DATE SUBMITTED:
12/19/08
SHORT TITLE:Proposed
Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS)
Wells
SUBMITTED TO:EPA
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting and
Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Ben
Knape
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
Appropriate Level of Regulation
The tailoring of the basic regulations appropriate for injection
of nonhazardous industrial waste to the unique characteristics of
CO2 injection has resulted in proposed CO2-GS requirements that in
many respects exceed the stringency of those for injection of
hazardous waste. The 30-year history of CO2 injection for enhanced
oil recovery in the Permian Basin of West Texas without negative
impacts on USDWs suggests that the existing rules for enhanced
recovery operations (using Class II injection wells) contain the
necessary performance standards for drinking water protection, and
accordingly should provide the starting point for CO2-GS
requirements upon which any specially tailored requirements should
be added. Recognizing mandates under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) for protection of drinking water, the proposed rules, in
their inappropriate stringency, may inhibit implementation of
carbon capture and storage technology.
Appropriate Financial Assurance over Long Post-Injection
Timeframes
EPA is proposing that the rule only specify a general duty to
obtain financial assurance (FA) acceptable to the Director (i.e.,
EPA regional administrator or state program director) to guarantee
performance of post-injection site care, monitoring, corrective
action, and closure, and will provide guidance to be developed at a
later date on recommended mechanisms. Proposed TCEQ comments
include recommendations for greater specificity in FA requirements
consistent with the greater cost uncertainties and longer
timeframes addressed by EPAs proposed FA requirements for CO2-GS
projects versus those required for other classes of underground
injection.
Flexibility and Streamlining in Class VI Program Primacy
Considerations
According to current Texas law, the proposed new class of
injection wells (Class VI) for CO2-GS will be in TCEQs
jurisdiction. However, such jurisdictional lines are subject to
change by state legislation. Flexibility and a streamlined approval
process will be needed in federal authorization of the new Class VI
well program at whichever agency is designated by the state
legislature, free from constraints that EPA has traditionally
imposed on state agencies program primacy applications.
Resource Needs for Regulation of the Proposed New Class of
Wells
The proposed requirements for CO2-GS will need new funding through
congressional or state legislative appropriations. The resource
needs are most acute with respect to numbers of trained staff,
tools for the important iterative process of predictive
computational modeling of CO2 fate and transport, and guidance in
evaluation and implementation of the various plans specified in the
proposed rules which are either unique to CO2-GS projects or
necessitate unique considerations under such rules.
DATE SUBMITTED:
08/18/08
SHORT TITLE: Clean Water
Act Section 303(d): Availability of List Decisions
SUBMITTED TO:EPA
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Compliance and
Enforcement
STAFF CONTACT: Laurie
Curra
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
TCEQ finds that by identifying the entire bay as impaired the EPA
is not communicating to the public that elevated levels of bacteria
occur only at the urban beach sites and that by assigning the
impairment to Category 5a (TMDL will be scheduled), the EPA is
communicating that a TMDL is appropriate and imminent, rather than
that additional information is required to determine the best way
to address the listing (Category 5c). After considering public
comment, should EPA take this federal action, TCEQ recommends that
EPA geographically define the impairment as restricted to the urban
beaches to minimize undue burden for the state and stakeholders.
TCEQ would assign the impairment to Category 5c to communicate that
additional information is needed to determine the most cost
effective way to address the impairment. Until the Commission has
considered the advice of a stakeholder workgroup and determined the
appropriate use of Beach Watch program data and information, TCEQ
urges that the EPA not to take this action.
DATE SUBMITTED:
04/08/08
SHORT TITLE: Revised NPDES
Permit Regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
SUBMITTED TO:EPA
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting,
Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Charles
Maguire
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
The general permit process, authorized by the Texas Legislature, is
an expedited approach to issue permits to protect state water
resources to dischargers of similar waste and type of operations
using limited state resources. TCEQ adopted the CAFO general permit
in 2004 for Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES)
CAFOs to be consistent with the 2003 changes in federal CAFO
regulations. Subsequent to the adoption of the 2004 CAFO General
Permit, TCEQ issued over 750 authorizations under the general
permit to the majority of the CAFOs in the state.
In its Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM), EPA
proposes three different approaches for Nutrient Management Plan
(NMPs) but did not provide rule language that would be adopted to
implement these approaches. Without the ability to review specific
rule language, the TCEQ cannot adequately consider how CAFO
permitting in Texas would ultimately be affected by the proposal.
