TCEQ DOCKET NO. 20170741- -MWD APPLICATION BY ......TCEQ DOCKET NO. 20170741- -MWD APPLICATION BY TEXAS PROVIDENCE INVESTMENTS, LLC FOR TPDES PERMIT NO. WQ0015460001 BEFORE THE TEXAS

TCEQ DOCKET NO. 2017-0741-MWD

APPLICATION BY TEXAS PROVIDENCE INVESTMENTS,

LLC FOR TPDES PERMIT NO. WQ0015460001

§ § § § §

BEFORE THE

TEXAS COMMISSION ON

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S RESPONSE TO HEARING REQUESTS

The Executive Director (ED) of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

(the Commission or TCEQ) files this Response to Hearing Requests (Response) and

Requests for Reconsideration on the application by Texas Providence Investments, LLC

(TPI or Applicant), for a renewal of Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES)

Permit No. WQ0015460001 and on the Executive Director’s preliminary decision. The

Office of the Chief Clerk received timely hearing requests from John Carlton on behalf

of White Oak Estates Homeowner’s Association (White Oak) and the individual hearing

requestors listed below:

Doug Allen Dawn Alvarado Ivory Berry Jim Black Ken Bowman Susan Bowman Jeff Braun Melody Braun Eileen Campbell John Richard Campbell Erin Carlyle Angela Chavez Raymond Cooley Margo Dale Beth Dauzat Scott Dauzat Katherine K Faria Michael J Goins Amy Greene Charles Harris John Haynes Gary H Hoff John D Hooker Carla Houser

Darlene Isaacks Brad Jameson Charles Jedlicka Melanie Jedlicka Adam Jost Laura Jost Glen Patrick Kelly Jennifer King Robby King Todd F Ladd Devola Dee Pardue-Leon Leo Leon Cathy Levin Kevin Liu Laura Loving William Edward Loving Uday Kiran Madireddy Randal Matcek Ronald L McGill Benjamin S Miller Denise W Miller Ginger Ar Miller Guy Mosscrop Tom Oliverson

Jeevraj Oswal Nutan Oswal Jay Pandya Purvi Pandya Daniel Pineda Bruce Peele Chandra Peele Zeljko Petrovic Daniel Pineda Gabriela Rukavina Robert W Schima Rosemary Schultz Dana Shipes Michael C. Shipes Carol Ann Smith Richard D Smith Thomas Byron Smith Roger Spee Melvin G Spinks Swetha Srinivasan Jon Stark Kevin Stredic Latonya Stredic Matthew R Sucy

Executive Director’s Response to Hearing Requests Texas Providence Investments, LLC TPDES Permit No. WQ0015460001 TCEQ Docket No. 2017-0741-MWD Page 2

Vilma F Sucy Nguyen Tran

Rodolfo D Van Praag Norma L Webb Tami Weitkunat

Mike Williams William C Wilson

Attached for Commission consideration are the following:

Attachment A—Executive Director’s Satellite Maps and Requestor Key

Attachment B—Hearing Requestors Table 1

Attachment C—Hearing Requestors Table 2

I. Description of the Facility

TPI submitted an application to the TCEQ for a new Texas Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (TPDES) Permit No. WQ0015460001 to authorize the discharge of

treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 8,000 gallons per day

(gpd). The proposed wastewater treatment facility will serve Texas Providence

Investments, LLC. The plant site will be located at 13722 Kluge Road, in Cypress, in

Harris County, Texas 77429.

The Texas Providence Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) will be an activated

sludge process plant operated in the extended aeration mode. Treatment units will

include one coarse bar screen, one flow equalization basin, one aeration basin, one final

clarifier, one sludge digester, and one chlorine contact chamber. The facility has not

been constructed.

The effluent limitations in the draft permit, based on a 30-day average, are 10

mg/l five-day Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5), 15 mg/l TSS, 3mg/l

ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N), 63 CFU or MPN of E. coli per 100 ml and 6.0mg/l minimum

dissolved oxygen (DO). The effluent shall contain a chlorine residual of at least 1.0 mg/l

and shall not exceed a chlorine residual of 4.0 mg/l after a detention time of at least 20

minutes based on peak flow.

The treated effluent will be discharged to Harris County Flood Control District

detention pond, then to Cypress Creek in Segment No. 1009 of the San Jacinto River

Basin. The unclassified receiving water use is minimal aquatic life use for the Harris

County Flood Control District detention pond. The designated uses for Segment No.

1009 are primary contact recreation, public water supply, and high aquatic life use. The

effluent limitations in the draft permit will maintain and protect the existing instream

uses.


II. Procedural Background

The permit application was received on February 17, 2016 and declared

administratively complete on March 14, 2016. The Notice of Receipt and Intent to Obtain

a Water Quality Permit (NORI) was published in English on March 24, 2016 in the Houston

Chronicle, and in Spanish on March 27, 2016 in the Houston Chronicle DBA La Voz. The

Executive Director’s staff completed the technical review of the application on May 17,

2016 and prepared a draft permit. The Combined Notice of Public Meeting and Notice of

Application and Preliminary Decision (NAPD) was published in English on July 21, 2016

in the Houston Chronicle, and in Spanish on July 24, 2016 in the Houston Chronicle DBA

La Voz. A public meeting was held on August 23, 2016 in Houston, Texas. Due to an

electrical outage during the public meeting, the agency held a second public meeting on

November 14, 2016 in Houston, Texas. The public comment period ended on November

14, 2016. The hearing request and requests for reconsideration period ended on May 12,

2017. This application was filed on or after September 1, 2015; therefore it is subject to

the procedural requirements adopted pursuant to House Bill (HB) 801, 76th Legislature,

(1999) and Senate Bill (SB) 709, 84th Legislature (2015), which are implemented by the

Commission in its rules in 30 TAC Chapters 39, 50 and 55.

III. Evaluation Process for Hearing Requests

House Bill 801 established statutory procedures for public participation in certain

environmental permitting proceedings, specifically regarding public notice and public

comment and the Commission’s consideration of hearing requests. SB 709 revised the

requirements for submitting public comment and the Commission’s consideration of

hearing requests. The evaluation process for hearing requests is as follows:

A. Response to Requests

The Executive Director, the Public Interest Counsel, and the Applicant may each

submit written responses to a hearing requests. 1

According to 30 TAC § 55.209(e), responses to hearing requests must specifically

address the following:

1) whether the requestor is an affected person;

1 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 55.209(d).


2) which issues raised in the hearing request are disputed;

3) whether the dispute involves questions of fact or of law;

4) whether the issues were raised during the public comment period;

5) whether the hearing request is based on issues raised solely in a public comment withdrawn by the commenter in writing by filing a withdrawal letter with the Chief Clerk prior to the filing of the Executive Director’s Response to Comment;

6) whether the issues are relevant and material to the decision on the application; and

7) a maximum expected duration for the contested case hearing.

