sitton Oil

Snappy Lube Inc

Snow Coil Inc

S.ooner Refining Co Inc

South Coast Products Inc

Southeast Tex-Pack Express Inc

Page 14 - Vada Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

42
Southern Gulf

Southern Plastics Inc

Southland Sales Corporation

Southwest Disposal

Southwestern Bell Telephone Company

Southwestern Electric Power Company

Southwestern Petroleum Corporation

Specialty Oil

Sprague Electric Company

Star Solvents Inc

Steel City Crane Rental Inc

Stemco Inc

Steve D Thompson Trucking Inc

The Stroh Brewery Company

Sullivan Transfer & Storage

Summit White GMC Trucks Inc

Sun Engine Sales Inc

T E C Well Service Inc

TanA Co

Tannehill Oil Products

Taylor Rental Center

Texaco Chemical Company

Page 15 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

43
Texas Gas Transmission Corporation

Texas Industrial Disposal Inc

Texas Industries Inc

Texas Mill Supply- Longview Inc

Texas State Technical Institute Airport

Texas Utilities Generating Company

Thompson Trans

Toneys Garage

Trailways Inc

Tri con

Trinity Industries Inc

Triple L Disposal

Tri-State Oil Tools Inc

Triton Aviation Services Inc

Truckstops of America

Tuneup Masters Inc of Texas

Twin City Transmission Service Inc

Union Oil 76 Truck Stop

United Gas Pipe Line Company

United Press International

United States Army Corps of Engineers Mat Sinking Unit

Vanguard Sales

Page 16 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., Stale Superfund Sile

44
 Varo hlc

Vault Oil & Gas

Viking Freight Service hlc

Yoda Petroleum hlc

Volvo White Truck Corporation

· W F B Tank Bottom Reclaiming 9orp

WW Waste Oil

Warren Petroleum Company

Westmoreland Joint Venture

Western Auto Supply Company

Westland Oil Company hlc

Willamette fudustries Inc

Woodline Motor Freight

Woods Operating Co Inc

Wray Ford Inc

Yates SWD Corp

Young Chevrolet hlc

Zavala Energy Inc

and these parties

1. are the owners or operators of the Site;

2. owned or operated the Site at the time of processing, storage, or disposal of
any solid waste;

Page 17 • Voda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

45
 3. by contract, agreement, or otherwise, an·anged to process, store, or dispo;e
of, or arranged with a transporter for transport to process, store, or dispose of
solid waste owned or possessed by the PRPs or by any other person or entity
at the Site; or

4. accepted solid waste for transport to the Site as selected by the PRP.

B. Reserved.

C. The following PRPs entered into this AO as Agreeing Respondents but do not admit
liability regarding the Site except for the purpose of enforcing this AO.

There are no Agreeing Respondents.

D. When ranked, the Site had a State Superfund Hazard Ranking System ("HRS") score
of23.6.

E. The portion of the Site used for ranking on the State Registry of Superfund Sites is
described as follows:

All that certain lot, tract or parcel of land being situated in the David Ferguson
Survey, Gregg County, Texas and being a part of a 6.12 acre tract ofland conveyed
from Chaco, Inc. to Ultra Oil, Inc. in deed recorded in Vol. 1212, Page 252, Deed
Records, Gregg County, Texas and being more particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at a 12" x 12" fence comer post on the north ROW ofDuncan Road,
said point being the SE comer of a 50 acre tract conveyed from Charles McBride to
Chaco, Inc. in deed recorded in Vol. 1206, Page 83, Deed Records, Gregg County,
Texas and also being the SE comer of the herein described tract;

THENCE along the SBL of the above mentioned 6.12 acre tract, also being the north
ROW of Duncan Road:

N 89 deg. 47' 06" W, a distance of 199.02 feet;

S 63 deg. 18' 26" W, a distance of57.72 feet;

S 89 deg. 55' 54" W, a distance of 120.65 feet to a Yi" iron rod for this most
southerly SW comer, same being N 89 deg. 55' 54" E, 200.00 feet from the
SW comer of said 6.12 acre tract;

THENCE N 00 deg. 56' 53" W, a distance of200.00 feet to a W' iron rod for comer;

Page 18 - Yoda Petrolewn, Inc., State Superfund Site

46
 THENCE S 89 deg. 14' 07" W, a distance of 200.00 feet to a W' iron rod for this
most northerly SW comer, same being located on the east ROW of Charise Drive and
the WBL of said 6.12 acre tract and beingN 00 deg. 56' 53" W, 200.00 feet from the
SW comer of same:

THENCE N 00 deg. 56' 56" W, along the east ROW of said Charise Drive, a distance
of 271.25 feet to a 5/8" iron rod for this NW comer, same being the NW comer of
said 6.12 acre tract;

THENCE N 89 deg. 03' E, along the NBL of said 6.12 acre tract, a distance of 578.45
feet to a 5/8" iron rod for this NE comer, same being the NE comer of said 6.12 acre
tract; ·

THENCE S 00 deg. 04' 55" E along the EBL of said 6.12 acre tract, a distance of
452. 78 feet to the Place of BEGINNING of the herein described tract and containing
5.201 acres.

The remainder, a contiguous 0.92 acre tract ofland, is described as follows:

All that certain lot, tract or parcel of land being situated in the David Ferguson
Survey, Gregg County, Texas and being a part of a 6.12 acre tract ofland conveyed
from Chaco, Inc., to Ultra Oil, Inc., in deed recorded in Vol. 1212, page 252, Deed
Records, Gregg County, Texas, and being more particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at a 5/8" iron rod set in the BBL of Charise Drive; THENCE North .
with the BBL of Charise Drive 200 feet to a Yi'' iron rod; THENCE North 89 deg. 14'
07" E, 200 feet to Yz" iron rod for comer, THENCE S 00 deg. 56' 53" E, a distance
of200 feet to Yz" iron rod for comer: THENCE S 89 deg. 55' 54" W with the said
SBL of said 6.12 acre tract, 200 feet to the point of BEGINNING, containg· [sic] 1
acre of land, more or less, together with all improvements situated thereon.

F. . The Site consists of the area listed in Paragraph E above. In addition, the Site
includes any areas outside the area listed in Paragraph E above where as a result,
either directly or indirectly, of a release of solid waste or hazardous substances from
the area described in Paragraph E above, solid waste or hazardous substances have
been deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed or have otherwise come to be located.

G. The Site was proposed for listing on the State Registry of Superfund Sites in the
Texas Register on November 17, 2000. 25 Tex. Reg. 11594-95 (Nov. 17, 2000).

H. The Site historically has been used as a waste oil recycling facility.

Page 19 - Vada Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

47
I. The Chemicals of Concern at the Site include those substances listed in Exhibit B.
The substances listed in Exhibit B have been processed, deposited, stored, disposed
of, or placed or have otheiwise come to be located on the Site.

J. The substances listed in Exhibit B have been documented in surface and subsurface
soil and groundwater at the Site.

K. The substances listed in Exhibit B are:

1. substances designated under Section 31l(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 United States Code ("U.S.C.") Section
1321);

2. elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, or substances designated under
Section 102 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act("CERCLA")(42 U.S.C. Section9601 et seq., as amended);

3. hazardous wastes having the characteristics identified under or listed under
Section 3001 of the Federal Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. Section 6921), excluding wastes, the regulation of which has been
suspended by Act of Congress;

4. toxic pollutants listed under Section 307(a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1317);

5. hazardous air pollutants listed under Section 112 of the Federal Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. Section 7412); or

6. any imminently hazardous chemical substances or mixtures with respect to
which the administrator ofthe Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has
taken action under Section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
Section 2606).

L. The substances listed in Exhibit B include the following: garbage; rubbish; refuse;
sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution
control facility; or other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or
contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, municipal, commercial, mining,
and agricultural operations and from community and institutional activities, or
hazardous substances, for the purposes of TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE Sections
361.271through361.277 and 361.343 through 361.345.

M. The substances listed in Exhibit B are solid wastes or hazardous substances.

Page 20 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

48
 N. Solid wastes or hazardous substances at the Site listed in Exhibit Bare, or potentially
are, spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting,
escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the enviromnent.

0. Potential pathways for human exposure to the solid wastes or hazardous substances
listed in Exhibit B include incidental ingestion of, inhalation of or dermal exposure
to surface and/or subsurface soil, and ingestion of or dermal exposure to
groundwater.

P. Exposure to levels of dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-; benzene; propylbenzene, n-; MTBE
(methyl tertiary-butyl ether); tetrachloroethylene; toluene; trichloroethane, 1,1,1-;
trichloroethylene; trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-; trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-; vinyl chloride;
xylene, m-; xylene, o-; xylene, p-; dichloroethylene 1,1-; and dichloroethane, 1,2-
found at the Site poses an unacceptable carcinogenic risk or an unacceptable toxicity
risk.

Q. The solid wastes or hazardous substances at the Site are not capable of being
managed separately under the remedial action plan.

R. On November 6, 2000, the Com.mission provided written notice of the proposed
listing of the Site on the State Registry to each PRP identified as of that date at the
PRP's last known address.

S. On September 12, 2008, the Commission provided written notice of the public
meeting and of the opportunity to comment on the proposed Remedy as specified in
Sections 361.187(b) and (c) of the Act to each PRP identified as of that date at the
PRP's last known address.

T. On September 12, 2008, each PRP identified as of that date was provided an
opportunity to fully fund or perform the proposed Remedial Activities, as specified
in Sections 361.187(d) and 361.133(c) of the Act.

U. No voluntary actions have been undertaken at the Site by any PRPs.

V. The Remedy Selection Document ("RSD") for the Site is attached to this AO as
Exhibit A.

W. The remedy adopted in Exhibit A is selected as the Remedy to be implemented in
accordance with this AO.

ID. Conclusions of Law and Determinations

A. The PRPs listed in Section II (Findings of Fact) Paragraph A are responsible parties
("RPs") pursuant to Section 361.271 of the Act.

Page 21 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

49
B. Some ofthe substances referenced in Section II (Findings ofFact) Paragraph I, which
are found at the Site, are hazardous substances as defined in Section 361.003(11) of
the Act.

C. Some ofthe substances referenced in Section II (Findings ofFact) Paragraph I, which
are found at the Site, are solid wastes as defined in Section 361.003(34) of the Act.

D. Hazardous substances were deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed or otherwise
came to be located at the Site; and solid wastes were stored, processed, disposed of,
or discarded at the Site.

E. The Site is a facility as defined in Section 361.18l(c) of the Act.

F. The Site is a solid waste facility as defined in Section 361.003(36) of the Act.

G. "Imminent and substantial endangerment" is defined by rule as follows: A danger is
imminent if, given the entire circumstances surrounding each case, exposure of
persons or the environment to hazardous substances is more likely than not to occur
in the absence of preventive action. A danger is substantial if, given the current state
of scientific knowledge, the harm to public health and safety or the environment
which would result from exposure could cause adverse environmental or health
effects. 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE Section 335.342(9).

H. There has been a release (as defined in Section 361.003(28) ofthe Act) or threatened
release of hazardous substances or solid wastes into the environment at the Site that
poses an imminent and substantial endangerment (as defined in 30 TEX. ADMIN.
CODE Section 335.342(9)) to the public health and safety or the environment; and
therefore, the Site will be listed on the State Registry of Super.fund Sites as per
Section V (Order) Paragraph A.

I. The release or threatened release of hazardous substances or solid wastes into the
environment at or from the Site has not been proven to be divisible pursuant to
Section 361.276 of the Act.

J. The actions required by this AO are reasonable and necessary to protect the public
health and safety or the environment.

K. The Site is ineligible for listing on the National Priorities List ("NPL") because the
HRS score was below 28.5.

L. Funds from the Federal Government are unavailable for the Remedial Activities at
this Site because it is ineligible for the NPL.

Page 22 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

50
N. Exhibits and Definitions

A. The following exhibits are incorporated by reference into this AO:

"Exhibit A" Remedy Selection Document

"Exhibit B" List of Solid Wastes and Hazardous Substances at the Site

"Exhibit C" Field Sampling Plan Contents Outline

B. The following terms have the meaning set out below:

"Agreeing Respondent" The PRPs listed in Section II (Findings of Fact)
Paragraph C that fund or perform the Work and have
agreed to the terms and conditions of this AO as
evidenced by signing a consent form.
"Chemicals of Concern" Any chemical that has the potential to adversely affect
ecological or human receptors due to its concentration,
distribution, and mode of toxicity.
"Day'' A calendar day.

"Defaulting Performing Any Performing Party that fails to comply with the
Party'' terms or conditions of this AO.

''Demobilization'' The dismantling and removal of all construction
equipment from the Site.

"Effective Date" The Day ten (10) Days after the issue date of this AO.

"Executive Director The Executive Director of the TCEQ or a designee.
(ED)"
"include" Use of the term include, in all its forms, in this AO is
intended to express an enlargement or illustrative
application specifying a particular thing already
included within the preceding general words. It is not
used as a term of limitation.

"Institutional Control" A legal instrument which indicates the limitations on or
the conditions governing use of the property which
ensures protection of human health and the
environment in accordance with 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE
Chapter 350 and as required by the Remedy.

"Parties" Collectively, the Respondents and the Commission.

Page 23 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

51
"Performing Parties" Collectively, the Agreeing Respondents and persons
that did not enter into this AO but that fund or perform
the Work.
"Post Construction All Remedial Activities at the Site, subsequent to
Activities (PCA)" issuance of the Approval of RA Completion, required
to complete the Remedial Activities in accordance with
this AO.
"Post Construction Cost· An estimate of the cost to perform all of the PCA for as
Estimate" long as post constmction activities are needed.
"Project Manager" The individual designated by the ED to oversee
implementation of the Work and to coordinate
communications with the Agreeing Respondents or, if
there are no Agreeing Respondents to this AO, the
Performing Parties.
"Remedial Action (RA)" Those Remedial Activities, except for Post
Construction Activities, undertaken at the Site,
including on-site physical construction and any
required institutional controls, to implement the
Remedy. The areal extent of the RA is not limited to
the Site. It includes all suitable areas in proximity to
the Site necessary for implementation of the Remedial
Activities.
"Remedial Activities" The RD, RA, PCA, and any other actions required to
implement and maintain the Remedy pursuant to the
RSD and 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE Chapter 335,
Subchapter Kand 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE Chapter 350.
"Remedial Activities The individual, company, or companies retained by the
Contractors" Agreeing Respondents, or if there are no Agreeing
Respondents to this AO, by the Performing Parties to
undertake any or all phases of the Remedial Activities.
Remedial Activities Contractors cannot assume the role
of any quality assurance official required by this AO.

"Remedial Design (RD)" Those Remedial Activities during which engineering
plans and technical specifications are developed for the
Remedy.

Page 24 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Sile

52
"Remediation Goals" Cleanup standards or other measures of achievement of
the goals of the Remedy, consistent with the Act, 30
TEX. ADMIN. CODE Chapter 335, Subchapter Kand 30
TEX. ADMIN. CODE Chapter 350, determined by ED to
be necessary at the Site to achieve and to maintain the
Remedy.
"Remedy" The Remedy adopted for the Site in the Remedy
Selection Document to clean up or control exposure at
the Site in accordance with all applicable laws and
regulations·and to be implemented in accordance with
this AO. The Remedy includes all applicable
requirements contained in the Act, 30 TEX. ADMIN.
CODE Chapter 335, Subchapter Kand 30 TEX. ADMIN.
CODE Chapter 350.
"Remedy Selection The document that was developed for the Site, based
Document (RSD)" on Site specific information, that specifies the Remedy,
and that was adopted by the ED and TCEQ after the
opportunity for public review and comment.
"Responsible Parties" The PRPs listed in Section II (Findings ofFact)
Paragraph A.
"Respondents" . Collectively, the Agreeing Respondents, the RPs, and
the Performing Parties.
"Samples" Samples of environmental media taken pursuant to and
in accordance with this AO.
"Sections" Those major divisions ofthis AO designated by Roman
numerals.
"Site Coordinator" The individual designated by the Agreeing
Respondents, or if there are no Agreeing Respondents
to this AO, the Performing Parties to oversee the
Remedial Activities Contractors and the
implementation of the Remedial Activities and to
coordinate communications with the ED.

"Site Representative" A person designated by the Project Manager that is
authorized to oversee the Remedial Activities.

Page 25 - Voda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

53
 "Substantial The point, as determined by the ED in his sole
Completion" discretion, at which the Work (or a specified part
thereof) has been substantially completed in accordance
with any work plans or documents required to be
developed pursuant to this AO.
"Work" All activities to be undertaken or performed m
accordance with and as required by this AO.

V. Order

Therefore, the TCEQ orders:

A. The Site will be listed on the State Registry of Superfund Sites.

B. Reserved.

C. Respondents shall reimburse the Hazardous and Solid Waste Remediation Fee
Account for all of the ED's costs of the Remedial fuvestigation ("Rf') and the
Feasibility Study ("FS"), including the oversight costs of these activities.
Respondents shall reimburse the Hazardous and Solid Waste Fee Account for all
uncompensated Pre-Remedial Investigation costs, including oversight costs of these
activities.

The RPs and any Defaulting Performing Parties shall reimburse the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Remediation Fee Account for all costs incurred by the ED in
implementing and in overseeing the Work and for any costs incurred by the ED for
activities other than the RI and FS to the extent that such costs have not been paid.

Reimbursement is to be made within forty-five (45) Days after the ED transmits a
Demand L1::tter stating the amount owed. Payment is to be paid by cashiers check or
money ord.er. All payments and accompanying letters or documentation should
contain the following information: "Yoda Petroleum, Inc. State Superfund Site,"
"Cost Recovery Funds for the Hazardous and Solid Waste Remediation Fee Account
(Fund 550} ofthe State ofTexas," "PCA Code 50482," "Docket Number 2009-1706-
SPF," and "TCEQ Project Manager, Carol Boucher, P.G." All payments and
accompanying letters or documentation should be mailed to: Cashier's Office, MC-
214, TCEQ, Re: Yoda Petroleum, Inc. State Superfund Site, P.O. Box 13088, Austin,
TX 78711.-3088. All checks and money orders shall be payable to the "Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality," or "TCEQ." The requirement to make such
payments will survive the termination of this AO in accordance with Section XXXIII
(Termination of the Administrative Order).

Page 26 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

54
D. This AO applies to and is binding upon Respondents, their agents, successors, and
assigns. Respondents are jointly and severally responsible for carrying out the Work.
Performance of any or all of the Work by the Performing Parties or Agreeing
Respondents shall not excuse any other Respondent from such performance. Upon
performance by any Respondent of Remedial Activities, either alone or in
conjunction with other Performing Parties, such Respondent shall, from such
performance forward, become a Performing Party. Such performance by a
Respondent of some ofthe Remedial Activities does not excuse the Respondent from
performance of those Remedial Activities that took place prior to the Respondent
becoming a Performing Party or any other preexisting requirement of this AO. No
change in the ownership or corporate status and no acquisition of a Respondent will
alter its respective responsibilities under this AO.

E. Respondents that own or lease real property at the Site shall provide a copy of this
AO to all of their lessees or sublessees of the Site until such time as this AO is
terminated in accordance with Section XXXIII {Termination of the Administrative
Order) and to any prospective owners or successors before all or substantially all
property rights, stock, or assets are transferred.

F. Respondents shall provide a copy of this AO to all contractors, subcontractors,
laboratories, and consultants retained by Respondents to perform any or all of the
Work within thirty (30) Days after the Effective Date or on the date such services are
retained, whichever date occurs later. Notwithstanding the terms of any contract,
Respondents remain responsible for compliance with this AO and for ensuring that
their contractors and agents comply with this AO.

G. Within forty-five (45) Days after the Effective Date each Respondent that owns real
property at the Site shall record a copy or copies of this AO, with all exhibits, in the
appropriate office where land ownership and transfer records are filed or recorded,
and shall ensure that the recording of this AO is properly indexed to each and every
property comprising any part or all of the Site so as to provide notice to third parties
of the issuance and terms of this AO with respect to those properties. Each
Respondent that owns real property comprising all or any part of the Site shall, within
sixty ( 60) Days after the Effective Date, send notice of such recording and indexing
to the ED. The obligations and restrictions of this AO run with the land and are
binding upon any and all persons who acquire any interest in any real property
comprising all or any part of the Site.

Not later than ninety (90) Days before any transfer of any property interest in any
property included within the Site and in accordance with Section XII (Notices and
Submittals) Respondents that own or lease such real prope1iy shall submit the
transfer documents to the ED.

Page 27 - Voda Petrolewn, Inc., State Superfund Site

55
H. In accordance with Section 361.1855 of the Act and for the purpose of selecting the
Remedy, the ED has selected commercial/industrial as the appropriate land use for
the Site. Any change in use of any or all of the Site must comply with Section
361.190 of the Act.

I. A qualified Remedial Activities Contractor shall direct and supervise all aspects of
the Remedial Activities. Within ten (10) Days after the Effective Date each
Respondent that is not an Agreeing Respondent shall notify the ED of its intent to
perfonn the Work.

In addition to fulfilling the requirements of Section VIII (Project Manager/Site
Coordinator) Paragraph C, within ten (10) Days after the Effective Date, Agreeing
Respondents or, if there are no Agreeing Respondents, Perfonning Parties shall
notify the ED in writing of the name, title, qualifications, relevant licenses, and
pennits of the Site Coordinator and Remedial Activities Contractor proposed to be
used in carrying out the Remedial Activities. The Agreeing Respondents shall
demonstrate or, ifthere are no Agreeing Respondents, the Perfonning Parties shall
demonstrate that each proposed Remedial Activities Contractor has any licenses
necessary to do business in the State of Texas and permits necessary to perfonn any
or all of the Remedial Activities. If at any time the Agreeing Respondents or, ifthere
are no Agreeing Respondents, Performing Parties propose to use a different Remedial
Activities Contractor, the Agreeing Respondents or Performing Parties, as
appropriate, shall notify the ED before the new Remedial Activities Contractor
perfonns any of the Remedial Activities. The Agreeing Respondents' Site
Coordinator shall be the Project Manager's and Site Representative's point of
contact for all Performing Parties. All Performing Parties must coordinate with and
cooperate with any Agreeing Respondents in the performance of any and all of the
Work.

J. The Remedy may be modified as specified in 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE Section
335.349. Except as specified in the previous sentence and in Section XVIII
(Extension of Deadlines), the tenns of this AO may be amended upon approval by
the Commission after notice to all Respondents.

K. Respondents shall provide all the necessary infonnation and assistance for TCEQ's
Community Relations personnel to implement the Community Relations Plan.

L. All ED-approved final submittals, documents, plans, and reports required to be
developed and approved by the ED pursuant to this AO will be incorporated in and
enforceable under this AO.

M. In complying with this AO, Respondents shall at all times comply with the
requirements of the Act and 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE Chapter 335, Subchapter Kand
30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE Chapter 350, as applicable.

Page 28 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

56
VI. Remedial Activities

A. The Respondents shall undertake the Remedial Activities in the following phases:

Remedial Design ("RD");

Remedial Action ("RA"); and

Post Construction Activity ("PCA").

The ED may, in his sole discretion, waive, in writing, a requirement to submit any
report, submittal, document or plan otherwise required to be submitted by this AO.

B. Remedial Design

1. Not later than ten (10) Days after the Effective Date, Respondents shall
submit a Design Concept Memorandum ("DCM") to the ED for review,
comment, and approval. Respondents must submit a DCM that includes:

a. Description of key performance and design criteria for the Remedy
necessary to meet the requirements of the Remedy Selection
Document;

b. Identification of all significant design options that may be considered
by the design professional to meet the required performance and
design criteria and the proposed option(s) to meet those criteria; and,

c. Identification ofpotential problems and unresolved issues which may
affect the timely completion of the RD, RA and PCA, and proposed
solutions to those problems.

2. Within thirty (30) Days after the ED approves the DCM, Respondents shall:

a. Obtain written landowner consent for any institutional control to be
placed on the land records for any or all of the Site as required by this
AO or byTCEQ rule and submit a copy of the consent to the ED; and

b. Submit a Preliminary RD to the ED for review, comment, and
approval.

3. The Respondents shall submit a Preliminary RD that meets the requirements
as set forth in this Section and consists of a 30% completion of all sections
of the following RD submittals:

Page 29 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

57
 RA Schedule;

RA Field Sampling Plan ("RA FSP");

Remedial Action Construction Quality Assurance Project Plan ("RA C-
QAPP");

RA Plans and Specifications;

RA Health and Safety Plan ("RA HASP"); and

Post Construction Activity Plan ("PCA Plan").

4. The RA Schedule will describe the sequence, dependency on other activities,
and duration of each activity to be conducted during the RA including Project
Milestones (which will be subject to the provisions of Section XXI
(Stipulated Penalties), Paragraph D) and the specific mobilization date to
begin the RA.

5. The RA Sampling and Analysis Plan (RA SAP) and RA C-QAPP will
describe the means of assuring quality during the RA and will specify a
quality assurance official ("Respondent QA Official"), independent of the
RA Contractors, to conduct a quality assurance program during the RA.

a. The RA SAP will be comprised of the RA FSP and the "Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality Superfund Cleanup Section,
Remediation Division, Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
Superfund Program" (Program QAPP) which is most current as ofthe
Effective Date of this AO. The RA SAP will address sampling and
analysis relating to environmental parameters which may present
toxic risk to human health or the environment. Respondents and their
contractors and subcontractors, including analytical laboratories, shall
strictly adhere to all requirements of the approved RA SAP.

b. The Program QAPP text will not be altered. Alterations to the
Program QAPP necessitated by project specific circumstances will be
effected by appropriate notation in Section 8.0 "Exceptions,
Additions and Changes to the Program QAPP" of the RA FSP.

c. The RA FSP will include:

i) All data required by the Program QAPP and the contents
outline attached as Exhibit C to this AO;

Page 30 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

58
 ii) Data Quality Objectives ("DQO's") which provide for the
collection and analysis of a sufficient quantity and quality of
data to demonstrate attainment of the Remediation Goals and
to demonstrate protection of off-site receptors from exposure
to Chemicals of Concern during the RA; DQO's will be
developed in accordance with EPA "Guidance for the Data
Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4"; and

iii) A perimeter air monitoring plan including the action levels
necessary to protect off-site receptors from exposure to the
Chemicals of Concern; the Chemicals of Concern to be
sampled; the kinds of sampling techniques to be used to
sample; the number, type, and location of monitors; the
calibration methods and schedule; and the sampling and
reporting frequency.

d. In regard to laboratories and laboratory analytical work, Respondents
shall:

i) Ensure that all contracts with laboratories utilized by
Respondents for analysis of Samples provide for access to
those laboratories by the ED's personnel and the ED's auth-
orized representatives to assure the accuracy of laboratory
results related to the Site.

ii) Ensure that each laboratory it may use is qualified to conduct
the proposed work. This includes use of methods and
analytical protocols for the Chemicals of Concern in the
media of interest within detection and quantitation limits
consistent with both QA/QC procedures and approved DQOs
for the site. The Respondent QA Official shall provide written
certification that it has reviewed the laboratory's Quality
Assurance Plan and capabilities and has determined that:

(a) The laboratory has a documented quality assurance
program in place that is generally consistent with
National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation
Conference (NELAC) standards;

(b) The laboratory has demonstrated and documented
proficiency with each sample preparation and
determinative combination to be used on the project;

Page 31 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

59
 (c) The laboratory has documented standard operating
procedures for each of the methods required for the
project; and,

(d) The laboratory has the capability of meeting the
analytical objectives for the project.

A table which presents the laboratory's method detection
limits and quantitation limits and the preliminary remediation
goal for each analyte of concern, and a table that presents the
laboratory's control limits for quality control parameters, i.e.,
surrogates, matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples, and
laboratory control samples must be submitted along with the
certification letter and must be submitted attached or inserted
into the RA FSP.

iii) Ensure that all laboratories used for analysis of Samples are
acceptable to the ED. A laboratory may be deemed
unacceptable for any of the following reasons:

(a) repeated or numerous deficiencies found in the
laboratory quality assurance program during the ED' s
or EPA' s laboratory inspections;

(b) repeated or numerous deficiencies in laboratory
performance;

(c) debarment by EPA; or

(d) failure to comply with any requirement or criteria of
the Program QAPP or this AO.

iv) Ensure that all data submitted to the agency is produced by
laboratories accredited by TCEQ according to 30 TEX.
ADMIN. CODE Chapter 25 (relating to Environmental Testing
Laboratory Accreditation and Certification) Subchapters A
andB.

6. The RA C-QAPP will describe the activities necessary to ensure that the
Remedy is constructed to meet or exceed all design criteria, plans,
specifications, and all applicable Remediation Goals. The RA C-QAPP will
address sampling and analysis relating to physical properties of constructed
engineered controls which must meet specified criteria to ensure the long-
term performance of those features (e.g. physical soil properties of soil

Page 32 - Voda Petroleum, Inc., Stale Superfund Site

60
 backfill or constmcted clay caps, physical properties of geotextiles and liner
materials, leak testing of piping systems and containment vessels, etc.). At a
minimum, the RA C-QAPP will include the following elements:

a. The responsibility and authority of organizations and key personnel
involved in designing and constmcting the RA;

b. The qualifications of the Respondent QA Official(s) and supporting
inspection personnel;

c. The observations and tests that will be used to ensure that the
construction meets or exceeds all design criteria, plans and
specifications and all applicable Remediation Goals;

d. The sampling activities, sample size, methods for determining
locations, frequency of sampling, acceptance and rejection criteria,
and methods for ensuring that corrective measures are implemented;
and

e. Detailed reporting requirements.

7. The RA Plans and Specifications will establish the sequences, procedures and
requirements to be implemented at the Site including at a minimum:

a. Demolition activities including monitor well closure,
decontamination, environmental controls, and disposal.

b. Excavation activities including: establishment of limits of initial
excavation for surface and subsurface soils with provisions for field
controls; excavation materials handling including stockpiling;
excavation confirmation sampling; backfill procedures; air emissions
control; stormwater management; cross-contamination prevention;
and equipment and personnel decontamination procedures and
facilities.

c. Estimated quantities of material to be excavated and estimated
quantities of materials to be disposed of off-site.

d. Site restoration activities, including backfill materials, compaction,
and final cover.

e. Plans including at a minimum:

i) Site plan;

Page 33 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

61
 ii) Demolition plan;

iii) Excavation plan, plan view;

iv) Excavation plan, sections;

v) Monitor well construction details;

vi) Final Site grading plan;

vii) Construction details; and

viii) All other plans and specifications necessary to describe
sequences, procedures, and requirements to conduct the
Remedial Activities in a manner protective of human health
and the environment.

8. The RA HASP will specify the procedures that are sufficient to protect on-
site personnel and the public from the physical, chemical and/or biological
hazards of the site. The HASP will address all requirements of 29 CFR
Chapter XVII - "Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor," 40 C.F.R. § 35.6015(a)(21) "Health and Safety Plan,"
and all applicable safety regulations, ordinances and statutes pertaining to the
safety of on-site personnel and the public. The HASP and any revi~ions or
addenda will be reviewed and signed by a Board Certified Industrial
Hygienist.

The TCEQ relies on the Respondent in the preparation of an adequate HASP.
However, TCEQ reserves the right to review and provide comments on the
Respondent's HASP. If TCEQ provides comments, they constitute only
general safety guidelines which are not intended to cause the Respondent to
reduce the level of protection. Any language in the comments or in this AO
which appears to give the TCEQ the right to direct or control the
Respondent's means, methods and details of the Work shall be deemed to
mean that the Respondent will follow TCEQ's desires only as to the results
of the Work. The Respondent is solely responsible for preparing an adequate
HASP, for complying with the RD and the applicable safety laws and
regulations, for performing the Work in a safe manner and for protecting the
health and safety of on-site personnel and the public. The Respondent shall
address the TCEQ's comments and concerns and if necessary submit a
revised HASP. TCEQ notation of "approval," "acceptance," or similar
language in response to a HASP submittal for review shall not alter the
responsibilities of the parties as described in this Section. In the event that
TCEQ notes a HASP "approved" or "accepted" or uses similar language to

Page 34 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

62
 indicate that there are no further comments, such notation shall be deemed to
mean only:

We have reviewed your HASP under the AO provision reserving the right for
TCEQ to review and provide comments constituting general safety guidelines
(not intended to cause the Respondent to reduce the level ofprotection). The
reviewer(s) might not be Board Certified Industrial Hygienist or any other
type ofsafety professional. We have no comments (or further comments) at
this time on your HASP. We recognize this HASP as your final HASP. Ifyou
change this HASP you must submit a revision or addendum for review and
potential comment in accordance with this AO.

Do not rely on TCEQ review or comments (or lack thereof) on your HASP
for any purposes.

By telling you we have no comments (or further comments) we are not
assuming responsibility for your means, methods, details or sequences, nor
are we assuming any duty of protection to you, your employees, your
subcontractors or suppliers, or their employees, or to any third party. Any
language in the comments or in this AO which appears to give the TCEQ the
right to direct or control your means, methods and details of the Work shall
be deemed to mean that you will follow TCEQ 's desires only as to the results
ofthe Work. You are solely responsible for preparing and implementing an
adequate HASP, for complying with the RD and the applicable safety
regulations, ordinances and statutes, for performing the Work in a safe
manner and for protecting the health and safety ofon-site personnel and the
public.

9. The PCA Plan will describe all sequences, procedures and requirements for
implementing the PCA. The PCA Plan will, at a minimum, include the
following:

a. A Post Construction Sampling and Analysis Plan ("PC SAP") and
Post Construction Quality Assurance Project Plan ("PC-QAPP")
meeting the criteria established herein for the RA SAP and RA C-
QAPP but addressing all sampling and analyses relating to PCA;

b. Post Construction Plans and Specifications necessary to assure that
the Remedial Activities attain and maintain the Remediation Goals;

c. A PCA Schedule describing the sequence, dependency on other
activities, and duration of each activity to be conducted during the
PCA including Project Milestones (which will be subject to Section

Page 35. Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

63
 XXI Stipulated Penalties Paragraph D), and the specific mobilization
date to begin the PCA;

d. A Post Construction Cost Estimate providing an estimate for a
qualified third party to perform all of the tasks necessary for post
construction for as long as PCA are needed, in accordance with the
PCA Schedule; and

e. A Post Construction Activities HASP ("PCA HASP") which meets
all of the requirements specified above for the RA HASP but which
is appropriate to protect on-site personnel and the public from any
physical, chemical and/or biological hazards of the site relating to the
Post Closure period and activities.

10. Within thirty (30) Days after the ED provides written comments to the Site
Coordinator on the Preliminary RD, Respondents shall submit a Pre-Final RD
to the ED for review, comment, and approval. The Pre-Final RD will consist
of 95% RD submittals. Respondents shall address the ED's comments on
the Preliminary RD and submit a summary note which clearly and explicitly
indicates how each comment by the ED on the Preliminary RD has been
satisfactorily addressed and which will also identify all other revisions or
changes from the Preliminary RD.

11. Within twenty (20) Days after the ED provides the Site Coordinator with the
ED's written comments on the Pre-Final RD, Respondents shall submit the
Final RD, prepared and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in the
State of Texas, to the ED. The Final RD will consist of 100% complete RD
submittals except the PCA Plan. A Professional Engineer shall include a
certification that the design was prepared to attain all Remediation Goals
upon implementation. Respondents shall address the ED' s comments on the
Pre-Final RD and submit a summary note which clearly and explicitly
indicates how each of the ED's comments on the Pre-Final RD has been
satisfactorily addressed and which will also identify all other revisions or
changes from the Pre-Final RD.

12. The ED will notify the Site Coordinatorofhis approval or disapproval of the
Final RD including written comments. Within fifteen ( 15) Days after the ED
provides written comments to the Site Coordinator, Respondents shall
resubmit the Final RD, in both clean and redline, strikeout format, with a
summary note which clearly and explicitly indicates how each of the ED's
comments on the previous draft of the Final RD has been satisfactorily
addressed and which will also discuss all other revisions or changes from the
previous draft of the Final RD.

Page 36 - Voda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

64
 13. The ED will notify the Site Coordinator of his approval or disapproval of
each resubmittal of the Final RD. Each resubmittal will be submitted as
specified in Paragraph 12 above. Disapproval of the first resubmittal, and
each subsequent resubmittal, is subject to assessment of stipulated penalties
in accordance with Section XXI (Stipulated Penalties).

14. Upon the ED's approval, the documents comprising the Final RD will be
incorporated as requirements into and will be enforceable under this AO.

C. Remedial Action

1. Respondents and Respondents' contractors and subcontractors shall not
mobilize to the Site until the Final RD is approved by the TCEQ. Under no
circumstance will mobilization occur prior to TCEQ approval of the RA
HASP. 2 The Respondents will be responsible for initiating, maintaining, and
supervising all safety precautions and programs required for the protection of
all persons who may be affected by the Work, the Work, and any property
which maybe affected by the Work.

2. As soon as practicable after the award of any contract to ship solid wastes
and/or hazardous substances from the Site and prior to any such actual
shipment, Respondents shall submit to the Project Manager a written
certification containing all relevant information regarding such shipments.
The certification will include:

a. The name and location of the facility to which the solid wastes and/or
hazardous substances are to be shipped;

b. The type and quantity ofthe solid wastes and/or hazardous substances
to be shipped;

c. The expected schedule for the shipment of the solid wastes and/or
hazardous substances; and

d. The method of transportation and the name, address, and phone
number of the transporter.

3. In addition, Respondents shall certify that:

a. No enforcement order is currently imposed on any selected receiving
facility or transporter by any regulating authorities;

2
TCEQ's "approval" or "acceptance" of the HASP will be given the meaning as explained in Section VI
(Remedial Activities) Paragraph B.8.

Page 37 - Voda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

65
 b. The selected receiving facility and transporter are permitted to accept
the specific solid wastes and/or hazardous substances to be shipped
from the Site by all appropriate regulating authorities; and

c. After appropriate inquiry, they have no knowledge that either the
se:lected receiving facility or transporter is non-compliant with any
federal, state, or local requirement.

4. The ED may inspect the Remedial Activities and/or the Site at any time to
evaluate compliance with this AO.

5. At least ten (10) Days prior to the expected date of achieving Substantial
Completion of the RA, the Site Coordinator shall conduct a pre-Substantial
Completion inspection and shall develop and submit to the ED a preliminary
punch list identifying any nonconformance with the requirements of the RA
Plans and Specifications.

6. At the same time that the Performing Parties submit the Substantial
Completion punch list, they shall schedule a Substantial Completion
inspection by the ED. The Site Coordinator shall accompany the ED during
the Substantial Completion inspection.

7. Within 10 Days after the ED's on-site inspection, the Respondents shall
submit to the ED in writing a revised punch list incorporating any
deficiencies identified by the ED during the Substantial Completion
inspection, indicating those deficiencies that are completely addressed and
providing a proposed schedule and list of activities necessary to complete the
RA. The ED will notify the Site Coordinator in writing of his approval or
disapproval .of the revised punch list.

If the ED disapproves the revised punch list, the ED will provide written
comments to the Site Coordinator. Within ten (10) Days after the ED
provides written comments to the Site Coordinator on the revised punch list,
Respondents shall submit a final punch list, in both clean and redline,
strikeout format, with a summary note that clearly and explicitly indicates
how each of the ED's comments on the revised punch list has been
satisfactorily addressed. The ED will notify the Site Coordinator of his
approval or disapproval of the final punch list with comments. Ifdisapproved
by the ED, within fifteen (15) Days after the ED provides written comments,
Respondents shall resubmit the final punch list. The ED will notify the Site
Coordinator of his approval or disapproval of each resubmittal of the final
punch list. Disapproval of the first resubmittal and each subsequent
resubmittal is subject to assessment of stipulated penalties in accordance with
Section XXI (Stipulated Penalties).

Page 38 - Yoda Petrolewn, Inc., State Superfund Site

66
8. When Respondents believe that they have completed the RA, they shall
submit a certification to the ED that the RA is complete. If the ED identifies
RA items to be corrected or completed, Respondents shall immediately
correct or complete these items.

9. Within forty five (45) Days after Respondents certify that the RA is complete,
Respondents shall submit to the ED a draft RA Report, containing the
following:

a. A certification from a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of
Texas that the RA has been completed in compliance with the Final
RD and this AO and that the RA is complete;

b. All data collected during the RA and documentation of compliance
with the terms of the RA Quality Assurance Project Plan and the RA
Construction Quality Assurance Plan;

c. Copies of waste manifests for all Class II, Class I, and hazardous
wastes and substances disposed of off-site;

d. As-built drawings showing:

i) Areas and depths of excavation, with verification sample
results by grid area;

ii) Final site plan with topographic contours;

e. Progress photographs;

f. Proposed areas for soil and groundwater that will require land use
restrictions and/or other deed notices, certifications, or restrictions;
and,

g. Proposed language for any institutional controls in accordance with
and as required by this AO and TCEQ rules.

10. The ED will notify the Site Coordinator of his approval or disapproval of the
draft RA Report. If the ED disapproves the draft RA Report, the ED will
provide written comments to the Site Coordinator.

11. Within fifteen (15) Days after the ED provides written comments to the Site
Coordinator on the draft RA Report, Respondents shall submit a final RA
Report, in both clean and redline, strikeout format, with a summary note
which clearly and explicitly indicates how each of the ED's comments on the

Page 39 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

67
 draft RA Report has been satisfactorily addressed and which also discusses
all other revisions or changes from the draft RA Report.

12. The ED will notify the Site Coordinator of his approval or disapproval of the
final RA Report with comments.

13. If disapproved by the ED, within fifteen (15) Days after the ED provides
written comments, Respondents shall resubmit the RA Report as specified in
Paragraph 11 above. Each resubmittal will also be submitted in accordance
with Paragraph 11 above.

14. The ED will notify the Site Coordinator of his approval or disapproval of
each resubmittal of the final RA Report including written comments.
Disapproval of the first resubmittal and each subsequent resubmittal is
subject to assessment of stipulated penalties in accordance with Section XXI
(Stipulated Penalties).

15. Within thirty (30) Days after approval of the final RA Report and after
obtaining the required written landowner consent in accordance with
Paragraph B.2 of this Section, Respondents shall:

a. record a copy or copies of any required institutional controls in
compliance with the requirements found in 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE
Chapter 350.111 in the appropriate local or county office where land
ownership and transfer records are filed or recorded;

b. ensure that the recording of these documents is properly indexed and
recorded to each and every property at the Site in the appropriate
office where land ownership and transfer records are filed so as to
provide notice to third parties concerning those properties; and

c. send evidence of such recording, landowner consent, and indexing to
the ED.

16. After he approves the final RA Report, receives evidence of the filing of any
institutional control from each property owner or other person as required by
Section V (Order) Paragraph G, and determines that the financial assurance
requirements of Paragraph E below have been satisfied, the ED will issue an
Approval of RA Completion to the Agreeing Respondents, or if there are no
Agreeing Respondents to this AO, any Performing Parties.

Page 40 - Yoda Petroleum. Inc., State Superfund Site

68
D. Post Construction Activity

1. Concurrent with the submittal ofthe preliminary punch list for the Substantial
Completion inspection, the Site Coordinator shall 1) submit a list of the
name, title, qualifications, relevant licenses and permits of the Remedial
Activities Contractors proposed to be used in carrying out any or all of the
PCA and 2) submit to the ED a Revised PCA Plan.

2. The ED will notify the Site Coordinator of his approval or disapproval of the
Revised PCA Plan including written comments to the Site Coordinator.

3. Within fifteen ( 15) Days after the ED provides written comments to the Site
Coordinator, Respondents shall submit the Final PCA Plan, in both clean and
redline, strikeout format, with a summary note which clearly and explicitly
indicates how each of the ED' s comments on the Revised PCA Plan has been
satisfactorily addressed and which will also discuss all other revisions or
changes from the Revised PCA Plan.

4. The ED will notify the Site Coordinator of his approval or disapproval of the
submittal and each resubmittal of the Final PCA Plan. Each resubmittal will
be submitted as specified in Paragraph 3 above. Disapproval of the first
resubmittal and each subsequent resubmittal is subject to assessment of
stipulated penalties in accordance with Section XXI (Stipulated Penalties).

5. Upon the ED's approval of the final PCA Plan, Respondents shall begin the
PCA in accordance with the schedule included in the PCA Plan.

6. The Agreeing Respondent(s) shall submit a Five Year Review report to the
TCEQ for TCEQ' s approval no later than five (5) years after the ED approves
the Final Remedial Action for the Site. The Five Year Review report must
be conducted in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
"Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance." The Agreeing Respondent(s)
shall submit Five Year Review reports for the Site to the TCEQ every five ( 5)
years unless and until the TCEQ approves cessation.

E. Post Construction Financial Assurance.

1. Respondents shall provide financial assurance in the minimum amount of the
final Post Construction Cost Estimate and shall maintain such financial
assurance for the full duration of the PCA. Within ten (10) Days of the ED's
approval of the PCA Plan, Respondents shall submit a written proposal for
providing financial assurance to the ED for approval.

Page 41 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

69
 2. Subject to the ED's approval, financial assurance may be demonstrated by
one or a combination of the following mechanisms: letter of credit, surety
bond guaranteeing payment, surety bond guaranteeing performance, fully
funded trust, insurance, escrow account or other approved mechanism. Each
financial assurance document will be issued by an institution with the
authority to issue the document whose operations are regulated and examined
by a federal or state agency.

3. Within fifteen (15) Days after the ED provides written approval of
Respondents' proposed financial assurance mechanism to the Site
Coordinator, Respondents shall submit the necessary financial assurance
documents to the ED. The ED will notify the Site Coordinator of his
approval or disapproval ofthe financial assurance documents with comments.
If disapproved by the ED, within fifteen (15) Days after the ED provides
written comments to the Site Coordinator, Respondents shall resubmit the
financial assurance documents, in both clean and redline, strikeout format,
with a summary note which clearly and explicitly indicates how each of the
ED's comments on the previous draft of the financial assurance documents
has been satisfactorily addressed and which will also discuss all other
revisions or changes from the previous draft of the financial assurance
documents.

4. The ED will notify the Site Coordinator of his approval or disapproval, with
comments, of each resubmittal of the financial assurance documents. Each
resubmittal will be submitted in accordance with Paragraph 3 above.
Disapproval of the first resubmittal and each subsequent resubmittal is
subject to assessment of stipulated penalties in accordance with Section XXI
(Stipulated Penalties).

