TASTP/TCEQ Q & A

February 8, 2005

Q. 1) For an operating remediation system that is preapproved for OMP through the end of February, can we send in a preliminary OMPR through say Jan. and request the preapproval for an additional year of operation and then send in a final OMPR when the monitoring is completed? This would hopefully keep the system in continuous operation as we transition to a new OMP year. Otherwise the RP will shut down the system until preaprroval is received for 2005.

A. 1) Yes, it is standard practice to submit the OMPR after the first 10 months of operation, along with the work plan and cost proposal for additional O&M, in order to ensure continuous operation while waiting for preapproval.

Q. 2) We have been told that there is a TCEQ form for demonstrating the existence of a bond, which will be proposed to be used for claims filed after March 1, 2005 . Can you clarify what type of bond will be required to be in place that this form is demonstrating the existence of?

A. 2) As of the date of the new rules, proof of a payment bond or of actual payment of the subcontractors must be demonstrated. This applies to all reimbursement applications received after March 1, 2005 . The Reimbursement Section is working on the form now. There is a form in the rules already (Chapter 37, Subchapter C, 37.311), which Reimbursement will be modifying for their own use. The TCEQ does not have a requirement for this type of bond, or an example of any bonds of this type in existence. If it is determined that it is not possible for insurance companies to meet the requirements, the rules can be changed. This must be demonstrated though, and the TCEQ is encouraging input on the subject from insuring companies, and those affected, in order to get a better understanding of the issue.

Q. 3) CARFs generated after November 15, 2004 may or may not have the new RCSs on them. Should it be assumed that the new costs are in place regardless of the costs on the CARF, or will we need a revised CARF from the TCEQ PM?

A. 3) Assume that after November 18, 2004 , all costs will be reviewed on the claims side with the new prices. A transition in software programs has caused a delay in the ability for the TCEQ to provide the new prices on their spreadsheets, but the new costs will be applied to all sites, regardless of the amount shown on the pre-approvals.

Q. 4) There has been some confusion on whether or not protested claims would be considered by the agency anymore. Can you clarify what the reimbursement review process will be now for protested claims?

A. 4) The TCEQ will be considering all protested claims, and are processing their protest backlog (~900 protests) now. In the event that claims were withheld because of an error on the part of the TCEQ, those claims will be paid. All other protests will not be paid.

Q. 5) With the adopted RG-411, there is a comment on page 11 that “even if the release does not have COCs above action levels, if it does not pass the checklist, it will be assigned an LPST number and will be subject to TRRP.” If there are no COCs above action levels, why would further action be taken, and what action is necessary at that time?

A. 5) This comment refers to the Ecological Checklist. Although there may not be any concentrations that are toxic to human health, there may be concentrations that are toxic to animals. Any concentrations that are present in an ecologically sensitive area will need require further evaluation under TRRP.

Q. 6). Can you provide the drawing and applicable SOP pertaining to the proper piping design for satellite fueling points?

A. 6) This is currently in draft policy stage. Notification will sent out when it has been finalized, which is expected by April 2005.

Q. 7) Do you have a new APAR form and if so, will you provide a copy? If it's not ready for distribution, when will it be ready?

A. 7) A committee in the Remediation Division is currently working on a version of the APAR that would require less text, and is more form-based. A final form is expected within 60-90 days.

Q. 8) Please provide an updated schedule of all applicable deadlines for the reimbursement program between now and the sunset date.

A. 8) The current rules have not changed, and still apply.

Q. 9) We have been told in earlier meetings that the hold up on reimbursement payments was in the Comptroller's office; however some of our members have been told by Zerita Rogers that as of February 1 2005 that she still has not reviewed Fund Payment Responses (FPR) for December 1, 2004 . This is at least an 8 week lag which contradicts previous issued information. Will you please look into this issue again and let us know if we can realistically expect an improvement in the time it takes Zerita's office to process FPR's?

A. 9) There may be more than one reason why payments are delayed. For example, the Comptroller's office may be withholding payment if any fees are due to the State. In addition, the average turnaround time increased when a software transition caused delays in processing, which combined with being short staffed during the holidays. Payment are in the process of being caught up.

Q. 10) The new RCS state that mileage will be reimbursed at the lower of the IRS or Official Mileage Guide for the State of Texas rate per mile, rounded up to the next highest cent. During the past few years, these have been only about $0.02 different. However, this year, the IRS has raised its rate to $0.405, which rounds to $0.41 while the Texas legislature will not update the current rate until September at the earliest. This is a $0.06 difference, which doesn''t sound like much, but is 300% greater than the previous difference, and for even a small company can mean several hundred to several thousand dollars a year. This is even without considering the cost of fuel which has clearly increased significantly since the August 1, 2003 , date cited in the RCS. Can TCEQ consider different rates if they are requested in the cost proposal?

A. 10) No. Unless the Legislature changes the allowable amount, the State is bound by whichever is the lower of the IRS or the State Mileage Guide .