In addition, it is unclear from the proposal whether delegated
states would have the authority to choose which approach is the
most appropriate method for their regulatory program.
In addition, in the SNPRM, EPA asserts that the permitting
authorities have known for several years generally what will be
required under the final rule . . . . Therefore, EPA is proposing
to give the states only six to eight months to incorporate the
changes into their regulatory programs. This SNPRM is the first
time EPA has proposed three different approaches to NMPs and has
provided no rule language that may be adopted to implement the
approach EPA finally elects to adopt. Six to eight months is not
sufficient time to address the magnitude of the changes EPA is now
proposing. The TCEQ will need to initiate amendments to the
Subchapter B CAFO regulations to incorporate changes adopted by the
EPA in this action. EPA should allow states a minimum of one year
to adopt changes and two years if a statutory change is needed as
is currently allowed under the Memorandum of Agreement between EPA
and the TCEQ. We urge EPA to reconsider its deadlines in light of
the changes it is now proposing.
The permitting process changes described in the proposed revisions
to the CAFO rule would require CAFO applicants, under both general
and individual permits, to submit an NMP for agency review and
approval with an opportunity for public comment and public
participation on the terms of the NMP. The proposed revisions, if
adopted, would require a modification to the current TCEQ general
permit process and more TCEQ staff resources to implement the
proposed review, notice, comment, and public participation process
for over 750 CAFOs in Texas.
TCEQ needs flexibility to develop a process for determining when
subsequent revisions of NMPs will require review, and of those
reviewed, what will require public notice. TCEQ encourages EPA to
consider providing latitude to delegated states to work within the
processes they have already established. Depending on the federal
CAFO amendments adopted, the NMPs for all Texas CAFOs may need to
be revised annually when the soil test is received and
waste/wastewater application rates or cropping patterns change. Due
to limited state resources it would be nearly impossible to review
these annually. TCEQs primary concern is that repeated and frequent
public notice for all NMPs will unnecessarily tax state resources
that could be focused on more pressing environmental
concerns.
TCEQ recommends allowing the terms of the NMP to be publicly
noticed when the TCEQ proposes revisions to the CAFO general
permit. Each individual CAFO should provide site specific
information regarding its facility with the Notice of Intent
application for coverage under the general permit to comply with
the approach specified in the general permit. Substantial changes
to a CAFOs NMP would include those changes related to substantial
increases in environmental risk instead of simple inputs for rate
calculations. For example, the process could focus the public
notice requirements on new and significant expansions and on CAFO
operations where soil test phosphorus levels exceed the 200 parts
per million (ppm) threshold. TCEQ would recommend that EPA consider
this process because it focuses on the CAFOs where nutrient
management changes need to be made. The required annual reporting
provides the agency with a way to monitor the success of the NMPs
statewide because of the soil test analysis being reported. If the
CAFO is failing to hold soil test phosphorus levels below the 200
ppm threshold, then changes in nutrient management would be
required based on the TCEQ approved NUP, and the public could be
provided with notice and the opportunity for comment. For other
existing CAFOs that have NMPs that are producing satisfactory
results relative to environmental indicators, they would be
monitored through the annual reporting, which is part of the public
record. There would be no need to use agency resources to review
and then provide notice for public review and comment on the less
substantial changes in those NMPs. TCEQ recommends this option be
allowed by the final rule or sufficient flexibility provided to
develop a workable approach which allows states the flexibility in
defining which substantial changes require notice.
TCEQ accepts the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 590
practice standard to meet CAFO rule requirements. TCEQ needs the
latitude to continue to use the NMP content guidelines it has
previously developed, specifically the acceptance of the NRCS 590
practice standard as a complete NMP. The Effluent Limitation
Guidelines items EPA includes in their NMP template are already
included in the Texas CAFO's pollution prevention plan and should
not need to be duplicated in the NMP.
DATE SUBMITTED:
01/16/08
SHORT TITLE: EPA and Army
Corps of Engineers Guidance Regarding Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
After Rapanos
SUBMITTED TO:EPA and Army Corps of Engineers
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Tom
Weber
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
TCEQ's comments describe Texas Surface Water Quality Standards,
recognizing the importance of Texas wetlands in protecting water
quality and the many additional functions of wetlands. Much of
Texas' streams and associated wetlands are non-navigable and,
consequently, according to the draft guidance, the jurisdictional
status of wetlands associated with these streams will be determined
on a fact-specific (i.e., case-by-case) basis. Finally, wetland
functions should be carefully considered in establishing a
significant nexus in fact-specific jurisdictional determinations
for wetlands with hydrologic connections to non-navigable
tributaries to ensure protection of the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of downstream navigable waters.
