DATE SUBMITTED:
12/19/08
SHORT TITLE: National
Organic Program (NOP) - Access to Pasture (Livestock)
SUBMITTED TO:U.S. Department of Agriculture
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Charles
Maguire
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
TCEQ comments address the statutory authority associated with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Services
(AMS) development of rules stated to protect soil and water
quality. The AMS has proposed fencing requirements to protect water
quality that go beyond the scope and function Congress granted the
AMS. Fencing of the creeks and stock ponds as a requirement to
protect water quality has the potential to impact the TCEQs policy
and regulatory efforts with animal feeding operations and TCEQ
efforts to deal with water quality impairments related to livestock
activity on private lands. A federal rule in the NOP that
establishes a requirement to fence the creeks and stock ponds in
order to protect soil and water quality could create a precedent
that may ultimately affect the TCEQs regulations on non-organic
CAFOs. TCEQ acknowledges the need to control all inputs consumed by
organic certified livestock and the NOP may need to require fencing
of the creeks and ponds for that purpose. However, when the rule is
extrapolated out beyond the control of inputs to the requirement to
protect soil and water quality, the TCEQ considers that action to
be unnecessary and inappropriate. Additionally, the TCEQ comments
that this rule is inconsistent with other programs within the very
same federal agency, specifically, the United States Department of
Agriculture-Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) prescribed
grazing practice standard Code 528. In that practice standard, the
USDA- NRCS does not require the fencing of creeks or stock ponds in
order to conserve natural resources.
DATE SUBMITTED:
07/15/08
SHORT TITLE: Bexar County
Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan
SUBMITTED TO:U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Cary
Betz
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
Generally, the TCEQ agrees with the spirit and intent of this plan.
However, TCEQ respectfully submits the following comments.
In section 2.4, Narrative of Recovery Actions, paragraph 2.3
Determine the use of mesocaverns and habitat connectivity (A, C, E)
on page 2.4-4, it is suggested that a set of guidelines be
established with multiple partners, such as TCEQ and the City of
San Antonio, or other site inspection entities, so that a
construction site can be sampled for karst invertebrates by
qualified personnel. TCEQ staff are well suited to the
identification and evaluation of water quality concerns at
construction sites, as these are clearly within our agency's
jurisdiction. However, the interests of the public and the species
in question may be better served by suggesting another partner to
develop guidelines for determining whether mesocaverns are used or
occupied by the karst invertebrates covered by this plan.
Similarly, Table 3, found in section 4.0 Implementation Schedule,
page 4.0-2, identifies TCEQ as one of the "Responsible Parties" for
the development of "a plan to protect non-cave/karst areas
(mesocaverns) in-between caves or Karst Faunal Area." TCEQ is
concerned that responsibility for this plan exceeds our authority
by extending past water quality protection. TCEQ is willing to
assist with the development of such a plan, but only as a resource
for water quality issues. TCEQ is identified later in this same
table as one of the "Responsible Parties" for "hydrological
research," and has no objection to this role.
DATE SUBMITTED:
07/15/08
SHORT TITLE: Williamson
County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan
SUBMITTED TO:U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Cary
Betz
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
Generally, the TCEQ agrees with the spirit and intent of this plan.
However, TCEQ requests that the plan be clarified with respect to
our jurisdictional authority.
There are numerous references to "TCEQ standards (TCEQ 2004)." The
"TCEQ 2004" reference is for "Instructions to geologists for
Geologic Assessments on the Edwards Aquifer recharge/transition
zones, Application Form 0585." The TCEQ is concerned that a
potential participant in this regional habitat conservation plan
may be confused by this citation, and misconstrue participation in
the plan as a substitute for the water quality protection measures
for the Edwards Aquifer that are required under Title 30, Texas
Administrative Code, Chapter 213, Edwards Aquifer.
The TCEQ respectfully requests the addition of language clarifying
that prospective participants in the regional habitat conservation
plan must still obtain approval of proposed activities applicable
under 30 TAC 213.2 and 213.4, and may require submission to the
agency several plans in accordance with 30 TAC 213.5. The TCEQ
believes that clarifying language, or a brief discussion of the
relationship between the regional habitat conservation plan and
TCEQ rules, could be inserted early in Chapter 4, alleviating our
concerns and better serving potential participants in the plan.
DATE SUBMITTED:
04/02/08
SHORT TITLE: National
Program Managers Guidance FY 2009
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Intergovernmental Relations Division
STAFF CONTACT: Tangela
Niemann
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
Office of Air and Radiation
Changes in Grant Purposes and Authorities (page A-4)
There are a number of problems with the proposed changes in
funding for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
PM2.5 air monitoring program, some of which have already
occurred.
