Notice is hereby given by the State of Texas of the following proposed resolution of an environmental enforcement lawsuit under the Texas Water Code. Before the State may settle a judicial enforcement action under the Texas Water Code, the State shall permit the public to comment in writing on the proposed judgment. The Attorney General will consider any written comments and may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed agreed judgment if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Code.

Case Title and Court: State of Texas v. Metroplex Quarry's, Inc. , Cause No. GV402024, in the 53rd District Court, Travis County, Texas

Nature of Defendant's Operations: Metroplex Quarry's, Inc. owned and operated a dimension limestone quarry facility located at 1405 Hess Road, Mineral Wells, Palo Pinto County, Texas. During a May 11, 2004 investigation, The TCEQ/Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Office conducted a storm water investigation and determined that storm water from the facility flows to Baker Creek, which flows into the Brazos River. Metroplex operated in violation of the Texas Water Code by failing to prevent a non-compliant discharge of sediment to waters of the state. In addition, Metroplex failed to include maintenance activities and fueling in a narrative description as activities that could be expected to contribute pollutants to storm water.

Proposed Agreed Judgment: The Agreed Final Judgment required Metroplex to pay the civil penalties in the amount of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00), and attorney's fees in the amount of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($12,500.00).

For a complete description of the proposed settlement, the complete proposed Agreed Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction should be reviewed. Requests for copies of the judgment, and written comments on the proposed settlement should be directed to Anthony W. Benedict, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Texas Attorney General, P.O. Box 12548, Austin, Texas 78711-2548, (512) 463-2012, facsimile (512) 320-0911. Written comments must be received within 30 days of publication of this notice to be considered.

For information regarding this publication, please contact A.G. Younger, Agency Liaison, at (512) 463-2110.

TRD-200501345

Nancy S. Fuller

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

Filed: March 29, 2005

Notice is hereby given by the State of Texas of the following proposed resolution of an environmental enforcement lawsuit under the Texas Water Code. Before the State may settle a judicial enforcement action under the Water Code, the State shall permit the public to comment in writing on the proposed judgment. The Attorney General will consider any written comments and may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed agreed judgment if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Code.

Case Title and Court: State of Texas v. Osborn Stone Company, Inc. , No. GV304647 in the 353rd District Court of Travis County, Texas.

Nature of Defendant's Operations: Defendant engaged in rock quarry operations at a site in Palo Pinto County.

Proposed Agreed Judgment: The judgment contains an injunction that prohibits quarry and stone removal operations at the subject site, and prohibits pollution of the Brazos River. The judgment also requires the defendant to pay $75,000 in civil penalties and $30,000 in attorney's fees to the State.

For a complete description of the proposed settlement, the complete proposed Agreed Final Judgment should be reviewed. Requests for copies of the judgment, and written comments on the proposed settlement should be directed to David Preister, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Texas Attorney General, P.O. Box 12548, Austin, Texas 78711-2548, (512) 463-2012, facsimile (512) 320-0911. Written comments must be received within 30 days of publication of this notice to be considered.

For information regarding this publication you may contact A.G. Younger, Agency Liaison at (512) 463-2110.

TRD-200501348

Nancy S. Fuller

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

Filed: March 30, 2005

The Texas Building and Procurement Commission (TBPC), on behalf of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), announces the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) #303-5-10573-A . TBPC seeks a five (5) year lease of approximately 1,573 sq. ft. of office space in Houston, Harris County, Texas.

The deadline for questions is April 12, 2005 and the deadline for proposals is April 19, 2005 at 3:00 P.M. The award date is April 29, 2005. TBPC reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals submitted. TBPC is under no legal or other obligation to execute a lease on the basis of this notice or the distribution of a RFP. Neither this notice nor the RFP commits TBPC to pay for any costs incurred prior to the award of a grant.

Parties interested in submitting a proposal may obtain information by contacting TBPC Purchaser Kenneth Ming at (512) 463-2743. A copy of the RFP may be downloaded from the Electronic State Business Daily at http://esbd.tbpc.state.tx.us/1380/bid_show.cfm?bidid=58217.

TRD-200501328

Ingrid K. Hansen

General Counsel

Texas Building and Procurement Commission

Filed: March 28, 2005

The Texas Building and Procurement Commission (TBPC), on behalf of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), announces the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) #303-5-10772-A . TBPC seeks a five (5) year lease of approximately 7,800 sq. ft. of office space in Houston, Harris County, Texas, to accommodate a Pardons and Parole Office.

The deadline for questions is April 15, 2005 and the deadline for proposals is April 22, 2005 at 3:00 P.M. The award date is May 6, 2005. TBPC reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals submitted. TBPC is under no legal or other obligation to execute a lease on the basis of this notice or the distribution of a RFP. Neither this notice nor the RFP commits TBPC to pay for any costs incurred prior to the award of a grant.

Parties interested in submitting a proposal may obtain information by contacting TBPC Purchaser Kenneth Ming at (512) 463-2743. A copy of the RFP may be downloaded from the Electronic State Business Daily at http://esbd.tbpc.state.tx.us/1380/bid_show.cfm?bidid=58218.

TRD-200501329

Ingrid K. Hansen

General Counsel

Texas Building and Procurement Commission

Filed: March 28, 2005

The Texas Building and Procurement Commission (TBPC), on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), announces the issuance of Request for Proposals (RFP) #303-5-10836 . TBPC seeks a ten year lease of approximately 6,508 sq. ft. of office space (5,808SF Office/Lab Space & 700SF Boat Garage) in the Austin area, Travis County, Texas.

The deadline for questions is April 1, 2005 and the deadline for proposals is April 7, 2005 at 3:00 P.M. The award date is May 1, 2005. TBPC reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals submitted. TBPC is under no legal or other obligation to execute a lease on the basis of this notice or the distribution of a RFP. Neither this notice nor the RFP commits TBPC to pay for any costs incurred prior to the award of a grant.

Parties interested in submitting a proposal may obtain information by contacting TBPC Purchaser Kenneth Ming at (512) 463-2743. A copy of the revised RFP may be downloaded from the Electronic State Business Daily at http://esbd.tbpc.state.tx.us/1380/bid_show.cfm?bidid=58037.

TRD-200501330

Ingrid K. Hansen

General Counsel

Texas Building and Procurement Commission

Filed: March 28, 2005

The Texas Building and Procurement Commission (TBPC), on behalf of the Department of Public Safety, announces the issuance of Request for Proposals (RFP) #303-5-10652-A . TBPC seeks a five year lease of approximately 7,174 square feet of laboratory space in the Garland area, Dallas County, Texas. Leased facility is to be located in Garland area, including east to Rockwall, south to I-20 South, west to Loop 12 and north to I-30.

The deadline for questions is April 15, 2005, and the deadline for proposals is April 20, 2005, at 3:00 P.M. The award date is May 1, 2005. TBPC reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals submitted. TBPC is under no legal or other obligation to execute a lease on the basis of this notice or the distribution of a RFP. Neither this notice nor the RFP commits TBPC to pay for any costs incurred prior to the award of a grant.

Parties interested in submitting a proposal may obtain information by contacting TBPC Purchaser Kenneth Ming at (512) 463-2743. A copy of the revised RFP may be downloaded from the Electronic State Business Daily at http://esbd.tbpc.state.tx.us/1380/bid_show.cfm?bidid=58213.

TRD-200501343

Ingrid K. Hansen

General Counsel

Texas Building and Procurement Commission

Filed: March 29, 2005

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony concerning revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 37, Financial Assurance, §§37.9090, 37.9095, 37.9100, 37.9105, 37.9110, 37.9115, 37.9120, 37.9125, 37.9130, 37.9135, 37.9140, 37.9145, 37.9150, and 37.9155; and to 30 TAC Chapter 312, Sludge Use, Disposal, and Transportation, §§312.4, 312.8 - 312.13, 312.44, 312.48, 312.82, 312.122, and 312.145, under the requirements of Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017 and Texas Government Code, Subchapter B, Chapter 2001.

The proposal would provide additional restrictions and requirements for persons who land apply Class B sewage sludge to help ensure more protection for citizens, land, and water.

A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin on May 3, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in Building F, Room 2210, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle. The hearing will be structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. There will be no open discussion during the hearing; however, an agency staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer questions before and after the hearing.

Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact Joyce Spencer, Office of Legal Services at (512) 239-5017. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

Comments may be submitted to Joyce Spencer, MC 205, Texas Register Team, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or by fax to (512) 239-4808. All comments should reference Rule Project Number 2003-055-312-WT. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., May 9, 2005. For further information, please contact Beth Fraser, Water Quality Division, (512) 239-2526.

TRD-200501281

Stephanie Bergeron Purdue

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: March 24, 2005

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony concerning revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 101, General Air Quality Rules, and corresponding revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP), under the requirements of Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code, Subchapter B, Chapter 2001; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations, §51.102 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations concerning SIPs.

The proposed rulemaking would extend the expiration date of June 30, 2005 to January 15, 2006, unless the commission submits a revised version of §§101.221 - 101.223 to the EPA for review and approval. If the commission submits these revisions to the EPA, these sections would expire on June 30, 2006.

A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin on April 26, 2005 at 2:00 p.m., in Building A, Room 328 at the commission's central office located at 12100 Park 35 Circle. The hearing will be structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. There will be no open discussion during the hearing; however, an agency staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer questions before and after the hearing.

Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact Patricia Durón, Office of Legal Services at (512) 239-6087. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

Comments may be submitted to Patricia Durón, MC 205, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or by fax to (512) 239-4808. All comments should reference Rule Project Number 2005-023-101-AI, and must be received by 5:00 p.m., April 26, 2005. For further information, please contact Ramiro Garcia, Field Operations Division at (512) 239-4481 or Steve Ligon, Field Operations Division at (512) 239-1527.