DATE SUBMITTED:
08/10/07
SHORT TITLE:City of Austin
- Proposed Rule Regarding Void and Water Flow Mitigation
SUBMITTED TO: City of Austin
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Compliance and Enforcement
STAFF CONTACT: Tracy
Miller
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
The Edwards Aquifer Protection Program (EAPP) is concerned that
some technical requirements proposed by the City of Austin (COA)
may not provide the minimum standards necessary to protect the
Edwards Aquifer. The EAPP has the following three concerns: the use
of controlled low strength material encasement rather than concrete
encasement of sewer lines; the plugging methods for sensitive
features intercepted in the trench floor; and, the thickness of
wall sealants. Without additional engineering data to support the
COA's proposals for these specific methods, the EAPP will not be
able to approve plans submitted with these methods.
The EAPP also has concerns with the COA's proposed Geologist Void
Description and Documentation Log Sheet. The COA's proposal directs
the geologist to conduct a biological survey for karst
invertebrates if life signs are present. The TCEQ does not require
a biological survey and the COA's proposed form does not contain
all of the administrative information necessary for the Edwards
Aquifer tracking database; therefore, the EAPP will not be able to
accept the COA's form in lieu of current EAPP application
forms.
The EAPP recognizes that the COA's rule proposal provides some
feasible options for the EAPP which provide more definitive
requirements for protection of sensitive features encountered
during construction activities; however, providing written support
of their proposal at this time would circumvent the TCEQ process
for amending rules. The TCEQ intends to consider portions of the
COA's proposed rule language when developing an Edwards Aquifer
rule amendment in the future.
DATE SUBMITTED:
08/09/07
SHORT TITLE:Texas Water
Development Board Economically Distressed Areas Program - SB3, Sec.
6.01
SUBMITTED TO: Texas Water Development Board (TWDB)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Executive Office / Intergovernmental Relations Division
STAFF CONTACT: Steve
Niemeyer
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
The Texas Water Development Board's (TWDB) proposed rules do not
specify when the request for consultation might be forwarded to
TCEQ, causing the agency review to be hurried and incomplete. As
written, TWDB could wait until late in the 30 day period to consult
with TCEQ. Six TCEQ divisions (Environmental Law, Water Quality,
Water Supply, Border Affairs, Field Operations, and Enforcement),
may potentially be involved in evaluating data to determine if
there should be an objection to the request to continue temporary
funding. TWDB should specify in the proposed rule that they will
provide the request as quickly as possible, ensuring TCEQ staff
adequate time to review the data, provide an answer to TWDB, and
allow TWDB time to respond to the political subdivision within the
30 day period.
DATE SUBMITTED:
03/05/07
SHORT TITLE: NPDES Permit
Fee Incentive for Clean Water Act Section 106 Grants
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Kimberly
Wilson
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
TCEQ opposes the proposed rule due to the restriction in state
discretion in allocating CWA Section 106 grants for state water
quality programs and objects to proposed rule's interference in how
state legislatures conduct business. Additional incentives for the
effective management of state water quality programs, as proposed
in the rulemaking, are unnecessary, as performance is already
monitored by EPA’s Program Activity Measures.
DATE SUBMITTED:
12/12/06
SHORT TITLE: Nominations
of Drinking Water Contaminants for the Contaminant Candidate List
(CCL)
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Alicia
Diehl
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
TCEQ recommends that two potential contaminants be included on the
CCL - viruses in ground water and nitrite/nitrate in chloraminated
water.
Viruses have been detected in ground water in several studies, but
no nationwide study of wells has been completed. Viruses can cause
a wide range of diseases.
Nitrate and nitrite can be formed in systems that use chloramines
for disinfection. Nitrate and nitrate may cause methemoglobinemia
in infants. Although a regulatory standard exists for measurements
taken at an entry point to a distribution system, no recent
nationwide study on occurrence has evaluated the extent of nitrate
and nitrite occurrence within distribution systems.
In addition, TCEQ encourages EPA to continue to seek new ways to
reduce the cost of this research monitoring on systems.
Specifically, in developing sites for CCL contaminant monitoring
under any unregulated contaminant monitoring, we recommend that EPA
allow representative wells or sources to be sampled, rather than
every source at a selected system.
