TASTP/TCEQ Q & A

June 8 , 2010

Q. 1) Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 115, Subchapter C, Division 4, Rule 115.247 (3)

Would a new car dealership that is only fueling new cars with ORVR be eligible for this exemption and if so what is the required documentation that has to be submitted no later than January 31 of each year.

A. 1) They will be exempt, but have to turn in exemption forms every year by January 31.

Q. 2) If the PE/100 committee changes the Slope requirement for pressurized piping, will the Technical Specifications have to be changed or is it an automatic change to the specifications?

A. 2) Texas would have to make a rule change if PEI changes slope requirements.

Q. 3) Many States are beginning to abandon Ball Floats as a means of overfill protection (including installation on Pressure systems). Reasons vary, but most are related to inspectors ability to verify their installation or length since they can’t be inspected without using an intrusive method. States are requesting 95% shutoff valves (Overfill Drop Tubes) be installed and setting deadlines for this conversion. Does Texas have any plans to join these other States with ruling out the install of Ball Floats?

A. 3) There appears to be a movement to abandon ball floats. The TCEQ stated that rule making would be necessary.

Q. 4) At our last meeting, I had in my notes on the discussion of 334.42(i) sixty day inspection and removal and properly dispose of liquid / debris in 72 hours. The site also has to document the amount of liquid / trash removed and how / where it was disposed to be compliant with this regulation. Is this correct, and if so, what documentation will they need to comply?

A. 4) Need documentation showing that sumps or spill buckets have been checked every 60 days, note whether or not debris or liquid was found and how much was found, and how it was properly disposed of.

Q. 5) TCEQ issued a revised RG-411 document dated April 2010. We first saw this a couple of weeks ago. For any tank pull with impact or new LPST discovery, there are two significant changes we’ve already found. First, backfill that exceeds soil “action levels” must have SPLP testing done. Any SPLP exceedances then dictate that the dirty backfill be treated or disposed of off-site. This is basically re-instituting a TRRP requirement, after the LPST work got rolled back to 334 rules in March 2009.

The other change, also re-instituting TRRP requirement in a way, is that every project with lab data involved has to have a “Data Usability Summary” generated. This adds cost, but in my opinion brings no benefit in LPST work.

So my question to TCEQ include: Why were these changes incorporated into RG-411 at this time? What stakeholders were consulted, if any? What TCEQ management reviewed and approved this guidance change? And if this is “merely” a guidance change, then is it enforceable? Could our clients choose not to do it? TCEQ did not go through the extensive process to revise rules, but I believe these changes will be used as “de facto” rule change. And each change adds cost to projects, without any change (my opinion) in the degree of environmental protection being provided. After all, we argued successfully that leaving backfill in the hole was “protective enough” under 334 work until September 2003, and again after March 2009. Is it unprotective now? If so, how does TCEQ propose to deal with all the sites out there handled under 334 in the past?

A. 5) The TCEQ indicated that they wanted to see SPLP testing in the backfill only cases. Hopefully this will allow for a no Leaker Letter with no LPST number assigned.
The TCEQ does want a data review accomplished. Document your review of the data in some format of your design since no formal document exists.
It is guidance only and not rule. The TCEQ did not ask for stakeholder input on the guidance document.

Q. 6) We had heard that there was going to be a Stage I vapor recovery testing for all of Texas. Can you confirm this?

A. 6) The federal rules are requiring the testing, but the TCEQ will have to pursue rulemaking which will occur within the next year.

Q. 7) In RG-36 Table A-1, Target concentrations are not listed for MTBE. Should we use PST action levels for MTBE or TRRP PCLs?

A. 7) Use the PST action levels.