TRD-200501288

Stephanie Bergeron Perdue

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: March 24, 2005

The following notices were issued during the period of March 23, 2005 through March 29, 2005.

The following require the applicants to publish notice in the newspaper. The public comment period, requests for public meetings, or requests for a contested case hearing may be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, Mail Code 105, P O Box 13087, Austin Texas 78711-3087, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE.

CITY OF AUSTIN has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 10543-003, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at an annual average flow not to exceed 10,000,000 gallons per day. The applicant has also applied to the TCEQ for approval of a substantial modification to its pretreatment program under the TPDES program. The facility is located north of the Colorado River, approximately 1 mile east of the U.S. Highway 183 crossing of the Colorado River in Travis County, Texas.

CITY OF BIG LAKE has applied for a major amendment to TPDES Permit No. 10038-001 to authorize construction of a new mechanical wastewater treatment facility. The current pond system is authorized the discharge of treated domestic wastewater from a daily average flow not to exceed 600,000 gallons per day. The proposed amendment requests to reduce the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow of 350,000 gallons per day in the final phase. The facility will be located approximately 530 feet south of U. S. Highway 67, approximately 1.14 miles east of the U. S. Highway and the State Highway 137 intersection in Reagan County, Texas.

CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. WQ0010401005, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at an annual average flow not to exceed 10,000,000 gallons per day. The facility is located at 1402 W. Broadway approximately 3000 feet east of the intersection of Broadway and North Port Avenue in the City of Corpus Christi in Nueces County, Texas.

ENCINAL WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION has applied for a renewal of Permit No. 13943- 001, which authorizes the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a volume not to exceed a daily average flow of 95,000 gallons per day via irrigation of 40 acres. This permit will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The facility and disposal site are located approximately 1,950 feet southeast of the intersection of U.S. Highway 81 and Interstate Highway 35 in Webb County, Texas.

EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC DBA SHELL OIL PRODUCTS U.S. which operates a groundwater treatment system for a site remediation of a petroleum bulk station, has applied for a major amendment to TPDES Permit No. WQ0001437000 to authorize removal of storm water Outfalls 001, 002 and 003 from the permit, and the discontinuance of requirements for toxicity testing and a decrease in monitoring frequency for pH, flow, oil and grease and biochemical oxygen demand (5-day) at Outfall 004. The current permit authorizes the discharge of treated groundwater at a daily average flow not to exceed 36,000 gallons per day via Outfall 001 (former Outfall 004). The facility is located at 2700 South Grandview Avenue, Odessa ,Ector County, Texas.

FARCO MINING, INC. which operates Palafox Mine, a surface coal mine, has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. WQ0002733000, which authorizes the discharge of storm water from the active mining area on an intermittent and flow variable basis via Outfall 001, storm water from the post-mining area on an intermittent and flow variable basis via Outfall 101, and storm water from the coal preparation plant and associated area on an intermittent and flow variable basis via Outfall 002. The facility is located west and adjacent to Farm-to-Market Road 1472 at a point approximately 24.75 miles northwest of the intersection of Farm-to-Market Road 1472 and Farm-to-Market Road 3338, near the City of Laredo, Webb County, Texas.

LA JOYA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT has applied for a renewal of Permit No. 13523-002, which authorizes the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a volume not to exceed a daily average flow of 15,000 gallons per day via subsurface pressure system with a minimum area of 0.96 acre. This permit will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The facility and disposal site are located on Farm-to-Market Road 492 (Doffing Road), approximately 3,000 feet south of the intersection of Farm-to-Market Road 676 and Farm-to-Market Road 492 in Hidalgo County, Texas.

CITY OF PHARR has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 10596-001, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at an annual average flow not to exceed 5,000,000 gallons per day. The facility is located adjacent to South "I" Road, approximately 1.9 miles south of the intersection of South "I" Road and U.S. Highway 83 Business in Hidalgo County, Texas.

PRAXAIR, INC. which operates an air separation plant which produces liquid and gaseous Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon, has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. WQ0001173000, which authorizes the discharge of cooling tower blowdown, boiler blowdown, treated domestic wastewater, process wastewater (compressor condensate), and process area washwater at a daily average flow not to exceed 430,000 gallons per day via Outfall 001. The facility is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Old Tidal Road and Port Terminal Railroad about 0.5 mile north of State Highway 225, north of the City of Deer Park, Harris County, Texas.

CITY OF SAN MARCOS has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 10273-002, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at an annual average flow not to exceed 9,000,000 gallons per day. The applicant has also applied to the TCEQ for approval of a substantial modification to its pretreatment program under the TPDES program. The facility is located on the north bank of the San Marcos River, approximately 4,000 feet east of the intersection of State Highway 123 and Interstate Highway 35 in the City of San Marcos in Hays County, Texas.

TRD-200501352

LaDonna Castañuela

Chief Clerk

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: March 30, 2005

Notices mailed March 29, 2005.

Application No. TP-5877; Enbridge Pipelines (E. Texas) L.P., 1600 N. Jackson, Jacksonville, Texas 75766, applicant, seeks a Temporary Water Use Permit pursuant to Texas Water Code 11.138 and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Rules 30 Texas Administrative Code 295.1, et seq. Applicant seeks to divert and use up to 64.4 acre-feet of water for a period of fourteen days from the Neches River, Neches River Basin, Anderson County for industrial (hydrostatic testing of pipeline) purposes at a maximum diversion rate of 8.913 cfs (4,000 gpm). The diversion point will be located at Latitude 31.9756 N, Longitude 95.4498 W, at the Neches River crossing of the Enbridge Right of Way approximately 22 miles northwest of City of Rusk, Cherokee County and 11 miles west of the City of Jacksonville, Texas. Water not consumed will be returned to the place of diversion after the hydrostatic testing of the pipeline is completed. The Commission will review the application as submitted by the applicant and may or may not grant the application as requested. The application was received on December 23, 2004. Additional information and fees were received on February 15, 2005. The application was accepted for filing and declared administratively complete on February 25, 2005. Written public comments and requests for a public meeting should be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, at the address provided in the information section below by April 19, 2005.

PROPOSED PERMIT NO. 5878; Enbridge Pipelines (E. Texas) L.P., 1600 N. Jackson, Jacksonville, Texas 75766, applicant, has applied to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for a Temporary Water Use Permit pursuant to 11.138, Texas Water Code, and TCEQ Rules 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 295.1, et seq. The applicant has requested authorization to divert and use not to exceed 17.19 acre-feet of water at a maximum diversion rate of 4.456 cfs (2,000 gpm) for a period of fourteen days from Martin Creek, tributary of Martin Lake, tributary of Sabine River, Sabine River Basin, for industrial (hydrostatic testing of pipeline) purposes. The diversion point will be located at Latitude 32.1396° N and Longitude 94.6654° W, at the Martin Creek crossing of the Enbridge Right of Way approximately 8 miles east of the City of Henderson and 2 miles southwest of the City of Chapman in Rusk County. Water not consumed will be returned to the place of diversion after the hydrostatic testing of the pipeline is completed. The Commission will review the application as submitted by the applicant and may or may not grant the application as requested. The application and partial fees were received on December 23, 2004. Additional information and fees were received on February 14, 2005. The application was declared administratively complete and filed with the Office of the Chief Clerk on February 24, 2005. Written public comments and requests for a public meeting should be submitted to the Office of Chief Clerk, at the address provided in the information section below, by April 19, 2005.

INFORMATION SECTION

A public meeting is intended for the taking of public comment, and is not a contested case hearing.

The Executive Director can consider approval of an application unless a written request for a contested case hearing is filed. To request a contested case hearing, you must submit the following: (1) your name (or for a group or association, an official representative), mailing address, daytime phone number, and fax number, if any: (2) applicant's name and permit number; (3) the statement "[I/we] request a contested case hearing;" and (4) a brief and specific description of how you would be affected by the application in a way not common to the general public. You may also submit any proposed conditions to the requested application which would satisfy your concerns. Requests for a contested case hearing must be submitted in writing to the TCEQ Office of the Chief Clerk at the address provided in the information section below.

If a hearing request is filed, the Executive Director will not issue the requested permit and may forward the application and hearing request to the TCEQ Commissioners for their consideration at a scheduled Commission meeting.

Written hearing requests, public comments or requests for a public meeting should be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, MC 105, TCEQ, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087. For information concerning the hearing process, please contact the Public Interest Counsel, MC 103, at the same address. For additional information, individual members of the general public may contact the Office of Public Assistance at 1-800-687-4040. General information regarding the TCEQ can be found at our web site at www.tceq.state.tx.us.

TRD-200501351

LaDonna Castañuela

Chief Clerk

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: March 29, 2005

The State Office of Administrative Hearings issued a Proposal for Decision and Order to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on March 23, 2005, in the matter of the Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Petitioner v. C.R. Ashmore Family Partnership dba Opies Barbeque; SOAH Docket No. 582-05-2743; TCEQ Docket No. 2003-0686-PWS-E. The commission will consider the Administrative Law Judge's Proposal for Decision and Order regarding the enforcement action against C.R. Ashmore Family Partnership dba Opies Barbeque on a date and time to be determined by the Office of the Chief Clerk in Room 201S of Building E, 12100 N. Interstate 35, Austin, Texas. This posting is Notice of Opportunity to Comment on the Proposal for Decision and Order. The comment period will end 30 days from date of this publication. Written public comments should be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, MC-105, TCEQ, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Paul Munguia, Office of the Chief Clerk, (512) 239-3300.