DATE SUBMITTED:
12/08/06
SHORT TITLE: EPA Draft
Listing Waters Impaired by Atmospheric Mercury
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Tom
Weber
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
The TCEQ is supportive of the approach outlined in the draft
Guidance document, which appears to be a compromise to listing the
water body in 4b.
This approach acknowledges the complexity in developing TMDLs for
waters impaired primarily by atmospheric mercury.
For waters included in the 5m subcategory, EPA recognizes that the
schedule of TMDLs in 13 years is not appropriate, and that States
would defer mercury TMDL development beyond this recommended time
frame. The TCEQ is supportive of this approach which will allow
states to show progress in restoring waters, while also recognizing
that it will take much longer to address mercury-impaired
waters.
The document also provides guidance on the “Recommended
Elements of a Comprehensive State Mercury Reduction Program”
(Attachment A), that a state would need in place to support the 5m
listing. TCEQ should comment that atmospheric source reductions for
power generating facilities beyond CAMR may not be necessary for a
5m listing. Additionally, the requirements for 5m should be limited
to source reduction strategies that are linked to
impairments.
EPA should undertake air monitoring to evaluate the results of
CAMR nationally, not for a given state. Also, EPA should make
specific funds available to state monitoring programs for support
of the strategy’s implementation.
In one of the footnotes, it is stated that “This policy does
not replace existing established laws or regulations governing
listing of impaired waters or development of TMDLs under Section
303(d).” The TCEQ comments that the policy could potentially
open states/federal government up to litigation over the fact that
mercury impairments would languish in category 5.
DATE SUBMITTED:
11/07/06
SHORT TITLE: EPA Draft
Underground Injection Control Program Guidance
SUBMITTED TO: Ground Water Protection Council
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Ben
Knape
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
Except for its advocacy of a permit process, EPA's draft guidance
is, in effect, an endorsement of TCEQ's lead taken in requiring
more detailed and protective technical reviews and approval
conditions for CO2 injection wells. Going a significant step beyond
the authorization-by-rule process provided in federal regulation,
the Texas UIC rules require written approval of submitted inventory
information before construction and operation of any
rule-authorized well. Also, the Texas rules require both permitted
and rule-authorized injection wells to comply with any technical
specifications necessary to safeguard against pollution of
underground sources of drinking water (USDW). These two rule
sections enable TCEQ to require a Class V experimental technology
well to be subject to a level of technical review and approval
conditions which will address the technical and public interest
considerations identified in the guidance.
From TCEQ rules, therefore, the responsibility exists to impose and
enforce any necessary protective requirements on a Class V
rule-authorized well through specified conditions provided with the
required approval letter. Any failure to comply with such
conditions would be grounds for enforcement including withdrawal of
the wells approval and rule authorization. In such event, federal
regulations and state rules authorize the Director to require the
well to apply for and obtain a permit or to undergo closure.
The above described approach has been successfully used by TCEQ in
technical review, approval, and subsequent regulation of the Frio
Brine Pilot Project for test injection of CO2 in Liberty County,
Texas. In this case, TCEQ encouraged, and the operator (the Texas
Bureau of Economic Geology) conducted, an extensive outreach
program for public education during the project proposal phase. The
outreach activities included meetings with local government (city
and county) and the local chamber of commerce, publication in the
Houston Chronicle of an article describing the proposed project,
information flyers (fact sheets) provided to project-area residents
and other interested persons, and a public meeting. The meeting was
well attended by citizens from the Liberty County area and was
covered by local news media.
In conclusion, TCEQ shares EPA's commitment to transparency of the
regulatory process and unimpeded information flow. In this
interest, TCEQ's UIC Program strongly supports the beneficial
process of public participation in any formal rulemaking
initiatives or permit processes required by regulations or by
Director discretion. In response to the guidance calling for
actions beyond the requirements of federal regulations, TCEQ
supports the more streamlined process of Class V well approval with
public information outreach, in preference to the permit process
recommended in the guidance, which is not mandatory for Class V
wells.
DATE SUBMITTED: 09/18/06
SHORT TITLE: National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Don
Thompson
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:EPA
requests comment on seven specific rule elements and input on four
areas for potential future rulemaking.
(1) Minimum Number of Samples (III.A.): EPA retains the
five-sample minimum, but also solicits comment on an alternative
which would let non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWS)
with fewer than five taps collect one sample tap. TCEQ supports the
proposed alternative.
(2) Compliance and Monitoring Clarifications (III.B.): EPA
clarifies compliance and monitoring periods. The proposal is
consistent with current TCEQ implementation strategies, but also
comments that states should have flexibility with schedules for new
systems and systems on triennial monitoring.