PM2.5 Sec 103 funding is 100% federal funded, if the funding is
changed to Sec 105 funding(60/40) TCEQ will lose 40% of the federal
funding with PM2.5.
TCEQ is experiencing escalating laboratory costs (30%), shipping,
utility, and contract operation costs related to the PM2.5 air
monitoring program.
If, as planned, the EPA transitions the PM2.5 funding from Section
103(100% federal) to Section 105(60/40%) funding April 1, 2009, in
the middle of the normal September-August fiscal year, it is going
to cause even greater fiscal complications than it did with the
abrupt ending of the current grant on April 1, 2008.
United States Mexico Border
Changes in Grant Purposes and Authorities (page A-3, 1st
paragraph)
During a conference call with EPA and other Region 6 states on
March 18, 2008, the TCEQ asked for clarification on a sentence in
Appendix A - Grant Guidance, page A-3: "Funds have also been
proposed to be reduced for the U.S.-Mexico Border work reflecting
the transfer and ownership of a portion of the cross-border
monitoring network to Mexico." In response to this question, Region
6 staff stated that there are plans to decrease the budget for
Border Activities in Region 6 and 9 by approximately 50%.
TCEQ doesnt understand how a 50% reduction in Border Activities
would reflect the transfer and ownership of a portion of the
cross-border monitoring network to Mexico. In the case of Texas, a
very small portion of the PPG Border Activities grant is spent on
cross-border monitoring (specifically in Cd. Juárez), and
none of those maintenance activities have been transferred to
Mexico. Meanwhile, the PPG Border Activities grant covers a wide
variety of activities related to monitoring in Texas, other field
operations in Texas, and a significant portion of the TCEQs
activities related to the Border 2012 Program. Therefore, cutting
all those programs by 50% based on a development that hasnt
happened (transfer of ownership) seems illogical.
TCEQ requests that further clarification be included in the
guidance document on the relation between (a) the anticipated 50%
reduction in border funding and (b) the transfer of ownership of
cross-border monitoring to Mexico, and its relevance to
Texas.
Office of Water
Strategies to Protect Human Health: Fish and Shellfish Safe to
Eat
Comment on Section II, Sub-objective 2 - Safe Shellfish (page
15)
In the document, the EPA discusses addressing and reducing the
incidence of high blood mercury levels. However, the statistics
under Key National Strategies refer to fish consumption advisories
for a range of contaminants. It is recommended that these
statistics be revised to discuss the incidence of fish consumption
advisories associated only with mercury, rather than to include all
contaminants.
Comment on Section II, Sub-objective 2 - Safe Shellfish (page
18)
In the document, the EPA discusses clean water programs that will
reduce pathogen levels in key waters. It is recommended that the
example of reduce storm water runoff be replaced with a program
objective to reduce the level of contaminants or pollutants in
storm water runoff.
Strategies to Protect Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and
Wetlands
Measure # WQ-19a - Number, and national percent, of high priority
state NPDES permits that are issued as scheduled
EPA is proposing to change Measure # WQ-19a from Number, and
national percent, of high priority state NPDES permits that are
issued as scheduled" to Number, and national percent, of high
priority state NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal
year.
This change would shift the time period for identifying the
priority list earlier in the process and shifting the commitment to
a total number of permits issued versus a percentage of permits
issued. States will need the ability to substitute specific permits
that will be issued to meet their commitment when unforeseen issues
arise with permits.
Since the measure is being changed from capturing a percent of
permits issued to a total number, we recommend that the new measure
be modified to delete reference to a percentage and read as
follows: Number of high priority state NPDES permits that are
issued in the fiscal year.
Measure # CO-2 Total coastal and non-coastal acres protected from
vessel sewage by no discharge zones
Texas agrees with the EPA objective to protect water bodies from
vessel sewage. No discharge zones already exist in Texas. While
setting the protection standard is important, it is equally
important that there be capacity at harbors and marinas for
pump-out of sewage from vessels. It is recommended that EPA develop
a program activity measure or indicator measure to track either the
number of pump-out facilities or the total volume of sewage removed
per year from vessels for proper treatment and disposal.
Measure # SP-23 Reduce the number of currently exceeded water
quality standards in impaired transboundary segments of U.S.
surface waters
The current target for the year 2012 calls for restoration of nine
of the 17 impairments identified in the 2002 baseline. The EPA and
Texas are initiating an effort to complete TMDLs or equivalent
plans to focus on indicator bacteria impairments that exist in the
Rio Grande, a shared international water. Texas supports the
restoration goal and supports dedicated federal funding to
supplement local and state funding to address these impairments.