VII. Failure to Attain Remediation Goals or Findings of Significant Difference

A. If at any point in the Remedial Activities the Performing Parties conclude that the
Remedial Activities as implemented in accordance with this AO will not attain the
Remediation Goals, or if the Performing Parties find that conditions at the Site differ
from those that form the basis of the RSD and significantly change the scope,
performance or costs of the Remedial Activities, then the Performing Parties shall
take the actions specified in this Section.

B. Within ten (10) Pays after the Performing Parties initially determine that a failure to
attain Remediation Goals or that a significant difference in the scope, performance
or cost of the Remedial Activities as described in this Section exists, Performing
Parties shall notify the ED of that determination with a description of its basis.

Page ~2 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

70
C. Not later than sixty (60) Days after the initial assertion of a failure to attain
Remediation Goals or of a significant difference in the scope, performance or cost
of the Remedial Activities, the Performing Parties shall submit a Failure Evaluation
Report to the ED for his approval.

D. The Performing Parties shall submit a Failure Evaluation Report that meets the
requirements ofthis Section. The Failure Evaluation Report will include a discussion
of the following: the data related to the failure to attain Remediation Goals or to the
assertion of a significant difference, conclusions concerning all such data, and any
known cause of the failure to attain Remediation Goals or of the significant
difference, and a recommendation for any necessary additional studies. Data
presented in the Failure Evaluation Report will comply with the DQOs.

E. The ED will not consider the failure of a design element or remedial action that is not
required by this AO to be the basis for a failure to attain the Remediation Goals.

F. The ED will consider differences in the quantity or extent of contaminants as the
basis for a determination of a significant difference only when such differences are
so significant as to cause the Remedy not to be the lowest cost alternative that is
technologically feasible and reliable and that effectively mitigates and minimizes
damage to and provides adequate protection of the public health and safety or the
environment.

G. After receipt of the Failure Evaluation Report, the ED will notify the Site
Coordinator of his approval or disapproval of the report with comments. If the ED
determines that the basis of the Performing Parties' assertion of a failure to attain
Remediation Goals or of a significant difference is valid, no applicable stipulated
penalties will be imposed for missed deadlines subsequent to the Performing Parties'
notification made in accordance with Paragraph B above, except for failure to submit
documents pursuant to this Section. If the ED determines that the basis of a failure
to attain Remediation Goals or of an assertion of a significant difference is not valid,
the ED will direct that Remedial Activities continue and that the Performing Parties
pay any applicable stipulated penalties for any missed deadlines.

H. Unless the ED approves the Failure Evaluation Report and/or directs continuation of
Remedial Activities, within thirty (30) Days after the ED provides written comments
to the Site Coordinator, the Performing Parties shall resubmit the Failure Evaluation
Report, in both clean and redline, strikeout format, with a summary note which
clearly and explicitly indicates how each of the ED' s comments on the previous draft
ofthe Failure Evaluation Report has been satisfactorily addressed and which will also
identify all other revisions or changes from the previous version of the Failure
Evaluation Report.

Page 43 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

71
 I. The ED will notify the Site Coordinator of his approval or disapproval, with
comments, of each resubmittal of the Failure Evaluation Report. Each resubmittal
will be submitted in accordance with Paragraph H above. Disapproval of the first
resubmittal and each subsequent resubmittal is subject to assessment of stipulated
penalties in accordance with Section XXI (Stipulated Penalties).

J. Not later than ninety (90) Days after a determination by the ED that the Remedy will
not attain the Remediation Goals or a significant difference exists, the Respondents
shall submit to the ED for approval a written report evaluating alternatives to the
Remedial Activities and may submit a proposal for such alternative Remedial
Activities as may be necessary to achieve the Remediation Goals. Any proposed
alternatives must comply with the remedy selection criteria contained in 30 TEX.
ADMIN CODE Chapter 335, Subchapter Kand 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE Chapter 350.
The Remedy may be modified, as stated in Section V (Order) Paragraph J, only as
specified in 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE Section 335.349.

K. In the event TCEQ determines that alternate or additional remedial actions are
necessary because of the Remedy's failure, TCEQ may terminate this AO.

VTII. Project Manager/Site Coordinator

A. Not later than the Effective Date, the ED will designate a Project Manager to oversee
implementation of the Work and to coordinate communication between the ED and
the Agreeing Respondents or, ifthere are no Agreeing Respondents to this AO, the
Performing Parties.

B. Respondents shall direct all communications regarding the Remedial Activities,
whether written or oral, at a minimum, to the Project Manager or, ifnot available, the
alternate Project Manager.

C. In addition to fulfilling the requirements of Section V (Order) Paragraph I, within ten
(10) Days after the Effective Date, the Agreeing Respondents or, if there are no
Agreeing Respondents to this AO, the Performing Parties shall submit a written
notice to the Project Manager containing the Site Coordinator's address, phone
number and/or pager number at which he/she may be contacted at any time in case
of emergency. The Site Coordinator shall notify the ED in writing at least seven (7)
Days prior to the start date of any field activities associated with the Remedial
Activities. All Performing Parties must coordinate with and cooperate with any
Agreeing Respondents in the performance of any and all of the Work.

D. The Project Manager has the authority to require that the Remedial Activities are
performed in accordance with all applicable statutes and regulations and with this AO
and to require a cessation of the performance of any part or all of the Remedial
Activities that:

Page 44 • Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

72
 1. In the Project Manager's opinion, may present or contribute to an imminent
and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment
because of an actual or threatened release of solid wastes or hazardous
substances from the Site; or

2. In the Project Manager's opinion, is not in conformance with any work plan
developed in accord~ce with this AO; or

3. In the Project Manager's opinion, is a violation of any work plan developed
in accordance with this AO, HASP, or RA Quality Assurance Project Plan.

E. Within 24 hours after the Project Manager issues an oral order to halt any or all of the
Remedial Activities, if time permits, the Project Manager will provide a brief
explanation of the basis for the order. As soon as possible, but in any event no more
than fourteen (14) Days after the initial order to halt any or all of the Remedial
Activities, the Project Manager will provide a written explanation of the basis for the
order to halt any or all of the Remedial Activities to the Site Coordinator. The
Remedial Activities may be resumed only after the basis for the order to halt any or
all of the Remedial Activities has been corrected and instructions to proceed have
been provided to the Agreeing Respondents or, if there are no Agreeing Respondents
to this AO, the Performing Parties by the Project Manager. All additional costs
associated with the cessation of any or all of the Remedial Activities will be borne
by Respondents.

F. During the RD and RA, the Project Manager and Site Coordinator shall hold
meetings at least once per month to review the progress and details of the Remedial
Activities and to review and resolve any discrepancies in data. At the ED's
discretion, these meetings may be held by telephone. At least seven (7) Days prior
to each meeting, the Performing Parties shall deliver an agenda for the meeting and
any documents to be discussed to the Project Manager.

G. The ED and the Agreeing Respondents or, ifthere are no Agreeing Respondents to
this AO, the Performing Parties may change their respective Project Manager,
Alternate Project Manager, or Site Coordinator by written notice to each other of the
name, address, and telephone number of the new Project Manager, Alternate Project
Manager, or Site Coordinator seven (7) Days prior to the change, or if seven (7) Days
notice is not feasible, as soon as possible.

H. The Project Manager may assign other persons, including other TCEQ employees or
contractors, to serve as a Site Representative and may temporarily delegate her or his
responsibilities to such Site Representative. The Project Manager will notify the Site
Coordinator orally or in writing of such delegation.

Page 45 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

73
IX. Endangerment and Immediate Threat

A. In the event of any action or occurrence during the performance of the Remedial
Activities which causes or threatens a release of a solid waste or hazardous substance
or which may present an immediate threat to public health or welfare or the
environment, Respondents shall immediately take all appropriate action to prevent,
abate, or minimize such release or threat and shall immediately notify the Project
Manager and Site Representative or, if the Project Manager cannot be contacted, the
alternate Project Manager and Site Representative. Respondents shall also notify the
TCEQ Emergency Response Unit, 1-800-832-8224, Region 5, Tyler. Respondents
shall take such action in accordance with all applicable provisions of the HASP. If
Respondents fail to take appropriate response action as required by this Section and
the ED takes such action instead, Respondents shall reimburse the ED all costs of the
response action. Respondents shall make payments of such costs as specified in
Section V (Order) Paragraph C and not later than forty-five (45) Days after the ED
transmits a Demand Letter stating the amount owed.

B. Nothing in the preceding paragraph will be deemed to limit any authority of the State
of Texas to take, direct, or order all appropriate action to protect human health and
the environment or to prevent, abate, or minimize an actual or threatened release of
solid wastes or hazardous substances to the environment on, at, or from the Site.

X. Submittals Requiring the ED's Approval

A. Upon the ED' s approval of a submittal, Respondents shall proceed to implement all
actions required by the submittal according to the schedule approved by the ED.

B. Approved submittals may be modified upon agreement by the ED and the Performing
Parties. The Performing Parties shall submit proposed modifications and obtain
approval in accordance with the process for submittals specified in this AO generally.
Upon approval of any modification, the modification is incorporated into the original
submittal for all purposes.

C. The ED's approval of submittals or modifications is administrative in nature and
allows the Agreeing Respondents or, if there are no Agreeing Respondents to this
AO, the Performing Parties to proceed to the next steps in the Remedial Activities.
The ED's approval does not imply any warranty of performance, does not imply that
the Remedy, when constructed, will meet the Remediation Goals, nor does it imply
that the Remedy will function properly and ultimately be accepted by.the ED.

XI. Submittal of Documents, Sampling, and Analyses

A. Respondents shall provide to the ED all data, information, documents, or records
related to the Site which are generated or obtained by any Respondent within twenty

Page 46. Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

74
 (20) Days of any written request from the ED for such data, information, document,
or record. Respondents shall provide written notice to the ED immediately upon
generating or obtaining 2.ny such data, information, document or record.

B. Subject to the confidentiality provisions set forth in Paragraph C below, all data,
information, documents, and records developed pursuant to this AO or submitted by
Respondents to the ED pursuant to this AO will be available to the public.

C. Respondents may assert a claim of business confidentiality pursuant to the Texas
Public Information Act as to any process, method, technique, or any description
thereof that the Respondents claim constitutes proprietary or trade secret information
developed by Respondents or developed by their contractors or subcontractors. Ifno
confidentiality claim accompanies the process, method, technique, or description
thereof when submitted to the ED, any such process, method, technique, or
description thereof may be made available to the public by the ED or the State of
Texas without further notice to Respondents. Respondents shall make business
confidentiality determinations in good faith.

D. The ED or his Site Representatives may take splits or duplicates of any samples
obtained by any Respondent at the Site at any time including during the
implementation of the Remedial Activities. The Respondents shall provide
assistance necessary for the ED to take split or duplicate samples.

E. Respondents shall provide the ED with a schedule ofroutine.sampling and notify the
ED at least seven (7) Days before any non-routine sampling is conducted at the Site,
except in the event of situations provided for by Section IX (Endangerment and
Immediate Threat). Respondents shall collect and analyze all Samples in accordance
with approved work plans developed pursuant to this AO and shall handle all
Samples in accordance with the approved RA Quality Assurance Project Plan.

F. Respondents shall submit all data, information, reports, schedules, and other
documents required by this AO in hard copy format (two hard copies of draft
submittals and three of final submittals) and in specific computer software format
(one electronic copy of each draft and final submittal) as determined by the Project
Manager.

XII. Notices and Submittals

Respondents shall make all notices and submittals required by this AO in writing and in
accordance with the contact information contained in this Section unless otherwise expressly
authorized. Receipt by the Site Coordinator of any notice or communication from the ED
relating to this AO will be deemed by the ED to be receipt by all Respondents. All
information required to be submitted pursuant to this AO, including data, documents,
records, reports, approvals, and other correspondence, will be submitted to the following

Page 47 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

75
 Parties at the addressees listed below or to such other addressees as such Party hereafter may
designate in a written communication to all other Parties:

As to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality:

For mail:

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Remediation Division
Mail Code 136
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Attention: Project ManagerN oda Petroleum, Inc. State Superfund Site

For overnight express mail or delivery service:

Project Manager
Mail Code 136
Voda Petroleum, Inc. State Superfund Site
TCEQ, Remediation Division
Building D, Floor 1, Room 277N
12100 Park 35 Circle
Austin, TX 78753

By facsimile:

Project Manager
Voda Petroleum, Inc. State Superfund Site
Superfund Cleanup Section
(512) 239-2450

XIIl. Periodic Review

A. Respondents shall provide written progress reports on the Remedial Activities to the
ED, as specified below in Paragraphs B and C.

B. RD/RA Progress Reports

1. Respondents shall submit written monthly progress reports to the ED
beginning on the tenth Day of the month following the Effective Date. These
progress reports will describe the actions taken pursuant to this AO during the
previous month, including a general description of activities and progress
during the reporting period, activities projected to be commenced or
completed during the next reporting period, and any problems encountered

Page 48 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

76
 or anticipated by Performing Parties in commencing or completing the
Remedial Activities. Progress reports will include all data received during
the reporting period and an up-to-date progress schedule. Progress reports
will identify any violations of this AO and calculate any applicable stipulated
penalty required under Section XXI (Stipulated Penalties). The requirement
to submit these monthly progress reports will be terminated at the earlier of:
1) if no PCA Plan is required, when the AO is terminated in accordance with
Section XXXIII (Termination of the Administrative Order) or 2) if a PCA
Plan is required, upon the ED' s approval of a Final PCA Plan in accordance
with Section VI (Remedial Activities) Paragraph D.

2. If an RD/RA progress report submitted by Performing Parties is deficient, the
ED will provide written notice to the Site Coordinator. The notice will
include comments and a description of the deficiencies.

3. Within ten (10) Days of the ED providing the Site Coordinator with a notice
of deficiency of an RD/RA progress report, Performing Parties shall make
such changes as the ED deems necessary and resubmit the progress report to
the ED.

C. Post Construction Progress Reports

1. Performing Parties shall submit written monthly post construction progress
reports to the ED beginning on the tenth Day of the month following the
initiation of the PCA as described in Section VI (Remedial Activities)
Paragraph D.l. These progress reports will describe the actions taken
pursuant to this AO, including a general description of activities and progress
during the reporting period, activities projected to be commenced or
completed during the next reporting period, and any problems encountered
or anticipated by Performing Parties in commencing or completing the
Remedial Activities. Post construction progress reports will include all data
received during the reporti:1;1g period and an up-to-date progress schedule.
Post construction progress reports will identify any violations of this AO and
calculate any applicable stipulated penalty required under Section XXI
(Stipulated Penalties). The requirement to submit monthly post construction
progress reports will be terminated when the conditions specified in Section
XIV (Termination of Post Construction Activities) have been met as
determined by the ED in his sole discretion.

2. If a monthly post construction progress report submitted by Performing
Parties is deficient, the ED will provide written notice to the Site
Coordinator. This notice will include comments and a description of the
deficiencies.

Page 49 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

77
 3. Not later than ten (10) Days after the ED provides the Site Coordinator with
a notice of deficiency of a post construction progress report, Performing
Parties shall make such changes as the ED deems necessary and resubmit the
post construction progress report to the ED.

XIV. Termination of Post Construction Activities

The ED will terminate the requirement to perform PCA if Respondents demonstrate that all
Remediation Goals have been met. The Respondents shall satisfactorily perform PCA for
the duration of time specified in the RSD, and the Remediation Goals will not be deemed
achieved before the time specified in the RSD.

XV. Records

A. Each Respondent shall preserve and retain, and shall instruct its accountants,
attorneys, employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors and anyone else acting
on its behalf at the Site to preserve and retain, in the form of originals or copies, all
data, records, documents, and information of whatever kind, nature, or description
that relate in any way to the Site that are now or that come to be in its possession or
control. The previous sentence is meant to include data, records,· documents, or
information relating to each Respondent's potential liability or to any other person's
potential liability for the Site under Section 361.271 of the Act.

B. All data, records, documents, and information required to be preserved and retained
in accordance with Paragraph A above will be preserved and retained for a minimum
of ten (10) years after the ED' s issuance of the Approval of RA Completion. At the
end of this ten (10) years, each Respondent shall notify the ED at least ninety (90)
Days before any such data, records, documents, or information is destroyed. If the
ED requests, Respondents shall, at no cost to TCEQ, provide the ED originals or
copies of such data, records, documents, or information which are not protected by
a privilege as per Paragraph C below.

Until this AO is terminated in accordance with Section XXXIII (Termination of the
Administrative Order), Respondents shall maintain an index of documents that
Respondents claim contain privileged information. The index will contain, for each
document, the date, author, addressee, and subject of the document. Respondents
shall submit a copy of the index to the ED within ten (10) Days after the ED submits
a written request.

C. Any Respondent refusing to provide copies of any data, information, records, or
documents based upon a claim of privilege shall identify the data, information,
record, or document and explain the basis for the claim. Notwithstanding the
immediately preceding sentence, any data, record, information, or document required
to be developed or submitted pursuant to this AO will be available to the public.

Page 50 - Yoda Petrolewn, lnc., State Superfund Site

78
 D. At any time prior to the completion of the Work, the ED may contact the Site
Coordinator to determine the location and/or to obtain copies of any or all of the data,
records, documents, or information developed in accordance with this AO. The
Respondents shall provide copies of any such data, records, documents, and
information to the ED at no cost to TCEQ.

E. Upon request by the ED, Respondents shall submit to the ED all data, information,
records, and documents requested, including those relevant to the items specified in
Section 36 l. l 82(b) of the Act for possible inclusion in the administrative record in
accordance with 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE Section 335.345.

XVI. Access

A. As of the Effective Date, any Respondent that owns, in whole or in part, the Site, an
off-site area that is to be used for access to the Site, property subject to or affected by
the Remedial Activities, or other property where documents generated in accordance
with this AO are or come to be located shall provide access to such property to the
ED; any federal, state or local authorities and their contractors approved by the ED;
and the Performing Parties and their authorized representatives and contractors.
Failure to provide such access may result in the imposition of statutory and/or
stipulated penalties. Respondents shall indemnify TCEQ, and TCEQ will not be
liable, for any loss or claim arising out of Respondents' activities at the Site, on off-
site areas to be used for access to the Site, on property subject to or affected by the
Remedial Activities, and on other property where documents generated in accordance
with .this AO are or come to be located.

B. If a person other than a Respondent owns, in whole or in part, the Site, an off-site
area that is to be used for access to the Site, property subject to or affected by the
Remedial Activities, or other property where documents generated in accordance
with this AO are or come to be located, Respondents shall obtain, or use their best
efforts to obtain, Site access agreements from the then current owner( s) within ninety
(90) Days of the Effective Date. Respondents shall secure agreements to provide
access for the ED, federal, state or local authorities and their contractors as approved
by the ED, and the Performing Parties and their authorized representatives and
contractors. Respondents shall insure that such agreements specify that TCEQ is not
liable for any loss or claim arising out of any activities at the Site, on off-site areas
to be used for access to the Site, on property subject to or affected by the Remedial
Activities, or on other property where documents generated in accordance with this
AO are or come to be located. Respondents shall provide copies of such agreements
to the ED before the Performing Parties initiate field activities. Respondents' best
efforts shall include, ifnecessary, providing reasonable compensation to any property
owner not a Party. If access agreements are not obtained within the ninety (90) Days,
Respondents shall immediately notify the ED of their failure to obtain access. If the
ED determines, in his sole discretion, that the Performing Parties have used best

Page 51 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

79
 efforts to obtain such access, the ED will, pursuant to statutory authority, make
appropriate efforts to obtain such access upon reasonable terms to the Agreeing
Respondents or, ifthere are no Agreeing Respondents to this AO, to the Performing
Parties. Any revision to the deadlines specified in this AO necessitated by
Respondents' inability to obtain such access may be considered a reasonable ground
for extending any affected deadline pursuant to Section XVIII (Extension of
Deadlines).

C. Subject to the Agreeing Respondents' reasonable safety and internal security
requirements, the ED will have the authority to enter, freely move about, and exit the
Site, any off-site area that is to be used for access to the Site, property subject to or
affected by the Remedial Activities, or other property where documents generated in
accordance with this AO are located or come to be located, for the purposes of:
inspecting conditions at the Site, the Remedial Activities and all information,
documents, data, records, operating logs, and contracts related to the Site; reviewing
the Performing Parties' progress in performing the Remedial Activities; conducting
such tests as the ED deems necessary; using a camera, sound recording device, or
other documentary type equipment; verifying the data submitted to the ED by the
Performing Parties; and performing any Remedial Activities not being performed or
not being satisfactorily performed by the Performing Parties. Nothing herein will be
interpreted as limiting or affecting the ED's right of entry or inspection authority
under state or federal law. All persons with access to the Site shall comply with the
HASP.

XVII. Delay in Performance

Respondents shall notify the ED of any delay or anticipated delay in achieving compliance
with any requirement of this AO. Such notification will be made by telephone to the Project
Manager or, ifnot available, the alternate Project Manager, within forty-eight (48) hours after
Respondents first knew or should have known that an event might cause a delay. Within
seven (7) Days after notifying the ED by telephone, Respondents shall provide written
notification fully describing the cause of the delay, the anticipated duration of the delay, the
measures taken and to be taken by Respondents, their contractors, or consultants, to prevent
or minimize the delay, and the timetable by which these measures have been, are being, and
will be implemented. A revised timetable will be implemented upon its approval by the ED.

XVIII. Extension of Deadlines

Upon failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this AO, any Defaulting Performing
Parties shall cease to be Performing Parties and all such rights and privileges as accrue to the
Performing Parties pursuant to this AO will immediately terminate as to such Defaulting
Performing Parties. At that time all responsibilities and obligations that attach to RPs in
addition to those that attach to Performing Parties will attach to Defaulting Performing

Page 52 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

80
 Parties that are RPs, including the requirement to pay TCEQ costs in accordance with
Section V (Order) Paragraph C.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this AO, the Agreeing Respondents or, ifthere
are no Agreeing Respondents to this AO, the Performing Parties shall bear no costs for any
fines, penalties, or increases in the ED's oversight of the Remedial Activities resulting from
Defaulting Performing Parties actions or inactions. Defaulting Performing Parties and the
RPs may be assessed the ED's full costs for oversight of the Work. If actions required by
this AO are delayed or are not timely completed because of acts or omissions of one or more
Defaulting Performing Parties, the Agreeing Respondents, or if there are no Agreeing
Respondents to this AO, the Performing Parties may request a time extension. Upon such
request, the ED will approve the time extension, disapprove it, or approve such alternative
time extension as the ED in his sole discretion deems appropriate. Thereafter, Respondents
shall adhere to all remaining deadlines in this AO and in any documents developed in
accordance with this AO and approved by the ED.

The Agreeing Respondents may seek and the ED may grant an extension of any deadline
contained in this AO or in any document submitted pursuant to this AO. Agreeing
Respondents shall submit the request for a deadline extension no later than seven (7) Days
prior to the deadline date and shall substantiate good cause for extension of the deadline.
The determination of what constitutes good cause and the length of any deadline extension
will be at the ED's sole discretion.

XIX. Reserved

XX. Compliance with Applicable Laws

A. Respondents shall perform all actions pursuant to this AO in accordance with the
requirements of all applicable or relevant and appropriate federal, state, and local
laws, including the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act as codified in the Texas Health
and Safety Code and the Texas Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Prevention and
Control Act as codified in the Texas Water Code. This AO is not, and shall not be
construed to be, a permit issued pursuant to any federal or state statute or regulation.

B. All materials removed from the Site shall be disposed of or treated at a facility which
is in compliance with all applicable or relevant and appropriate federal, state, and
local laws and shall be disposed of or treated in accordance with all such
requirements.

XXI. Stipulated Penalties

A. Subject to the provisions of Sections XXII (Force Majeure) and XXIIl (Resolution
of Disagreements), noncompliance with this AO shall result in the imposition of
stipulated penalties as set forth below.

Page 53 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

81
B. Penalties Related to Timeliness of Submittals Required by this AO

For failure to:

1. meet the deadlines set forth in Sections V (Order) and VI (Remedial
Activities);

2. submit timely reports as set forth herein;

3. submit data in a timely fashion or provide timely notice of sampling as
required by Section XI (Submittal of Documents, Sampling, and Analyses);
or

4. resubmit a do·cument within the time:frames specified herein;

Agreeing Respondents shall pay stipulated penalties in the following amounts
for each Day and part thereof during which any delay listed in Subparagraphs
B.1 through B.4 above continues:

Period ofDelay Amount/Day

1st through 14th Day $500.00

15th through 45th Day $2,000.00

46th Day and beyond $3,000.00

C. Penalties Related to Competency of Submittals

This Paragraph applies to submittals of any document required by Sections VI
(Remedial Activities), VII (Failure to Attain Remediation Goals or Findings of
Significant Difference), and XIlI (Periodic Review) which fail to be responsive and
acceptable. Agreeing Respondents shall pay a stipulated penalty of $5,000 for each
week and part thereof that an acceptable and responsive document is not submitted.
This penalty may be assessed in addition to any penalties assessed under Paragraph
B of this Section.

D. Penalties Related to Project Milestones

For failure to:

1. achieve any RA Project Milestones in accordance with the schedule approved
under Section VI (Remedial Activities) Paragraph B; or

Page 54 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

82
 2. achieve any PCA Project Milestones in accordance with the schedule
approved under Section VI (Remedial Activities) Paragraph B.

Agreeing Respondents shall pay stipulated penalties in the following amounts for
each Day and part thereof during which any delay listed in Subparagraphs D.1
through D.2 above continues:

Period ofDelay Amount/Day

1st through 14th Day $1,000.00

15th through 45th Day $3,000.00

46th Day and beyond $10,000.00

E. For disobeying an order to halt any or all of the Remedial Activities under Section
VIII (Project Manager/Site Coordinator), Agreeing Respondents shall pay stipulated
penalties of $10,000 per Day.

F. For failure to use best efforts to obtain Site access in accordance with Section XVI
(Access), Agreeing Respondents shall pay a stipulated penalty of $1,000 per Day.

G. For denying access provided for in Section XVI (Access), Agreeing Respondents
shall pay stipulated penalties of $10,000 per Day.

H. Any Agreeing Respondent who fails to provide records within ten (10) Days after
receipt of a written request from the ED or within such other period as specified
herein shall pay a stipulated penalty of $10,000 per Day.

I. With the exception of the stipulated penalties referenced in Paragraphs E, G and H
above which attach to individual Agreeing Respondents, all stipulated penalties
assessed in accordance with this Section are joint and several, not individual,
obligations.

J. Agreeing Respondents shall pay stipulated penalties assessed under this Section as
specified in ParagraphK below within sixty (60) Days after ED transmits a demand
letter stating that stipulated penalties have accrued or after resolution of a
disagreement as specified in Section XXIII (Resolution of Disagreements),
whichever comes later. Stipulated penalties will accrue from the date of
noncompliance until the noncompliance is corrected, provided however, that if any
Respondent prevails in resolution of disagreements as specified in Section XX.III
(Resolution of Disagreements), it shall have no liability to pay stipulated penalties
with regard to those matters submitted for resolution of disagreements in accordance
with Section XXIII (Resolution of Disagreements) in which it prevails.

Page 55 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

83
 K. Agreeing Respondents shall pay stipulated penalties to "General Revenue Fund of
the State of Texas" and shall mail payments to:

Chief Fiscal Officer (MC 180)
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
"Re: Voda Petroleum, Inc. State Superfund Site Administrative Order, Docket
Number 2009-1706-SPF"
P.O. Box 13088
Austin, Texas 78711-3088

L. The requirement to pay stipulated penalties that have been incurred prior to the
termination of this AO in accordance with Section XXXIIl (Termination of the
Administrative Order) will survive termination of this AO.

M. A single act or omission may be the basis for more than one type of stipulated
penalty. A single act or omission may also be subject to more than one (1) Day of
stipulated penalties. In cases where more than one stipulated penalty applies to a
single act or omission, the ED may choose which stipulated penalties to assess.

N. The ED has the sole discretion to reduce or waive stipulated penalties and to do so
as to specific Agreeing Respondents or groups of Agreeing Respondents.

0. Stipulated penalties against Agreeing Respondents will be in lieu of administrative
and civil penalties for the same violation but will not prevent TCEQ from seeking
enforcement of the ordering provisions by injunctive relief. Respondents that are not
Agreeing Respondents are subject to administrative and civil penalties.

XXII. Force Majeure

A. If a delay in performance is caused (in whole or in part) by events beyond the
reasonable control of the Agreeing Respondents, that failure will not be construed as
a violation of this AO. The burden of establishing that an event is beyond their
reasonable control lies with the Agreeing Respondents. The Agreeing Respondents
shall notify the ED in writing within seven (7) Days of the start oftheForceMajeure
event and within seven (7) Days of the end of the Force Majeure event. Agreeing
Respondents shall submit the notification as specified in this Section. Failure to so
notify the ED will constitute a waiver of the claim of Force Majeure.

Such notice will describe in detail the cause of the delay; the anticipated duration of
the delay; the measures taken and to be taken by the Agreeing Respondents, their
contractors or consultants, to prevent or minimize the delay; and the timetable by
which these measures have been, are being, and will be implemented. Measures to
prevent or minimize the delay will be implemented upon the ED's written approval
of the timetable. The Agreeing Respondents shall also submit, forthe ED's approval,

Page 56 - Voda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

84
 a proposed schedule for subsequent Remedial Activities whose deadlines have been
affected by the Force Majeure event. Neither the ED's approval of the timetable of
measures to be taken to prevent or minimize delays or of the revised schedule of
Remedial Activities will be construed as excusing the delay or as a waiver of
TCEQ's rights to enforce this AO.

B. Force Majeure events will not include increased costs or expenses of any part or all
of the Work or the financial inability of any Agreeing Re.spondent to perform any part
or all of the Work.

C. Ifthe ED and the Agreeing Respondents cannot agree that the cause for the delay was
a Force Majeure event or cannot agree upon the schedule for subsequent Remedial
Activities, then the disagreement will be resolved according to Section XX:ill
(Resolution of Disagreements). The Agreeing Respond~mts shall have the burden of
demonstrating that Force Majeure is warranted.

:xxm. Resolution of Disagreements

A. The Agreeing Respondents and the ED shall attempt to resolve on an informal basis
any issues arising under Sections V (Order) through XXXIlI (Termination of the
Administrative Order) on which there is disagreement. The Agreeing Respondents
shall commence informal negotiations by notifying the Project Manager in writing
that there is a disagreement and that this Section is being invoked. Except as
provided below in Paragraph D, informal negotiations will not extend beyond thirty
(30) Days from the date the Project Manager receives such notification, unless the
Agreeing Respondents and the ED agree otherwise in writing.

B. The Agreeing Respondents shall notify the Project Manager within thirty (30) Days
after the Day the Agreeing Respondents knew or should have known of the events
giving rise to the disagreement. Should the Agreeing Respondents fail to give such
notice, the ED's decision on any disagreement will be binding.

C. Notification of the Project Manager in accordance with Paragraph A above will not
by itself postpone the deadlines established in accordance with this AO or stay the
accrual of any applicable stipulated penalties for the matter at issue. However, the
obligation to pay any applicable stipulated penalties to the TCEQ will be stayed
pending resolution of the disagreement in accordance with thiS Section.

D. If the ED makes a determination to perform a portion or all of the Remedial
Activities, the Agreeing Respondents shall have five (5) Days after notification to the
Site Coordinator to commence informal negotiations by notifying the Project
Manager in accordance with Paragraph A above. Informal negotiations will not
extend beyond fifteen (15) Days from the date the ED receives notification, unless
the Agreeing Respondents and the ED agree otherwise in writing.

Page 57 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., Stale Superfund Sile

85
 E. The procedure for any resolution of disagreements subsequent to informal
negotiations will be found in Sections 361.321 and/or 361.322 of the Act.

F. Unless otherwise specifically set forth herein, the fact that resolution of
disagreements is not specifically set forth in individual Sections is not intended to
and will not bar the Agreeing Respondents from invoking this Section as to any
disagreement arising under Sections V (Order) through XXXIII (Termination of the
Administrative Order), including any disagreement concerning the ED's exercise of
discretion under the terms of this AO.

XXIV. Indemnification

Respondents agree to indemnify and hold harmless TCEQ and its officers, employees,
agents, principals and assigns from and against all fines, penalties, claims, damages, losses,
demands, judgments, settlements, costs of suit, and attorneys fees that arise out of or result
from:

1. Respondents' performance of an inherently dangerous activity or handling of
a solid waste or hazardous substance at or from the Site;

2. Respondents' negligent, reckless, or intentional acts or omissions or such acts
or omissions of any of its agents or employees; and

3. the negligent, reckless, or intentional acts or omissions of any of
Respondents' contractors or suppliers or their agents or employees.

XXV. Liability

The State of Texas, by issuing this AO, assumes no liability for any injuries or damages to
persons or property resulting from acts or omissions of Respondents, or their directors,
officers, employees, agents, representatives, successors, assigns, contractors, or consultants
in carrying out any of the Work. Neither TCEQ nor the State of Texas will be deemed a
party to any contract entered into by any Respondent or its directors, officers, employees,
agents, successors, assigns, contractors, or consultants to perform any or all of the Work or
any other activity at the Site.

XXVI. Severability

The provisions of this AO are intended to be severable and are deemed severable. Should
any provision of this AO be rendered unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction or
other appropriate authority the remaining provisions will remain valid and enforceable.

Page 58 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

86
XXVII. TCEQ's General Reservation of Rights and Retention of Claims

Except as specified herein, nothing in this AO will constitute or be construed as a covenant
not to sue by TCEQ or the State of Texas or a release from any claim, cause of action, or
demand in law or equity against any person, firm, partnership, or corporation. Except as
specified herein, the ED reserves and this AO is without prejudice to all rights against
Respondents with respect to all matters including:

1. Claims based on Respondents' failure to fulfill the requirements of this AO;

2. Liability arising from the past, present, or future disposal, release, or threat
of release of solid wastes or hazardous substances outside of or not related to
the Site;

3. Liability for future disposal of solid wastes or hazardous substances at the
Site, other than as provided in the RSD or in any work plan required to be
developed in accordance with this AO;

4. Liability for violations of federal or state law which occur during or after
implementation of the Remedial Activities;

5. Claims based on criminal liability; and

6. Claims for natural resource damages as defined by CERCLA (42 U.S.C.
Sections 9601 et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. Sections
2701 et seq.), the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act (Texas Natural
Resources Code Chapter 40), and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. Sections 1251 et seq.).

XXVIII. Section Headings

Section headings are included for convenience of reference only and will be disregarded in
the construction and, interpretation of any of the provisions of this AO.

XXIX. Continuing Authority

TCEQ specifically retains authority over Respondents for the duration of this AO for the
purposes of issuing such further orders or directions as may be necessary or appropriate to
construe, implement, modify, enforce, terminate, or reinstate the terms of this AO or for any
further relief as the interest of the State of Texas may require.

XXX. Enforcement

Page 59 - Voda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

87
 Except as provided in Section XXI (Stipulated Penalties) Paragraph 0, nothing herein will
preclude TCEQ from taking any additional enforcement actions against Respondents at any
time including issuing such additional orders as TCEQ may deem necessary or from
requiring Respondents to perform additional activities in the future and to completely
perform all of the Work.

This AO in no way obligates the State of Texas to assist Respondents in defending
contribution actions brought by other persons or entities.

XXXI. Computation of Time

A. Deadlines falling on a weekend or a State of Texas holiday will be extended until the
next business day.

B. The terms "submit" and "provide" as used herein will refer to the date on which
information, data, a document, or a record is to be received by the appropriate Party.
Submittals received on the deadline date will be deemed timely.

XXXII. Opportunity to Conference

A. The Agreeing Respondents or, ifthere are no Agreeing Respondents to this AO, the
Performing Parties may, within twenty (20) Days after the Effective Date, request a
conference with the Project Manager. The request must be submitted in writing to
the Project Manager. Any such conference will occur at the TCEQ's main campus
in Austin.

B. The purpose and scope of the conference will be limited to issues involving the
implementation of the Remedial Activities. The conference is not an evidenti.ary
hearing, does not constitute a proceeding to challenge this AO, and does not give
Agreeing Respondents or, if there are no Agreeing Respondents to this AO, the
Performing Parties the right to seek review of this AO.

XXX:ill. Termination of the Administrative Order

A. The ED may terminate this AO when he determines that alternative or additional
work is required at the Site because the Remediation Goals will not be attained by
implementation of the Remedial Activities, unless Agreeing Respondents and the
ED agree on such alternative or additional work, agree to modify the Remedial
Action to include such additional or alternative work in accordance with Section V
(Order) Paragraph J, and agree to modify this AO in accordance with Section V
(Order) Paragraph J.

B. Except as provided in this Section, when the ED determines that the Work has been
completed in accordance with this AO, the ED will provide written notice to

Page 60 - Voda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

88
 Agreeing Respondents that Agreeing Respondents have fully satisfied the
requirements of this AO. Such notice will be issued within one hundred and eighty
( 180) Days after the ED determines that the Work has be•en completed in accordance
with this AO. This notice will not, however, terminate Respondents' obligations to
comply with those provisions specified herein that are intended to survive this AO,
including requirements regarding record preservation and Sections XV (Records),
XXI (Stipulated Penalties), XXV (Liability), XXIX (Continuing Authority), and
XXX (Enforcement).

XX.XIV. Rules of Construction

The masculine, feminine, and neuter gender will each include tbe other and the singular and
plural number will each include the other.

This AO may be executed in two or more counterparts each of which will be deemed an
original but all of which together will constitute one and the same document.

XXXV. Sovereign Immunity

The Parties hereby agree that nothing in this AO waives the State of Texas' sovereign
immunity relating to suit, liability, and the payment of damages. The Parties farther agree
that all claims, suits, or obligations arising under or relating to this AO are subject to and
limited to the availability of funds appropriated by the Texas Legislature for that respective
claim, suit or obligation.

Page 6 I - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

89
The Chief Clerk shall send a copy of this Administrative Order to all Parties.

Issue date: FEB 1 2 2010
TEXAS COMMISSION ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

For the Commission

Page 62 - Yoda Petroleum, Inc., State Superfund Site

90
V ODA PETROLEUM, INC.
STATE SUPERFUND SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

EXHIBIT A

REMEDY SELECTION DOCUMENT

91
REMEDY SELECTION DOCUMENT

TCEQ
YODA PETROLEUM, INC.
STATE SUPERFUND SITE
CLARKSVILLE CITY, GREGG COUNTY,
TEXAS

SEPTEMBER 2009

PREPARED BY: CAROL BOUCHER, P.G., PROJECT MANAGER
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
REMEDIATION DIVISION

92
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
II. PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................... 1
III. LEGAL AUTH01RJTY ..................................................................................................... 1
IV. SITE HISTORY ................................................................................................................ 2
V. SUMMARY OF :REPORTS ............................................................................................. 3
VI. ACTION LEVEI.S ............................................................................................................ 4
VII. THE SELECTEI> REMEDIAL ACTION ...................................................................... 5
VIII. GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................ 6

11
93
 VODA PETROLEUM, INC. STATE SUPERFUND SITE
CLARKSVILLE CITY, GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS
REMEDY SELECTION DOCUMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Voda Petroleum, Inc., (aka Ultra Oil) (Voda Site) occupies 6.12 acres at 211 Duncan Road,
approximately 1.25 miles west of the intersection of FM 2275 (George Richey Road) and FM
3272 (North White Oak Road), 2.6 miles north-northeast of Clarksville City in Gregg County.
The Voda Site was operated as a waste oil recycling facility from about 1981 until it was
abandoned in November 1991. ·

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is an agency in the State of Texas
that implements many of the state laws relating to the conservation of natural resources and the
protection of public health and safety and the environment. The TCEQ addresses certain sites
that may constitute an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and safety or the
environment through the state Superfund program.

II. PURPOSE

This Remedy Selection Document (RSD) presents the Remedial Action (also known as "the
remedy") for the Voda Site, which is designed to address the contamination and provide
protection of public health and safety and the environment.

Words appearing in italics in this document are defined in Section VIII, "Glossary," of this RSD.

III. LEGAL AUTHORITY

The investigation of the nature and extent of contamination at the Voda Site and the selection of
the Remedial Action is in accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Tex. Health & Safety
Code §§ 361.001-966 (West 2008); Subchapter K: Hazardous Substance Facilities Assessment
and Remediation (Subchapter K) rules found in 30 Tex. Admin. Code (TAC) §§ 335.341-351
(2009); and the Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) rules found in 30 TAC §§ 350.1-135
(2009).

While the Subchapter K rules are specific to the Superfund process, the TRRP rules are a
comprehensive program for addressing environmental contamination and apply to many different
types of corrective action administered by the TCEQ. The TRRP mles establish procedures for
determining the concentration of contaminants to which a person or other environmental receptor
can be exposed without unacceptable risk of harm. These acceptable concentration levels are
called Protective Concentration Levels (PCLs ).

A three-tiered approach may be used under the TRRP mies to calculate the PCLs for a site. The
tiers represent increasing levels of evaluation where site-specific infmmation is factored into the
process. For example, Tier 1 uses conservative, generic models that do not account for site-
specific factors, Tier 2 allows for the use of site-specific information but must use PCL equations

1
94
provided by the TCEQ, and Tier 3 allows for more detailed and complex evaluations so that
PCLs are appropriate for specific site conditions. The PCLs for the Voda Site were developed
under Tier 1.

Critical to the analysis under all three of the tiers is the land use classification for the site. Under
the TRRP rules, the land can be classified as either residential or commercial/industrial.
Remediation to residential standards assumes that the site may be occupied by children and
therefore is applicable not only to strictly residential land but also to playgrounds, schools,
daycare centers and similar land uses. Remediation to commercial/industrial standards assumes
that the site will not be regularly occupied by children and is protective of persons who may
occupy the site as workers. Sites remediated to commercial/industrial standards cannot be used
for residential-type activities unless further controls are implemented to make the site safe for
that use. The TCEQ determined that a commercial/industrial use was appropriate for the Voda
Site.

The TRRP rules allow risks posed by the presence of contamination above a PCL to be managed
by any combination of the following: 1) removal or decontamination of contaminated media; 2)
physical controls, such as landfills and caps, which limit exposure to the contaminated media; or
3) institutional controls, such as deed restrictions on the future use of the property, which are
also intended to limit exposure to the contaminated media. These remedies under the TRRP
rules are divided into two main categories: Remedy Standard A and Remedy Standard B. To
meet Remedy Standard A requirements, the contaminated media must be removed and/or
decontaminated such that physical controls and, in most cases, institutional controls are not
necessary to protect human and ecological receptors from unprotective levels of contamination
based on the designated land use. To meet the requirements of Remedy Standard B, however,
physical controls and institutional controls may be relied on to limit exposure to unprotective
levels of contamination. These standards are described in detail in 30 TAC § 350.32 and §
350.33. The proposed remedy at the Voda Site meets the criteria established for Remedy
Standard A..

IV. SITE HISTORY

The Voda Site was operated as a waste oil recycling facility from about 1981 until it was
abandoned in November 1991. The Voda Site is located in a rural residential neighborhood with
occupied residences directly on the east and west sides of the facility. A review of the facility
waste management activity records revealed that Voda Petroleum, Inc., had received, stored and
processed waste gas.olines; oily wastes; used oil mixed with methyl ethyl ketone, varsol,
trichloroethane, toluene, and hexane; crude oil; greases; and waxes. In 1996, the EPA conducted
an emergency removal of 462 fifty-five-gallon drums of grease or oily wastes, 14 fifty-five-
gallon drums of corrosive wastes, 16 above-ground tanks, and associated contaminated soil. The
site was then backfilled to approximate the undisturbed topography to facilitate site drainage.
The EPA response action removed the immediate threat to human health and the environment
but was not intended to be and did not constitute a final remediation solution. Post removal
analysis of soil and groundwater samples indicated that soil and groundwater continued to be
contaminated above appropriate cleanup levels.

2
95
V. SUMMARY OF REPORTS

A. HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM REPORT

The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) is a numerically-based screening system that uses
information from initial, limited investigations to assess whether a site qualifies for the
state or federal Superfund program. Sites scoring 28.5 or greater may qualify for the
federal Superfund program, while sites scoring 5 or greater may qualify for the state
Superfund program. The HRS scoring for the Voda Site was prepared by the TCEQ in
August 1995 and is presented in the report titled "Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
Documentation Record, Yoda Petroleum Site, Gregg County, Texas." The Voda Site
earned a score of 23.63. The TCEQ proposed to list the Yoda Site on the State Registry
of Superfund Sites and published notice of its intent in the Texas Register on November
17, 2000. 25 Tex. Reg. 11594-95 (Nov. 17, 2000).

B. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

The Remedial Investigation (RI) includes field work, laboratory analysis and
interpretation of collected data for the purpose of detennining the nature and extent of
contamination associated with the Vada Site. The Phase I RI Rep01i, dated August 2002,
included a summary of the RI activities conducted at the site in May 2002. Based on the
Phase I results, a second phase was conducted in April 2004, focusing on the area known
as the "East Tank Farm." The Phase II RI Technical Memorandum (TM), dated July
2004, concluded that the investigation of the extent of soil contamination above cleanup
standards was complete; however, additional groundwater monitor wells were needed to
complete the groundwater investigation. Additional groundwater monitor wells were
installed from April 2005 through May 2007. The final round of monitor well
installations was found to fully define the extent of the groundwater contamination.

The following summarizes the findings of the RI:

Groundwater - The Queen City Aquifer beneath the Voda Site is impacted by various
volatile organic constituents (VOCs) exceeding the PCLs applicable to a Class 1
groundwater resource.

Onsite Soil - Soil containing contaminants above cleanup standards at the Voda Site is
generally limited to the East Tank Farm area, encompassing an area of approximately 60
feet by 120 feet and 12 feet deep. Contaminants exceeding cleanup standards include
VOCs and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH).

Offsite Soil/Sediment - No offsite soil or sediment contamination was detected.

Ecological Risks - The Tier 1 Exclusion Criteria Checklist determined that conditions at
the Voda Site precluded the need for a formal ecological risk assessment (ERA) because

3
96
 the site meets the conditions for "de minimis land area," meaning there are insignificant
ecological exposure pathways at the site.

C. FEASIBILITY STUDY PHASE REPORT

The Feasibility Study (FS) for the Yoda Site, dated January 2008, presented an evaluation
of the potential remedial alternatives to address the chemicals of concern (COCs) in
onsite soil and onsite and offsite groundwater found exceeding the applicable PCLs.

