Menu

TASTP/TCEQ Q & A

August 9,2005

Q.1) In SB 485, it allows an RP to complete and submit a TCEQ form that allows the LPST project to go from RP program to State Lead program-When will the form be made available and will the RP be held to any cost recovery actions by the State Lead group?

A. 1) Senate Bill 485 allows the option of State Lead if requested by July 31, 2007 but the form for this request is not yet available. Any site which has met applicable deadlines and is currently eligible for reimbursement under the rules would be eligible for this benefit.

Q. 2) If the above happens and an RP's project or projects move to the State Lead program from the RPR program, can the current consultant be eligible to work on the project if the consultant has a Site Activities/Remediation Engineering contract?

A. 2) No - it would be considered a conflict of interest.

Q. 3) Since the extension of the Reimbursement Fund was approved, will cost proposals for work extending beyond August 31, 2005 be approved?

A. 3) Yes. Some project managers have been approving extended costs for several months- when it was clear that the fund would be extended. For sites that had funds approved only through the fiscal year, a change order should not be submitted. Complete the proposed scope of work, then submit a new proposal for the next corrective action.

Q. 4) We have been told by Project Managers at the TCEQ that per diem is only reimbursable if travel and onsite time for O&M exceeds 12 hours/day. This means that if drive time and onsite time do not exceed 12 hours, per diem is not given. It is an unsafe work practice to expect technicians to regularly work 12 hour days, yet the TCEQ will not allow the costs to stay overnight. We would like to request that reimbursement and the RPR section reconsider this unrealistic expectation, and allow per diem on sites which exceed 10 hours per day of activity, including travel and onsite time.

A. 4) The spreadsheet is set up for standardization of weekly O&M. The TCEQ realizes that there will be dedicated trips, but is expecting milk runs if multiple sites in the area. Per diem will be considered if it is clearly outlined in the reimbursement package, including timesheets and associated claims that also reflect this circumstance.

Q. 5) How will the Division reorganization affect agency response time to documents submitted to the RPR section? Will cross training mean a change in assignment of sites from project managers familiar with the project to those unfamiliar with the section''s rules, guidance and policy for the purpose of training?

A. 5) The Division was reorganized based on which program directs the work. All State Lead work has been consolidated into the State Lead section, and all RP lead work will be directed under the two Corrective Action sections. Beginning Sept. 1, project managers (Pms) will move to their teams with their sites, but over time will start assuming other sites. There will be no change except for who the PMs will report to. Most changes will be internal, and should not affect response time at all.

The privatization contract expires in August 2006. This contract will be managed uner the Corrective Action area. However, Maria Lebron will transition to State Lead, working half-time in each section until this position is filled.

Q. 6) HB 1987 and SB 485 has redefined the definition of sub-surface soil which now excludes backfill material unless it is hydrocarbon contaminated. How does this change RG-411?

A. 6) Since TRRP was applied to PST sites, there has been the possibility of backfill getting assigned an LPST number. The same scenario under the new rules would require the same sampling protocol, but an LPST number would not be assigned. RG-411 will be changed to reflect this change.

Q. 7) How will the new Federal Energy Bill affect TCEQ's enforcement efforts? Will TCEQ staff up to inspect tanks systems every 3 years or will private contractors be utilized to perform inspections?

A. 7) The bill was signed on 8/8/05, and the EPA must figure out how to implement it first. Money has not been appropriated, so the State does not know how much funding there will be. At this point, there are more questions than answers on how to enforce this bill.

Q. 8) The new UL-971 for non-metallic piping is now in effect. TCEQ has extended the deadline, allowing the use of the old UL-971 pipe until 11/1/05. To date, only Smith fiberglass pipe has the new UL-971 approval. If Smith pipe is still the only approved provider meeting the new UL-971 come 11/1/05 - will the deadline be extended again?

A. 8) There is no plan to extend the deadline. The current deadline was intended to allow sufficient time to address this issues.

Q. 9) In reference to the new Energy Bill - will the installation of dispenser sumps be required if an existing dispenser is upgraded to a new dispenser?

A. 9) See answer to #7

Q. 10) In reference to the new Energy Bill - Does the TCEQ plan to access the Federal LUST money to beef up enforcement efforts on MTBE remediation?

A. 10) See answer to #7

Q. 11) At the last ICE meeting, Fred Meyers stated that the first payment bond had been submitted, and was being forwarded to legal for review. What is the status – has the bond met with the agency's approval for proof of payment?

A. 11) As soon as a determination is made, this information will be forwarded.

Q. 12) How will new software updates in the reimbursement payment processing area affect timing of payments?

A. 12) The updates are in place and all has gone well. It allows batches of 50-75 payments instead of entering one at a time. Approximately $3.7 million was sent out in a three week time frame.

Q. 13) For CARFs issued after 11/18/04, the new lower RCS rates are being reimbursed for laboratory and vacuum truck, even if approved costs were the RCG rates. In cases where the subcontractor has billed higher rates, the excesses are disallowed by the reimbursement reviewer. Our agreements with our subcontractors provide for paying them only the amount reimbursed by the TCEQ, which, in these cases, may be less than their invoice amount. What is the correct way to provide proof of payment (for applications submitted before 7/1/05 which were submitted as “payment pending”) for such cases?

A. 13) At a minimum, proof of payment must cover what would be reimbursed. Proof of payment of full amount is not required- just the reimbursable amount (if not the same). Please not that there is a revised Affidavit on page 3- so the revised version must be downloaded. The new form does not require the bond to be attached.

Q. 14) AUTOMATIC TANK GAUGING FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR

In Chapter 334.59 Release Detection (b)(4)(B)(i)(ii)(iii) requirements for emergency generator tanks when used with an automatic tank gauge (ATG).

The Veeder-Root optional CSLD is used at retail sites that are 24 hour and can not shut down to test. Would using the Veeder-Root Continuous Statistical Leak Detection (CSLD) also fulfill the generator ATG requirements?

Normally the Veeder-Root ATG is programmed for generator operation. The program puts the ATG in 24 hour test and can also have a dry contact input from the generator that would notify the ATG that the generator is operating. The ATG will turn off the 24 hour leak test when it sees the input change from the generator running and stop any in tank leak alarms that would occur if product was removed from the tank while the generator is on. It turns the 24 hour leak test back on when it sees the input contact change when the generator stops running. It then prints out a report of how much product was removed from the tank while the generator was operating.

CSLD performs (i)(ii)(iii) but does not know if the generator is on or off by an input contact. It also does not print a report for any product removed from the tank while the generator was on. Are these necessary for TCEQ requirements for a generator ATG?

A. 14) CSLD can be better than regular ATG. It is not required that the CSLD knows whether the generator is on or off, and a report is not required by the TCEQ for a generator ATG.