However, evidence or a demonstration that the impairments no longer
exist in 2012 may prove difficult to verify in such a short time
frame.
Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance
Monitoring and Enforcement
Sub-objective 5.1.3 (page 57) speaks to efforts to improve
monitoring of transboundary wastes. In the past these efforts have
required the Texas Commission on Environmental Qualitys (TCEQ)
direct participation as a delegate state. There is no discussion as
to the role of the Border States in this part of the plan, thus
either 1.) we will not be required to participate in any manner, or
2.) our participation would be required to a degree without it
specified in the guidance.
U.S. Customs has, since 09/11/2001, been very reluctant to allow
our participation/involvement in such monitoring (inspection)
activities. Therefore, we recommend it be addressed both as to our
role, if any, and if so, what access right would be restored to the
border states at customs facilities.
DATE SUBMITTED:
09/04/07
SHORT TITLE: Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule Deadline for Authorized Programs
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Administrative Services
STAFF CONTACT: Brandon
Harris
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
The TCEQ is committed to utilizing technology which both enhances
the effectiveness of and improves compliance with environmental
laws and regulations. Implementing CROMERR will require an
extensive redesign, some prohibitively expensive, of current
electronic reporting and record keeping systems at agencies and
regulated entities.
The TCEQ supports the proposed deadline extension as long as the
performance standards and other requirements promulgated by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on October 13, 2005, are
not increased. Additional time may help states further develop
technical components of receiving systems, submit more
comprehensive rule packages and applications to revise or modify
authorized programs, and work with EPA on significant issues.
DATE SUBMITTED:
04/26/07
SHORT TITLE: National
Program Managers Guidance FY 2008
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Clyde
Bohmfalk
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
Office of Air and Radiation
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is particularly
concerned about the potential for reduced or redirected federal
funding assistance with respect to the support for air monitoring
networks. It has been noted that current funding under Section 103
of the Federal Clean Air Act could be reduced. This could force
states to use Section 105 funds to support the PM2.5 monitoring
network. This agency would then have to provide additional matching
funds to maintain the existing monitoring network. Even with the
divestment of low-value monitoring for several NAAQS pollutants,
divestment opportunities will be limited, since most of Texas NAAQS
monitoring is in non-attainment or near non-attainment areas, is
required by other federal grants, or is necessary to measure
pollutant transport. Costs for new monitors are likely to increase
and Texas does not have sufficient spare monitors to replace ones
that malfunction.
Office of Water
Strategies to Protect Human Health: Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
Comment on Subobjective B)2) Safe Shellfish: The Texas State
Department of Health Services (TSDHS) identifies and closes oyster
beds in Texas based upon U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
guidelines and requirements. The TCEQ then identifies the closed
areas as impairments on the 303(d) List. In several instances,
these closures are not based upon water quality monitoring data
indicating elevated levels of indicator bacteria, nor data showing
a pollutant discharge as the cause of the closure. Since closures
of this type cannot be addressed by limiting or eliminating
pollutant discharges, implementation of a Clean Water Act (CWA)
program will not address the closures. It is suggested that the EPA
identify an objective to prioritize CWA program activities towards
the closed areas where monitoring data identify pollutant discharge
impacts.
Strategies to Protect Human Health: Water Safe for Swimming Comment
on Subobjective B)3) Reduce Pathogen Levels in Recreational Waters
Generally: The TCEQ agrees that ineffective septic systems are
contributing sources to recreational use impairments. In addition
to EPAs objective to design decentralized systems, the EPA should
also emphasize objectives and funding to connect households with
failing septic systems to a POTW. The EPA should allow the use of
Section 319 grants for this purpose, to eliminate nonpoint sources.
Such a strategy could facilitate progress to address these sources,
particularly systems in economically disadvantaged communities
within impaired watersheds.
Strategies to Protect Fresh Waters, Coastal Waters, and Wetlands:
Protect Coastal and Ocean Waters Comment on Strategy 4) Ocean
Protection Programs: The TCEQ through its Galveston Bay Estuary
Program and partners have successfully collaborated to implement
projects to beneficially use sediment dredged from Galveston Bay to
design and create high quality habitat areas for birds and other
aquatic life. EPA may desire to review the success of this
initiative and its possible application elsewhere.