D. REMEDY SELECTION PHASE REPORTS AND MEETING

The Proposed Remedial Action Document (PRAD), dated June 2008, presented a brief
discussion of remedial actions evaluated and the specific remedy proposed by the TCEQ
to address the contaminants exceeding the PCLs at the Yoda Site.

On October 23, 2008, a public meeting was held at the Broadway Elementary School
Cafeteria in Gladewater, Texas, for the purpose of presenting the PRAD and soliciting
public comment about the proposed remedy. Upon consideration of the comments
received during the public comment period, the TCEQ selected the remedy described in
this RSD.

E. PLUME MANAGEMENT ZONE (PMZ) DEMONSTRATION TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM (TM)

In May 2009, TCEQ technical staff reevaluated information that could be read to support
the finding of two possible classifications for the groundwater at the Yoda Site. As a
result, pursuant to 30 TAC § 350.33(f)(4), the TCEQ conducted a PMZ demonstration in
accordance with TCEQ publication RG-366/TRRP-29, Soil and Groundwater Response
Objectives in July 2009. The PMZ demonstration, detailed in the PMZ Demonstration
TM dated August 3, 2009, showed that the COC concentrations will exceed cleanup
levels at the nearest point of exposure, an intermittent creek located on the offsite
affected property. Therefore, it was confirmed that a PMZ would not meet the remedial
action goals and would not be an appropriate remedy for the groundwater at the Yoda
Site, and the currently selected remedial action continues to best fit the statutory criteria
for remedial selection.

VI. ACTION LEVELS

Remedial Action Objectives are the stated goal of the remedy that must be achieved to make the
site protective of human health and the environment. Action levels are the maximum numeric
concentrations of the COCs which must not exceed the Tier 1 PCLs for the appropriate land use
and groundwater resource classification. For the onsite and offsite groundwater, the Tier 1 PCLs
are those developed for Class I groundwater resources established in TRRP. For the onsite soil,
the Tier 1 PCLs are those developed for Commercial/Industrial Soil with a greater than 0.5 acre
source area for groundwater protection, with the exception of TPH which was developed based

4
97
on site-specific exposure criteria. Those objectives and action levels are presented in the
following table for the specific COCs found at the Voda Site:

ACTION
GROUNDWATER
LEVEL REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
CONTAMIN ANT NAME
(Critical PCL)
Benzene 5 µg/L Reduce COCs concentrations to levels below
Dichloroethylene, 1, 1- 7 µg/L the action level (TRRP Tier 1 PCL for
Dichloroethane, 1,2- 5 µg/L groundwater ingestion: TRRP Tier 1 owGW1ng)·
Vinyl chloride 2 µg/L

SOIL CONTAMIN ANT ACTION
NAME LEVEL REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
(Critical PCL)
Benzene 0.013 mg/kg Reduce COCs concentrations to levels below
Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2- 0.12 mg/kg the action level (TRRP Tier 1
Ethyl benzene 3.8 mg/kg Commercial/Industrial Land Use PCL for
surface and subsurface soil to groundwater:
Propylbenzene,n- 67 mg/kg
TRRP Tier 1 C/I aw Soiling).
MTBE 0.93 mg/kg
Tetrachloroethylene 0.025 mg/kg
Toluene 4.1 mg/kg
Trichloroethane, 1, 1, 1- 0.81 mg/kg
Trichloroethylene 0.017 mg/kg
Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4- 72 mg/kg
Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5- 79 mg/kg
Vinyl chloride 0.011 mg/kg
Xylene, m 53 mg/kg
Xylene, o 35 mg/kg
Xylene, p 75 mg/kg

VII. THE SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION

In accordance with 30 TAC§ 335.348(1) and the requirements of section 361.193 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, the TCEQ selects the Remedial Action for a site by determining which
remedial alternative is "the lowest cost alternative which is technologically feasible and reliable,
effectively mitigates and minimizes damage to the environment, and provides adequate
protection of the public health and safety and the environment." 30 TAC § 335.348(1). The
TCEQ has selected excavation with offsite disposal for the onsite soil, and the installation of
reactive biobaiTier wells with institutional controls for the onsite and offsite shallow
groundwater.

5
98
Also in accordance with TRRP, the Performing Parties (or the TCEQ if no parties agree to fund
or perfmm the remedial action) shall record an institutfonal control in the real property records
of Gregg County. The institutional control shall be placed on each property which overlies
groundwater contaminated above the PCLs and shall describe the specific area of the
groundwater plume on each affected property. The institutional control shall remain in place
until such time as the TCEQ has determined that the Remedial Action Objectives have been
pe1manently achieved. If the Remedial Action is implemented by the TCEQ, the TCEQ will
request that the owner of each affected property voluntarily agree to record a restrictive covenant
to serve as the institutional control. If the property owner does not agree to the restrictive
covenant, the TCEQ shall record a deed notice to serve as the institutional control. If the
Remedial Action is implemented by Performing Parties, the Pe1forming Parties shall be
responsible for securing the institutional control in the form of a restrictive covenant from the
owner of the affected property. All of the elements of the Remedial Action described above shall
be in accordance with detailed requirements established in TRRP.

Monitor wells installed at the Voda Site shall be sampled for the COCs identified in Section VI,
Action Levels, and the hydraulic gradient shall be measured quarterly during the first two years
and semi-annually for the following two years of the Remedial Action. Monitoring results shall
be evaluated no less frequently than annually to verify that the plume has been reduced in both
areal extent and concentration of COCs. Once the TCEQ determines that the Action Levels have
been permanently achieved, the TCEQ will discontinue sampling and/or monitoring activities.

VIII. GLOSSARY

Feasibility Study (FS) - A description, screening, and analysis of the potential Remedial Action
alternatives for a site.

Hazard Ranking System (HRS) - The scoring sxstem used by the TCEQ to evaluate a site for the
state or federal Superfund program. The scoring system was developed by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency as described in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300,
Appendix A~

Institutional Control - A legal instrument placed in the property records in the form of a deed
notice, restrictive covenant, or other form established in the TRRP rules which indicates the
limitations on or conditions governing the use of the prope11y which ensures protection of human
health and the environment.

Performing Parties - Collectively, 1) any patties who agreed to fund or conduct the remedial
action by entering into an agreed order with the TCEQ and 2) parties that did not enter into an
agreed order with the TCEQ but that fund or perf01m the selected Remedial Action.

Plume Management Zone (PMZ) - The area of the groundwater protective concentration level
exceedance (PCLE) zone, plus any additional area allowed in accordance with 30 TAC §
350.33(f).

6
99
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) - Persons or entities that the TCEQ considers potentially
responsible for the contamination of the site pursuant to section 361.271 of the Texas Health and
Safety Code.

Proposed Remedial Action Document (PRAD) - The document which describes the TCEQ's
proposed Remedial Action.

Protective Concentration Level (PCL) - The concentration of a chemical of concern which can
remain within the source medium and not result in levels which exceed the applicable human
health risk-based exposure limit or ecological protective concentration level at the point of
exposure for that exposure pathway.

Remedial Action - An action, including remedial design and post-closure care, consistent with a
remedy taken instead of or in addition to a removal action in the event of a release or threatened
release of hazardous substances into the environment to prevent or minimize the release of a
hazardous substance so that the hazardous substance does not cause an imminent and substantial
endangerment to present or future public health and safety or the environment.

Remedial Investigation (RI) - An investigative study which may include removals, and/or a
feasibility study, in addition to the development of protective concentration levels, designed to
adequately determine the nature and extent of release or threatened release of hazardous
substances and, as appropriate, its impact on airs, soils, groundwater and surface water, both
within and beyond the boundaries of the site.

Solid Waste Disposal Act-Ch. 361 of the Tex. Health & Safety Code. The purpose of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act is to safeguard the health, welfare, and physical property of the people and to
protect the environment by controlling the management of solid waste, including any hazardous
waste that is generated. Subchapter F of Chapter 361 relates to the state Superfund process. The
Texas Health and Safety Code is available online at: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us.

Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) - A program of the TCEQ that provides a consistent
corrective action process directed toward protection of human health and the environment
balanced with the economic welfare of the citizens of the state. The mies for this program are
located in Chapter 350 of 30 Texas Administrative Code. The Texas Administrative Code is
available online at: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/tac/.

7
100
 V ODA PETROLEU·M, INC.
STATE SUPERFU1'fD SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

EXHIBITB

LIST OF SOLID WASTES AND llAzARDOUS
SUBSTANCES AT THE SITE

101
Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-
Benzene
Propylbenzene, n-
MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether)
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethane, 1, 1, 1-
Trichloroethylene
Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene, 1,3 ,5-
Vinyl chloride
Xylene, m-
Xylene, o-
Xylene, p-
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-
Dichloroethane, 1,2-

102
 V ODA PETROLEUM, INC.
STATE SUPERFUND SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

EXHIBITC

FIELD SAMPLING PLAN CONTENTS OUTLINE

103
 FIELD SAMPLING PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title and Approval Sheet

Distribution List

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

• Investigation Phase: Purpose - Briefly states the specific purpose of this FSP relative to the
Quality Assurance Project Plan, Work Plan and/or other documents. A schematic presentation of
the project documents and the location ofkey planning components should be presented.

• RA Phase: Purpose -Briefly states the specific purpose of this FSP relative to the RA Contract
Document, Quality Assurance Project Plan and/or other documents. A schematic presentation of
the project documents and the location ofkey planning components should be presented.

• Project/Task Organization - Identifies the key individuals or organization participating in the
project, their role(s) and responsibilities, and the organizational chart for the project. (Project
specific information for QAPP Element A)1

2.0 Site and Project Summary

• I11vestigati011 Phase: Problem Defi11itio11/Backgrou11d - Briefly states the site description,
surrounding area, historical information, previous investigation, suspected contamination
source, probable transport pathways and other site information. Most of this information is
available from the Conceptual Site Model developed during the planning phase. Any specific
data gaps and methods to fill the data gaps should also be discussed. States the specific problem
to be solved or the decision to be made and identifies the decision maker. (Project specific
information for QAPP Element A5)'

RA Phase: Problem Dejinitio11/Backgrou11d - Briefly states the site description, historical
information, previous investigation, a summmy of the selected remedy, a brief discussion of the
remedial action activities. States the specific problem to be solved or the decision to be made
and identifies the decision maker. (Project specific information for QAPP Element A5)'

• Project/Task Descripti011 and Schedule - Briefly summarizes the project and the project tasks,
the turnaround time for the project, including the turnaround time requirement for laboratory
analysis. (Project specific information for QAPP Element A6)1

Describes any special persomiel and equipment required for the specific type of work being
planned or measurement being taken and any special training/certification requirements .
(Project specific information for QAPP Element A8)1

104
 Data Acquisitio11 Requirements (No11-direct Meas11reme11ts) - Defines the criteria for the use of
non-measurement sources, such as computer databases, programs. literature files, and historical
databases. (Project specific information for QAPP Element B9}1

Assessme1tt Teclt11iques - Defines the number, frequency, and type of quality assessment
activities, the responsible staff, the procedures to be peiformed during the life of the project.
(Project specific infonnationfor QAPP Element Cl) 1

3.0 Analytical Requirements and Data Quality Objectives

Data Quality Objectives - Summarizes the project specific quality objectives and measurement
performance criteria. This section should include the summary ofi'he outcomes of the technical
planning process (e.g., the 7-Step DQO process) used to develop the project objectives. The
summa1y should also include a reference to Appendix B of the FSP, which contains a full
discussion of the proposed DQOs for the project from which the summary was taken. Designates
and briefly describes sampling units (e.g. AOCs, surface soil to 6 inches). States objectives by
sampling unit or media. The project specific calculations or algorithms are also specified in this
section. (Project specific information for QAPP Element A7) 1

4.0 Sampling Plan Design

• Sampling Process Design - All the relevant components of the experimental design and the key
parameters to be evaluated are included in this section. This section should include the sampling
activities, the rational for the design (in terms of meeting the DQOs), the sampling design
assumptions, the procedures for locating and selecting environmental samples, a classification
ofmeasurements as critical or noncritical, the type and number ofsamples required for the
project including the required field QC samples, the sampling locations and frequency, the
applicable sample matrices, and an identification of samples critical to the project. Most of this
information should be available from the output from Step 7 of the DQO process. (Project
specific information for QAPP Element Bl/

• Describes the sampling plan for each media, as applicable, including figures and tables.

Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Groundwater
Suiface Water and Sediment
Air
Other Matrices

This section should include a summary table containing a list of all chemicals of concern
identified for the project with the corresponding Level ofRequired Performance (LORP) (e.g.,
action levels and prelimina7y remedial goals), analytical methods (including the preparation,
analysis and cleanup methods), and the corresponding method quantitation limits for all
analytes of concern.

105
5.0 Sampling Methods and Sample Handling

• Sampling Method Require111e11ts - Identifies sampling methods and equipment and describes the
procedures for sample collection, preparation, and decontamination. This section should
reference the Standard Operating Procedures located in Appendix A. (Project specific
information for QAPP Element B2) 1

• Sampling Ha11dling a11d Custody Requirements - 171is section should include the required
sample volumes, container types, and preservation requirements for non-standard or other
analytical methods proposed for project work that are not listed in Table B2-l of the Superfund
Program QAPP. This section also includes the field sample handling and custody requirements
for the project. (Project specific information for QAPP Element B3}1

• This section contains the specific requirements for field instrument/equipment testing,
i11spectio11 and mailite11ance for the project. Additionally, field instrument calibration and
frequency requirements for water level, pH, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, redox
potential, turbidity and other field measurements are addressed in this section as applicable to
the project. This section also includes the critical field supplies, the inspection or acceptance
testing requirements, and the acceptance criteria. (Project specific information for QAPP
Element B6, B7, and B8) 1

6.0 Field Survey and Measurements

• This section describes the sampling methods and criteria for field survey and measureme11ts,
such as land surveys, hydrogeological tests and measurements, geophysical surveys and soil gas
surveys, required for the project.

7.0 Additional Field Activities

• This section contains descriptions and procedures for other field activities, such as
presampling/mobilization activities, required notification, property access, site restoration and
investigative-derived waste (JDW) handling and disposal.

8.0 Exceptions, Additions and Changes to the TCEQ Superfund Program QAPP

• List any exceptions, additions a11d changes to the Superfund Program QAPP in each of the
appropriate sub-sections corresponding to the table of contents of the Program QAPP below.
Site specific information (e.g., Group A and Group B elements) specified above should not be
restated in this section. Please refer to the Program QAPP for details. This section should also
include specifications for non-standard methods and other analytical methods not specified in
the Program QAPP.

GROUP A: PROJECT MANAGEMENT
A.1 Title and Approval Sheet
A.2 Table of Contents
A.3 Distribution List
A.4 Project/Task Organization

106
 A.5 Problem Definition/Background
A. 6 Project/Task Description
A. 7 Quality Objectives and Criteria
A. 8 Special Training/Certification
A.9 Documentation and Records
A.9.1 Field Operation Records
A.9.2 Laboratory Data Package
A.9.3 Laboratory Pe1forinance Criteria Data
A.9.4 Data Handling Records
A.9.5 Data Reporting Package Format and Document Control
A.9. 6 Field Records/Data Reporting Package Archiving and Retrieval

GROUP B: DATA GENERATION AND ACQUISITION
B.1 Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design)
B.2 Sampling Methods
B.2.1 Sample Containers
B.2.2 Sample Volumes, Container Types, and Preservation Requirements
B.3 Sample Handling and Custody
B.3.1 Field Sample Handling and Custody
B.3.2 Laboratory Sample Handling and Custody
B.4 Analytical Methods
B.4.1 Screening Methods
B.4.2 Definitive Preparation Methods
B.4.3 Definitive Analysis Methods
B.4.4 Non-standard Method Validation
B. 5 Quality Control
B. 5.1 Definitive Analytical Methods
B.5.2 Screening Methods
B.5.3 Quality Control Measure Descriptions
B.5.4 Elements of Quality Control
B.5.5 Method Detection Limit, Method Quantitation Limit and Sample
Quantitation Limit
B.6 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance
B.6.1 Maintenance Responsibilities
B.6.2 Maintenance Schedules
B.6.3 Spare Parts
B.6.4 Maintenance Records
B. 7 Instrument/Equ~YJment Calibration and Frequency
B.8 Inspection/Acceptance ofSupplies and Consumables
B.9 Non-direct Measurements
B.10 Data Management
B.10.1 Logbooks and Forms
B.10.2 Data Storage/Retrieval

GROUP C: ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT
C.1 Assessments and Response Actions
C.2 Reports to Management

107
GROUP D: DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY
D.I Data Review, Verification and Validation
D.2 Verification and Validation Methods
D. 3 Reconciliation with User Requirements

List of Tables

List of Figures

List of Appendices

• Appendix A - Standard Operating Procedures

•Appendix B - Data Quality Objectives Document

1
•Appendix C-Z - Other supporting documents as necessary.

Guidelines used in the preparation of the QAPP elements are:

• EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/R-5 (EPA/240/B-01/003),
March 2001

• EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/G-5 (EPA/240/R-02/009),
December 2002

108
 APP. B

TCEQ’s Response to Motion for Rehearing
 n
i

DOCKET NUMBER 2009 1706 SPF
•
I

c

IN THE MATTER OF
E
TE S CPMMIS Q
THE SITE KNOWN AS j BEFORE TB l

VODA PETROLEUM INC I
ENVIRONMENTAL QU
STATE SUPERFUND SITE d

I

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPLY TO LUMINANT'S MOTION FOR REHE

To the Honorable Commissioners of the Texas Commission on Environrriental
Quality
1 1 j f I

I l'The Executive Director ED of the Teka's CoiliIliission on Eilvironnient'al

Quality TCEQ files thiS Reply to Luminant's Motion for Rehearing and respectfully
requests that the Comniissionel's deny the motioh

I Introduction I

On February 10 2010 the ED presented an Administrative Order Ordef to the

Commissioners Commission fOr their consideration After allowing those parties

who wished to address the Comrhission the opportuhity to speak the Commission issued

the Order pursuant to Tex Health Safety Code 361.188 and 361.272 West 2010
Among other things the Order listed the Voda Petroleum Inc State Superfund Site

Site on the state registry of Superfund sites described the facility and the selected

remedial action named those parties responsible for the solid waste andlor hazardous

substances at the Site and ordered responsible parties to remediate the Site

Luminant now urges the Commission to reconsider its decision to issue the Order

By its motion it reiterates a request made to and denied by the Commission at the

February 10 2010 Agenda meeting to delay issuance ofthe Order and consequently the

remedial action so that Luminantmight explore the possibility of there being a lower

cost alternative to remediation of the Site

II Luminant's Motion for Rehearing is Improper Under the Law

Luminant is not entitled to arehearing because the law did not afford it a hearing

in the first instance See Tx Health Safety Code 361.274 West 2010 stating that

an administrative order under Section 361.272 does riot require prior notice or ail

adjudicative hearing before the commission see also id 361.188 b stating that

Subchapters I which includes Section 361.272 K and L relating to administrative

orders apply to orders issued under Section 361.188 Because the Order was issued

under Sections 361.272 and 361.188 Administrative Order 1 it did not require an

adjudicative hearing before the Commission Dallas Power Light Company and Texas
Utilities Generating Company predecessors in ir tterest to Luminant are parties named in

and made subject to the Order Order 5 16 and thus are not provided an opportunity for

VODA_AR_00049650
 REeelvr B

I
n n

i
A I YW
I AIR QUAUTY
DMSION
Agenda meeting Lui nirum t gives no greater det8 il now than then It prdvides no
u idered

ccif
inf01matio aut tqe prapased remedy being ar ts 1at
ab
estin'late'd
cast 1Y
Reh'g 1 It says that some aftlfe PRPs rjJorentiY responsible partiesapjear w'illing

and able to fund this lawer Cost alternative but no other PRPs jo ined Luminant s motion
eemphasiS added Lumitlant's stated purpo se is vague and full of uncertainty In

additio n Luminant stateS that granting lts'motion fdr rehea ririg wo uld not unreasonably

delay cleanup oftbe Site Mot Ren'g 1 Yet LUl ant admits that it does not yet have
a formal propasal for a lawercast alternative Mot Reh g 4 Lumiria nt prbvides rio

guarantee that its forthcoming propasal of a lowercost alternative Mot Reh g 3 will
not constitute a fundamental change in the sele'c e d remedy such that ari6ther public

meeting will be required with the attendant statutciy time frames See 30 Tex Adinin
Code 335349 b Westlaw describing procepures for madifying the proposed

remedial action see also Tex Health Safety Cbtle 361.187 West 2010 out1in ihg

steps to be taken to discuss the proposed action with the cotnmuliity Delay under such a

scenario is inevitable and unnecessary The ED has followed applicable TIlle s and

regulations in conducting remedial investigations and activities including extensively

evaluating remedial action alternatives and sdecting the remedy idetermined to be the

lowest cost alternative thar is technologically feasible arid reiiable and that effectively

mitigates and minimizes damage to and provides adequate protectibn of the public health

B'yits
and safety or the erivironment Id 361 193 a
III The COnui1ission Did Not Err When it Issued the Administrative Order in tne

Matter of the Site Known a the Voda Petroleum Inc State Superfund Site

2
The Commission would not err if it denied Luminant's motion for rehearing

motion Luminant requests the opportunity to consider a forthcoming proposal Mot
Reh'g 3 4 It is not clear who will consider the proposal It is equally unclear whether

any proposal is based as it must be on TCEQ rules and regulations The motion

contains assurances as to the reputation and competence of Weston Solutions Weston
which Luminant states is in the process of developmg a formal proposal Mot Reh'g 3
4 It recounts that Weston sampled wells arid reported results that indicate that Weston
can likely perform a remedial action at a lower c'o t Mot Reh g3 emphasis addedr

The ED on the other hand evaluated nhiltipl remedial alternatives through the

feasibility study process provided by rule to determine which remedy would best meet

the statutorily provided remedial action criteria Sie30 Tex Admin Code 335.348
eWestlaw Further the ED complied with thest tutory and regulatory obligation to

present the selected remedial action to the public for cori1niertt See Tex Health Safety

Code 361.187 West 2010 30 Tex Admin Code 335.349 Westlaw The law does
not require the Commission to grant a motion for rehearing to consider a forthcoming

proposal What the law does provide is that the Commission shall allow PRPs within a

statutorily specified time frame to fund or conduct a remedial investigation feasibility

study as approved by the executive director Tex Health Safety Code 361.185 West
2010 which was done

2 Presumably Luminant relies on 30 Tex Admin Code 80.272 Westlaw which inter alia requires a

concise statement of each allegation of error Alleging an em r that has not yet occurred is arguably

inapposite and c unter to the rule

3

VODA_AR_00049651
 RECEIVED
n
AIR QUALITY
Oi VlSla
IV Equitable Considerations

i

The Commission encourages PRPs to negotiate a settlement Luminant

complains that the Voda Site Group Group requited it to pay a disproportionate share
a complaint best made to and resolved by the Groupl If no agreement can be reached and
no resolution can be had Luminant's equitable rerdedy is to appeal the Order to district

court and request that the court apportion costs Te c Health Safety Code 361.321

22,361.343 West 2010

V Conclusion

In summary Texas Superfund law is car fully crafted to achieve two main

objectives first that government be given the Jilecessary tools in order to respond
promptly and effectively to environmental problems and second that those responsible

for the problems bear the costs and responsibility for remedying the harmful conditions
they created The law governing hearings and appeals gives effect to the first of these

Granting Luminant's motion for rehearing is contrary to the law and thwarts the statutory

tools provided to move forward expeditiously toward remediation of Superfund sites

The Executive Director respectfully requests that the Commissioners deny the

Motion for Rehearing

Respectfully submitted

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Mark R Vickery PG
Executive Director

bY
Stephanie Bergeron Perdue Deputy Director

Office of Lega Services

Kathleen C Decker Division Director

Litigation Division

Dated March 23,2010
Charmaine K Backens
State Bar of Texas No 24045059
Litigation Division MC 175
PO Box 13087
Austin Texas 78711 3087
512 239 1873
512 239 3434 FAX
Attorney for the Executive Director

5

VODA_AR_00049652
 n n RECEIVED
MAY 1 LUlU

AIR QUALJTY
Certificate of Service
l
DIVISION

r hereby certify that on March 23 2010 the original of the foregoing Executive

Director's Reply to Luminant's Motion for Rehearing and seven 7 copies were filed

with the Chief Clerk Texas Commission on Environinental Quality Austin Texas
H
r further certify that on this day a copy of the foregoing document wa s
each of the parties as indicated

Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
Mr John A Riley

Vinson Elkins LLP
2801 Via Fortuna Suite 100
Austin Texas 78746

Via Electronic Submittal

Mr Les Trobman Attorney
Office of the General Counsel MC 101

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

PO Box 1307
Austin Texas 78711 3087

Via Electronic Submittal

Mr BIas Coy Jr Attorney

Office of Public Interest Counsel MC 103

Texas Commission on Environmerital Quality

PO Box 1307
Austin Texas 78711 3087

Via First Class Mail

Persons on the Mailing List

au 64ra
Charmaine K Backens

VODA_AR_00049653
 APP. C

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Original Petition
(CR:4-27)
 Filed
10 March 26 A10:07
D-1-GN-10-000772 Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza
District Clerk
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
NO. D-l-GN-10-000793 Travis District
D-1-GN-10-000793
CHEVRON USA INC., EXXON MOBIL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
CORPORATION, MOBIL OIL §
CORPORATION, PENNZOIL-QUAKER §
STATE COMPANY, SHELL OIL §
COMPANY, TEXACO CHEMICAL §
COMPANY, TEXACO INC., WARREN §
PETROLEUM COMP ANY §
§
Plaintiffs §
§
VS. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEX A S
§
TEXAS COMMISSION ON §
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, AND, §
EACH IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, §
BRYANW. SHAW AS TCEQ CHAIRMAN,§
BUDDY GARCIA AS TCEQ §
COMMISSIONER, AND CARLOS §
RUBINSTEIN AS TCEQ COMMISSIONER §
§
Defendants § 4191h JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, (as specifically identified below and collectively referred to as

the "Plaintiffs"), complaining of Defendants the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

("TCEQ") and Chairman Bryan W. Shaw, Commissioner Buddy Garcia, and Commissioner

Carlos Rubinstein, each in their official capacity ("Commissioners"), by this First Amended

Original Petition seeks declaratory judgments regarding, and a de nova review of, the TCEQ's

issuance of a unilateral Administrative Order ("AO" or "Order") seeking payment from the

Plaintiffs of an unspecified sum of money to be determined in the future for certain costs related

to investigations undertaken at the Yoda Petroleum state superfund site and directing the

Plaintiffs to begin a remedial action, without an opportunity for an adjudicative hearing. As

grounds for review, Plaintiffs would show as follows:

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 1
A-230571 4.DOC 4
 I.
PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Texaco Inc., a Delaware corporation, 1s successor to Texaco

Chemical Company. Texaco Inc. is a subsidiary of, and Plaintiff Warren Petroleum

Company is a former division of, Plaintiff Chevron USA Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation.

Plaintiff Mobil Oil Corporation, a New York corporation, is a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil

Corporation, a New Jersey corporation. Plaintiff Pennzoil-Quaker State Company, a

Delaware corporation, is a successor by merger to Westland Oil Company, Inc., Specialty

Oil Company, Inc., and Industrial Lubricants Co. Plaintiff Shell Oil Company, is a

Delaware corporation. The TCEQ' s AO names as potentially responsible parties ("PRPs")

Industrial Lubricants Co., Mobil Oil Company, Shell Oil Company, Specialty Oil

Company, Texaco Chemical Company, Warren Petroleum Company and Westland Oil

Company Inc.

2. Defendant TCEQ is an administrative agency of the State of Texas. Service of

process may be accomplished by personal delivery of citation to the Executive Director of the

TCEQ, Mr. Mark Vickery, P.G., located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building F, Austin, Travis

County, Texas 78753.

3. Defendant Bryan W. Shaw is sued in his official capacity as a Commissioner and

Chairman of the TCEQ. Service of process upon Mr. Shaw may be accomplished by personal

delivery of citation to Mr. Shaw at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building F, 4th Floor, Room 4221,

Austin, Travis County, Texas 78753.

4. Defendant Buddy Garcia is sued in his official capacity as a Commissioner of the

TCEQ. Service of process upon Mr. Garcia may be accomplished by personal delivery of

citation to Mr. Garcia at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building F, 4th Floor, Room 4221, Austin, Travis

County, Texas 78753.

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 2
A-230571 4.DOC 5
 5. Defendant Carlos Rubinstein is sued in his official capacity as a Commissioner of

the TCEQ. Service of process upon Mr. Rubinstein may be accomplished by personal delivery

of citation to Mr. Rubinstein at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building F, 4th Floor, Room 4221, Austin,

Travis County, Texas 78753.

II.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

6. Plaintiffs seek to conduct discovery under a Level 3 Discovery Control Plan.

III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This is a direct appeal of a unilateral Administrative Order issued by the TCEQ on

February 12, 2010. A copy of the Order is attached hereto.

8. This action is brought pursuant to§§ 361.188(b), 361.321, and 361.322 of the

Texas Health and Safety Code and § 37.001, et. seq. of the Texas Uniform Declaratory

Judgments Act ("TUDJA"). Section 361.321 allows a person affected by a ruling, order,

decision or other act of the TCEQ to appeal said ruling, order, decision, or other act by filing a

petition in a district court of Travis County. Plaintiffs are all named by the TCEQ in the Order as

parties responsible for reimbursing the TCEQ's expenses related to certain investigations into

potential environmental contamination at a state superfund site, as well as ordered to undertake

remedial action; as such, Plaintiffs are affected by the Order. Section 361.322 allows any person

subject to an administrative order issued pursuant to Texas Health & Safety Code § 361.272 to

appeal said order in district court. Because the Order at issue was issued pursuant to § 361.271

and§ 361.272, and the Plaintiffs are all persons subject to the Order, § 361.188(b) makes the

Order subject to appeal under§§ 361.321 and 361.322. Finally, the Texas Uniform Declaratory

Judgments Act, Texas Civil Practices and Remedy Code § 37.004 allows this district court to

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 3
A-230571 4.DOC 6
declare that the Order IS invalid, or IS an ultra vires action by the TCEQ and/or the

Commissioners.

9. This action is timely filed under the provis10ns of §§ 361.321 and 361.322.

Section 361.321 provides that an appeal must be brought not later than the 301h day after the

ruling, order, decision, or other act of the governmental entity (here, the TCEQ) whose action is

appealed. The TCEQ issued the unilateral order effective as of February 12, 2010, but served the

Order on PRPs subsequent to that date. Accordingly, this petition, which is filed within 30 days

of that date, is timely. Section 361.322 provides that an appeal brought pursuant to that section

must be filed before the 461h day after the date of receipt, hand delivery, or publication service of

the order that is being appealed. Accordingly, this petition, which is filed within 46 days of the

date of publication and receipt, is timely.

10. Venue is proper in Travis County District Court pursuant to § 361.32l(a) of the

Texas Health and Safety Code. As stated above, Section 361.321 allows a person affected by a

ruling, order, decision or other act of the TCEQ to appeal said ruling, order, decision, or other act

by filing a petition in a district court of Travis County. Plaintiffs are "persons affected" by the

Order and "persons subject to" the Order because each is named as a "responsible party" who

has been ordered to conduct remedial activities and reimburse the TCEQ's Hazardous and Solid

Waste Remediation Fee Account for costs the TCEQ allegedly incurred.

IV.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11. The tract of land designated by the TCEQ as the "Yoda Petroleum State

Superfund Site" (the "Site") is comprised of approximately 6.12 acres located in Gregg County,

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 4
A-230571 4.DOC 7
Texas. According to TCEQ 1 records, the Site was historically used as an oil recycling facility

from approximately 1981 to 1991, when all operations ceased and the Site was essentially

abandoned by the owners and operators.

12. In 1995, the TCEQ conducted an investigation of the Site to determine if the

historic operations had resulted in environmental contaminants entering the groundwater and/or

soils at the Site. Part of this investigation included a Hazard Ranking System ("HRS")

evaluation of the Site. The HRS is a scoring system used to evaluate potential, relative risk(s) to

public health and the environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances.

The HRS score assigned to a site as the result of the evaluation is the primary factor in deciding

if that site is eligible to be placed on the federal National Priorities List. The HRS score assigned

to the Site was not sufficient to qualify the Site as a federal Superfund Site. Instead, the Site was

referred in 1995 to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") for an

immediate removal action to address the TCEQ' s belief that the Site presented an imminent and

substantial endangerment to public health and the environment.

13. An EPA Action Memorandum, dated March 27, 1996, documented that, in

addition to the presence of hazardous substances, the Site received crude oil. The Action

Memorandum also noted the presence of large quantities of oil that were subject to the Clean

Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act.

14. In 1996, the EPA removed drums of grease or oily wastes, drums of corrosive

wastes, aboveground storage tanks, and contaminated soils. Fencing was also installed around

the Site at this time to restrict public access to the Site to insure public health and safety.

1
During some of the events outlined in the Factual Background, the TCEQ was known as the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission. For convenience, the agency is referred to throughout this document by its
current name, the TCEQ.

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 5
A-230571 4.DOC 8
 15. In December 1997, after the removal action was complete, EPA's contractor

sampled both on-site soils and groundwater as part of a post-removal action assessment. EPA' s

assessment found that the removal action had removed minimized the threat of direct human

contact and inhalation threats that may have been present pre-removal.

16. The EPA then sought recovery of the costs it incurred in undertaking this removal

action, and in 1999 and 2000, the EPA settled with a number of companies that the EPA had

named as potentially responsible parties for the Site, including Shell Oil Company and Industrial

Lubricants Co., which settled as de minimis parties, and Mobil Oil Corporation, which made a

significant settlement payment to EPA

17. EPA was informed that Westland Oil, a subsidiary of Specialty Oil Company,

periodically sent unused (virgin) lube oil mixed with water to Yoda to be dehydrated. The oil

was then returned to Westland and sold by Westland. Some of the virgin oil obtained from

Westland may also have been sold by Yoda to third parties, and Westland may have purchased

oil that had been obtained by Yoda from other facilities. The evidence regarding the Westland

facts and the status of the Westland lube oils includes the Yoda Petroleum documentation and

sworn statements by Mr. Ron Yoda, the operator of Yoda Petroleum, and others. EPA

determined that the Westland lube oil qualified for the CERCLA petroleum exclusion and that

the transactions between Westland/Specialty and Yoda did not constitute the arrangement for

treatment or disposal of a hazardous substance. The factual record also demonstrates why this

Westland Oil was not "waste" (it was never discarded) and thus was not "solid waste" under

Section 361.003 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. EPA did not demand a settlement

payment or pursue a claim for the Westland materials shipped to Yoda.

18. According to the sworn statements of Mr. Yoda, and upon the Plaintiffs'

information and belief, different sections of the property were operated by two separate entities -

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 6
A-230571 4.DOC 9
Yoda Petroleum and Ultra Oil. Ultra Oil conducted operations on approximately one acre of the

property (also known as the "Southwest Tank Farm"). While the Southwest Tank Farm was

eventually purchased by Mr. Yoda, there were no Yoda Petroleum operations on the Southwest

Tank Farm at any time. The EPA stated that the PRPs who sent materials to the Site would not

be liable for the EPA' s costs associated with the Ultra Oil operations at the Site.

19. TCEQ had knowledge of the EPA's removal action, post-removal sampling and

assessment results, and of the EPA settlement. Plaintiffs are unaware of any TCEQ

correspondence commenting on or disputing the sufficiency of the EPA removal action at the

time of the removal action itself or immediately following the removal action.

20. On information and belief, Yoda Petroleum's operation segregated paraffin

materials into specific geographic areas of the Yoda site, specifically the "West Tank Farm."

EPA' s removal action addressed the contamination in the areas where paraffin was stored or

spilled.

21. Three years after the EPA removal action, and without re-scoring the Site under

the HRS, the TCEQ proposed the Site for listing on the State Superfund Registry on November

17, 2000 and published a Notice of that proposal in the Texas Register ( 25 Tex. Reg. 11594).

22. In November, 2000 the TCEQ also sent correspondence to certain entities it

believed had historically shipped materials to the Site. That correspondence asserted that the

recipient was considered by the TCEQ to be a PRP at the Site as defined in § 361.271 of the

Texas Health & Safety Code (the Texas Superfund Statute), and therefore potentially responsible

for environmental investigation and eventual remediation at the Site. The correspondence

informed the recipients of the Site's proposed listing on the State Registry and the date for

submitting comments on the proposed listing. The correspondence included a Notice of

Opportunity to Make Good Faith Offer to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 7
A-230571 4.DOC 10
("RI/FS") at the Site. Several PRPs submitted written comments and objections, particularly

complaining that there was no empirical data to support an imminent and substantial

endangerment finding and no evidence to support listing the Site on the State Superfund

Registry.

23. Upon information and belief, the statutory requirement to notify all persons

potentially responsible for the Site's contamination, the November, 2000 Notice of an

opportunity to conduct the RI/FS, was not provided to numerous entities, for which the TCEQ

had records in its possession allegedly identifying these companies as entities that had allegedly

shipped hazardous materials to the Site (herein after the "No-Notice PRPs"). Accordingly, the

No-Notice PRPs had no knowledge of, or opportunity to participate in, the TCEQ's proposed

RI/FS or to provide comments on the Site's proposed listing on the State Registry, despite

TCEQ's knowledge of their alleged shipments to the Site.

24. On or about March 6, 2001, the TCEQ sent correspondence to several of the

entities who had allegedly shipped significant quantities of material to the Site and who had

received the TCEQ RI/FS Notice as PRPs. That correspondence informed each of those entities

that they had been removed from the TCEQ's PRP list, purportedly releasing these entities from

liability related to the Site. In several of the letters, TCEQ cited as the reason for removing the

PRP, the so-called CERCLA "petroleum exclusion", which exclusion TCEQ staff currently deny

exists under the Texas Health and Safety Code. The entities receiving these letters are not

named as parties to the Order. The documentation those entities submitted and on which the

TCEQ relied at least in part to remove them from the TCEQ PRP list, on the basis that the

petroleum exclusion had been met, included EPA' s conclusion that "the bulk of the material on

the list" attributed to Specialty Oil/Westland Oil Co., "did not support attribution of CERCLA

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 8
A-230571 4.DOC 11
liability because it appeared that the Voda facility de-watered those materials and then returned

them to Specialty."

25. According to its records, the TCEQ undertook remedial investigations and a

feasibility study at the Site from 2001 through 2008.

26. In June, 2008, the TCEQ issued a Remedy Selection Document. This document

provides a discussion of, and the TCEQ's conclusions regarding, a proposed remedy for the Site.

The remedy proposed by TCEQ consists of soil removal and off-site disposal, together with the

installation of a bio-reactive barrier in the groundwater. TCEQ estimates that this remedy will

cost $1.2 Million dollars.

27. On February 12, 2010, the Commission issued its unilateral Administrative Order

with respect to the Site to 350 parties, including the Plaintiffs. There was no evidentiary hearing

held before the Order was issued, nor was there an opportunity for such an evidentiary hearing.

28. The Order makes various Findings of Fact, including listing persons identified by

the Commission as PRPs for the solid waste and/or hazardous substances at the Site. The Order

further includes a Conclusion of Law that the PRPs are responsible parties ("RPs"). Among

those listed as RPs are the Plaintiffs.

29. The Order purports to establish, among other things, (1) the RPs for the Site, (2)

the existence of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance or solid waste, and (3)

that there is an imminent and substantial endangerment. It then orders the RPs to reimburse the

TCEQ for all costs related to the RI/FS, to reimburse the TCEQ's past and future costs in some

unspecified amount, to undertake remedial activities based on the Remedy Selection Document,

and to provide post-construction financial assurance, among other responsibilities. The Order

also asserts that stipulated penalties accrue for failure to comply with the Order or its deadlines.

The Order does not specify the amount of the TCEQ costs, or explain why they are reasonable or
Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 9
A-230571 4.DOC 12
appropriate or why the TCEQ's actions were necessary or appropriate. Rather, the Order states

that the RPs will receive at some time in the future a demand letter from the TCEQ stating the

amount owed. As authority for the Order, the Commission cites to the Texas Health and Safety

Code, Chapter 361, §§ 361.188 (Final Administrative Order) and 361.272 (Administrative

Orders Concerning Imminent and Substantial Endangerment).

30. Westland operated a lubricating oil blending and packaging facility in Shreveport,

Louisiana. This was not a manufacturing plant per se, and did not operate processes that

generated waste streams of used or waste oils. Westland, at times referenced by the name of its

parent Specialty, sent unused lubricating oil to Yoda Petroleum in order to have it dewatered.

The oil was then returned to Westland and sold to others. Some of the oil may have been sold by

Yoda to others after dewatering. The Westland lubricating oil is excluded from the definition of

hazardous substance under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14) and the Texas SWDA (Chapter 361

of the Health and Safety Code), Tex. Health & Safety Code § 361.003(11). This material does

not constitute a solid waste under §361.003(34) of the Health and Safety Code as it was never

discarded. Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, it could be considered a "waste," the valuable

material sent from the Westland/Specialty facility to Yoda qualifies for exclusions under federal

and state law from the definition of "solid waste" including, e.g., the exclusion for commercial

chemical products at 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 335.1(133) (D) (iii) and 40 C.F.R. § 261.2(c) (3).

For these reasons, EPA did not seek a settlement from or pursue a claim against Westland Oil or

its parent Specialty Oil. TCEQ has recognized both the referenced petroleum exclusion and the

exemptions from the solid waste definitions in many regulatory contexts and similar factual

situations. Shell Oil Company sent no materials to Yoda. A Shell branded service station

operated by an independent dealer reportedly sent a single shipment of material to Yoda.

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 10
A-230571 4.DOC 13
 31. Mobil Oil Corporation reportedly sold and sent paraffin or wax material to Yoda

Petroleum. The material was food grade quality for use in food packaging. It was sent to Yoda

because it was off specification, but it was not contaminated. This material had commercial

value and was petroleum based. Neither Exxon Mobil nor Mobil Oil sent materials to Yoda

from gasoline service stations. Service stations branded Exxon or Mobil, on information and

belief operated by independent dealers, reportedly sent material to Yoda.

32. Warren Petroleum reportedly sold and sent used lubricating oil to Yoda for

reclaiming. Texaco Chemical Company reportedly sold and sent to Yoda certain materials from

a facility in Texas. Chevron USA Inc., Texaco Inc., Texaco Chemical, and Warren Petroleum did

not send materials to Yoda from gasoline service stations. Two Texaco branded stations, on

information and belief operated by independent dealers, reportedly sent material to Yoda.

v.
DENIAL

33. Plaintiffs demand TCEQ meet its burden of proof that the Site constitutes an

imminent and substantial endangerment and that Plaintiffs are liable for Site-related

environmental remediation and/or associated costs as required in § 361.322(g) of the Texas

Health and Safety Code.

34. Plaintiffs deny that they have caused or contributed to the alleged release or

threatened release of any solid waste or hazardous substances from or at the Site that are causing

or contributing to alleged environmental contamination at the Site.

35. Plaintiffs deny that they have committed acts or omissions which have resulted in

any release or threatened release of solid waste or hazardous substances from or at the Site.

36. Plaintiffs deny that they are a PRP or a RP as defined in the Order. The evidence

relied upon by the Commission to establish that Plaintiffs contributed any amount of solid waste

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 11
A-230571 4.DOC 14
and/or hazardous substances to the Site is inherently unreliable, constitutes hearsay, and lacks

support by any other corroborating documentary evidence. Further, Plaintiffs were given no

opportunity to challenge or rebut this "evidence" in violation of their due process and other legal

rights.

37. Plaintiffs deny that they sent hazardous substances or solid wastes to the Site as

defined by relevant law.

38. Plaintiffs deny that the contamination at the Site constitutes an "actual or

threatened release of solid waste that presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to the

public health and safety or the environment" as required to support Order issuance by Texas

Health & Safety Code § 361.272(a) and § 361.188(a) (1). The definition of imminent and

substantial endangerment as defined in the TCEQ's rules at 30 Texas Administrative Code §

335.342 is as follows: "[a] danger is imminent if, given the entire circumstances surrounding

each case, exposure of persons or the environment to hazardous substances is more likely than

not to occur in the absence of preventive action. A danger is substantial if, given the current state

of scientific knowledge, the harm to public health and safety or the environment which would

result from exposure could cause adverse environmental or health effects." Plaintiffs deny that

this Site met this standard at the time the Order was issued because, among other things:

a. Exposure of persons or the environment to hazardous substances was not "more

likely than not" because EPA' s contractor's assessment found that the 1997 EPA

removal action had minimized the threat of direct human contact and inhalation

threats that may have been present pre-removal, residual contamination was

covered with clean soil and grass; and the Site was fenced to preclude public

access;

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 12
A-230571 4.DOC 15
 b. TCEQ's 2009 Remedy Selection Document at p. 3-4, states that the Site is not a

threat to ecological resources because there are insignificant ecological exposure

pathways at the Site;

c. Exposure from contaminated groundwater is not likely, due to gradient direction

and plume stability data provided to TCEQ documenting that constituents of

concern have not continued to migrate and in fact may be attenuating

significantly;

d. TCEQ's 2009 Remedy Selection Document at p. 2 acknowledges that the EPA

response action "removed the immediate threat to human health and the

environment";

e. Upon information and belief, although TCEQ has studied the Site, the TCEQ has

not taken any remedial actions to protect humans or the environment from

potential exposure pathways from 1997 until the present, including a three year

period between the EPA removal action and the TCEQ proposed listing on the

State Superfund Registry and an eight year RI/FS period.

39. Plaintiffs deny that proper statutory notice of the RI/FS was given to many of the

PRPs, and thus deny that the Order is reasonable.

40. Plaintiffs deny that the Order is supported by the preponderance of the evidence

as to the TCEQ's claims of necessity, appropriateness, and reasonableness of past and future

investigations and remedial and removal costs incurred by the TCEQ. This includes the TCEQ

determinations related to imminent and substantial endangerment.

41. Plaintiffs deny that materials they are alleged to have sent to the Site have caused

or contributed to the remedial activities ordered to be conducted by the TCEQ in the Order.

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 13
A-230571 4.DOC 16
 42. Plaintiffs deny that they are liable for remedial actions or costs associated with

the Southwest Tank Farm, also known as Ultra Oil.

43. Plaintiffs deny they are "arrangers" for purposes of liability under the Texas Solid

Waste Disposal Act, based on the Supreme Court ruling in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe

Railway Co., et al. v. United States ("BNSF") as the requisite intent was not present.

