Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held by the Texas State
Affordable Housing Corporation (the "Issuer") on September 17, 2001 at 5:30
p.m., at the Thousand Oaks-El Sendero Library, 4618 Thousand Oaks, San Antonio,
Texas 78233, with respect to an issue of multifamily housing revenue bonds
(the "Bonds") to be issued by the Issuer in one or more series in an aggregate
principal amount not to exceed $23,000,000, the proceeds of which will be
loaned to Commonwealth Multifamily Housing Corporation, an Internal Revenue
Code §501(c)(3) corporation, to finance the acquisition, construction
and equipment of a multifamily housing property (the "Property") to be located
in the city of San Antonio, Texas. The public hearing, which is the subject
of this notice, will concern the White Rock Apartments, a proposed 336-unit
apartment community to be located in the 3100 block of Thousand Oaks Drive
near its southeast intersection with Jones Maltsberger Drive, San Antonio,
Texas. The Property will be owned by Commonwealth Multifamily Housing Corporation.
All interested parties are invited to attend such public hearing to express
their views with respect to the Property and the issuance of the Bonds. Questions
or requests for additional information may be directed to Daniel C. Owen at
the Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation, 1715 West 35th Street, Austin,
Texas 78703; 1-888-638-3555 ext. 404.
Persons who intend to appear at the hearing and express their views are
invited to contact Daniel C. Owen in writing in advance of the hearing. Any
interested persons unable to attend the hearing may submit their views in
writing to Daniel C. Owen prior to the date scheduled for the hearing.
Individuals who require auxiliary aids in order to attend this meeting
should contact Glenda David, ADA Responsible Employee, at 1-888-638-3555,
ext.417 through Relay Texas at 1-800-735-2989 at least two days before the
meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
Individuals who require child care to be provided at this meeting should
contact Glenda David at 1-888-638-3555, ext. 417, at least five days before
the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
Individuals may transmit written testimony or comments regarding the subject
matter of this public hearing to Daniel Owen at dowen@tsahc.org.
TRD-200104762
Daniel C. Owen
Vice President
Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation
Filed: August 15, 2001
Request for Proposals
The Texas Department on Aging previously published this notice in the August
17,
Texas Register
(26 TexReg 6130). This
notice corrects the previously published version.
BACKGROUND
The Texas Department on Aging (TDoA) is soliciting proposals for one time
only capacity building grants to enhance supports for informal caregivers
targeted to entities with the greatest geographical and population impact
possible. These grants would require a 50% cash or in-kind match. The maximum
funding level will be five to ten awards of $5,000 to $10,000 each. The total
funds available to award is $50,000.
In December 2000, Congress approved President Clinton's $125 million request
to fund the new National Family Caregiver Support Program (NFCSP). This program
will provide critical support needed by families to assist them in maintaining
their caregiver roles. Texas has been allocated $6.1 million dollars to implement
the federal Caregiver Initiative as described in the new reauthorized OAA.
Services to be provided across the state include but are not limited to:
Information to caregivers about available services;
Assistance to caregivers in gaining access to available services;
Individual counseling, organization of support groups and caregiving training
to caregivers to assist in making decisions and solving problems relating
to their caregiving roles;
Respite care to enable caregivers to be temporarily relieved from their
caregiving responsibilities; and
Supplemental services, on a limited basis, to complement the care provided
by caregivers.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
This Request for Proposals (RFP) invites applications from government,
public, private, non-profit and for-profit entities that provide direct or
support services to informal caregivers of persons aged 60 and older. Priority
will be given to applicants whose response will result in the greatest geographical
and population impact possible and who provide the greatest chance for long
term sustainability.
AWARD INSTRUMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY
The award will be a grant. Responsibility for the planning, direction,
and execution of the proposed project may be shared among collaborating organizations,
but is ultimately the sole responsibility of the applicant.
PROJECT PERIOD
The total project period for applications submitted in response to this
RFP may not exceed twelve months, and must be concluded by October 30, 2002.
SCOPE OF THE WORK
The selected proposals will enable the applicants
to build infrastructure and/or to enhance support
for informal caregivers
of older people in the following areas (these funds are restricted from being
used to provide direct services to caregivers and/or older people):
Information to caregivers about available services;
Assistance to caregivers in gaining access to available services;
Individual counseling, organization of support groups and caregiving training
to caregivers to assist in making decisions and solving problems relating
to their caregiving roles;
Respite care to enable caregivers to be temporarily relieved from their
caregiving responsibilities; and
Supplemental services, on a limited basis, to complement the care provided
by caregivers.
Eligible caregivers include:
Family caregiver or informal provider of in-home and community care to
an older person aged 60+;
Persons aged 60+ acting as the primary caregiver for children younger than
18 years of age.
DELIVERABLES
Final deliverables will be due no later than November 15, 2002. Deliverables
will include:
Quarterly written reports that will identify the progress toward the achievement
of the outcomes identified in the proposal. (See attachment C for reporting
instructions and report form). These will be due 2/15/2002, 5/15/2002, 8/15/2002,
and 11/15/2002.
The final quarterly report should identify the outcomes produced by the
capacity building efforts, as well as identifying those efforts that may not
have been successful. The final quarterly report is due no later than 5:00
p.m. November 15, 2002.
WRITTEN MATERIALS
The proposal shall include a list of materials it intends to create with
grant funds, shall describe the purpose for the materials, and shall state
where the materials will be distributed. Written materials created with grant
funds provided by the Department shall contain a statement acknowledging the
financial support of the Texas Department on Aging. The materials shall be
submitted to the Department for approval of content prior to being printed
for distribution to ensure that the materials are not inconsistent with Department
objectives.
The Contractor shall retain ownership of intellectual property rights in
any written materials developed through this agreement, except to the extent
provided by the Uniform Grant Management Standards adopted by the Governor's
Office of Budget and Planning, and Federal OMB circulars, as applicable.
If the Department does not obtain intellectual property rights according
to the provisions cited above, the Contractor, by entering into a contract
with the Department, grants to the Department a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable,
world-wide license to reproduce and distribute copies of the materials created
with funds provided under the grant.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
(1) The dispute resolution process provided for in Chapter 2260 of the
Government Code shall be used as further described herein, by the TDoA and
the contractor to attempt to resolve any claim for breach of contract made
by the contractor:
(A) A contractor's claim for breach of contract that the parties cannot
resolve in the ordinary course of business shall be submitted to the negotiation
process provided in Chapter 2260, subchapter B, of the Government Code. To
initiate the process, the contractor shall submit written notice, as required
by subchapter B, to Mary Sapp, Executive Director. Said notice shall specifically
state that the provisions of Chapter 2260, subchapter B, are being invoked,
A copy of the notice shall also be given to all other representatives of the
TDoA and the contractor otherwise entitled to notice under the parties' contract.
Compliance by the contractor with subchapter B is a condition precedent to
the filing of a contested case proceeding under Chapter 2260, subchapter C,
of the Government Code.
The contested case process provided in Chapter 2260, subchapter C, of the
Government Code is the contractor's sole and exclusive process for seeking
a remedy for any and all alleged breaches of contract by the TDoA if the parties
are unable to resolve their disputes under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.
Compliance with the contested case process provided in subchapter C is
a condition precedent to seeking consent to sue from the Legislature under
Chapter 107 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code. Neither the execution
of this contract by the TDoA nor any other conduct of any representative of
the TDoA relating to the contract shall be considered a waiver of sovereign
immunity to suit.
The submission, processing and resolution of the contractor's claim is
governed by the published rules adopted by the Attorney General pursuant to
Chapter 2260, as currently effective, hereafter enacted or subsequently amended.
Neither the occurrence of an event nor the pendency of a claim constitutes
grounds for the suspension of performance by the contractor, in whole or part.
ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITY
Applicants must have experience in providing services and/or information
to older people and/or caregivers of persons aged 60 and over. Applicants
must provide a description of the organization's experience that is relevant
to this project. Failure to include sufficient information to substantiate
experience in providing services and/or information to older people and/or
their caregivers will result in disqualification of the application.
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
Proposals must comply with all applicable rules and statutes relating to
grant awards in the State of Texas. Late and/or unsigned proposals will not
be considered under any circumstances. The person submitting the proposal
must have the authority to bind the organization in a contract.
TDoA reserves the right to accept or reject all or any part of a proposal,
waive minor technicalities, and award the proposal to best serve the interests
of the agency.
APPLICATION FORMAT
Applications must respond to all aspects specified in the RFP. To facilitate
application review and evaluation, applications shall follow the following
format:
I. Cover Page
(including name of applicant,
project name, and date submitted);
II. Statement of Opportunity
(a discussion
of the issues in general, the specific focus of the proposal, rationale for
why the capacity building is needed, and the expected measurable, observable
outcomes, including a timeline for accomplishing those measurable, observable
outcomes);
III. Project Design and Work Plan
(a description
of the methodological approach and tasks that will be required for the proposed
study, including a timeline for completing tasks and deliverables);
IV. Organizational Capacity
(description
of the applicant's capacity to achieve the objectives identified in the proposal
including supporting documentation such as examples of previous capacity building
efforts); and
V. Budget
(a detailed budget and justification,
including identification of the sources for the required 50% cash and/or in-kind
match. If you are unable to provide the required cash or in-kind match, please
provide a detailed justification of the reasons why).
The proposal narrative (Statement of the Opportunity, Project Design and
Work Plan, and Organizational Capacity) should not exceed ten double-spaced
pages in 12 pt. type. Additional documentation may be appended.
The maximum funding level will be five to ten awards of $5,000 to $10,000
each, with the total available to award being $50,000.
APPLICATION SUBMISSION
An original, plus four copies of the paper application should be sent directly
to:
Gary Jessee, Special Projects Officer, Texas Department on Aging, P.O.
Box 12786, Austin, TX 78711
The application must be received by TDoA no later than September 27, 2001.
An application will be considered "on time" if it is received on or before
the closing date of September 27, 2001, or if it is postmarked on or before
September 27, 2001. Applications must be mailed through the U.S. Postal Service
or a commercial delivery service. No facsimiles will be accepted. Applications
postmarked after the closing date, or postmarked before the closing date but
not received in time for panel review, will be considered late applications.
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
The Applicant Affirmation, and Good Faith Effort Program Other Services
Form must be attached to and submitted with the proposal (Attachments B and
C).
REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS AND CRITERIA FOR SELECTION
Acceptable applications will be referred to a technical panel for evaluation
and scoring. To assist in the preparation of the application, established
criteria for review are provided below. The panel will consist of TDoA staff
and staff from other State agencies. The panel will be convened on October
10, 2001. Applicants will be mailed written notification of the final award
decision on October 17, 2001. Failure to provide the required information
with the application will automatically disqualify the proposal from consideration
for the award in connection with this RFP.
Evaluation and grant award will be based on the following criteria (the
weighted value for each criteria is identified in parenthesis):
1. Evidence of applicant's experience in developing and providing programs
or services (20%);
2. Evidence that the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses
are adequately developed, and appropriate to the aims of the project (20%);
3. Submission of a realistic work plan and timeline (20%);
4. A budget and justification that is appropriate for the scope and quality
needed for successful completion of the project (20%); and
5. Evidence of sustainability beyond the life of this initial capacity
building funding, (20%).
VALIDATION OF OFFERS
Prior to award of the grant, TDoA must be assured that the selected applicant
has the resources with the required experience to successfully perform under
the contract, and that these resources will be available during the term of
the contract. If during the evaluation process, TDoA is unable to assure itself
of a selected applicant's ability to perform under the grant, TDoA has the
option of requesting from the selected applicant any information which it
deems necessary to aid in determining whether the selected applicant has the
experience to perform the contract.
NOTIFICATION OF AWARD
All applicants will be notified by the TDoA contact person concerning the
award of a contract. The selected applicant will receive a contract from TDoA.
The selected applicant must meet all TDoA contractual requirements for execution
of the contract.
RFP REVIEW AND AWARD SCHEDULE
RFP Announcement - August 17, 2001
Applications due by 5:00 p.m. - September 27, 2001
Notification of Award - October 17, 2001
Execute Contract - November 1, 2001
Questions regarding this RFP can be directed to Gary Jessee at (512) 424-
6857.
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
TRD-200104756
Gary Jessee
Aging Network Policy Coordinator
Texas Department on Aging
Filed: August 15, 2001
Texas Department on Aging and Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs
The Texas Department on Aging previously published this notice in the August
17,
Texas Register
(26 TexReg 6139). This
notice corrects the previously published version.
BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH FOCUS
The Texas Department on Aging (TDoA) and the Texas Department on Housing
and Community Affairs (TDHCA) are soliciting proposals for a study of the
housing needs of the 60+ population in Texas with a maximum funding level
not to exceed $120,000.
Housing contributes significantly to the quality of life experienced by
older persons. Well designed, suitably located, and affordable housing can
help sustain the independence of older persons, and ease the burden of disabilities
that often accompany aging. Although progress has been made in improving the
housing conditions of older persons, national data reveal that certain groups
of older households remain in need of assistance. Prominent among those in
need are the population age 75+, women living alone, minorities, rural households,
and renters.
Senate Bill 374 (76th Texas Legislature) requires TDoA and TDHCA to assess
the need for housing for elderly individuals and for families in which an
elderly individual is head of the household in different localities in Texas.
Research focus should include:
habitation of substandard units;
excessive expenditures for housing compared to other groups;
identification of different housing options utilized by the older population,
basic costs; associated with each option, and reasons people transition between
the various options;
and other possible research questions as proposed by the selected applicant
and mutually agreed to by TDoA, TDHCA, and the applicant.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
This Request for Proposals (RFP) invites applications from government,
public, private, non-profit and for-profit entities.
AWARD INSTRUMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY
The award will be a contract for services. Responsibility for the planning,
direction, and execution of the proposed project may be shared among collaborating
organizations, but is ultimately the sole responsibility of the applicant.
PROJECT PERIOD
The total project period for applications submitted in response to this
RFP may not exceed twelve months, and must be concluded by December 15, 2002.
SCOPE OF THE WORK
The selected proposal will develop a methodology and conduct a study of
housing needs for the population age 60+, analyze state policy relating to
housing, provide a written and an electronic version of the report summarizing
the results, and provide data to TDoA and TDHCA in electronic format. The
research should include analysis based on:
Age:
60+ population including the oldest
of the 60+ population.
Geographical Designations:
11 TDHCA service
regions (see Attachment L for definition of regions).
Residence:
(urban, suburban, and rural):
The definition for rural is specified by the Office of Management and Budget.
"An area is rural if: 1. it is outside the boundaries of a Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA); or 2. it is within the boundaries of an MSA but has a population
of not more than 20,000 and does not share boundaries with an urbanized area."
Race/Ethnicity:
major racial and ethnic groups
Income Levels:
as defined by TDHCA:
0-30% of median income is defined as extremely low income
30-50% of median income is defined as very low income
51-80% of median income is defined as low income.
The study may be based on estimation techniques utilizing national surveys
and Texas State Data Center projections and/or primary data collection. If
sampling is used, the sample size must be sufficient to ensure the 95 percent
confidence level for results are no more than + 3 percent and support statistically
reliable results for each of the variables listed above.
The selected applicant in consultation with TDoA and TDHCA staff will develop
data collection instruments. The research organization must be able to administer
interviews in English and Spanish. The data collection instrument will also
collect social and demographic data that will allow for subgroup analysis
on the variables specified above. The research organization will submit drafts
of English and Spanish versions of the survey instrument to TDoA and TDHCA
for review and approval prior to interviewing. TDoA and TDHCA staff will be
allowed access to the data collection site/facilities during data collection
to ensure appropriate quality of data. The selected applicant will code responses
to open ended items included in survey instruments, and enter this data into
an automated database for tabulation and analysis with other survey data.
The data analysis will include frequency distributions, crosstabulations,
and other data manipulations as directed by TDoA and TDHCA. The selected applicant
will provide raw data as an ASCII fixed field length, comma delimited data
file.
The selected applicant will provide an appropriate analysis of data and
will prepare and submit a written report that will contain: an executive summary,
a detailed statistical analysis of results, an analysis of state policy in
the related areas, and an analysis of the social and demographic dimensions
specified above. The written report will also include graphic presentation
of data as appropriate. The selected applicant will describe the methodology
and confidence level of results in an appendix to the report. The selected
applicant will submit an initial draft of the report to TDoA and TDHCA for
staff review, and finalize the report by incorporating revisions and additional
analyses requested by TDoA and TDHCA.
DELIVERABLES
Final deliverables will be due no later than December 15, 2002. Deliverables
will include:
detailed proposal including policy analysis and project design and methodology
data collection instruments
hard copy of frequency distributions
crosstabulations and other data manipulations
ASCII file containing raw data.
draft version of the written report
Final revised written report
The final report should address the background and scope of the problem
for the aged population and an analysis of Texas state policy in each area.
The final report is due no later than 5:00 p.m. December 15, 2002.
Provisions made to protect the health, well-being, dignity, or confidentiality
of human subjects should be documented, if applicable. For example, university
applicants are asked to provide a copy of approval from their Institutional
Review Board or other committee to review the appropriateness of the course
of activities performed pursuant to this agreement.
WORK MADE FOR HIRE
All work performed pursuant to this Agreement specifically including all
Deliverables developed or prepared for the TDoA is the exclusive property
of the State of Texas. All right, title, and interest in and to said property
shall vest in the State of Texas and shall be deemed to be a work made for
hire and made in the course of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
To the extent that title to any work may not, by operation of law, vest in
the State of Texas or such work may not be considered a work made for hire,
all rights, title, and interest therein are hereby irrevocably assigned to
the State of Texas. The TDoA and/or the State of Texas shall have the right
to obtain and to hold in its own name, copyrights, registrations, or such
other protection as may be appropriate to the subject matter, and any extensions
and renewals thereof. Contractor agrees to give the TDoA and/or the State
of Texas and any person designated by the Department and/or the State of Texas,
reasonable assistance required to assert the rights defined in this paragraph.
LICENSE AGREEMENT
TDOA shall grant to the awarded Contractor a non-exclusive, irrevocable,
world-wide, royalty-free, license to use, reproduce, distribute, and display
the materials created pursuant to this agreement, subject to the following
terms and conditions. The license granted shall terminate on December 31,
2004, unless renewed by the parties in writing, terminated sooner in accordance
with its terms, or if the Agreement of which this clause is a part, is terminated
for cause. Each copy of the materials that the Contractor distributes shall
indicate on the cover that the creation of the material was funded by the
Texas Department on Aging. The first page on the inside of the material shall
contain the following copyright notice: (c) 2001 Texas Department on Aging,
State of Texas. The Contractor agrees that it will not charge a fee for the
distribution of the materials, except to recover actual duplication and mailing
costs. Contractor shall not create derivatives of or modify the content of
the materials except with the express written consent of the TDOA. Failure
to comply with the terms of this license agreement may result in immediate
termination of the license agreement by TDOA. Upon termination of this license
agreement, Contractor shall return the remaining materials to TDOA, or shall
destroy or distribute them, in accordance with the instructions of the TDOA.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
(1) The dispute resolution process provided for in Chapter 2260 of the
Government Code shall be used as further described herein, by the TDoA and
the contractor to attempt to resolve any claim for breach of contract made
by the contractor:
(A) A contractor's claim for breach of contract that the parties cannot
resolve in the ordinary course of business shall be submitted to the negotiation
process provided in Chapter 2260, subchapter B, of the Government Code. To
initiate the process, the contractor shall submit written notice, as required
by subchapter B, to Mary Sapp, Executive Director. Said notice shall specifically
state that the provisions of Chapter 2260, subchapter B, are being invoked,
A copy of the notice shall also be given to all other representatives of the
TDoA and the contractor otherwise entitled to notice under the parties' contract.
Compliance by the contractor with subchapter B is a condition precedent to
the filing of a contested case proceeding under Chapter 2260, subchapter C,
of the Government Code.
(B) The contested case process provided in Chapter 2260, subchapter C,
of the Government Code is the contractor's sole and exclusive process for
seeking a remedy for any and all alleged breaches of contract by the TDoA
if the parties are unable to resolve their disputes under subparagraph (A)
of this paragraph.
(C) Compliance with the contested case process provided in subchapter C
is a condition precedent to seeking consent to sue from the Legislature under
Chapter 107 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code. Neither the execution
of this contract by the TDoA nor any other conduct of any representative of
the TDoA relating to the contract shall be considered a waiver of sovereign
immunity to suit.