B. Hearing Request Requirements

In order for the Commission to consider a hearing request, the Commission must

first determine whether the request meets certain requirements:

Affected persons may request a contested case hearing. The

request must be made in writing and timely filed with the Chief

Clerk. The request must be based only on the requestor’s timely

comments, and may not be based on an issue that was raised solely

in a public comment that was withdrawn by the requestor prior to

the filing of the Executive Director’s Response to Comment.2

According to 30 TAC § 55.201(d), a hearing request must substantially comply

with the following:

1) give the time, address, daytime telephone number, and where possible, fax

number of the person who files the request. If the request is made by a

group or association, the request must identify one person by name,

address, daytime telephone number, and where possible, fax number, who

shall be responsible for receiving all official communications and

documents for the group;

2) identify the person’s personal justifiable interest affected by the

application, including a brief, but specific, written statement explaining in

plain language the requestor’s location and distance relative to the

2 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 55.201(c)


proposed facility or activity that is the subject of the application, and how

and why the requestor believes he or she will be adversely affected by the

proposed facility or activity in a manner not common to members of the

general public;

3) request a contested case hearing;

4) list all relevant and material disputed issues of fact that were raised during

the public comment period and that are the basis of the hearing request.

To facilitate the Commission’s determination of the number and scope of

issues to be referred to hearing, the requestor should, to the extent

possible, specify any of the executive director’s responses to comments

that the requestor disputes and the factual basis of the dispute and list

any disputed issues of law; and

5) provide any other information specified in the public notice of application.

C. Requirement that Requestor be an Affected Person/“Affected Person” Status

To grant a contested case hearing, the Commission must determine that a

requester is an affected person. The factors to consider in making this determination

are found in 30 TAC § 55.203 and are as follows:

a) For any application, an affected person is one who has a personal

justiciable interest related to a legal right, duty, privilege, power, or

economic interest affected by the application. An interest common to

members of the general public does not quality as a personal justifiable

interest.

b) Except as provided by 30 TAC § 55.103, governmental entities, including

local governments and public agencies with authority under state law over

issues raised by the application may be considered affected persons.

c) In determining whether a person is an affected person, all factors shall be

considered, including, but not limited to, the following:

1) whether the interest claimed is one protected by the law under

which the application will be considered;


2) distance restrictions or other limitations imposed by law on the

affected interest;

3) whether a reasonable relationship exists between the interest

claimed and the activity regulated;

4) likely impact of the regulated activity on the health and safety of

the person, and on the use of property of the person;

5) likely impact of the regulated activity on use of the impacted

natural resource by the person;

6) whether the requestor timely submitted comments on the

application which were not withdrawn; and

7) for governmental entities, their statutory authority over or interest

in the issues relevant to the application.

D. Referral to the State Office of Administrative Hearings

Section 50.115(b) of 30 TAC details how the Commission refers a matter to SOAH:

“When the Commission grants a request for a contested case hearing, the commission

shall issue an order specifying the number and scope of the issues to be referred to

SOAH for a hearing.” Section 50.115(c) further states, “The Commission may not refer

an issue to SOAH for a contested case hearing unless the commission determines that

the issue: (1) involves a disputed question of fact; (2) was raised during the public

comment period; and (3) is relevant and material to the decision on the application.”

IV. Analysis of Hearing Requests

The Executive Director has analyzed the hearing requests to determine whether

they comply with Commission rules, if the requestors qualify as affected persons, what

issues may be referred for a contested case hearing, and what is the appropriate length

of the hearing.

A. Whether the Hearing Requestors Complied with 30 TAC §§55.201 (c) and (d).

Norma L. Webb submitted a timely hearing request and raised issues presented

during the public comment period that have not been withdrawn, however, she did not

provide her address or identify her location or the location of her property in relation


to the proposed facility. The Executive Director concludes that Ms. Webb’s hearing

request does not substantially comply with the §§55.201(c) and (d) requirements.

The remaining hearing requestors all submitted timely hearing requests that

raised issues presented during the public comment period that have not been

withdrawn. They provided their addresses and phone numbers, or those of their

representative, and requested a hearing. They identified themselves as persons with

what they believed to be personal justiciable interests affected by the application, which

will be discussed in greater detail below, and provided lists of disputed issues of fact

that were raised during the public comment period. The Executive Director concludes

that these hearing requests substantially comply with the §§55.201(c) and (d)

requirements.

B. Whether the Requestors Met the Requirements of an Affected Person

*** The number in the parenthesis beside each Requestor’s name indicates the ID number of the Requestor’s property in Attachment A.

1. White Oak Estates Homeowner’s Association (White Oak)

The ED reviewed the factors found in 30 TAC §55.205 (b) to determine if the White

Oak Estates Homeowner’s Association’s hearing request meets the applicable hearing

request requirements. The White Oak Estates subdivision is a residential community

located adjacent to and downgradient from the site of the proposed wastewater

treatment facility. The entire community is within 1500 feet of the property on which

the proposed facility will be located. White Oak submitted a timely hearing request, in

writing, and identified one person by the name of John Stark who has standing to request

a contested case hearing in his own right. Mr. Stark resides within the White Oak

Subdivision and has submitted his own individual hearing request, which will be

discussed in greater detail below. Mr. Stark’s location in relation to the proposed facility

is shown on Attachment A.

White Oak raises the following issues in its hearing request: organic loadings and

flows for a new wastewater treatment facility; 100-year flood plain requirements;

emergency power requirements at the WWTF; disinfection system power reliability;

buffer zones and odor abatement; the sufficiency of the proposed facility’s safety

design, operations and maintenance; hazardous operation and maintenance; chemical

handling; railing, ladders, walkways and stairways; electrical code and fire compliance;


wastewater treatment facility access control; freeze protection; noise levels; general

preliminary treatment requirements; location standards; effluent limitations; whether

the TCEQ’s modeling used during the review of the application was improper and

insufficient; surface water quality standards; antidegradation; toxic pollutant effluent

standards and prohibitions; regionalization; and medical waste management.

Considering the factors listed in 30 TAC §55.203(b) for determining associational

standing, the ED has determined based on the issues raised and the relative proximity

of the White Oak Estates subdivision to the proposed facility, that the White Oak

Homeowner’s Association has met the hearing request requirements for associational

standing.

The ED recommends that the Commission find that White Oak Estates

Homeowner’s Association satisfies the group/association standing requirements of 30

TAC §55.205 (b).

2. Requestors in Attachment B –White Oak Estates and Kluge Lake Subdivisions

The individuals listed on Attachment B submitted form hearing requests on this

application during the public comment period. Aside from the name and contact

information of each requestor, these hearing requests address the same concerns. For

the sake of convenience, the ED has grouped these hearing requests for analysis. These

hearing requestors are located in either the White Oak Estates or the Kluge Lake

subdivisions, which are both located directly across Kluge Road from the location of the

proposed TPI wastewater treatment facility (See Attachment A).

The ED reviewed the factors in 30 TAC §55.203 for determining if a person is an

affected person and recommends that the Commission find that each of the requestors

identified in Attachment B are affected persons because they have a personal justiciable

interest related to a legal right, duty, privilege, power or economic interest affected by

the application, that is not common to members of the general public and the issues

they raised are included in the factors delineated in 30 TAC §55.203.