(3) Reduced Monitoring Criteria (III.C.): EPA requests
comment on disallowing reduced monitoring for systems with Lead
Action Level exceedances even if their water quality parameters are
within range. TCEQ supports the proposal; it is consistent with
current TCEQ protocols.
(4) Notification and Approval of Treatment or Source Changes
(III.D.): EPA proposes that state approval be required for sources
or treatment changes, and also requests comment on an alternative
with state notification but not approval. They also request comment
on timing. TCEQ comments that source and treatment changes should
not require state approval, noting that existing state approval
processes should be adequate, and further comments that major,
capital changes should be handled differently than operational
changes.
(5) Notifying Customers of Tap-sampling Lead Results
(III.E.): EPA will now require that systems send lead sample
results to customers whose homes are sampled, and requests comment
on the contents and timing of the notice. Generally, TCEQ comments
that public notification requirements for lead should be more
consistent with EPA’s Public Notice Rule, and requests
additional guidance on the impact this may have on property values
of the sampled houses.
(6) Public Education Requirements (III.F.): EPA’s
proposal modifies the mandatory notice and Consumer Confidence
Report (CCR) language, delivery methods, and timing. Generally,
TCEQ comments that public notification requirements for lead should
be more consistent with EPA’s Public Notice Rule, that
notices should include information for consumers explaining that
the most likely vector for children getting exposed to lead is
through contaminated dirt or old paint, and that notices should not
overstate the urgency.
(7) Lead Service Line Replacement Changes (III.G.): EPA
clarifies the rule to require water systems to start up lead
service line replacement programs that were suspended when sampling
showed that the pipes were adequately scaled if an exceedance of
lead is found in tap samples. TCEQ supports this clarification and
notes that this is consistent with current implementation.
(8) Other Issues: Plumbing Component Replacement (III.H.1):
EPA is requesting comment as to whether plumbing replacement should
be specifically defined as a corrosion control technique. TCEQ
generally comments that this should be a matter for state
flexibility rather than being included explicitly in rule
language.
(9) Other Issues: Point of Use Treatment (III.H.2): EPA is
requesting comment as to whether use of POU (or point of entry)
devices should be specifically defined as a corrosion control
technique. TCEQ generally comments that this should be a matter for
state flexibility rather than being included explicitly in Federal
rule language. EPA should consider POU and POE treatment as part of
a comprehensive distribution rule.
(10) Other Issues: Site Selection in Areas Home Treatment
Units (III.H.3): EPA amends the LCR to clarify how to pick
sample sites when all homes have treatment units. TCEQ comments
that this is consistent with existing EPA guidance and state
implementation strategies.
(11) Other Issues: Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
(III.H.4): The Agency requests comment on requiring systems to
synchronize required water quality parameter sampling with lead and
copper tap sampling. TCEQ comments that this is consistent with
guidance and current implementation strategies.
In addition, TCEQ proposes to comment that all of these revisions
should be considered in the context of the overall, comprehensive
Distribution Rule that EPA is currently discussing, instead of
being adopted as a one-issue rule.
DATE SUBMITTED:
08/29/06
SHORT TITLE: National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Regulation
and Effluent Limitation Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Charles
Maguire
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:The general
permit process, authorized by the Texas legislature, is an
expedited approach to issue permits to protect State water
resources to dischargers of similar waste and type of operations
using limited state resources. TCEQ adopted the CAFO general permit
in 2004 for TPDES CAFOs to be consistent with the 2003 changes in
federal CAFO regulations. Subsequent to the adoption of the 2004
CAFO General Permit, TCEQ issued over 600 general permits to the
majority of the CAFOs in the state. Depending on the federal CAFO
amendments adopted, the nutrient management plans (NMPs) for all
Texas CAFOs may need to be revised annually when the soil test is
received and waste/wastewater application rates or cropping
patterns change.
The permitting process changes described in the proposed revisions
to the CAFO rule would require CAFO applicants, under both general
and individual permits, to submit a NMP for agency review and
approval with an opportunity for public comment and public hearing
on the NMP. The proposed revisions, if adopted, would require a
modification to the current TCEQ general permit process and more
TCEQ staff resources to implement the proposed notice, comment, and
public hearing process for over 600 CAFOs in Texas.