(2) The submission, processing and resolution of the contractor's claim
is governed by the published rules adopted by the Attorney General pursuant
to Chapter 2260, as currently effective, hereafter enacted or subsequently
amended.
(3) Neither the occurrence of an event nor the pendency of a claim constitutes
grounds for the suspension of performance by the contractor, in whole or part.
ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITY
Applicants must have a minimum of five years experience performing gerontological
research and policy analysis using rigorous research methods, published gerontological
research in major peer-reviewed journals, and a record of funded gerontological
research and policy analysis. Applicants must provide a description of the
organization's research experience that is relevant to this project. Prior
experience conducting research on housing issues, and collaboration with other
experts is preferred. Applicants must include a brief description of the qualifications
of expected collaborators, the available organizational resources, and the
qualifications of staff members expected to work on this project. Failure
to include a description of the principal investigators' research experience
will result in disqualification. Failure to include sufficient information
to substantiate five years experience in gerontological research will result
in disqualification of the application. Failure to include a description of
the organization, collaborators, and staff will result in disqualification.
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
Proposals must comply with all rules and statutes relating to purchasing
in the State of Texas. Late and/or unsigned proposals will not be considered
under any circumstances. The person submitting the proposal must have the
authority to bind the organization in a contract.
TDoA reserves the right to accept or reject all or any part of a proposal,
waive minor technicalities, and award the proposal to best serve the interests
of the agency.
APPLICATION FORMAT
Applications must respond to all aspects specified in the RFP. To facilitate
application review and evaluation, applications shall follow the following
format:
I. Cover Page
(including name of applicant,
project name, and date submitted)
II. Table of Contents
III. Executive Summary
(limited to two double-spaced
pages)
IV. Statement of the Problem
(a discussion
of the issues in general, the specific focus of the proposal, rationale for
why the research is needed, and the expected outcomes)
V. Literature Review
(a brief discussion
of the literature and studies pertinent to the proposed research)
VI. Project Design and Workplan
(a description
of the methodological approach and tasks that will be required for the proposed
study, including a timeline for completing tasks and deliverables)
VII. Organizational Capacity
(description
of the applicant's capacity to achieve the objectives identified in the proposal
including supporting documentation such as examples of previous reports, survey
instruments, etc.; a description of the organization, and the qualifications
of collaborators and project staff)
VIII. Budget
(a detailed budget and justification)
IX. Biographical Sketch
(one page biographical
sketch of the Principal Investigator)
The proposal narrative (Statement of the Problem, Literature Review, Project
Design and Work Plan, and Organizational Capacity) should not exceed twenty
double-spaced pages in 12 pt. type. Additional documentation may be appended.
Applicants must provide an executive summary of not more than two pages describing
how the requirements of the RFP will be met.
The maximum funding level will be $120,000, which includes both direct
and indirect costs. Requests for indirect costs shall not exceed ten percent
of the total budget requested.
APPLICATION SUBMISSION
An original, plus nine copies of the paper application should be sent directly
to:
Jane Norwood, Office of Public Policy & Information, Texas Department
on Aging, PO Box 12786, Austin, TX 78711
The application must be received by TDoA no later than October 1, 2001.
An application will be considered "on time" if it is received on or before
the closing date of October 1, 2001, or if it is postmarked on or before October
1, 2001. Applications must be mailed through the U.S. Postal Service or a
commercial delivery service. No facsimiles will be accepted. Applications
postmarked after the closing date, or postmarked before the closing date but
not received in time for panel review, will be considered late applications.
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
The HUB Subcontracting Plan (HSP) and all accompanying forms (Attachments
A through K), and the Applicant Affirmation (Attachment M) must be completed
and submitted with the proposal. Failure to provide these forms with the application
will disqualify the proposal from consideration for the award in connection
with this RFP.
REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS AND CRITERIA FOR SELECTION
Acceptable applications will be referred to a technical panel for evaluation
and scoring. To assist in the preparation of the application, established
criteria for review are provided below. The panel will consist of TDoA and
TDHCA staff and possibly staff from other State agencies. The panel will be
convened on October 2, 2001. Applicants will be mailed written notification
of the final award decision on November 12, 2001. Failure to provide the required
information with the application will automatically disqualify the proposal
from consideration for the award in connection with this RFP.
Evaluation and grant award will be based on the following criteria (weighted
values in parenthesis):
1. evidence of applicant's experience in developing and conducting gerontological
research and policy analysis (include examples of previous reports, survey
instruments, etc.,(20%);
2. evidence that the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses
are adequately developed, and appropriate to the aims of the project (20%);
3. evidence of collaboration and well defined roles among key parties (20%);
4. submission of a realistic work plan and timeline (20%); and
5. a budget and justification that is appropriate for the scope and quality
needed for successful completion of the project (20%).
TDoA and TDHCA are particularly interested in supporting collaborations
between organizations that will design and conduct gerontological research.
The collaborating organizations should identify an applicant organization
with strong experience in research on aging issues.
VALIDATION OF OFFERS
Prior to award of the grant, TDoA and TDHCA must be assured that the selected
applicant has the resources with the required experience to successfully perform
under the contract, and that these resources will be available during the
term of the contract. If during the evaluation process, TDoA and TDHCA are
not assured of a selected applicant's ability to perform under the grant,
TDoA and TDHCA have the option of requesting from the selected applicant any
information which they deem necessary to aid in determining whether the selected
applicant has the experience to perform the contract, or in determining whether
the selected vendor's quote is unacceptable to TDoA and TDHCA.
TDoA and TDHCA reserve the right to negotiate with applicants as well as
the right to refuse any and all responses resulting from this request for
proposals to ensure that deliverables are high quality and meet stated requirements.
NOTIFICATION OF AWARD
All applicants will be notified by the TDoA and TDHCA contact person concerning
the award of a contract. The selected applicant will receive a contract from
TDoA. The selected applicant must meet all TDoA contractual requirements for
execution of the contract.
RFP REVIEW AND AWARD SCHEDULE
RFP announcement - July 23, 2001
Applications due by 5:00 p.m. - October 1, 2001
Notification of Award - November 12, 2001
Final Deliverables Due - December 15, 2002
Questions regarding this RFP can be directed to Jane Norwood at (512) 424-6850.
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
TRD-200104757
Gary Jessee
Aging Network Policy Coordinator
Texas Department on Aging
Filed: August 15, 2001
Computer Request for Proposal
Instructions/Terms
Brazos Valley Council of Governments (BVCOG), will receive bids for Computer
Equipment to upgrade the existing Computers and add enhancements for the Brazos
Valley Workforce Centers and the offices of the Brazos Valley Council of Governments.
These seven offices are located in seven counties: Brazos, Washington, Robertson,
Leon, Madison, Grimes and Burleson.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION:
BVCOG is soliciting bids for Computer Equipment such as desktop computers,
computer racks, and networking equipment for upgrades and enhancements of
the Brazos Valley Council of Governments network in order to provide better
services our clients in the seven county areas. There is an amount of $55,000
to be procured with the possible addition of up to $75,000.
II. SUBMISSION OF BIDS:
An original and three copies of the bid must be
submitted to BVCOG by 4:00 p.m. on August 17th, 2001. Proposals must be officially
received by BVCOG office staff by this deadline, or mailed by midnight of
the deadline date, with the original and all three (3) requested copies complete
and fully assembled. Any bids or amendments delivered/received or post marked
after the deadline will not be considered, but will be deemed late and non-responsive
to this procurement process.
By Mail:
Mr. Tom Wilkinson, Executive Director
Brazos Valley Council of Governments
P.O. Drawer 4128
Bryan, Texas 77805-4128
By Hand Delivery:
Mr. Tom Wilkinson, Executive Director
Brazos Valley Council of Governments
1706 E. 29th
Bryan, Texas 77802
* Written technical assistance or questions regarding the procurement regulations,
RFP clarification, and hardware or software specifications may be obtained
only by contacting Bo Moncivais at P.O. Box 4128, Bryan, Texas 77805 or by
e-mail at the following address, bmoncivais@bvcog.org. The results will be
posted at the BVCOG web site under Information Technology. The address is
www.bvcog.org No other assistance will be provided.
III. Bid Specifications:
The following will be a listing for the
minimum
specifications for the computers and networking equipment that the
BVCOG is soliciting bids for. Only new and major manufacturer equipment should
be proposed. All the computers should be scabable (not all parts should be
built on to the mother board).
* The following are the minimum specifications for the desktop computer
Tower case (preferred)
Pentium III Processor 900mhZ or greater
3 yr warranty
128mb of ram
20 GB Hard Drive
17" monitor (16.0' viewable or greater)
Video card with at 16mb of video ram
48x cd rom drive
Mouse
Keyboard
10/100 network card
3.5 In floppy drive
The operating system must be Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 workstation or windows
98 in order to received help desk support from the Texas Workforce Information
System Technology (TWIST) help desk. TWIST is a software package developed
by the Texas Workforce Commission in Austin, Texas for the Brazos Valley Workforce
Centers to use for case management. The word processor must be Microsoft Office
2000 Professional in order to be compatible with the ITA Database that was
created by Texas Workforce Commission and the Brazos Valley Workforce Centers
are required to use.
* The following are the minimum requirements for the Laptop Computers
Pentium III Processor 900 MHz or greater
3 yr warranty
128mb of ram
20 GB Hard Drive
Video card with minimum 16mb of video ram
48x cd rom drive
Mouse
10/100 network card
3.5 In floppy drive
Carry Case
* The following are the minimum requirements for the Personal Laser Printers
Must be Microsoft Windows 95, 98, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000 compatible.
Network capable
1200 x 1200 DPI
At least 260 sheet capacity printer
8mb or memory
* The following are the minimum requirements for the Networking Equipment
Alumina Racks for mounting network equipment such as hubs, switches routers,
server, etc. The rack should be a standard 19" rack with a Black finish and
3 shelves
* The following are the minimum requirements for the Networking Equipment
24 port 10/100 auto sensing switch with a fiber module installed. Must be
compatible with the BVCOG current Bay Networks 4220T switch with a fiber module.
* There must be a 3 year parts warranty and at least a 1 year onsite warranty.
Computers must be replaced with in the first 90 days of installation if a
major problem occurs or if repeat failures occurs. A 24hr 7 days a week tech
support services.
