Menu

TASTP/TCEQ Q & A

April 11 , 2006

Q. 1) The adoption of House Bill 3030 now requires that the TCEQ notify owners of private drinking water wells of potential impact by contamination within 30 days of becoming aware of the groundwater contamination.  In response to the Bill, the Responsible Party is now required to complete and submit a Drinking Water Survey Report (DWSR) when reporting a new case of groundwater contamination to the Remediation Division (RD).

a. Does that apply to groundwater impact encountered during the TRRP Screening Process of a Release Determination Report (RDR) as well, or only after an LPST ID No. has been assigned and a site assessment is performed?  Does this mean that a DWSR should accompany an RDR, even though it is not required under RG-411?

b. What is the process that the RD has in place to implement this?

c. Is there an avenue for which the Responsible Party can be notified that the TCEQ has sent the notification to any private well owners?

A. 1) a. Any time analytical indicates groundwater contamination that was not previously detected it will trigger the necessity of a Drinking Water Survey Report.  Therefore, it is strongly encouraged that the information necessary to complete the Survey be gathered during the preparation of an RDR and submitted along with the RDR.

b. All RDRs are screened for documented groundwater impact upon receipt within the RD. If groundwater impact is documented the site is immediately issued an LPST ID No.  The Responsible Party is contacted within three days of this screening process by fax or by phone, directing the completion of a DWSR.  If the RP does not to complete a DWSR within the time frame required, this task will be referred to the State Lead program for completion, and cost recovery for this effort may be implemented.  Details regarding what must be submitted in the DWSR and the required time frames are outlined in TCEQ the guidance document entitled Preparation of a Drinking Water Survey Report (RG-428).

c. To date, no owners have been notified yet.  When a documented threat to a private well is received and confirmed by the Toxicology section, an avenue for notifying all parties will be put in place.

Q. 2) In a TCEQ IOM dated March 28, 2002 entitled Procedures for Gaining Access to Off-site Properties, the TCEQ states that “Under the “Innocent Landowner” statute, the RP must at least offer reasonable compensation…”

1. Can you provide more information on the source of the “Innocent Landowner” statute, and what gives the TCEQ jurisdiction to require offering compensation to the landowner to obtain access?

2. If the RP does not offer compensation to the off-site property owner and access is denied, can the RP be held up as unreasonable.

A. 2) a. The statute referred to can be found in §361.752 of the Health and Safety Code, states one option given in order to reach an agreement for reasonable access is payment of reasonable compensation for access, although other options are listed as well.   If TCEQ assistance with obtaining access is be requested, it will be expected that the RP has attempted these steps prior to contacting the TCEQ.

b. If the TCEQ becomes involved with dispute resolution regarding access, both parties will be evaluated with relation to their ability to act reasonably in the negotiation process.

Q. 3) Please clarify issues with VST Stage II vapor recovery equipment.  Will the VST equipment be approved for use in Texas?  Does VST have a CARB approved system?  Rumor has it that the VST equipment is third party certified (not CARB) for a GPM rate of only 6.5 GPM.  If that’s true, will the VST system be approved by TCEQ to use on systems that have a higher (6.5 – 10) GPM rate?  If not, how will this be regulated and enforced?

A. 3) If the equipment meets CARB standards, the equipment is expected to be approved. CARB approved VSTs  can be located at www/vsthose.com/carbo43.shtml.  The TCEQ is not aware of any flow rate restriction.

Q. 4) On the ORVR Compliance, how will the TCEQ enforce sites that do not comply?

1. What is the punishment if someone hasn’t complied?

2. What kind of man power will the TCEQ use to force compliance of ORVR?

Q. 5)Has EPA approved the TCEQ Self Certification program as an accepted method of field inspection as required by the Energy Bill singed into effect by President Bush last year?

A. 5) It is assumed that the EPA will allow TCEQ Self Certification, but there has been no word officially.

Q. 6) Has there been any increase in enforcement inspections and/or activity since the Energy Act was signed into legislation?  Please update.

A. 6) The number of sites which require inspection has  yet to be determined.  However, no increase is expected unless additional money is appropriated for this effort.

Q. 7) Can we please be updated on the new Field Citation pilot program being introduced to the UST community?

A. 7) The Field Citation Pilot Program was approved by TCEQ Commissioners on December 2, 2005, and was executed beginning 3/31/06.  It is being implemented in all regions, and is to be evaluated in 6 months. The TCEQ will conduct an investigation at a facility and may cite certain clear-cut violations on a form, which is handed to the operator on the spot.  The intent is to promote a quick resolution for any of 9 specific violations which are outlined on the form, while offering a reduced (30% less) penalty compared to a penalty calculated through the traditional enforcement process.  However, if the penalty is not paid the reduction in the fine is waived.  Approximately 18 have been issued to date.

Q. 8) What is the status with the rule package?

A. 8) The Executive Summary has been filed with the Executive Director and is still proposed for the May 17th agenda. Following agenda it will be posted on the Texas Register, which begins the 30 day comment period.  If this schedule stands, the rule package will be on the October 18, 2006 agenda for adoption.

Q. 9) Please update on the status of the Federal Energy Bill and TCEQ’s implementation required?

A. 9) The TCEQ is continuing is discussions with EPA, but nothing has been finalized.  However, the deadline is August 2007 to execute, so it is expected that something will need to be done soon.

Q. 10) Is there any guidance regarding handling, storage and dispensing of E85 Ethanol coming from the TCEQ?

A. 10) No guidance is planned for the handling of E85 Ethanol. However, the TCEQ is considering issuing guidance that addresses the switch from MTBE to E10, due to anticipated problems with ethanol’s affinity for water and characteristics as a solvent.

Q. 11) How far back can you go in time on reimbursements?  And if you unable to get subcontractor invoices to back up main contractor invoices, is this a big problem as far as reimbursement?

A. 11) There is no limit regarding reimbursement except common sense.  If there is reasonable documentation, the Reimbursement section will try to work with reimbursability.  For specifics on reimbursement claims please contact Fred Meyers.