TCEQ needs flexibility to develop a process for determining when
subsequent revisions of NMPs will require review, and of those
reviewed, what will require public notice. TCEQ is in favor of
public review and comment on the NMPs, but would encourage EPA to
consider providing latitude to states with delegation to work
within the processes they have already established. TCEQ’s
primary concern is that repeated and frequent public notice for all
NMPs will unnecessarily tax state resources that could be focused
on more pressing environmental concerns.
TCEQ would like to work with the process previously developed. That
process could focus the public notice requirements on new and
significant expansions and on CAFO operations where soil test
phosphorus levels exceed the 200 parts per million (ppm) threshold.
For those CAFOs, TCEQ’s rules require a Nutrient Utilization
Plan (NUP) to be developed and submitted to the agency for
approval. TCEQ would recommend that EPA consider this model because
it focuses on the CAFOs where nutrient management changes need to
be made. The required annual reporting provides the agency with a
way to monitor the success of the NMPs statewide because of the
soil test analysis being reported. If the CAFO is failing to hold
soil test phosphorus levels below the 200 ppm threshold, then
changes in nutrient management would be required based on the TCEQ
approved NUP, and the public could be provided with notice and the
opportunity for comment. For other existing CAFOs that have NMPs
that are producing satisfactory results relative to environmental
indicators, they would be monitored through the annual reporting,
which is part of the public record. There would be no need to use
agency resources to review and then provide notice for public
review and comment on the changes in those NMPs.
The contents of the NMP being proposed by EPA extend beyond what is
required by TCEQ. TCEQ accepts the NRCS 590 practice standard to
meet CAFO rule requirements for a NMP without the addition of the
Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) proposed by EPA. EPA contends
that the 2nd Circuit opinion upheld their ELG requirements. The 2nd
Circuit opinion did not address the requirements of an NMP, but
only the issue related to public comment on the NMPs. EPA is going
beyond the implementation of the 2nd Circuit decision in requiring
the ELG elements as part of the NMP. TCEQ needs the latitude to
continue to use the NMP content guidelines it has previously
developed, specifically the acceptance of the NRCS 590 practice
standard as a complete NMP. The ELG items EPA includes in their NMP
template are already included in the CAFO's pollution prevention
plan and should not need to be duplicated in the NMP.
In addition to TCEQ concerns with the NMP requirements in the
proposed rule changes, the agency is also concerned about the
technical permitting review of new source swine, poultry, and veal
permit applications. The proposed review may require TCEQ staff to
undergo special training on the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) SPAW & AWM software to evaluate the no discharge
performance standard methodology proposed under the revised rule.
Neither AWM nor SPAW software is widely utilized in Texas, which
will further impede the development and issuance of permits for new
operations wanting to locate in Texas, and existing operations that
wish to make changes to their operations.
Another area of concern is that the enforcement program at TCEQ
will assume an added workload associated with TCEQ staff entering
additional information into the EPA /PCS database to establish
compliance with the non-standardized NMP information being proposed
as a component of the required annual report.
Finally, TCEQ will need to initiate amendments to the Subchapter B
CAFO regulations to incorporate changes adopted by EPA in this
action. After the adoption of the federal regulations, new TPDES
CAFOs and TPDES CAFOs currently covered under the general permit
will not be able to amend their authorizations until federal
changes are incorporated into the state regulations. These proposed
revisions to the federal CAFO rule should consider the extensive
allocation of TCEQ staff resources that would be needed for
permitting and enforcement of CAFOs in Texas.
DATE SUBMITTED:
08/07/06
SHORT TITLE: National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Water Transfers
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Todd
Chenoweth
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The TCEQ
supports the proposed rule as drafted. Texas is a state of such
climatic diversity that areas with a vast amount of streamflow do
not necessarily have large populations. The TCEQ has a longstanding
practice of utilizing water transfers to meet the needs of
water-impoverished areas. Approximately 65 of the 150-plus
permitted water transfers in Texas were permitted before the
passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Under sections 101(g) and
510 of the Clean Water Act, permitting decisions regarding these
water transfers should be left to the states. State law compels the
TCEQ to consider and, where necessary, mitigate effects on water
quality and the environment when permitting water transfers.
Therefore, the TCEQ concludes that there is no need for federal
regulation of water transfers.
DATE SUBMITTED:
07/07/06
SHORT TITLE: Compensatory
Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Mark
Fisher
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The
general nature of the comments is to support the revisions. TCEQ
uses a watershed approach and supports the proposal not explicitly
defining the term. The proposal is consistent with TCEQ procedures
to address functions and values, and to define consistent
information requirements as part of the application process. The
proposal recognizes the regional differences of aquatic resources
functions and therefore the importance of partnerships with the
TCEQ to protect those functions.