The hearing requests of those in Attachment B raised concerns about: whether

the proposed facility will contribute to or cause increased flooding in the area, whether

the proposed facility will cause odor from an inadequately designed, operated and

maintained treatment plant, whether the proposed discharge will cause odor resulting

from inadequately treated effluent discharge, whether the proposed discharge will


increase nutrient loading on the receiving streams, whether the proposed effluent

discharge will adversely impact the Harris County Flood Control District Retention Pond

and Cypress Creek, whether the proposed facility will be adequate to prevent

unauthorized discharges and sewage overflows from the facility during flood events,

whether there will be access to the proposed facility during flood events, and whether

the proposed facility will be able to properly treat commercial/industrial kitchen facility

and chemicals.

The Executive Director considered whether the requestors identified in

Attachment B have a justiciable interest affected by the application that is not common

with members of the general public. According to the address each hearing requestor

provided in his or her respective hearing request, all of the hearing requestors listed in

Attachment B are located within the White Oak Estates and Kluge Lake subdivisions.

Both subdivisions are located directly across from the proposed facility on Kluge Road.

Because of the requestors’ proximity to the proposed activity, they are more likely to be

impacted by the facility than members of the general public. The ED also considered the

factors listed at 30 TAC §55.203(c) and determined that there is a reasonable

relationship between the requestors’ concerns and the proposed permit. The hearing

requestors listed in Attachment B raised issues that are not in common with the general

public and identified a reasonable relationship between their concerns and the discharge

authorized by the proposed permit. Therefore, the Executive Director recommends that

the Commission find that the hearing requestors listed in Attachment B are affected

persons.

3. Requestors in Attachment C

The individuals listed on Attachment C submitted form hearing requests on this

application during the public comment period. Aside from the name and contact

information of each requestor, these hearing requests address the same concerns. For

the sake of convenience, the ED has grouped these hearing requests for analysis.

The ED reviewed the factors in 30 TAC §55.203 for determining if a person is an

affected person and recommends that the Commission find that none of the requestors

identified in Attachment C are affected persons because they do not have a personal

justiciable interest related to a legal right, duty, privilege, power or economic interest

affected by the application, that is not common to members of the general public.


The hearing requests of those in Attachment C raised concerns about: whether

the proposed facility will contribute to or cause increased flooding in the area, whether

the proposed facility will cause odor from an inadequately designed, operated and

maintained treatment plant, whether the proposed discharge will cause odor resulting

from inadequately treated effluent discharge, whether the proposed discharge will

increase nutrient loading on the receiving streams, whether the proposed effluent

discharge will adversely impact the Harris County Flood Control District Retention Pond

and Cypress Creek, whether the proposed facility will be adequate to prevent


whether there will be access to the proposed facility during flood events, and whether

the proposed facility will be able to properly treat commercial/industrial kitchen facility

and chemicals.

The Executive Director considered whether the requestors identified in

Attachment C have a justiciable interest affected by the application that is not common

with members of the general public. According to the address each hearing requestor

provided in his or her respective hearing request, none of the requestors appear to live

in close proximity to the WWTF or the outfall. Due to the small effluent volume (a

maximum of 8,000 gallons per day) authorized by the draft permit and the distance

from the facility/outfall to the properties of the requestors, it is unlikely that they will

be impacted by the proposed activity in a way not common to members of the general

public. Therefore, the Executive Director recommends that the Commission find that the

hearing requestors listed in Attachment C are not affected persons.

4. Doug Allen (1)

The ED reviewed all of the factors listed at §55.203 for determining if an

individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Doug

Allen is not an affected person because he does not have a personal justiciable interest

related to a legal right, duty, privilege, power or economic interest affected by the

application that is not common to members of the general public. Mr. Allen’s hearing

request raised the following concerns: flooding, flooding at the WWTF which may result

in damage to the facility, access to the facility during flood conditions, and the likelihood

that flooding in the area would result in effluent and algae impact to the nearby White

Oak Estates Lake and Cypress Creek.


The ED considered whether Mr. Allen has a justiciable interest affected by the

application that is not common with members of the general public. Based on the

address provided in his hearing request, Mr. Allen’s property is not located in close

proximity to the proposed facility or outfall. Due to the small amount of effluent volume

(a maximum of 8,000 gallons per day) authorized by the draft permit and the distance

from the facility/outfall to Mr. Allen’s property, it is not likely that he will be impacted

by the proposed activity in a way not common to members of the general public. It is

not likely that the proposed discharge of 8,000 gallons per day will impact Mr. Allen in

a way not common to members of the general public. All of the issues Mr. Allen raised

are interests that are in common with the members of the general public. Therefore, the

ED recommends that the Commission find that Doug Allen is not an affected person.

5. Ivory Berry (3)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Ivory

Berry is not an affected person because he has a personal justiciable interest related to

a legal right, duty, privilege, power or economic interest affected by the application that

is not common to members of the general public. Mr. Berry’s hearing request raised the

following concerns: flooding, impacts of the effluent discharge on the Harris County

Flood District detention pond and Cypress Creek, possible nutrient loading impacting

the creek, and possible overflows and unauthorized discharges from the facility during

flood events impacting his property.

The ED considered whether Mr. Berry has a justiciable interest affected by the


address provided in his hearing request, Mr. Berry’s property is not located in close



from the facility/outfall to Mr. Berry’s property, it is not likely that he will be impacted

by the proposed activity in a way not common to members of the general public. All of

the issues Mr. Allen raised are interests that are in common with the members of the

general public. Therefore, the ED recommends that the Commission find that Ivory Berry

is not an affected person.


6. Ken Bowman (5) and Susan Bowman (6)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Ken

and Susan Bowman are not affected persons because they do not have a personal


affected by the application that is not common to members of the general public. Ken

and Susan Bowman’s hearing requests raised the following concerns: flooding, possible

overflows and unauthorized discharges from the facility during flood events, and

impacts of the effluent on the Harris County Flood Control District Retention Pond and

Cypress Creek.

The ED considered whether Ken and Susan Bowman have a justiciable interest

affected by the application that is not common with members of the general public.

Based on the address provided in their hearing request, the Bowman’s property is not

located in close proximity to the proposed facility or outfall. Due to the small amount

of effluent volume (a maximum of 8,000 gallons per day) authorized by the draft permit

and the distance from the facility/outfall to the Bowman’s property, it is not likely that

they will be impacted by the proposed activity in a way not common to members of the

general public. All of the issues that Ken and Susan Bowman raised in their hearing

requests are interests that are in common with the members of the general public.

Therefore, the ED recommends that the Commission find that Ken and Susan Bowman

are not affected persons.

7. Jeff Braun (7) and Melody Braun (8)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Jeff and

Melody Braun are not affected persons because they do not have a personal justiciable


the application that is not common to members of the general public. Jeff and Melody

Braun’s hearing requests raised the following concerns: consideration of the recent

floods in determining the floodplain standards, whether updated FEMA will be

considered unauthorized discharges, whether controlled substances will be properly

disposed of, what is being done to monitor the applicant’s compliance with the disposal

of dangerous substances into the creek, and facility safety requirements such as the


likelihood of chlorine tanks breaking free during flooding events.