TRD-200501353

LaDonna Castañuela

Chief Clerk

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: March 30, 2005

The State Office of Administrative Hearings issued a Proposal for Decision and Order to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on March 28, 2005, in the matter of the Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Petitioner v. Coastal Transport Company, Inc.; SOAH Docket No.582-04-6612; TCEQ Docket No.2003-1205-PST-E. The commission will consider the Administrative Law Judge's Proposal for Decision and Order regarding the enforcement action against Coastal Transport Company, Inc. on a date and time to be determined by the Office of the Chief Clerk in Room 201S of Building E, 12100 N. Interstate 35, Austin, Texas. This posting is Notice of Opportunity to Comment on the Proposal for Decision and Order. The comment period will end 30 days from date of this publication. Written public comments should be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, MC-105, TCEQ, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Paul Munguia, Office of the Chief Clerk, (512) 239-3300.

TRD-200501354

LaDonna Castañuela

Chief Clerk

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: March 30, 2005

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or commission) staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed Agreed Orders (AOs) in accordance with Texas Water Code (the Code), §7.075, which requires that the commission may not approve these AOs unless the public has been provided an opportunity to submit written comments. Section 7.075 requires that notice of the proposed orders and the opportunity to comment must be published in the Texas Register no later than the 30th day before the date on which the public comment period closes, which in this case is May 30, 2005 . Section 7.075 also requires that the commission promptly consider any written comments received and that the commission may withhold approval of an AO if a comment discloses facts or considerations that indicate the proposed AO is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Code, the Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), and/or the Texas Clean Air Act (the Act). Additional notice is not required if changes to an AO are made in response to written comments.

A copy of each proposed AO is available for public inspection at both the commission's central office, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building C, 1st Floor, Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239-1864 and at the applicable regional office listed as follows. Written comments about an AO should be sent to the enforcement coordinator designated for each AO at the commission's central office at P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 and must be received by 5:00 p.m. on May 30, 2005 . Written comments may also be sent by facsimile machine to the enforcement coordinator at (512) 239- 2550. The commission enforcement coordinators are available to discuss the AOs and/or the comment procedure at the listed phone numbers; however, §7.075 provides that comments on the AOs should be submitted to the commission in writing .

(1) COMPANY: APG & Z Inc. dba McKinney Food Store; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1428- PST-E; IDENTIFIER: Petroleum Storage Tank (PST) Number 49369, Regulated Entity Reference Number (RN) 102049228; LOCATION: Denton, Denton County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: retail convenience store; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to demonstrate acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $2,850; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Pamela Campbell, (512) 239-4493; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2301 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118- 6951, (817) 588-5800.

(2) COMPANY: Acme Brick Company; DOCKET NUMBER: 2003-1492-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number PC0001E, RN100225184; LOCATION: Millsap, Parker County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: brick manufacturing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.115(b)(2)(F), Permit Number 25937, and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to comply with the maximum allowable emission rate limits for sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride; PENALTY: $8,080; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Pamela Campbell, (512) 239-4493; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2301 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(3) COMPANY: Allanco Corporation dba KP Food Mart 3; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0263- PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 61298, RN102377611; LOCATION: Dallas, Dallas County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to demonstrate acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $1,520; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Lynley Doyen, (512) 239-1364; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2301 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(4) COMPANY: City of Azle; DOCKET NUMBER: 2003-1153-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number TX0023116, Water Quality Permit Number 11183-003, RN101609873; LOCATION: Azle, Tarrant County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: municipal wastewater; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1), NPDES Permit Number TX0023116, Water Quality Permit Number 11183-003, and the Code, §26.121(a), by allowing exceedances of permitted ammonia-nitrogen effluent limits at the outfall; PENALTY: $12,075; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Brian Lehmkuhle, (512) 239-4482; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2301 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(5) COMPANY: Bohica Investment, Ltd. dba Amigos 1; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1953-PST- E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 30147, RN102399896; LOCATION: Alpine, Brewster County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.8(c)(4)(A)(vii), (5)(A)(i) and (B)(ii), and the Code, §26.3467(a), by failing to make available to a common carrier a valid, current delivery certificate and by failing to timely renew the delivery certificate; PENALTY: $1,600; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Kent Heath, (512) 239-4575; REGIONAL OFFICE: 401 East Franklin Avenue, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1206, (915) 834-4949.

(6) COMPANY: Bond Enterprises, Inc. dba Bond's First Stop; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005- 0192-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 23775, RN102278785; LOCATION: Fairfield, Freestone County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to demonstrate acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $2,400; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Melissa Keller, (512) 239-1768; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6801 Sanger Avenue, Suite 2500, Waco, Texas 76710-7826, (254) 751-0335.

(7) COMPANY: Brownsville Val-Marts, L.L.C. dba Brownsville Val-Mart 6; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1831-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 56810, RN103025938l; LOCATION: Brownsville, Cameron County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to demonstrate acceptable financial assurance and 30 TAC §334.22(a) and the Code, §5.702, by failing to pay outstanding underground storage tank (UST) fees; PENALTY: $2,140; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Melissa Keller, (512) 239-1768; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1804 West Jefferson Avenue, Harlingen, Texas 78550-5247, (956) 425-6010.

(8) COMPANY: Raheem Emiola dba Come & Go Food Store; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004- 1564-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 19599, RN101811917; LOCATION: Houston, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to demonstrate acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $2,700; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Brent Hurta, (512) 239-6589; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(9) COMPANY: EMAG Solutions, LLC; DOCKET NUMBER: 2003-0723-MLM-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number YB-0006-D, Solid Waste Registration Number 30926; LOCATION: Graham, Young County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: magnetic tape manufacturing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §101.10 and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to submit an emissions inventory questionnaire; 30 TAC §116.115(c), Air Permit Number 8714, and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to maintain and provide the required reports that represent emissions from all emission point numbers and by failing to provide documentation that the facility conducted monitoring on a quarterly basis for fugitive emissions of all accessible valves; 30 TAC §335.6(c), by failing to notify the TCEQ of changes to waste management operations; and 30 TAC §335.62, by failing to conduct a hazardous waste determination on waste slurry; PENALTY: $22,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Edward Moderow, (512) 239-2680; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1977 Industrial Boulevard, Abilene, Texas 79602-7833, (915) 698-9674.

(10) COMPANY: Imad Abdelgader dba Express Lane Grocery; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004- 2087-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Registration Number 14890, RN102226537; LOCATION: San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail gasoline sales; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.50(b)(2)(A)(i)(III) and the Code, §26.3475(a), by failing to test a line leak detector; and 30 TAC §334.10(b), by failing to have UST records readily available for inspection; PENALTY: $2,100; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Chris Friesenhahn, (210) 490-3096; REGIONAL OFFICE: 14250 Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233- 4480, (210) 490-3096.

(11) COMPANY: FFP Operating Partners, L.P. dba Super Fresh Foods FFP 818; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-2099-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number EE1993E, RN102345634; LOCATION: San Elizario, El Paso County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §114.100(a) and THSC, §382.085(b), by allegedly offering for sale gasoline with an oxygen content lower than 2.7% by weight; PENALTY: $848; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Mauricio Olaya, (915) 834-4949; REGIONAL OFFICE: 401 East Franklin Avenue, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1206, (915) 834-4949.

(12) COMPANY: Flynn Water Supply Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1929-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: Public Water Supply Number 1450005, RN101240844; LOCATION: Flynn, Leon County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.45(b)(1)(C)(i) - (iv) and THSC, §341.0315(c), by failing to provide the required well capacity of 0.6 gallons per minute per connection, by failing to provide the required total storage capacity of 200 gallons per connection, by failing to provide the required two or more service pumps, and by failing to provide the required pressure maintenance capacity of 20 gallons per connection; 30 TAC §290.44(d)(5), by failing to provide the water distribution system with sufficient valves and blowoffs; 30 TAC §290.42(j), by failing to ensure that required chemical certification was provided; and 30 TAC §290.41(c)(3)(B), by failing to provide a well casing 18 inches above the ground surface; PENALTY: $1,690; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Brian Lehmkuhle, (512) 239-4482; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6801 Sanger Avenue, Suite 2500, Waco, Texas 76710-7826, (254) 751-0335.

(13) COMPANY: Good Time Stores, Inc. dba Good Time Store 48; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-2035-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number EE0809I, RN102057593; LOCATION: Socorro, El Paso County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §114.100(a) and THSC, §382.085(b), by allegedly offering for sale gasoline with an oxygen content lower than 2.7% by weight; PENALTY: $800; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Chad Blevins, (512) 239-6017; REGIONAL OFFICE: 401 East Franklin Avenue, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1206, (915) 834-4949.

(14) COMPANY: City of Hughes Springs; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0165-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit Number 10415001, RN101919686; LOCATION: Hughes Springs, Cass County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: domestic wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1), TPDES Permit Number 10415001, and the Code, §26.121(a), by failing to comply with the permitted effluent limitations for ammonia-nitrogen; PENALTY: $720; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Carolyn Lind, (903) 535-5100; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2916 Teague Drive, Tyler, Texas 75701-3756, (903) 535-5100.

(15) COMPANY: Joseph T. Gonzalez dba J & E Food Store; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0216- PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 37642, RN101445112; LOCATION: Harlingen, Cameron County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to provide acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $2,400; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Suzanne Baldwin, (512) 239-1675; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1804 West Jefferson Avenue, Harlingen, Texas 78550-5247, (956) 425-6010.

