TASTP/TCEQ Q & A

February 13 , 2007

Q. 1) What were the findings of the State Lead Referral survey that was sent out to Responsible Parties in December 2006?  How many sites are expected to be transferred July 1, 2007?  Of these, how many are remediation systems?

A. 1) The TCEQ sent surveys to 1700 owners/operators and they received 900 responses which represent sites that will not close this year.  Approximately 700 of those 900 will probably go into State Lead on July 1, 2007.  Approximately 300 of the 700 have remediation systems.

Q. 2) What actions will be made on the State Lead side to accommodate the additional sites?

A. 2) The sites will be prioritized according to impacted or threatened receptors; remediation systems in place and those with groundwater monitoring.   The TCEQ will utilize as many staff as needed to address the State Lead sites.

Q. 3) There has been mention that a Stakeholders Meeting would be held to discuss the logistics with the referral to State Lead.  What is the status of this?

A. 3) The TCEQ stated that they were not aware of a stakeholders meeting to discuss the logistics of referral to State Lead.

Q. 4) What is the status of the Conflict of Interest issue?  Have any changes been made to the current policy which states that a RCAS who worked on a site in RPR cannot work the same site in State Lead?

A. 4) There has been no change in policy.  The TCEQ believes there are real and perceived conflicts of interest, but they are reevaluating the existing policy.

Q. 5) With regard to sites that will be referred to State Lead, why does the TCEQ consider it to be a conflict of interest for consultants working the cases in RPR to work the site in State Lead?  Please provide examples.  It seems logical that consultants working the sites are familiar with the sites and a cost effective and valuable resource for the state-lead program, in lieu of having to ramp up a new contractor.  When speaking with different RPs in the industry, the conflict of interest issue does not make logical sense to them.

A. 5) TCEQ deferred the answer to this question to their legal department.

Q. 6) What happens if an RP has a site in the LPST RPR program and has requested it to be transferred into the State-Lead program, and would like the current consultant to keep working the case once transferred?  Does the RP have a say?  When they sign over the access agreement for state-lead to conduct LPST related activities, can they request the same consultant to keep working the case (assuming the consultant has a contract with the state-lead program for that particular region)?

A. 6) The TCEQ stated that when the responsible party options to State Lead, they give up all control regarding the site.

Q. 7) Has RG-411 been updated and on the Web site?

A. 7) RG4-11 has not been updated at this time.  The TCEQ hopes to have the update finalized within the next couple of months.

Q. 8) Is there an update on the Federal Energy Act as it relates to Texas?

A. 8) There has been no changes as to the status.

Q. 9) What is the status of any plans for reimbursement extension?

A. 9) There is no indication that an extension of the reimbursement fund will be forthcoming.

Q. 10) When a claim contains a calculation error by the TCEQ reviewer, and the reviewer discovers the error while the FPR is being processed, why does it take so long to receive payment for that error?

A. 10) The TCEQ indicated that the turnaround time should not exceed 90 days.  If there is a deviation to this time frame for a site specific claim, contact Mr. Fred Meyers, Manager, of Reimbursement.

Q. 11) What would be the status of an existing site that is exempt from Stage II vapor recovery because it pumps less than 10,000 gallons a month and the owner wants to remove their existing gasoline AST and install a new larger upgraded gasoline AST?  Would this upgrade be considered a new installation and cause them to lose their Stage II vapor recovery exemption?  Would it change their exemption if the owner also wants to replace the underground piping at the same time?

A. 11) No, the exemption would not be lost as long as the 10,000 gallons per month is met.  No, the exemption would not be changed if the owner wants to replace the underground piping.

Q. 12) Is the GASBOY ASTRA pump with vapor recovery on an aboveground storage tank (AST) approved to be used after the April 07 ORVR compatible deadline?

A. 12) No, but the TCEQ indicated that they would look into this further and report back at a later date.

Q. 13) Will stage II vapor recovery sites no longer be required to have a copy of their system CARB Executive Order on site since Texas is not completely following CARB ORVR regulations?

A. 13) The TCEQ stated that the executive order should remain on site since it is required by rule.

Q. 14) Are aboveground storage tank (ATG) sites with buried underground piping required to meet TCEQ piping leak detection and cathodic protection regulations?  If so, would sites with a concrete trench or liner system that have removable cover plates for pipe inspection eliminate any TCEQ regulations?  If so, would cathodic protection be required if this piping trench is not connected to some type of oil/water separator and the trench always has water covering the product piping?

A. 14) No, but the TCEQ indicated that some authorities, such as the Edwards, may require some type of leak detection system for underground piping.  No, the TCEQ does not require cathodic protection for ASTS.

Q. 15) The April 1, 2007 deadline (Rule 115.249) for installation of compatible ORVR equipment for facilities that have stage II vapor recovery systems is quickly approaching.  Many gasoline dispensing facilities have already taken action to comply with this regulation - many more are expected to take action in the coming weeks.  As the deadline approaches lead times for shipment and installation of ORVR compatible equipment continues to grow and some customers may find that they are unable to comply with this deadline for reasons out of their control, e.g. the equipment ordered has not yet arrived and/or the installation service contractors are not yet available.  Creating particular concern is the message on the TCEQ website regarding Notice of Violations/Enforcement:  "Failure to comply with this rule may result in a Notice of Violation.  Failure to correct the violation within 30 days will result in a Notice of Enforcement.  This type of violation could include penalties up to $10,000 per day."  It is suggested that customers be protected from receiving a Notice of Enforcement as long as they can show evidence that they have taken action to comply with the deadline, e.g. they can show proof that they have placed an order for ORVR compliance equipment.  Our understanding is that this is similar to how enforcement was handled around the original stage II compliance deadline.  If this approach is agreeable, can the TCEQ document this in a published guidance letter to avoid confusion and to ensure consistent enforcement action across stage II areas?

A. 15) The TCEQ indicated that if the owner/operator can show some kind of financial commitment or contract with an estimate for completion, that should be sufficient.  The TCEQ will revisit the site in 30 days to determine compliance.  In regards to a TCEQ document, the TCEQ will refer this to their enforcement personnel.