IV. PROPOSAL SELECTION PROCESS:
The proposal evaluation will be performed by a team of network administration
professionals consisting of members of the BVCOG staff. However, BVCOG reserves
the right to alter the composition of the review team for the purpose of RFP
evaluation should the need arise. The following considerations apply to the
selection process:
A. All proposals considered must be received on time and be responsive
to the RFP instructions.
B. BVCOG will base their selection on type of product, Reasonableness of
Cost, and options available.
C. Proposals may be submitted for all or part of the items shown in Exhibit
B.
D. In accordance with the 73rd Texas Legislature, BVCOG will make a good
faith effort to award contracts to Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUB's).
A copy of the HUB certificate must be attached to the original and all three
copies of the proposal submitted for any points to be given in this area.
It is the policy of this organization to pursue HUB business. However, the
final decision as to the award of this contract will be contingent upon the
aforementioned weighted evaluation criteria.
All bidders will receive notification of the contract award. A bidder
who wishes to protest the decision will be required to notify BVCOG procurement
staff, in writing, within calendar 10 days from the date of the notification
letter. The complaint letter must specify the nature of the protest and any
desired remedies of action. BVCOG reserves the right to determine whether
the protest is valid and merits further consideration.
V. BID EVALUATION CRITERIA:
The review and selection process will include the following criteria and
value system:
Criteria Value
Types of Products
35
Responsiveness to Bid
25
Reasonableness of Cost
40
HUB
5
A. Types of Products:
This criterion examines the available products the vendors has to offer
and to deliver quality products
B. Responsiveness to Bid:
This criterion examines the extent to which the minimum requirements of
the RFP were met. The product must meet the specifications of the RFP.
C. Reasonableness of Cost:
This criterion examines the cost of all computer equipment (i.e., desktop
computers, racks, hubs, switches)
D. HUB Certification:
VI. PROPOSALS CONDITIONS:
A. BVCOG reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals submitted.
B. BVCOG is exempt by law from payment of Texas Sales Tax and Federal Excise
Tax.
C. This RFP does not commit BVCOG to pay for any cost incurred prior to
the execution of any contract. All contracts are contingent upon availability
of funds from the U.S. Department of Labor and/or the Texas Workforce Commission.
D. The intent of this RFB is to identify the various contract alternatives
and estimates of costs for computer and network equipment, which is being
solicited. BVCOG is under no legal requirement to execute a contract from
any proposal submitted.
F. Proposers shall not make contact with, or make offers of gratuities
or favors, to any officer, employee, or member of Brazos Valley Council of
Governments. Violation of this instruction will result in immediate rejection
of the bid.
G. BVCOG specifically reserves the right to vary the provisions set herein
any time prior to the execution of the contract where such variance is deemed
to be in the best interest of BVCOG.
H. All bids and their accompanying attachments will become property of
BVCOG after submission, and materials will not be returned
I. Only new, unused, first quality material shall be supplied under this
RFP. Design, strength, and quality of materials and workmanship must conform
to the highest standards.
J. The contents of a successful bid may become contractual obligations,
if a contract is awarded. Failure of the bidder to accept those obligations
may result in the cancellation of the bid from selection. The contents and
requirements of this RFP may be incorporated into any legally binding and
duly negotiated contract between BVCOG and the selected vendor(s).
K. BVCOG reserves the right to select and/or contract with more than one
vendor from the bids submitted.
VII. EXHIBIT EXPLANTIONS:
For the following exhibits please fill out the information correctly and
submit with the proposal.
The first is a budget sheet, which list out the cost of each product.
The second is a proposal sheet, which should list the Proposer
The third is a lower tier transaction form. Please sign and date.
EXHIBIT A
Budget Summary
Description
Unit Price
Total Price
Cost of each item
(I.E. laptop, desktop, rack)
$0.00
$0.00
Cost of Delivery
Cost of Installation
Cost of Maintenance Agreements
TOTAL
EXHIBIT B
BRAZOS VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
PROPOSAL SUMMARY FORM FOR
COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
NAME OF PROPOSER:
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE:
DATE:
OFFER VALID UNTIL:
EXHIBIT C
CERTIFICATION
REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION,
INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION
LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTION
This certification is required by the regulations implementing Executive
Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension, 29 CFR Part 98.510, Participant's Responsibilities.
The regulations were published as Part Vii of the May 26, 1988, Federal Register
(pages 19160-19211).
(1) The prospective recipient of Federal assistance funds certifies, by
submission of this bid, that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred,
suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded
from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency.
(2) Where the prospective recipient of Federal assistance funds is unable
to certify to any statements in this certification, such prospective participants
shall attach an explanation to this bid.
Name of Authorized Representative
Title
Signature
Title Date
Verification/Certification
TRD-200104555
Nelda Thompson
Office Manager
Brazos Valley Council of Governments
Filed: August 8, 2001
Notice and Opportunity to Comment on Requests for Consistency Agreement/Concurrence Under the Texas Coastal Management Program
On January 10, 1997, the State of Texas received federal approval of the
Coastal Management Program (CMP) (62 Federal Register pp. 1439-1440). Under
federal law, federal agency activities and actions affecting the Texas coastal
zone must be consistent with the CMP goals and policies identified in 31 TAC
Chapter 501. As required by federal law, the public is given an opportunity
to comment on the consistency of proposed activities in the coastal zone undertaken
or authorized by federal agencies. Pursuant to 31 TAC §§506.25,
506.32, and 506.41, the public comment period for these activities extends
30 days from the date published on the Coastal Coordination Council web site.
Requests for federal consistency review were received for the following projects(s)
during the period of August 3, 2001, through August 9, 2001. The public comment
period for these projects will close at 5:00 p.m. on September 14, 2001.
FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS: Applicant: Texas Department of Transportation;
Location: The project is located along Park Road 22 from its western terminus
at Waldron Road in the Flour Bluff area to 1,740-feet east of Aquarius Drive
on Padre Island. The proposed work will take place in and along the Laguna
Madre adjacent to the JFK Causeway portion of Park Road 22 in Corpus Christi,
Nueces County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle
map entitled Oso Creek, Crane Islands NW, and Crane Islands SW, Texas. Approximate
UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 669000; Northing: 3061750. CCC Project
No.: 01-0264-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to
revise Permit Application No. 22304 in response to comments received. The
original project was to raise the existing causeway by constructing a new
bridge, replacing an existing bridge and placing fill to construct the elevated
roadbed. (See CMP Project number 01-0226-F1 which was deferred to TNRCC for
consistency review). Based on new information, it is now estimated that approximately
0.4-acre of seagrass beds would be permanently filled instead of the original
estimation of 3 acres. In addition to the 0.4-acre of seagrass impacts, approximately
13.8 acres of unvegetated bay bottom, unvegetated/vegetated mud/sand flats,
and vegetated wetlands would also be permanently filled. In addition to the
existing roadway, two small spits of land located on the south side of the
road would also be excavated. A water-filled barrier would be installed temporarily
to control sedimentation during excavation of the roadway. No permanent impacts
to seagrass beds are anticipated from the temporary barrier. The new, bridged
section will provide approximately 15.2 acres of new bay bottom with an estimated
9.6 acres of the 15.2 acres expected to have adequate light for seagrass to
re-vegetate naturally. The remaining 5.6 acres would be shaded by the bridge
and would probably remain unvegetated. Type of Application: U.S.A.C.E. permit
application #22351 is being evaluated under §10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.A. §403) and §404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C.A. §§125-1387).
Applicant: J.W. Kelso Company; Location: The project is located between
the Jambalaya Seafood Restaurant and West Gulf Marine at 6200 Harborside Drive
on Galveston Bay in Galveston County, Texas. The project can be located on
the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Galveston, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates:
Zone 15; Easting: 320873; Northing: 3242158. CCC Project No.: 01-0293-F1;
Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to amend the existing
permit to remove 102 feet of existing breakwater and construct an L-shaped
alignment pier/breakwater as an addition to an existing gantry pier. This
will extend the existing pier by 150 feet to the north to provide safe alignment
of barges entering the existing gantry piers. A terminal structure extending
100 feet to the west will be used as a breakwater to provide a mooring area
for push boats and work boats to tie up to during adverse weather. Type of
Application: U.S.A.C.E. permit application #19803(08) is being evaluated under §10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.A. §403).
Applicant: The Ruzhdi Halili Trust; Location: The project is located on
the Fiesta Estate Canal at 1019 Star Drive in San Leon, Galveston County,
Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled
Galveston, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 312090; Northing:
3262904. CCC Project No.: 01-0295-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The
applicant proposes to dredge the Fiesta Estates Canal to a depth of minus
7-feet mean low water to provide vessel access to their place of business.
The dredged material will be used as fill behind the proposed bulkhead and
any remaining dredged material will be placed in on-site, upland disposal
areas. The applicant also proposes to excavate an approximately 55-foot by
407-foot area on the east bank of the canal for the purpose of docking vessels
outside of the lane of traffic. The applicant also proposes to excavate a
30-foot by 30-foot boat slip on the north end of the excavation area previously
proposed. The applicant also proposes to bulkhead the entire shoreline of
the canal, including the excavated areas previously proposed, to prevent further
shoreline erosion. The total length of shoreline to be bulkheaded is 1,121
linear feet. There are no wetlands or vegetated shallows within the proposed
project area. Type of Application: U.S.A.C.E. permit application #22417 is
being evaluated under §10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.A. §403)
and §404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. §§125-1387).
Pursuant to §306(d)(14) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C.A. §§1451-1464), as amended, interested parties are invited
to submit comments on whether a proposed action is or is not consistent with
the Texas Coastal Management Program goals and policies and whether the action
should be referred to the Coastal Coordination Council for review.
Further information for the applications listed above may be obtained from
Ms. Diane P. Garcia, Council Secretary, Coastal Coordination Council, 1700
North Congress Avenue, Room 617, Austin, Texas 78701-1495, or diane.garcia@glo.state.tx.us.
Comments should be sent to Ms. Garcia at the above address or by fax at (512)
475-0680.
TRD-200104772
Larry R. Soward
Chief Clerk, General Land Office
Coastal Coordination Council
Filed: August 15, 2001
Notice of Rate Ceilings
The Consumer Credit Commissioner of Texas has ascertained the following
rate ceilings by use of the formulas and methods described in §303.003
and §303.009, Tex. Fin. Code.