(16) COMPANY: K & N Management, Inc. dba Rudy's Country Store and Bar-B-Q; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1995-EAQ-E; IDENTIFIER: Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan File Number 1104092101, RN102138823; LOCATION: Austin, Travis County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: restaurant; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §213.4(a)(1), by failing to obtain approval of an Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan; PENALTY: $1,200; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Larry King, (512) 339-2929; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1921 Cedar Bend Drive, Suite 150, Austin, Texas 78758-5336, (512) 339-2929.

(17) COMPANY: KVN Oil & Gas, Inc. dba Story Fina; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1516-PST- E; IDENTIFIER: PST Registration Number 52763, RN102900925; LOCATION: Irving, Dallas County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to demonstrate acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $2,910; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Chris Friesenhahn, (210) 490- 3096; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2301 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(18) COMPANY: Hirani Enterprises, Inc. dba Korner Food Store; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004- 2060-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 7318, RN102366812; LOCATION: North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to demonstrate acceptable financial assurance; and 30 TAC §334.22(a) and the Code, §5.702, by failing to pay outstanding UST fees; PENALTY: $1,050; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Melissa Keller, (512) 239-1768; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2301 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(19) COMPANY: Lyondell-Citgo Refining LP; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-2002-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number HG0048L, RN100218130; LOCATION: Houston, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: oil refinery; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §101.20(3) and §116.715(a), Air Flexible Permit Number 2167/PSD-TX-985, and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to comply with permitted emissions limits; and 30 TAC §101.20(a)(1)(B) and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to submit a timely emission event report; PENALTY: $26,325; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Terry Murphy, (512) 239-5025; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(20) COMPANY: Mack Massey Motors, L.P. dba Mack Massey Motors; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1694-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 18758, RN102476041; LOCATION: El Paso, El Paso County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: retail car sales; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to demonstrate acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $3,960; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Sunday Udoetok, (512) 239- 0739; REGIONAL OFFICE: 401 East Franklin Avenue, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1206, (915) 834-4949.

(21) COMPANY: Stephen Mathews; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0208-OSI-E; IDENTIFIER: On-Site Sewage Facility (OSSF) Installer License Number OS0017966, RN103627303; LOCATION: Joaquin, Shelby County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: OSSF; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §285.61(4) and (11) and THSC, §366.051(c), by failing to obtain proof of a permit and approved plan and by failing to request initial, final, or other required inspections from the permitting authority; and 30 TAC §285.5(a) and THSC, §366.053(a), by failing to submit planning materials and a permit application; PENALTY: $400; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Mac Vilas, (512) 239-2557; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.

(22) COMPANY: Midway Independent School District; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0107-PST- E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 47276, RN102006301; LOCATION: Waco, McLennan County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: bus refueling; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.50(b)(1)(A) and (2)(A)(i)(III) and the Code, §26.3475(a) and (c)(1), by failing to ensure that release detection equipment or procedures are provided for the UST piping and tank system; and 30 TAC §334.7(d)(1), by failing to amend the UST registration; PENALTY: $1,352; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Tom Greimel, (512) 239-5690; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6801 Sanger Avenue, Suite 2500, Waco, Texas 76710-7826, (254) 751-0335.

(23) COMPANY: NSA Investments Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-0297-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Numbers 39673 and 17911, RN102820875; LOCATION: Arlington, Tarrant County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience stores with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.50(b)(1)(A) and (2)(A)(iii) and the Code, §26.3475(c)(1), by failing to ensure that all USTs are monitored for releases, by failing to test a line leak detector, and by failing to provide proper release detection; 30 TAC §334.8(c)(4)(B) and (5)(A)(i) and the Code, §26.346(a) and §26.3467(a), by failing to ensure that the UST registration and self-certification form is submitted in a timely manner and by failing to make available to a common carrier a valid, current delivery certificate; PENALTY: $12,025; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Michael Limos, (512) 239-5839; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2301 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(24) COMPANY: New Ulm Water Supply Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1394-WQ- E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 0013655001, RN103136826; LOCATION: New Ulm, Austin County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1), TPDES Permit Number 0013655001, and the Code, §26.121(a), by failing to comply with the effluent limits for total suspended solids and total chlorine residual; PENALTY: $2,840; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: David Van Soest, (512) 239-0468; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(25) COMPANY: Paradise Business Inc. dba Handi Plus 37; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1952- PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 63679, RN102838729; LOCATION: Alvin, Brazoria County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to demonstrate acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $2,850; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Daniel Siringi, (409) 898-3838; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(26) COMPANY: Pritul Investment Inc. dba Citgo Cedar Hill; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004- 1679-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 64485, RN100531805; LOCATION: Cedar Hill, Dallas County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to demonstrate acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $1,640; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Sandra Anaya, (512) 239-0572; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2301 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6951, (817) 588- 5800.

(27) COMPANY: Somoye Inc. dba Metro Stop; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1517-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 52819, RN101868974; LOCATION: Boerne, Kendall County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to demonstrate acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $3,210; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Ruben Soto, (512) 239-4571; REGIONAL OFFICE: 14250 Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.

(28) COMPANY: Sun Coast Resources, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0047-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: RN100529452; LOCATION: Houston, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: fuel distributor; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.5(b)(1)(A), by failing to ensure that the owner or operator of a UST has a valid, current delivery certificate; PENALTY: $600; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Erika Fair, (512) 239-6673; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.

(29) COMPANY: United Equipment Rentals Gulf, L.P. dba United Rentals; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-1946-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number EE1203U, RN100810977; LOCATION: El Paso, El Paso County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: equipment rental stores with a refueling station; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §114.100(a) and THSC, §382.085(b), by allegedly offering for sale gasoline with an oxygen content lower than 2.7% by weight; PENALTY: $820; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Lori Thompson, (903) 535-5100; REGIONAL OFFICE: 401 East Franklin Avenue, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1206, (915) 834-4949.

(30) COMPANY: Zuma International, Inc. dba Manchaca Food Mart; DOCKET NUMBER: 2005-0090-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 11316, RN102356607; LOCATION: Austin, Travis County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §37.815(a) and (b), by failing to demonstrate acceptable financial assurance; PENALTY: $1,900; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Brent Hurta, (512) 239-6589; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1921 Cedar Bend Drive, Suite 150, Austin, Texas 78758-5336, (512) 339-2929.

TRD-200501337

Paul C. Sarahan

Director, Litigation Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: March 29, 2005

The executive director (ED) of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the commission or TCEQ) files this Response to Public Comment (Response) on General Permit No. TXG670000. As required by 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §205.3(e), before a general permit is issued, the ED prepares a written response to all timely, relevant and material, or significant comments. The Response must be made available to the public and filed with the Office of the Chief Clerk at least ten days before the commission considers the approval of the general permit.

The Office of the Chief Clerk timely received comment letters from the following persons: City of Austin (Austin), ExxonMobil, Harris County Storm Water Quality Section (Harris County), Motiva Enterprises LLC (Motiva), Reliant Energy (Reliant), Save Our Springs Alliance (SOSA), and the Texas Chemical Council (TCC).

BACKGROUND

TCEQ is issuing a general permit in accordance with Texas Water Code (TWC), §26.040, General Permits and §26.121, Unauthorized Discharges Prohibited, that would authorize discharges of water resulting from the hydrostatic testing of vessels (pipelines, tanks, and other containers). Discharges from the following vessels will be authorized under this general permit: new vessels; existing vessels previously containing and/or transferring raw or potable water where the water used for hydrostatic tests does not contain corrosion inhibitors, antifreeze compounds, biocides, or other chemical additives (except chlorine); existing vessels that formerly contained only elemental gases (e.g., hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.); and existing vessels previously containing product or waste related to refined petroleum products.

These discharges were previously authorized under 30 TAC Chapter 321, Subchapter G or under individual permits. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and TCEQ delegating the national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) program dated September 14, 1998, prohibited further authorizations under current Chapter 321 rules, unless those rules were amended to authorize discharges to water of the United States only in accordance with NPDES requirements. The MOA authorized TCEQ to replace authorizations under Chapter 321, Subchapter G with a general permit. Notice of availability was published in the Houston Chronicle on July 12, 2003, and in the Texas Register on July 18, 2003. The comment period ended on August 18, 2003. No public meetings were held.

Comments and responses are organized by section with general comments first. Some comments have resulted in changes to the draft permit. Those comments resulting in changes have been identified in the respective responses. All other comments resulted in no changes.

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

General Comments

Comment 1: SOSA requested that the permit exclude discharges to the recharge and contributing zones of the Edwards Aquifer. SOSA commented that the permit would allow discharges without requiring a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain authorization and would not require a permit for discharges that are "not expected to contain toxic or conventional pollutants." SOSA requested that TCEQ have secure and factual knowledge, based on a permit application, that discharges within the Edwards Aquifer recharge and contributing zones do not contain toxic or conventional pollutants.

Response 1: The permit would not exclude or exempt any dischargers of hydrostatic test water from needing an authorization to discharge. However, the application process to obtain authorization under this general permit differs, depending on the source of the discharge. Authorization to discharge from vessels previously containing petroleum products must be obtained by submitting an NOI.

Discharges from new vessels, existing vessels that previously contained either raw water, potable water, or elemental gas are not expected to contain toxic or conventional pollutants. Therefore, water discharged from these vessels is subject to different permit requirements and an authorization process that does not require the submission of an NOI. This alternative process is allowed by 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §122.28(b)(2)(v) and adopted by reference in 30 TAC §321.141, but it does not alleviate the responsibility of a discharger to comply with all applicable permit conditions, including effluent monitoring and reporting requirements.