44. Plaintiffs deny that they can be liable for the actions of an independent service

station dealer, even assuming arguendo that the dealer sent materials to the Yoda site.

45. In the alternative, Plaintiffs assert that they are no more than de minimis

contributors to any contamination at the Site.

46. Plaintiffs contend that any contribution from them to the site is divisible, and they

are not subject to joint and several liability.

47. For all the reasons stated in this Petition, the Plaintiffs deny that the Order is

reasonable and therefore it must be overturned pursuant to Texas Health & Safety Code §

361.32l(e).

VI.
ORDER IS INVALID

48. The Order lacks finality because it requires additional, discretionary actions by

the TCEQ. Specifically, the Order requires the TCEQ to make discretionary decisions in the

future about the eligibility, necessity, appropriateness, and reasonableness of past and future

TCEQ costs to be paid by Plaintiffs as RPs, and even the amount of those costs. Accordingly,

the Order is neither effective nor enforceable against any Plaintiff, and is of no legal effect.

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment recognizing that the Order is of no legal effect.

49. At no time prior to the issuance of the Order did the TCEQ afford Plaintiffs an

opportunity for an adjudicative hearing as to their status as a PRP. As a result, Plaintiffs have
Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 14
A-230571 4.DOC 17
had no opportunity to protect their interests before being adversely affected by the actions taken

by the authority of the Order. The Order violates due process rights afforded by the U. S

Constitution (u.s. CONST. art. XIV) and Texas Constitution (TEX. CONST. art. I, § 19).

50. The Order further violates Plaintiffs' United States and Texas due process rights

because it does not afford Plaintiffs' the opportunity for an adjudicative hearing as to the

necessity, appropriateness, and reasonableness of past and future investigation and remedial

costs incurred by the TCEQ for which it seeks a reimbursement. As a result, Plaintiffs have had

no opportunity to protect their interests before being adversely affected by the actions taken by

the authority of the Order. At no time prior to the issuance of the Order were the Plaintiffs

afforded an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the release or

threatened release is divisible pursuant to Texas Health & Safety Code § 361.276. As a result,

Plaintiffs have had no opportunity to protect their interests before being adversely affected by the

actions taken by the authority of the Order.

51. The Order imposes liability on certain Plaintiffs who are in the same position as

other entities who were released by the TCEQ from liability under the so-called "petroleum

exclusion" exception of CERCLA. This is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and violates

the equal protection clauses of both the United States and Texas Constitutions.

52. The Order constitutes an ultra vires act by the TCEQ and/or the Commissioners

on several grounds, including the following:

a. The Order is not properly limited m scope as contemplated by the vanous

applicable statutory provisions of the Texas Health and Safety Code, such as

§§ 361.19l(d) and 361.192, both of which limit the TCEQ's recovery to

"reasonable" costs.

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 15
A-230571 4.DOC 18
 b. The Order names many Plaintiffs who did not receive the required statutory notice

(referred to previously as the No-Notice PRPs) that was provided to some of the

named RPs via the November 6, 2000, Notice of Opportunity to Make a Good

Faith Offer for the RI/FS. Texas Health & Safety Code§§ 361.184(b) and .185

require the TCEQ to make "all reasonable efforts" to identify PRPs and to provide

identified PRPs with written notice of an opportunity to make a Good Faith Offer

to fund or perform the RI/FS. While the TCEQ did send correspondence to some

of the PRPs seeking a good faith offer to fund or perform the RI/FS, on

information and belief, approximately 150 companies (or close to 50% of the

PRPs), including the No Notice Plaintiffs, did not receive an opportunity to make

a good faith offer, even though the TCEQ has acknowledged that it had in its

actual possession records containing the names of those companies as allegedly

shipping materials to the Site. The TCEQ did not undertake the minimal effort of

reviewing the documents in its possession to make a list of those companies and

include them as recipients of the November 6, 2000 Notice and thus allow them

an opportunity to participate in the RI/FS process. This defect impacts the

Plaintiffs in two significant ways. First, the TCEQ unilaterally performed the

RI/FS over a period of almost eight years, incurred costs, and is now seeking

reimbursement of those costs from those it failed to properly notify. Second, the

RI/FS process is so fundamental to the remedy selection process that a flaw in the

RI/FS process unavoidably and profoundly taints the remedy process. The Texas

Health & Safety Code creates a statutory scheme in which the culmination of the

RI/FS process -- the proposed remedy -- is what serves as the basis for the

Remedy Order. The TCEQ's RI/FS Notice defect means that approximately 50%

of the identifiable PRPs at this Site had no opportunity to participate in the RI/FS
Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 16
A-230571 4.DOC 19
 process through public comments or otherwise. Had all of the PRPs been

properly notified and allowed to participate in the development and evaluation of

the alternative remedies, a remedy significantly different from the one chosen by

the TCEQ could have been studied, selected and implemented in an agreed

manner by the parties. The failure to comply with the fundamental statutory

notice requirements related to the RI/FS Notice thus renders the Order invalid,

arbitrary, and unreasonable, and outside the scope of the TCEQ's statutory

authority.

c. The Order is invalid because the remedy selected does not comply with the

standards found in Texas Health & Safety Code § 361.193 and .322(h). Section

361.193 states that the TCEQ is required to select the "lowest cost alternative that

is technologically feasible and reliable and that effectively mitigates and

minimizes damage to and provides adequate protection of the public health and

safety or the environment." TEX. HEAL TH & SAFETY CODE § 361.193.

1. The TCEQ has classified the groundwater at the Site to be Class I

groundwater, when in fact it should be Class II. If the proper classification

had been used by the TCEQ, the appropriate remedy for this Site would

very likely have been the lowest cost alternative that is technologically

feasible and reliable and that effectively mitigates and minimizes damage

to and provides adequate protection of the public health and safety or the

environment. The most recent data acquired from the Site indicates that

an alternative remedy would be appropriate because the groundwater

plume boundary has not grown and the concentrations of the constituents

of concern identified by the TCEQ have actually decreased over time.

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 17
A-230571 4.DOC 20
 11. Effective on May 25, 2007, the Municipal Settings Designation ("MSD")

statute was amended to allow small municipalities to have the benefit of

the MSD certification. The MSD statute allows municipalities to enforce

specific deed restrictions on properties within their city limits restricting

the use of the groundwater beneath the property so that it cannot be used

as drinking water. The deed restriction acts as an institutional control to

protect human health, but at a fraction of the costs of a groundwater

remediation plan. The Site is within the City of Clarksville and thus is

potentially eligible for an MSD. The MSD is recognized by statute to be

protective of human health and the environment. No statute or regulation

prohibits the application of an MSD at a state Superfund Site. The

Feasibility Study was issued in January of 2008 and the Remedy Selection

Document was issued in June 2008. Neither document even evaluated the

MSD option, which at that point in time was certainly available for

consideration and which could very well be the lowest cost remedy for

groundwater at the Site. Thus, the TCEQ's Order is invalid in that it

selects a remedy that is arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore cannot be

upheld pursuant to Texas Health and Safety Code§ 361.323(h).

d. Plaintiffs have asserted previously in this Petition that the Order violates certain

of the Plaintiffs' constitutional equal protection rights because the TCEQ relieved

certain PRPs, but not others similarly situated, from liability based on the

"petroleum exclusion." Without waiving that argument, Plaintiffs alternatively

assert that, if the released PRPs are not entitled to the petroleum exclusion, those

PRPs must be named in the Order as an RP and that TCEQ's failure to do so is

arbitrary and capricious to the severe detriment of Plaintiffs. Section 361.188
Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 18
A-230571 4.DOC 21
 (a)(4) and (6) of the Texas Health & Safety Code states that that final

administrative order must list the Responsible Parties and order the Responsible

Parties to remediate the facility and reimburse the TCEQ's RI/FS costs. Nothing

in that statutory provision allows the TCEQ to ignore certain otherwise

Responsible Parties. In fact, § 361.1875 states exactly when the TCEQ can

exclude certain PRPs from liability associated with a Site, and none of the

particular exclusions apply here. The Order is invalid for failure to name all RPs.

e. The TCEQ's unilateral order of the payment of stipulated penalties is beyond the

authority of the TCEQ.

53. The Order is invalid under § 361.188(a)(l) because it does not present an

imminent and substantial endangerment as needed to support listing on the State Superfund

Registry. There is no evidence of imminent and substantial endangerment. Any imminent and

substantial endangerment was abated by the 1996 EPA' s removal action.

54. The Order should be deemed invalid as to Plaintiffs because the TCEQ did not

otherwise properly carry out its statutory and regulatory duties to fully investigate and identify

PRPs, RPs, and de minimis parties prior to naming Plaintiffs as RPs.

55. For all of the reasons previously stated in this Petition, the Order is invalid,

arbitrary, and unreasonable pursuant to Texas Health & Safety Code§ 361.32l(e).

VII.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

56. Certain Plaintiffs contributed materials to the Site that are the same as those

materials contributed by entities that have been released by the TCEQ pursuant to the "Petroleum

Exclusion" and thus are also entitled to such a release.

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 19
A-230571 4.DOC 22
 57. Even if Plaintiffs had contributed any materials to the Site, those materials were

sold as a useful product, and did not constitute an arrangement for the processing, storing, or

disposal of a solid waste, and did not contribute to the release or threatened release to the

environment.

58. Westland Oil's unused lube oil was a petroleum material and a valuable

commercial product intended to be dehydrated by Yoda and sold, and/or returned to Westland

for sale to its customers, and thus the oil was neither a "solid waste" nor a "hazardous

substance."

59. ExxonMobil discharged all or part of any Yoda site responsibility through its

settlement with and payments to EPA Further, the Mobil paraffin was handled at a specific

area of the Yoda site and was addressed by the EPA removal action. Any harm or liability

attributable to Exxon Mobil or Mobil is therefore capable of being apportioned.

60. Plaintiffs' materials, to the extent any were sent to Yoda, are distinct from those

chemicals causing the harm that is being addressed under TCEQ's AO. Therefore, any liability

of Plaintiffs' must be apportioned and limited to the harm attributable to their materials at the

Yoda site.

61. Plaintiffs did not intend for waste or hazardous substances to be disposed of at the

Site.

62. Plaintiffs assert that they are not RPs, but in the alternative assert they are no

more than a de minimis contributor to any contamination at the Site.

63. Plaintiffs are not liable for remedial actions or costs associated with the Southwest

Tank Farm, also known as Ultra Oil.

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 20
A-230571 4.DOC 23
 64. The evidence demonstrates that the Site does not pose an imminent and

substantial endangerment.

65. The TCEQ failed to provide the required notices necessary to support recovery of

investigation costs from the PRPs.

66. The facts do not support listing the Site on the State Superfund registry or the use

of the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act to impose liability upon Plaintiffs.

67. In the alternative, even if Plaintiffs contributed solid waste or hazardous

substances to the Site, the costs are subject to apportionment under the Texas Health and Safety

Code§ 361.276.

VIII.
COSTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES

68. Plaintiffs have had to employ legal counsel to contest the Order. TCEQ is liable

for Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees and reasonable costs pursuant to the TUDJA and Texas

Health & Safety Code§ 361.342.

IX.
JURY DEMAND

69. Plaintiffs request a jury as the trier of fact for this matter.

x.
PRAYER

70. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the TCEQ be cited to appear and answer and

that the TCEQ be required to prove its allegations against Plaintiffs by a preponderance of the

evidence and that the Court on final trial enter an order:

a. Declaring that the TCEQ's Administrative Order lacks finality, is of no legal

effect, and is not enforceable; and/or

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 21
A-230571 4.DOC 24
 b. Declaring that the TCEQ's Administrative Order violates the due process laws

and/or equal protection laws of the United States and Texas Constitutions and is

therefore invalid, and not enforceable; and/or

c. Declaring that the TCEQ's Administrative Order is ultra vires, and is therefore

invalid, of no legal effect, and is not enforceable; and/or

d. Declaring that the TCEQ's Administrative Order is invalid, arbitrary, or

unreasonable and therefore must be overturned pursuant to Texas Health & Safety

Code§ 361.32l(e).

71. AL TERNATIVEL Y, the Plaintiffs pray that the Court enter an order that:

a. Invalidates the portion of the TCEQ's Order that purports to establish Plaintiffs as

PRPs or RPs; and

b. Declares that Plaintiffs are not responsible parties m any way liable for the

environmental conditions existing at the Site or responsible for any response

costs.

72. ALTERNATIVELY, the Plaintiffs pray that the Court enter an order:

a. Declaring that any Westland Oil/Specialty Oil's (now Pennzoil-Quaker State

Company) materials sent to Yoda are not hazardous substances or solid waste;

b. Declaring that Plaintiffs are not liable under TSWDA for activities of any

independent gasoline station operator who may have sent material to Voda;

c. Declaring that any Mobil Oil Corporation materials sent to Yoda are not

hazardous substances or solid waste;

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 22
A-230571 4.DOC 25
 d. Declaring that any ExxonMobil responsibility for the Yoda Site has been

discharged by virtue of its settlement with EPA, or reduced by the amount of its

payment to EPA;

e. Declaring that any harms or liability attributable to Plaintiffs can and must be

apportioned on the basis of geography and chemistry or otherwise.

73. ALTERNATIVELY, Plaintiffs pray that the Court enter an Order that:

a. Pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code, Plaintiffs are de minimis parties

and their equitable and legal responsibility for those costs should not exceed a

nominal share.

74. Plaintiffs further pray for reasonable attorney's fees and reasonable costs pursuant

to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 37.009 and Texas Health & Safety Code

§ 361.342, and for any other relief Plaintiffs may show themselves to be justly entitled.

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 23
A-230571 4.DOC 26
 Respectfully submitted,

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

/s/ Adam H. Sencenbaugh
John R. Eldridge
State Bar No. 06513520
HAYNES AND BOONE, L.L.P.
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2100
Houston, Texas 77010
Telephone: (713) 547-2000
Telecopier: (713) 547-2600

Adam H. Sencenbaugh
State Bar No. 24060584
HAYNES AND BOONE, L.L.P.
600 Congress Avenue, Suite 1300
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 867-8489
Telecopier: (512) 867-8606

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Plaintiff's First Amended Petition
Page 24
A-230571 4.DOC 27
 APP. D

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s
Original Counter-Petition and Third-Party Petition
and Request for Disclosure
(CR:127-169)
 Filed
11 August 1 A11 :45
Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza
District Clerk
Travis District
D-1-GN-10-000772
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-10-000772

YOUNG CHEVROLET, INC., et al., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. §
§
TEXAS COMMISSION ON §
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, et al., § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendants, §
§
v. §
§
YOUNG CHEVROLET, INC., et al., §
Counter- and Third-Party § 345th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Defendants §

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AL QUALITY'S
ORIGINAL COUNTER-PETITION AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ"), an

agency of the State of Texas, by and through Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas,

files this Original Counter-Petition and Third-Party Petition, and would respectfully

show the Court as follows:

1. DISCOVERY

1.1. No Discovery Control Plan having been filed, pursuant to TEX. R. Crv. P.

190.3 discovery will be conducted under Level 2.

127
 2. PARTIES

A. Counter-Plaintiff

2.1. Counter-Plaintiff the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ")

is the agency of the State of Texas responsible for administering the Texas Solid Waste

Disposal Act, TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.001 et seq. (Vernon 2010) (hereinafter

"TSWDA" or "the Act").

B. Counter-Defendants

(The Plaintiffs in AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., et al., v. Texas Commission on Environ-

mental Quality, et al.; Cause No. D-1-GN-10-000778)

2.2. Counter-Defendant AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania. No service is necessary at this

time.

2.3. Counter-Defendant ACF Industries, LLC, as former parent company and

indemnitor for Shippers Car Line, Inc., (now part of American Railcar Industries) is a

limited liability company in Missouri. No service is necessary at this time.

2.4. Counter-Defendant AEP Texas Central Company, f/k/a Central Power and

Light Company, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Texas. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.5. Counter-Defendant Allied Motion Technologies, Inc., as successor to Snow

2

128
Coil, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Colorado. No service is necessary at

this time.

2.6. Counter-Defendant Allied Waste Systems Holdings, Inc., successor to

Southwest Disposal, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No

service is necessary at this time.

2.7. Counter-Defendant American Airlines, Inc., is a corporation duly organized

in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.8. Counter-Defendant American Marazzi Tile, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.9. Counter-Defendant Arkema, Inc., f/k/a Pennwalt Corporation, is a corpora-

tion duly organized in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. No service is necessary at

this time.

2.10. Counter-Defendant Atlantic Richfield Company, on behalf of ARCO Oil and

Gas Corporation, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.11. Counter-Defendant BE&K, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in the State

of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.12. Counter-Defendant Basil Oilfield Services, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

3

129
 2.13. Counter-Defendant Bayou State Oil Corporation is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Louisiana. No service is necessary at this time.

2.14. Counter-Defendant Ben E. Keith Company is a corporation duly organized

in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.15. Counter-Defendant Bottling Group LLC, d/b/a Pepsi Beverages Company,

f/k/a Pepsi Cola, is a limited liability company duly organized in the State of Delaware.

No service is necessary at this time.

2.16. Counter-Defendant BP Products North America, Inc., on behalf of Truck

Stops of America, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Maryland. No service

is necessary at this time.

2.17. Counter-Defendant Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, on behalf

of The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Modern Tire Service, Inc., (Bridgestone

Bandag), and John Crawford Firestone, Inc., is a limited liability corporation duly

organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.18. Counter-Defendant Bright Truck Leasing, LLC, for Bright Truck Leasing

Corporation - Bright Truck Leasing, is a limited liability company duly organized in the

State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.19. Counter-Defendant Brilliant National Services, Inc., as indemnitor of

Brenntag Southwest, Inc., successor by merger to Delta Distributors, Inc., Delta Sol-

4

130
vents, Inc., and Coastal Chemical, LLC, successor by merger to Harris Bros. Company,

is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this

time.

2.20. Counter-Defendant Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, successor in interest to

Brown & Root, Inc., is a limited liability company duly organized in the State of

Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.21. Counter-Defendant Burland Enterprises, Inc., is a corporation duly orga-

nized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.22. Counter-Defendant Cabot Corporation is a corporation duly organized in

the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.23. Counter-Defendant Capacity of Texas, Inc., is a corporation duly organized

in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.24. Counter-Defendant Carrier Corporation, a/k/a Carrier Air Conditioning, is a

corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this

time.

2.25. Counter-Defendant Cascade Die Casting Group, Inc., for its former division

J&E Die Casting Company, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Michigan. No

service is necessary at this time.

2.26. Counter-Defendant Centex Homes, d/b/a Fox and Jacobs Homes, is a

5

131
general partnership duly organized under the laws of the State of Nevada. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.27. Counter-Defendant Herrick Pacific Corporation, successor by merger to

Central Texas Iron Works, is a corporation duly organized in the State of California. It

may be served with citation by serving its agent, Harry Kluck, at 1100 Winchell Drive,

Waco, Texas 76712.

2.28. Counter-Defendant Chaparral Steel Company (a wholly owned subsidiary

of Gerdau Ameristeel) is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No

service is necessary at this time.

2.29. Counter-Defendant CITGO Pipeline Company, by indemnitor OXY USA,

Inc., on behalf of Cities Service Pipe Line Company, is a corporation duly organized in

the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.30. Counter-Defendant City Motor Supply, Inc., is a Sub S corporation duly

organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.31. Counter-Defendant City of Dallas is a home-rule municipal corporation

duly organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.32. Counter-Defendant City of Jefferson is a home-rule municipal corporation

duly organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.33. Counter-Defendant City of Plano is a home-rule municipal corporation duly

6

132
organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.34. Counter-Defendant City of Rockwall is a home-rule municipal corporation

duly organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.35. Counter-Defendant City of University Park is a home-rule municipal

corporation duly organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.36. Counter-Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company, for CPL Industries, is a

corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this

time.

2.37. Counter-Defendant ConocoPhillips Company, on behalf of Kayo Oil

Company, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.38. Counter-Defendant Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., on behalf of Continental

Can Company USA, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No

service is necessary at this time.

2.39. Counter-Defendant Custom-Bilt Cabinets & Supply, Inc., is a corporation

duly organized in the State of Louisiana. No service is necessary at this time.

2.40. Counter-Defendant Dallas Area Rapid Transit is a regional transportation

authority created and operating under Chapter 452 of the Texas Transportation Code.

No service is necessary at this time.

7

133
 2.41. Counter-Defendant Dunlap-Swain Tire Company, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.42. Counter-Defendant Durham School Services L.P., successor to Durham

Transportation, Inc., is a limited partnership duly organized in the State of Delaware.

No service is necessary at this time.

2.43. Counter-Defendant Freeman Decorating Services, Inc., f/k/a Sullivan

Transfer Company (successor by merger), for Sullivan Transfer & Storage, is a corpora-

tion duly organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.44. Counter-Defendant Fru-Con Construction Corporation, f/k/a Fruin-Colnon

Corporation, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Missouri. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.45. Counter-Defendant General Electric Company, acting through its Energy

Division, is a corporation duly organized in the State of New York. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.46. Counter-Defendant Georgia-Pacific LLC, f/k/a Georgia-Pacific Corporation,

is a limited liability company duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.47. Counter-Defendant Gifford Hill Cement & Gifford Hill Ready Mix, n/k/a

Hanson Aggregates LLC, is a limited liability company duly organized in the State of

8

134
Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.48. Counter-Defendant Gulf South Pipeline Company LP, successor to United

Gas Pipeline Company, is a limited partnership duly organized in the State of Delaware.

No service is necessary at this time.

2.49. Counter-Defendant Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., on behalf of itself and

as successor to Axelson, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware.

No service is necessary at this time.

2.50. Counter-Defendant Harland Clarke Corp., f/k/a Clarke Checks, Inc., is a

corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this

time.

2.51. Counter-Defendant Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc., successor in interest

to Borden, and f/k/a Borden, Inc., and/or Borden Chemical, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of New Jersey. No service is necessary at this time.

2.52. Counter-Defendant Holloway Welding & Piping GP, General Partner of

Holloway Welding & Piping LP, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Texas.

No service is necessary at this time.

2.53. Counter-Defendant Hunt Oil Company is a corporation duly organized in

the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.54. Counter-Defendant Industrial Solvents Corporation, for Industrial Solvents

9

135
Gulf Division of Industrial Solvents Corporation, a previously used assumed name for

Industrial Solvents Corporation, is a corporation duly organized in the State of New

York. No service is necessary at this time.

2.55. Counter-Defendant Ingersoll-Rand Company is a corporation duly orga-

nized in the State of New Jersey. No service is necessary at this time.

2.56. Counter-Defendant International Paper Company, for itself, Champion

Paper and Champion International Corporation, is a corporation duly organized in the

State of New York. No service is necessary at this time.

2.57. Counter-Defendant Johns Manville, Inc., f/k/a Manville Sales Corporation, is

a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this

time.

2.58. Counter-Defendant Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc., for Johnson

Controls, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in the State of Wisconsin. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.59. Counter-Defendant Jones Environmental, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Louisiana. No service is necessary at this time.

2.60. Counter-Defendant Joy Technologies, Inc., for Joy Manufacturing Com-

pany, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary

at this time.

10

136
 2.61. Counter-Defendant Las Colinas Holding Corporation, successor by merger

to Las Colinas Service Center, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in the State of

Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.62. Counter-Defendant Sun Engine & Transmission Sales, Inc., is a corporation

duly organized in the State of Texas and may be served by serving its agent, CT Corp.

System, at 350 N. Saint Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas TX 75201-4234.

2.63. Counter-Defendant Luvata Grenada LLC and Luvata Astro LLC, as

successors to Snow Coil, Inc., are corporations duly organized in the State of Delaware.

No service is necessary at this time.

2.64. Counter-Defendant M. Lipsitz & Co., Ltd., is a limited partnership duly

organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.65. Counter-Defendant Marathon Norco Aerospace, Inc., for Marathon Battery

Company, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.66. Counter-Defendant Melton Truck Lines, Inc., is an corporation duly

organized in the State of Oklahoma. No service is necessary at this time.

2.67. Counter-Defendant Metal Services, Inc., n/k/a Berns Metals Southwest, Inc.,

is a corporation duly organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this

time.

11

137
 2.68. Counter-Defendant Metro Aviation, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in

the State of Louisiana. No service is necessary at this time.

2.69. Counter-Defendant Nabors Well Services Co., successor to Pool Company,

is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this

time.

2.70. Counter-Defendant National Oilwell Varco, L.P., for itself and Martin-

Decker, is a limited partnership duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.71. Counter-Defendant NCH Corporation, and its division Mohawk Laborato-

ries, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at

this time.

2.72. Counter-Defendant E & R Noble, Inc., f/k/a Nobles Transmission, is a

corporation duly organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.73. Counter-Defendant Nucor Corporation is a corporation duly organized in

the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.74. Counter-Defendants Occidental Chemical Corporation and Oxy USA, Inc.,

for themselves and Cities Service Company, Cities Service Pipe Line Company, and Oxy

Cities Service NGL, Inc., are corporations duly organized in the States of New York and

Delaware, respectively. No service is necessary at this time.

12

138
 2.75. Counter-Defendant Oil States Industries, Inc., as successor in interest to LTV

Energy Products, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No

service is necessary at this time.

2.76. Counter-Defendant Oldcastle APG Texas, Inc., d/b/a Custom-Crete, for

Custom-Crete, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in the State of Texas. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.77. Counter-Defendant Paccar, Inc., d/b/a Peterbilt Motors Co., is a corporation

duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.78. Counter-Defendant Paramount Packaging Corporation (n/k/a Milprint, Inc.)

is a corporation duly organized in the State of Wisconsin. No service is necessary at this

time.

2.79. Counter-Defendant Pengo Industries, Inc., is a corporation duly organized

in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.80. Counter-Defendant Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P., successor to [Hertz]

Penske Truck Leasing, Inc., and Gelco Truck Leasing Division, Gelco Corporation, is a

limited partnership duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at

this time.

2.81. Counter-Defendant Performance Friction Products, f/k/a Coltec Automotive

Products, a division of Coltec Industries, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in the

13

139
State of Pennsylvania. No service is necessary at this time.

2.82. Counter-Defendant Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., d/b/a PBS&J,

successor in interest to Espey Huston, is a corporation duly organized in the State of

Florida. No service is necessary at this time.

2.83. Counter-Defendant Rayco Oil Company is a sole proprietorship located at

4914 Augusta Circle, College Station, TX 77845. No service is necessary at this time.

2.84. Counter-Defendant Reeves Oil Co., Inc., is a corporation duly organized in

the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.85. Counter-Defendant Regents of New Mexico State University, d/b/a Colum-

bia Scientific Balloon Facility, on behalf of National Scientific Balloon Facility, is a

constitutionally-created institution of higher education duly organized in the State of

New Mexico. No service is necessary at this time.

2.86. Counter-Defendant Rollins Leasing L.L.C., for Rollins Leasing Corp., is a

limited liability company, duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.87. Counter-Defendant Royle Container is a sole proprietorship duly organized

in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.88. Counter-Defendant Ruan Logistics Corporation, f/k/a Ruan Truck Leasing/

Ruan Leasing Company, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Iowa. No

14

140
service is necessary at this time.

2.89. Counter-Defendant Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., is a corporation duly orga-

nized in the State of Florida. No service is necessary at this time.

2.90. Counter-Defendant Schlumberger Technology Corporation, on behalf of

Schlumberger Well Services Division of Schlumberger Technology Corporation and

Dowell Schlumberger Incorporated, is a corporation duly organized in the State of

Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.91. Counter-Defendant Sears, Roebuck & Co. is a corporation duly organized in

the State of New York. No service is necessary at this time.

2.92. Counter-Defendant Sigmor Corporation, for Diamond Shamrock, is a

corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this

time.

2.93. Counter-Defendant Sitton Oil and Marine Company, Inc., for Sitton Oil, is a

corporation duly organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.94. Counter-Defendant Southern Foods Group, LLC, for Schepps Dairy, an

unincorporated division of Southern Foods Group, LLC, is a limited liability company

duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.95. Counter-Defendant Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T

Texas, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Missouri. No service is necessary

15

141
at this time.

2.96. Counter-Defendant Southwestern Electric Power Company is a corporation

duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.97. Counter-Defendant Stemco LP is a limited partnership duly organized in

the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.98. T.E.C. Well Service, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in the State of

Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.99. Counter-Defendant Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, for Texas Gas Transmis-

sion Corporation, is a limited liability company duly organized in the State of Delaware.

No service is necessary at this time.

2.100. Counter-Defendant Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, f/k/a

Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas, is a non-profit corporation duly organized in the State

of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.101. Counter-Defendant Texas Industries, Inc. (TXI) is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.102. Counter-Defendant The Lubrizol Corporation is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Ohio. No service is necessary at this time.

2.103. Counter-Defendant TIN, Inc., d/b/a Temple-Inland and f/n/a Inland

Container Corp., is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is

16

142
necessary at this time.

2.104. Counter-Defendant Trinity Industries, Inc., is a corporation duly organized

in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.105. Counter-Defendant United States Steel Corporation (and its subsidiaries),

for Oilwell Division of United States Steel Corporation and Lone Star Logistics, Inc., is a

corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this

time.

2.106. Counter-Defendant VHC, Inc., f/k/a Varo, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.107. Counter-Defendant Viking Freight Service, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.108. Counter-Defendant Waste Management of Texas, Inc., for Texas Industrial

Disposal, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in the State of Texas. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.109. Counter-Defendant Weatherford Artificial Lift Systems, Inc., as successor

in interest to The Highland Pump Company, is a corporation duly organized in the

State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.110. Counter-Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor in interest by

merger to First Interstate Bank of Dallas, is a national banking association doing

17

143
business in various locations in Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.111. Counter-Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company, as successor in interest by

merger to Willamette Industries, Inc., and MacMillan Bloedel Containers, is a corpora-

tion duly organized in the State of Washington. No service is necessary at this time.

2.112. Counter-Defendant Wilson Industries, L.P., for Texas Mill Supply-

Longview Inc., is a limited partnership duly organized in the State of Texas. No service

is necessary at this time.

2.113. Counter-Defendant Wilsonart International, Inc., f/k/a Ralph Wilson

Plastics Company, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service

is necessary at this time.

2.114. Counter-Defendant Woods Operating Co., Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Louisiana. No service is necessary at this time.

2.115. Counter-Defendant YRC, Inc., f/k/a Roadway Express, Inc., is a corporation

duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.116. Counter-Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc., f/k/a The Southland Corporation, for its

subsidiary Southland Sales Corporation, is a corporation duly organized in the State of

Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

(The Plaintiffs in Chevron USA Inc., et al., v. Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality, et al.; No. D-1-GN-10-000793, as follows:)

18

144
 2.117. Counter-Defendant Texaco, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is successor to

Texaco Chemical Company and is a subsidiary of Chevron USA Inc., a Pennsylvania

Corporation. No service is necessary at this time.

2.118. Counter-Defendant Warren Petroleum Company is a former subsidiary of

Chevron USA Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation. No service is necessary at this time.

2.119. Counter-Defendant Chevron USA, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in

the State of Pennsylvania. No service is necessary at this time.

2.120. Counter-Defendant Mobil Oil Corporation, a New York corporation, is a

subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corporation, a New Jersey corporation. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.121. Counter-Defendant Pennzoil-Quaker State Company, a Delaware corpora-

tion, is a successor by merger to Westland Oil Company, Inc., Specialty Oil Company,

Inc., and Industrial Lubricants Co. No service is necessary at this time.

2.122. Counter-Defendant Shell Oil Company is a Delaware corporation. No

service is necessary at this time.

(All the other Plaintiffs who appealed the Order, as follows:)

2.123. Counter-Defendant Ark-La-Tex Waste Oil Co., Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Louisiana. No service is necessary at this time.

2.124. Counter-Defendant ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, is a

19

145
limited liability company duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service is

necessary at this time.

2.125. Counter-Defendant Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Delaware. No service is necessary at this time.

2.126. Counter-Defendant The Sabine Mining Company is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Nevada. No service is necessary at this time.

2.127. Counter-Defendant Southwestern Petroleum Corporation is a corporation

duly organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.128. Counter-Defendant Luminant Generation Company, LLC, successor to

Texas Utilities Generating Company and Dallas Power & Light Company, is a corpora-

tion duly organized in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

2.129. Counter-Defendant Air Liquide America LP, on behalf of Big Three

Industrial Gas, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware. No service

is necessary at this time.

2.130. Counter-Defendant Young Chevrolet, Inc., is a corporation duly organized

in the State of Texas. No service is necessary at this time.

C. Third-party Defendants Named in the Order

(All persons or entities named in the Order, believed to be viable, are listed here or in

subsec. E, below.)

20

146
 2.131. Third-party Defendant Norit Americas, Inc., successor to American Norit

Company, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in the State of Georgia and may be

served by serving its agent, CT Corp. System, at 350 N. Saint Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas

TX 75201-4234.

2.132. Third-party Defendant Baxter Oil Service is a sole proprietorship and may

be served by serving its owner, Sam L. Baxter, at 5070 Irving St., Beaumont, Texas

77705-5231.

2.133. Third-party Defendant Billy D. Cox Truck Leasing, Inc., is a corporation

duly organized in the State of Texas and may be served by serving its agent, Billy D.

Cox, at 10606 Goodnight Lane, Dallas TX 75220-2407.

2.134. Third-party Defendant Janet Blake, d/b/a D&D Radiator & Muffler, is an

individual who may be served at 7022 Bruton Rd., Dallas TX 75217-1240.

2.135. Third-party Defendant Central Transfer & Storage Company was a

corporation duly organized in the State of Texas. Its charter was forfeited in 2007. It

may be served by serving its agent, David F. Zalkovsky, at 11302 Ferndale Rd., Dallas

TX 75238-1020.

2.136. Third-party Defendant Channel Shipyard is a corporation duly organized

in the State of Texas and may be served by serving its agent, H. Dennis Steger, at 610 S.

Main, Highlands TX 77562-4205.

21

147
 2.137. Third-party Defendant City of Garland is a home-rule municipality in the

State of Texas and may be served at: City of Garland, Bill Dollar, City Manager, 200 N.

5th St., Garland TX 75040-6314.

2.138. Third-party Defendant Clements Oil Corporation is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Texas and may be served by serving its agent, Robert S.

Clements, at 202 2nd St., Atlanta TX 75551-1679.

2.139. Third-party Defendant Collin County is a governmental entity in the State

of Texas and may be served by serving: Keith Self, Collin County Judge, 2300

Bloomdale Rd., Ste. 4192, McKinney TX 75071-8517.

2.140. Third-party Defendant Willow Distributors, LP, successor to Coors

Distributor, is a limited partnership duly organized in the State of Texas and may be

served by serving its agent, Rick F. Rogers, at 800 N. Shoreline, Ste. 800 S., Corpus

Christi TX 78401-3765.

2.141. Third-party Defendant Dallas Dressed Beef Company, Inc., is a corporation

duly organized in the State of Texas and may be served by serving its agent, Jack

Hampton, at 1348 Conant Street, Dallas TX 75207-6006.

2.142. Third-party Defendant Davison Petroleum Products, LLC, is a limited

liability company duly organized in the State of Louisiana and may be served by

serving its agent, Mark E. Davison, at 3809 Skyline Dr., Plano TX 75025-2304.

22

148
 2.143. Third-party Defendant Delmar Disposal Company is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Delaware and may be served by serving its agent, Delmar R.

Ham, Jr., at 8508 CF Hawn Frwy., Dallas TX 75217-7013.

2.144. Third-party Defendant Dixie Oil Company is a sole proprietorship and

may be served by serving its owner, C.E. Burnham, at 8932 Highway 494, Little Rock

MS 39337-9296.

2.145. Third-party Defendant Fred Jordan, Inc., was a corporation duly organized

in the State of Texas, whose charter was forfeited in 1998. It may be served by serving its

agent, Billy Fred Jordan, at 1414 N. Munson Rd., Royse City TX 75189-5378.

2.146. Third-party Defendant Howard Freilich, d/b/a Quick Stop Brake &

Muffler, is an individual residing at 1815 Plymouth Rock Dr., Richardson TX 75081-

3942, where he may be served.

2.147. Third-party Defendant G.B. Boots Smith Corporation is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Delaware and may be served by serving its agent, Corporation

Service Company d/b/a CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service, at 211 E. 7th St., Ste. 620,

Austin TX 78701-3218.

2.148. Third-party Defendant GTE Southwest Incorporated, formerly General

Telephone Company of the Southwest, is a corporation duly organized in the State of

Delaware and may be served by serving its agent, CT Corp. System, at 350 N. Saint Paul

23

149
St., Ste. 2900, Dallas TX 75201-4234.

2.149. Third-party Defendant Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, formerly

General Tire, Inc., is a limited liability company duly organized in the State of Ohio and

may be served by serving its agent, CT Corp. System, 350 N. Saint Paul St., Ste. 2900,

Dallas TX 75201-4234.

2.150. Third-party Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Delaware and may be served by serving its agent, CT Corp.

System, at 350 N. Saint Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas TX 75201-4234.

2.151. Third-party Defendant Grubbs Enterprises, Ltd., is a limited partnership

duly organized in the State of Texas and may be served by serving its agent, Charles S.

Brown, at 4161 McKinney Ave., 4th Floor, Dallas TX 75204.

2.152. Third-party Defendant Hydraulic Service and Supply Company is a

corporation duly organized in the State of Texas and may be served by serving its

agent, Larry E. Spillers, at 100 Howell St., Dallas TX 75207-7104.

2.153. Third-party Defendant BAE Systems Resolution, Inc., f/k/a Stewart &

Stevenson Services, Inc., successor by merger to International Electric Corporation, is a

corporation duly organized in the State of Texas and may be served by serving its

agent, CT Corp. System, at 350 N. Saint Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas TX 75201-4234.

2.154. Third-party Defendant James Gentry, LLC, successor by merger to James

24

150
T. Gentry, Inc., is a limited liability company duly organized in the State of Nevada and

may be served by serving its agent, James T. Gentry, at 7842 Broadacres Rd., Shreveport

LA 71129-3806.

2.155. Third-party Defendant KSDR, Inc., was a corporation duly organized in

the State of Texas, whose charter was forfeited in 1995. It may be served by serving its

agent, Barry S. Brown, at 711 Navarro, Ste. 620, San Antonio TX 78205-1893.

2.156. Third-party Defendant Kelly's Truck Terminal, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Louisiana and may be served by serving its agent, Richard

Rosenblum, at 910 Idaho St., Hammond LA 70401-1710.

2.157. Third-party Defendant Frank Kosar, d/b/a Rite Way Truck Rental, is an

individual residing at 2606 Cartwright St., Dallas TX 75212-4306, where he may be

served.

2.158. Third-party Defendant Lake Country Trucking, Inc., was a corporation

duly organized in the State of Texas, whose charter was forfeited in 1989.

2.159. Third-party Defendant Snyder's-Lance, Inc., formerly Lance, Inc., is a

corporation duly organized in the State of North Carolina and may be served by

serving its agent, Registered Agent Solutions, Inc., at 515 Congress Ave., Ste. 2300,

Austin TX 78701-3560.

2.160. Third-party Defendant The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, successor

25

151
in interest to Long Mile Rubber Company, is a corporation duly organized in the State

of Ohio and may be served by serving its agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a

CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, at 211 E. 7th St., Ste. 620, Austin TX

78701-3218.

2.161. Third-party Defendant Fargo Transport, Inc., f/k/a Davison Transport, Inc.,

successor by merger to Mathews Trucking Company, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Louisiana and may be served by serving its agent, James E.

Davison, at 2000 Farmersville Hwy., Ruston LA 71270-3010.

2.162. Third-party Defendant Don C. McAlister, Inc., f/d/b/a McAlister Construc-

tion Company, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Texas and may be served

by serving its agent, Don C. McAlister, at 6822 Mossvine Cir., Dallas TX 75254-7952.

2.163. Third-party Defendant McDonald's is a corporation duly organized in the

State of Delaware and may be served by serving its agent, Prentice Hall Corp. System,

at 211 E. 7th St., Ste. 620, Austin TX 78701-3218.

2.164. Third-party Defendant Milagro Estates, Inc., f/k/a Mega Lubricants, Inc., is

a corporation duly organized in the State of Texas and may be served by serving its

agent, Lillian Trejo, at 15155 Jacintoport Blvd., Houston TX 77015-6530.

2.165. Third-party Defendant Troy L. Morgan Jr. is an individual residing at 783

Etheredge Rd., Longview TX 75602-7061, where he may be served.

26

152
 2.166. Third-party Defendant Murphy Brothers Service Center, Inc., is a corpora-

tion duly organized in the State of Louisiana and may be served by serving its agent,

Randall M. Murphy, at First and Hazel Streets, Arcadia LA 71001.

2.167. Third-party Defendant Deere & Company, successor in interest to Norwel

Equipment Company, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware and may

be served by serving its agent, CT Corp. System, 350 N. Saint Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas

TX 75201-4234.

2.168. Third-party Defendant Von K. Oxendine, d/b/a/ Oxendine Transmission, is

an individual residing at 2319 N. Beckley Ave., Dallas TX 75208-2116, where he may be

served.

2.169. Third-party Defendant Parrott Oil Corp. is a corporation duly organized in

the State of Texas and may be served by serving its agent, G.N. Parrott, at 10207

Gardner Rd., Dallas TX 75220-4209.

2.170. Third-party Defendant Pearl Brewing, LLC, successor to Pearl Brewing

Company, is a limited liability company duly organized in the State of Texas and may

be served by serving its agent, Barbara J. Hruby, 121 Interpark Blvd., Ste. 300, San

Antonio TX 78216-1850.

2.171. Third-party Defendant Petroleum Distributors, Inc., was a corporation

duly organized in the State of Texas, whose charter was forfeited in 1998. It may be

27

153
served by serving its agent, Stephen F. Holmsley, at 45 NE Loop 410, Ste. 580, San

Antonio TX 78216-5854.

2.172. Third-party Defendant Petroleum Stripping, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Texas and may be served by serving its agent, Michael Otto,

Jr., at 19915 Pinehurst Trail Dr., Humble TX 77338-1732.

2.173. Third-party Defendant Hilite Industries, Inc., f/d/b/a Pitts, is a corporation

duly organized in the State of Delaware and may be served by serving the Texas

Secretary of State, for mailing to 50 Public Square, 32nd Floor, Cleveland OH 44113.

2.174. Third-party Defendant Prestige Ford Garland, LLC, successor in interest to

Prestige Ford Garland Limited Partnership, is a limited liability company duly orga-

nized in the State of Texas, and may be served by serving its agent, Gach Law Firm,

PLLC, 6000 Monroe Rd., Ste. 350, Charlotte NC 28212-1517.

2.175. Third-party Defendant C.S. Residential Management, Inc., f/k/a Preston

Management Company, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Texas and may

be served by serving its agent, H. Craig Evans, at 8214 Westchester Dr., Ste. 850, Dallas

TX 75225-6128.

2.176. Third-party Defendant R & K Auto Repair, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Texas and may be served by serving its agent, Jose L. Rios, at

1835 Barnes Bridge Rd., Dallas TX 75228-2122.

28

154
 2.177. Third-party Defendant Vertis, Inc., successor in interest to Retail Graphics

Printing Company, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Delaware and may be

served by serving its agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorpo-

rating Service Company, at 211 E. 7th St., Ste. 620, Austin TX 78701-3218.

2.178. Third-party Defendant Cecil Robison is an individual residing at 856

County Road 3315, Omaha TX 75571-5382, where he may be served.

2.179. Third-party Defendant Rock-Tenn Converting Company is a corporation

duly organized in the State of Georgia and may be served by serving its agent, Corpora-

tion Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, at 211 E. 7th

St., Ste. 620, Austin TX 78701-3218.

2.180. Third-party Defendant Safeway, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in

the State of Delaware and may be served by serving its agent, United States Corpora-

tion Company, at 211 E. 7th St., Ste. 620, Austin TX 78701-3218.

2.181. Third-party Defendant Santos Radiator is a sole proprietorship and may be

served by serving its owner, JuanJ. Santos, at 2000 Fort Worth Ave., Dallas TX 75208-

1304.

2.182. Third-party Defendant Barloworld Truck Center, Inc., successor by merger

to Texarkana Truck Center, Inc., f/k/a Shreveport Truck Center, is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Tennessee and may be served by serving its agent, Corporation

29

155
Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, at 211 E. 7th St.,

Ste. 620, Austin TX 78701-3218.

2.183. Third-party Defendant South Coast Products, LP, successor to South Coast

Products, Inc., is a limited partnership duly organized in the State of Texas and may be

served by serving its agent, John R. Cantu, at 20 Southbelt Industrial Dr., Houston TX

77047-7010.

2.184. Third-party Defendant Southern Plastics, Inc., is a corporation duly

organized in the State of Louisiana and may be served by serving its agent, National

Registered Agents, Inc., at 16055 Space Center Blvd., Ste. 235, Houston TX 77062-6212.

2.185. Third-party Defendant SBC Holdings, Inc., f/k/a The Stroh Brewery

Company, is a corporation duly organized in the State of Arizona and may be served by

serving its agent, National Registered Agents, Inc., 638 N. 5th Ave., Phoenix AZ 85003-

1529.

2.186. Third-party Defendant Texas State Technical College System is an institu-

tion of higher education and state agency duly organized in the State of Texas and may

be served by serving its President, Dr. Elton E. Stuckly, Jr., at 3801 Campus Drive,

Waco, TX 76705.

2.187. Third-party Defendant Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., successor

in interest to Tri-State Oil Tools, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in the State of

30

156
California and may be served by serving its agent, CT Corp. System, at 350 N. Saint

Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas TX 75201-4234.

2.188. Third-party Defendant Twin City Transmission Service, Inc., is a

corporation duly organized in the State of Louisiana and may be served by serving its

agent, Tracey Ardito, at 2923 Deborah Dr., Monroe LA 71201-1953.

2.189. Third-party Defendant Wray Ford, Inc., is a corporation duly organized in

the State of Louisiana and may be served by serving its agent, George D. Wray, III, at

2851 Benton Rd., Bossier City LA 71111-2311.

D. Third-party Defendants Not Named in the Order

2.190. Third-Party Defendant GATX Rail Corporation is a corporation duly

organized under the laws of the State of New York. It may be served with citation by

serving the Texas Secretary of State for mailing to: Corporation Service Co., 800 Brazos,

Austin, Texas 78701.

2.191. Third-Party Defendant Parker-Hannifin Corporation, successor in interest

to JM Clipper Corporation, is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State

of Ohio. It may be served with citation by serving its agent, CT Corp. System, at 350 N.