The ED considered whether Jeff and Melody Braun have a justiciable interest

affected by the application that is not common with members of the general public. The

Braun’s hearing request does not describe how the requestor’s interest in the issues they

raised are different from the interest of the general public. Also, the Braun’s property is

located approximately a mile and a half northwest of the proposed facility location. Due

to the small amount of effluent volume (a maximum of 8,000 gallons per day) authorized

by the draft permit and the distance from the facility/outfall to the Braun’s property, it

is not likely that they will be impacted by the proposed activity in a way not common to

members of the general public. Therefore, the ED recommends that the Commission

find that Jeff and Susan Braun are not affected persons.

8. Margo Dale (14)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Margo

Dale is not an affected person because she does not have a personal justiciable interest


application that is not common to members of the general public. Ms. Dale’s hearing

request raised the following concerns: flooding, negative impacts of the discharge on

human health, and consideration of other potential sites for the facility.

The ED considered whether Ms. Dale has a justiciable interest affected by the


address provided in her hearing request, Ms. Dale’s her property is not located in

proximity to the proposed facility or outfall. Due to the small amount of effluent

volume (a maximum of 8,000 gallons per day) authorized by the draft permit and the

distance from the facility/outfall to Ms. Dale’s property, it is not likely that she will be

impacted by the proposed activity in a way not common to members of the general

public. All of the issues Ms. Dale raised are interests that are in common with the

members of the general public. Therefore, the ED recommends that the Commission find

that Margo Dale is not an affected person.

9. John Haynes (21)



individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that John

Haynes is not an affected person because he does not have a personal justiciable interest


application that is not common to members of the general public. Mr. Haynes’ hearing

request raised the following concerns: flooding, 100-year floodplain requirements, and

concerns about individuals coming into contact with untreated effluent during flooding

conditions.

The ED considered whether Mr. Haynes has a justiciable interest affected by the


address provided in his hearing request, Mr. Haynes’ property is not located in close

proximity to the facility or the outfall. . Due to the small amount of effluent volume (a

maximum of 8,000 gallons per day) authorized by the draft permit and the distance

from the facility/outfall to Mr. Haynes’ property, it is not likely that he will be impacted

by the proposed activity in a way not common to members of the general public. All of

the issues Mr. Haynes raised are interests that are in common with the members of the

general public. Therefore, the ED recommends that the Commission find that John

Haynes is not an affected person.

10. Carla Houser (24)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Carla

Houser is not an affected person because she does not have a personal justiciable


the application that is not common to members of the general public. Ms. Houser’s

hearing request raised the following concerns: flooding, odor from an inadequately

designed, operated and maintained treatment plant, odor resulting from inadequately

treated effluent discharge, impacts of the discharge on human health, nutrient loading

on the receiving streams, impacts of the effluent on the Harris County Flood Control

District Retention Pond and Cypress Creek, unauthorized discharges and sewage

overflows from the facility during flood events, access to the facility during flood events,

the proposed facility’s ability to properly treat commercial/industrial kitchen facility

and chemicals, and improper effluent limitations in the draft permit.

The ED considered whether Ms. Houser has a justiciable interest affected by the



address provided in her hearing request, Ms. Houser’s property is not located in close



from the facility/outfall to Ms. Houser’s property, it is not likely that she will be impacted

by the proposed activity in a way not common to members of the general public.

Therefore, the ED recommends that the Commission find that Carla Houser is not an

affected person.

11. Darlene and Wayne Isaacks (25)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Darlene

and Wayne Isaacks are not affected persons because they do not have a personal


affected by the application that is not common to members of the general public.

Darlene and Wayne Isaacks’s hearing requests raised a concern regarding oversight of

the facility’s construction elevation.

The ED considered whether Darlene and Wayne Isaacks have a justiciable interest

affected by the application that is not common with members of the general public. The

Isaacks’ hearing request does not describe how the requestor’s interest in the issues they

raised are different from the interest of the general public. Also, the Issacks’ property is

not located in close proximity to the proposed facility or outfall. Due to the small

amount of effluent volume (a maximum of 8,000 gallons per day) authorized by the draft

permit and the distance from the facility/outfall to the Issacks’ property, it is not likely

that they will be impacted by the proposed activity in a way not common to members of

the general public. Therefore, the ED recommends that the Commission find that

Darlene and Wayne Issacks are not affected persons.

12. Jennifer King (32) and Robby King (33)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Jennifer

and Robby King are affected persons because they have a personal justiciable interest



application that is not common to members of the general public, and the issues raised

by the Kings are included in the factors delineated in 30 TAC §55.203. Jennifer and

Robby King’s hearing requests raised the following concerns: flooding, odor from an

inadequately designed, operated and maintained treatment plant, odor resulting from

inadequately treated effluent discharge, nutrient loading on the receiving streams,

impacts of the effluent on the Harris County Flood Control District Retention Pond and

Cypress Creek, unauthorized discharges and sewage overflows from the facility during

flood events, access to the facility during flood events, the proposed facility’s ability to

properly treat commercial/industrial kitchen facility and chemicals, and improper

modeling of the effluent due to the storm sewer and detention pond.

The ED considered whether the Kings have a justiciable interest affected by the


address provided in their hearing requests, the Kings’ property is located less than a

quarter of a mile from the proposed facility. Because of their proximity to the proposed

facility, the potential impact to the Kings’ is different from the interests of the general

public. The ED also considered the factors listed in 30 TAC §55.203(c) and determined

that there is a reasonable relationship between a concern raised by the Kings and the

proposed permit. Robby and Jennifer King raised an issue that is not common with the

general public and there is a reasonable relationship between their issues and the

discharge authorized by the proposed permit. Therefore, the ED recommends that the

Commission find that Robby King and Jennifer King are affected persons.

13. Cathy Levin (37)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Cathy

Levine is not an affected person because she does not have a personal justiciable interest


application that is not common to members of the general public. Ms. Levin’s hearing

request raised issues concerning: prescription drug residue in the effluent discharge,

location of the facility near other facilities in the area (Nantucket), whether the facility

is located in a floodplain, impacts to surface water quality, whether the discharge will

be properly monitored, access to the plant during flood events, and odor.

The ED considered whether Ms. Levin has a justiciable interest affected by the



address provided in her hearing request, Ms. Levin’s property is located approximately

two miles from the proposed facility and a mile and half from the outfall location. Due

to the small amount of effluent volume (a maximum of 8,000 gallons per day) authorized

by the draft permit and the distance from the facility/outfall to Ms. Levin’s property, it

is not likely that she will be impacted by the proposed activity in a way not common to


that Cathy Levin is not an affected person.