Compliance with the applicable conditions of the Edwards Aquifer rules found in 30 TAC Chapter 213 is in addition to compliance with the requirements of this permit. When limited by this rule, as stated in Part II.B.2.(b), discharges are not eligible for authorization under this permit. Therefore, for clarification, and to avoid confusion between the requirements of this general permit and the Edwards Aquifer rules, the second sentence of Part II.C.2. is revised to read: "Provisional authorization to discharge under the terms and conditions of this general permit begins 48 hours after a completed NOI is postmarked for delivery to the TCEQ."

Comment 2: Motiva commented that the NOI, notice of termination, and notice of change forms are not available for review and comment.

Response 2: Notice forms are not a part of the permit and are, therefore, not subject to public notice requirements and the formal comment period. The NOI, notice of change, and notice of termination forms will be consistent with the information required in 30 TAC §205.4, General Permits for Waste Discharges.

Cover Page

Comment 3: Harris County commented that the cover page of the permit authorizes the discharge of hydrostatic test water into or adjacent to "surface water in the state," while other areas of the permit reference only "water in the state." Harris County requested clarification as to whether discharges can occur into or adjacent to "surface water in the state" or "water in the state."

Response 3: In response to the comment, the cover page is revised to state that discharges may be "into or adjacent to water in the state." The permit contains the following definition of water in the state: "Groundwater, percolating or otherwise, lakes, bays, ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs, rivers, streams, creeks, estuaries, wetlands, marshes, inlets, canals, the Gulf of Mexico, inside the territorial limits of the state, and all other bodies of surface water, natural or artificial, inland or coastal, fresh or salt, navigable or nonnavigable, and including the beds and banks of all watercourses and bodies of surface water that are wholly or partially inside or bordering the state or inside the jurisdiction of the state." The definition in the permit is identical to the statutory definition found in TWC, §26.001(5).

Definitions

Comment 4: TCC asked in the context of "daily average concentration" what happens in a situation where there is only one sample for a discharge of one hour or less and where the last hydrostatic test occurred years ago. In that case, TCC asked whether the one sample result is reported as the daily average concentration.

Response 4: The definition of "daily average concentration" in the permit states that when four samples are not available within a single calendar month, the arithmetic average of the four most recent measurements may be reported as the daily average concentration. In TCC's example, the single sample result obtained during the reporting month would be reported as the daily maximum concentration and the reported daily average concentration would be the arithmetic average of the four most recent samples from preceding months or years. If there were only two previous samples to the current one, the reported daily average concentration would be the average of the three samples. If there were no previous samples, the reported daily average and the reported daily maximum concentration would be the single result.

In response to the comment, the definition of "daily average concentration" is revised to limit the samples to the most recent results subject to the daily average effluent limitation reporting requirements. The definition now reads: "The arithmetic average of all effluent samples within a period of one calendar month, consisting of at least four separate representative measurements. When four samples are not available in a calendar month, the arithmetic average of the four most recent measurements shall be used as the daily average concentration."

Comment 5: Reliant requested that the definition of the term "hyperchlorinated" include a numerical threshold to better define when an NOI would be required for a discharge from a vessel that has been chlorinated.

Response 5: Whether an NOI is required to obtain authorization under the permit is not dependant on whether the test water is hyperchlorinated, but on the previous contents of the vessel. An NOI is required for discharges from vessels that previously contained petroleum products. An NOI is not required for discharges from vessels that meet the requirements in Part II.A.1. - 3., including those that have been hyperchlorinated. However, those vessels where coverage does not require submitting an NOI and whose discharges are hyperchlorinated are still required to meet the total residual chlorine effluent limitations in Part II.A.1. Potable water (previously chlorinated by the water supplier for drinking water purposes) is not considered hyperchlorinated.

Comment 6: ExxonMobil and TCC commented that the definition of "petroleum product" is limited to a liquid at standard temperature and pressure. ExxonMobil stated that this limitation excludes petroleum derivatives, such as ethylene and propylene, which should have the same potential concerns as other petroleum products included in the definition. ExxonMobil requested that the phrase "which is liquid at standard conditions of temperature and pressure" be deleted from the definition. TCC asked if the definition restricts the discharge to vessels that contained product from a refinery or restricts the discharge of products from a chemical manufacturing plant (e.g., ethylene or styrene).

Response 6: TWC, §26.040(d) and 30 TAC §205.2(a), state that general permits may be developed for, in part, dischargers that engage in the same or substantially similar types of operations, discharge the same types of waste, are subject to the same requirements regarding effluent limitations or operating conditions, and are subject to the same or similar monitoring requirements. For purposes of the permit, the term "petroleum product" refers to those compounds typically found or produced at a petroleum refinery, most generally lubricating oils, fuels, and solvents as described in the definition. However, tanks and vessels do not have to be located at a refinery to be eligible for coverage under this permit. Defining the applicability of the permit through the use of the term "petroleum product" ensures that the requirements of TWC, §26.040(d) and 30 TAC §205.2(a), are met and that specific effluent limitations and requirements can be developed to ensure the protection of water quality.

In response to the comment, the definition of "petroleum product" is revised to delete the restriction that petroleum products must be liquid at standard temperature and pressure and the first sentence of the definition is modified to read: "Crude oil or any refined or unrefined fraction or derivative of crude oil."

Comment 7: ExxonMobil commented that excluding certain compounds from the definition of "petroleum products" should be done by providing a specific list of exclusions or by listing specific criteria, such as toxicity. As written, the exclusion (item (o) in the definition of "petroleum product") lists "examples of" compounds that are not considered petroleum products, suggesting that the list is not comprehensive. ExxonMobil commented that the exclusions in this definition should be deleted and specific exclusions, as warranted, should be included in the applicability section of Part II.

Response 7: Due to the volume of such material and its inherent potential for revision, providing a comprehensive list of materials not considered a petroleum product is impractical. The permit contains a definition of what is considered a petroleum product for the purposes of defining eligible discharges. The definition allows permittees to determine if a tank containing a certain material may be tested and discharged under the conditions of this permit.

Part II.A.

Comment 8: Motiva commented that Part II.A. does not mention tanks or vessels that held other types of materials and that may need hydro testing. Discharges of hydrostatic test water from tanks that contained a non-petroleum material, such as an amine tank, a chemical storage tank, or a sour water tank would not be covered under this permit. Motiva requested the TCEQ clarify that the discharge of hydrostatic test water from any tank, pipeline, vessel, or similar structure that has been hydro-tested prior to being put into service or returned to service may be covered under this permit.

Response 8: The permit was limited to specific categories of vessels so that the appropriate conditions and limitations to ensure the protection of receiving waters and compliance with Texas surface water quality standards could be included. Discharges of hydrostatic test water from vessels that contained substances that do not meet the definition of "petroleum product" are not eligible for authorization under this permit. Discharges of hydrostatic test water from such tanks are more appropriately authorized under individual permits or routed to another permitted facility for disposal. Discharges of hydrostatic test water from new vessels are eligible for coverage under this permit regardless of the intended future contents of the vessel.

Comment 9: ExxonMobil commented that Part II.A.2. restricts the addition of minor amounts of innocuous chemicals, such as tracer dyes, that may be added to test water. ExxonMobil requested that the permit include language providing for the use of other chemicals with the prior approval of the ED. ExxonMobil also commented that the general approval clause should be made available to both raw/potable water and petroleum service vessels. TCC asked if the term "other chemical additives" excludes tracer dyes.

Response 9: In response to the comment, Part II.A.2. is revised to read: "existing vessels that contain or previously contained or transferred raw or potable water, where the water used for hydrostatic tests does not contain corrosion inhibitors, antifreeze compounds, biocides, or other chemical additives (except chlorine or tracer dyes)."

Comment 10: ExxonMobil commented that although the TCEQ permitting structure does not apply to crude oil facilities, occasionally facilities have refined product services that were previously used for crude oil services. ExxonMobil requested that Part II.A.4. be modified as follows: "existing vessels which previously contained petroleum products or waste related to petroleum products."

Response 10: It is not the commission's intent to limit the ability of a discharger to release hydrostatic test water from a vessel that handles refined product based on the fact that it may have contained crude product in the past. The TCEQ has jurisdiction over a small category of dischargers who may need to hydrostatically test a vessel that has recently contained crude product. Therefore, Part II.A.4. is revised to read: "existing vessels that previously contained products or waste related to petroleum products."

Part II.B.

Comment 11: Motiva commented that Part II.B.2.(c) states that discharges shall not be prohibited by other applicable rules or laws. Motiva noted that individual permits that authorize the discharge of storm water have been interpreted to mean that only storm water may be discharged through the outfall listed in the individual permit. Motiva requested that the TCEQ clarify that hydrostatic test water may be discharged through "any existing outfall, or any other location if an existing permitted outfall is not readily available."

Response 11: Individual storm water permits are developed with site-specific conditions and may be issued to authorize the discharge of storm water runoff, wastewater, or a combination of discharges through a specifically defined outfall. Hydrostatic test discharges authorized under this permit may be discharged through an outfall that is regulated under a separate individual or general permit for another type of discharge, as long as the conditions of the separate permit do not prohibit the discharge and any required monitoring under this permit is conducted prior to commingling.

Part II.C.

Comment 12: ExxonMobil commented that some facilities, such as pipelines, operate under a single operator, but may have multiple points of discharge along a pipeline route. ExxonMobil suggested allowing a single NOI to cover multiple locations along a pipeline route that is controlled by the same operator. ExxonMobil stated that considerable resource savings could be achieved for both the operator and TCEQ if a single NOI could be used for the system. TCC asked if a company can list its entire pipeline system in one NOI with each discharge location specified or whether the TCEQ requires that each hydrostatic test be listed on its own NOI.