Strategies to Protect Large Aquatic Ecosystems: Protect Mexico
Border Water Quality Comment on Strategy B)2) Wastewater Treatment
Financing: In early 2007, the TCEQ oversaw completion of a
comprehensive watershed protection plan to address nutrients,
sediment, and biochemical oxygen demand impacts on the Arroyo
Colorado, a Texas border area waterway. This effort was funded in
part with the support of a Section 319 grant. The plan includes
implementation activities targeted through 2015 that would cost
about $65 million, mostly for wastewater infrastructure and
agricultural best management practices. The TCEQ urges the EPA to
develop specific border protection strategies in collaboration with
other federal entities that provide infrastructure funding that
would give priority towards financial assistance towards this
watershed.
Appendix B: Measures with National/Regional Data and Targets
Comment on Strategic Target SP-10 Number of Water Bodies identified
in 2002 as not attaining water quality standards where standards
are now fully attained: The TCEQ supports this target and is
implementing TMDLs and other strategies aimed at restoration of
water quality. The TCEQ published a Status Report on TMDLs (October
2006) which can be viewed at the identified weblink below, which
numerically describes contributions towards environmental progress
addressing point sources and nonpoint sources through TMDL
implementation in Texas. This progress may contribute towards the
EPA target. Dependent on EPAs specific measurement methods, this
progress could also contribute towards targets in measures WQ-21,
CO-1, and SP-38.
United States-Mexico Border
Reductions in funding can have a determining impact on the
implementation of some of the goals related to environmental issues
along the U.S. Mexico border area. It is noted that border efforts
are acknowledged in the guidance for the Office of Air and
Radiation and the Office of Water, but there is no mention of
U.S.-Mexico border issues in the draft guidance for the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances or the Office of
Policy, Economics and Innovation. In addition, in the guidance for
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response it is unclear what
the priorities are.
DATE SUBMITTED:
06/15/06
SHORT TITLE: Office of
Management and Budget Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin
SUBMITTED TO: Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Joseph T.
Hanley, Jr.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
Section I: Definitions
“Risk assessment” as defined in this section may be too
broad. As such, this document has far-reaching implications across
regulatory programs (e.g., Superfund), regulatory guidance (e.g.,
cancer guidelines), and disciplines (e.g., toxicology,
epidemiology, economics, medicine, chemistry, engineering). The
potential effects and far-reaching implications of the Bulletin
deserve a detailed evaluation across potentially affected
disciplines and programs.
Standards Related to Characterization of Risk
This section of the Bulletin indicates that every quantitative
risk estimate should provide a range of plausible risk estimates
when there is scientific uncertainty or variability. This seems to
require a risk estimate range for every risk assessment (i.e.,
influential and non-influential, screening level assessments) and
ranges for many of the inputs into remediation risk assessments. If
required by the final Bulletin, calculating multiple estimates of
risk based on possible combinations of these ranges to provide a
risk range may be burdensome and should be commensurate with
necessity and the importance of the risk assessment.
This section of the Bulletin also indicates that where feasible, a
document made available to the public in support of a regulation
should specify peer-reviewed studies known to the agency that
support, are directly relevant to, or fail to support any estimates
of risk of adverse health effects and the methodology used to
reconcile inconsistencies in the scientific data. A reference in a
risk assessment to the USEPA Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) substance file, for example, should be considered to satisfy
this requirement.
Standards Related to Critical Assumptions
This section indicates that the range of scientific opinions
regarding (1) the likelihood of plausible alternative assumptions,
(2) the direction and magnitude of any resulting changes if key
assumptions were to be changed, and (3) the basis and rationale for
combining the assumptions utilized should be discussed for both
influential and non-influential risk assessments. Additionally,
whenever possible, a quantitative evaluation of reasonable
alternative assumptions should be provided. As this may be
burdensome, instead of a requirement being applied
indiscriminately, the level of effort should be commensurate with
necessity and the importance of the risk assessment.
Standards Related to Regulatory Analysis
The basis for a central risk estimate should not be limited to
methods involving calculating multiple estimates of risk, or a
distribution of multiple estimates of risk, and should allow for a
central estimate based on assumptions judged to be representative
of central tendency (e.g., 50th percentile exposure factors,
average exposure point concentrations).
DATE SUBMITTED:
04/17/06
SHORT TITLE: EPA's
Harmonization in Interspecies Extrapolation: Use of Body
Weight3/4 as Default Method in Derivation of the Oral
Reference Dose (RfD)
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Michael
Honeycutt, Ph.D.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) applauds USEPA's use of
allometric scaling in developing a human equivalent dose for oral
reference doses to replace a portion of the default interspecies
uncertainty factor. This is a long-overdue step in the
harmonization of cancer and non-cancer risk assessment. The TCEQ
strongly supports the use of scientific data to supplant default,
policy-based procedures.