14. Kevin Liu (38)

The ED reviewed all of the factors listed at §55.203 for determining if an individual

is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Kevin Liu is an

affected person because he has a personal justiciable interest related to a legal right,

duty, privilege, power or economic interest affected by the application that is not

common to members of the general public, and the issues raised by Mr. Liu are included

in the factors delineated in 30 TAC §55.203. Kevin Liu’s hearing requests raised the

following issues: flooding, flooding conditions would result in damage to the plant,

overflow or unauthorized discharges during flooding conditions, impacts of the discharge on human health, access to the facility during flood conditions, whether the

facility will be properly operated and maintained, odor concerns from an inadequately

designed, operated and maintained treatment plant, and the ability of the facility to treat

the potential types of waste generated at the facility, including medical wastes,

commercial or industrial kitchen wastes.

The ED considered whether Mr. Liu has a justiciable interest affected by the


address provided in his hearing request, Mr. Liu’s property is located in the White Oaks

Estates subdivision. Because of his proximity to the proposed facility, the potential

impact to Mr. Liu is different from the interests of the general public. The ED also

considered the factors listed in 30 TAC §55.203(c) and determined that there is a

reasonable relationship between a concern raised by Mr. Liu and the proposed permit.

Kevin Liu raised an issue that is not common with the general public and there is a

reasonable relationship between his concerns and the discharge authorized by the

proposed permit. Therefore, the ED recommends that the Commission find that Kevin


Liu is an affected person.

15. Laura Loving (39) and William Edward Loving (40)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Laura

and William Edward Loving are not affected persons because they do not have a personal


affected by the application that is not common to members of the general public. The

Lovings’ hearing requests raised concerns regarding flooding, impacts of the discharge

on groundwater supply, and impacts to surface water quality.

The ED considered whether the Lovings have a justiciable interest affected by the

application that is not common with members of the general public. The Loving’s hearing

request does not describe how the requestor’s interest in the issues they raised are

different from the interest of the general public. Based on the address provided in their

hearing requests, the Lovings’ property is not located in close proximity to the proposed

facility or outfall. Due to the small amount of effluent volume (a maximum of 8,000

gallons per day) authorized by the draft permit and the distance from the facility/outfall

to the Lovings’ property, it is not likely that they will be impacted by the proposed

activity in a way not common to members of the general public. Therefore, the ED

recommends that the Commission find that Laura and William Edward Loving are not

affected persons.

16. Tom Oliverson (48)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Tom

Oliverson is not an affected person because he does not have a personal justiciable


the application that is not common to members of the general public. Mr. Oliverson’s

hearing request raised the following concerns: flooding, whether the proposed facility

will be sufficiently protective from floodwaters, overflows and unauthorized discharges

during flooding conditions, pharmaceuticals and psychotropic medications present in

the discharge, impacts to public health impacts, impacts to groundwater sources, and

impacts to surface water quality.


The ED considered whether Mr. Oliverson has a justiciable interest affected by the


address provided in his hearing request, Mr. Oliverson’s property is located

approximately two miles from the proposed facility. Due to the small amount of effluent


distance from the facility to Mr. Oliverson’s property, it is not likely that he will be


public. All of the issues Mr. Oliverson raised are interests that are in common with the


that Tom Oliverson is not an affected person.

17. Gabriela Rukavina (57)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Gabriela

Rukavina is an affected person because she has a personal justiciable interest related to

a legal right, duty, privilege, power or economic interest affected by the application that

is not common to members of the general public, and the issues raised by Ms. Rukavina

are included in the factors delineated in 30 TAC §55.203. Ms. Rukavina’s hearing

requests raised the following issues: flooding, potential unauthorized discharges and

effluent dispersal during flood events, impacts of the effluent on the Harris County

Flood Control District Retention Pond and Cypress Creek, overflows or unauthorized

discharges from the facility during flood conditions, and possible nutrient loading

impact on the creek.

The ED considered whether Ms. Rukavina has a justiciable interest affected by the

application that is not common with members of the general public. Ms. Rukavina is

listed on the Applicant’s downstream landowner map submitted with the application.

Because of her proximity to Cypress Creek (within a mile downstream of the proposed

outfall), the potential impact to Ms. Rukavina is different from the interests of the

general public. The ED also considered the factors listed in 30 TAC §55.203(c) and

determined that there is a reasonable relationship between a concern raised by Ms.

Rukavina and the proposed permit. Ms. Rukavina raised an issue that is not common

with the general public and there is a reasonable relationship between her concerns and

the discharge authorized by the proposed permit. Therefore, the ED recommends that


the Commission find that Gabriela Rukavina is an affected person.

18. Richard D. Smith (63)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Richard

D. Smith is an affected person because he has a personal justiciable interest related to a

legal right, duty, privilege, power or economic interest affected by the application that

is not common to members of the general public, and the issues raised by Mr. Smith are

included in the factors delineated in 30 TAC §55.203. Mr. Smith’s hearing requests raised

the following concerns: flooding, potential unauthorized discharges and effluent

dispersal during flood events, impacts of the effluent on the Harris County Flood Control

District Retention Pond and Cypress Creek, overflows or unauthorized discharges from

the facility during flood conditions, and possible nutrient loading impact on the creek.

The ED considered whether Mr. Smith has a justiciable interest affected by the

application that is not common with members of the general public. Mr. Smith is listed

on the Applicant’s downstream landowner map submitted with the application. Because

of his proximity to Cypress Creek (within a mile downstream of the proposed outfall),

the potential impact to Mr. Smith is different from the interests of the general public.

The ED also considered the factors listed in 30 TAC §55.203(c) and determined that

there is a reasonable relationship between a concern raised by Mr. Smith and the

proposed permit. Mr. Smith raised an issue that is not common with the general public

and there is a reasonable relationship between his concerns and the discharge

authorized by the proposed permit. Therefore, the ED recommends that the Commission

find that Richard D. Smith is an affected person.

19. Jon Stark (68)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Jon

Stark is an affected person because he has a personal justiciable interest related to a


is not common to members of the general public, and the issues raised by Mr. Stark are

included in the factors delineated in 30 TAC §55.203. Mr. Stark’s hearing request raised

the following concerns: flooding, and impacts to him and his property from overflows


at the facility during flood events.

The ED considered whether Mr. Smith has a justiciable interest affected by the


address provided in his hearing request, Mr. Stark’s property is located within several

hundred feet of the location of the proposed facility within the White Oaks Estates

subdivision. Because of his proximity to the proposed facility, the potential impact to

Mr. Stark is different from the interests of the general public. The ED also considered

the factors listed in 30 TAC §55.203(c) and determined that there is a reasonable

relationship between a concern raised by Mr. Stark and the proposed permit. Mr. Stark

raised an issue that is not common with the general public and there is a reasonable

relationship between his concerns and the discharge authorized by the proposed permit.

Therefore, the ED recommends that the Commission find that Jon Stark is an affected

person.

20. Tami Weitkunat (75)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Tami

Weitkunat is an affected person because she has a personal justiciable interest related

to a legal right, duty, privilege, power or economic interest affected by the application

that is not common to members of the general public, and the issues raised by Ms.