The weekly ceiling as prescribed by §303.003 and §303.009 for
the period of 08/20/01 - 08/26/01 is 18% for Consumer
1
/Agricultural/Commercial
2
/credit thru
$250,000.
The weekly ceiling as prescribed by §303.003 and §303.09 for
the period of 08/20/01 - 08/26/01 is 18% for Commercial over $250,000.
1
Credit for personal, family or household
use.
2
Credit for business, commercial, investment
or other similar purpose.
TRD-200104669
Leslie L. Pettijohn
Commissioner
Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner
Filed: August 14, 2001
Intent to Award Funds
The Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities announces its intention
to award funds to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to continue
activities focused on systems of care models for children and youth with severe
emotional and other developmental disabilities.
Background: The statewide Texas Integrated Funding Initiative (TIFI) consortium
was created in response to Senate Bill 1234, passed by the Texas Legislature
in 1999, which directed the Health and Human Services Commission to:
1. Form a consortium with representation from key child and youth serving
agencies and an equal number of family advocates;
2. Expand the Texas Integrated Funding Initiative including the development
of a competitive process to select up to 6 communities to pilot integrated
funding;
3. Develop a model and guidelines (blueprint) for the delivery of mental
health services for children and their families.
Proposed Grant Description:
To provide support
to TIFI activities to implement and expand the use of comprehensive systems
of care which involve an array of mental health and other services and supports
administered in a family-oriented fashion to meet the needs of children with
complex issues. The initiative has utilized a competitive process in the selection
of 4 communities for funding, with an additional 2 communities receiving technical
assistance and information from the consortium.
Terms and Funds: Funding for this grant will be made available in two one-year
grant periods beginning September 1, 2001. The final grant-year will end August
31, 2003. Proposed funding amount: $70,000.00 annually. Continuation funding
for year two will be contingent upon satisfactory annual review of performance
and submission of approved continuation funding work plans.
For more information regarding this announcement, please contact Carl Risinger,
Grants Management Director, Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities,
(512) 424-4084.
TRD-200104758
Roger A. Webb
Executive Director
Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities
Filed: August 15, 2001
The Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities (TCDD) announces the availability
of funds for three grant projects. TCDD is established by and funded under
state and federal law and is responsible to promote the development of support
and services necessary for individuals with developmental disabilities to
be fully included in their communities. The Council is responsible for developing
a State Plan and approving grant projects to carry out objectives in the State
Plan. The Council has a commitment to support projects that will be carried
out by organizations that share the Council's vision and values. More information
about the Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities may be obtained at:http://www.txddc.state.tx.us/menus/fset_cncl_1.asp
Request for Proposal:
Personal Attendants
Pool Demonstration Project
This announces the availability of funds for projects to be initiated in
three distinct communities demonstrating strategies that increase the number
of personal attendants available in each of those communities. Up to $100,000
per year for up to three years for each demonstration project is available
to be awarded by TCDD. Funding for these projects is subject to an independent
review process established by the Council and to the availability of funds.
The number of people who require personal assistance services (PAS) has
grown dramatically over the last two decades and is expected to increase.
This dramatic growth in the number of people receiving support at home (and
thereby avoiding institutionalization) is accompanied by a crisis in finding
qualified, motivated personnel to perform personal assistance tasks. The current
economy and low wages for personal attendants discourages potential workers
from choosing this line of work, and there is no support system in place to
assist those already working in the field.
TCDD intends to fund three different demonstration projects which utilize
innovative means to increase both recruitment and retention of personal attendants.
The projects may be independent of each other and may use different methodologies
(see examples below), but will meet at least quarterly to share strategies
and outcome information with a state level Coordinating Team, facilitated
by the Texas Department of Human Services (TDHS). The Coordinating Team will
coordinate efforts between groups, offer expertise in policy and procedure
analysis and interpretation, and synthesize the reports from the local groups
into one usable report upon project completion.
The first year of each project is expected to focus primarily on project
development activities and building partnerships at a local and regional level.
Active recruitment, training and/or placement of personal assistants are expected
to begin in the second year. Each project's third year will include continued
recruitment, training, and placement efforts and evaluation activities. The
projects should also include activities necessary to ensure sustainability
after the conclusion of TCDD's financial support. Each site will be expected
to develop strategies that will be most effective and sustainable within that
specific community. Each demonstration site will coordinate a Project Advisory
Committee that includes individuals receiving attendant services and their
families, representatives from local organizations, and local advocates. By
project completion, each project will provide a detailed description of the
targeted community, an evaluation of effectiveness of the chosen strategies,
and recommendations for improvements.
Possible strategies/methodologies to be used include (but are not limited
to):
* recruitment efforts targeting traditionally underemployed workers (i.e.,
older workers, participants in full time volunteer programs, people with disabilities,
non-English speaking individuals, welfare-to-work participants),
* development of college courses offering field work credit for supervised
personal assistance experiences,
* coordination of efforts to develop and promote a professional association
for personal attendants at a local or regional level to increase retention
of those currently employed in the field and to recruit and train new attendants.
* formation of partnerships with public and/or private workforce agencies
or home health organizations to train and place personal assistants, and
* utilization of marketing strategies for recruitment efforts in a local
or regional area.
The Council intends for one of the three chosen projects to utilize a field
work strategy and at least one project to address the needs of a rural area.
Expected Project Outcomes:
* The numbers of qualified personal attendants will be increased (reflecting
higher recruitment and/or improved retention) in three targeted communities.
* Three communities will have in place effective and sustainable programs
addressing the need to train and place personal attendants.
* Consumer satisfaction regarding quality of personal assistant care will
increase.
* TDHS will have information regarding effective and ineffective strategies
as they relate to communities with identified characteristics, to be utilized
in future efforts.
* TDHS will have information regarding barriers experienced in increasing
the numbers of personal assistants.
Proposal Components:
* The Project Objectives section must outline activities, including evaluation
methodology, to ensure the following measures of success:
- a demonstrable increase in the numbers of qualified personal assistants
due to improved recruitment and/or increased retention in employment.
- development of resources and means of sustainability that will be developed
to support the program after TCDD funding is terminated.
- a final report that describes the demographics of the specified communities,
evaluates the effectiveness of the strategies chosen for that community and
explores any barriers experienced in project implementation.
* The proposal Narrative must describe the characteristics of the geographical
region chosen, the strategy selected for use, and the reasoning behind that
selection. The Narrative should also address any issues relating to cultural
sensitivity.
* Any identified partners should supply Letters of Intent indicating their
commitment to work with the grantee on the project.
* The grantee should describe the means of establishing and supporting
a Project Advisory Committee of 8-12 people, including primary stakeholders,
in the Project Objectives section, and indicate the responsibilities and activities
of that committee in the project Narrative.
* Letters of support may be included with the proposal.
Eligibility:
Eligible applicants can be organizations that are public agencies, private
nonprofit agencies, private for profit organizations or other qualified entities.
Applicants shall be the organization that will provide the administrative
functions for the grant and which will receive, disburse, and account for
grant funds. Successful applicants may not have received funds from the Council
in the last five years for projects other than stipend support.
Terms:
* Funding for each budget period for each project may not exceed $100,000
annually, for 3 years.
* Grant funds to be used for this Request for Proposals (RFP) were awarded
to the Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities by the Administration
on Developmental Disabilities. A nonfederal match of 25% is required. The
nonfederal match may consist of "in-kind" value and/or nonfederal cash contributions.
Project activities located in counties that are designated federal poverty
areas require a minimum of 10% matching resources. An increasing match in
subsequent years is requested and will be negotiated with TCDD.
* Applicants must disclose any conflicts of interest between themselves
and Council members, employees and their immediate families.
* All printed material is to be in accessible formats including Braille,
large print, and Spanish. Any video products must have open captioning. Video
products, teleconferencing and distance learning activities are to be fully
accessible to all.
* Funds awarded may not be used for direct services and supports.
* TCDD reserves the right not to fund any proposal under the announcement.
* TCDD will retain all rights to all products created through this funding.
Continuation Funding:
Projects may be eligible
for continuation funding as specified in the original Request for Proposals.
Continuation funding will not be automatic, but will be based on a review
of the project's accomplishments, progress towards stated goals and objectives,
financial management of funds, compliance with reporting requirements, review
of most recent program audit, review of findings of TCDD's onsite reviews,
and development of alternative funding.
Deadlines:
Proposals for all of the projects
are due by 4:00 p.m. November 27th, 2001. Proposals will be accepted by mail
or in person at the Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities, 4900 North
Lamar Blvd., Office No. 4435, 4th Floor, Austin, Texas 78751.
Application Packets: For the full request for proposals, application forms
and instructions, please submit a written, fax, or e-mail request to: Carl
Risinger, Grants Management Director, Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities,
4900 N. Lamar Blvd., Austin, TX, 78751-2399, (512) 424-4084 or fax (512) 424-4097,
e-mail TXDDS@txddc.state.tx.us. This information also may be obtained through
TCDD's website at http://www.txdds.state.tx.us/. The completed application
packet must be mailed or hand delivered. Application packets cannot be faxed.
TRD-200104759
Roger A. Webb
Executive Director
Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities
Filed: August 15, 2001
The Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities (TCDD) announces the availability
of funds for three grant projects. TCDD is established by and funded under
state and federal law and is responsible to promote the development of support
and services necessary for individuals with developmental disabilities to
be fully included in their communities. The Council is responsible for developing
a State Plan and approving grant projects to carry out objectives in the State
Plan. The Council has a commitment to support projects that will be carried
out by organizations that share the Council's vision and values.
Request For Proposal: Higher Education Video
This announces the availability of funds to produce a video that appeals
to high school students and presents the stories of students with disabilities
who are currently enrolled in colleges or universities in Texas. Because a
large number of people with disabilities do not receive the support necessary
to seek and achieve success at the post secondary level, the Council wishes
to challenge students, their families, and educators to consider higher education
as a viable option for students with disabilities. Funding is available for
the creation of an 8-12 minute video, produced in Spanish and English and
with open captioning, that will accomplish this objective. A one time grant
for up to $75,000 is available beginning December 1, 2001.