DATE SUBMITTED:
11/11/05
SHORT TITLE: EPA's
Proposed Supplemental Environmental Project Policy
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Compliance and Enforcement
STAFF CONTACT: Debra
Barber
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: It would
be helpful for this EPA guidance to encourage anyone interested in
perusing a federal SEP to also read applicable state SEP
requirements, since differing state requirements and restrictions
may cause confusion. For example: EPA SEP policy allows an on-site
SEP; TCEQ proposed new SEP guidance does not. EPA SEP policy would
accept a project to provide assistance to help meet obligations
under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act; TCEQ
SEP guidance does not. EPA SEP policy only requires progress
reports and a completion certificate; TCEQ requires substantiating
documentation, including verification of expenditures.
DATE SUBMITTED:
08/05/05
SHORT TITLE: Guidance on
NPDES Wet Weather and CAFO Inspection Reporting Changes, Other
NPDES Inspection Reporting Changes, and PCS Data Entry and Software
Changes
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Field Operations
STAFF CONTACT: Jan
Sills
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The
proposed requirement to require the entry of wet weather
inspections into PCS is beyond our current program commitment and
will require additional resources that have not been accounted for.
Attempts to increase data reporting beyond current program
commitments without negotiations are inappropriate and may not be
technically feasible nor economically practicable. We continue to
work to develop the capability to transfer inspection data from the
state to the federal data systems. Additional resources will,
however, be required to extract the data and provide it to EPA in
the required format and time frame. In addition, in order to use
the proposed Single Event Violation codes to report violations
noted during wet weather inspections, we will have to enter and
store new data not currently collected and stored in CCEDS. The
time, effort, and financial resources necessary to provide this new
data has not been determined but may be significant. The date
proposed for implementation of these guidelines conflicts with the
proposed ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement. The ICIS-NPDES Policy
Statement allows the TCEQ approximately three years after
ICIS-NPDES comes on line, or until 2009 or later, to complete entry
of the Water Enforcement National Database (WENDB) permit
components for Stormwater and General Permits. The wet weather
inspection activity for these permits cannot be maintained in the
PCS or the ICIS-NPDES data system until the permit components are
entered. The state’s responsibility for the new data
requirements should be limited to current program commitments or
re-negotiated as part of an EPA-State agreement. Year-to-year
commitments should be managed using the Performance Partnership
Agreement (PPA).
DATE SUBMITTED:
06/28/05
SHORT TITLE: EPA
Information Collection Request (ICR) for The Framework for the
Review of State Enforcement Programs
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Compliance and Enforcement
STAFF CONTACT: Russ
Baier
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The
minimal burden that EPA has projected in this notice is based on
the assumption that all necessary data will be readily available in
the federal data systems. Although we are continuing to work with
EPA to resolve several issues regarding the transfer of data from
the state to the federal data systems, some of these projects may
not be completed prior to the Texas review (probably in FY 2007).
Furthermore, there may continue to be disagreements regarding the
interpretation and use of certain data elements that may increase
the burden on the state and/or result in unwarranted "deficiencies"
that will need to be resolved in the future. Some of the Framework
data metrics will need to be obtained from state data systems.
Additional resources will be required to extract the data and, in
some cases, to begin to develop new data not currently collected.
The Framework should be modified to make it clear that a state is
not responsible to provide data and/or to meet any sooner deadlines
than those established in regulation or in program commitments
which have been negotiated between individual states and EPA. The
issues above may result in additional resource burdens not
identified in the ICR notice. The Framework requirements should be
modified or clarified to limit the resource implications to no
greater than what is required to satisfy current program
commitments and to maintain delegation authority over core
programs.
DATE SUBMITTED:
06/09/05
SHORT TITLE: ECOS Input to
EPA FY 2007 Budget Development
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Council of States (ECOS)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Intergovernmental Relations
STAFF CONTACT: Linda
Haynie
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ
recommends that for FY 2006 and FY 2007, the level of funding
needed for our agency to carry out all of our state’s federal
program requirements should be no less than the current, FY 2005
level.
DATE SUBMITTED:
04/01/05
SHORT TITLE: 2006 Update
to EPA National Program Managers Guidance
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Intergovernmental Relations
STAFF CONTACT: Linda
Haynie
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Comments
from TCEQ include input received from staff in the Office of
Administrative Services/Budget and Planning, Office of Compliance
and Enforcement, and the Chief Engineer’s Office (which
included input from water program staff in other program areas).
Due to the nature of the NPMs, comments varied substantially. The
most extensive comments were collected through the TCEQ Water
Quality Coordinating Team, are very detailed, and pertain to the
NPM from EPA’s Office of Water.
