Source: Valley Morning Star (Harlingen, TX), March 19, 2014
Posted on: http://envfpn.advisen.com
With a court order in place, Tire Recycling and Processing at the city’s industrial park will continue plant operations of shredding tires, with conditions, but it can’t burn tire scraps into char or biofuel through the pyrolysis process, developments show.
State District Judge Gary Harger on Tuesday entered an agreed temporary injunction against TRP on an agreement between state Assistant Attorney General David Preister, on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and TRP attorney Mark McPherson, the 53rd Judicial District court record in Travis County shows.
This is in connection with the civil lawsuit that the Texas Attorney General, at TCEQ’s request, filed against TRP in February in order to bring tire plant operations into compliance with state rules and regulations.
In issuing the agreed temporary injunction, Hager said that its purpose is to enforce the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act of the Texas Health and Safety Code.
TRP has 30 days to reduce its inventory at the facility to the amount currently authorized and to cease storing tires outdoors on the grounds of the facility.
Hager set a trial date on the case for Oct. 13.
Insofar as pyrolysis operations, public records show that TRP Vice President Marta A. Martinez wrote to TCEQ’s Kendra Houston on March 11, seven days before Tuesday’s court hearing, first confirming that TRP has not operated the pyrolysis units since Jan. 14.
Furthermore, Martinez’s letter states that although the issue of whether TRP has or has not the required permits and approvals to operate the pyrolysis units is in dispute, TRP wants to resolve the uncertainty and agrees to refrain from operating the units until TCEQ approves test runs of the pyrolysis machines or approves a scrap tire facility registration for the plant that includes use of the machines.
The agreed temporary injunction states that TRP does not admit liability or any of the allegations made by the state, but that it is entering into the agreement because of the uncertainty and costs of litigation.