Saint Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.

2.192. Third-Party Defendant Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc., successor to

Dorchester Refining Company, is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the

31

157
State of Delaware and may be served by serving its agent, CT Corp. System, at 350 N.

Saint Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas TX 75201-4234.

E. Federal Agencies

2.193. The United States Department of the Navy, a branch of the United States

Department of Defense, is named in the Order (as "Naval Air Station Dallas") but is not

a defendant in this lawsuit. No further action will be taken at this time regarding this

entity.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3.1. This is a suit for the recovery of response costs at a state Superfund site

pursuant to an administrative order of the TCEQ. This Court has jurisdiction over the

enforcement of such administrative orders by virtue of§ 2001.202 of the Texas Adminis-

trative Procedure Act ("AP A"), TEx.Gov'T CODE § 2001.202.

3.2. Venue is proper in Travis County, Texas, by virtue of § 2001.202 of the APA.

4. BACKGROUND

4.1. On February 12, 2010, the TCEQ issued an administrative order ("the

Order") under§§ 361.188 and 361.272 of the Act, concerning a 6.12 acre tract of land at

211 Duncan Road, approximately 1.25 mile west of the intersection of FM 2275 (George

Richey Road) and FM 3272 (North White Oak Road), 2.6 miles north-northeast of

Clarksville City, Gregg County, Texas, known as the Voda Petroleum, Inc., State Super-

32

158
fund Site ("the Site"). 1 A copy of the Order is attached. (See Attach. 1). The Order found

that the Site was contaminated with various solid wastes, as defined in§ 361.003(34) of

the Act, in the soil and sediment. These solid wastes included the following hazardous

substances, as defined in§ 361.003(11) of the Act: cis-1,2-dichloroethylene; benzene; n-

propylbenzene; MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether); tetrachloroethylene; toluene;

1,1,1-trichloroethane; trichloroethylene; 1,2,4- & 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene; vinyl chloride;

m-, o- & p-xylene; 1,1-dichloroethylene; and 1,2-dichloroethane. (See Ex. B to Attach. 1).

4.2. The Site has been proposed for listing on the State Registry of Superfund

Sites. 25 Tex. Reg. 11594 (Nov. 17, 2000). When ranked, the Site had a hazard ranking

score of 23.6, as specified in 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE§ 335.343. The Order required certain

potentially responsible parties to reimburse the Hazardous and Solid Waste Remedia-

tion Fee Account for all costs incurred by the TCEQ for the remedial investigation

("RI"), feasibility study ("FS"), and oversight of these activities. In addition, the Order

required certain parties to reimburse the Hazardous and Solid Waste Fee Account for

all uncompensated Pre-Remedial Investigation costs, including oversight and other

costs.

4.3. The State adopts the allegations, findings and conclusions of the Order herein

by reference.

1
For further description and current status, see:
http://www. tceg .state. tx. us/remediation/superfund/state/voda.html.

33

159
 4.4. The Counter-Defendants listed in subsec. 2.B, above, or their predecessors,

were named as responsible parties in the Order and appealed the Order.

4.5. The Third-Party Defendants listed in subsec. 2.C, above, or their predeces-

sors, were named as responsible parties in the Order. These parties received copies of

the Order with a certified forwarding letter, as shown on Attach. 2, but failed to appeal

within the time specified by law. Accordingly, the Order is now final and unappealable

as to them.

4.6. The Third-Party Defendants listed in subsec. 2.D, above, were not named in

the Order. Their liability arises as a matter of law and they are joined herein pursuant to

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.323 ("the attorney general shall, and a party may,

join as a party a person reasonably believed to be liable .... ").

4.7. To date the TCEQ has spent more than $1,750,000 on pre-remedial and

removal actions, the RI/FS, and remedial action. The TCEQ anticipates that total

response costs will exceed $2,100,000.

4.8. Now the State seeks to recover the costs of its remedial investigation,

feasibility study, removal action, remedial design and remedial action at the Site, plus

reasonable attorneys' fees. The State specifically reserves all claims for natural resource

damages.

34

160
 5. CAUSE OF ACTION FOR COST RECOVERY

5.1. The chemicals of concern found in the soil and sediment at the Site (see

Attach. 1, Ex. B) were "hazardous substances," within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE§ 361.003(11) or "solid wastes" within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE §§ 361.003(34)(B) and 361.271.

5.2. Each hazardous substance, waste or contaminant found at the Site was a

"discarded material" and thus a "solid waste" within the meaning of TEX. HEAL TH &

SAFETY CODE§§ 361.003(34) and 361.271.

5.3. The release of hazardous substances, waste and contaminants at the Site was

a discharging, depositing, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of solid waste into or

on land or water, so that the solid waste or a constituent thereof might be emitted into

the air, discharged into surface water or groundwater, or introduced into the environ-

ment in another manner, and was thus a "disposal" within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH

& SAFETY CODE§ 361.003(7) and 361.133.

5.4. The Site was a site "at which solid waste or hazardous substances have been

disposed" of, within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.133(c).

5.5. The Site was a tract of land on which solid waste was disposed of, and thus

was a "solid waste facility" within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE

§§ 361.003(36) and 361.271.

35

161
 5.6. Each Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendant is a "person" within the

meaning of TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§§ 361.003(23) and 361.271.

5.7. Each Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendant owned or operated a

solid waste facility at the Site at the time of processing, storage or disposal of solid

waste; or arranged to process, store, or dispose of solid waste at the facility; or accepted

solid waste for transport to a facility; and is thus a "person responsible for solid waste"

within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.271(a), and a "responsible

party" within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.197.

5.8. The Counter-Defendants and Third-Party Defendants are responsible parties

who have not complied with the terms of the Order, within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH

& SAFETY CODE§ 361.197(a).

5.9. The Counter-Defendants and Third-Party Defendants are therefore "non-

compliant parties" within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.197(b).

5.10. The TCEQ's response action at the Site was a "remedial action" or "re-

moval" within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§§ 361.003(29-30) and

361.133(c).

5.11. The funds used by the TCEQ for the response actions were taken from the

Hazardous and Solid Waste Remediation Fee Account, established at TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE§ 361.133(a).

36

162
 5.12. The funds expended by the TCEQ were for necessary and appropriate

removal and remedial action at a site where solid waste or hazardous substances had

been disposed of, within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.133(c)(l).

5.13. Funds from a liable person or independent third person were not sufficient

for the removal or remedial action, within the meaning of TEX. HEAL TH & SAFETY CODE

§ 361.133(c)(l).

5.14. Funds from the federal government were not sufficient for the removal or

remedial action, within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.133(c)(l).

5.15. Thus, the funds expended by the TCEQ were "costs of an action taken

under Section 361.133(c)(l), (2), (3), (5) or (6)," within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE§ 361.197(d).

5.16. Accordingly, the TCEQ should have judgment against the Counter-Defen-

dants and Third-Party Defendants for all of its response costs at the Site, as allowed by

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.197(d).

6. ACTION TO ENFORCE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

6.1. Each Third-Party Defendant named in subsec. 2.C, above, failed to appeal the

Order within 30 days of issuance as required by TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE

§ 361.321(c), or within 45 days of the date of receipt, hand delivery, or publication

service as required by TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.322(a). Thus, the Order is final

37

163
and unappealable as to those Third-Party Defendants.

6.2. The Order is not "invalid, arbitrary, or unreasonable" within the meaning of

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.321(e), based upon the substantial evidence rule. See

Gerst v. Nixon, 411S.W.2d350, 354 (Tex. 1966).

6.3. There was an "actual or threatened release of solid waste or hazardous

substances" at the Site that posed an "imminent and substantial endangerment to the

public health and safety or the environment," and the Counter-Defendants and Third-

Party Defendants were "liable for the elimination of the release or threatened release, in

whole or in part," within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.322(g).

6.4. The remedy selected for the Site was not "arbitrary or unreasonable," based

upon the substantial evidence rule. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.322(h), Gerst,

411 S.W.2d at 354.

6.5. Accordingly, the Order should be upheld pursuant to TEX. HEAL TH & SAFETY

CODE§§ 361.321and361.322(g).

6.6. Each Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendant should be ordered to

comply with all the terms and provisions of the Order.

7. INJUNCTION AS ALTERNATIVE TO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

7.1. The Third-Party Defendants listed in subsec. 2.D, above, are "persons

responsible for solid waste," within the meaning of TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE

38

164
§§ 361.271 & 361.273.

7.2. Accordingly, these Third-Party Defendants should be enjoined to "provide

and implement a cost effective and environmentally sound remedial action plan

designed to eliminate the release or threatened release," as required by TEX. HEAL TH &

SAFETY CODE § 361.273(2).

7.3. These Third-Party Defendants should be ordered to carry out all the terms

and provisions of the Order.

8. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

8.1. The TCEQ has incurred reasonable attorneys' fees, reasonable costs to

prepare and provide witnesses, and reasonable costs of investigating and assessing the

Site, and asks that these costs and fees be recovered from the Counter-Defendants and

Third-Party Defendants as allowed by TEX. WATER CODE§ 7.108, TEX. Gov'T CODE

§ 402.006(c) and TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.341.

9. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the TCEQ requests that:

A. Each Third-Party Defendant be served with citation;

B. Each Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendant be required to appear

herein and answer this petition within the time specified by law;

C. The Court uphold the Order and require each Defendant to comply with all

39

165
of its terms and provisions;

D. The TCEQ have judgment against all Counter-Defendants and Third-Party

Defendants, jointly and severally, for its costs incurred and to be incurred in responding

to the release or threatened release of solid waste and hazardous substances at the Site,

plus interest at the legal rate until paid;

E. The TCEQ have judgment against each Counter-Defendant and Third-Party

Defendant for reasonable attorneys' fees, reasonable costs to prepare and provide

witnesses, and all of its court costs; and

F. The Court grant the TCEQ such other and further relief as the Court may

deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this day of August 2011.

GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas

DANIEL T. HODGE
First Assistant Attorney General

BILL COBB
Deputy Attorney General for Civil
Litigation

BARBARA B. DEANE
Chief, Environmental Protection and
Administrative Law Division

DAVID PREISTER
Chief, Environmental Protection Section

40

166
 22!.~
THOMAS H. EDWARDS
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar No. 06461800

Office of the Attorney General
P. 0. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Tel: (512) 463-2012
Fax: (512) 320-0052

ATTORNEYS FOR THE TEXAS
COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, the TCEQ requests that each
Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendant disclose, within 50 days of service of
this request (or waiver of such service), the information or material described in Texas
Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2.

THOMAS H. EDWARDS

41

167
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Thomas H. Edwards, do certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was mailed by first class U.S. mail, on the J S.!: day of August 2011, to the
following parties or attorneys of record:

ATTORNEY PARTY
R. Steve Morton Group of plaintiffs in the AAMCO
Janessa C. Glenn Transmissions case
MOLTZ MORTON O'TOOLE, LLP
106 E. 6th St., Ste. 700
Austin, Texas 78701

John R. Eldridge Group of plaintiffs in the Chevron USA
HA YNES AND BOONE, L.L.P. case
1221 McKinney St., Ste. 2100
Houston, Texas 77010

Adam H. Sencenbaugh Group of plaintiffs in the Chevron USA
Haynes and Boone, L.L.P. case
600 Congress Ave., Ste. 1300
Austin, Texas 78701

Paul M. Terrill III Ark-La-Tex Waste Oil Co., Inc., and
Geoffrey P. Kirshbaum Young Chevrolet, Inc.
THE TERRILL FIRM, P.C.
810 West 10th St.
Austin, Texas 78701

Steve McMillen ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel,
Amber Mad ver LLC
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
98 San Jacinto Blvd., Ste. 1500
Austin, Texas 78701-4039

42

168
Andrew C. Brought Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc.
SPENCER FANE BRITT & BROWNE LLP
1000 Walnut, Ste. 1400
Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Ali Abazari The Sabine Mining Company
JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
100 Congress Ave., Ste. 1100
Austin, Texas 78701

Steve A. Ramon The Sabine Mining Company
JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
112 East Pecan, Ste. 2400
San Antonio, Texas 78205

Robert T. Stewart Southwestern Petroleum Corporation
Brenda L. Clayton
KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP
301 Congress Ave., Ste. 2000
Austin, Texas 78701

John A. Riley Luminant Generation Company, LLC
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
2801 Via Fortuna, Ste. 100
Austin, Texas 78746

John Dugdale Air Liquide America LP
BURFORD & RYBURN, L.L.P.
500 N. Akard, Ste. 3100
Dallas, Texas 75201

:171.
THOMAS H. EDWARDS
U ·\CASES I \/ODA I Counterpeti ti on I Voda Colinlerpetition 110801. wpd

43

169
 APP. E

TCEQ’s Third Original Answer, responding to Shell
and Exxon Mobil, and Plea to the Jurisdiction
(CR:675-687)
 Filed
13 August 9 P3:09
Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza
District Clerk
Travis District
D-1-GN-10-000772
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-10-000772

YOUNG CHEVROLET, INC., et al., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. §
§
TEXAS COMMISSION ON §
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, et al., § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendants, §
§
v. §
§
YOUNG CHEVROLET, INC., et al., §
Counter- and Third-Party § 345th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Defendants §

TCEQ'S THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER, RESPONDING TO
SHELL AND EXXON MOBIL, AND PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Defendants the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ"); and

Chairman Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Commissioner Buddy Garcia, Commissioner Carlos

Rubinstein, and Commissioner Toby Baker,1 in their official capacities; file this Third

Amended Original Answer, responding to the Second Amended Original Petition filed

by Chevron USA, Inc., et al.

I. BACKGROUND

ExxonMobil Corporation and Shell Oil Company were among a group of plaintiffs

1
Commissioner Toby Baker replaced Commissioner Garcia in 2012 and might be
considered to have been substituted into this lawsuit; accordingly he is also listed as a
respondent herein.

675
that filed their Original Petition in case that was subsequently consolidated into the

present case. 2 They filed their First Amended Original Petition in that action on March

26, 2010; the TCEQ answered on March 30, 2010. That cause was consolidated with

others into the present case. See Agreed Order for Consolidation (May 18, 2010). The

TCEQ then filed a counterclaim. See TCEQ's Original Counter-pet. and Third-party Pet.

(Aug. 1, 2011). Subsequently most parties settled their claims with the TCEQ in a

severed action. 3

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants ExxonMobil Corporation, Mobil Oil Corporation,

Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Shell Oil Company filed an Original Answer

(Aug. 7, 2012), that contained a General Denial and incorporated the affirmative

defenses from their First Amended Original Petition. The TCEQ then filed 4 a Second

Supplement to Counter-petition and Third-party Petition (Feb. 7, 2013), which corrected

the name of Mobil Oil Corporation to ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and added Exxon

Mobil Corporation to the case. These parties filed a General Denial that, as before,

incorporated the affirmative defenses in the First Amended Original Petition. See

2
See Chevron USA Inc. v. Tex. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality, No. D-1-GN-10-000793 (419th
Dist. Ct., Travis County, Tex. Mar. 26, 2010).

3
See Agreed Final J., Young Chevrolet, Inc. v. Tex. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality, No. D-1-GN-
12-002297 (345th Dist. Ct., Travis County, Tex. July 30, 2012).

4
The First Supplement to Counter-petition and Third-party Petition (Oct. 5, 2011) is not
relevant here.

2

676
Original Answer to Counter-pet. and Third-party Pet. Oune 11, 2013).

Thus the remaining plaintiffs from the original Chevron USA case, properly

named, are Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Pennzoil-Quaker

State Company and Shell Oil Company. The TCEQ and the Commissioners file the

following amended answer to these plaintiffs' First Amended Original Petition and also

respond to their original answers, to the extent those answers incorporate affirmative

defenses.

II. PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

A. Request for Declaratory Judgment

The Plaintiffs' First Amended Original Petition includes a claim under the Uniform

Declaratory Judgments Act ("UDJA"), TEX. Crv. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 37.001 et seq.,

seeking a declaration that the TCEQ's Administrative Order (Docket No. 2009-1706-SPF,

entered Feb. 12, 2010) ("Order") is invalid or is an ultra vires action by the TCEQ. 5 The

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Order "is of no legal effect" and seeks

their attorney's fees and costs under TEX. Crv. PRAC. & REM. CODE§ 37.009. 6

The court lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' UDJA claim because it seeks a

redundant remedy to that afforded by the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, TEX. HEALTH

5
See Pl.s' First Am. Orig. Pet. (No. D-1-GN-10-000793), paras. 8, 48, 52, 68 and 74.

6
See Pl.' s First Am. Orig. Pet. paras. 48, 68 and 74.

3

677
& SAFETY CODE § 361.001 et seq. ("TSWDA"). The Texas Legislature has defined the sole

method for appealing the Order at TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.322. The TSWDA

sets forth the burden and method for challenging the remedy detailed in the Order at

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.322(g)-(h), and also sets forth the burden and means

for recovering attorneys' fees and costs if the entirety of the Order itself is challenged (to

be awarded only upon a finding by the Court that the Order is "frivolous, unreason-

able, or without foundation").7

This standard subsumes any assertion that the TCEQ or its Commissioners

committed an ultra vires act in issuing the Order. The TSWDA unambiguously sets forth

the sole means and method for parties seeking to challenge the validity of a Superfund

order, and the sole means and method for parties that are successful in such a challenge

to recover their attorneys' fees and costs.

When a statute provides a means to attack an administrative agency's order, one

7
The Solid Waste Disposal Act provides:

Sec. 361.342. COST RECOVERY BY APPEALING OR CONTESTING PARTY. If the
court finds that an administrative order [of the type relevant here] is frivolous,
unreasonable, or without foundation with respect to a party named by the order, the
party appealing or contesting the order is entitled to recover from the state its
reasonable:
(1) attorney's fees;
(2) costs to prepare and provide witnesses; and
(3) costs of studies, analyses, engineering reports, tests, or other projects the
court finds were necessary to prepare the party's case.

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.342.

4

678
may not maintain a declaratory judgment action seeking remedies that are merely

redundant with those available from the statute. See Strayhorn v. Raytheon E-Sys., Inc.,

101 S.W.3d 558, 572 (Tex. App. -Austin 2003, pet. denied).

Accordingly, because Plaintiffs' claims under the UDJA are redundant of and

supplanted by the TSWDA, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear them and they should be

struck. See id.; see also Becon Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Montemayor, 86 S.W.3d 260, 266-67 (Tex.

App.-Austin 2002, no pet.) (merely alleging that an agency has exceeded its authority

is insufficient to confer jurisdiction under the UDJA when a statute provides an express

"avenue for attacking an agency order," because "a declaratory judgment action will

not lie to provide redundant remedies") and Martin v. Amerman, 133 S.W.3d 262, 267

(Tex. 2004) (when a statute expressly governs a party's substantive claims, a party may

not proceed under the UDJA and recover attorneys' fees).

For these same reasons, the court is similarly without jurisdiction over Plaintiffs'

claims that the Plaintiffs' due process rights under the U.S. Constitution (U.S. CONST.

art. XIV) and the Texas Constitution (TEX. CONST. art. I,§ 19) were violated because the

law did not "afford Plaintiffs an opportunity for an adjudicative hearing" before entry

of the Order, Pl.'s First Am. Orig. Pet. para. 49, or as to the "necessity, appropriateness,

and reasonableness of past and future investigation and remedial costs incurred by the

TCEQ," Pl.'s First Am. Orig. Pet. para. 50, because the TSWDA provides the sole

5

679
method and means for attacking the Order. See Young Chevrolet, Inc. v. Tex. Motor Vehicle

Bd., 974 S.W.2d 906, 911 (Tex. App.-Austin 1998, pet. denied).

B. Naming Individuals in Official Capacity

The Plaintiffs' First Amended Original Petition names TCEQ Chairman Bryan W.

Shaw and Commissioners Buddy Garcia and Carlos Rubinstein, in their official capaci-

ties. Pl.s' First Am. Orig. Pet. paras. 3-5 at 2-3. However, the Plaintiffs have an adequate

statutory method of appeal against the Commission, not the Commissioners, see TEX.

HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§§ 361.321, 361.322, and they have brought their appeal under

those sections. See Pl.s' First Am. Orig. Pet. para. 8 at 3.

The TSWDA specifically provides that:

The person appealing the order must join the commission as a party and may
join as parties any other person named as a responsible party in the adminis-
trative order and any other person who is or may be liable for the elimination
of the actual or threatened release of solid waste or hazardous substances
governed by the administrative order.

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.322(d). This section limits the parties whom the

Plaintiffs may join to their appeal. The individual Commissioners are not included and

are rightfully subsumed within the meaning of "commission as a party." Accordingly,

the claims against the individual Commissioners are without statutory authority (and as

set forth in II.A., any claim against the Commissioners under the UDJA is redundant

and adds nothing to the Plaintiffs' remedies) and should be struck.

6

680
 III. PLEA IN ABATEMENT

Defendants re-allege the matters set forth in their plea to the jurisdiction and assert

them also as a plea in abatement.

IV. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Subject to the foregoing plea to the jurisdiction and plea in abatement, Defendants

re-allege the matters set forth in their plea to the jurisdiction and assert them also as

affirmative defenses. Additionally, Defendants assert that:

• Plaintiffs' UDJA claim is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of

sovereign immunity, including both immunity from suit and immunity from

liability.

• The Plaintiffs' request for a declaration under the UDJA that the Order is

invalid, or is an ultra vires action by the TCEQ or the Commissioners, is not

within the scope of the actions authorized by the UDJA.

• Plaintiffs' claims against TCEQ Chairman Bryan W. Shaw and Commissioners

Buddy Garcia and Carlos Rubinstein, in their official capacities, are barred, in

whole or in part, by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, including both

immunity from suit and immunity from liability.

• Plaintiffs' claims against TCEQ Chairman Bryan W. Shaw and Commissioners

Buddy Garcia and Carlos Rubinstein, in their official capacities, are not within

7

681
 the scope of the action provided in Section 361.322 of the Texas Health &

Safety Code.

V. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS

Defendants specially except to the Plaintiffs' attempt to impose a burden of proof

and a standard of review not contemplated by the TSWDA. Plaintiffs assert that TCEQ

and/or its Commissioners committed an ultra vires act or acts in issuing this Superfund

Order. 8 However, the TSWDA clearly sets forth the burden of proof and standards of

review for appeals of Superfund orders, as follows:

The district court shall uphold the administrative order if the commission
proves by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) there is an actual or threatened release of solid waste or hazardous
substances that is an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public
health and safety or the environment; and
(2) the person made subject to the administrative order is liable for the
elimination of the release or threatened release, in whole or in part.

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 361.322(g) (emphasis added). For parties challenging the

"appropriateness of the selected remedial action ... in the appeal of the administrative

order, the remedial action shall be upheld unless the court determines that the remedy

is arbitrary or unreasonable." Id. § 361.322(h) (emphasis added). Finally, a party challeng-

ing the administrative order as a whole may establish that it is "frivolous, unreasonable, or

without foundation with respect to a party named by the order." Id.§ 361.342 (emphasis

8
See Pl.s' First Am. Orig. Pet., paras. 8, 48, 52, 68 and 74.

8

682
added). The TSWDA does not contemplate any other burdens or standards of review

for challenges to Superfund Orders.

Therefore, the standard of review in the appeal of this Order is not whether the

TCEQ committed an ultra vires act, but whether:

(a) TCEQ can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the two factors

listed in§ 361.322(g)(l) and (2);

(b) Plaintiffs can show that the selection of the remedy by TCEQ was arbitrary

or unreasonable; or

(c) Plaintiffs can show that the Order as a whole is "frivolous, unreasonable,

or without foundation with respect to a party named by the order." Id.§ 361.342.

Plaintiffs' attempts to change these standards of review and burdens (in particular in

the allegations stated in para. 52 in Plaintiffs' First Amended Original Petition) are

without merit and must be stricken or properly amended.

VI. GENERAL DENIAL

The Defendants deny each and every allegation in Plaintiffs' First Amended

Original Petition and demand strict proof thereof. The Defendants reserve the right to

amend this Third Amended Original Answer as allowed under the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendants pray judgment of this

9

683
Court denying the relief requested by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants further pray for all

costs of court and for such other relief as to which they may be justly entitled, both in

law and in equity.

Respectfully submitted this L~ day of August 2013.

GREG ABBOTT
A ttomey General of Texas

DANIEL T. HODGE
First Assistant Attorney General

JOHN B. SCOTT
Deputy Attorney General for Civil
Litigation

JON NIERMANN
Chief, Environmental Protection Division

THOMAS H. EDWARDS
Assistant Attorney General
Tex.BarNo.06461800
Thomas.Ed wards@TexasAttorneyGeneral.gov

CRAIG J. PRITZLAFF
Assistant Attorney General
Tex.BarNo.24046658
Craig.Pritzlaff@TexasAttorneyGeneral.gov

10

684
 Office of the Attorney General
P. 0. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Tel: (512) 463-2012
Fax: (512) 320-0911

ATTORNEYS FOR THE TEXAS
COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY, CHAIRMAN BRYAN W.
SHAW, PH.D., COMMISSIONER BUDDY
GARCIA, COMMISSIONER CARLOS
RUBINSTEIN, AND COMMISSIONER
TOBY BAKER

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Thomas H. Edwards, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served by First Class U.S. Mail on the following parties or
attorneys of record, on the 1 -Ht day of August 2013.

Attorneys Parties

John R. Eldridge Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil
HAYNES AND BOONE, L.L.P. Oil Corporation, Pennzoil-Quaker State
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2100 Company and Shell Oil Company
Houston, Texas 77010
Telephone: (713) 547-2000
Facsimile: (713) 547-2600
john.eldridge@haynesboone.com

11

685
Paul M. Terrill III Ark-La-Tex Waste Oil Co., Inc.
Geoffrey P. Kirshbaum
THE TERRILL FIRM, P.C.
810 West 10th Street
Austin, Texas 78701-2005
Telephone: (512) 474-9100
Facsimile: (512) 474-9888
gkirshbaum@terrill-law.com

John E. Leslie Howard Freilich, d/b/a Quick Stop
JOHN LESLIE I PLLC Brake and Muffler
1216 Florida Dr., Ste. 140
Arlington, Texas 76015-2393
Tel: (817) 505-1291

Carl D. Haddad Petroleum Stripping, Inc.
GRAY, BURCH & HADDAD
13301 East Freeway, Ste. 225
Houston, Texas 77015
Tel: (713) 453-6339
Fax: (713) 453-6923
gbhlawfirm@yahoo.com

Sam L. Baxter, Pres. Baxter Oil Service
P.O. Box 20255
Beaumont TX 77720-0255
Tel: 409-840-9000
Fax: 409-840-9090
samleebaxter@gmail.com

Frank Kosar d/b/a Rite Way Truck Rental
2606 Cartwright St.
Dallas TX 75212-4306

12

686
Norit Americas, Inc. Norit Americas, Inc., successor to
William A. Smith, Sr. Counsel American Norit Company, Inc.
3200 University Ave.
P.O. Box 790
Marshall TX 75671
Tel: 903-923-1056
Fax: 903-938-9701
bsmith@norit-americas.com

Billy D. Cox Truck Leasing, Inc.
BillyD. Cox
P.O. Box 541235
Dallas TX 75254

Janet Blake d/b/a D&D Radiator & Muffler
7022 Bruton Rd.
Dallas TX 75217-1240

David F. Zalkovsky, Agent Central Transfer & Storage Co.
11302 Ferndale Rd.
Dallas TX 75238-1020

George E. Kuhn SBC Holdings, Inc., f/k/a The Stroh
BUTZEL LONG Brewery Company
350 S. Main St., Ste 300
Ann Arbor MI 48104
Tel: 734-213-3257
Fax: 734-995-1777
kuehn@butzel.com

THOMAS H. EDWARDS

U:\CASES\ YODA \PLEADINGS\3rd Amd Orig Ans 130808.wpd

13

687
 APP. F

Act approved June 2, 1969, 61st Leg., R.S., ch. 405, 1969
Tex. Gen. Laws 1320, 1320 (repealed 1989)
recodified by Act approved June 14, 1989, 71st Leg.,
R.S., ch. 678, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 2230
Ch. 405 61ST LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
CHAPTER 405 GU

S. B. No. 125
An Act relatlng to the control of the collectlon, handling, storage, and dlsposal of
putresclble and non-putresclble discarded or unwanted materlals, 1ncludlng
solld materlals and certain materials In llquld or semlllquid form, referred
to in this Act as "solld waste"; prescribing the duties, powers, and func·
tions of the State Department of Health, the Texas Water Quallty Board,
counties, cities, and certain other polltical subdivisions of the state relative
to solid waste management programs and control; prohibiting the collection,
handling, storage or disposal of solld waste or the use or operation of sites
for the disposal of solid waste in violation of this Act or of any rules, reg.
ulatlons, permits, llcenses, or other orders promulgated under this Act;
prescribing penalties for violations and providing for enforcement; provid·
Ing for severability; and declaring an emergency.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas:
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
It is the policy of the state and the purpose of this Act to safeguard the
health, welfare, and physical property of the people through controlling
the collection, handling, storage, and disposal of solid wastes.
Sec. 2. As used in this Act, unless the context requires a different
definition:
(1) "person" means individual, corporation, organization, government
or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, partnership, as-
sociation, or any other legal entity;
(2) "department" means the Texas State Department of Health;
(3) "board" means the Texas Water Quality Board;
(4) "local government" means a county; an incorporated city or town;
or a political subdivision exercising the authority granted under Section
6 of this Act;
(5) "solid waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible discarded
or unwanted solid materials, including municipal solid waste and indus-
trial solid waste; as used in this Act, the term "solid waste" does not in-
clude, and this Act does not apply to: (i) soil, dirt, rock, sand and other
natural and man-made inert solid materials used to fill land if the object
of the fill is to make the land suitable for the construction of surface im-
provements; or (ii) waste materials which result from activities asso-
ciated with the exploration, development, or production of oil or gas and
are subject to control by the Texas Railroad Commission;
(6) "municipal solid waste" means solid waste resulting from or inci-
dental to municipal, community, trade, business and recreational activities,
including garbage, rubbish, ashes, street cleanings, dead animals, aban-
doned automobiles, and all other solid waste other than industrial solid
waste.
(7) "industrial solid waste" means solid waste resulting from or inci-
dental to any process of industry or manufacturing, or mining or agri-
cultural operations, including discarded or unwanted solid materials sus-
pended or trani>ported in liquids, and discarded or unwanted materials in
liquid or semi-liquid form; the term "industrial solid waste" does not
69. Vernon's Ann.Clv.St. nrt. 4477-7, §§
1-11.

1320
 GIST LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 405

include waste materials, the discharge of which is subject to the Texas
Water Quality Act;
(8) "garbage" means solid waste consisting of putrescible animal and
vegetable waste materials resulting from the handling, preparation, cook-
ing, and consumption of food, including waste materials from markets,
storage facilities, handling, and sale of produce and other food products;
(9) "rubbish" means nonputrescible solid waste (excluding ashes),
consisting of both combustible and noncombustible waste materials; com-
bustible rubbish includes paper, rags, cartons, wood, excelsior, furniture,
rubber, plastics, yard trimmings, leaves, and similar materials; noncom-
bustible rubbish includes glass, crockery, tin cans, aluminum cans, metal
furniture, and like materials which will not burn at ordinary incinerator
temperatures (1600° F to 1800° F) ;
(10) "sanitary landfill" means a controlled area of land upon which
solid waste is disposed of in accordance with standards, regulations or
orders established by the department or the board;
(11) "incineration" means the destruction of solid waste by burning
in a furnace used for the volume reduction of solid waste (an incinera-
tor); and
(12) "composting" means the controlled biological decomposition of
organic solid waste under aerobic conditions.
Sec. 3. (a) The department is hereby designated the state solid waste
agency with respect to the collection, handling, storage, and disposal of
municipal solid waste, and shall be the coordinating agency for all mu-
nicipal solid waste activities. The department shall be guided by the
State Board of Health in its activities relating to municipal solid waste.
The department shall seek the accomplishment of the purposes of this
Act through the control of all aspects of municipal solid waste collection,
handling, storage, and disposal by all practical and economically feasible
methods consistent with the powers and duties given the department under
this Act and other existing legislation. The department has the powers
and duties specifically prescribed in this Act and all other powers neces-
sary or convenient to carry out its responsibilities. The department shall
consult with the board with respect to the water pollution control and
water quality aspects, and with the Texas Air Control Board with respect
to the air pollution control and ambient air quality aspects, of the mat-
ters placed under the jurisdiction of the department by this Act.
(b) The board is hereby designated the state solid waste agency with
respect to the collection, handling, storage and disposal of industrial
solid waste, and shall be the coordinating agency for all industrial solid
waste activities. The board shall seek the accomplishment of the purposes
of this Act through the control of all as1iects of industrial solid waste
collection, handling, storage and disposal by all practical and economically
feasible methods consistent with the powers and duties given it under this
Act and other existing legislation. The board has the powers and duties
specifically prescribed in this Act and all other powers necessary or
convenient to carry out its responsibilities. The board shall consult with
the department with respect to the public health aspects, and with the
Texas Air Control Board with respect to the air pollution control and
ambient air quality aspects, of the matters placed under the jurisdiction
of the board by this Act.
(c) Where both municipal solid waste and industrial solid waste are
involved in any activity of collecting, handling, storing or disposing of
solid waste, the department is the state agency responsible and has juris-
diction over the activity; and, with respect to that activity, the depart-
1321
Ch. 405 61ST LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION
ment may exercise all of the powers, duties and functions vested in the
department by this Act.
Sec. 4. (a) As used in this section, the term "state agency" refers
to either the department or the board, and "state agencies" means both the
department and the board.
(b) The department is authorized to develop a state municipal solid
waste plan, and the board is authorized to develop a state industrial solid
waste plan. The state agencies shall coordinate the solid waste plans
developed. Before a state agency adopts its solid waste plan or makes
any significant amendments to the plan, the Texas Air Control Board shall
have the opportunity to comment and make recommendations on the
proposed plan or amendments, and shall be given such reasonable time
to do so as the state agency may specify.
{c) Each state agency may adopt and promulgate rules and regula-
tions consistent with the general intent and purposes of this Act, and
establish minimum standards of operation for all aspects of the manage-
ment and control of the solid waste over which it has jurisdiction under
this Act, including but not limited to collection, handling, and storage,
and disposal by incineration, sanitary landfill, composting, or other
method.
( d) Each state agency is authorized to inspect and approve sites used
or proposed to be used for the disposal of the solid waste over which it
hail jurisdiction.
(e) Except as provided in Subsection (f) of this section with respect
to certain industrial solid wastes, each state agency has the power to
require and issue permits authorizing and governing the operation and
maintenance of sites used for the disposal of solid waste. This power
may be exercised by a state agency only with respect to the solid waste
over which it has jurisdiction under this Act. If this power is exercised
by a state agency, that state agency shall prescribe the form of and
reasonable requirements for the permit application and the procedures to
be followed in processing the application, to the extent not otherwise
provided for in this subsection. The following additional provisions apply
if a state agency exercises the power authorized in this subsection:
(1) The state agency to whom the permit application is submitted shall
mail a copy of the application or a summary of its contents to the Texas
Air Control Board, to the other state agency, to the mayor and health
authorities of any city or town within whose extraterritorial jurisdiction
the solid waste disposal site is located, and to the county judge and health
authorities of the county in which the site is located. The governmental
entities to whom the information is mailed shall have a reasonable time,
as prescribed by the state agency to whom the application was originally
submitted, to present comments and recommendations on the permit ap-
plication before that state agency acts on the application.
(2) A separate permit shall be issued for each site. The permit shall
include the names and addresses of the person who owns the land where
the waste disposal site is located and the person who is or will be the
operator or person in charge of the site; a legal description of the land
on which the site is located; and the terms and conditions on which the
permit is issued, including the duration of the permit.
(3) The state agency may extend or renew any permit it issues in
accordance with reasonable procedures prescribed by the state agency.
The procedures prescribed in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection (e) for
permit applications apply also to applications to extend or renew a per-
mit.
1322
 61ST LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 405

( 4) If a permit is issued, renewed, or extended by a state agency in
accordance with this Subsection (e), the owner or operator of the site
does not need to obtain a license for the same site from a county, or from
a political subdivision exe1 :!ising the authority granted in Section 6 of
this Act.
(5) A permit is issued in personam and does not attach to the realty
to which it relates. A permit may not be transferred without prior notice
to and prior approval by the state agency which issued it.
(6) The state agency has the authority, for good cause, after hearing
with notice to the permittee and to the governmental entities named in
Paragraph (1) of this Subsection (e), to revoke or amend any permit it
issues for reasons pertaining to public health, air or water pollution, land
use, or violation of this Act or of any other applicable laws or regulations
controlling the disposal of solid waste.
(f) This subsection applies to the collection, handl:lng, storage, and
disposal of industrial solid waste which is disposed of within the property
boundaries of a tract of land owned and controlled by the owners or
operators of the particular industrial plant, manufacturing plant, mining
operation, or agricultural operation from which the waste results or is
produced, and which tract of land is within 50 miles from the plant or
operation which is the source of the industrial solid waste. This sub-
section does not apply if the waste is collected, handled, stored, or dis-
posed of with solid waste from uny other source or sources. The board
may not require a permit under this Act for the disposal of any solid
waste to which this subsection applies, but this does not change or limit
any authority the board may have with respect to the requirement of
permits, the control of water quality, or otherwise, under the Texas Water
Quality Act. However, the board may adopt rules and regulations as
provided under Subsection (c) of this section to govern and control the
collection, handling, storage, and disposal of the industrial solid waste
to which this subsection applies so as to protect the property of others,
public property and rights-of-way, groundwater, and other rights requir-
ing protection. The board may require a person who disposes or plans to
dispose of industrial solid waste under the authority of this subsection to
submit to the board such information as may be reasonably required to
enable the board, or the executive director of the board when so author-
ized by the board, to determine whether in the judgment of the board or
the executive director the waste disposal activity is one to which this
subsection applies.
(g) The state agencies may, either individually or jointly:
(1) provide educational, advisory, and technical services to other agen-
cies of the state, regional planning agencies, local governments, special
districts, institutions, and individuals with respect to solid waste man-
agement and control, including collection, storage, handling and dis-
posal;
(2) assist other agencies of the state, regional planning agencies, local
governments, special districts, and institutions in acquiring federal grants
for the development of solid waste facilities and management programs,
and for research to improve the state of the art; and
(3) accept funds from the federal government for purposes relating
to solid waste management, and to expend money received from the federal
government for those purposes in the manner prescribed by law and in
accordance with such agreements as may be necessary and appropriate
between the federal government and each state agency.
1323
Ch. 405 61ST LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION
If a state agency engages in any of the programs and activities named
in this subsection on an individual basis, it may do so only as the partici-
pation by that state agency is related to the management and control of
the solid waste over which it has jurisdiction. When the state agencies do
not participate jointly, they shall coordinate on any efforts undertaken by
either one individually so that similar programs and activities of the state
agencies will be compatible.
(h) The state agencies are authorized to administer and expend state
funds provided to them by legislative appropriations, or otherwise, for
the purpose of making grants to local governments for solid waste plan-
ning, the installation of solid waste facilities, and the administration of
solid waste programs. The grants made under the terms of this Act
shall be distributed in a manner determined by the state agency to whom
the appropriation is made. Any financial assistance granted by the state
through either of the state agencies to any local government under the
terms of this Act must, at a minimum, be equally matched by local gov-
ernment funds.
Sec. 5. (a) Every county has the solid waste management powers
which are enumerated in this Section 5. However, the exercise of the
licensing authority and other powers granted to counties by this Act
does not preclude the department or the board from exercising any of
the powers vested in the department or the board under other provisions
of this Act, including specifically the provisions authorizing the depart-
ment and the board to issue permits for the operation and maintenance
of sites for the disposal of solid waste. The powers specified in Sub-
sections (d), (e), and (g) of this section may not be exercised by a county
with respect to the industrial solid waste disposal practices and areas
to which Subsection (f) of Section 4 of this Act applies. The department
or the board, by specific action or directive, may supersede any authority
or power granted to or exercised by a county under this Act, but only
with respect to those matters which are, under this Act, within the juris-
diction of the state agency acting.
(b) A county is authorized to appropriate and expend money from
its general revenues for the collection, handling, storage and disposal
of solid waste and for administering a solid waste program; and to
charge reasonable fees for the services.
(c) A county may develop county solid waste plans and coordinate
those plans with the plans of local governments, regional planning agen-
cies, other governmental entities, the department, and the board.
(d) Except as provided in Subsection (a) of this section, a county
is empowered to require and issue licenses authorizing and governing
the operation and maintenance of sites used for the disposal of solid
waste in areas not within the territorial limits of incorporated cities
and towns. If this power is exercised, the county shall prescribe the form
of and reasonable requirements for the license application and the pro-
cedures to be followed in processing the application, to the extent not
otherwise provided for in this subsection. The following additional
provisions apply if a county exercises the power authorized in this Sub-
section ( d) :
(1) The county shall mail a copy of the license application or a sum-
mary of its contents to the department, the board, and the Texas Air
Control Board, and to the mayor and health authorities of any city
within whose extraterritorial jurisdiction the solid waste disposal site
is located. The governmental entities to whom the information is mailed
shall have a reasonable time, as prescribed by the county, to submit
1324
 61ST LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 405
comments and recommendations on the license application before the
county acts on the application,
(2) A separate license shall be issued for each site. The license shall
include the names and addresses of the person who owns the land where
the waste disposal site is located and the person who is or will be the
operator or person in charge of the site; a legal description of the land on
which the site is located; and the terms and conditions on which the
license is issued, including the duration of the license. The county is
authorized to charge a fee for a license of not to exceed $100.00, as set by
the commissioners court of the county. Receipts from the fees shall be
placed in the general revenue fund of the county.
(3) The county may extend or renew any license it issues in accord-
ance with reasonable procedures prescribed by the county, The proce-
dures prescribed in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection (d) apply also to
applications to extend or renew a license.
(4) No license for the use of a site for disposal of solid waste may be
issued, renewed, or extended without the prior approval, as appropriate,
of the department or the board, or the executive director of the board
when so authorized by the board. If a license is issued, renewed, or
extended by a county in accordance with this Subsection (d), the owner
or operator of the site does not need to obtain a permit from the depart-
ment or the board for the same site.
(5) A license is issued in personam and does not attach to the realty
to which it relates. A license may not be transferred without prior notice
to and prior approval by the county which issued it.
(6) The county has the authority, for good cause, after hearing with
notice to the licensee and to the governmental entities named in Para-
graph (1) of this Subsection (d), to revoke or amend any license it issues
for reasons pertaining to public health, air or water pollution, land use,
or violation of this Act or of any other applicable laws or regulations
controlling the disposal of solid waste. For like reasons, the department
and the board each may, for good cause, after hearing with notice to the
licensee, the county which issued the license, and the other governmental
entities named in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection (d), revoke or amend
any license issued by a county, but only as to those sites which fall, under
the terms of this Act, within the jurisdiction of the state agency acting.
( e) Subject to the limitation specified in Subsection (a) of this sec-
tion, a county may designate land areas not within the territorial limits
of incorporated cities and towns as suitable for use as solid waste dis-
posal sites. The county shall base these designations on the principles of
public health, safety, and welfare, including proper land use, compliance
with state statutes, the reasonable projections of growth and development
for any city or town within whose extraterritorial jurisdiction the land
area may be located, and any other pertinent considerations.
(f) A county is authorized to enforce the requirements of this Act and
the rules and regulations promulgated by the department and the board as
related to the handling of solid waste.
(g) Subject to the limitation prescribed in Subsection (a) of this
section, a county, acting through its commissioners court, may make reg-
ulations for the areas of the county not within the territorial limits of
incorporated cities and towns to provide for governing and controlling
solid waste collection, handling, storage and disposal. The regulations
shall not authorize any activity, method of operation or procedure which
is prohibited by this Act or by the rules and regulations of the department
or the board. The county shall not, in its regulations, under the licensing
1325
Ch. 405 61ST LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION
power granted in this Act, or otherwise, prohibit the use of a site within
the county for the disposal of solid waste on the basis that the solid waste
originates outside that county, or impose any unreasonable requirements
on the disposal of such solid waste in the county not warranted by the
circumstances. The county may institute legal proceedings to enforce its
regulations.
(h) A county may enter into cooperative agreements with local gov-
ernments and other governmental entities for the purpose of the joint
operation of solid waste collection, handling, storage and disposal fa-
cilities, and to charge reasonable fees for the services.
Sec. 6. This section applies to a political subdivision of the state
which has jurisdiction over two or more counties or parts of two or more
counties, and which has been granted the power by the Legislature to
regulate solid waste handling or disposal practices or activities within
its jurisdiction. The governing body of such a political subdivision may,
by formal resolution, assume for the political subdivision the exclusive
authority to exercise, within the area subject to its jurisdiction, the powers
granted in this Act to a county, to the exclusion of the exercise of the same
powers by the counties otherwise having jurisdiction over the area. In
the exercise of these powers the political subdivision is subject to the
same duties, limitations and restrictions applicable to counties under this
Act. When a political subdivision assumes this authority, it shall also
serve as the coordinator of solid waste handling and disposal practices
and activities for all cities, counties and other governmental entities with-
in its jurisdiction which have solid waste disposal regulatory powers or
engage in solid waste handling or disposal practices or activities. Once
a political subdivision assumes the authority granted in this section, it
is empowered to and shall exercise the authority so long as the resolution
of the political subdivision remains in effect.
Sec. 7. The authorized agents or employees of the department, the
board, and local governments have the right to enter at all reasonable
times in or upon any property, whether public or private, within the gov-
ernmental entity's jurisdiction, including in the case of an incorporated
city or town its extraterritorial jurisdiction, for the purpose of inspecting
and investigating conditions relating to solid waste management and
control. Agents and employees shall not enter private property having
management in residence without notifying the management, or the
person in charge at the time, of their presence and exhibiting proper
credentials. The agents and employees shall observe the rules and regu-
lations of the establishment being inspected concerning safety, internal
security, and fire protection.
Sec. 8. (a) No person may cause, suffer, allow or permit the col-
lection, storage, handling or disposal of solid waste, or the use or opera-
tion of a site for the disposal of solid waste, in violation of this Act or of
the rules, regulations, permits, licenses or other orders of the department
or the board, or a county or a political subdivision exercising the authority
granted in Section 6 of this Act within whose jurisdiction the violation
occurs.
(b) Any person who violates any provision of this Act or of any rule,
regulation, permit, license, or other order of the department or the board,
or a county or a political subdivision exercising the authority granted in
Section 6 of this Act within whose jurisdiction the violation occurs, is
subject to a civil penalty of not less than $50.00 nor more than $1,000.00
for each act of violation and for each day of violation, as the court may
deem proper, to be recovered in the manner provided in this Section 8.
1326
 61ST LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 405

(c) Whenever it appears that a person has violated, or is violating
or threatening to violate, any provision of this Act, or of any rule, regula-
tion, permit, or other order of the department or the board, then the
department or the board, or the executive director of the board when so
authorized by the board, may cause a civil suit to be instituted in a district
court for injunctive relief to restrain the person from continuing the
violation or threat of violation, or for the assessment and recovery of a
civil penalty of not less than $50.00 nor more than $1,000.00 for each act
of violation and for each day of violation, as the court may deem proper,
or for both injunctive relief and civil penalty. Upon application for
injunctive relief and a finding that a person is violating or threatening
to violate any provision of this Act or any rule, regulation, permit, or other
order of the department or the board, the district court shall grant ap-
propriate injunctive relief. At the request of the department or the
board, or the executive director of the board when so authorized by the
board, the attorney general shall institute and conduct a suit in the name
of the State of Texas for injunctive relief or to recover the civil penalty,
or for both injunctive relief and penalty, as authorized in this subsection.
(d) Whenever it appears that a violation or threat of violation of any
provision of this Act, or of any rule, regulation, permit, license, or other
order of the department, the board, a county, or a political subdivision
exercising the authority granted in Section 6 of this Act, has occurred or
is occurring within the jurisdiction of that county or political subdivision,
the county or political subdivision, in the same manner as the board and
the department, may cause a L,viJ suit to be instituted in a district court
through its own attorney for the injunctive relief or civil penalties, or
buth, as authorized in Subsection (c) of this section, against the person
who committed, is committing, or is threatening to commit, the violation.
(e) Wheneve::r it appears that a violation or threat of violation of any
provision of this Act, or of any rule, regulation, permit, license, or other
order of the department, the board, a county, or a political subdivision
exercisin . r the authority granted in Section 6 of this Act, has occurred or
is occurring within the area of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of an
incorporated city or town, or is causing or will cause injury to or an
adverse effect on the health, welfare or physical property of the city or
town or its inhabitants, then the city or town, in the same manner as the
board and the department, may cause a civil suit to be instituted in a dis-
trict court through its own attorney for the injunctive relief or civil
penalties, or both, as authorized in Subsection ( c) of this section, against
the person who committed, is committing, or is threatening to commit, the
violation.
(f) A suit for injunctive relief or for recovery of a civil penalty,
or for both injunctive relief and penalty, may be brought either in the
county where the defendant resides or in the county where the violation or
threat of violation occurs. In any suit brought to enjoin a violation or
threat of violation of this Act or of any rule, regulation, permit, license
or other order of the board, the department, a county, or a political
subdivision exercising the authority granted in Section 6 of this Act, the
court may grant the governmental en'.ity bringing the suit, without bond
or other undertaking, any prohibitory or mandatory injunction the facts
may warrant, including temporary restraining orders after notice and
hearing, temporary injunctions, and permanent injunction8.
(g) In a suit brought by a local government under Subsection (d) or
(e) of this section, the board and the department arc necessary and in-
dispensable parties.
1327
Ch. 405 GIST LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION

(h) Any party to a suit may appeal from a final judgment as in other
civil cases.
(i) All civil penalties recovered in suits instituted under this Act by
the State of Texas through the board or the department shall be paid to
the General Revenue Fund of the State of Texas. All civil penalties recov-
ered in suits first instituted by a local government or governments under
this Act shall be equally divided between the State of Texas on the one
hand and the local government or governments on the other, with 50 per
cent of the recovery to be paid to the General Revenue Fund of the State
of Texas and the other 50 per cent equally to the local government or
governments first instituting the suit.
Sec. 9. A person affected by any ruling, order, decision, or other act
of the department or the board may appeal by filing a petition in a dis-
trict court of Travis County. A person affected by any ruling, order,
decision, or other act of a county, or of a political subdivision exercising
the authority granted in Section 6 of this Act, may appeal by filing a
petition in a district court having jurisdiction in the county or political
subdivision. The petition must be filed within 30 days after the date of
the action, ruling, order, or decision of the governmental entity complained
of. Service of citation must be accomplished within 30 days after the
date the petition is filed. The plaintiff shall pursue his action with rea-
sonable diligence. If the plaintiff does not prosecute his action within one
year after the action is filed, the court shall presume that the action has
been abandoned. The court shall dismiss the suit on a motion for dis-
missal made by the governmental entity whose action is appealed, unless
the plaintiff, after receiving due notice, can show good and sufficient
cause for the delay. In an appeal from an action by the department, the
board, a county, or a political subdivision exercising the authority granted
in Section 6 of this Act, the issue is whether the action is invalid, arbitrary
or unreasonable.
Sec. 10. This Act is cumulative of and supplemental to any other
Jaws and parts of laws relating to the same subject and does not repeal
those other laws or parts of laws. Nothing in this Act diminishes or
limits, or is intended to diminish or limit, the authority of the department,
the board, the Texas Air Control Board, or local governments in perform-
ing any of the powers, functions, and duties vested in those governmental
entities by other law"
Sec. 11. SeverabiiitY Clause. The provisions of this Act 11re sever-
able. If any word, phrase, clause, sentence, section, provision or part of
this Act should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, it shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions, and it is hereby declared
to be the legislative intent that this Act would have been passed as to
the remaining portions, regardless of the invalidity of any part.
Sec. 12. Emergency Clause. The importance to the public of the
amendments in this Act creates an emergency and imperative public
necessity demanding the suspension of the Constitutional Rule requiring
bills to be read on three several days in each House, and the same is
hereby suspended; and this Act shall take effect and be in force from and
after its passage, and it is so enacted.
Passed the Senate on April 1, 1969, by a viva voce vote; l\lay 23, 1969,
Senate concurred in House amendments by a viva voce vote; passed
the House on l\lay 22, 1969, with amendments, by a non-record vote.
Approved June 2, 1969.
Effective, Sept. 1, 1969, 90 days after date of adjournment.