DATE SUBMITTED:
02/10/05
SHORT TITLE: Application
for the National Environmental Education Advisory Council
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Small Business and Environmental Assistance
STAFF CONTACT: Eunice
Pearson-Hefty
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: If Texas
is able to participate on the Council the effort would help further
TCEQ's mission of protection public health and the environment. The
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is offering for
nomination, Dr. Eunice Pearson Hefty from the Small Business and
Environmental Assistance Division. Dr. Hefty is the Education
Coordinator for the agency and is responsible for the Teaching
Environmental Sciences program.
DATE SUBMITTED:
12/02/04
SHORT TITLE: Framework for
State Program Review
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment
STAFF CONTACT: Herb
Williams
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Some
metrics specified in the draft Framework conflict with the current
approach to inspection planning. EPA should provide a flexible
approach to oversight by using negotiated metrics to account for
differences between states in the number, type, and size of
industry, incentive programs; and other variables which affect each
state's approach to inspection planning. EPA should consider
enforcement concerns on issues such as different enforcement
processes required by state statutes that impact enforcement
timeframes, prescriptive requirements to determine how an entity
will return to compliance, and the amount of information that may
be disclosed on cases that include an analysis of ability to pay.
All metrics should evaluate performance against a standard rather
than state-to-state comparisons.
DATE SUBMITTED:
11/30/04
SHORT TITLE: Draft Guide
to Analyzing Environmental Innovations
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Policy and Regulations
STAFF CONTACT: Hector
Mendieta
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: It would
be useful to have a process to promote innovative approaches to
environmental issues. The draft guide is so complex and cumbersome
to use that potential innovators may be discouraged from using the
proposed process. EPA should streamline the evaluation process,
particularly for innovative projects that are less complex, small
in scope of potential impact, or perhaps that need to be
fast-tracked.
DATE SUBMITTED:
09/20/04
SHORT TITLE: 2005 Exchange
Network Guidance
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Administrative Services
STAFF CONTACT: Gregg
Nudd
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Our
proposed comments fall into two broad categories, flexibility in
grant proposals for electronic discharge monitoring reports, or
e-DMRs, and eligibility criteria for receiving a grant. The
comments on proposal flexibility focus on EPA's stated intention to
prevent e-DMR proposals from including functionality to submit
e-DMRs to the Permit Compliance System (PCS) or use the current
submission format, the Interim Data Exchange Format (IDEF). While
this language is not within the draft guidance, the EPA indicated
during the September 9 meeting that such language would be included
in a revised draft. The EPA intends to produce an errata document
which includes this restriction, but that document was not
available in time for the preparation of these comments. The
eligibility criteria comments focus on the definition of an
operational Network Node, which does not consider reporting time
lines and may impact our eligibility to apply for a grant. The most
significant concern with the draft guidance is the intention to
prevent submissions to PCS or the use of IDEF. At least one state,
Michigan, already flows e-DMRs to PCS in the IDEF format. The
modernized PCS, called the Integrated Compliance Information System
(ICIS), is not scheduled to accept uploads of e-DMRs until the Fall
of 2007. Which is a year later than what they told us last year.
The proposed guidance language would prevent an e-DMR system from
going on-line until at least the Fall of 2007. That assumes ICIS
will meet that Fall 2007 target date, which is unlikely given the
history of that project.
DATE SUBMITTED:
08/20/04
SHORT TITLE: Federal
Highway Administration and Texas Department of Transportation on
I-69/Trans-Texas Corridor Study
SUBMITTED TO: Texas Department of Transportation
(TXDOT)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Policy and Regulations
STAFF CONTACT: Susi
Ferguson
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ
proposes to concur by signature of its TAC and Steering Committee
representatives with the Memorandum of Decision, with the following
conditions: We propose to add an additional objective to Goal F (in
all three of the discussion documents) to emphasize compliance with
applicable state and federal requirements as criteria. TCEQ would
like to emphasize that the GIS Screening Tool (GISST) and the Texas
Ecological Assessment Protocol (TEAP) cited under Goal F, Tier 1
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Draft Evaluation
Criteria, are both works in progress, and that the latest versions
should always be used for Tier 1 and Tier 2 decision making.
DATE SUBMITTED:
03/31/04
SHORT TITLE: National
Program Managers (NPM) Proposed Guidance for Fiscal Year 2005
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer
STAFF CONTACT: Tom
Weber
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Concerns
with possible changes in inspection responsibilities for various
federally authorized programs. Discussion of issues associated with
specific outcomes/goals identified with the EPA water program.