Response 12: Where an operator is performing hydrostatic testing on a specific pipeline, a single NOI may be submitted to cover those discharges. A single NOI could not be submitted for a system of pipelines or for pipelines operated by a single operator on a statewide basis.

Comment 13: Motiva commented that the permit does not clarify if a separate NOI is required for discharges from each individual tank at a facility. Motiva contends that for large facilities with multiple tanks, the administrative burden of submitting an NOI for each tank or vessel tested would be excessive. Motiva requested that the TCEQ clarify that a facility, such as a petroleum refinery, need submit an NOI only once and that coverage is then obtained for all hydrostatic test discharges from the facility for the life of the permit.

Response 13: A single NOI may be submitted to cover all hydrostatic discharges that occur at a single facility during the term of the permit. Alternatively, an applicant may submit an NOI on an event-by-event basis and then subsequently terminate coverage by submitting a notice of termination after each event.

Comment 14: TCC asked what would occur if the ED denies coverage for a discharge of hydrostatic test water after the applicant begins discharging as allowed under Part II.C.2.

Response 14: An applicant receives provisional authority and may begin discharging under the terms of the permit 48 hours after the NOI is postmarked for delivery to TCEQ. Following receipt of the NOI, TCEQ may acknowledge coverage or notify the applicant that authorization under this permit is denied. Once a discharger is notified that coverage is denied, subsequent discharges are not authorized under this permit. Discharges that occur in the time frame between submitting the NOI and the date when the permit authorization is denied are subject to the requirements of the permit and must comply with all permit conditions. An applicant must determine that the proposed discharge would otherwise qualify for coverage under the permit prior to submitting an NOI. There are significant penalties for knowingly submitting false information in an NOI.

Comment 15: Reliant commented that Part II.C.4.(a) should be modified to state that "the discharge is from a vessel listed in Part II.A.1. - 3. and is not hyperchlorinated." Austin commented that the term "not" was omitted from this sentence and that it should read "the discharge is not from a vessel. . .."

Response 15: Vessels listed in Part II.A.1. - 3. are not required to submit an NOI to obtain permit coverage, including those that have been hyperchlorinated. For those dischargers, the permit provides a separate authorization process that does not require submitting an NOI. However, dischargers from vessels listed in Part II.A.1. - 3. must comply with all applicable permit conditions, including effluent limitations and reporting requirements. In response to the comments, Part II.C.4. was modified to state: "An NOI is not required if the discharger complies with all applicable permit conditions and: a) the discharge is from a vessel listed in Part II.A.1. - 3.; or b) the discharge is from a vessel listed in Part II.A.1. - 4. and it is land applied at the site with no resulting discharge into or adjacent to water in the state."

Comment 16: Austin recommended deleting the option in Part II.C.4.(b) that does not require submitting an NOI where discharges are land applied at the site with no resulting runoff to water in the state. Austin stated that discharges of test water that contain pollutants may result in contamination of the land where it is applied and could potentially seep into groundwater. If this option remains, Austin requested that the following phrase be added at the end of Part II.C.4.(b): ". . . including possible seepage to groundwater, and discharge is to a splash pad or paved area to prevent erosion."

Response 16: Discharges from vessels listed in Part III.A.1. - 4. are not required to submit NOIs to obtain authorization. However, dischargers must be in compliance with all applicable permit conditions, including effluent limitations in Part III.A.1. and 2. of the permit and must control the rate of discharge to prevent erosion according to Part III.B.1.(a). Permit conditions and effluent limitations for these discharges are established to provide protection for groundwater where treated effluent is irrigated. Additionally, the definition of "water in the state" includes groundwater, so the existing statement in the permit covers the possible discharge to groundwater.

Comment 17: TCC asked why Part II.C.5. requires submitting a notice of termination when the operator of the regulated entity changes, when in the TCEQ's own words: "Hydrostatic test discharges are intermittent, low volume, and short in duration." TCC wanted to know if this is evidence that TCEQ will allow an operator to cover all of its facilities within the state with a single NOI.

Response 17: An operator may not submit a single NOI to cover all of its facilities located in the state. The permit may be used to authorize discharges on an event-by-event basis or to authorize multiple, intermittent discharges of hydrostatic test water from an industrial facility over the duration of the permit term. Where an NOI is required for authorization, a single NOI may be submitted by a single facility to cover all eligible discharges that occur during the permit term at that facility. Alternatively, the facility may submit an NOI for each discharge and then subsequently terminate coverage by submitting a notice of termination. Where discharges are authorized without submitting an NOI, the permittee is also not required to submit a notice of termination when discharges cease. Only permittees that are required to submit an NOI to obtain permit coverage are required to submit a notice of termination to end permit coverage. Part II.D. of the permit is revised to clarify when a notice of termination is required for those vessels listed in Part II.A.4. Part II.D. relating to ending coverage under the permit now states: "A permittee may voluntarily terminate coverage under this general permit when the need to discharge is no longer necessary, e.g. the discharge is delayed or is completed. The permittee may also voluntarily terminate coverage if it obtains an individual permit. If the permittee was required to submit an NOI to obtain permit coverage, a notice of termination must be submitted to terminate permit coverage."

Part III.A.

Comment 18: Motiva commented that Part III.A. does not specify where to collect samples. Motiva requested that TCEQ clarify that monitoring samples are collected as the hydrostatic test water exits the vessel and that the hydrostatic test water may then comingle with other waters prior to discharge from the facility. Motiva also commented that although many tanks are tested and drained of water in a single discharge lasting less than one day, there are also instances when the test water is released intermittently over a period of weeks with no discharge on some days. Motiva contends that it is not clear whether sampling is required at the beginning and ending of each separate release from the tank or at the beginning and ending of the entire release period. Motiva requested TCEQ clarify that only a beginning and ending sample is required for the hydrostatic test release, regardless of the time interval between the start and finish of the release from the vessel. TCC commented that footnote 1 should be changed to: "The initial sample shall be taken during the first hour of discharge, a second sample shall be taken during the final hour of the discharge." TCC also requested that the same language be included in footnote 2 in Part III.A.2.

Response 18: Samples must be collected following release from the vessel and before the effluent combines with any other flows, including wastewater and storm water, regulated or unregulated, under another permit. After the sampling point the test waters may combine with other flows prior to discharge. In response to the comments, the language in Part III.A.1. subscript 1 and Part III.A.2 subscript 2 is modified to clarify that sampling is required at the beginning and ending of the discharge from the vessel, not for every separate release from the vessel. The subscripts now state: "Samples shall be taken during the first hour of discharge. Samples must be collected at a point immediately following discharge from the vessel and prior to commingling with storm water, wastewater, or other flows. For discharges that extend beyond an hour in duration, a second sample shall be taken of the last 10% of the effluent."

Comment 19: Austin requested that permittees be required to monitor discharges more frequently if the duration of the discharge exceeds one hour.

Response 19: The quality and character of the hydrostatic test discharge should be relatively consistent from the beginning to the end of the discharge. Therefore, the permit requires monitoring the initial and the final volume of the discharge for continuous discharges that exceed an hour in duration.

Comment 20: Reliant commented that the effluent limitation for total residual chlorine is too stringent and requested that the limit be set at 4.0 milligrams per liter (mg/l), which is the upper limit for residual chlorine found in the majority of permitted discharges from sewage treatment plants.

Response 20: The requirements for total residual chlorine are only applicable to discharges that are hyperchlorinated. This process is not comparable to the requirements for chlorination of treated domestic wastewater effluent at a sewage treatment plant. Hyperchlorination of water for immediate disinfection purposes produces a volume of water with an extremely elevated concentration of chlorine that is acutely toxic to aquatic organisms. In practice, reducing this extremely elevated level of chlorine requires the addition of an oxidizing agent that will result in the instantaneous reduction of chlorine to almost complete dechlorination, or less than 0.1 mg/l total residual chlorine.

Comment 21: Motiva commented that the permit specifies that TCEQ Method 1005 be used for the determination of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and that the daily maximum limitation is 15 mg/l. However, that test procedure states that: "Non-petroleum organic compounds which are soluble in n-pentane . . . will be quantified as part of the TPH. . .." Motiva commented that if the supply water being used for hydrostatic testing has a significant amount of organic compounds it would be possible to exceed the effluent limitation for TPH even when there is no actual petroleum hydrocarbon in the water. Motiva requested that the TCEQ allow an alternate method for TPH determination or allow facilities to test the supply water for TPH and to "back-out" any non-petroleum organic compounds for the hydrostatic test results.

Response 21: TCEQ chose to not allow the alternate method, EPA Method 1664A, due to the potential loss or lack of detection of low molecular weight components. Organic matter, such as suspended organic solids, are not expected to elevate the level of TPH in samples. These materials would not dissolve in n-pentane nor alter the reporting value for TPH. A permittee may elect to sample the ambient concentration of TPH to demonstrate how background concentrations are affecting reporting values. However, the concentration detected in the two samples collected during discharge is the concentration that must be reported on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR).

Comment 22: Motiva commented that with a benzene limit for hydrostatic test water of 0.005 mg/l it would be possible for matrix interference from the source water to cause the reporting limit to be above the limitation in the permit. Motiva requested that TCEQ authorize facilities to report non-detect in instances where interference causes the reporting limit to exceed permit limitations.

Response 22: One option for permittees is to analyze the ambient quality of water that will be utilized in the hydrostatic test and predict the potential for interferences in the laboratory analysis of benzene in the hydrostatic test water sample. If the result of the analysis is above the numeric effluent limitation due to interference, permittees may want to collect all relevant documentation from the laboratory to submit with their DMRs.