DATE SUBMITTED:
05/01/06
SHORT TITLE: Small
Drinking Water Systems Variances
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Anthony
Bennett
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ
recommends a two-part approach of using both incremental costs as
well as total drinking water costs within each size category and
that 0.75% be used as the national level percentage.
TCEQ supports: using the 10th percentile in each size category;
using the median household income as an appropriate factor of
affordability; and, setting health protection levels for
non-carcinogens and carcinogens.
TCEQ does not support an evaluation of affordability at the county
level or any other non-national level and the listing of small
system variance technology that does not fall below the
affordability threshold.
DATE SUBMITTED:
04/19/06
SHORT TITLE: Coastal
Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) Guidance to the States
SUBMITTED TO: Texas General Land Office
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Frank
Fuller and Bruce Moulton
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The
comments are premised on the fact that MMS Draft Guidance is so
vague it does little more than restate the legislation. Therefore,
TCEQ does not know what voluntary environmental improvement efforts
can be undertaken. TCEQ makes suggestions based on this
premise.
In the draft comment letter, TCEQ: cites several agency programs
that would benefit from the act, including the estuary programs and
the TMDLs; requests that voluntary infrastructure BMPs for NPS
abatement and other voluntary infrastructure projects associated
with implementation of TMDLs and watershed implementation plans be
exempted from a 23 percent cap on infrastructure; suggests that
projects not be funded that are for mitigation and other activities
required by an existing permit or regulatory action (this is
consistent with other federal coastal/wetland programs); recommends
that CIAP funding is unique and should be spent on projects that
are only “above and beyond” normal maintenance
activities; suggests that project funding be limited to coastal
counties and have a direct nexus with the coastal environment; and,
requests that MMS strengthen a state appeals process that is
alluded to in the guidance because of the vagueness and lack of
clarity in the guidance document.
DATE SUBMITTED:
10/07/05
SHORT TITLE: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Proposal to Reintroduce the Silvery Minnow into
the Big Bend Area of the Rio Grande
SUBMITTED TO: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Herman
Settemeyer
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Comments
would pertain to the potential impacts for water rights
administered by the TCEQ watermaster program and potential impacts
on private property. If the Rio Grande silvery minnow is
reintroduced there is concern that under certain flow conditions,
water right holders may not be able to divert water or private
property owners may not be able to utilize their lands if flows and
habitat are required for the minnow without interaction with the
FWS. TCEQ comments would pertain to ensuring that water right
holders and private property owners would be able to divert water
and utilize their property without limitations from the FWS. The
FWS has indicated that there should be no impact on water right
holders, however it is recommended that comments be provided to
ensure that this is the case.
DATE SUBMITTED:
07/22/05
SHORT TITLE: Application
for a Presidential Permit for Pipeline Facilities to be
Constructed, Operated and Maintained on the Border of the United
States
SUBMITTED TO: U. S. Department of State
DIVISION PREPARING:
Intergovernmental Relations Division
STAFF CONTACT: Steve
Niemeyer
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The letter
provides general comments about the draft environmental assessment
for the Valero Burgos Pipeline Project in Hidalgo County, Texas and
requests an extension of time to comment on the draft EA. The draft
EA lists several waterbodies, including the Rio Grande and various
canals, which the pipeline must cross under. While the canals are
listed, they are listed by name only with no location information.
While the EA does indicate that horizontal directional drilling
will be used, the draft EA does not contain any maps showing the
pipeline route. As a result, we do not know where the pipelines
will be located or which canals supplying water for public water
supply or agricultural use could potentially be affected, should a
pipeline spill or breakage occur. Further, the State Department
does not know when Appendix for the EA, which was prepared by a
consultant and is supposed to contain the project maps and charts,
will be available. In addition, the Federal Register notice states
the pipeline will deliver one million gallons/month of naphtha to
the Valero terminals in Edinburg, while the EA states it will be
one million gallons/day. Although TCEQ does not have regulatory
jurisdiction on this project as it is currently proposed, based on
the available information, the agency has an interest in the
project based on the possibility that spills could occur and
pipelines could break during or after construction. Should this
occur, public water supplies and agricultural uses could be
adversely impacted. For reasons of inconsistency and lack of
information, the comment period should be extended until the
Appendix containing the relevant maps is provided. We cannot
comment adequately without the requested information.