Various comments affecting TCEQ regulation of Class 5 UIC
wells.
DATE SUBMITTED:
03/09/04
SHORT TITLE: Revisions to
Regulations Applicable to Permits Issued Under the Endangered
Species Act
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
DIVISION PREPARING:
Policy and Regulations
STAFF CONTACT: Mary
Ambrose
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: 1. TCEQ
supports efforts to provide flexibility in the permitting process
2. TCEQ looks forward to reviewing and providing comment on any
guidance that may be issued
DATE SUBMITTED:
01/06/04
SHORT TITLE: Small Local
Government Compliance Assistance Policy
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Small Business and Environmental Assistance
STAFF CONTACT: Daphne
McMurrer
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Several
proposed changes will make it much more likely that Texas will
utilize this policy. The TCEQ supports the following elements of
the proposed policy revisions, since they will enhance use of the
policy: The proposed change to a two tier approach for defining
"small" communities (3,300 and 10,000 population, with additional
restrictions on eligibility). The option for small communities to
work with the state to identify all of their environmental
noncompliance and then enter into a written enforceable agreement.
The new flexibility for local governments whose technical,
managerial, and financial capacity is so limited they are unlikely
to achieve and sustain compliance without the state's assistance.
That EPA may fund projects to improve a state's small community
compliance assistance. In addition, the TCEQ supports the option
that will provide an incentive for local governments to develop and
implement an EMS; however, we have several suggestions to improve
this option: Allow the State, as well as the site, the option to
determine whether an EMS is a useful approach to compliance for the
site. This will help ensure that suitable candidates are selected
for implementation of an EMS. Allow for this incentive based on a
State approved EMS. Using existing standards in states such as
Texas, will streamline EMS implementation and associated
incentives. Allow for this incentive for local governments that
already have an EMS approved through a state process or through
EPA's process (National Environmental Performance Track), as long
as the reduced or waived fee is applied back into environmental
improvements. Clarify that the reduced or waived penalty is not
provided based on entering into the agreement to implement the EMS,
but based on successfully implementing an EMS that is reviewed and
approved by the State.
DATE SUBMITTED:
11/24/03
SHORT TITLE: Texas
Environmental Resource Stewards (TERS): Texas Ecological Assessment
Protocol Results
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Policy and Regulations
STAFF CONTACT: Russ
Baier
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The Texas
Environmental Resource Stewards (TERS) project was initiated in
July 2002 to seek greater Federal and State interagency
collaboration on identifying and supporting joint priorities,
particularly regarding transportation issues. Various state and
federal resource agencies participated in developing the TERS
Ecological Assessment Protocol (TEAP) for conducting the assessment
and identification of priority ecological resources in the state of
Texas. In October 2003 EPA indicated that it was requesting a
technical peer review of the TEAP by all participating state and
federal agencies. Four specific questions were raised by EPA as the
"charge to the TERS Peer Review Panel." TCEQ's comments included
the following points: EPA needs to clarify the explicit limitations
of TEAP's use in order to avoid the abuse of this information to
reach inappropriate conclusion or decisions. TCEQ is concerned that
the overall composite result introduces an inappropriate bias
towards large continuous areas without regard to climate, ecosystem
type, species habitat range, and other factors The report's
assertion that human health toxicity from the exposure to air
pollution is a surrogate for ecological toxicity is incorrect, and
the use of cancer and non-cancer risk modeling based on National
Air Toxics Assessment data is not appropriate for use as an
ecological indicator. The composite reduces the ability of the TEAP
to identify ecologically important areas within specific ecoregions
because many of the criteria appear to be scored based on statewide
analyses or comparisons. The report presents several important
policy questions that are beyond the scope of a peer review of the
technical feasibility and merits of the TEAP A public participation
plan should be developed and implemented to solicit and consider
stakeholder input on the development of this protocol and the use
of its results in transportation and environmental planning.
DATE SUBMITTED:
09/10/03
SHORT TITLE: Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance National Program Priorities Planning
Process for 2005-2007.
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Compliance and Enforcement
STAFF CONTACT: Carol
Batterton
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ
submitted comments on EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance
national program priorities planning process for 2005-2007, which
included recommendations on two new priorities and four existing
priorities. The new priorities were: Malfunctions, Startup, and
Shutdown in the Air Program; and Capacity Building in
Investigational Expertise. Existing priorities included: New Source
Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Air Toxics;
Storm Water; Confined Animal Feeding Operations; and RCRA. TCEQ
also identified three areas of concern that Texas will need to
address in the next 25 years, which were not suggested as
priorities at this time but will need to be considered in the
future. These areas of concern are Long Term Water Supply Needs;
Air Pollution from Transportation Sources in Urban Areas; and Aging
Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure.