1328
 APP. G

Act approved June 15, 1973, 63rd Leg., R.S., ch. 576,
1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 1595 (current version at Tex.
Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.003(24) (West 2010)
 63rd LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 576

urban programming, nor shall this Act affect any institute for urban
studies conducted by other institutions of higher education.
Sec. 3. The importance of this legislation and the crowded condition
of the calendars in both houses create an emergency and an imperative
public necessity that the constitutional rule requiring bills to be read on
three several days in each house be suspended, and this rule in hereby sus-
pended, and that this Act take effect and be in force from and after its
passage, and it is so enacted.
Passed the senate on May 10, 1973: Yeas 31, Nays O; passed the house
on May 25, 1973, by the following vote: Yeas 143, Nays 0, three
present not voting.
Approved June 15, 1973.
Effective June 15, 1973.

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL-PERSON AFFECTED DEFINED
CHAPTER 576

S. B. No. 871
An Act relating to defining the term ••person affected" and setting forth that
definition; amending the Solid Waate Dlapoaal Act, aa amended (Ar·
tlcle 4477-7, Vernon's Texaa Civil Statutes), by adding a new Sub.ectlon
(13) to Section 2; and declaring an emergency.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas:
Section 1. The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (Article 4477
-7, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), is amended by adding 73 a new Subsec-
tion ( 13) to Section 2 to read as follows:
"(13) 'Person affected' for the purpose of Section 9 hereof means any
person who is a resident of a county or any county adjacent or contiguous
to the county in which a site, facility or plant is to be located including any
person who is doing business or owns land in the county or adjacent or
contiguous county and any local government. Such person affected shall
also demonstrate that he has suffered or will suffer actual injury or eco-
nomic damage."
Sec. 2. The importance of this legislation and the crowded condition
of the calendars in both houses create an emergency·and an imperative
public necessity that the constitutional rule requiring bills to be read on
three several days in each house be suspended, and this rule is hereby
suspended, and that this Act take effect and be in force from and after
its passage, and it is so enacted.
Passed the senate on May 3, 1973: Yeas 31, Nays 0; May 21, 1973, sen-
ate concurred in house amendments by a viva-voce vote;
Passed the house, with amendments, on May 19, 1973 by a non-record
vote.
Approved June 15, 1973.
Effective Aug. 27, 1973, 90 days after date of adjournment.
73. Vernon's Ann.Clv.St. nrt. 4477-7. § 2,
subsec. (13).

1595
 APP. H

Act approved June 12, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 566,
1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 2166 (repealed 1989)
recodified by Act approved June 14, 1989, 71st Leg.,
R.S., ch. 678, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 2230
CH 565, SEC 2 69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION
(2) Article S176, Revised Statutes;
(3) Article S177, Revised Statutes;
(4) Article 5178, Revised Statutes;
(S) Article Sl 78a, Revised Statutes; and
(6) Section 21.076, Education Code.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 1985.
SECTION 4, The importance of this legislation and the crowded condition of the calendars
in both houses create an emergency and an imperative public necessity that the constitutional
rule requiring bills to be read on three several days in each house be suspended, and this rule is
hereby suspended.
Passed by the House on May 9, 1985, by a non-record vote; passed by the Senate on
May 24, 1985, by the following vote: Yeas 29, Nays o.
Approved: June 12, 1985
Effective: August 26, 1985

CHAPTER 566
H.B. No. 2358

An Act relating to the regulation of the treatment, storage, management and disposal of hazardous
waste and solid waste.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas:
SECTION 1. Section 2, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-7, Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes), is amended to reed as follows:
Sec. 2. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Act, unless the context requires a different
definition:
(I) "Administratively complete" means that a complete permit application form, as well as the
report and fees required to be submitted with a permit application, have been submitted to the
department or the department of water resources and the permit application is ready for technical
review in accordance with the rules of the department or department of water resources.
(2) "Apparent recharge zone" means that recharge zone designated on maps prepared or
compiled by, and located in the offices of. the department of water resources.
(3) "Board" means the Texas Water Development Board.
(4) [~] "Board of health" means the Texas Board of Health.
(5) (f3t) "Class I industrial solid waste" means any industrial solid waste designated as Class I
by the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Water Resources as any industrial solid
waste or mixture of industrial solid wastes which because of its concentration or physical or
chemical characteristics is toxic, corrosive, flammable, a strong sensitizer or irritant, a generator
of sudden pressure by decomposition, heat, or other means and may pose a substantial present or
potential danger to human health or the environment when improperly processed, stored,
transported, or otherwise managed, including hazardous industrial waste.
(6) (f\t] "Commission" means the Texas Water Commission.
(7) [(5t) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Health.
(8) ((it] "Composting" means the controlled biological decomposition of organic solid waste
under aerobic conditions.
(9) [(+t) "Department" means the Texas Department of Health.
(10) [~) "Department of water resources" means the Texas Department of Water
Resources.
(11) ((Qt] "Disposal" means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or
placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste (whether containerized or uncontainerized) into or
on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may
enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including
groundwaters.
(12) "Environmental response law" means the federal Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (Pub. L. No. 96-510).

2166
69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION CH 566, SEC 1
(13) [f-M,}t) "Executive director" means the Executive Director of the Texas Department of
Water Resources.
( 14) [~] "Garbage" means solid waste consisting of putrescible animal and vegetable waste
materials resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking, and consumption of food, including
waste materials from markets, storage facilities, handling, and sale of produce and other food
products.
(15) [~] "Hazardous waste" means any solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous waste
by the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to
the federal Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., as amended.
(16) (~] "Industrial solid waste" means solid waste resulting from or incidental to any
process of industry or manufacturing, or mining or agricultural operations.
(17) (f"t) "Local government" means a county; an incorporated city or town; or a political
subdivision exercising the authority granted under Section 6 of this Act.
(18) (fl-lij) "Management" means the systematic control of any or all of the following
activities of generation, source separation, collection, handling, storage, transportation, process-
ing, treatment, recovery, or disposal of solid waste.
(19) (~] "Municipal solid waste" means solid waste resulting from or incidental to
municipal, community, commercial, institutional, and recreational activities including garbage,
rubbish, ashes, street cleanings, dead animals, abandoned automobiles, and all other solid waste
other than industrial solid waste.
(20) "Notice of intent to file an application" means that notice filed pursuant to Section
4(e)(l2) of this Act.
(21) (fl-!71) "Person" means individual, corporation, organization, government or governmen-
tal subdivision or agency, business trust, partnership, association, or any other legal entity.
(22) [<+81) "Person affected" means any person who is a resident of a county or any county
adjacent or contiguous to the county in which a solid waste facility is to be located including any
person who is doing business or owns land in the county or adjacent or contiguous county and
any local government. Such person affected shall also demonstrate that he has suffered or will
suffer actual injury or economic damage.
(23) (f-M,}t) "Processing" means the extraction of materials, transfer, volume reduction,
conversion to energy, or other separation and preparation of solid waste for reuse or disposal,
including the treatment or neutralization of hazardous waste, designed to change the physical,
chemical, or biological character or composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such
waste, or so as to recover energy or material from the waste, or so as to render such waste
nonhazardous, or less hazardous; safer to transport, store. or dispose of; or amenable for
recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume. Unless the state agency determines that
regulation of such activity under this Act is necessary to protect human health or the
environment, the definition of "processing" does nut include activities relating to those materials
exempted by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the federal
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq., as amended.
(24) [~] "Radioactive waste" means that waste which requires specific licensing under
Chapter 72, Acts of the 57th Legislature, Regular Session, 1961, as amended (Article 4590f,
Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), and the rules adopted by the Texas Board of Health under that
law.
(25) "Release" means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging.
escaping, leaching. dumping. or disposing into the environment. but excludes:
(A) a release that results in exposure to persons solely within a workplace, with respect to a
claim which those persons may assert against the employer of those persons;
(B) emissions from the engine exhaust of a motor vehicle, rolling stock. aircraft, vessel, or
pipeline pumping station engine;
(C) release of source, by-product, or special nur/ear material from a nuclear incident, as those
terms are defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S. C. 2011 et seq.) if the
release is subject to requirements with respect to financial protection established by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission under Section 170 of that Act, or, for the purposes of Section 104 of the
environmental response law or any other response action, any release of source, by-product, or
special nuclear material from any processing site designated under Section /02(a)(l I or 302(a) of
the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7912 and 7942); and
(D) the normal application offertilizer.
(26) "Remedial action" means those actions consistent with a permanent remedy taken instead
of or in addition to removal actions in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous
waste into the eni•ironment to prevent or minimize the release of hazardous wastes so that they do

2167
CH 566, SEC 1 69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION

not migrate to cause an imminent and substantial danger to present or future public health and
Slifety or the environment. The term includes such actions at the location of the release as storage,
confinement, perimeter protection using dikes, trenches, or ditches, clay cover, neutralization,
cleanup of released hazardous wastes or contaminated materials, recycling or reuse, diversion,
destruction, segregation of reactive wastes, dredging or excavations, repair or replacement of
leaking containers, collection of leachate and runoff. on-site treatment or incineration, provision of
alternate water supplies, and any monitoring reasonably required to assure that those actions
protect the public health and safety or the environment. The term includes the costs ofpermanent
relocation of residents and businesses and community facilities where the Administrator of the
United States Enl'ironmental Protection Agency or the executive director determines that a/one or
in combination with other measures this relocation is more cost effective than and environmentally
preferable to the transportation, storage, treatment, destruction, or secure disposition off site of
hazardous wastes or may otherwise be necessary to protect the public health or safety. The term
does not include off-site transport of hazardous wastes or the storage, treatment. destruction, or
secure disposition off site of the hazardous wastes or contaminated materials unless the
Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the executive director
determines those actions:
(A) are more cost effective than other remedial actions;
(B) will create new capacity to manage, in compliance with Subtitle C of the federal Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.), hazardous wastes in addition to those located at the
affected facility; or
(C) are necessary to protect public health and safety or the environment from a present or
potential risk that may be created by further exposure to the continued presence of those wastes or
materials.
(27) "Removal" means the cleanup or removal of released hazardous wastes from the
environment; the actions necessary to be taken in the event of the threat of release of hazardous
wastes into the environment; the actions necessary to monitor, assess, and eva/uatP the ,·e/ease or
threat of release of hazardous wastes; the disposal of removed material; or the taking of other
actions as may be necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health and
welfare or the environment that may otherwise result from a release or threat of release. The term
also includes security fencing or other measures to limit access, provision of alternate water
supplies, temporary evacuation and housing of threatened individuals not otherwise provided for,
action taken under Section /04(b) of the environmental response law, and any emergency
assistance that may be provided under the federal Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (42 U.S. C. 5121 et
seq.).
(28) [~] "Rubbish" means nonputrescible solid waste (excluding ashes), consisting of both
combustible and noncombustible waste materials; combustible rubbish includes paper, rags,
cartons, wood, excelsior, furniture, rubber, plastics, yard trimmings, leaves, and similar
materials; noncombustible rubbish includes glass, crockery, tin cans, aluminum cans, metal
furniture, and like materials which will not bum at ordinary incinerator temperatures (I 600"F to
18Cl0°F).
(29) (~] "Sanitary landfill" means a controlled area of land upon which solid waste is
disposed of in accordance with standards, rules, or orders established by the board of health or
the board.
(30) (~] "Sludge" means any solid, semisolid, or liquid waste generated from a municipal,
commercial, or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air
pollution control facility exclusive of the treated effiuent from a wastewater treatment plant.
(31) (~] "Solid waste" means any garbage, rubbish, sludge from a waste treatment plant,
water supply treatment plant or air pollution control facility, and other discarded material,
including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial,
munici\)al, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community and
institutional activities, but does not include: (i) solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage,
or solid or dissolved material in irrigation return flows, or industrial discharges subject to
regulation by permit issued pursuant to Chapter 26, Water Code; (ii) soil, dirt, rock, sand and
other natural or man-made inert solid materials used to fill land if the object of the fill is to make
the land suitable for the construction of surface improvements; or (iii) waste materials which
result from activities associated with the exploration, development, or production of oil or gas
and are subject to control by the Texas Railroad Commission.
(31) (~] "Solid waste facility" means all contiguous land, and structures, other appurte-
nances, and improvements on the land, used for processing, storing, or disposing of solid
waste. A facility may be publicly or privately owned and consist of several processing, storage,
or disposal operational units; e.g., one or more landfills, surface impoundments, or combinations
of them.

2168
69tb LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION CH 566, SEC 2
(33) (~] "Solid waste technician" means an individual who is trained in the practical
aspects of the design, operation, and maintenance of a solid waste facility in accordance with
standards, rules, or orders established by the board or board of health.
(34) [~] "Storage" means the holding of solid waste for a temporary period, at the end of
which the solid waste is processed, disposed of, or stored elsewhere.
SECTION 2. Section 3, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-7, Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes), is amended by adding Subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:
(e)(J) In order to protect the public health and environment, it is declared to be the public
policy of this state that, in generating, treating, storing, and disposing of hazardous wastes,
preference shall be given to the following methods, to the maximum extent economically and
technologically feasible, in the order named:
(A) minimization of waste production;
(B) reuse and/or recycling of waste;
(C) treatment to destroy hazardous characteristics;
(D) treatment to reduce hazardous characteristics;
(E) underground injection;
(F) land disposal.
(2) Jn the case of treatment to destroy hazardous characteristics described in Section J(e)( I )(C)
above, on-site destruction is preferred but must be evaluated in the context of other relevant factors
such as transportation hazard, distribution of risk, quality of destruction, operator capability, and
site suitability.
(j) The department of water resources and the Railroad Commission of Texas shall jointly
prepare an exclusive list of activities which are associated with oil and gas exploration, development
and production and, hence, are exempted from regulation under this Act and the department of
water resources' solid waste regulatory program. Such list shall be amended as necessary. Such
list shall be a rule as that term is defined in Section 3(7) of the Administrative Procedure and
Texas Register Act, as amended (Article 6252-13a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes).
(g)(I) There is created the interagency coordination council which shall coordinate the activities
of its member agencies related to the regulation of solid waste and solid waste management
facilities and the enforcement of the applicable solid waste laws and regulations. The council shall
be comprised of the executive head or his/her designee of the following agencies:
(A) the department of water resources;
(B) the department;
(C) the Texas Air Control Board,· and
(D) the Railroad Commission of Texas. The representative from the department of water
resources shall act as chairman of the council.
(2) The council shall conduct meetings on at least a quarterly basis during which it shall review
the solid waste regulatory and enforcement activities of the previous quarter and coordinate future
planned activities in the interest of efficiency and cooperation, including, but not limited to, the
consideration of the use of waste exchange programs,· the establishment of a clearinghouse for
scientific and engineering information "nd data concerning hazardous waste management; the
coordination of hazardous waste research and development activities; the coordination and
development of consistent agency rules relevant to regulation of hazardous waste activities; the
evaluation of means to assist small yuantity hazardous waste generators and affected communities
in the effective and safe management and disposal of their regulated wastes; the assessment of any
pre-application yublic interactions with applicants to evaluate their effectiveness and to consider
development of rules to incorporate such activities if appropriate; the consideration of the use of
incentives to encourage waste minimization, reuse, recycling, and the use of resource recovery and
detoxification equipment; and evaluation of the feasibility of household hazardous waste collection
and disposal programs. The chairman shall prepare a report summarizing each quarterly
meeting. The report shall be submitted for approval by a majoritv of agencies represented by the
council and shall be a public document.
(h) The department and department of water resources shall submit a report to the presiding
officers of the legislature and the governor on January I, 1987, and each two years thereafter,
providing the following information:
(I) a summary of a performance report of the imposed hazardous waste permit and disposal
fees, if the fees are approved by the legislature, and related activities to determine the
appropriateness of the fee structure;
(2) an evaluation of progress made in accomplishing the public policy of the state in regard to
the preference of waste management methods as set forth in Section (J)(e)( I) of this Act;
(3) projections, for a period of three years from the due date of the report, of waste volumes by
type of waste, disposition of wastes, and remaining capacity for the disposal of the wastes. The

2169
CH 566, SEC 2 69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION

department and the department of water resources shall adopt rules requiring persons who
generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste to submit to the state agency of appropriate
jurisdiction on an annual basis reports detailing projections of waste volumes, disposition, and
remaining capacity, as it relates to each facility owned or operated by such persons, in order that
the state agencies may develop their report. The first report shall be submitted by March J, 1986,
and subsequent reports shall be submitted annually by March 1 thereafter.
SECTION 3. Subsection (c), Section 4, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-7, Vernon's
Texas Civil Statutes), is amended to read as follows:
(c) Each state agency may adopt and promulgate rules consistent with the general intent and
purposes of this Act, and establish minimum standards of operation for all aspects of the
management and control of the solid waste over which it has jurisdiction under this Act. In
developing rules relating to hazardous waste, each state agency shall consult with the State Soil
and Water Conservation Board, the Bureau of Economic Geology of The University of Texas at
Austin, and other appropriate state sources. Each [W#hitt 6fte yeftt' e+teP ~ efleetive ~
ef ~ ~ e&eft] state agency shall adopt rules that:
( 1) condition issuance of a permit for a new hazardous waste management facility or the areal
expansion of an existing hazardous waste management facility on selection of a facility site that
reasonably minimizes possible contamination of surface water and groundwater;
(2) prohibit the issuance of a permit for a new hazaraous waste /and.fill or an areal expansion of
such a facility, if the landfill is to be located in the JOO-year floodplain existing prior to site
development unless the landfill is to be located in areas with flood depths less than three feet;
(3) prohibit the issuance of a permit for a new hazardous waste management unit or an areal
expansion of an existing hazardous waste management unit if the hazardous waste management
unit is to be located in wetlands, as defined by the state agencies. For the purposes of this
paragraph, a "hazardous waste management unit" means a landfill, surface impoundment. land
treatment facility, waste pile, or storage or processing facility, used to manage hazardous waste;
(4) prohibit the issuance of a permit for a new hazardous waste landfill, land treatment facility,
surface impaundment, or waste pile, or areal expansion of such a facility, if the facility is to be
located on the recharge zone of a sole source aquijer;
(5) require applicants for a new hazardous waste landfill, land treatment facility or surface
impoundment which is to be located in the apparent recharge zone of a regional aquifer to prepare
and file a hydrogeologic report documenting the potential effects, if any, on the regional aquijer in
the event of a release from the waste containment system;
(6) prohibit the issuance of a permit for a new hazardous waste landfill or land treatment
facility or the areal expansion of such a facility if the boundary of such landfill or land treatment
facility is to be located within 1000 feet of an established residence, church, school, or dedicated
public park which is in use at the time the notice of intent to file a permit application is filed with
the state agency, or if no such notice is.filed, at the time the permit application is.filed with the state
agency;
(7) define the characteristics that make other areas [tttt ttPeft] unsuitable for a hazardous
waste management facility including, but not limited to, consideration of:
(A) flood hazards;
(B) discharge from or recharge to a groundwater aquifer; [M]
(C) soil conditions;
(D) areas of direct drainage within one mile of a lake used to supply public drinking water;
(E) active geological processes;
(F) coastal high hazard areas, such as areas subject to hurricane storm surge and shoreline
erosion; or
(G) critical habitat of endangered species;
(8) (~] prohibit issuance of a permit for a new hazardous waste management facility or an
areal expansion of an existing hazardous waste management facility if the facility is to be located
in an area determined to be unsuitable under rules adopted by the agency pursuant to Paragraph
(7) unless the design, construction, and operational features of the facility will prevent adverse
effects from unsuitable site characteristics; [ftflEI]
(9) require applicants for a new hazardous waste landfill filed after January I, 1986, to provide
an engineering report evaluating the benefits, if any, associated with the construction of the land.fill
above exi~ting grade at the proposed site, the costs associated with the above grade construction,
and the potential adverse effects, if any, which would be associated with the above grade
construction;
(10) allow local governments to petition the appropriate state agency for a rule which restricts or
prohibits the siting of new hazardous waste disposal facilities or other new hazardous waste
management facilities in areas including, but not limited to. those meeting one or more of the

2170
69tb LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION CH 566, SEC 4
characteristics delineated in Paragraph (7); provided, however, that no rule adopted by a state
agency under this paragraph shall affect the siting of a new hazardous waste disposal facility or
other new hazardous waste management facility if an application or a notice of intent to file an
application with respect to such facility has been filed with the appropriate state agency prior to the
filing of a petition under this paragraph;
(11) prohibit issuance of a permit for a new hazardous waste landfill or the areal expansion of
an existing hazardous waste landfill if there is a practical, economic, and feasible alternative to
such a landfill that is reasonably available to manage the types and classes of hazardous waste
which might be disposed ofat the landfill;
(12) [flt] require persons who generate, transport, process, store, or dispose of Class I
industrial solid waste or hazardous waste to provide recordkeeping and use a manifest or other
appropriate system to assure that such wastes are transported to a processing, storage, or
disposal facility permitted or otherwise authorized for that purpose; and
(13) prohibit the issuance of a permit for a new hazardous waste management unit if the
landfill is in a floodplain of a perennial stream subject to not less than one percent chance of
flooding in any year, delineated on a flood map adopted by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency after the effective date of this Act as zone Al-99, VO, or Vl-30; and this paragraph applies
only to units that receive hazardous waste for a fee.
In adopting rules under Paragraphs (1)-(13) [~] of this section, the state agencies may
distinguish between solid waste facilities based on type or hazard of hazardous wastes managed
and the type of waste management method used. The minimum standards set by the department
of water resources for on-site storage of hazardous waste must be at least the minimum standards
set by the manufacturer of the chemical.
SECTION 4, Paragraphs (I), (4), (6), and (10), Subsection (e), Section 4, Solid Waste
Disposal Act (Article 4477-7, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), are amended to read as follows:
(1) When a permit application has been determined to be administratively complete, the [-Rte]
state agency to whom the permit application is submitted shall mail a copy of the application or
a summary of its contents to the Texas Air Control Board, to the other state agency, to the
mayor and health authorities of any city or town within whose territorial limits or
extraterritorial jurisdiction the solid waste facility is located, and to the county judge and health
authorities of the county in which the facility is located. The governmental entities to whom the
information is mailed shall have a reasonable time, as prescribed by the state agency to whom the
application was originally submitted, to present comments and recommendations on the permit
application before that state agency acts on the application.
(4) Before a permit is issued, amended, extended, or renewed, the state agency to which the
application is submitted shall provide an opportunity for a hearing to the applicant and persons
affected; the state agency may also hold such a hearing upon its own motion.
(A)(i) The owner or operator of a hazardous waste or solid waste management facility shall not
be required to obtain a permit for the storage, processing, treatment, disposal, or destruction of
solid waste or hazardous waste from any agency of the state other than the department or the
department of water resources unless a permit is required under the new source review
requirements of Part C or D of Title I of the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S. C. 7401 et seq., for a
major source or a major modification, or unless a permit is required by the Railroad Commission
of Texas under Chapter 27, Water Code; except with respect to major source.f or major
modifications described above, and except with respect to facilities required to be permitted by the
Railroad Commission of Texas under Chapter 27, Water Code, all participation in the review of a
permit application shall be through one agency hearing, which shall be the sole permit hearing and
which shall be conducted by either the department or the department of water resources as the lead
agency, in accordance with the division ofjurisdiction between them established in Section 3 of this
Act. The Texas Air Control Board and other agencies which might otherwise have jurisdiction for
permitting hazardous or solid waste facilities shall enter into joinl rules or memoranda of
agreement with the department or the department of water resources. Such joint rules or
memoranda of agreement shall include such criteria as the Texas Air Control Board or other
agency which might otherwise have jurisdiction may prescribe for use by the lead agency in
addressing the concerns of the Texas Air Control Board or other agency in the permitting
process. Such joint rules or memoranda shall at a minimum be consistent with applicable
requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency for state program authoriza-
tion under the federal Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, 42 U.S. C. 6901 et seq., as amended.
(ii) It is the intent of the Legislature that to the extent possible in conformance with this subpart
(A). the lead agency shall defer to the policies, rules, and interpretations of the Texas Air Control
Board on the air quality impact of the proposed hazardous waste or solid waste management
activities, and that the Texas Air Control Board remain the principal authority of the state in

2171
CH 566, SEC 4 69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION

matters of air pollution control. The Texas Air Control Board shall be responsible for performing a
technical review of the air quality aspects of an application for a solid waste or a hazardous waste
management facility, which relate to the criteria established under (A}(i). It shall complete such
review and shall forward all recommendations or proposed permit provisions to the lead agency
within the time limits established in the rules of the lead agency for the completion of technical
review of the application. The lead agency shall incorporate into its proposed action all
recommendations or proposed permit provisions submitted by the Texas Air Control Board, unless
such recommendation or proposed permit provisions are determined by the lead agency to be less
stringent than applicable requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency for
state program authorization under the federal Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., as amended. If the Texas Air
Control Board's proposed permit provisions conflict with provisions proposed by the lead agency
technical staff, the staffs of the two agencies shall attempt to resolve such conflict prior to the end of
the technical review of the application. If no contested case hearing on the permit application is
held by the lead agency, the recommendations or proposed permit provisions submitted by the
Texas Air Control Board shall be incorporated into any permit issued by the lead agency. If a
contested case hearing is held. all evidence and testimony of the state regarding air quality aspects
of the application shall be developed and presented by the Texas Air Control Board. All parties,
including the lead agency, shall have the right to cross-examine any testifying witnesses of the
Texas Air Control Board. At the conclusion of the presentation of testimony, the hearings
examiner shall afford the Texas Air Control Board at least thirty (30) days in which to submit a set
of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and, if applicable, proposed permit language,
respecting the air quality aspects of the application which relate to the criteria established under
(A)(i), which shall be accepted by the hearings examiner and the final decision-making body of the
lead agency unless such body finds that the recommendations of the Texas Air Control Board are
not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Texas Air Control Board may seek judicial
review of the air quality aspects of any final decision of the lead agency. Both the lead agency and
the Texas Air Control Board shall have authority to enforce the terms of any permit issued by the
lead agency which relate to air quality. Permit applications for hazardous waste or solid waste
management facilities for which contested evidentiary hearings have commenced at the Texas Air
Control Board prior to the effective date of this provision, or appeals from decisions of the Texas Air
Control Board on such applications. shall not be affected by this subpart. An applicant may not
withdraw a permit application to circumvent the intent of the preceding sentence. The Texas Air
Control Board may delegate to its Executive Director any or all of the duties, responsibilities, or
authority conferred by this subpart (A).
(ii0 After the lead agency has completed its technical review of the permit application. any
agency other than the Texas Air Control Board which might otherwise have jurisdiction for
permitting the facility and which has requested an opportunity to review the proposed lead agency
on the permit application shall have a period of twenty (20) calendar days from the end of the lead
agency's technical review period to review the proposed action and determine whether its concerns
have been adequately addressed. In the event such other agency determines its concerns have not
been adequately addressed, its sole remedy w1!h respect to permitting shall be to present its
concerns in the permit proceedings of the lead agency; and such other agency shall have the right to
request a hearing, to intervene as a matter of law, and to seek judicial review. In addition, such
other agency shall have the right to enforce the aspects of any lead agency permit which relate to its
jurisdiction.
(iv) The provisions of this subpart (A) shall not apply to facilities which burn hazardous waste
unless they are required to obtain a permit for such burning from the department or the
department of water resources under rules adopted by such agency pursuant to a state hazardous
waste regulatory program.
(v) Nothing herein shall be construed to abridge, modify. or restrict the authority of the
department or the department of water resources to promulgate rules under Section 4(c) of this
Act, to issue permits and to enforce the terms and conditions of such permits, relating to all aspects
of hazardous waste management, to the extent necessary for the department and the department of
water resources to receive and maintain state program authorization under Sect1011 3006 of the
federal Solid Waste Disposal Act, as ame11ded by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 42
U.S. C. 6901 et seq.. as amended.
(B) The state agency by rule shall establish procedures f,,r public notice and any public
hearing authorized under this paragraph. To improve the timeliness of notice to the public
pertaining to any public hearing authorized under this paragraph. public notice of receipt of the
permit application shall be provided at the time a permit application is ruled administratively
complete by the department or the department of water resources. A hearing on a permit
involving a solid waste facility for hazardous industrial solid waste must include one se)>sion held
in the county in which the solicl waste facility is located. Hearings under thts paragraph shall be

2172
69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION CH 566, SEC 5
conducted in accordance with the hearing rules adopted by the state agency and the applicable
provisions of the Admm1strat1ve Procedure and Texas Register Act, as amended (Article 6252-
Ua, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes).
(6) If a permit 1s issued, amended, renewed, or extended by a state agency in accordance with
this Subsection (e), the owner or operator of the solid waste facility does not need to obtain a
license for the same facility from a county, or from a pohtical subdivision exercising the
authority granted in Section 6 of this Act. Except as specifically provided in this Act. nothing in
this section shall limit the powers and duties of any local government or other political subdivision
of the state as vested under this or any other law; provided. however, that an applicant shall not be
required to obtain a permit for the siting. construction or operation of a hazardous waste
management facility from any local government or other political subdivision of the state, and no
local government or other political subdivision of the staie shall be empowered to adopt any rule,
regulation, or ordinance which conflicts with or is inconsistent with the requirements for hazardous
waste management facilities as specified in the rules of a state agency or any permit heretofore or
hereafter issued by the state agency. In any action to enforce a rule, regulation, or ordinance of a
local government or political subdivision, the burden shall be on the owner or operator of the
facility or on the applicant to demonstrate conflict or inconsist~mcy with state requirements. The
validity or applicability of any such rule, regulation, or ordinance of a local government or a
political subdivision may be determined in an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to the
Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (Article 2524-1, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), if it is alleged
that the rule, regulation, or ordinance, or its threatened application, interferes with or impairs or
threatens to interfere with or impair the legal rights or privileges of the plaintiff regarding any
application for or the issuance of a permit for the siting, construction or operation of a hazardous
waste management facility. The local government or political subdivision whose rule, regulation,
or ordinance is being questioned must be made a party to the action and the department or the
department of water resources shall be given written notice by certified mail of the pendency of any
such action and either the department or the department of water resources may become a party
thereto. A declaratory judgment may be rendered whether the plaintiff has requested the
department, the department of water resources, the local government or political subdivision or any
other court to pass on the validity or applicability of the rule, regulation, or ordinance in question.
Nothing in this paragraph shall affect the power of local governments or political subdivisions to
adopt or enforce codes/or buildings.
(IO) Each state agency may issue an emergency order, either mandatory or prohibitory in
nature, regarding any activity of solid waste management within its jurisdiction, whether such
activity 1s covered by a permit or not, if the state agency determines that an emergency exists
requiring immediate action to protect the public health and safety or the environment [#te
~ ff! erelltiAg M ~ etttt!te e11teAsir, e M 8e¥et'e ~re~erty ffllfftllge M eeeftefftie l6ss
t6 6tfte1.s M ff!~ tttt ilflffteffillte ~ sefl6tts tMettt t6 htt"ftftft H+e M ftettl.tk ttH6 ~
etheP ~reeeat1res 8'>'1lilllale t6 #te !ttMe ~ t6 reffteff)' M ~re 1·eftt #te eeet1rreAee ef
#te sittilltieA ~ ~ ift t1APellS8Allale aelttrJ. The order may be issued without notice and
hearing, or with such notice and hearing as the state agency deems practicable under the
circumstances.
(i) If an emergency order is issued under this authorit} without a hearing, the issuing agency
shall fix a time and place for a hearing to be held in accordance with the departmental rules by
the state agency, so as to affirm, modify, or set aside the emergency order.
(ii) The requirements of Paragraph (4) of this subsection relating to public notice do not apply
to such a hearing, but such general notice of the hearmg shall be given in accordance with the
departmental rules oft he state agency.
SECTION 5. Subsection (e), Section 4, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-7, Vernon's
Texas Civil Statutes), 1s amended by adding Paragraphs ( 11) and ( 12) to read as follow~:
( 11) Each state agency shall establish a procedure by rule for the state agency to prepare
compliance summaries relating to solid waste management activities of the applicant within the
jurisdiction of such state agency The compliance summaries shall be made available to the
applicant and any interested person after the lead agency has completed its technical review<>/ the
permit application and prior to the issuance of the public notice relating to an opportunity for a
hearing on the permit application. Evidence of compliance or noncompliance by an applicant fi>r a
solid waste facility with agency rules, permits or other orders relating to solid waste management
may be offered by any party at a hearing on the applicant's application and admitted into evidence
subject to applicable rule~ of evidence. All evidence admitted, including compliance history. shall
be considered by the agency in determining whether to issue, amend. extend or renew a permit.
(I 2) The state agencies shall encourage applicant.1· for solid waste fac11it1e.1 under the
jurisdiction of the department or for hazardous waste management fac11itie.1 to enter into
agreements with affected persons through a local review committee process. During this proce.1·1,

2173
CH 566, SEC 5 69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION
persons are encouraged to identify issues of concern and work with the applicant to resolve such
issues.
(A) If an applicant decides to participate in a local review committee process, such applicant
shall file with the appropriate state agency a notice of intent to file an application, setting forth the
proposed location and type of hazardous waste management facility. If the proposed facility is to
be located within the corporate limits or the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a city, then a copy of the
notice shall be delivered to the mayor of such city and the county judge. If the proposed facility is
to be located in an unincorporated area of a county, then a copy of the notice shall be delivered to
the county judge. The filing of the notice with the appropriate state agency shall initiate the pre-
application review process.
(B) Within fifteen (15) days after the filing of the notice of intent pursuant to Subparagraph (A)
of this paragraph, the local review committee shall be appointed. The state agencies shall adopt
rules relating to the composition and appointment of local review committees.
(C) The local review committee shall meet within twenty-one (21) days after the filing of the
notice pursuant to Subparagraph (A) of this paragraph. The pre-application review process shall
continue for a period of ninety (90) days unless the process is shortened or lengthened by mutual
agreement between the applicant and the local review committee.
(D) Any person, other than the applicant, who has participated in the local review committee
process pursuant to this paragraph with respect to an application for a hazardous waste
management facility, may be awarded its reasonable costs or any part thereoffor technical studies
and reports and expert witnesses associated with the presentation of evidence at the public hearing
relating to issues raised by such per.mn in the local review committee process but which are still
unresolved at the time of the commencement of the hearing on the permit application if the
department or the department of water resources finds that such an award is appropriate; provided,
however, that the total award granted to all such persons by the state agency with respect to such
application may not exceed $25,000. In determining the appropriateness of surh an award. the
state agency shall consider the following:
(i) whether the evidence or analysis provided through such studies, reports, and witnesses is
significant to the evaluation of the application;
(ii) whether the evidence or analysis would otherwise not have been provided in the proceeding;
and
(iii) whether the local review committee was established in accordance with the rules of the
department or department of water resources.
(E) Except as provided in Subparagraph (I) of this paragraph, when an applicant has not
entered into a local review committee process, the state agency, in determining the appropriateness
of an award of costs pursuant to Subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, shall waive any requirement
that the person affected has participated in a local review committee process.
(F) Costs awarded by the department or the department of water resources pursuant to
Subparagraph (D) of this paragraph shall be taxed against the applicant. Rules shall be
promulgated for the award of such costs. Judicial review of any award by the department or the
department of water resources shall be pursuant to the substantial evidence rule as provided by the
Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (Article 6252-1 Ja, Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes).
(G) A local review committee shall:
(i) interact with the applicant in a structured manner during the pre-application review stage of
the permitting process and, if necessary, during the technical review stage of the permitting process,
to raise and attempt to resolve both technical and non-technical issues of concern; and
(ii) produce a fact-finding report documenting resolved and unresolved issues and unanswered
questions. The applicant shall submit such report to the state agency with its permit application.
(H) For the purposes of this paragraph, "participation in a local review process" is defined as a
good faith effort to identify issues of concern, describe them to the applicant through the local
review committee process, and attempt to resolve such issues prior to the commencement of the
hearing on the permit application. A person is not required lo be a member of a local review
committee in order to meet the test of ''participation in a local review process. "
(/) If an applicant, after reasonable efforts to determine whether any local opposition exists to
its proposed facility including, but not limited to, discussing the proposed facility with the county
judge and other elected officials, does not enter into a local review committee process because of no
aPJ!arent opposition or because a local review commillee is not established despite the good faith
eJ]orts of the applicant, then such applicant shall not be subject to an award of costs pursuant to
Subparagraph (D) of this paragraph.
(J) Paragraf!h (12) of Section 4(e) shall not apply to a solid waste or hazardous waste
management jacility for which an application has been flied, or which has otherwise been
authorized to operate, as of the effective date of such paragraph.