Weitkunat are included in the factors delineated in 30 TAC §55.203. Ms. Weitkunat’s

hearing request raised the following concerns: flooding, odor from an inadequately

designed, operated and maintained treatment plant, odor resulting from inadequately

treated effluent discharge, nutrient loading on the receiving streams, impacts of the

effluent on the Harris County Flood Control District Retention Pond and Cypress Creek,


access to the facility during flood events, and the proposed facility’s ability to properly

treat commercial/industrial kitchen facility and chemicals.

The ED considered whether Ms. Weitkunat has a justiciable interest affected by

the application that is not common with members of the general public. Based on the

address provided in her hearing request, Ms. Weitkunat’s property is located

approximately a quarter of a mile from the location of the proposed facility. Because of

her proximity to the proposed facility, the potential impact to Ms. Weitkunat is different


from the interests of the general public. The ED also considered the factors listed in 30

TAC §55.203(c) and determined that there is a reasonable relationship between a

concern raised by Ms. Weitkunat and the proposed permit. Ms. Weitkunat raised an issue

that is not common with the general public and there is a reasonable relationship

between her concerns and the discharge authorized by the proposed permit. Therefore,

the ED recommends that the Commission find that Tami Weitkunat is an affected

person.

21. Daniel Pineda (78)


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Daniel

Pineda is an affected person because he has a personal justiciable interest related to a


is not common to members of the general public, and the issues raised by Mr. Pineda

are included in the factors delineated in 30 TAC §55.203. Mr. Pineda’s hearing requests

raised the following issues: flooding, potential unauthorized discharges and effluent

dispersal during flood events, impacts of the effluent on the Harris County Flood Control

District Retention Pond and Cypress Creek, overflows or unauthorized discharges from

the facility during flood conditions, and possible nutrient loading impact on the creek.

The ED considered whether Mr. Pineda has a justiciable interest affected by the

application that is not common with members of the general public. Mr. Smith is listed

on the Applicant’s downstream landowner map submitted with the application. Because

of his proximity to Cypress Creek (within a mile downstream of the proposed outfall),

the potential impact to Mr. Pineda is different from the interests of the general public.

The ED also considered the factors listed in 30 TAC §55.203(c) and determined that

there is a reasonable relationship between a concern raised by Mr. Pineda and the

proposed permit. Mr. Pineda raised an issue that is not common with the general public

and there is a reasonable relationship between his concerns and the discharge

authorized by the proposed permit. Therefore, the ED recommends that the Commission

find that Daniel Pineda is an affected person.

22. William C. Wilson (77)



individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that William

Wilson is not an affected person because he does not have a personal justiciable interest


application that is not common to members of the general public. Mr. Wilson’s hearing

request raised the following concerns: flooding, impacts of the effluent discharge on

Cypress Creek, impacts of the discharge on human health, leaching of the discharge into

ground, and whether the floodplain determination is adequate given that that TCEQ did

not require a survey with an elevation certificate.

The ED considered whether Mr. Wilson has a justiciable interest affected by the


address provided in his hearing request, Mr. Wilson’s property is not located in relative

proximity to the proposed facility or outfall location. Due to the small amount of effluent


distance from the facility/outfall to Mr. Wilson’s property, it is not likely that he will be


public. All of the issues Mr. Wilson raised are interests that are in common with the


that William C. Wilson is not an affected person.

23. Norma L. Webb


individual is an affected person and recommends that the Commission find that Norma

Webb is not an affected person because she does not have a personal justiciable interest


application that is not common to members of the general public. Ms. Webb’s hearing

request raised concerns regarding flooding and impacts to wildlife.

Ms. Webb’s Hearing request did not provide an address or identify her property’s

location in relation to the proposed facility. Additionally, the issues she raised do not

establish her personal interest affected by the application in a way not common to


that Norma L. Webb is not an affected person.


C. Whether the Issues Raised are Referable to SOAH for a Contested Case Hearing

The ED has analyzed the issues raised in the hearing requests and recommends

granting certain issues in accordance with the regulatory criteria. The ED provides the

following recommendations regarding whether the issues can be referred to SOAH if the

Commission grants the hearing requests. Issues that were not raised during the public

comment period are identified below. None of the issues were withdrawn. Under SB 709,

only those issues raised in a timely comment by a requestor whose request is granted

may be referred. The issues raised for this application and the ED’s analysis and

recommendations follow.

D. Issues Raised by Hearing Requestors:

All form letters were submitted as hearing requests during the public comment period.

1. Whether the proposed discharge will cause nuisance odors. (Response 14)

This issue was raised by White Oak, hearing requestors in Tables 1 and 2, Robby

and Jennifer King, Kevin Liu, Gabriela Rukavina, Richard Smith and Tami Weikunant.

This issue raises a question of fact that is relevant and material to a decision on the

application. If the Commission grants the hearing requests for any of these hearing

requestors, the ED recommends the Commission refer this issue to SOAH.

2. Whether the proposed facility will meet the requirements for buffer zones and

odor abatement. (Responses 4, 13 and 14)

This issue was raised by White Oak, hearing requestors in Tables 1 and 2, Robby

and Jennifer King, Kevin Liu, Gabriela Rukavina, and Richard Smith. This issue raises a

question of fact that is relevant and material to a decision on the application. If the

Commission grants the hearing requests for any of these hearing requestors, the ED

recommends the Commission refer this issue to SOAH.

3. Whether the draft permit requires proper operations and maintenance of the

proposed facility, including sufficient facility accessibility. (Response 15 and

28)

This issue was raised by White Oak, hearing requestors in Table 1 and 2, Carla

Houser, Jennifer and Robby King, and Kevin Liu. This issue raises a question of fact that

is material and relevant to a decision on the application. If the Commission grants the


hearing requests of any of these requestors, the ED recommends that the Commission

refer this issue to SOAH.

4. Whether the draft permit includes adequate safeguards for overflows or

unauthorized discharges from the facility. (Responses 9 and 28)

This issue was raised by White Oak, hearing requestors in Tables 1 and 2, Ivory

Berry, Susan and Ken Bowman, John Haynes, Carla Houser, Tom Oliverson, Gabriela

Rukivina, Richard Smith, Jon Stark, Tami Weikunant, and Daniel Pineda. This issue raises

a question of fact that is material and relevant to a decision on the application. If the

Commission grants the hearing requests for any of these requestors, the ED

recommends that the Commission refer this issue to SOAH.

5. Whether the effluent limitations of the draft permit complies with Commission

standards. (Responses 18 and 20)

This issue was raised by White Oak. This issue raises a question of fact that is

relevant and material to a decision on the application. If the Commission finds that

White Oak meets the requirements for associational standing, the ED recommends that

the Commission refer this issue to SOAH.

6. Whether the draft permit is adequately protective of groundwater in the area.

(Response 27)

This issue was raised by Laura and William Loving, and Tom Oliverson. This is an

issue of fact that is relevant and material to a decision on the application. However, it

was raised by individuals the ED recommends as not being affected persons. Therefore,

the ED does not recommend referring this issue. If the Commission finds that the

Lovings and Tom Oliverson are affected persons the ED recommends referring this issue

to SOAH.