Expected Project Outcomes:
* This video will demonstrate the wide range of post-secondary possibilities
for students with disabilities who have graduated or soon will be graduating
from secondary school. The video is intended to be an upbeat, interesting
video designed to hold the attention of and inspire high school students and
their families. Through the stories of students with disabilities who are
attending universities, it will address issues involved in obtaining any needed
supports to participate in all aspects of university life and identify a few
key issues relating to people with disabilities seeking higher education.
* The final product will be available with open captioning and in both
Spanish and English. The video should be produced in Beta SP and CD ROM formats.
The funding includes production of 500 VHS copies and 500 CD copies with appropriate
jackets and cases. The final product will be digitized for use on web sites.
Proposal Components:
* A comprehensive and detailed Narrative describing the initial concept,
number of stories to be presented, and means through which the script will
be developed should be included in the proposal.
The Narrative should reflect a deep level of understanding of the issues
involved for people with severe disabilities attending universities. It should
demonstrate both the applicants' intent and the ability of the applicant organization
to produce a script written in "people first" language and should model a
respect for diversity. TCDD recommends including people who have a personal
knowledge of the issues in the development of the proposal
* The Narrative and Part II, The Project Objectives section, should specifically
address the proposed timeline, degree of travel expected, variety of recruitment
strategies and the selection process to be used to acquire subjects for the
video should be developed.
* The Narrative and Budget Details sections should describe in detail any
necessary subcontracting of activities to complete the project.
The quality of subcontracted work will be the sole responsibility of the
grantee. The DD Council must approve the selection of all subcontractors.
* The Narrative should include a description of activities to establish
and support a Project Advisory Committee of 8-10 members, as approved by the
DD Council, in the Narrative and Project Objectives. The Budget Detail should
also include sufficient funds for travel and any supports/accommodations that
may be needed by committee members with disabilities. The primary role of
the Project Advisory Committee will be to provide input to project staff regarding
concept development, subject selection, and script content. The PAC shall
be responsible for reviewing and commenting on project activities and providing
advice and consultation about optimal strategies for accomplishing project
goals and objectives.
The DD Council will have final approval concerning concept, subject choice,
and script.
* A sample of past video work shall be provided with the proposal. The
sample should show an ability to produce a video in a style that youth will
find inspiring. If the applicant plans to contract with another organization
for production work, a sample of the intended production company(ies) work
should be provided. Only one copy is necessary.
Applicant Capabilities:
* In the Narrative and Qualifications of Organization Sections, applicants
should demonstrate the ability to assume responsibility for all creative and
production activities, including, but not limited to, coordination of concept
and script development, talent recruitment and direction, taping, and editing.
The applicant should show a thorough understanding of the production process
as well as of disability and education related issues. Applicants should demonstrate
experience (by either the applicant or the named sub-contractor) in the production
of high quality, inspiring, video products and ability to coordinate all aspects
of production within a set budget and timeline.
* Applicants should show evidence of thorough knowledge of issues surrounding
people with disabilities who are seeking higher education in the Proposal
Narrative.
Project Evaluation:
* Applicants should discuss a proposed process to evaluate the quality
of the final product in the proposal Narrative and in the Project Objectives
activities, as appropriate.
Terms:
* A nonfederal match, consisting of "in-kind" value and/or nonfederal cash
contributions, of 25% is required. Projects located in counties designated
as federal poverty areas require a minimum of 10% matching resources. An increasing
match in subsequent years is requested and will be negotiated with TCDD.
* Applicants must disclose any conflicts of interest between themselves
and Council members, employees and their immediate families.
* All printed material is to be in accessible formats including Braille,
large print, and Spanish. Any video products must have open captioning. Video
products, teleconferencing and distance learning activities are to be fully
accessible to all.
* TCDD reserves the right not to fund any proposal under the announcement.
* TCDD will retain all rights to all products created through this funding.
* TCDD staff will approve a Project Advisory Committee of 8-10 key stakeholders,
including self-advocates and representatives from other advocate organizations.
* The product will be distributed by an independent agent using other funding.
* TCDD must approve subjects, script, and subcontractors.
Note:
Organizations/individuals who have strengths in either video production
or knowledge of the content, but not both, are encouraged to collaborate.
Deadlines:
Proposals for all of the projects
are due by 4:00 p.m. November. 27th, 2001. Proposals will be accepted by mail
or in person at the Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities, 4900 North
Lamar Blvd., Office No. 4435, 4th Floor, Austin, Texas 78751.
Application Packets:
For the full request
for proposals, application forms and instructions, please submit a written,
fax, or e-mail request to: Carl Risinger, Grants Management Director, Texas
Council for Developmental Disabilities, 4900 N. Lamar Blvd., Austin, TX, 78751-2399,
(512) 424-4084 or fax (512) 424-4097, e-mail TXDDS@txddc.state.tx.us. This
information also may be obtained through TCDD's website at http://www.txdds.state.tx.us/.
The completed application packet must be mailed or hand delivered. Application
packets cannot be faxed.
TRD-200104760
Roger A. Webb
Executive Director
Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities
Filed: August 15, 2001
The Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities (TCDD) announces the availability
of funds for three grant projects. TCDD is established by and funded under
state and federal law and is responsible to promote the development of support
and services necessary for individuals with developmental disabilities to
be fully included in their communities. The Council is responsible for developing
a State Plan and approving grant projects to carry out objectives in the State
Plan. The Council has a commitment to support projects that will be carried
out by organizations that share the Council's vision and values.
Request for Proposal:
Youth Leadership Training
This announces the availability of funds to be awarded on behalf of the Texas
Council for Developmental Disabilities for a new project providing leadership
training for youth with disabilities. The program will provide youth with
disabilities the opportunity to come together to gain information, develop
specific skills, and establish personal goals and plans in an experientially
based program.
Funds of up to $100,000 for the first budget period (November 15, 2001
- August 31, 2002), and up to $100,000 for years two and three (September
1 - August 31) are available. The grantee is expected to hold Youth Leadership
Forums in the summers of 2002, 2003, and 2004. Funding for this project is
subject to an independent review process established by the Council and to
the availability of funds.
The program will be based on the California Governor's Committee for People
with Disabilities Youth Leadership Forum (YLF), with adaptations as necessary
to ensure outcomes in line with TCDD's mission and goal. The Forum should
follow these guidelines:
1. Students with every kind of disability (as defined in the Americans
with Disabilities Act) are invited to participate. At least 1/3 of the participants
should be people with developmental disabilities.
2. Every student participant (delegate) must have a disability and have
potential to be a leader.
3. To the extent possible, delegates should include an equal number of
male and female participants.
4. Every guest presenter who meets with the delegates must be actively
involved in and have a knowledge of disability issues. The overall training
curriculum should reflect the variety of disabilities.
5. It should be a goal that more than 50% of the staff (volunteers and
paid staff) be people with disabilities.
6. Delegates and staff should reflect the diversity existing in Texas.
7. All staff must understand and support the concept of "self-determination"
in encouraging the student delegates to establish their own personal and vocational
goals.
8. The primary training components of the Forum should be based on the
written curriculum of the California model.
More information about the California Model may be obtained at: http://www.dol.gov/dol/odep/public/pubs/ylf.htm
More information about the Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities
may be obtained at: http://www.txddc.state.tx.us/menus/fset_cncl_1.asp
Expected Project Outcomes:
* A Youth Leadership Forum, utilizing best practices and based on the model
developed by the California Governor's Committee for People with Disabilities,
will be developed during the first year of the project. The first forum will
occur in summer of 2002.
* One 4-5 day forum, targeting 20-30 high school aged students (between
the ages of 14 and 21) with disabilities, will be conducted each of the 3
years.
* Each Forum will demonstrate adequate representation across cultures,
economic strata, and disabilities among delegates.
* Effective and cost efficient living accommodations, travel arrangements,
and necessary support services will be coordinated to ensure full inclusion
and participation in all aspects of the program.
* The grantee will develop funding partners to assist with forum implementation
and to ensure sustainability after the grant has ended.
Proposal Components:
* The Narrative should describe proposed events and activities around leadership
and career planning for youth with disabilities to be conducted in a 4-5 day
training forum. The proposal should include social, artistic, athletic, and
recreational activities focused on improving team building and problem solving
skills and on empowering youth. Part II, Project Objectives, should describe
in detail the activities necessary to implement the forum.
* The Narrative should address the management of logistical issues, such
as accessible transportation and meeting and sleeping accommodations, meals,
timely communication with participants, and supports and/or accommodations
necessary for full participation. The Project Objectives and Budget Detail
should include details of these activities.
* The Narrative should describe methods for recruitment, selection, and
support for full participation of 20-30 high-school aged students with varying
disabilities from around Texas. Participants should have demonstrated leadership
potential in their schools and/or communities.
Non-traditional recruitment strategies should be considered to ensure that
participation is not limited solely to youth who are currently in high school.
The Project Objectives should indicate the timeline for these activities.
* The Narrative should describe the means of identifying and interacting
with collaborating agencies, organizations and private sponsors to assist
in recruiting and supporting students participating in the forum (TCDD has
begun work with some such agencies; the grantee should be prepared to work
with these partners as well as others they may bring into the project). Letters
of intent from any agencies described as partners should be included. The
Project Objectives should indicate the schedule and goals of any meetings
to be held or collaborative work to be done.
* The Narrative, Project Objectives, and Budget Detail sections should
reflect a well-organized use of volunteers throughout the process in order
to ensure completion of all activities within the allotted funding amounts.
* The Narrative must provide details of any sub-contracting that might
be necessary for technical assistance. The financial details should be included
in Budget Detail.
Applicant Capabilities:
* The Narrative and Qualifications sections of the proposal should demonstrate
an understanding of, commitment to, and modeling of skills necessary for effective
leadership and leadership training for youth with disabilities. This should
include evidence of familiarity with models of experiential education and
leadership training, including the model developed by California Governor's
Committee for People with Disabilities. Additional information concerning
this model is available from the California Governor's Committee for Employment
of Disabled Persons and The Office of Disability Employment Policy (formerly
the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities).
* The Narrative section should demonstrate knowledge of issues regarding
advocacy, especially surrounding issues involving people with disabilities.
* The Narrative should show the ability to make creative adaptations to
a proven model as necessary to meet anticipated needs and to utilize strengths
and opportunities as they are identified.
