Menu

TASTP/TCEQ Q & A

April 14 , 2009

Q. 1) Has the reorganization of the division been completed?

A. 1) Yes.  An organizational chart was made available.  They are trying to move to a more programmatic scheme.

Q. 2) Are you aware of any proposed legislation that will affect the underground storage program?

A. 2) HB3827 is a proposed bill to restore liability to the common carrier.  There is also a rider proposed for the appropriation bill to allow the TCEQ to use third-party contractors without affecting the agencies FTE cap.

Q. 3) It is appreciated how quickly new action levels were published, including one for MTBE.  How was this number determined?

A. 3) The number was derived from equations found in RG36.

Q. 4) Will this be considered the Category I cleanup standard?  Will one be available for Category II as well?

Q. 5)In a scenario where MTBE is the only COC above assigned cleanup standards, will the site be required to cleanup the MTBE?

A. 5) Not changing anything regarding MTBE.

Q. 6) How will pre-existing 334 sites be reviewed for closure with regard to MTBE now?

A. 6) MTBE will be looked at based upon receptors.

Q. 7) Will 334 sites eliminate the need for TRRP standard analytical reports for sites transitioning back.

A. 7) The data usability summaries are not required by 334, but your reports need to have a data review summary.  RG411 has language regarding data review summaries.

Q. 8) When rule was changed from TRRP back to Chapter 334, why was the Benzene action level not left the same as it was in Chapter 334 that we previously used for soil (0.50ppm).  The new Bulletin dated March 2009 Benzene Action level soil was lowered to 0.13 mg/kg (ppm)?  Did not the Rule change say we would go back to Chapter 334 which we had been using in years past?

A. 8) There was no action level listed in the rule.  The 0.5 value was a multiplier for MCL action levels in RG36.  It was guidance only.

In addition to the submitted questions there was substantial discussion regarding a recent letter that was sent from the Professional Geoscientist Board to CAS/CAPMs.  The letter was requesting information regarding Geoscientist work.  If you are doing Geoscientist work, they want to know how you’re handling that work.  Most of the CAS/CAPMs stated that they retain a PG or PE to do their Geoscientist work if they do not have a Geoscientist on staff.  The TCEQ will contact the PG Board and explain that the TCEQ rules do not require a CAS/CAPM to be a Geoscientist, but the CAS/CAPM has to utilize a PG or PE for Geoscientist work.