DATE SUBMITTED:
08/15/03
SHORT TITLE:Integrated
Compliance Information System (ICIS) - NPDES Draft Detailed
Design
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Administrative Services
STAFF CONTACT: Greg
Nudd
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Our
comments fall into two broad categories, data communication
(including electronic discharge monitoring reports or e-DMRs) and
screen and report designs. The comments on data communication focus
on a couple of key deficiencies with the current design document:
it does not appear to allow for regulated entities to submit e-DMRs
and it does not appear to support the State-EPA consensus on how
data should be communicated between states and EPA. The comments on
report design are intended to improve usability and the
effectiveness of the screens and reports based on our significant
experience with the current system. The most significant policy
concern with the draft design document is that it does not appear
to support direct submittal of e-DMRs by regulated entities. E-DMRs
have been identified as a high priority by TCEQ staff and customers
for electronic submittal. It is the highest volume regular data
submittal processed by the agency. As a result, it has the highest
potential for resource savings and improved data quality and
timeliness. The TCEQ has been assured by EPA senior management that
the modernized PCS would be able to support direct submittal of
e-DMRs by regulated entities in Texas. Based on these assurances,
the agency chose not to pursue an e-DMR processing system of our
own. The specifications of the system need to be changed to clearly
indicate direct submittals of DMRs by regulated entities.
DATE SUBMITTED:
07/18/03
SHORT TITLE: Region 6
Draft Strategic Plan
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Strategic Assessment
STAFF CONTACT: Tom
Weber
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The TCEQ
comments note that the proposed Region 6 Strategic Plan is new, and
is still under development. The TCEQ notes that the proposed plan
appears to be largely a narrative description of existing programs
under the new planning headings at this point, with several
sections of the plan still to be developed, most significantly
those that deal with partnership agreements and regional
accountability. The TCEQ comments also note that Goal 2, Clean and
Safe Water, differs considerably from the rest of the draft plan in
that it is still much more EPA command and control oriented than
the other sections of the plan, which appear to support more
partnership based approaches with the states. The TCEQ comments are
generally supportive of new planning goals for homeland
security.
DATE SUBMITTED:
07/11/03
SHORT TITLE:State
Innovative Grants
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Small Business and Environmental Assistance
STAFF CONTACT: Susan
Roothaan
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:We would
like to suggest two broad topic areas for consideration. These are
described below. Many innovation programs tend to focus on
environmental leaders, such as companies that are already on the
innovations track through other programs (such as ISO14001). An
important area that is needed is to develop a more comprehensive
approach to helping those customers that are not already
participating in Environmental Leadership programs. This proposal
would focus on developing and delivering on-ramp services for
customers that have not yet implemented a results-based EMS and
need help along the way. Currently EPA and the States have a myriad
of programs that require performance in exchange for incentives.
Developing a comprehensive strategy that ties these programs
together would encourage greater participation, especially among
regulated entities who are less engaged, such as smaller businesses
and local governments. This could also be used to help assure that
the overall system is balanced and that participants are rewarded
incentives for a consistent level of performance. To further
increase participation, the effort would aim to streamline the EPA
and State process for incentive delivery that supports these
performance-based programs.
DATE SUBMITTED:
06/30/03
SHORT TITLE:Prioritization
of FY04 Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC) Five Year
Program Plan
DIVISION PREPARING:
Policy and Regulations
STAFF CONTACT: Forrest
Brooks
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: In the
Five-Year Program Plan (FYPP), ITRC defines and communicates the
strategic direction for the overall program, prioritizes the
project areas in which it will support technical and training work
teams, and balances forecast costs with anticipated revenues over
the next five years. As a strategic planning tool, the FYPP sets
the scope of work to be accomplished and defines ITRC's operational
plan for 2004 thru 2007 to support out-year planning by federal
agencies and ITRC members. As an open and democratic process, the
FYPP enables input across a broad spectrum of the environmental
community, balances the interests of various ITRC constituents, and
helps mold a vision to guide ITRC participants over the ensuing
five years. State Point of Contacts have the opportunity to provide
their state's input to assist the ITRC Board of Directors in
prioritizing the ITRC proposals and to provide strategic direction
to the ITRC. The TCEQ is a member of the ITRC and prioritization of
these projects is an integral responsibility. Comments relative to
the project prioritization process will take the form of a
spreadsheet in accordance with the prioritization scheme designed
by ITRC advisory staff.