* The Narrative should describe the ability to contract with vendors for
accessible transportation, meeting and guest room accommodations, and other
supports as necessary to ensure that all participant needs will be met with
dignity and without exception. Details regarding any necessary subcontracts
should be covered in the Budget Justification.
* The Narrative should indicate the ability to attract and contract with
appropriate presenters.
* The Project Objectives and Budget Details should show the intention to
work closely with the identified DD Council liaison and other interested partners,
and to identify and collaborate with new partners.
Project Evaluation:
The grantee will be expected to develop and engage in ongoing evaluation
activities. The evaluation of project effectiveness will be based on customer
satisfaction and the level of responsiveness to needs and strengths as they
are identified. Customers will include all partners involved in the project
as well as youth participants. Evaluation activities should be included in
the Project Objectives, and further detail regarding these may be described
in the Narrative.
Terms
* A nonfederal match, consisting of "in-kind" value and/or nonfederal cash
contributions, of 25% is required. Projects located in counties designated
as federal poverty areas require a minimum of 10% matching resources. An increasing
match in subsequent years is requested and will be negotiated with TCDD.
* Applicants must disclose any conflicts of interest between themselves
and Council members, employees and their immediate families.
* All printed material is to be in accessible formats including Braille,
large print, and Spanish. Any video products must have open captioning. Video
products, teleconferencing and distance learning activities are to be fully
accessible to all.
* TCDD reserves the right not to fund any proposal under the announcement.
* TCDD will retain all rights to all products created through this funding.
* TCDD staff will approve a Project Advisory Committee of 8-10 key stakeholders,
including self-advocates and representatives from other advocate organizations.
* It is expected that additional funding partners will be developed to
ensure sustainability after the grant has ended.
Continuation Funding:
Projects may be eligible
for continuation funding as specified in the original Request for Proposals.
Continuation funding will not be automatic, but will be based on a review
of the project's accomplishments, progress towards stated goals and objectives,
financial management of funds, compliance with reporting requirements, review
of most recent program audit, review of findings of TCDD's onsite reviews,
and development of alternative funding.
Deadlines:
Proposals for all of the projects
are due by 4:00 p.m. October 24, 2001. Proposals will be accepted by mail
or in person at the Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities, 4900 North
Lamar Blvd., Office No. 4435, 4th Floor, Austin, Texas 78751.
Application Packets:
For the full request
for proposals, application forms and instructions, please submit a written,
fax, or e-mail request to: Carl Risinger, Grants Management Director, Texas
Council for Developmental Disabilities, 4900 N. Lamar Blvd., Austin, TX, 78751-2399,
(512) 424-4084 or fax (512) 424-4097, e-mail TXDDS@txddc.state.tx.us . This
information also may be obtained through TCDD's website at http://www.txdds.state.tx.us/.
The completed application packet must be mailed or hand delivered. Application
packets cannot be faxed.
TRD-200104761
Roger A. Webb
Executive Director
Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities
Filed: August 15, 2001
Request for Proposals on Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
The East Texas Council of Governments (ETCOG), a political subdivision
of the State of Texas covering the 14 county Uniform Planning Region 6, is
soliciting proposals for the development of a regional, multi-county hazard
mitigation plan. ETCOG anticipates submitting an application for funding for
plan development and administration to the Texas Department of Public Safety,
Division of Emergency Management. Funding to the State of Texas is provided
through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
The Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan will act as a guide for counties in
implementing mitigation measures to reduce costs imposed as a result of hazards
throughout the 14 county East Texas area. The Plan will be consistent with
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program requirements as well as other directives
imposed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Texas Department
of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management.
Potential respondents may obtain a copy of the RFP by contacting Glynn
Knight, Executive Director, East Texas Council of Governments, 3800 Stone
Road, Kilgore, Texas 75662, or by calling (903) 984-8641. The deadline for
RFP submission is 5:00 p.m., Friday, September 14, 2001.
TRD-200104647
Glynn Knight
Executive Director
East Texas Council of Governments
Filed: August 10, 2001
Request for Grant Applications for Extraordinary Costs of Investigating and Prosecuting Capital Murder and Hate Crimes
The Criminal Justice Division (CJD) of the Governor's Office is soliciting
applications for projects for counties to offset costs incurred or anticipated
for the investigation or prosecution of an offense under Section 19.03, Penal
Code (Capital Murder), or the county incurred or anticipates expenses for
an offense alleged by the attorney representing the state to have been committed
for a purpose or reason as described in Article 42.014, Code of Criminal Procedure
(offense committed because of bias or prejudice).
Purpose: The purpose of the projects is to reduce the extraordinary costs
incurred by a county for the investigation or prosecution of a capital murder
or crimes committed because of bias or prejudice. A county is eligible to
apply to CJD for a distribution of money under this article if, during the
immediately preceding county fiscal year or during the fiscal year for which
the application is made, the following circumstances exist: (1) the county
incurred or anticipates expenses for the investigation or prosecution of an
offense under Section 19.03, Penal Code (Capital Murder); or (2) the county
incurred or anticipates expenses for an offense alleged by the attorney representing
the state to have been committed for a purpose or reason as described in Article
42.014, Code of Criminal Procedure (offense committed because of bias or prejudice).
Standards: Grantees must comply with the applicable grant management standards
adopted under Texas Administrative Code, Section 3.19.
Prohibitions: CJD will only award a grant to reimburse a county for the
costs associated with investigating or prosecuting a single eligible offense
or criminal episode. CJD limits the amount of the award to $100,000 per single
offense or criminal episode. CJD will distribute at least 50 percent of the
money to counties with populations less than 50,000. However, this will be
waived if the total distributions applied for by those counties are less than
50 percent of the money distributed during that year. Funds may only be used
for investigating and prosecuting cases. They may not be used to pay for legal
services for defendants.
Eligible Applicants: counties.
Project Period: Varies depending on the time of the prosecution and/or
investigation.
Application Process: Interested parties should request an application kit
for Extraordinary Costs of Investigating and Prosecuting Capital Murder and
Hate Crimes Programs from the Office of the Governor, Criminal Justice Division,
P.O. Box 12428, Austin, TX 78711, telephone (512) 463-1919. Application kits
may also be obtained through the Office of the Governor's web site address
located at http://www.governor.state.tx.us/cjd/cjdmain.htm.
Preferences: Preference will be given to counties with populations of less
than 50,000.
Closing Date for Receipt of Applications: All original applications, plus
an additional copy, must be submitted directly to the Criminal Justice Division
and will be accepted on a monthly basis during the state fiscal year until
funds are no longer available.
Selection Process: Completed applications will be reviewed for eligibility
and cost effectiveness by CJD. The Executive Director of CJD will make all
final funding decisions.
Contact Person: If additional information is needed contact CJD at (512)
463-1919.
TRD-200104751
David Zimmerman
Assistant General Counsel
Office of the Governor
Filed: August 15, 2001
Request for Grant Applications for Residential Substance Abuse Treatment
Programs
The Criminal Justice Division (CJD) of the Governor's Office is soliciting
applications for projects to provide residential substance abuse treatment
to adults incarcerated or confined in detention and/or correctional facilities.
Purpose: The purpose of the projects is to develop and implement residential
substance abuse treatment programs in facilities where offenders are incarcerated
for a period of time sufficient to permit effective treatment. The substance
abuse project must: (1) ensure that each offender participates in the program
for not less than six nor more than 12 months, unless he or she drops out
or is terminated; (2) provide treatment in residential facilities that are
set apart from the general correctional population or are in a dedicated housing
unit for the exclusive use of program participants; (3) focus on the substance
abuse problems of the offender; (4) develop the offender's cognitive, behavioral,
social, vocational, and other skills to resolve the substance abuse and related
problems; and (5) require urinalysis or other reliable methods of drug and
alcohol testing.
Available Funding: Federal funding is authorized for these projects under
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Section 1001, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 3796ff). Grantees must provide matching funds of at least 25 percent
of total project expenditures. This requirement must be met in cash.
Standards: Grantees must comply with the applicable grant management standards
adopted under Texas Administrative Code Section 3.19.
Prohibitions: Grantees may not use grant funds to pay for non-residential
treatment provided through the aftercare component of the program. Grant funds
may also not be used to pay for indirect costs.
Eligible Applicants: (1) state agencies; (2) counties operating residential
detention and/or correctional facilities; and (3) community supervision and
corrections departments (CSCDs) operating community corrections facilities,
as defined in Section 509.001, Government Code.
Applicants who receive grants may provide services directly in correctional
facilities that they operate or they may contract with qualified service providers
who meet all licensing and certification requirements.
Project Period: Grant-funded projects must have a grant period of January
1, 2002 to December 31, 2002.
Application Process: Interested parties should request an application kit
for Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs from the Office of the
Governor, Criminal Justice Division, P.O. Box 12428, Austin, TX 78711, telephone
(512) 463-1919. Application kits may also be obtained through the Office of
the Governor's web site address located at http://www.governor.state.tx.us/cjd/cjdmain.htm.
Preferences: Preference will be given to applicants who provide aftercare
services to program participants. Aftercare services should coordinate service
provisions between the correctional treatment program and other human service
and rehabilitation programs, such as education and job training, halfway houses,
and self-help rehabilitation.
Closing Date for Receipt of Applications: All original applications, plus
an additional copy, must be submitted directly to the Criminal Justice Division
and must be received or postmarked by October 12, 2001.
Selection Process: Completed applications will be reviewed for eligibility
and cost effectiveness by CJD and rated competitively by a committee selected
by the director of CJD. CJD reserves the right to renew grants for up to two
additional years without the selected applications entering a competitive
selection process. The Executive Director of CJD will make all final funding
decisions.
Contact Person: If additional information is needed contact CJD at (512)
463-1919.
TRD-200104752
David Zimmerman
Assistant General Counsel
Office of the Governor
Filed: August 15, 2001
Notice of Public Hearings Schedule for Development and Review of Block Grant Funds
Under the authority of the Preventive Health Amendments of 1992 (See 42
United States Code §§300w et seq.), the Texas Department of Health
(department) is making application to the U.S. Public Health Service for funds
to continue the Preventive Health and Health Services (PHHS) Block Grant during
federal fiscal year (FFY) 2002. Provisions in the Act require the chief executive
officer of each state to annually furnish a description (a state plan) of
the intended use of block grant funds in advance of each FFY. A proposal of
this description is to be made public within each state in such a manner as
to facilitate comments.