DATE SUBMITTED:
03/30/05
SHORT TITLE: Draft
National Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Implementation Guidance
SUBMITTED TO: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Water Quality Division
STAFF CONTACT: Jim
Davenport
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The TCEQ
recommends that the EPA not consider this guidance a rule and
require immediate implementation; for the continued need of
flexibility to define implementation procedures for WET through
established EPA-state coordinated processes; and that permittees be
allowed to continue to perform toxicity reduction evaluations
before requiring WET permit limits.
DATE SUBMITTED:
03/29/05
SHORT TITLE: National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--Proposed Regulations To
Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase
III Facilities; Proposed Rule
SUBMITTED TO: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Water Quality Division
STAFF CONTACT: Curtis
Seaton
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Seven
facilities in Texas (The Dow Chemical Company, Freeport; ALCOA
World Alumina LLC, Point Comfort; Sterling Chemicals Inc., Texas
City; Oxy Vinyls LP, Deer Park; Meadweastvaco Texas LP, Evadale
Mill; ALCOA Inc., Rockdale; Lone Star Steel) are subject to these
regulations, depending upon the option implemented in the final
rule (Option A, B, or C). TCEQ is concerned about administrative
costs associated with implementing Phase III. These costs are in
addition to those associated with implementing Phase II. TCEQ
recommends that the EPA establish separate performance standards,
monitoring, and site-specific demonstrations for industrial cooling
water impoundments and strongly supports the use of restoration as
a compliance option.
DATE SUBMITTED:
03/28/05
SHORT TITLE: USFWS Notice
of Availability of the Draft Barton Springs Salamander Recovery
Plan; Notice of Initiation of a 5-Year Status Review for the Barton
Springs Salamander
SUBMITTED TO: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Mary
Ambrose
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The letter
provides, as attachments, information related to the evolution of
the TCEQ’s Edwards Aquifer Protection Program since the
original listing of the salamander as endangered. This will include
the USFWS February 14, 2005 concurrence on not take if developers
use the TCEQ’s Optional Water Quality Measures. The letter
suggests that this joint water quality initiative be added to the
list of large scale protection measures mentioned in the recovery
plan. The letter points out that many of the conclusions about
various threats have not been revisited since the listing of the
species and that the effect of the new regulations should be
evaluated by USFWS as part of the implementation of the recovery
plan and as part of their evaluation of the status of the Barton
Springs salamander. Due to the large volume of the attachments,
they are not included in the sign off package. There is a summary
at the end of the letter of the contents of each attachment. Please
contact Mary Ambrose (x4813) if you would like to see the any of
the information.
DATE SUBMITTED:
03/15/05
SHORT TITLE: USDA-NRCS
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP)
SUBMITTED TO: The United States Department of
Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Clyde
Bohmfalk
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Support
for existing priorities with a suggestion for including water
conservation/water quantity as a national priority or allowing the
State Conservationist the flexibility to administer the state
program such that other priorities can be considered.
DATE SUBMITTED:
08/13/04
SHORT TITLE: Nomination of
Mr. Tony Bennett for Consideration to Serve a Three-year Term as a
Member on the National Drinking Water Advisory Council
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Water Supply Division
STAFF CONTACT: Buck
Henderson
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Texas
should nominate a candidate for membership on this Council to
represent the state regulatory program and ensure that Texas
interests are represented. It is imperative that the state
regulatory programs have a clear voice in the issues addressed by
the Council A thorough and comprehensive review of Council actions
and recommendations is necessary to ensure that the need for safe
drinking water supplies is balanced against the ability of the
regulated community to comply and the ability of regulatory
agencies to provide assistance and oversight. Tony Bennett, R.S. is
being nominated by TCEQ for one of the open positions on the
Council.
DATE SUBMITTED:
06/07/04
SHORT TITLE: Guidelines
Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under
the Clean Water Act; National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
and National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; Analysis and
Sampling Procedures
SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Policy and Regulations
STAFF CONTACT: Clyde
Bohmfalk
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Support
recommended changes, especially those withdrawing older EPA and
technically deficient methods, adding new methods, promoting use of
common methods for analyzing drinking water and wastewater samples,
and promoting performance-based method flexibility for the Clean
Water Act. Support clarifications regarding requirements for
preserving and storing samples, use of capillary columns for
methods involving gas chromatography, and use of multi-analyte
methods related to the Clean Water Act. Recommends correction of
apparent typographical errors. Recommends approval of EPA Method
327.0 for routine daily monitoring for chlorite at the entrance to