2174
69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION CH 566, SEC 8

SECTION 6. Subsection (1)(2), Section 4, Solid Wa~tc D1,po~al Act (Article 4477-7,
Vernon's Texa~ Civil Statutes), is amended to read a' follow':
(2) No person ~hall process, store, or d1spo~e of ha1ardou' Imfit1.1tF111I '+f+ttff] wa~te' under
this subsection without having fir,t obtamed a harnrdou' wa1,te permit l''ued hy the
commission; provided, however, that any per,cm who ha' on or before November 19, 1980,
commenced on-site processmg, stormg or di,posmg of haT.ardou' wa,te under th1' ,uh,ectton
and who ha' filed a hazardou' waste permit application in accordance with the rule' of the hoard
may contmue to proces,, store, or dispose of hazardou' wa,te until 'uch time a' the commi,,ton
approves or demes the application. Upon Its own motton or the request of a perMm affected, the
comm1ss1on may hold a puhlic hearmg on an application for a hazardou' wa,te permit /11
accordance wllh Section 4(e}. The hoard by rule shall establish procedure' for public notice and
any public hearmg authorized by thi~ subsection. The commi"ion may mclude requirement' 111
the permit for any remedial acttons by the applicant that are determmed by the comm1,,1on to he
necessary to protect the pubhc health and ,afety and the environment
SECTION 7. Sectton 4, Solid Wa1,te D1spo,al Act (Art11.:le 4477-7, Vernon'' Tcxa' C1v1I
Statutes), 1s amended hy adding Subsection (k) to read as follows·
(k) The .Hate agencies shall provide by rule ji>r 111tert•1·1ed perm11.1 lo engage 111 ac11vit1e.1 wl11ch
involve lhe collectwn and d1.1posa/ of household matenal.1 which could be cla.1s1jied a.1 hazardou1
was/es. Such ru/e.1 shall .1pecifv any nece.l.\'arv requ1reme111.1 re/a1111g to the tra111111g of persons
involved 111 lhe collectton and disposal of such household ma1erwl.1. No person shall be liable jilr
damages as a remit of actwn.1 taken or omtlled 111 the course of adverti1·ing, promo1111g or
d1stribu11ng educational material.1 rela1111g to the collect um or divpma/ of such hrmvehold material.1
111 accordance with the rules of the slate agenq. Thi.1· shall not preclude lwhi/11y j(1r damage.1 as a
result ofgross negligence or 111te111wnal misconduc/ 011 the part oj .1uch a per.1011.
SECTION 8. Sectwn 7, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-7, Vernon'' Texa' Civil
Statutes), is amended by redesignating ex1stmg Subsection (l') a' Suh,ectlon (d) and addmg
Subsection' (c), (e), (f), and (g) to read as follows
(c) Regulated hazardou.1 wa.\/e management and d11posal fac1/Jtu·.1 .1hall he 111.1pected
periodically by the department or department of water re.1·ource.1 a1 required by the U.S.
Environmental Prolection Agency purmanl to 1he j(•deral Solid Waste D1.1pmal Ac/, a.1 amended by
the Resource Conservatwn and Recovery Act, as amended. In supplementmg 1he1·e 111.1pl'Ct1011.1, lhe
department and the department of water resource.1 1·hall give prumty to i11.1pect111g and rei111pl'Ct111g
those facilities, mc/uding generator.I, deemed most likely to be noncomp/Jant or movt /JJ..e/y to poll'
an environmental or public health threat, regardless of whether they are characterized a1 ma1or or
non-major facilities. The state agenrn•.1 may alw randomly perjbrm leu comprehensive chl'Cl...1 of
facilities to supplement the more comprehensive 111.1pec11on.1· required by the U.S Envmmmental
Protection Agency.
(d) [~] Record' copied pursuant to Suhsectton (h) of th1~ 'ect1on 'hall he puhltc record,,
except that, tf a showmg satisfactory to the comm1"ioner of the department or to the executive
director 1~ made hy the owner of ~uch record~ that the record' would divulge trade secret~ if
made publtc, then the department or the department of water re\ources 'hall con~1der 'uch
copied record~ a' confidential. Nothmg 111 th1~ 'uh,ectlon shall require the department of water
resources or the department to consider the composition or characten~t1c1, of 'oltd wa,te heing
proces~ed, 'tored, disposed, or otherwise handled to he held confidential
(e} The department and department of water re.10urce.1 1hall puh/11h a111111a/~1· beg11111111g in
January, 1986, a report to he known as the annual 111.1pectw11 report, which 1·hall \'Ummarize the
agency\ inspectwn .1trategy and the result.v oj all 111.1pfftw11.1 conducted d11m1g the prevwu1 ji1·ca/
year. and li.l·r hazardou~ wa1·1e trealment. 1torage and d1spo.1al faci!t11e.1 not 1111pected. Inc annual
111.1pectton report shall identify each hazardou.1 wa.1te fan/tty 111.1pffted and 1hall 111c/11de the
followmg mformatwn. a /1.11111g of tho1e fac1!tt1e.1 fim11d to he comp/111111 w11h all hazardou.1 wa1tc
regularwns. those facJ/11ie1 w11h only mmor or clerical vwlatw111, and tholl' jim11d to have
l'Ubstantive, 11011-clerical vw/a/1011.1. In additwn, for .1Ul11ra1111vc', no11-clencal wolatw111, the report
shall 1de1111fv thc• vwlatw111 and el/her 1ummanze correct1v1· ac//011.1 or dncnhe tlw 1tat111 1~/
unresolved vwlatio11.1.
(/) The annual 111.vpectum report .1hall he .1Uhm11ted to the governor, lw11te11a11t gm•ern111" and
1peakcr of the lwuve '/1u• I/ale age11cu•1 1hall provide 11ot1n• o/ the avaJ/ahJ/1t1' o/ the report l•v
puh!tca/1011ofnottce111 the l c•xa1 Register.
(g) The report oj each I/ate agency 1hall 1dent1Jv tho1e ji1l'llt//1'1 lwv111g de1110111trated an
exemplary record of rnmp!tance over the prffedmg three-vear penod and th111e /al'llitu·1 which
have b£'£'11 ad1ud1cated dunng the precedmg three-year penod to have com1111tted 1Ub1ta1111vc>, non-
clencal vwlatwn.1 which have rt•.1Ulted 111 an actual re/eave of hazardo111 H•a11t· that P"'11'11ted an
1mm111ent and vuh.ltantwl endangerment to the p11h/1c health and 1a/etv or tlw 1·111·1r1111111c·111

2175
CH 566, SEC 9 69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION
SECTION 9. Section 8, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-7, Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes), is amended by adding Subsections (g) and (h) to read as follows:
(g) Imminent and Substantial Endangerment to the Public Health and Safety or the
Environment.
(/) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, wherever it appears there L1· an actual or
threatened release of solid waste that presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to the
public health and safety or the environment from a solid waste facility where solid waste 1s stored,
processed or disposed of or at any site where any one or more of such activities with respect to solid
waste have been conducted in the past, regardless of whether such activity was lawful at the time,
then the deportment or the department of water resources, as appropriate, may issue an
administrative order to the persons identified in Paragraph (2) of this subsection restraining such
person or persons from allowing or continuing the release or threatened release and requiring those
persons to take actions necessary to provide and implement a cost effective and environmentally
sound remedial action plan designed to eliminate the release or threatened release. An
administrative order issued pursuant to this subsection shall be mailed to the persons identified in
the order by certified mail, return receipt requested, or may be delivered by hand delivery to the
persons identified in the order; or, upon failure of service of the order by certified mail or hand
delivery, such order may be served on such persons by publication one time in the Texas Register
and one time in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation in each county in which any of such persons had
his last known address. An administrative order under this subsection shall be an executive act
and shall not require prior notice or an adjudicative hearing before the state agency. Alternatively,
the department or department of water resources, as appropriate, may cause a civil suit to be
instituted in a district court in the county in which the actual release is occurring or threatened
release may occur for injunctive relief to restrain the person or persons, as identified in Paragraph
(2) of this subsection, from allowing or continuing the release or threatened rr!lease and requiring
those persons to take actions necessary to provide and implement a cost effective and
environmentally sound remedial action plan designed to eliminate the release or threatened
release. The provisions of this subsection are cumulative of all other remedies and nothing in this
subsection exempts any person from complying with or being subject to any other provision of law.
(2) The persons subject to this subsection, subject only to the defenses listed in Paragraph (3) of
this subsection, are as follows:
(A) any owner or operator of a solid waste facility;
(B) any person who at the time of processing, storage or disposal of any solid waste owned or
operated the solid waste facility;
(C) any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise, arranged for the processing, storage or
disposal, or arranged with a transporter for transport for processing, storage or risposal of solid
waste owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at the solid waste facility
owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such solid waste, or at the site to which
such solid waste was transported and which site contains such solid wastes; and
(D) any person who accepts or accepted any solid waste for transport to a solid waste facility or
site selected by such person, from which there is a release or threatened release of a solid waste
which presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health and safety or the
environment.
(3) The persons identified in Paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be liable under Paragraph
( 1) of this subsection unless such person can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
release or threatened release was caused solely by:
(A) an act of God;
(B) an act of war;
(C) an act or omission of a third party other than an employee or agent of the defendant or
other than one whose act or omission occurs in connection with a contractual relatio11ship. existi11g
directly or indirectly, with the defe11dant (except where the sole co11tractual arra11gement arises
from a published tariff and accepta11ce for carriage by a common carrier by rail}, if the defe11dant
establishes by a prepondera11ce of the evidence that (i) he exercised due care with respect to the
solid wastes concerned, taking i11to consideration the characteristics of such solid wastes, in light of
all relevant facts and circumstances, and (ii) he took precautio11.1 against foreseeahle acts or
omissions of any such third party and the consequences that could foreseeably result from such act.1
or omissions; or
(D) any combination of the foregoing paragraphs.
(4) Where the release or threatened release caused by a persons acts or omissions is proved by a
preponderance of the evidence to be divisible, that person shall be liable only for the eliminatw11 of
that release or threatened release attributable to him. Where the release or threatened release is
not proved to be divisible, all persons liable under Paragraph ( 1) shall be jointly and severally lwble
for eliminating the release or threatened release. For purposes of this sectum "divisible" mea11s

2176
69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION CH 566, SEC 11

that the waste released or threatened to be released has been and is capable of being managed
separately under the remedial action plan.
(5) When fewer than all of the parties identified in this subsection agree with the state to take
remedial action to abate an actual or threatened release of solid waste that is an imminent and
substantial endangerment to the public health and safety or the environment pursuant to an
administrative order issued under this section or an action filed by the state, the state may seek a
judgment against the non-settling parties for the total amount of the cost of the remedial action
minus that amount agreed to be paid or expended by any settling parties. In any action for
contribution brought by a non-settling party against a settling party, the non-settling party shall
have the burden to prove that the amount of cleanup costs agreed to be paid by a settling party
pursuant to an agreement with the state was unreasonable considering the factors delineated in
Section I /(a) and the need to undertake timely cleanup action with respect to the release or
threatened release.
SECTION 10. Section 8, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-7, Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes), is amended by adding Subsection (h) to read as follows:
(h) A state agency contracting for services or products shall take into consideration whether the
person proposing to contract with the state has been adjudicated during the preceding three-year
period to have committed substantive, non-clerical violations which have resulted in an actual
release of hazardous waste that presented an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public
health and safety or the environment.
SECTION 11. Section 9, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-7, Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes), is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9. APPEALS.· JOINDER. (a) A person affected by any ruling, order, decision, or other
act of the department or the department of water resources may appeal by filing a petition in a
district court of Travis County. A person affected by any ruling, order, decision, or other act of
a county, or of a political subdivision exercising the authority granted in Section 6 of this Act,
may appeal by filing a petition in a district court having jurisdiction in the county or political
subdivision. Except as provided in Section 9(b), the [=Rte] petition must be filed within 30 days
after the date of the action, ruling, order, or decision of the governmental entity complained
of. Service of citation must be accomplished within 30 days after the date the petition is filed.
Any person filing a petition appealing an administrative order issued pursuant to Section 8(g) must
join as parties the state agency issuing the administrative order and may join as parties any other
person named in the administrative order and any other person who is or may be liable for the
elimination of the actual or threatened release of solid waste governed by the administrative
order. The plaintiff shall pursue his action with reasonable diligence. If the plaintiff does not
prosecute his action within one year after the action is filed, the court shall presume that the
action has been abandoned. The court shall dismiss the suit on a motion for dismissal made by
the governmental entity whose action is appealed, unless the plaintiff, after receiving due notice,
can show good and sufficient cause for the delay. Except as provided in Section 9(c), in [ltt] an
appeal from an action of the department, the department of water resources, a county, or a
political subdivision exercising the authority granted in Section 6 of this Act, the issue is whether
the action is invalid, arbitrary or unreasonable.
(b) The filing of a petition appealing an order issued pursuant to Section 8(g) within 45 days
after the date of receipt, hand delivery, or publication service of the order shall stay the
administrative order as to the appealing party pending action by the district court. However, the
filing of the petition shall not affect any other enforcement powers of the department or department
of water resources. An order issued pursuant to Section 8(g) shall become final as to non-appealing
parties 45 days after the date of receipt, hand delivery, or publication service of the order by, to, or
upon such non-appealing parties.
(c) The district court shall uphold an administrative order issued pursuant to Section 8(g) if the
department or department of water resources, by a preponderance of the evidence, proves:
(I) that there is an actual or threatened release of solid waste that is an imminent and
substantial endangerment to the public health and safety or the environment; and
(2) that the person made subject to the administrative order is liable for the elimination of the
release or threatened release, in whole or in part.
(d) Any person made a party to an appeal of an administrative order issued pursuant to Section
8(g) may join as parties any other persons who are or may be liable for the elimination of the
release or threatened release, in whole or in part.
(e) Failure by any party to file an action for contribution and/or indemnity in an appeal
proceeding relating to an administrative order issued pursuant to Section 8(g) shall not constitute a
waiver of any rights under this Act or any other provision of law.

2177
CH 566, SEC 11 69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION
(j) In appeals of an administrative order issued pursuant to Section 8(g), the district court upon
establishing the validity of the order, shall issue an injunction requiring all persons named or joined
against whom liability has been established by the department or department of water resources or
any other party to comply with the terms of the administrative order.
(g) As between parties determined to be liable pursuant to Section 8(g). the court may, as equity
requires, apportion cleanup costs in accordance with the provisions of Section I !(a) and grant any
other appropriate relief
SECTION 12. The Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-7, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes)
ia amended by adding Sections 10, 11, 12, and 13 to read as follows:
Sec. JO. JOINDER OF PARTIES IN ACTIONS FILED BY THE STATE. (a) Jn any action
brought by the attorney general under Section 8(g) of this Act seeking an injunction to eliminate a
release or threatened release, the attorney general shall, and any party may. join as parties all
persons reasonably believed to be liable for the release or threatened release in accordance with
Section B(g)(J) of this Act.
(b) Failure of the attorney general or any party to name or join a person as a party shall not be a
defense to any action against that person for contribution and/or indemnity.
(c) In any action brought by the attorney general under Section 8(g) the district court shall
grant reliefon the same basis as provided in Sections 9(c), (j) and (g) of this Act.
Sec. 11. COST RECOVERY. (a) Apportionment of costs for the elimination of a release or
threatened release of solid waste shall be in accordance with the fo/lowing/:actors (provided,
however, that such apportionment shall only adjust the rights ofparties identifie in Section 8{g)(2)
among themselves, and shall not affect their liability to the State): (l) the relationship between the
parties' actions in storing, processing and disposal of solid waste and the remedy required to
eliminate the release or threatened release; (2) the volume of solid waste each party is responsible
for at the solid waste facility or site to the extent that the costs of the remedy are based on the
volume of solid waste present; (3) consideration of toxicity or other waste characteristics if these
characteristics affect the cost of elimination of the release or threatened release; and (4) a_party's
cooperation with state agencies, its cooperation or noncooperation with the pending efforts to
eliminate the release or threatened release, or a party's actions regarding the processing, storage or
disposal of solid waste, as well as the degree of care which the party exercised.
(b) Persons subject to a court injunction or an administrative order issued pursuant to this Act,
or those third parties identified in Section 13(g) who take action to eliminate a release or
threatened release, in addition to having the right to file an action for contribution and/or
indemnity in an appeal proceeding or in an action brought by the attorney general, may bring suit
in the district court of the county where the release or threatened release is or was located or in such
other county where venue would be proper under Article 1995, Revised Statutes, for cost recovery
against any other person who is or may be liable if the persons seeking cost recovery made
reasonable attempts to notify the persons against whom recovery is sought (i) of the existence of the
release or threatened release and (ii) that the person seeking cost recovery intended to take steps to
eliminate the release or threatened release. Any fact determination or ruling by a district court in
an appeal of an administrative order under Section 9(b) shall not constitute res judicata or
collateral estoppel as to any issue brought in a proceeding under this subsection with respect to any
party not joined in such appeal.
(c)(J) For suits seeking cost recovery under Section l l(b), the court shall determine the amount
ofcost recovery based on the criteria listed in Section 1J(a).
(2) Recoverable costs under this section may include not only the costs incurred in eliminating
the release or threatened release, but also such other costs as the court. in its discretion, may deem
reasonable to award.
Sec. 12. CREATION OF RIGHTS. The provisions of Section 8(g) and the provisions of Section
1J(b) and the enforcement by the department or department of water resources of such provisions
shall not create any rights or causes of action on behalf of any person other than those specifically
and expressly stated herein or change any common law or rule of decision except as limited in this
Act to actions by the department or department of water resources for the elimination of an actual
release or threatened release of solid waste that is an imminent and substantial endangerment to
the public health and safety or the environment.
Sec. 13. IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILI-
TIES. (a) The department of water resources, in cooperation with the department, shall conduct
and complete a survey of the state by July I, 1986, the purpose of which is to identify to the extent
feasible every hazardous waste facility which may constitute an imminent and substantial
endanferment to public health and safety or the environment. The work already performed to
identify candidate sites for inclusion in the federal National Priorities list shall serve as the basis
for such a survey. As soon as possible after completion of a draft survey, the department of water
resources shall conduct a public hearing to solicit comments on the draft survey and information

2178
69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION CH 566, SEC 12
on additional candidate sites. Not later than January I, 1987, the department of water resources
shall publish a registry identifying each facility listed by the survey, the relative priority of the need
for action at each facility to remedy environmental and health problems resulting from the
presence of hazardous wastes at such facilities, and setting forth recommendations for actions
which may be pursued to achieve effective, efficient, and timely cleanup or other resolution of the
problems identified for each facility. Such recommendations shall not constitute the remedial
investigation/feasibility study for the relevant facility, but shall form the preliminary basis for such
a study. The cleanup of such facilities shall be achieved first by private party funding, second with
the aid offederal funds, and third, if necessary, with state funds from the hazardous waste permit
and disposal fee, if the fee is approved by the legislature. A draft copy of the registry shall be
circulated to the department for comment prior to publication. Three copies of the registry. as
published. shall be delivered to the Office of the Governor.
(b)(/) The department of water resources may conduct investigations of the facilities listed in
the registry and may investigate areas or sites which it has reason to believe should be included in
the registry. in accordance with Section 7 of this Act.
(2) The department of water resources shall. as part of the registry, assess by January /, 1987,
and each year thereafter, and. based upon new information received from sources including but not
limited to public hearings. reassess, in cooperation with the department, the relative priority of the
need for action at each facility listed in the registry to remedy environmental and health problems
resulting from the presence of hazardous wastes at such facilities.
(c) The department of water resources shall update the registry periodically to add facilities
which may constitute an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and safety or
the environment and to delete facilities which have been cleaned up pursuant to Subsection (g) of
this section or delisted pursuant to Subsection (e) of this section.
(d) The department of water resources shall file an affidavit or notice in the real property
records of the county in which a facility is located identifying those facilities included in the
registry, as well as those facilities deleted from the registry.
(e)(l) Within thirty (30) days after the survey pursuant to Subsection (a) of this section is
completed. the department of water resources shall notify in writing the parties identified as
responsible for all or any part of each facility or area included in the registry prepared pursuant to
such Subsection (a) of the inclusion of the facility or area on such survey. Thereafter, two months
before any unincluded facility or area is added to the registry, the department of water resources
shall notify in writing the parties identified as responsible for all or any part of such facility or area
of the contemplated inclusion of such facility or area on such registry. Written notifications under
this subsection shall be by certified mail, return receipt requested, by mailing notice to each such
named responsible party at the party's last know" address.
(2) Notice pursuant to Paragraph (/) of this subsection shall include but not be limited to a
description of the duties and restrictions imposed by Subsection (j) of this section.
(3) Non-receipt of any notice mailed to a named responsible party pursuant to this subsection
shall in no way affect the responsibilities. duties or liabilities imposed on any such party.
(4) Any owner or operator or other named responsible party of a facility listed or to be listed in
the registry of the deportment of water resources pursuant to this section may request the
department of water resources to delete such facility from the registry, modify the facility'.~ priority
within the registry or modify any information regarding such facility by submitting a written
statement setting forth the grounds of the request in such form as the department of water
resources may require.
(5) Within one hundred and eighty (180) days after the effective date of this provision, the
department of water resources shall propose rules establishing procedures, including public
hearings, for review of delisting requests submitted pursuant to this subsection.
(j)(l) Subsequent to the listing of a facility on the registry prepared and maintained by the
department of water resources. no person may substantially change the manner in which the
facility is used without notifying the department of water resources and n·ceiving written approval
of the department of water resources for such change. A substantial change of use shall be defined
in rules adopted by the board and shall include, but not be limited to, actions such as the erection
of a building or other structure at such facility, the use of such facility for agricultural production,
the paving of such facility for use as a roadway or parking lot, and the creation of a park or other
public or private recreational facility on such facility. Such notice shall be ifl writ mg, addressed to
the executive director and shall include a brief descriptiofl of the proposed change of use. Such
notice shall be submitted in writing at least sixty days before any physical alteration of the land or
construction will occur or, in the event any alteration or construction is not required to iflitiate such
change of use, at least sixty days before any change of use.
(2) The executive director shall not approve such change of use if such new usc will interfere
significantly with a proposed, ongoing or completed hazartlous waste facility remedial actiofl

2179
CH 566, SEC U 69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION

program at such facility or expose the environment or public health to a significantly increased
threat of harm.
(g)(I) The cleanup of a facility identified by the department of water resources in the registry
which constitutes an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health and safety or the
environment shall proceed on an expedited basis pursuant to the following guidelines:
(A) wherever possible, parties identified as liable parties pursuant to Section 8(g)(/} lhould be
notified by the department of water resources of an opportunity to participate in a voluntary
cleanup of the facility;
(B) if all persons liable under Section 8(g)(J) do not volunteer to develop and implement a
remedial action program for the facility. then private parties who are willing to participate in
cleanup activitir!s voluntarily should be allowed to do so and they may seek cost recovery pursuant
to Section I I (b) from those liable parties not participating in the voluntary cleanup;
(C) if no parties identified as liable under Section 8(g)( I) volunteer to develop and implement a
remedial action program for the facilitf. then independent third parties who ore willing to
participate voluntarily in the cleanup of the facility should be permitted to contract with the
department of water resources to do so and they may seek cost recovery pursuant to Section I J(b)
from those liable parties not participating in the voluntary cleanup;
(D) where voluntary assistance from the private sector is not forthcoming, federal funds should
be used for facility cleanup if such funds are timely available; and
(E) state funds should be used only when a liable party or independent third party cleanup or
federal funds are not timely available.
(2) Whenever the department of water resources finds that there exists an actual or threatened
release of hazardous wastes at a hazardous waste facility listed on the registry that presents an
imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health and safety or the environment, it may
order the owner and/or operator ofsuch facility and/or any otherferson responsible for the release
or threatened release at such facility (A) to develop a remedia action program, subject to the
approval of the department of water resources, al such facility, and (B) to implement such
program within reasonable time limits specified in the order. The provisions in Sections 8(g), 9, JO
and I I of this Act relating to administrative orders shall apply to orders issued pursuant lo this
paragraph.
(3) Whenever the department of water resources, after investigation, finds that there exists a
release or threatened release of hazardous wastes at a facility identified in the registry that:
(A) is causing irreversible or irreparable harm to the public health and safety or the
environment; and
(B) the immediacy of the situation makes it prejudicial to the public interest to delay action
until an administrative order con be issued to liable parties pursuant to Paragraph (2) of this
subsection or until a judgment can be entered in an appeal of an administrative order; the
department of water resources may, with the funds available to the department of water resources
from the hazardous waste permit and disposal fees, if approved by the Legislature. undertake
immediate removal action at the facility to alleviate the harm. After the immediate danger of
irreversible or irreparable harm has been alleviated, the department of water resources shall
proceed pursuant to Paragraph (2) of this subsection. Findings required pursuant to this paragraph
shall be in writing and may be made by the department of water resources on an ex parte basis
subject to judicial review pursuant to the substantial evidence rule as provided by the
Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (Article 6252-/Ja, Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes).
(4) Whenever a person ordered to eliminate an imminent and substantial endangerment to the
public health and safety or the environment has failed lo do so within the time limits specified in
the order, and no third party has agreed to develop and implement a remedwl action program for
the facility pursuant to Paragraph (I )(C) of this .Yubsection, the department of water resources may
develop and implement a remedial action program for such facility. The reasonable expenses of
developing and implementing such remedial action program by the department of water resources
shall be paid by the persons to whom the order was issued and the state may seek to recover such
reasonable expenses in any court of appropriate jurisdiction. Any action instituted by the
department of waler resources pursuant to this paragraph shall be subject to the provisions of
Sections 8(g), 9, JO. and// of this Act.
(5) In the event that the department of water resources has found that there exists a release or
threatened release of hazardous wastes at a facility on the registry which presents an imminent and
substantial endangerment to the public health and safety or the environment but, after a
reasonable allempt to determine who may be liable for such release or threatened release in
accordance with Section 8(g}, is either unable to determine who may be liable, or 1:1· unable to
locate a person who may be liable, and no independent third party agrees to develop and
implement a remedial action program for the facility in accordance with Paragraph (I )(C) of this

2180
69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION CH 566, SEC 12
subsection, the department of water resources may develop and implement a remedial action
program for such facility. Federal funds shall be used for such cleanup to the maximum extent
timely available in accordance with Paragraph (I )(D) of this subsection. The department of water
resources shall make every effort to secure appropriate relief from any person subsequently
identified or located who is liable for the release or threatened release of hazardous waste at such
facility, including, but not limited to, development and implementation of a remedial action
program, payment of the cost of such a program and recovery of any reasonable expenses incurred
by the state.
(6) The gual of any remedial action program shall be the elimination of the imminent and
substantial endangerment to the public health and safety or the environment posed by a release or
threatened release of hazardous wastes at a facility. The appropriate extent of remedy at any
particular facility shall be determined by the department of wmer resources' selection of the
remedial alternative which the state agency determines is cost effective (i.e., the lowest cost
alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effectively mitigatel and
minimizes damage to and provides adequate protection of the public health and safety or the
environment).
(7) All cleanup costs for which a person is liable to the state shall constitute a lien in favor of the
state on the real property and the rights to such real property that are subject to or affected by a
cleanup action.
(A) The lien imposed by this paragraph shall arise and attach to the real property subject to or
affected by a cleanup action at the time an affidavit is recorded and indexed in accordance with
this paragraph in the county in which such real property is located. For the purpose of determining
rights of all affected parties, the lien shall not relate back to a time prior to the date on which the
affidavit is recorded, which date shall be the lien inception date. The lien shall continue until the
liability for the costs is satisfied or becomes unenforceable through operation of law.
(B) The affidavit shall be executed by an authorized representative of the department of water
resources and must show:
(i) the names and addresses of the persons liable for such costs;
(ii) a description of the real property that is subject to or affected by the cleanup action for the
costs or claims; and
(iii) the amount of the costs and the balance due.
(C) The county clerk shall record the affidavit in records kept for that purpose and shall index
the affidavit under the names of the persons liable for such costs.
(D) The department of water resources shall record a relinquishment or satisfaction of the lien
when the lien is paid or satisfied.
(E) The lien may be foreclosed only on judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction
foreclosing the lien and ordering the sale of the property subject to the lien.
(F) The lien imposed by this paragraph shall not be valid or enforceable if'
(i) real property or an interest therein, or
(ii) a mortgage, lien, or other encumbrance upon or against real property, is acquired before the
affidavit is recorded unless the person acquiring the real property or an interest therein or acquiring
the mortgage, lien or other encumbrance thereon had or reasonably should have had actual notice
or knowledge that the real property is subject to or affected by a clean-up action. or has knowledge
that the state has incurred clean-up costs.
(G) If a lien is fixed or attempted to be fixed as provided in this paragraph. the owner of the real
property affected by the lien may file a bond to indemnify against the lien. The bond shall be filed
with the county clerk of the county in which the real property subject to the lien is located. An
action to establish, enforce, or foreclose any lien or claim of lien covered by the bond must be
brought not later than the 30th day after the date of service of notice of the bond.
(H) The bond must:
(i) describe the real property upon which the lien is claimed;
(ii) refer to the lien claimed in a manner sufficient to identify it;
(iii) be in an amount double the amount of the lien referred to;
(iv) be payable to the department of water resources;
(v) be executed by the party filing the bond as principal, and a corporate surety authorized
under the law of this state to execute the /J.rmd as surety; and
(vi) be conditioned substantially that the principal and sureties will pay to the department of
water resources the amount of the /ten claimed, plus costs. if the claim IS proved to be a lien on the
real property.
{/) After the bond is filed, the county clerk shall issue notice of the bond to the named
obligee. A copy of the bond must be attached to the notice. The notice may be served on each
obligee by having a copy delivered to the obligee by any permn competent to mak1• oath of the

2181
CH 566, SEC 12 69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION

deli~ry. The oriJinal notice shall be returned to the office of the county clerk, and the person
making service ofcopy shall make an oath on the back of the copies showing on whom and on what
date the copies were served. The county clerk shall record the bond notice and return in records
kept for that purpose. In acquiring an interest in real property, a purchaser or lender may rely on
and is absolutely protected by the record of the bond, notice, and return.
(J) The department of water resources may sue on the bond after the 30th day following the
date on which the notice is served, but may not sue on the bond later than one year after the date
on which the notice is served. If the department of water resources recovers in a suit on the lien or
on the bond, it is entitled to also recover a reasonable attorney's fee.
(8) Money for actions taken or to be taken by the department of water resources in connection
with the elimination of an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health and safety
or the environment pursuant to this section shall be payable directly to the agency from the
hazardous waste permit and disposal fees, if approved by the legislature. This includes any costs of
inspection or sampling and laboratory analysis of wastes, soils. air, surface water and groundwater
done on behalfof a state agency.
(9) The department of water resources shall seek private party cleanup of facilities prior to
expenditure of federal or state funds for such cleanups. Private parties shall coordinate with
ongoing federal and/or state hazardous waste programs and obtain necessary approvals for any
such cleanup actions. No action taken by any such person to contain or remove a release or
threatened release in accordance with an approved remedial action plan shall be construed as an
admission of liability for said release or threatened release. No person who renders assistance in
containing or removing a release or threatened release in accordance with an approved remedial
action plan shall be liable for any additional cleanup costs at the facility resulting solely from acts
or omissions of such person in rendering such assistance in compliance with the approvals required
by this subsection, unless such cleanup costs were caused by such person's gross negligence or
willful misconduct. Except as specifically provided herein, the provisions of this subsection shall
not be construed to expand or diminish the common law tort liability, if any. of private parties
participating in a cleanup action for civil damages to third parties.
SECTION 13. Section 10, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-7, Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes), is redesignated as Section 14 and amended to read as follows:
Sec. U [W]. RELATIONS TO OTHER LAWS (CUMUU.TIVE ~· Except as
specifically provided in this Act, nothing [Tht8 ~ ill etH1tt1lative et 8ftft st1pple11tefttal te tttty
MheP leW8 f1M l'M'ff et leW8 relatiHg te the 8Mfte 8tthjeet f1M flees ftet repeal these ether
leW8 M peH8 eflew&. Pi1ething] in this Act diminishes or limits, or is intended to diminish or
limit, the authority of the department, the department of water resources, the Texas Air Control
Board, or local governments in performing any of the powers, functions, and duties vested in
those governmental entities by other laws.
SECTION 14. Section 27.002, Water Code, is amended by adding Subsection (15) to read as
follows:
(15) "Hazardous waste" has the meaning assigned to that term by Section 2(15), Solid
Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-7. Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes).
SECTION 15. Section 27.018, Water Code, is amended by adding Subsection (c) to read as
follows:
(c) An application for an injection well to dispose of hazardous waste shall be subject to the pre-
application local review process established by Section 4(e)(J2), Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article
4477-7, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes).
SECTION 16. Section 27.051, Water Code, is amended by adding Subsections (d), (e), and (f)
to read as follows:
(d) The Texas Water Commission, in determining if the use or installation of an injection well
for the disposal of hazardous waste is in the public interest under Subsection (a)( I) of thir section,
shall consider, but shall not be limited to the consideration of'
(/) compliance history of the applicant in accordance with the provisions of Subsection (e)
of this section;
(2) whether there is a practical, economic, and feasible alternative to an injection well
reasonably available to manage the types and classes of hazardous waste; and
(3) whether the applicant will maintain sufficient public liability insurance for bodily injury
and property damage to third parties that is caused by sudden and non-sudden accidents or will
otherwise demonstrate financial responsibility in a manner adopted by the department in lieu of
public liability insurance. A liability insurance policy which satisfies the policy limits required
by the hazardous waste management regulations of the department of water resources for the
applicant's proposed pre-injection facilities shall be deemed "sufficient" under this subdivision if
the policy also covers the injection well itself

2182
69th LEGIS-REGULAR SESSION CH 567, SEC 1

(e) The department of water resources shall establish a procedure by rule for iH preparation of
compliance summaries relating to the history of compliance and noncompliance by the applicant
with the rules adopted or orders or permits issued by the department of water resources under th1~
chapter for any injection well for which a permit has been issued under thi1· chapter. The
compliance summaries shall be made available to the applicant and any interested person after the
department of water resources has completed its technical review of the permit application and
prior to the promulgation of the public notice rdating to the issuance of the permit. Evidence of
compliance or noncompliance by an applicant for an injection well for the disposal of hazardous
waste with the rules adopted or orders or permits issued by the department of water resources under
this chapter may be offered by any party al a hearing on the applicant's application and adm111ed
into evidence subject to applicable rules of evidence. All evidence ad milled. including compliance
history. shall be considered by the department of water resources in determining whether to issue,
amend, extend or renew a permit.
(j) In the issuance of a permit for a hazardous waste in1ection well into a salt dome, the
department of water resources shall consider the location of any geologic fault in the salt dome in
the immediate proximity of the injection well bore, the presence of an underground water aquifer.
and the presence of sulfur mines or oil and gas wells in the area.
SECTION 17. The amendments to the Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-7, Vernon's
Texas Civil Statutes) created by Section 3 of this Act and the amendments of the Water Code set
out in Section 16 of this Act shall not apply to any facility for which a notice of intent to file an
application, or an application, has been filed with the Texas Department of Health or the Texas
Department of Water Resources, or to a hazardous waste management facility which has
otherwise been authorized to operate by the rules of the Texas Department of Health or the
Texas Department of Water Resources as of the effective date of thi~ Act, with the except10n that
Subsections (d)(I) and (e) of Section 16 shall apply to any application on which a hearing for the
permit has not commenced prior to the effective date of this Act.
SECTION 18. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary in this Act, nothing
contained in this Act shall change, alter, or enlarge upon the contractual liability of a per~on
other than those persons listed in Section 8(g)(2), Solid Wa~;te Disposal Act (Article 4477-7,
Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), for the violation of, or a duty created by, any provision herein for
acts or omissions which occurred prior to the effective date hereof.
SECTION 19. This Act takes effect September I, 1985.
SECTION 20. The importance of this legislation and the crowded condition of the calendars
in both houses create an emergency and an imperative public necessity that the constitutional
rule requiring bills to be read on three several days in each house be suspended, and this rule i'
hereby suspended.
Passed by the House on May 15, 1985, by the following vote: Yeas 144, Nays 0, 1
present, not voting; House concurred in Senate amendments to H B. No. 2358 on
May 27, 1985, by a non-record vote; f)assed by the Senate, with amendments, on
May 23, 1985, by a viva-voce vote.
Approved: June 12, 1985
Effective: September 1, 1985

CHAPTER 567

H.B. No. 2359

An Act relating to creation of the hazardous waste generation and facility fees fund and a hazardous
waste disposal fee fund, to expenditure!' from the funds, and to 1mpos1t1on of fees on hazardous
waste generation, hazardous waste facilities, and hazardous waste disposal

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas:

SECTION 1. Section 8, Solid Wa~te Dispo~al Act (Article 4477-7, Vernon'' Texa' Civil
Statutes), is amended by adding Subsection (g) to read a' follow'·
(g) The penalties imposed under Subsection (a) of tlm section do not app~v to failure to pay a
fee under Section 12 of this Act or failure to file a report under Section 13 of this Act. Suhscctton
(a)(9) of this section does net apply to interest and penalties imposed under Sect um 14 of tlm Act.

2183
 APP. I

Act approved June 14, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 703,
1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 3212, 3217 (current version at Tex.
Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.322 (West 2010)
Ch. 702, § 1 71et LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION

(5) the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission;
(6) the Texas Department of Human Services;
(7) the Texas Department of Corrections;
(8) the Texas Employment Commission;
(9) the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse,·
(10) the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation,· and
(11) the Texas Department of Health.
SECTION 2. The importance of this legislation and the crowded condition of the
calendars in both houses create an emergency and an imperative public neressity that the
constitutional rule requiting bills to be read on three several days in each house be
suspended, and this rule is hereby suspended, and that this Act take effect and be in force
from and after its passage, and it is so enacted.
Passed the Senate on May 9, 1989, by the following vote: Yeas 31, Nays O; passed the
House on May 22, 1989, by the following vote: Yeas 141, Nays 1, one present not
voting.
Approved June 14, 1989.
Effective June 14, 1989.

CHAPTER 703
S.B. No. 1502
AN ACT
relating to regulation of hazardous substances and solid waste.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas:
SECTION 1. Section 2, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-'/, Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes), is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2. DEFINITIONS. Aa used in this Act, unless the context requires a different
definition:
(1) "Administratively complete" means that a complete permit application form, as
well as the report and fees required to be submitted with a permit application, have
been submitted to the department or the commission and the permit application is ready
for technical review in accordance with the rules of the department or commission.
(2) "Apparent recharge zone" means that recharge zone designated on maps pre-
pared or compiled by, and located in the offices of, the commission.
(8) "Board of health" means the Texas Board of Health.
(4) "Class I industrial solid waste" means any industrial solid waste or mixture of
industrial solid wastes which because of its concentration or physical or chemical
characteristics is toxic, corrocsive, flammable, a strong sensitizer or irritant, a generator
of sudden pressure l>y decomposition, heat, or other means and may pose a substantial
present or potential danger to human health or the environment when improperly
processed, stored, transported, or otherwise managed, including hazardous industrial
waste.
(5) "Commission" means the Texas Water Commission.
(6) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Health.
(7) "Composting" means the controlled biological decomposition of organic solid
waste under aerobic conditions.
(8) "Department" means the Texas Department of Health.
(9) "Disposal" means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or
placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste (whether containerized or uncontainer-
8212
71st LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 703, § 1
ized) into or on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any
constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged
into any waters, including groundwaters.
(10) "Environmental response law" means the federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 through
9675, as amended by the Superjund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
[(Pub.I.. No. 96-910)).
(11) "Executive director" means the Executive Director of the Texas Water Commis·
sion.
(12) "Garbage" means solid waste consisting of putrescible animal and vegetable
waste materials resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking, and consumption of
food, including waste materials from markets, storage facilities, handlir.g, and sale of
produce and other food products.
(13) "Hazardous waste" means any solid waste identified or lit1ted as a hazardous
waste by the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) pursuant to the federal Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., as amended.
(14) "Hazardous substance" means:
(A) a substance designated pursuant to Section 311(b)(2)(A) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1321),·
(BJ an element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursu-
ant to Section 102 of the environmental response law,·
(CJ a hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed
pursuant to Section 3001 of the federal Solid Waste Disposal Ac~ as amended (42
U.S.C. 6921), excludin/l waste, the regulation of which under the federal Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S. C. 6901 et seq.) has been suspended by Act of Congress,·
(DJ a toxic pollutant listed under Section 307(a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1317),·
(E) a hazardous air pollutant listed under Section 112 of the federal Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412),· and
(F) any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with respect to
which the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has taken
action pursuant to Section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2606).
The term does not include petroleum, which means crude oil or any fraction of
crude oil that is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous
substance under Paragraphs (A) through (F) of this subdivision,· nor does it include
natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel
mixtures of natural gas and synthetic gas,· nor does it include waste materials which
result from activities associated with the exploration, developmen~ or production of
oil or gas or geothermal resources or any other substance or material regulated by the
Railroad Commission of Texas pursuant to Section 91.101, Natural Resources Code.
(15) "Industrial solid waste" means solid waste resulting from or incidental to any
process of industry or manufacturing, or mining or agricultural operations.
(16) ((.1.9)) "Local government" means a county, an incorporated city or town, or a
political subdivision exercising the authority granted under Section 6 of this Act.
(17) ((.19)) '.'Management" means the systematic control of nny or all of the follow-
ing activities of generation, source separation, collection, handling, storage, transporta- '
tion, processing, treatment, recovery, or disposal of solid waste.
(18) [(l!ij] "Municipal solid waste" means solid waste resulting from or incidental to
municipal, community, commercial, institutional, and recreational activities including
garbage, rubbish, ashes, street cleanings, dead animals, abandoned automobiles, and all
other solid waste other than industrial solid waste.
(19) ((li)] "Notice of intent to file an application" means that notice filed pursuant
to Section 4(e){12) of this Act.
3213
Ch. 703, § 1 71st LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION

(20) [~] "Person" means an individual, corporation, organization, government or
governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, partnership, association, or any
other legal entity.
(21) [(20)] "Person affected" means any person who is a resident of a county or any
county adjacent or contiguous to the county in which a solid waste facility is to be
located including any person who is doing business or owns land in the county or
adjacent or contiguous county and any local government. Such person affected shall
also demonstrate that he has suffered or will suffer actual injury or economic damage.
(2P) [(21}] "Processing" means the extraction of materials, transfer, volume reduc-
tion, conversion to energy, or other separation and preparation of solid waste for reuse
or disposal, including the treatment or neutralization of hazardous waste, designed to
change the physical, chemical, or biological character or composition of any hazardous
waste so as to neutralize sucn waste, or so 1,1s to recover energy or material from the
waste, or so as to render such waste nonhazardous, or less hazardous; safer to
transport, store, or dispose of; or amenable for recovery, amenable for storage, or
reduced in volume. Unless the state agency determines that regulation of such activity
under this Act is necessary to protect human health or the environment, the definition
of "processing" does not include activities relating to those materials exempted by the
administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the federal Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq., as amended.
(23) [(22)] "Radioactive wa11te" means that waste which requires specific licensing
under Chapter 72, Acts of the 57th Legislature, Regular Session, 1961, as amended
(Article 4590f, Vernon's Texa11 Civil Statutes), and the rules adopted by the Texas Board
of Health under that law.
(24) [{23)] "Release" means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emp-
tying, discharging, escaping, leaching, dumping, or dieposing into the environment, but
excludes:
(A) a release that results in exposure to persons solely within a workplace, with
respect to a claim which those persons may assert against the employer of those
persons;
(B) emissions from the engine exhaust of a motor vehicle, rolling stock, aircraft,
vessel, or pipeline pumping station engine;
(C) release of source, by-product, or special nuclear material from a nuclear
incident, as those terms llre defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) if the release is subject to requirements with respect to
financial protection established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Section
170 of that Act, or, for the purposes of Section 104 of the environmental response law
or any other response action, any release of source, by-product, or special nuclear
material from any processing site designated under Section 102(a)(l) or 302(a) of the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7912 and 7942); and
(D) the normal application of fertilizer.
(25) [~] "Remedial action" means those actions consistent with a permanent
remedy taken instead of or in addition to removal actions in the event of a release or
threatened release of a hazardous waste into the environment to prevent or minimize
the release of hazardous wastes so that they do not migrate to cause an imminent and
substantial danger to present or future public health and safety or the environment.
The term includes such actions at the locetion of the release as storage, confinement,
perimeter protection using dikes, trenches, or ditches, clay cover, neutralization, clean-
up of released hazardous wastes or contaminated materials, recycling or reuse, diver-
sion, destruction, segregation of reactive wastes, dredging or excavations, repair or
replacement of leaking containers, collection of leachate and runoff, on-site treatment
or incineration, provision of alternate water supplies, and any monitoring reasonably
required to assure that those actions protect the public health and safety or the
environment. The term includes the costs of permanent relocation of residents and
businesses and community facilities where the administrator of the United States
3214
71et LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 703, § 1
Environmental Protection Agency or the executive director determines that alone or in
combination with other measures this relocation is more cost effective than and
environmentally preferable to the transportation, storage, treatment, destruction, or
secure disposition off site of hazardous wastes or may otherwise be necessary to
protect the public health or safety.
(!JG) [~] "Removal" means the cleanup or removal of released hazardous wastes
from the environment; the actions necessary to be taken in the event of the threat of
release of hazardous wastes into the environment; the actions necessary to monitor,
assess, and evaluate the release or threat of release of hazardous wastes; the disposal
of removed material; or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to prevent,
minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health and welfare or the environment that
may otherwise result from a release or threat of release. The term also includes
security fencing or other measures to limit access, provision of alternate water supplies,
temporary evacuation and housing of threatened individuals not otherwise provided for,
action taken under Section 104(b) of the environmental response law, and any emergen·
cy assistance that may be provided under the federal Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
(27) [{26)] "Rubbish" means nonputrescible solid waste (excluding ashes), consisting
of both combustible and noncombustible waste materials; combustible rubbish includes
paper, rags, cartons, wood, excelsior, furniture, rubber, plastics, yard trimmings,
leaves, and similar materials; noncombustible rubbish includes glass, crockery, tin cans,
aluminum cans, metal furniture, and like materials which will not burn at ordinary
incinerator temperatures (1600"F to 1800'F).
(28) [~] "Sanitary landfill" means a controlled area of land upon which solid
waste is disposed of in accordance with standards, rules, or orders established by the
board of health or the commission.
(29) [~] "Sludge" means any solid, semisolid, or liquid waste generated from a
municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water supply treat-
ment plant, or air pollution control facility exclusive of the treated effluent from a
wastewater treatment plant.
(30) [~](A) Until the delegation of RCRA authority to the Railroad Commission of
Texas: "solid waste" means any garbage, rubbish, refuse, sludge from a waste
treatment plant, water supply treatment plant or air pollution control facility, and other
discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material
resulting from industrial, municipal, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations,
and from community and institutional activities, but does not include: (i) solid or
dissolved material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved material in irrigation return
flows, or industrial discharges subject to regulation by permit issued pursuant to
Chapter 26, Water Code; (ii) soil, dirt, rock, sand and other natural or man-made inert
solid materials used to fill land if the object of the fill is to make the land suitable for
the construction of surface improvements; or (iii) waste materials which result from
activities associated with the exploration, development, or production of oil or gas or
geothermal resources, and any other substance or material regulated by the Railroad
Commission of Texas pursuant to Section 91.101, Natural Resources Code, unless such
waste, substance, or material results from activities associated with gasoline plants,
natural gas or natural gas liquids processing plants, pressure maintenance plants, or
repressurizing plants and is a hazardous waste as defined by the administrator of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the federal Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq., as amended. For the purposes of Sections B(g), 11, and JJb, the term
"solid waste" shall also include hazardous substances, as they are defined by this
Act.
(B) On delegation of RCRA authority to the Railroad Commission of Texas: "solid
waste" means any garbage, rubbish, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant,
water supply treatment plant or air pollution control facility, and other discarded
material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting
from industrial, municipal, commercial, mining and agricultural operations, and from
3215
Ch. 703, § 1 71st LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION

community and institutional activities, but does not include: (i) solid or dissolved
material in domestic sewage, or solid or dis1:1olved material :n irrigation return flows,
or industrial discharges subject to regulation by permit issued pursuant to Chapter
26, Water Code; (ii) soil, dirt, rock, sand and other natural or man-made inert solid
materials used to fill land if the object of the fill is to make the land suitable for the
construction of surface improvements; or (iii) waste materials which result from
activities associated with the exploration, development, or production of oil or gas or
geothermal resources, and any other substance or material regulated by the Railroad
Commission of Texas pursuant to Section 91.101, Natural Resources Code. For the
purposes of Sections B(g), 11, and llb, the term "solid waste" shall also include
hazardous substances, as they are defined by this Act.
(31) [~] "Solid waste facility" means all contiguous land, and structures, other
appurtenances, and improvements on the land, used for processing, storing, or dispos-
ing of solid waste. A facility may be publicly or privately owned and consist of several
processing, storage, or disposal operational units; e.g., one or more landfills, surface
impoundments, or combinations of them.
(32) ((31.)] "Solid waste technician" means an individual who is trained in the
practical aspect.s of the design, operation, and maintenance of a solid waste facility in
accordance with standards, rules, or orders established by the commission or board of
health.
(33) [~] "Storage" means the holding of solid waste for a temporary period, at
the end of which the solid waste is processed, disposed of, or stored elsewhere.
SECTION 2. Subsection (h), Section 3, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-7,
Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), is amended to read as follows:
(h) The department and department of water resources shall submit a report to the
presiding officers of the legislature and the governor on January 1, 1987, and each two
years thereafter, providing the following information:
(1) a summary of a performance report of the imposed hazardous waste permit and
disposal fees, if the fees are approved by the legislature, and related activities to
determine the appropriateness of the fee structure;
(2) an evaluation of progress made in accomplishing the public policy of the state in
regard to the preference of waste management methods as set forth in Section (3)(e)(l)
of this Act;
(3) projections, [~r a peried ef three years frem the due date ef the repert,] of waste
volumes by type of waste, disposition of wastes, and remaining capacity or capacity
utilized for the treatment and disposal of the wastes. The commission [department
and the department ef water reeeuroee] shall adopt rules requiring persons who
generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste to respond to a periodic survey
[1nd1mit te the state agenoy ef apprepriate juriediotien en an annual baeie reperts]
detailing projections of waste volumes generated and handled, assumptions t!Bed as
the bases for these projections, disposition, and remaining capacity, as it relates to a
surveyed [eaeh] facility owned or operated by such persons, in order that the commis·
sion [~] may develop its [their] report. [The first report shall be sub
mitted by Maroh 11 1996, and subsequent reperte shall be submitted annually by Mar-eh
1 thereafter,]
SECTION 8. Subsections (a), (b), (c), (f), and (h), Section 9, Solid Waste Disposal Act
(Article 4477-7, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), are amended to read as follows:
(a) A person affected by any ruling, order, decision, or other act of the department or
the commission may appeal by filing a petition in a district court of Travis County. A
person affected by any ruling, order, decision, or other act of a county, or of a political
subdivision exercising the authority granted in Section 6 of this Act, may appeal by filing
a petition in a district court having jurisdiction in the county or political subdivision.
Except as provided in Section 9(b), the petition must be filed within 30 days after the date
of the action, ruling, order, or decision of the governmental entity complained of. Service
of citation must be accomplished within 30 days after the date the petition is filed. (~
peraen filing a petitien appealing an administrative erder issued pursuant te Seotien S(g)
3216
71st LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 703, § 3
mYst join as parties the state agenoy isst1ing the administrative order and may join as
parties any ether person named in the administrative order and any other person whe is
er may be liable f.er the elimination of the a11tt1al or threatened release gf solid waste
governed by the administrative order,] The plaintiff shall pursue his action with reason-
able diligence. If the plaintiff does not prosecute his action within one year after the
action is filed, the court shall presume that the action has been abandoned. The court shall
dismiss the suit on a motion for dismissal made by the governmental entity whose action
is appealed, unless the plaintiff, after receiving due notice, can show good and sufficient
cause for the delay. Except as provided in Section 9(c), in an appeal from an action of the
department, the commission, a county, or a political subdivision exercising the authority
granted in Section 6 of this Act, the issue is whether the action is invalid, arbitrary or
unreasonable.
(b) Any person subject to an administrative order under Section 8(g) may appeal
the order by filing a petition [The filing of a petition appealing an order isrmed pt1ret1ant
to Seotion S(g)] within 45 days after the date of receipt, hand delivery, or publication
service of the order [shall stay the administrative order as te the appealing party pending
aotion by the distriot 11ot1rt]. The filing of a motion for rehearing under the Adminis-
trative Procedure and Texas Register Act (Article 6252-13a, Vernon~ Texas Civil
Statutes) shall not be a prerequisite/or an appeal of the order. The person appealing
the order must join the state agency issuing the administrative order as a party and
may join as parties any other person named as a responsible party in the administra-
tive order and any other person who is or may be liable for the elimination of the
actual or threatened release of solid waste or hazardous substances governed by the
administrative order. The filing of the petition shall not prevent the state agency
issuing the administrative order from proceeding with the remedial action program
under Section 13 of this Act unless the court enjoins the remedial action under its
general equity jurisdiction. [However, the filing of the petition shall not affeot any other
enforGement powers gf the department or departm~nt gf water resot1r11e1h] An adminis-
trative order [isst1ed pt1rst1ant to Seotion S(g)] shall become final as to non-appealing
parties 45 days after the date of receipt, hand delivery, or publication service of the order
by, to, or upon such non-appealing parties.
(c)(J) The district court shall uphold an administrative order issued pursuant to
Section S(g) if the commission [department or department of water resot1r11es, by a
preponderange ef the evidenoe1] proves by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(A) [(1) that] there is an actual or threatened release of solid waste or hazardous
substances that is an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health
and safety or the environment; and
(B) [(2) that] the person made subject to the administrative order is liable for the
elimination of the release or threatened release, in whole or in part.
(2) If the appropriateness of the selected remedial action is contested in the
appeal of the administrative order, the remedial action shall be upheld unless the
court determines that the remedy is arbitrary or unreasonable.
(f) In appeals of an administrative order issued pursuant to Section 8(g), the district
court upon establishing the validity of the order, shall issue an injunctior. requiring all
persons named or joined against whom liability has been established by the department or
the commission [department of water resot1r11es] or any other party to comply with the
terms of the administrative order.
(h)(l) In appeals of an administrative order issued pursuant to Section S(g) or Section
13(g)(2) of this Act, in any action to enforce such an administrative order, in civil suits
seeking injunctive relief under Section 8(g)(l) of this Act, and in cost recovery suits under
Section 13(g)(3) or Section 13(g)(4) of this Act, the state, if it prevails, shall be entitled to
recover from parties against whom liability has b.aen established its reasonable attorney's
fees, its reasonable costs of preparing and providing witnesses, and its reasonable costs
of having investigated and assessed the facility or site. The court shall apportion such
costs among liable parties as it determines is equitable and just. All such costs recovered
by the state pursuant to Section 13 shall be remitted to the commission and placed in
a separate account of the hazardous waste disposalfee/und. All other costs recovered
3217
Ch. 703, § 3 71st LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION

by the state under Section 8(g) shall be remitted to the commission and placed in a
separate account of the hazardous waste generation and facility fees fund.
(2) In the event an appeal or third party claim is found by the court to be
frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, the court may assess damages
against the party bringing such appeal or third party claim in an amount not to
exceed twice the costs incurred by the state or the third party defendant, including
reasonable attorney's fees, reasonable costs of preparing and providing witnesses,
and reasonable costs of studies, analyses, engineering reports, tests, or other
projects the court finds were necessary/or the preparation of the party's case. [CG&t&
Jel!9\'ered by the state YRder SubdivisiGR (1) 9f this subse0tiGn shall be n1mitted tG the
G9mmissi9n a11d plaoed iR the hazardGYS waste generatiGn and faoility fees fund tG be
used by the 119mmissiGR f9r the administratiGn 9f the hazardGus waste managemeRt
pl!Ggram. All amGYRts re1191Je1?ed under this subseotiGR shall be pla0ed by the oGmmis
siGR in a separate a11119unt within the ha;i;ard911s waste generatiGn and faoility fees
fwld.]
(3) In the event the state's orders enumerated under Subdivision (1) of this subsection
are found by the court to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation as
regarding any party named in the order, such party appealing or contesting the order
shall be entitled to recover from the state its reasonable attorney's fees, its reasonable
costs of preparing and providing witnesses, and its reasonable costs of studies,
analyses, engineering report.a, tests, or other projects the court finds were necessary
for the preparation of the party's case.
SECTION 4. Subsections (c) and (d), Section lla, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article
4477-7, Vernon's Texas Civil StatuU>'l), are amended to read as follows:
(c) The hazardous waste disposal fee fund shall consist of money collected by the
commission from fees imposed on the operator of a solid waste facility for disposal of
hazardous waste under Section 12 of this Act, from interest and penalties imposed under
Section 14a of this Act for late payment of a disposal fee or late filing of a report, and
from money paid by a liable party for facility cleanup and maintenance under Subsection
(m) [(g)] of Section 13 of this Act. In addition, the interest received from the
investment of this fund, in accounts under the charge of the treasurer, shall be
credited to the hazardous waste disposal fee fund on a pro rata basis. The com mis·
sion may use the money credited to the account from interest received from the
investment of the fund for only those purposes specified in Subsection (d) of this
section.
(d) The commission may use the money collected and deposited in the fund under
Subsection (c) of this section only for:
(1) necessary and appropriate removal and remedial action at sites at which solid
[hazardGus] waste or hazardous substances have been disposed if funds from a liable
party, independent third party, or the federal government are not sufficient for the
removal or remedial action;
(2) necessary and appropriate maintenance of removal and remedial actions for the
expected life of those actions if funds from a liable party have been collected and
deposited in the fund for that purpose or if funds from a liable party, Independent third
party, or the federal government are not sufficient for the maintenance; and
(3) expenses related to complying with the federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liabilit.y Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq.), the
federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and Sections 8(g) and
13 of this Act. ·
SECTION 5. Section 13, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Article 4477-7, Vernon's Texas
Civil Statutes), is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 13. IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT, AND CLEANUP OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE FACILITIES. (a) The commission shall annually publish an updated state
registry identifying, to the extent feasible, every facility that may constitute an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and safety or the environ·
ment due to a release or threatened release of hazardous substances into the environ·
3218
71et LEGISLATURE-REGULAU SESSION Ch. 703, § 5
ment. The registry shall identify the relative priority for action at each listed
facility. The relative priority for action at facilities listtd on the registry shall be
periodically reviewed and revised by the commission, as necessary to accurately
reflect the need/or action at the facilities. For thtJ purposes of this section, "facility"
means (1) any building, structure, installation, equipment, pipe, or pipeline (includ-
ing any pipe into a sewer or publicly owned treatment works, well, pit, pond, lagoon,
impoundment, ditch, landfill, storage container, motor vehicle, rolling stock, or
aircraft), or (2) any site or area where a hazardous substance has been deposited,
stored, disposed of, or placed or otherwise come to be located,· but does not include
any consumer product in con.'lumer use or any vessel.
(b) The executive director may conduct investigations of facilities which are listed
on the state registry, or which it has reason to believe should be included on the state
registry, in accordance with Section 7 of this Act. If there is a reasonable basis to
believe there may be a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance at a
facility, the executive director may submit requests for information and requests for
the production of documents to any person who has or may have information' or
documents relevant to:
(1) the identification, nature, or quantity of materials that have been generated,
treated, stored, or disposed of at a facility or transported to a facility;
(2) the identification of soils, ground water, or surface water at a facility that
have been or may be affected by an actual or threatened release of a hazardous
substance;
(3) the nature or extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous
substance at or from a facility; or
(4) the ability of a person to pay for or to perform a remedial action.
If the requested information or documents are not produced in a timely manner,
the commission may issue an order directing compliance with the requests for
information or production of documents. Information or documents requested
under this subsection shall be public records, except that, if a showing satisfactory to
the commission is made by the owner of the records that the records would divulge
trade secrets if made public, then the commission shall consider the copied records as
confidential. Nothing in this subsection .'/hall require the commission to consider the
composition or characteristics of hazardous substances being processed, stored, dis·
posed of, or otherwise handled to be held confidential. The commission shall promul-
gate rules regarding the provision of notice and an opportunity for a hearing before
the commission on whether the requested injormaf.ion or documents should be
produced.
(c) Prior to the listing of a facility on the state registry, the executive director shall
first determine whether the potential endangerment to public health and safety or the
environment at the facility can be resolved by the present owner or operator under
the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 8901) or by
some or all of the potentially responsible parties identified in Section B(g), pursuant
to an agreed administrati?Je order issued by the commission. If the potential endan-
germent to public health and safety or the environment can be resolved in such a
manner, the facility shall not be listed on the state registry. Notice of the approach
selected to resolve the apparent endangerment to health and public safety or the
environment and the fact that this action is being taken in lieu of listing the facility
on the state registry shall be published in the Texas Register. If after reasonable
efforts the executive director determines that the potential endangerment to public
health and safety or the environment cannot be resolved by either of these approaches,
the executive director shall evaluate the facility to determine whether the site exceeds
the commission~ minimum criteria for listing on the state regisi ry. These minimum
criteria shall be promulgated by rule. The executive director sltall also evaluate the
facility to determine whether it is eligible for listing on the federal National Priorities
List. The commission shall proceed under this section only if, based on information
available to the executive director, the facility is eligible for listing on the state
registry but not eligible for the federal National Priorities List.
3219
Ch. 703, § 5 7lst LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION

(1) Once the executive director has determined that the facility is eligible for
listing on the state registriJ, the commission shall publish in the Texas Register and
in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the facility is located a
notice of intent to list the facility on the state registry. The notice shall at least
specify the name and location of tlte facility, the general nature of the potential
endangerment to public health and safety or the environment as determined by
information available to the executive director at that time, and the duties and
restrictions imposed by Subsection (c)(3) . of this section. The notice also shall
provide that interested parties may do either or both of the following: (A) submit
written comments to the commission relative to the proposed listing of the facility,·
or (B) request a public meeting to discuss the proposed listing by submitting a
request within 30 days of issi;ance of the notice.
(2) Once the facility is determined tCJ be eligible for listing on the state registry,
the executive director shall make all reasonable efforts to identify all potentially
responsible parties/or remediation of the facility. Concurrent with the publication
of general notice in accordance with Subdivision (1) of this subsection, the executive
director shall provide to e3.ch identified potentially responsible party direct, written
notification of the proposed listing of the facility on the state registry and of the
procedures for requesting a public meeting to discuss the listit.:i and the inform.a·
tion included in the general notice as required by Subdivision (1) of thi'l subsection.
Written notifications under this subsection shall be by certified mail, return receipt
requested, by mailing notice to each named responsible party at the party 8 last
known address.
(3) If a public meeting is requested regarding the proposed listing of a facility on
the state registry, the commission shall publish general notice of the date, time, and
location of the public meeting in the Texas Register and in the same newspaper in
which the notice of the opportunity to request the public meetin,Q was published.
The public meeting notice shall be provided at least 30 days in advance of the
meeting. Notice of the meeting also shall be provided by certified mail, return
receipt requested, to all identified potentially responsible parties at the parties' last
known addresses. Nonreceipt of any notice mailed to a potentially responsible
party pursuant to this subdivision or Subdivision (2) of this subsection shall in no
way affect the responsibilities, duties, or liabilities imposed on the party. Contem·
poraneously with the issuance of notice of the public meeting, the executive director
shall make available to all interested parties the public records he has regarding the
facility. For the purposes of providing this information, the executive director
shall provide a brief summary of the public records he has and make these public
records available for inspection and copying during regular business hours.
(4) The public meetings will be legislative in nature and not contested case
hearings under the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (Article
6252-13a, Vernons Texas Civil Statutes). The meeting shall be held/or the purpose
of obtaining additional information regarding the facility relative to the eligibility
of the facility for listing on the state registry and the identification of potentially
respon:Jible partfos.
(5) Subsequent to the public meeting or after opportunity to request a public
meeting has passed, the commission shall file or cause to be filed an affidavit or
notice in the real property records of the county in which a facility is located
identifying the facility as one proposed for listing on the state registry, unless the
executive director determines, based on information presented at the public meet·
ing, that efforts to list the facility on the state registry should not be pursued.
(6)(A) Subsequent to the public meeting or after opportunity to request a pubtic
meeting has passed, but prior to any listing of the facility on the state registry, the
commission shall allow all identified potentially responsible parties the opportuni·
ty to fund or conduct, if appropriate, a remedial investigation/feasibility study, or
similar study as approved by the executive director, for the facility. The potentially
responsible parties shall have 90 days from the date of the issuance of notice of the
opportunity to request a public meeting to make a good faith offer to conduct the
3220
71st LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 703, § 5
study. If a good faith offer from all or some of the potentially responsible parties is
received by the commission within 90 days, those making the offer sl:all have an
additional 60 days within which to negotiate an agreed administrative order from
the commission, which shall include a scope of work. The commission shall not
require the participating potentially responsible parties to agree to perform the
remedial action or admit liability for the facility remediation in this agreed
administrative order.
(B) If no potentially responsible party makes a good faith offer to conduct the
remedial investigation/feasibility study or similar study as approved by the
executive director or .if the participating potentially responsible parties fail to
conduct or complete an· approved study, the commission is authorized to conduct
or complete the study using funds from the hc;,zardous waste disposal fee fund.
(C) To encourage potentially responsible parties to perform the remedial inves-
tigation/feasibility Etudy or other similar study as approved by the executive
director, no costs for commission oversight of the study may be assessed against
those parties who fund or perform the study. Nonparticipating pote.ttially
responsible parties who are ultimately determined to be liable for remediation of
the facility under this Act or who subsequentll' enter into an agreed ordu relative
to the remediation of the facility may be assessed up to the full costs fot
commission oversight of the study process. If all potentially responsible parties
participate or agree to fund the remedial investigation/feasibility study or other
similar study, all commission oversight costs shall be borne by the hazardous
waste disposal fee fund.
(D) Once the executive director has determin 1u;! that a facility is eligible for
listing on the state registry, no person shall perform at the facility any partial or
total removal activities except as authorized by the executive director in appropri-
ate circumstances after notice and opportunity for comment to all other poten-
tially responsible parties. The commission may develop rules determining what
constitutes an appropriate circumstance to take removal action under this
paragraph. Authorization by the executive director to conduct a partial or total
removal action shall not constitute a final determination of the party$ ultimate
liability for remediation of the facility, nor a determination of divisibility.
(7)(A) Once the facility is determined to be eligibl1?for listing on the state registry,
the owner or operator of the facility must provide the executive director with
written notice of any substantial change in use of the facility at least 60 days before
the change in use is made. Notice of a prnposed substantial change in use shall be
in writing, addressed to the executive director, provided by certified mail, return
receipt requested, and shall include a brief description of the proposed change in
use. A substantia! change in use shall be defined by rule and shall include but not
be limited to actions such as the erection of a building or other structure at the
facility, the use of the facility for agricultural production, the paving of the facility
for use as a roadway or parking lot, and the creation of a park or other public or
private recreational use on the facility.
(B) If, within 30 days of the notice, the executive director determines that the
proposed substantial change in use will interfere significantly with a proposed or
ongoing remedial investigation/feasibility study, or similar study approved by
the executive director, or expose the public health and safety or the environment
to a significantly increased threat of harm, then he shall notify the owner or
operator of his determination. Once the determination is made and notification
given, the owner or operator shall not proceed with the proposed substantial
change in use. The owner or operator may request a hearing before the commis-
sion on whether the determination should be modified or set aside by submitting
a request within 30 days of receipt of the executive director$ determination. If a
hearing is requested, the commission shall initiate the hearing within 45 days of
the receipt of the request. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (Article 6252-13a, Vernon$
3221
Ch. 703, § 5 71et LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION

Texas Civil Statutes). The executive director's determination shall become unap-
pealable 30 days after issuance if a hearing is not requested.
(8) Within a reasonable time following the completion of the remedial investiga·
tionlfeasibility study or other similar study, if required, the executive director shall
select a proposed remedial action. Subsequent to its selection of a proposed
remedial action, the commission shall hold a public meeting to discuss the proposed
action. The commission shall publish notice of the meeting in the Texas Register
and in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation in the county where the facility is located
at least 45 days prior to the public meeting. The notice shall provide information
regarding the proposed remedial action and the date, time, and place of the
meeting. The commission shall also mail the same information to each potentially
responsible party by certified mail, return receipt requested, at each party's last
known address at least 45 days prior to the publii: meeting Contemporaneously
with the issuance of notice of the public meeti1~g, the executive director shall make
available to all interested parties the public records he has regarding the facility.
For purposes of providing this information, the executive director shall provide a
brief summary of the public records he has and make these public records available
for inspection and copying during regular business hours. Nonreceipt of any notice
mailed to a potentially responsible party pursuant to this subdivision shall in no
1;ay affect the responsibilities, duties, 01· liabilities imposed on any such party.
(9) The public meeting shall bt legislative in nature and not conducted as a
contested case hearing under the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act
(Article 6252-13a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes). The meeting shall be held for the
purpose :if obtaining additional information regarding the facility and the identifi·
cation of additional potentially responsible parties. Those in attendance may
present their comments on the proposed remedial action, and the executive director
may revise its proposed remedial action in light of the presentations.
(JO)(A) Subsequent to the public meeting on the proposed remedial action, the
commission shall provide all identified potentially responsible parties an opportu-
nity to fund or perform the proposed remedial action. The potentially responsible
parties shall have 60 days from the date of the public meeting in which to make a
good faith offer to perform or fund the proposed remedial action. If a good faith
offer is made by all or some of the potentially responsible parties within the 6{1-day
period, then these parties will have an additional 60 days to negotiate an aoreed
administrative order from the commission, which shall include a scope of u ork.
The commission shall not require an admission of liability in the agreed adr.1 inis·
trative order.
(B) To encourage potentially responsible parties to perform the remedial ac·
tion, no costs for commission oversight of the remedial action may be assessed
against those parties who fund or perform the remedial action. Nonpartic·
ipating potentially responsible parties who are ultimately determined to be liable
for remediation of the facility may be assessed up to the full costs/or commission
oversight of the remedial action. If all potentially responsible parties conduct or
fund the remedial action, all commission oversight costs shall be borne by the
hazardous waste disposal fee fund. Participation in the remedial action does not
relieve those who did not conduct or fund the remedial investigation/feasibility
study or other similar study approved by the executive director from paying their
portion of the oversight costs of that phase of the remediation.
(C) The executive director may authorize a potentially responsible party to
conduct a partial remedial action at a portion of the facility if the executive
director determines that the release or threatened release is divisible after notice
and opportunity for comment to all other potentially responsible parties. For
purposes of this section, "divisible" means that the hazardous substance released
or threatened to be released is capable of being managed separately under the
remedial action plan. A determination of divisibility by the executive director
shall have no res judicata or collateral estoppel effect on a potentially responsible
party's ultimate liability for remediation of the facility under Section 8.
3222
71st LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 703, § 5
(11) After consideration of all good faith offers to perform a remedial action, the
commission shall issue a final administrative order that shall:
(A) list the facility on the state registry, thus determining that the facility poses
an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and safety or the
environment;
(B) specify the selected remedial action,·
(C) list the parties determined to be responsible for remediating the facility,·
(D) make findings offact describing actions voluntarily undertaken by respon-
sible parties,·
(E) order the responsible parties to remediate the facility and, if appropriate,
reimburse the hazardous waste disposal fee fund for remedial investigation/fea-
sibility study and remediation costs;
(F) establish a schedule for completion of the remedial action,·
(G) state any determination of divisibility of responsible party liability; and
(H) give notice of the duties and restrictions imposed by Subsection (/) of this
section. ·
The provisions in Sections B(g), 9, 10, and 11 of this Act relating to administrative
orders shall apply to orders issued pursuant to this paragraph.
(12) If a potentially responsible party is newly identified after a final administra-
tive order has been issued by the commission pursuant to Subdivision (11) of this
sub~ection, that party shall have 60 days to negotiate an amendment to the existing
order. The commission shall not be prohibited from issuing a separate order for
the newly identified potentially responsible party if it determines that the circum-
stances warrant a separate order. The responsible parties identified in the order
issued pursuant to Subdivision (11) of this subsection shall be allowed to comment
on the issuance of a separate order for the newly identified potentially responsible
party.
(d) The commission shall file or cause to be filed an affidavit or notice in the real
property records of the county in which the facility is located stating that the facility
has been listed on or deleted from the state registry or is no longer proposed for
listing on the state registry, within a reasonable period after a determination has
been made.
(e) Any owner or operator or other named responsible party of a facility listed or to
be listed in the state registry may request the commission to delete the facility from
the state registry, modify the facility~ priority within the state registry, or modify
any information regarding the facility by submitting a written statement setting
forth the grounds of the request in the form as the commission may require pursuant
to its promulgated rules. The commission shall promulgate rules establishing proce-
dures, including public hearings, for review of requests submitted pursuant to this
subsection.
(/) Subsequent to the listing of a facility on the state registry, no person may
substantially change the manner in which the facility is used without notifying the
executive director and receiving written approval of the executive director for the
change. A substantial change in use shall be rll!fined by rule and shall include but
not be limited to actions such as the erection of u building or other structure at the
facility, the use of the facility for agriculturq,l production, the paving of the facility
for use as a roadway or parking lot, and the creation of a park or other public or
private recreational use on the facility. The notice shall be in writing, addressed to
the executive director, provided by certified mail, return receipt requested, and shall
include a brief description of the proposed change of use. The executive director shall
approve or disapprove the proposed action within 60 days of receipt of the notice of
proposed change in use. The executive director shall not approve the proposed change
of use if such new use will significantly interfere with a proposed, ongoing, or
completed remedial action program at a facility or expose the public health and
safety or the environment to a significantly increased threat of harm.
3223
Ch. 703, § 5 71st LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION

(g)(J) Whenever the commission, after investigation, finds that there exists a release
or threatened release of a hazardous substance at n facility that: (A) is causing
irreversible or irreparable harm to the public health and safety or the environment,·
and (B) the immediacy of the situation makes it prejudic.ial to the public interest to
delay action until an administrative order can be issue1t to potentially responsible
parties or until a judgment can be entered in an appeal of an administrative order,·
the commission may, with the funds available to the corn.mission from the hazardous
waste disposal fee fund, undertake immediate removal action at the facility to
alleviate the harm. After the immediate danger of irreversible or irreparable harm
has been alleviated, the commission shall proceed pursuant to the provisions of this
section. Fi.ndings required pursuant to this subsection shall be in writing and may
be made by the commission on an ex parte basis subject to judicial review pursuant to
the substantial evidence rule as provided by the Administrative Procedure and Texas
Register Act (Article 6252-13a, Vernon~ Texas Civil Statutes).
(2) The reasonable expenses of any immediate removal action taken by the
commission may be recoverable from the persons described in Section 8, and the
state may seek to recover the reasonable expenses in any court of appropriate
jurisdiction.
(h) Whenever a person ordered to eliminate an imminent and substantial endan·
germent to the public health and safety or the environment has failed to do so within
the time limits specified in the order or any extension of time approved by the
commission, the commission may implement the remedial action program for the
facility. The reasonable expenses of implementing the remedial action program by
the commission shall be paid by the persons to whom the order was issued and shall be
recoverable under the provisions of Subsection (m) of this section.
(i)(J) The goal of any remedial action shall be the elimination of the imminent and
substantial endangerment to the public health and safety or the environment posed
by a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance at a facility. The
appropriate extent of the remedial action at any particular facility shall be deter-
mined by the commission~ selection of the remedial alternative which the state
agency determines is cost effective (i.e., the lowest cost alternative that is technologi-
cally feasible and reliable and which effectively mitigates and minimizes damage to
and provides adequate protection of the public health and safety or the environment).
(2) In considering the appropriate remedial action program at a particular
facility, the commission may approve a program that does not attain a level or
standard of control at least equivalent to a legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate standard, requirement, criterion, or limitation, as required by state or
local law, if the commission finds that:
(A) the remedial action selected is only part of a total remedial action that will
attain such level or standard of control when completed,·
(B) compliance with the requirement at that facility will result in greater risk
to public health and safety or the environment than alternative options,·
(C) compliance with the requirement is technically impracticable from an
engineering perspective,·
(D) the remedial action selected will attain a standard of performance that is
equivalent to that required under the otherwise applicable standard, requirement,
criterion, or limitation through use of another method or approach,·
(E) with respect to a local standard, requirement, criterion, or limitation, the
locality has not consistently applied (or demonstrated the intention to consistent-
ly apply) the standard, requirement, criterion, or limitation in similar circum-
stances of other remedial actions within the locality,· or
(F) with respect to an action using solely state funds, selection of a remedial
action that attains such levels or standards of control will not provide a balance
between the need/or protection of public health and safety or the environment at
the facility and the availabilty of state funds to respond to other sites that present
3224
71st LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 703, § 5
a threat to public health and safety or the environment, taking into consideration
the relative immediacy of the threats.
(jJ In adflition to all other remedies available to the state under this Act or any
other law or statute, all remediation costs for which a person is liable to the state
shall constitute a lien in favor of the state on the real property and the rights to the
real property that are subject to or affected by a remedial action. This provision is
cumulative of other remedies available to the state under this Act.
(JJ The lien imposed by this subsection shall arise and attach to th,e real property
subject to or affected by a remedial action at the time an affidavit is recorded and
indexed in accordance with this subsection in the county in which the real property
is located. For the purpose of determining rights of all affected parties, the lien
shall not relate back to a time prior to the date on which the affidavit is recorded,
which date shall be the lien inception date. The lien shall continue until the
liability for the costs is satisfied or becomes unenforceable through operation of law.
(2J The affidavit shall be executed by an authorized representative of the commis-
sion and must show:
(AJ the names and addresses of the persons liable for the costs,·
(BJ a description of the real property that is subject to or affected by the
remediation action for the costs or claims,· and
(CJ the amount of the costs and the balance due.
(9J The county clerk shall record the affidavit in records kept for that purpose
and shall index the affidavit under the names of the persons liable for the costs.
(4J The commission shall record a relinquishment or satisfaction of the lien when
the lien is paid or satisfied.
(SJ The lien may be foreclosed only on judgment of a court of competent jurisdic-
tion foreclosing the lien and ordering the sale of the property subject to the lien.
(6J The lien imposed by this subsection shall not be valid or enforceable if real
property or an interest therein or a mortgage, lien, or other encumbrance upon or
against real property is acquired before the affidavit is recorded, unless the person
acquiring the real property or an interest therein or acquiring the mortgage, lien,
or other encumbrance thereon had or reasonably should have had actual notice or
knowledge that the real property is subject to or affected by a clean-up action or has
knowledge that the state has incurred clean-up costs.
('1J If a lien is fixed or attempted to be fixed as provided in this subsection, the
owner of the real property affected by the lien may file a bond to indemnify against
the lien. The bond shall be filed with the county clerk of the county in which the
real property subject to the lien is located. An action to establish, enforce, or
foreclose any lien or claim of lien covered by the bond must be brought not later
than the 90th day after the date of service of notice of the bond.
(BJ The bond must:
(AJ describe the real property upon which the lien is claimed,·
(BJ refer to the lien claimed in a manner sufficient to identify it,·
(CJ be in an amount double the amount of the lien referred to,·
(DJ be payable to the commission;
(EJ be executed by the party filing the bond as principal and a corporate surety
authorized under the law of this state to execute the bond as surety,· and
(FJ be conditioned substantially that the principal and sureties will pay to the
commission the amount of the lien claimed, plus costs, if the claim is proved to be
a lien on the real property.
(9J .After the bond is filed, the county clerk shall issue notice of the bond to the
named obligee. A copy of the bond must be attached to the notice. The notice may
be served on each obligee by having a copy delivered to the obligee by any person
competent to make oath of the delivery. The original notice shall be returned to the
3225
Ch. 703, § 5 71st LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION

office of the county clerk, and the person making service of copy shall make an oath
on the back of the copies showing on whom and on what date the copies were served.
The county clerk shall record the bond notice and return in records kept for that
purpose. In acquiring an interest in real property, a purchaser or lender may rely
on and is absolutely protected by the record of the bond, notice, and return.
(10) The commission may sue on the bond after the 30th day following the date on
which the notice is served but may not sue on the bond later than one year after the
date on which the notice is served. If the commission recovers in a suit on the lien
or on the bond, it is entitled to also recover reasonable attorney's fees.
(k) Money for actions taken or to be taken by the commission in connection with the
elimination of an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health and
safety or the environment pursuant to this section shall be payable directly to the
commission from the hazardous waste disposal fee fund. This includes any costs of
inspection or sampling and laboratory analysis of wastes, soils, air, surface water,
and ground water done on behalf of a state agency and the costs of investigations to
identify and locate potentially responsible parties.
(l) The commission shall seek remediation of facilities by potentially responsible
parties prior to expenditure offederal or state funds for the remediations. Potential·
ly responsible parties shall coordinate with ongoing federal and state hazardous waste
programs, although no state or local permit shall be required for any removal or
remedial action conducted on site. Subject to the provisions nf Subsection (i) of this
section, the state may enforce any federal or state standard, requirement, criterion,
or limitation to which the remedial action would otherwise be required to conform if a
permit were required. No action taken by the person to contain or remove a release
or threatened release in accordance with an approved remedial action plan shall be
construed as an admission of liability for said release or threatened release. No
person who renders assistance in containing or removing a release or threatened
release in accordance with an approved remedial action plan shall be liable for any
additional remediation costs at the facility resulting solely from acts or omissions of
the person in rendering the assistance in compliance with the approvals required by
this subsection, unless the remediation costs were caused by the person's gross
negligence or wilful misconduct. Except as specifically provided in this subsection,
these provisions shall not be construed to expand or diminish the common law tort
liability, if any, of private parties participa~ing in a remediation action for civil
damages to third parties.
(m) The commission sh1ill file a cost recovery action against all respomnble parties
who have not complied with the terms of an administrative order issued pursuant to
Subdivision (11} or (12) of Subsection (c) of this section. The commission shall file
the cost recovery action no later than one year after all remedial action has been
completed. The state may seek a judgment against the noncompliant parties for the
total amount of the cost of the remedial action, including costs of any necessary
studies and oversight costs, minus the amount agreed to be paid or expended by any
other responsible parties pursuant to an order issued pursuant to Subdivision (11) or
(12) of Subsection (c) of this section. The action may also include a plea seeking civil
penalties for noncompliance with the commission's administrative order and a claim
for up to double the state's costs if the responsible party's defenses are determined by
the court to be unreasonable, frivolous, or without foundation.
· (n)(l) A responsible party named in an administrative order who does not comply
with the order shall become subject to the imposition of administrative or civil
penalties under Section Bb of this Act. The penalties may be assessed only from the
date after which the administrative order becomes nonappealable.
(2) The commission is authorized to include provisions within an agreed adminis·
trative order that stipulate administrative penalty amounts for failure to comply
with the order. The penalty provisions may be applicable to either or both of the
remedial investigation/feasibility study and remedial action orders.
(o)(l) The commiss-ion shall promulgate rules necessary to develop a mixed funding
program in which available money from potentially responsible parties is combined
8226
71st LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 703, § 5
with state or federal funds to clean up a facility in a timely manner. Use of the state
or federal funds in a mixed funding approach shall not preclude the state or federal
government from seeking recovery of its costs from nonparticipating potentially
responsible parties.
(2) The commission shall assess and may, through rulemaking, develop and
implement a de minimis settlement program. Under the program, the commission
shall be required to consider the advantages of developing a final settlement with
potentially responsible parties that are responsible for only a minor portion of the
response costs at a facility because the hazardous substances the party is respon•
sible for are minimal in amount or in hazardous effect by comparison with the
hazardous substances attributable to other parties.
(3) The commission shall investigate additional alternative programs to encour·
age potentially responsible parties to investigate or remediate facilities and report
its findings to the 72nd Legislature with recommendations for legislative action.
(p) The commission is authorized to determine whether a potentially responsible
party is. financially capable of conducting any necessary remediation studies or
remedial action. The commission shall promulgate rules to develop the criteria for
determination of financial capability. If no financially capable potentially r~pon·
sible parties exist for a facility, the commission shall issue an administrative order
stating its determination that the facility constitutes an imminent and substantial
endangerment and that there are no financially capable potentially responsible
parties. The commission shall then conduct its own remediation study and remedial
action, using federal funds if available. Iffederal funds are not available, state funds
from the hazardous waste disposal fee fund shall be used. Generally, the remediation
of listed facilities shall be achieved first by private party funding, second with the aid
of federal funds, and third, if necessary, with state funds from the hazardous waste
disposal fee fund.
(q) The executive director or the commission shall have the authority to extend any
time period specified in this section if deemed appropriate.
[Seo. 13, IDENTIFICATION AND J..SSESSMENT OF HAZJ..RDO:US WASTE FA
CIUTIES, (a) The department ef water reseurees, in eeeperatien with the department,
shall oenduot and oemplete a survey ef the state by July 1, 11~8G 1 the pUFf19Se ef whioh is
t9 identify te the extent feasible every hazardeus waste faoility whieh may oenstitute an
imminent and substantial endangerment te publio health and safety er the envirenment,
The werk already perfermed te identify eandidate sites fur inolusien in the federal
Natienal Pri9rities list shall serve as the basis fer suoh a sun•ey, As seen as pessible
after e9mpletien ef a draft survey, the department ef water reseurees shall eenduot a
publio hearing te selieit oemments en the draft survey and inf9rmatien en additienal
eandidate sites. Net later than January 11 1Q871 the department ef water reseurees shall
publish a registry identifying eaeh faoility listed by the survey, the relative priority of the
need fer aetion at eaoh faoili~• to remedy eni.tirenmental and health problems resulting
frem the presenoe ef hazardous wastes at suoh faeilities, and setting ferth ree9mmenda
tiens fer aotiens whieh may be pursued to aehie•,re effeoti~•e, effioient, and timely eleanup
or ether reselutien of the preblems identified fer eaoh faoility, Sueh reeemmendatiens
shall net oonstitute the remedial innstigatien/feasibility study fur the relevant faeility,
but shall ferm the preliminary basis fur suoh a study. The eleanup of sueh faeilities shall
be aohieved first by private party funding, seoend with the aid of federal funds, and third,
if neeessary, w4th state funds frem the hazardous waste permit and disposal fee, if the
fee is approved by the legislature. J.. draft eepy of the registry shall be eireulated te the
department for eemment prier te publioatien, Three oepies ef the registry, as published,
shall be deli'Jered to the Offioe of the Geverner,
[{b)(l) The department ef water reseurees may eonduet in~•estigatiens of the faeilities
listed in the registry and may in'Jestigate areas er sites whioh it has reason te belie'le
should be ineluded in the registry, in aeeerdanee with Seetie~ 7 ef this Aet.
[(2) The department ef •nater reseurees shall, as part of the registry, aBBeBB by
January 11 1Q871 and eaeh year thereafter, and, based upon new infermatien reeeiJJed
from seuroes ineluding but net limited to publie hearings, reasseBB 1 in eeeperatien with
3227
Ch. 703, § 5 71st LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION

the department, the relative priority of the need for aetion at eaeh faeility listed in the
registry t9 remedy en¥ironmental and health problems resulting frem the presenee of
hazardous wastes at sueh faeilities,
[(e) The department of water resourees shall update the registry perfodieally to add
faeilities whieh may eonstitute an imminent and substantial endangerm9nt te publie
health and safety or the environment and to delete faeilities whieh have been elean&d up
pursuant to Subseetion (g) of this seetion qr delisted pursuant te Subseetion (e) of this
seGtioo.
[(d) The department of water resourees shall file an affidavit or notiee in the real
pr-eperty reeords of the eounty in whieh a faeility is loeated identifying those faeilities
ineluded in the registry, as well as thgse faeilities deleted from the registry.
[(e)(l) Within thirty (30) days after the survey pursuant tg Subseetign (a) gf this seetign
is ggmpleted, the department gf water resgurees shall ngtify ia ~!friting the parties
identified as respgnsible for all gr any part gf eaeh faeility gr area ineluded in the registry
prepared pursuant tg sueh l!iubseetion (a) gf the inelusign gf the faeility gr area gn sueh
sur\tey. Thereafter, twg mgnths bef9re any unineluded faeili~ gr area is added; tg the
registry, the department gf water resgurees shall ngtify in writing the parties identified
as respgnsible for all gr any part gf sueh faeility gr area gf the ggntemplated inelusign gf
sueh faeility gr area go sueh registry, Written ngtifieatigns under this subseetign shall be
by eertified mail, return reeeipt requested, by mailing ngtiee tg eaeh sueh named
respgnsible party at the party's last kngwn address.
((2) Ngtiee pursuant t9 Paraffraph (1) gf this subseetign shall inelude but ngt he
limited tg a deseriptign gf the dr:;ties and restrietigns impgsed by Subseetign (f) gf this
seGtioo.
((3) Ngo reeeipt gf any ngtiee mailed tg a named respgnsible party pursuant tg thi&
subseetion shall in ng way affoet the responsibilities, duties or liabilities impelled on any
sueh party.
((4) .A.ny owner or operatgr or gther named responsible party gf a faeility listed gr t9
be listed in the registry of the department of water resoyrees pYrsuant t9 this seetion
may request the department gf water resgyr.ees t9 delete sueh faeility fr9m the
registry, modify the faeility's priority within the registry gr mgdify any informatien
regarding sueh faeility by sybmitting a \!fritten statement setting forth the gNUnds gf
the request in sueh form as the department of water resgurees may reqyire.
((9) Within one hundred and eighty (180) 'days after the eff9eti¥e date gf this
provision, the department gf water resourees shall propgse rules establishing pl'99&-
d1ues, ineluding publie hearings, for review of delisting requests submitted pursuant tg
this sybseetion.
[(f)(l) SYbseqyent to the listing of a faeility go the registry prepared and maintained by
the department of watel' resourees, R9 person may sYbstantially ehange the manner in
whieh the faeility is used withoYt notifying the department gf water resgurees and
reeeii.ting •1mtten approval of the department gf water resgurees for sueh ehange, A
substantial ehange gf yse shall be defined in rules adopted by the bgard and shall inelude,
but ngt be limited to, aetions sueh as the ereetign gf a building gr other strueture at sueh
faeility, the use of SYGh faeility for agrieYltural prgduetion, the paving gf sueh faeility for
yse as a roadway or parking lot, and the cireation gf a park gr gther publie or private
reereatignal faciility gn sueh faeility, Sueh Mtiee shall be in writing, addressed tg the
eMeutPJe diregt9r and sh!MI inelu~ a brief deseriptign gf the prgpgsed ehange gf use.
Sueh notiee shall be submitted in writing at least sixty days bef9re any physieal alteratign
gf the land gr eonstruetign will geeur or, in the event any alteration gr ggnstruetign is net
required tg initiate .sueh ehange gf use, at least sixty days before any cihange of use.
((2) The exeeutive direetgr shall not apprgve sueh ehange gf use if sucih ne'I.' use will
interfere sigDifieantly with a prgpgeed, gnggil\g gr eompleted hazardgus waste faeility
remedial aetion prggram at sucih faeility or expose the en'!ir-enment er publie health t9 a
sigDifieantly inereased threat of harm.
[(g)(l) The eleanup gf a faeility identified by the department of water resourcies in the
registry whieh ggnetitutes an imminent and substantial endangerment te the publie health
3228
71st LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 703, § 5
and saf.ety 9r the eR'lir9RmeRt shall pr9eeed 9R an expedited basis p1m1uaRt te the
f9119WiRg guideliReSi
[(A) whel·e'ler p9ssible, parties ident:.Red as lial· 'q par.ties pursuant te Seeti9R
ll(g)(l) sh9uld be R9tif.ied by the depar:..meRt 9f water res9urees 9f an 9p119rtunity te
partieipate in a '191uRtary eleaRup P~ the faeility;
[{:0) if all pel!t'~Rs liable uRdet Seeti9R ll(g)(l) d9 R9t V9luRteer t9 devel9p and
implement a remedial aeti9R pregram fer the faeility, then private partie11 wh9 are
willing to partieipate iR eleaRup aetivities '19luntarily sh9uld be all9•Ned t9 d9 119 and
they may seek g9st ree9very pursuaRt t9 Seeti9n ll(b) "9m th9se liable partie11 n9t
partieipatiRg iR the '19luRtary eleaRup;
. [(C) if n9 parties ideRtif.ied aa liable uRder Seeti9R ll(g)(l) '19IURteer t9 •de'lel9p and
implemeRt a remedial aeti9n pr9gram f9r the faeility, theR iRdependeRt third partie11
wh9 are w411iRg t9 partieipate '191untarily iR the eleanup 9f the faeility sh9uld be
permitted t9 e9ntraet with the department 9f water res9urees t9 d9 s9 and they may
seek e9st ree9very pursuaRt t9 Seeti9R ll(b) frem th9se liable parties R9t partieipat
iRg iR the 'J9IURtary g)eaRup;
[(D) where '19luntary assistaRee R9m the private seet9r is R9t f9rthe9miRg 1 federal
fuRds sh9uld be used f9r faeility eleaRup if sueh fuRds are timely a'lailable; aRd
[(E) state fuRds sh9uld be used 9Rly wheR a liable party 9r iRdepeRdeRt third party
eleanup 9r f.ederal funds are n9t timely available,
[(2) Whene'ler the department 9f water res9urees f.inds that there eKist& aR aetual 9r
threatened release 9f hazard9us wastes at a har&ard9u11 waste faeility listed 9R the
registry that present& aR imminent aRd BYbstantial endangerment te the publie health
and saf.ety 9r the en'lir9nmeRt, it may 9rder the 9wner and/9r 9perater 9f sueh faeility
and/9r any 9ther pers9R resp9nsible f9r the release 9r threateRed release at sueh
faeility (A) t9 de'Jel9p a -remedial aeti9n pr9gram, subjeet t9 the appreval 9f the
department 9f water res9urees, at sueh faeility, and (:D) te implement BYeh pregram
withiR reas9nable time limit& speeified in the 9rder. The pre'lisi9RS iR Seeti9ns !l{g), g,
10 aRd 11 9f this Aet relating t9 administrati'Jo 9rders shall apply t9 erders issued
pursuant t9 this paragraph.
[(3) Whene'ler the eemmissi9n, after iR'lestigati9n 1 f.inds that there exist& a release or
threatened release ef har&ard9us wastes at a faeility identified in the registry that;
[(A) is eausing irreYersible er irreparable harm t9 the publfo health aRd safety er
the en'!cireRmeRt; and
[(:0) the immediagy ef the situati9R makes it prejudieial te the publie iRterest te
delay aetien until an administrati'le erder Gan be issued te liable parties pursuant te
Paragraph (2) 9f this subseetien er until a judgment GaR be entered in an appeal ef an
administrative erder; the g9mmissien may, with the funds a'Jailable te the eemmis
sien h9m the har&ardeus waste permit aRd dispesal fees, if lijlpre'!ed by the I..egiala
ture, undertake immediate reme•Jal aetien at the faeility te alleviate the harm, After
the immediate danger ef irte'lersible er irreparable harm has been alleviated, the
eemmissieR shall preeeed pursuaRt te Paragraph (2) ef this subseetien, Findings
required pursuaRt te this paragraph shall be in writing aRd may be made by the
eemmissieR en aR ex parte basis subjeet te judieial review pursuant t9 the substantial
evidenee rule as pre'lided by the Administrati'le Preeedure and T-exaa Register J~et
(Artiele 6252 13a, VerneR's Texas CMI Statutes),
[(C) The reaseRable expenses 9f any immediate reme'lal aetien taken by the T-exas
Water Cemmissien may be reeeverable hem the persens deseribed in Seetien ll(g)(2)
and the state may seek te reee'!er sueh reasenable expeRses in any eeurt ef
appropriate jurisdietieR. .
[(4) Whene'!er a persen erdered te eliminate an immiRent and sub11&aRtial endanger
ment t9 the publie health and saf.ety er the en'lirenmeRt has failed te de se within the
time limits speeified in the erder, and ne third party has a~ed te de'Jel9p and
implemeRt a remedial aetien pregram f9r the faeility pursuant te Paragraph (l)(C) ef
this subseetien, the departmeRt 9f water reseurees may de'lelep and implement a
remedial aetien pregram f9r sueh faeility, The reasenable expenses gf de'Jeleping and
3229
Ch. 703, § 5 7lst LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION

implementing euoh r-emedial aotion pregram by the department ef water reeeuroee shall
be paid by the pereene te whem the erder was issued and the state may seek t9 reoe•.