The numeric effluent limitation for benzene, 0.005 mg/l, was derived by directly applying the human health-based standard from the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, delineated in 30 TAC §307.6(d)(1). The standard is based on the maximum contaminant level specified in 30 TAC Chapter 290 (relating to Water Hygiene) for treated potable water. However, 30 TAC §307.8 states that water quality standards do not apply to treated effluents at the immediate point of discharge and allows for reasonable dilution for specific human health criteria to prevent contamination of drinking water. Discharges to water bodies large enough to be designated as a public drinking water supply could be expected to experience at least a ten-fold dilution very near the discharge point and the water quality standard for benzene would be attained in the affected water body. Therefore, in response to the comment and in order to establish the effluent limitation in accordance with provisions of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, the numeric effluent limitation for benzene is revised to 0.05 mg/l. The numeric effluent limitation for total benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, and xylene (BTEX) is revised from 0.1 mg/l to 0.5 mg/l for consistency. Both revisions are consistent with existing numeric effluent limitations in Texas pollutant discharge elimination system (TPDES) General Permit TXG340000, authorizing similar discharges from petroleum bulk stations and terminals in Texas.

Part III.B.

Comment 23: Austin requested the addition of a requirement that the discharge not cause a significant sediment plume in receiving waters. Austin noted that this can cause problems with drinking water, aquatic organisms, and the reasonable uses of water in the state.

Response 23: It is not expected that discharges of hydrostatic test water would be a direct source of sediment. However, the permit contains requirements for the discharger to release the effluent to a splash pad and to control the rate of discharge in order to prevent or lessen erosion that could occur as a result of the discharge.

Comment 24: Austin requested the permit include a requirement that any discharge that appears to harm human health, safety, or the environment shall be terminated immediately.

Response 24: In response to the comment, Part III.B. is revised to include the following new provision number eight and the remaining provisions are renumbered accordingly. The new provision states that: "The permittee shall take necessary steps to prevent adverse effects to human health, safety, or to the environment. The permittee shall immediately cease discharging whenever it is determined the discharge may endanger human health, safety, or the environment."

Comment 25: Harris County commented that Part III.B.9. (now numbered Part III.B.10.) requires permittees to provide noncompliance notification to TCEQ following any noncompliance that may endanger human health or safety, but that the permit does not require notification of local agencies. Harris County requested the addition of a provision that would require permittees to report such non-compliance to local agencies. Harris County noted that such a provision would inform local agencies of serious issues of concern to their constituencies.

Response 25: This permit requires permittees to provide notice when they fail to comply with the permit, which is consistent with analogous requirements found in individual TPDES wastewater discharge permits. The permit specifically states that this permit does not limit the authority of a home-rule municipality as provided by Texas Local Government Code, §401.002 (see Part II.B.6.). MS4 operators may require notice of non-compliance as a condition for accepting permitted discharges to their system.

TRD-200501342

Stephanie Bergeron Perdue

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: March 29, 2005

Pursuant to 25 Texas Administrative Code, §289.205, the Department of State Health Services (department), filed complaints against the following licensees: Oak Cliff Medical Foundation, Dallas, L00202; Triple G X-Ray and Testing Labs, Inc., Humble, L03136; Mobile Pet Systems, Inc., Houston, L05295; Caney Creek Trading Company, Houston, L05483; Globe Engineers, Inc., Plano, L05527.

The complaints allege that these licensees have failed to pay required annual fees. The department intends to revoke the radioactive material licenses; order the licensees to cease and desist use of such radioactive materials; order the licensees to divest themselves of the radioactive material; and order the licensees to present evidence satisfactory to the department that they have complied with the orders and the provisions of the Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 401. If the fee is paid within 30 days of the date of each complaint, the department will not issue an order.

This notice affords the opportunity to the licensees for a hearing to show cause why the radioactive material licenses should not be revoked. A written request for a hearing must be received by the department within 30 days from the date of service of the complaint to be valid. Such written request must be filed with Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Radiation Control Program Officer, 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas 78756-3189. Should no request for a public hearing be timely filed or if the fee is not paid, the radioactive material licenses will be revoked at the end of the 30-day period of notice.

A copy of all relevant material is available, by appointment, for public inspection at the Department of State Health Services, Exchange Building, 8407 Wall Street, Austin, Texas, telephone (512) 834-6688, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (except holidays).

TRD-200501340

Cathy Campbell

Director, Legal Services

Department of State Health Services

Filed: March 29, 2005

On June 1, 2004, the Department of State Health Services (department) began piloting an off-line, smart card based electronic benefit transfer (EBT) system in the El Paso, Texas area. The EBT system replaces the paper voucher system supporting food delivery for participants in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). The department plans to expand EBT system operations beyond El Paso as early as October, 2005; statewide rollout is expected to be complete in November, 2006. WIC participants redeem food benefits at any one of more than 2700 WIC-authorized retail sites statewide.

Retail electronic cash register (ECR) systems capable of initiating WIC EBT transactions are divided into two types: Integrated and Stand Beside (Stand Alone). Integrated WIC EBT systems are ECR systems that have been modified to accept WIC smart cards, initiate off-line WIC EBT transactions and decrement authorized amounts from the food prescription stored on the card, and transmit claim files to the WIC host processor for settlement. Integrated WIC EBT systems accept multiple tender types, such as cash, credit, debit, food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and WIC. Stand Beside or Stand Alone WIC EBT systems are single-tender ECR systems designed to accept only WIC EBT cards in payment for the delivery of authorized WIC foods. A Stand Beside WIC EBT system operates alongside a store's existing ECR system, requiring the clerk to 'double-scan' items into and to maintain UPC and price data in both the store and WIC EBT ECR systems. A WIC EBT system is 'Stand Alone' if the grocer currently has no installed ECR. Texas WIC expects the majority of WIC-authorized supermarkets, medium and large grocery chains, independents and convenience stores will use integrated WIC EBT systems. Small volume WIC stores and those stores selling only WIC foods are expected to use either a stand beside or stand alone WIC EBT system.

In El Paso, grocers purchased their own hardware and operating system software from the vendor designated by Texas WIC. Texas WIC employed a Retail Support Contractor to provide help desk support and on-site services, including hardware warranty and maintenance. In Texas, the Stand Beside WIC EBT system piloted in El Paso consists of a custom host software application (kWICpos), Hypercom ICE 6000 terminals with an Application Programming Interface (API), and a back room controller. Currently, WIC provides Level II and Level III software support to grocers operating stand beside and stand alone WIC EBT systems. Texas WIC acquires and processes claims submitted by WIC-authorized stores for settlement.

ECR CERTIFICATION

Texas WIC would like to determine if a commercially available "low cost" small grocer solution will be available for WIC-authorized grocers in lieu of continuing to develop/maintain kWICpos software and provide hardware and software support in El Paso and eventually statewide. To be eligible for consideration, an ECR system must be certified as "WIC Ready" in Texas. Texas WIC has implemented a comprehensive ECR certification process confirmed to ensure system accuracy, reliability, integrity and performance.

Grocer ECR system and software manufacturers, technicians, and others are encouraged to provide product and service information and pricing to WIC for ECR systems that may be able to achieve WIC certification. Information on any ECR system(s) certified will be distributed to all WIC authorized grocers who have not yet committed to the implementation of an integrated system.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Interested parties should contact either John Brewer at (512) 458-7444 or Penny Tisdale at (512) 415-2227, Department of State Health Services, 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas, not later than April 12, 2005.

TRD-200501338

Cathy Campbell

Director, Legal Services

Department of State Health Services

Filed: March 29, 2005

The following third party administrator (TPA) applications have been filed with the Texas Department of Insurance and are under consideration.

Application for incorporation in Texas of HAMMERMAN & GAINER, INC., a domestic third party administrator. The home office is AUSTIN, TEXAS.

Application for incorporation in Texas of CAPROCK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, LLC, a domestic third party administrator. The home office is DALLAS, TEXAS.

Application for admission to Texas of CORVEL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, a foreign third party administrator. The home office is IRVINE, CALIFORNIA.

Any objections must be filed within 20 days after this notice is published in the Texas Register , addressed to the attention of Matt Ray, MC 107-1A, 333 Guadalupe, Austin, Texas 78701.

TRD-200501350

Gene C. Jarmon

Chief Clerk and General Counsel

Texas Department of Insurance

Filed: March 30, 2005

The Legislative Budget Board (LBB) announces the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP # HB7.2005.SPR.0010) from qualified, independent firms to provide consulting services to the LBB. The successful respondent will assist the LBB in conducting a management and performance review of San Elizario Independent School District (SEISD). The LBB reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to award one or more contracts for this review. The successful respondent(s) will be expected to begin performance of the contract or contracts, if any, on or about May 31, 2005, or as soon thereafter as practical.

Contact: Parties interested in submitting a proposal should contact Bill Parr, Assistant Director, Legislative Budget Board, 1501 N. Congress, Fifth Floor, Austin, Texas 78701, telephone number: (512) 463-1200, to obtain a copy of the RFP. The LBB will mail copies of the RFP only to those specifically requesting a copy. The RFP was made available for pick up at the above-referenced address on March 23, 2005, between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Zone Time (CZT), and during normal business hours thereafter. The LBB also made the complete RFP available electronically on the Texas Marketplace at: http://esbd.tbpc.state.tx.us and on the LBB website at http:/www.lbb.state.tx.us after 10:00 a.m. CZT, on March 23, 2005.

Questions: All questions regarding the RFP must be sent via facsimile to Bill Parr at (512) 475-2902, not later than 2:00 p.m. CZT, on April 18, 2005. Official responses to questions received by the foregoing deadline will be posted electronically on the Texas Marketplace and the LBB website no later than April 19, 2005, or as soon thereafter as practical.

