TASTP/TCEQ Q & AJune 13 , 2006Q. 1) It was our understanding from the February 7th meeting that the TCEQ was not encouraging RPs to move their sites into State Lead at this time. However, it is also our understanding that the TCEQ is now soliciting for some sites to come into State Lead now if they fit certain criteria, such as needing a CAP.
A. 1) a.No, the TCEQ has no plans to refer sites early, and the form is not ready yet. Q. 2) Can you tell us the status of the several hundred sites that were not moving forward with corrective action? Are these being evaluated through the State Lead program? A. 2). Project Managers are reviewing sites that are not moving forward with corrective action. There are no plans at this time to evaluate these inactive sites for the State Lead Program. Q. 3) Will the LUST Fund be the only source of money for State Lead work after August 31, 2007? If not, what other sources will be available? A. 3) Although no further corrective action activities will be reimbursed after 8/31/07, the PST Reimbursement program will be funded until 8/31/08, for work performed previous to the '07 cut off. Funds beyond that will need to be addressed during the next State legislative session ('07). There is approximately $1 million in Federal LUST money, but no additional federal money is anticipated at this time. Q. 4) 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. 4)No one from the TCEQ was present for State II questions so this question will be resubmitted during the next meeting. Q. 5) Is there any requirement to notify consumers of the implementation of ethanol as an additive in fuel now? In other words, does this require posting at the pumps, or anywhere else gas is sold? A. 5) Under Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes~ Article 8614, Section 3 (a), it is required to prominently display on the pump from which this mixture is sold, a sign that states that the mixture contains ethanol. (or methanol, as applicable). This holds true for both retail and commercial dealers. Q. 6) Are there any plans to regulate bio diesel blends? A. 6) If any bio diesel is blended with any percentage of petroleum, it is considered a petroleum product and is already regulated. Only if it is 100% vegetable oil is it not regulated. Q. 7) Is there going to be an extension to the April, 2007 deadline for ORVR compliance? A. 7) No. Although there are no current plans to notify the public that an extension will not be granted. At the request of the TASTP membership the TCEQ has indicated that notice will be sent out to registered tank owners regarding this issue. Q. 8) Is it clearly understood that sampling during a UST removal is always conducted, even if the removal is not due to a possible release. However, we have seen instances when a product line or dispenser removal/replacement/upgrade (also with no suspicion of a release) is conducted where no sampling is performed. Is this allowed? We know that regional field inspectors have witnessed this and have not had a problem with it. If this is done, there is no way for RPR to even know that it is happening as no Release Determination Report will ever be written.On the flip side, we have also seen sites where USTs were removed and the tank hold was sampled but because the new USTs/ASTs are connected to the previously existing product line, no pipe case or dispenser samples were collected. In these cases, TCEQ now says that sampling should have been conducted to meet the criteria for a full site assessment. Does this seem correct? A. 8)The rules require sampling during permanent closure. If only the tanks are removed and the lines remain to be used with new tanks, there is no requirement to sample along the lines, since they were not permanently closed. However, it is recommended. Q. 9) 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. 9)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. 10) 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. 10) 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. 11) 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. 11) Any failed test must be explained, even if follow up tests pass.* Q. 12) 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. 12) The TCEQ does not look for manufacturers inspection information. The TCEQ rules take precedence.* Q. 13) 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. 13) 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.* Q. 14) 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. 14) This question will be addressed at the next TASTP meeting, when a representative from the State II team is in attendance. Q. 15) Is it possible to include a breakdown of costs for O&M & System Install Cost Spreadsheet like the coordinators do with MDPE CARFs? Many of the O&M & System costs are lumped together, which make it difficult to breakdown and time consuming to review. A. 15) Yes, the request will be forwarded to the coordinators to provide the detailed worksheet with the O&M CARFs. Q. 16) There appears to be no costs in the Reimbursement Specifications for monthly remediation system sampling. Remediation systems can have numerous sampling ports which takes additional man hours to collect the samples. Furthermore, subcontractor weekly O&M labor costs are for operations and maintenance activities not sampling. What is the standard protocol for reimbursement of monthly sampling when it is conducted by the RCAS and not a subcontractor? A. 16) The OMP personnel time includes all monthly sampling during O&M visits. The same amount of money is given, regardless of whether a sub or the RCAS performs the work. However, if a sub performs the work a 10% markup is allowable for that portion. Q. 17) If the cost for a vapor survey has been reduced from $300.00 to $80.00, what is the allowable reimbursement cost for vapor survey data formatting? Data formatting of the vapor survey field data takes additional time and effort. Where are these costs outlined in the Reimbursement Specifications? A. 17) Two hours of Tech 1 time is given to perform the field vapor survey, which includes data formatting. It is assumed that the vapor survey will be performed in conjunction with other field activities. If it is a dedicated activity, other personnel may be approved. Q. 18) What is the current policy for obtaining reimbursement for time spent researching information and preparation of a technical response for TECQ requested information via letters and faxes. Some responses take numerous hours to prepare. A. 18) If the TCEQ requests additional information, additional time may be allowable if what is requested is beyond the scope of work. If the information requested is just to help the project manager clarify information submitted, additional labor time will not be approved. Q. 19) What is the allowable/reimbursable project management time for data formatting of an MDPE event? A. 19) Time for data formatting is included in the report preparation allowable costs, but a 15% markup is allowable on events that are subcontracted. Q. 20) How is the field citation program going? What types of violations are the regional inspectors finding during their on-site inspections? A. 20) This question will be addressed at the next meeting, when a representative from Field Operations is in attendance.* Q. 21) Does the Federal Energy Act create any technical changes in rules for UST or AST installation and maintenance? A. 21) No. Q. 22) Discussion of the Energy Act regarding "C. Length of Coverage" for Manufacturers and installers. Bill White will lead the discussion. A. 22) Bill White suggested that secondary containment be considered rather than financial liability. The TCEQ promised that further discussion will be conducted with the TASTP membership in the future. *Questions to be revisited during the next TASTP meeting when a representative from the TCEQ Field Operations is present. |