7. Whether the draft permit complies with the TCEQ’s regionalization policy.

(Response 5)

This issue was raised by White Oak, Cathy Levin and William C. Wilson. This issue

raises a question of fact that is relevant and material to a decision on the application. If

the Commission finds that White Oak meets the requirements for associational standing,

the ED recommends that the Commission refer this issue to SOAH.


8. Whether the proposed WWTF would adequately treat and discharge the

wastewater generated from the Texas Providence Psychiatric facility.

(Response 17 and 21)

This issue was raised by White Oak, hearing requestors in Tables 1 and 2, Carla

Houser, John Haynes, Jennifer and Robby King, Kevin Liu, Tom Oliverson and Tami

Weikunant. This issue raises a question of fact that is relevant and material to a decision

on the application. If the Commission grants the hearing requests of any of these

requestors, the ED recommends that the Commission refer this issue to SOAH.

9. Whether the modeling analysis of the proposed effluent discharge conducted

during the review of the application was sufficient. (Response 24)

This issue was raised by White Oak. This issue raise a question of fact that is




10. Whether the proposed discharge would contribute to nutrient loading on the

receiving stream. (Response 7)

This issue was raised by hearing requestors listed in Tables 1 and 2, Ivory Berry,

Carla Houser, Gabriela Rukivina, Kevin Liu, Richard Smith, Tami Weitkunat, and Daniel

Pineda. This issue raises a question of fact that is relevant and material to a

decision on the application. If the Commission grants the hearing requests of any of

these requestors, the ED recommends that the Commission refer this issue to SOAH.

11. Whether the proposed facility and draft permit comply with the 100-year flood

plain requirements. (Response 10)


relevant ant material to a decision on the application. This issue raise a question of fact

that is relevant and material to a decision on the application. If the Commission finds

that White Oak meets the requirements for associational standing, the ED recommends

that the Commission refer this issue to SOAH.

12. Whether the draft permit adequately requires preliminary treatment

requirements. (Response 18)




White Oak is an affected person, the ED recommends that Commission refer this issue

to SOAH.

13. Whether the draft permit meets the TCEQ’s requirements for organic loadings

and flow standards for a new discharge. (Response 6)





14. Whether the draft permit complies with TCEQ’s antidegradation policy.

(Response 23)





15. Whether the effluent limitations of the draft permit complies with the Texas

Surface Water Quality Standards to adequately protect the surface water

quality. (Response 8)





16. Whether the draft permit is protective of human health and wildlife in the area.

(Response 8 and 26)

This issue was raised by Carla Houser, John Haynes, Margo Dale, Jennifer and

Robby King, Kevin Liu, William C. Wilson, Tom Oliverson, Norma Webb and Jon Stark.

This is an issue raises a question of fact that is relevant and material to a decision on

the application. If the Commission finds that any of these requestors are affected

persons, the ED recommends that the Commission refers this issue to SOAH.


17. Whether the proposed facility will increase the noise levels in the area.

(Response 17)

This issue was raised by White Oak. This issue raises a question of fact, however,

it is not relevant and material to a decision on the application. The TCEQ does not have

jurisdiction to address noise levels as a part of the wastewater permitting process.

TCEQ’s jurisdiction over the permitting process is established by the Texas Legislature

and is limited to controlling the discharge of pollutants into, and protecting the quality

of water in the state. Therefore, noise levels are not considered in the TCEQ’s review.

The ED recommends that the Commission not refer this issue to SOAH.

18. Whether the proposed discharge will contribute to increase flooding in the

area. (Response 9 and 10)

This issue was raised generally by all of the hearing requestors. This issue raises

a question of fact, however, it is not relevant and material to a decision on the

application. Flooding concerns are not within the Commission’s jurisdiction to consider

when reviewing an application for a wastewater permit. The ED recommends not

referring this issue to SOAH.

19. Whether there will be sufficient oversight of the facility’s construction

elevation and whether the Applicant has been require to submit an elevation

certificate. (Responses 10 and 15 )

This issue was raised by Darlene and Wayne Isaacks, and William C. Wilson. This

is a mixed issue of fact and law. The final design of the facility is not required as part of

the wastewater permit application; however, the proposed draft permit requires the

Applicant to meet the design criteria requirements for domestic wastewater treatment

plants prior to construction of the facility. The review of the application does not require

submission of construction elevation or an elevation certificate. Also this issue is being

raised by individuals that the ED is not recommending as affected persons. The ED

recommends not referring this issue to SOAH.

20. Whether the proposed facility can be moved or relocated to an alternative

location. (Response 4)

This issue was raised by Margo Dale. This issue raises a question of fact, however,

it this issue is not relevant and material to a decision on the application. The TCEQ does

not have the authority regulate the location of a proposed wastewater treatment facility


and this issue is being raised by an individual that the ED is not recommending as an

affected person. The ED recommends not referring this issue to SOAH.

E. Duration of the Contested Case Hearing

The ED recommends a 180-day duration for a contested case hearing on this

matter, should there be one, between the preliminary hearing and the presentation of a

proposal for decision.

F. Executive Director’s Final Recommendations

The ED the following actions by the Commission:

1. The Executive Director recommends that the Commission find that the following

hearing requestors are affected persons: White Oaks Estates Homeowner’s

Association, Dawn Alvarado, Jim Black, Eileen Campbell, John Richard Campbell,

Erin Carlyle, Beth Dauzat, Scott Dauzat, Katherine Faria, Amy Greene, Gary Hoff,

Brad Jameson, Jennifer King, Robby King, Todd Ladd, Devola Pardue-Leon, Leo

Leon Pardue, Kevin Liu, Uday Kiran Madireddy, Randel Matcek, Ronald McGill,

Benjamin S. Miller, Denise S. Miller, Ginger AR Miller, Guy Musscrop, Jay Pandya,

Purvi Pandya, Bruce Peele, Chandra Peele, Zeljko Petrovic, Daniel Pineda, Gabriela

Rukavina, Robert Schima, Rosemary Schultz, Rosemary Schultz, Dana Shipes,

Carol Ann Shipes, Richard D Smith, Thomas Byron Smith, Roger Spee, Melvin G

Spinks, Swetha Srinivisan, Jon Stark, Kevin Stredic, Latonya Stredic, Matthew R

Sucy, Vilma F Sucy, Rodolfo D Van Praag, and Tami Weitkunat.

2. The Executive Director recommends that the Commission find that the remaining

individuals that requested a contested case hearing are not affected persons and

deny their hearing requests.

3. If referred to SOAH, first refer the matter to Alternative Dispute Resolution for a

reasonable period.

4. If referred to SOAH, refer the following issues as identified by the Executive

Director:

Issue 1: Whether the proposed discharge will cause nuisance odors.

Issue 2: Whether the proposed facility will meet the requirements for buffer

zones and odor abatement.


Issue 3: Whether the draft permit requires proper operations and maintenance

of the proposed facility, including sufficient facility accessibility.

Issue 4: Whether the draft permit includes adequate safeguards for overflows

or unauthorized discharges from the facility.

Issue 5: Whether the effluent limitations of the draft permit complies with

Commission standards.