Mandatory Letters of Intent: All potential respondents must submit non-binding Mandatory Letters of Intent to Propose, which must be received in the issuing office no later than 2:00 p.m. CZT, on April 18, 2005. Only the proposals of those respondents who submit a timely Letter of Intent will be considered.

Closing Date: Proposals must be received in the issuing office at the address specified above no later than 2:00 p.m. CZT, on May 9, 2005. Proposals received after this time and date will not be considered. Respondents shall be solely responsible for confirming the timely receipt of proposals.

Evaluation and Award Procedure: All proposals will be subject to evaluation by a committee based on the evaluation criteria and procedures set forth in the RFP. The LBB will make the final decision regarding the award of a contract or contracts. The LBB reserves the right to award one or more contracts under this RFP.

The LBB reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals submitted. The LBB is under no legal or other obligation to execute any contracts on the basis of this notice or the distribution of any RFP. The LBB shall not pay for any costs incurred by any entity in responding to this Notice or the RFP.

The anticipated schedule of events is as follows:

Issuance of RFP - March 23, 2005, after 10:00 a.m. CZT;

Questions Due - April 18, 2005, 2:00 p.m. CZT;

Letters of Intent Due - April 18, 2005, 2:00 p.m. CZT;

Official Responses to Questions Posted - April 19, 2005, or as soon thereafter as practical;

Proposals Due - May 9, 2005, 2:00 p.m. CZT;

Contract Execution - May 31, 2005, or as soon thereafter as practical;

Commencement of Project Activities - May 31, 2005, or as soon thereafter as practical.

TRD-200501271

Bill Parr

Assistant Director

Legislative Budget Board

Filed: March 23, 2005

1.0 Name and Style of Game.

A. The name of Instant Game No. 547 is "COOL 7’S". The play style in Game 1 is "key number match with doubler". The play style in Game 2 is "three in a line". The play style in Game 3 is "match up with doubler". The play style in Game 4 is "key number match with doubler".

1.1 Price of Instant Ticket.

A. Tickets for Instant Game No. 547 shall be $5.00 per ticket.

1.2 Definitions in Instant Game No. 547.

A. Display Printing - That area of the instant game ticket outside of the area where the Overprint and Play Symbols appear.

B. Latex Overprint - The removable scratch-off covering over the Play Symbols on the front of the ticket.

C. Play Symbol- The printed data under the latex on the front of the instant ticket that is used to determine eligibility for a prize. Each Play Symbol is printed in Symbol font in black ink in positive except for dual-image games. The possible black play symbols are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, $1.00, $2.00, $5.00, $7.00, $10.00, $11.00, $27.00, $77.00, $100, $1,000, $7,000, $70,000, 7 SYMBOL, X SYMBOL, [ ] SYMBOL.

D. Play Symbol Caption- the printed material appearing below each Play Symbol which explains the Play Symbol. One caption appears under each Play Symbol and is printed in caption font in black ink in positive. The Play Symbol Caption which corresponds with and verifies each Play Symbol is as follows:

1.0 Name and Style of Game.

A. The name of Instant Game No. 561 is "TEXAS CASH". The play style is "key number match with auto win".

1.1 Price of Instant Ticket.

A. Tickets for Instant Game No. 561 shall be $5.00 per ticket.

1.2 Definitions in Instant Game No. 561.

A. Display Printing - That area of the instant game ticket outside of the area where the Overprint and Play Symbols appear.

B. Latex Overprint - The removable scratch-off covering over the Play Symbols on the front of the ticket.

C. Play Symbol- The printed data under the latex on the front of the instant ticket that is used to determine eligibility for a prize. Each Play Symbol is printed in Symbol font in black ink in positive except for dual-image games. The possible black play symbols are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, FLAG SYMBOL, $1.00, $2.00, $4.00, $5.00, $10.00, $15.00, $20.00, $25.00, $40.00, $50.00, $100, $500, $1,000 and $50,000.

D. Play Symbol Caption- the printed material appearing below each Play Symbol which explains the Play Symbol. One caption appears under each Play Symbol and is printed in caption font in black ink in positive. The Play Symbol Caption which corresponds with and verifies each Play Symbol is as follows:

1.0 Name and Style of Game.

A. The name of Instant Game No. 591 is "TRIPLE 3’S. The play style is "key symbol match with multiplier and bonus feature".

1.1 Price of Instant Ticket.

A. Tickets for Instant Game No. 591 shall be $3.00 per ticket.

1.2 Definitions in Instant Game No. 591.

A. Display Printing - That area of the instant game ticket outside of the area where the Overprint and Play Symbols appear.

B. Latex Overprint - The removable scratch-off covering over the Play Symbols on the front of the ticket.

C. Play Symbol- The printed data under the latex on the front of the instant ticket that is used to determine eligibility for a prize. Each Play Symbol is printed in Symbol font in black ink in positive except for dual-image games. The possible black play symbols are: $3.00, $5.00, $9.00, $10.00, $15.00, $30.00, $50.00, $60.00, $100, $300, $900, $30,000, 1 SYMBOL, 2 SYMBOL, 3 SYMBOL, 4 SYMBOL, 5 SYMBOL, 6 SYMBOL, 7 SYMBOL, 8 SYMBOL, 9 SYMBOL, 3 TIMES SYMBOL and NO BONUS SYMBOL.

D. Play Symbol Caption- the printed material appearing below each Play Symbol which explains the Play Symbol. One caption appears under each Play Symbol and is printed in caption font in black ink in positive. The Play Symbol Caption which corresponds with and verifies each Play Symbol is as follows:

On March 23, 2005, Nortex Telcom, L.L.C. filed an application with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (Commission) to relinquish its certificate of operating authority (COA) granted in COA Certificate Number 50015. Applicant intends to relinquish its certificate.

The Application: Application of Nortex Telcom, L.L.C. to Relinquish its Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket Number 30913.

Persons wishing to comment on the action sought should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas, 78711-3326, or by phone at (512) 936-7120 or toll free at 1-888-782-8477 no later than April 13, 2005. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136 or toll free at 1-800-735-2989. All comments should reference Docket Number 30913.

TRD-200501324

Adriana A. Gonzales

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: March 28, 2005

Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission of Texas of an application filed on March 22, 2005 for an amendment to certificated service area boundaries within Brown County, Texas.

Docket Style and Number: Application of Coleman County Electric Cooperative, Inc., for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for Service Area Boundaries within Brown County. Docket Number 30892.

The Application: Coleman County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CCEC) requests a service area boundary amendment to supply power to an oil well listed as the Guthrie #4 in an area that is certified to Cap Rock Corporation (Cap Rock). CCEC has facilities 2020 feet from the site. Cap Rock's nearest facilities are located a mile away. Cap Rock is in full agreement with the territory amendment. The amount of money expected to be expended on new facilities if the application is granted is approximately $7,272.

Persons wishing to comment on the action sought or intervene should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas no later than April 18, 2005 by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or by phone at (512) 936-7120 or toll-free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136 or use Relay Texas (toll-free) 1-800-735-2989. All comments should reference Docket Number 30892.

TRD-200501314

Adriana Gonzales

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: March 24, 2005

Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission of Texas of an application filed on March 22, 2005 for an amendment to certificated service area boundaries within Hidalgo County, Texas.

Docket Style and Number: Application of Magic Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc., and AEP Texas Central Company for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for Service Area Boundaries within Hidalgo County. Docket Number 30893.

The Application: Magic Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (MVEC) received a request to provide service to all lots within the Los Venados Subdivision which lies partially within MVEC's service area. The remainder of the subdivision is in AEP Texas Central Company's (TCC) service area. MVEC has existing facilities in place. TCC's nearest facilities are located 7 miles away. TCC is in full agreement with the territory amendment.

Persons wishing to comment on the action sought or intervene should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas no later than April 18, 2005 by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or by phone at (512) 936-7120 or toll-free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136 or use Relay Texas (toll-free) 1-800-735-2989. All comments should reference Docket Number 30893.

TRD-200501315

Adriana Gonzales

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: March 24, 2005

Notice is given to the public of an application filed with the Public Utility Commission of Texas on March 23, 2005, to relinquish designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.418.

Docket Title and Number: Application of Nortex Telcom, L.L.C. to Relinquish its Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC), Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.418(i)(1). Docket Number 30912.

The Application: Nortex was granted ETC designation in the Denton exchange. Nortex now seeks to relinquish its ETC designation in the Denton Exchange as it sold its assets to Grande Communications.

Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or by phone at (512) 936-7120 or toll free at 1-888-782-8477 no later than April 28, 2005. Hearing and speech- impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136 or toll free at 1-800-735-2989. All comments should reference Docket Number 30912.

TRD-200501323

Adriana A. Gonzales

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: March 28, 2005

Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission of Texas of a petition on March 21, 2005, for waiver of denial by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) Pooling Administrator (PA) of Consolidated Communications of Fort Bend Company's request for one 1,000-block of numbers in the Katy, Texas exchange.

Docket Title and Number: Petition of Consolidated Communications of Fort Bend Company for Waiver of Neustar Denial of Number Block Request in the Katy, Texas Exchange. Docket Number 30886.

The Application: Consolidated Communications of Fort Bend Company submitted an application to the Pooling Administrator (PA) for numbering resources in the Katy, Texas exchange. The PA denied the request based on the grounds that Consolidated Communications of Fort Bend Company had not met the utilization threshold necessary in order to obtain growth number resources.

Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or by phone at (512) 936-7120 or toll free at 1-888-782-8477 no later than April 14, 2005. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136 or toll free at 1-800-735-2989. All comments should reference Docket Number 30886.

TRD-200501313

Adriana Gonzales

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Filed: March 24, 2005