Menu

TASTP/TCEQ Q & A

August 8 , 2006

Click Here for a printable version.

Carryover Stage II Questions:

Q. 1) As a follow up to the April 11th meeting, was it determined whether or not there was a flow rate restriction on VST equipment?

A. 1) There is no flow rate restriction.

Q. 2) Does the TCEQ and the City of Houston also still perform compliance and enforcement associated with Stage II Vapor Recovery and PST Compliance and Enforcement Programs within the City of Houston or only UTA?  Are we also notifying UTA about construction start dates or is this for vapor recovery only?

A. 2). UTA is performing the Stage II Vapor Recovery Inspections and the TCEQ is performing the PST Compliance Inspections.  The TCEQ is notifying UTA about construction start dates.

Carryover Field Operations Questions:

Q. 3) How is the field citation program going?  What types of violations are the regional inspectors finding during their on-site inspections?

A. 3) The Field Citation Program is ongoing.  The agency inspectors are citing straight forward type of violations.

Q. 4) If a non-retail site is registered as having both Automatic Tank Gauging and Inventory Control and Interstitial Monitoring for Double-Wall UST Systems for tank leak detection can they use documentation for either method for a compliance inspection?

A. 4) Both methods may be used.  However, a primary method should be chosen and used consistently, rather than selectively.  If a problem is detected with one system but the backup system indicates no problem, documentation explaining the primary method's discrepancy is still required.

Q. 5) Will a print out on any day of the month showing the sensors for tank or line leak detection are not in alarm comply?  Or do you want a print out showing the history of the complete month showing no alarms occurred?

A. 5) The regulations require a printout monthly.  A more frequent printout is not required, but the reporting must document that the system is not leaking.  If any of the printouts report failure this must be documented, even if follow up sensor checks indicate that the system is working properly.

Q. 6) We have some sites where they are automatically completing 0.2 GPH tank tests weekly on their ATG giving them four tests to have a passing 0.2 GPH monthly test.  If they have some failing and passing results for the month and their inventory control is passing can they use one of the passing tests to be compliant or does each failed 0.2 GPH test need to be reported  per Chapter 334, Subchapter D?

A. 6) Any failed test must be explained, even if follow up tests pass.

Q. 7) Is the TCEQ requiring any documentation regarding an ATG equipment manufacturer's recommendation/inspection of their equipment during a TCEQ compliance inspection?  If so, does the facility also have to furnish documentation that the company/person performing these inspections is an authorized service contractor for the equipment manufacturer with the experience, training and competence to accomplish such requirements to be compliant?  An example would be if the equipment manufacturer recommends that their ATG  be inspected on and annual basis to verify the correct operation for tank and sensor alarms.  Would the TCEQ require documentation that these inspections were performed?  Would an equipment manufacturer's recommendations/inspections supercede the TCEQ regulations if they are more stringent than the TCEQ regulations?

A. 7) The TCEQ does not look for manufacturers inspection information.  The TCEQ rules take precedence.

Q. 8) On the inventory control, is the TCEQ requiring documentation that the equipment dispensers be calibrated to an accuracy of six or less cubic inches for every five gallons?  If so, would this be annually?

A. 8) Yes, it has always been required to be accurate to 6 or less cu. inches by the TCEQ.  This requirement is ongoing, rather than something that is to be met annually.

New Questions:

Q. 9) Drill cuttings from a monitoring well installation had a TPH of 34 ppm and no BTEX.  When asked if these soils could be spread on site, the TCEQ coordinator replied "The stockpile soils should be handled in accordance with guidance that came out in 1993 regarding reuse of backfill material.  I think these levels are too high to landfarm and should be disposed offsite, but I haven't had time to dig up that '93 memo."  Perhaps the coordinator is referring to the old 334 Subchapter K Storage, Treatment, & Reuse Procedures for Petroleum-Substance Contaminated Soil?  What regulation or "memo" currently applies to this reimbursable eligible LPST site?

A. 9) In 30 TAC 334.503.(c).(3).(E), allowance is given for reuse of petroleum contaminated soil as fill.  If soil contains<100 ppm TPH, soil can be spread onsite.  If soil contains>100 ppm TPH, a PAH analysis would be warranted to determine if any health based concentrations for any individual constituents are present.  BTEX concentrations must also be below health based concentrations for this to apply.  If the soil is below these concentrations, the TCEQ will consider costs to spread the soils onsite.

Q. 10) Some RPs agreed to let the consultants to keep the remediation equipment when they stop work.  Since the RPs own the equipment, if they refer their sites to State Lead to complete remediation but the RP sold the equipment to the consultant, what happens?

A. 10)The remediation equipment will stay onsite until it is no longer needed.  State Lead will have use of the equipment if needed, regardless of ownership.

Q. 11) On the Fund Payment Report, when there is an amount pending, the explanation is "the application cannot be processed or reimbursed until all claims with preapproval have been processed and paid".  What is the current time line on these payments?

A. 11) As it stands now, if an amount is deemed non-preapproved and it is older than 1/1/05, it is being processed now.  Over 850 claims are being processed at this time.  If the claim is after 1/1/05, these claims will be processed after the pre- 1/1/05 claims have been addressed.  They are working the oldest first.

Q. 12) Does the agency have an update on the status of implementing the Federal Energy Act?

A. 12) The TCEQ is still waiting for feedback from the EPA.

Click Here for a printable version.