Issue 7: Whether the draft permit complies with the TCEQ’s regionalization

policy.

Issue 8: Whether the proposed WWTF would adequately treat and discharge the

wastewater generated from the Texas Providence Psychiatric facility.

Issue 9: Whether the modeling analysis of the proposed effluent discharge

conducted during the review of the application was sufficient.

Issue 10: Whether the proposed discharge would contribute to nutrient loading

on the receiving stream.

Issue 11: Whether the proposed facility and draft permit comply with the 100-

year flood plain requirements.

Issue 12: Whether the draft permit adequately requires preliminary treatment

requirements.

Issue 13: Whether the draft permit meets the TCEQ’s requirements for organic

loadings and flow standards for a new discharge.

Issue 14: Whether the draft permit complies with TCEQ’s antidegradation

policy.

Issue 15: Whether the effluent limitations of the draft permit complies with the

Texas Surface Water Quality Standards to adequately protect the surface water

quality.

Issue 16: Whether the draft permit is protective of human health and wildlife in

the area.


5. If the Commission finds that William and Laura Loving and Tom Oliverson are

affected persons, the ED recommends referring the following additional issue to

SOAH:

Issue 6: Whether the draft permit is adequately protective of groundwater in the

area.

6. If this matter is referred to SOAH, the ED recommends that the duration of the

hearing between the preliminary hearing and the presentation of proposal for

decision before the Commission be 180-days.

Respectfully submitted,

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Richard A. Hyde, P.E. Executive Director

Robert Martinez, Director Environmental Law Division

Ashley S. McDonald, Staff Attorney Environmental Law Division State Bar No. 24086775 P.O. Box 13087, MC 173 Austin, TC 78711-3087

(512)239-0600 phone (512)239-0626 fax

REPRESENTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on July 10, 2017, the original and seven copies of the “Executive

Director’s Response to Hearing Requests” for Texas Providence Investments, LLC

WQ0015460001/TCEQ Docket No. 2017-0741-MWD were filed with the TCEQ’s Office of

the Chief Clerk and a complete copy was served to all persons listed on the attached

mailing list via hand delivery, facsimile transmission, inter-agency mail, electronic

submittal, or by deposit in the U.S. Mail.

Ashley S. McDonald, Staff Attorney Environmental Law Division

ATTACHMENT A

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

Kluge Lake

White Oak

15 16

19

42

475152

71 7211

3443 58

6264

66

742

49

10

17

22

26

3536

3841

444546 53

54 55

5659

6061

6567

6869

70

Texas Commission on Environmental QualityGIS Team (Mail Code 197)P.O. Box 13087Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Source: The location of the facility was providedby the TCEQ Office of Legal Services (OLS). OLS obtained the site location information from the applicant and the requestor information from the requestor.This map was generated by the Information ResourcesDivision of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. This product is for informational purposes andmay not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal,engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not repre-sent an on-the-ground survey and represents only theapproximate relative location of property boundaries. For more information concerning this map, contact the Information Resource Division at (512) 239-0800.

Map Requested by TCEQ Office of Legal Servicesfor Commissioners' Agenda

The facility is located in Harris County. The circle (green) in the left inset map represents the approximate location of the facility. The inset map on the right represents the location of Harris County (red) in the state of Texas.

!.Harris

Harris County

TPDES Permit No. WQ0015460001Protecting Texas byReducing andPreventing Pollution

Date: 6/28/2017

J. Kirby CRF 504115

Texas Providence Investments, LLC

³0 0.06 0.12Miles

FacilityStorm Sewer

!( Requester

Please see Map Appendix A: Requester Table

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

£¤290

F aulkey Gully Cypress Creek

Cypress Creek

DryCreek

L it tle Cypress Creek 1

3

5 6

7 8

13

14

2021

23

2425

2728

2930

31

3233

37

3940

48

49 50

5763

73

75

76

78





!.Harris

Harris County


Date: 6/28/2017

J. Kirby CRF 504115


³0 0.45 0.9Miles

Facility# Outfall

Storm Sewer1 Mile DischargeRoute fromOutfall1 Mile Radiusfrom Facility

!( RequesterRiverWaterbody


!.

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

£¤290

¬«249Willow Creek

White Oak Bayou

Faulkey Gully Cypress C reek

Dry Creek

C ypress Creek

Li tt le Cypress Cr eek

1

356

7 8

12

13

14

18

2021

23

2425

272829

30

31

32 33

3739

40

48

4950

5763

7375

76

77

78





!.Harris

Harris County


Date: 6/28/2017

J. Kirby CRF 504115


³0 0.8 1.6Miles

!. Facility# Outfall

Storm Sewer1 Mile DischargeRoute fromOutfall1 Mile Radiusfrom Facility

!( RequesterRiverWaterbody


Map Appendix A: Requester Table for Texas Providence Investments, LLC

ID Requester Address

1 DOUG ALLEN 13607 PALLWOOD LN CYPRESS, TX 77429

2 DAWN ALVARADO 13707 OAK HARBOR BND CYPRESS, TX 77429

3 IVORY BERRY 14014 FOSTERS CREEK DR CYPRESS, TX 77429

4 JIM BLACK 13807 OAK FAIR BND CYPRESS, TX 77429

5 KEN BOWMAN 12803 BEDFORD FALLS DR CYPRESS, TX 77429

6 SUSAN BOWMAN 12803 BEDFORD FALLS DR CYPRESS, TX 77429

7 JEFF BRAUN 13703 CYPRESS POND CIR CYPRESS, TX 77429

8 MELODY BRAUN 13703 CYPRESS POND CIR CYPRESS, TX 77429

9 EILEEN CAMPBELL 13618 OAK LAKE BND CYPRESS, TX 77429

10 JOHN RICHARD CAMPBELL 13618 OAK LAKE BND CYPRESS, TX 77429

11 ERIN CARLYLE 13642 OAK LAKE BND CYPRESS, TX 77429

12 ANGELA CHAVEZ 16915 AMARYLLIS RED TRL CYPRESS, TX 77433

13 RAYMOND COOLEY 12622 NEW KENTUCKY RD CYPRESS, TX 77429

14 MARGO DALE 13822 PANOLA POINTE CYPRESS, TX 77429

15 BETH DAUZAT 13415 KLUGE CORNER LN CYPRESS, TX 77429

16 SCOTT DAUZAT 13415 KLUGE CORNER LN CYPRESS, TX 77429

17 KATHERINE K FARIA 13610 OAK LAKE BND CYPRESS, TX 77429

18 MICHAEL J GOINS 15214 BANDERA FALLS BND CYPRESS, TX 77429

19 AMY GREENE 13527 KLUGE CORNER LN CYPRESS, TX 77429

20 CHARLES HARRIS 12711 HUNTERS CYN CYPRESS, T

Documents

TCEQ DOCKET NO. 20170741- -MWD APPLICATION BY ......TCEQ DOCKET NO. 20170741- -MWD APPLICATION BY TEXAS PROVIDENCE INVESTMENTS, LLC FOR TPDES PERMIT NO. WQ0015460001 BEFORE THE TEXAS