TASTP/TCEQ Q & A

August 8, 2006

Q. 1) Has RG-411 Guidance for petroleum tank removal been updated to reflect the changes from SB 485, regarding backfill and any other changes?

A. 1) Staff at the TCEQ are working on revisions, and hope to have it completed by the end of the year.  The revised RDR will include new financial requirements.

Q. 2) We recently submitted an APAR for TCEQ review and one of the PM comments stated that monitoring wells should have been included in Table 2A of the APAR.  However, this table specifically requests water well information, requesting nothing regarding monitoring wells.  Can you please clarify where information regarding monitoring wells should be submitted in this report?

A. 2)That request appears to have been specific to the PM who reviewed the APAR. It is not necessary to include monitoring well information in Table 2A, as there are other sections of the APAR that request this information.

Q. 3) If a contractor has to modify the vapor return line inside the dispenser sump at the fuel island to add or remove a fitting (i.e. tee) what testing would be required and would this modification require 30 day notice?

A. 3) As long as the lines are above ground testing is not required. It is preferred that a pressure test be performed. No 30 day notice is required.

Q. 4) With the upcoming corrective action deadline being 8/31/07 for reimbursement eligibility, does this apply specifically to the field work associated with the corrective action (groundwater monitoring, product recovery, operation and maintenance, etc.), or does this include report preparation as well?

A. 4)This includes everything performed prior to August 31, 2007, including reporting. Although a full year may not be performed, a report submittal is preferred and reporting expenses will be reimbursed in accordance with the amount the work completed.

Q. 5) Is the form complete to refer sites to state lead?

A. 5) Not yet. Staff is committed to having the form completed by April 2, 2007. The form will be posted on the TCEQ webpage when complete.

Q. 6) It is noted in the proposed rule changes that the owner or operator of a site must apply "..to the agency in writing on an agency application form not later than July 1, 2007, to have an eligible corrective action site placed in the Petroleum Storage Tank State Lead Program…" If this form is not submitted by July 1, 2007, what does that mean to the owner/operator-does this mean they cannot be referred to State Lead?

A. 6) If the form is not submitted by July 1, 2007 the Responsible Party (RP) may still request a referral to State Lead, but will be subject to the current process. This means that the RP must submit documentation of financial inability and be eligible for reimbursement at the time of application.

It should be noted that if corrective action deadlines are not met in the interim RPs risk losing reimbursement eligibility. A notice would be sent regarding this issue, but will also address in the upcoming Stakeholders Meeting.

Q. 7) Is there any incentive to keep major oil companies from referring sites to state lead, or will this be treated as an equal opportunity referral? Will cost recovery be considered for any cases?

A. 7) All sites, even major oil, will be let in if the site is eligible. The law states that no cost recovery for these sites would be performed.

Q. 8) "Would the TCEQ consider paying the consultant to transfer access agreements to State Lead, if coordinated in advance? It would save time for the TCEQ and get the consultant's efforts paid for, as terminating access with the property owner will be required anyway." If so, would this need to be preapproved, or could this be paid at time of receipt of the signed access agreement?

A. 8) This issue has not been resolved, as there are advantages seen from having a “clean break”, as well as from receiving assistance from the current RCAS.

Q. 9) Would the TCEQ consider a meeting with "stakeholders" to discuss logistics associated with the transition from RPR to State Lead?

A. 9) Yes. The TCEQ is very interested in holding a Stakeholders Meeting, ideally in late January 2007.

Q. 10) The recent System Installation & O&M CARFs often times do not adequately cover the costs to build and operate a remediation system. This is evident by the growing number of subcontractors that no longer provide such services for PST remediation systems…Furthermore, the RCAS loses valuable time preparing detailed proposals and change orders that are often denied at the discretion of the coordinator. Although costs associated with each system are site-specific, there appears to be no general consistency regarding system installation and O&M costs. Why? And what can be done to ensure the CARFs include all the necessary costs to properly build and operate these system

A. 10)Certain things are inflexible, but with remediation systems each can have unique issues. Because the proposals are very complex to prepare and review, this can also create mistakes on both the consultant and regulatory end. Under theses circumstances consistency is difficult to achieve, so it is recommended that Vicki Modak or Phil Winsor be contacted to help resolve site specific concerns.

Q. 11) Many of the denied system installation and O&M costs are proposed to prevent the degradation of the equipment and keep the system running at optimum performance. When these costs are denied, the system is susceptible to fouling, equipment failure, damage, etc. which inevitable results in system failure. The costs to repair the problem often exceed the initial preventative costs. What can the RCAS do to ensure these costs are approved?

A. 11) The new Reimbursable Cost Specifications (RCSs) included costs for routine maintenance. Other issues may need to be addressed through Vicki Modak or Phil Winsor.

Q. 12) The RCAS also loses valuable system down-time due to slow response by the TCEQ for emergency repairs. This in turn lengthens the down-time which can affect reimbursement. Timely approval of emergency repairs is necessary in order to get the system operational as soon as possible. What is causing the slow response time regarding emergency repairs? Why are change orders, which can take up to 60-days to approve, required for Emergency Repairs when time is a factor? And what is being done to address this problem?

A. 12) Emergency repairs are addressed on Page 69 of the RCSs. If it is an emergency, it does not require PM approval, although the PM should be kept in the loop, and if costs exceed 7% a change order should be submitted.

Q. 13) What is the turnaround time for a Site Closure Request review?

A. 13) Sixty days.

Q. 14) Will there be a referral of staff to State Lead to accommodate the additional sites?

A. 14) There has been no discussion on this issue yet. However, since the Remediation Division reorganization, it is possible to allocate resources within the division if, and when, needed.