In FFY 2001 nine activities were funded under the block grant. These include
sexual assault prevention and crisis services, public health promotion, trauma
registry, behavioral risk factor surveillance system, local health departments,
regional emergency health care system, border environmental health, adult
and community health, and community-based primary care (put prevention into
practice).
The PHHS Block Grant award for FFY 2001 was $5,459,825. Of this amount,
$496,657 was required to be used for sexual assault prevention and crisis
services.
The department has prepared the following schedule for the development
and review of the FFY 2002 State Plan for the PHHS Block Grant. In September
of 2001, the department will hold public hearings in four public health regions
(PHRs):
September 10, 2001
Public Health Region 7, 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas, 4:00 - 6:00
p.m.
September 10, 2001
Public Health Region 2 & 3, 1301 South. Bowen, Suite 200, Room. 2210,
Arlington, Texas, 10:00 a.m.
September 10, 2001
Public Health Region 1, 1109 Kemper, Lubbock, Texas, 9:00 a.m.
September 12, 2001
Public Health Region 11, 601 West Sesame Drive, Harlingen, Texas, 4:00
- 6:00 p.m.
Following these hearings, the department will summarize and consider the
impact of the public comments received. The department will then notify the
public of the availability of a published summary of these hearings. In September
of 2001, the department will prepare the final FFY 2002 State Plan for the
PHHS Block Grant and forward it to the Governor and federal government.
Please note that the department will continuously conduct activities to
inform recipients of the availability of services/benefits; the rules and
eligibility requirements; and complaint procedures. Written comments regarding
the PHHS Block Grant may be submitted through September 16, 2001, to Martha
McGlothlin, Block Grant Coordinator, Office of Deputy Commissioner for Programs,
Texas Department of Health, 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas 78756-3199.
For further information, call (512) 458-7200.
TRD-200104747
Susan Steeg
General Counsel
Texas Department of Health
Filed: August 15, 2001
Public Notice
Proposal. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) proposes
a per day payment rate for the nursing facility pediatric care facility special
rate class for Truman W. Smith Children's Care Center in the amount of $163.33.
The payment rate is proposed to be effective September 1, 2001, pending adoption
of the proposed rate setting methodology described below.
Methodology and justification. The proposed rate was determined in accordance
with the proposed rate setting methodology for the nursing facility pediatric
care facility special rate class to be codified at 1 Texas Administrative
Code (TAC) Chapter 355, Subchapter C (relating to Reimbursement Setting Methodology
for Nursing Facilities), §355.307(c) published in the June 22, 2001 issue
of the
Texas Register
(26 TexReg 4573).
TRD-200104715
Marina Henderson
Executive Deputy Commissioner
Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Filed: August 15, 2001
Request for Proposal
The Heart of Texas Council of Governments (HOTCOG) is soliciting proposals
for an audit of all grants and programs of the Council. This proposal will
serve as a basis for a three-year period beginning October 1, 2000 - September
30, 2001 and the subsequent two fiscal years ending in 2002 and 2003.
The audit must be conducted under the guidelines of generally accepted
auditing standards and other guidelines as presented in HOTCOG's request for
proposals. The proposals will be reviewed by HOTCOG and a contract will be
awarded on the basis of the firm's experience, firm knowledge of the work
to be performed, and the proposed audit cost by year. Small, female-owned,
and minority-owned firms are encouraged to submit.
Requests for proposal packages may be obtained by contacting, John C. Minnix,
Director of Administration, Heart of Texas Council of Governments, 300 Franklin
Avenue, Waco, Texas 76701-2244, (254) 756-7822. Proposal packages will not
be faxed or e-mailed. All proposals must be received no later than 4:30 p.m.,
Central Standard Time, September 14, 2001. Proposals received after the specified
date and time will not be considered.
TRD-200104617
Brenda Khoury
Executive Assistant
Heart of Texas Council of Governments
Filed: August 10, 2001
Request for Offers for Consulting Services
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (hereinafter referred to
as THECB) is soliciting offers from organizations (hereinafter referred to
as Consultant) for consulting services to advise THECB on the Texas Association
of Developing Colleges (hereinafter referred to as TADC) Centers for Teacher
Education. The ultimate objectives of this Request for Offers (hereinafter
referred to as RFO) are to (1) facilitate and coordinate a collaborative strategic
planning process to involve TADC college administration in planning for collaborative
distance education, upgrading of technology, curriculum development and redesign
and improvement of ExCET preparation; (2) work in collaboration with the Texas
Higher Education Coordinating Board and TADC college administration to identify
training needs of college faculty in the centers for teacher education in
the areas related to distance education, curriculum development and improvement
of ExCET preparation; (3) facilitate and coordinate college administration
and faculty professional development workshops to meet areas of need for delivery
of distance education, curriculum development and redesign and improvement
of ExCET preparation; and (4) report progress in TADC teacher education enrollment,
level of participation in the distance education program, successful student
placements, and other evaluative measures.
This Request for Offer is being made pursuant to authority granted under
Texas Government Code, Chapter 2254, subchapter B, section 2254.026 (relating
to contracts with private consultants).
1. GENERAL BACKGROUND: The Texas Legislature established the Centers for
Teacher Education Program during the 74th legislative session. The Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board was given the assignment of managing the program
and has provided trusteed funds to support the programs at several historically
Black Colleges. These institutions collectively form the Texas Association
of Developing Colleges (TADC) and include Jarvis Christian College in Hawkins,
Paul Quinn College in Dallas, Texas College in Tyler, Huston-Tillotson College
in Austin, and Wiley College in Marshall. These colleges are private, general
academic, minority-serving institutions and the funds appropriated are used
for the purpose of supporting their centers for teacher education. The purpose
of the Centers for Teacher Education at the participating colleges is to (1)
recruit, train and place qualified minorities in the teaching profession;
(2) integrate technology into the colleges' teacher preparation programs;
and (3) provide or participate in at least one course per semester via distance
education technologies.
THECB retains a small percentage of the appropriations made for the teacher
education centers for the costs of on-site monitoring and distribution of
funds and, uses a portion of the amounts retained to obtain the services of
a consultant to facilitate and coordinate the process of curriculum development
and program redesign to improve teacher preparation at the participating institutions.
The consultant assists with the administrative oversight of the various teacher
education activities, coordinates the quarterly meetings that are held in
Dallas, and works closely with THECB staff.
2. CONTRACT TERM:
2.1 The contract resulting from this RFO, shall commence on the execution
date and shall terminate on August 31, 2002 or upon the completion of Consultant's
work described herein, whichever occurs first, unless terminated earlier pursuant
to terms and conditions of the anticipated contract resulting from this RFO.
3. SCOPE OF WORK:
Overview Consultant shall facilitate and coordinate a collaborative strategic
planning process to involve TADC college administration in planning for collaborative
distance education, upgrading of technology, curriculum development and redesign
and improvement of ExCET preparation; work in collaboration with the Texas
Higher Education Coordinating Board and TADC college administration to identify
training needs of college faculty in the centers for teacher education in
the areas related to distance education, curriculum development and improvement
of ExCET preparation; facilitate and coordinate college administration and
faculty professional development workshops to meet areas of need for delivery
of distance education, curriculum development and redesign and improvement
of ExCET preparation; and report progress in TADC teacher education enrollment,
level of participation in the distance education program, successful student
placements and other evaluative measures.
Consultant shall be solely responsible and accountable for managing and
completing all activities, tasks, milestones and deliverables in accordance
with the Scope of Work and the deliverables commitment of this RFO. Assignment
of THECB staff to assist Consultant in its responsibility shall in no way
release the Consultant from its responsibility for completing any work or
delivering any products set forth in this RFO, its Statement of Work or resulting
contract.
3.2 Phase I - Proposal Consultant shall provide to THECB a proposal of
services to be performed, a proposed plan of action to be taken to achieve
the goals set forth in this agreement, and evaluation of the attainment of
the goals and objectives set forth by the agreement. The proposal must include
specific objectives and timelines for meeting each phase of the plan. The
proposal must also include consultant's travel costs to TADC schools named
in Section 1 or other sites within Texas, including travel costs of THECB
staff to monitor compliance with this contract.
3.2.2 In response to this RFO, the Consultant must: 1. provide a detailed
description of Consultant's suggested methodology, approach and alternatives
to meeting Phase I objectives; 2. propose a detailed description of the tasks,
activities, resources and time lines for performing Phase I objectives (the
description should be sufficiently detailed to include in a Statement of Work
for the contract); 3. provide a brief description of Consultant's qualifications
to perform Phase I objectives; 4. describe Consultant's prior experience in
performing Phase I type objectives, with an emphasis on prior experience with
public sector contracts and describe how organizations responded to Consultant's
recommendations; and 5. provide a list of references where Phase I type objectives
were met, including for each reference: the name of the organization, the
name, title, address and telephone number of a contact person and a brief
description of the services performed.
3.3 Phase II - Progress Reports 3.3.1 Consultant shall submit to THECB
a progress report providing information on (1) all records of evidence of
expenditure of funds to assist the TADC school's efforts to improve student
recruitment and retention; (2) evidence of professional development activities
at the TADC schools to date; (3) preliminary report on the extent to which
library, mathematics, science, and technology facilities at the TADC schools
have been enhanced; (4) evaluation of changes in curricula to better match
ExCET competencies and outcomes at TADC schools; (5) evaluation of the effectiveness
of technology integration to date at TADC schools; (6) summary of expenditures
for personnel related to improved educator preparation at TADC schools; and
(7) summary evidence that library holdings have been enhanced in the areas
of certification at TADC schools.
3.3.2 In response to this RFO, the Consultant must: provide a detailed
description of Consultant's suggested methodology, approach and alternatives
to meeting Phase II objectives; (1) propose a detailed description of the
tasks, activities, resources and time lines for performing Phase II objectives
(the description should be sufficiently detailed to include in a Statement
of Work for the contract); (2) provide a brief description of Consultant's
qualifications to perform the Phase II objectives; (3) describe Consultant's
prior experience in performing Phase II type objectives with emphasis on prior
experience with public sector contracts; and (4) provide a list of references
where Phase II type objectives were met, including for each reference: the
name of the organization, the name, title, address and telephone number of
a contact person and a brief description of the services performed.
3.4 Phase III - Final Report 3.4.1 Consultant shall submit a final report
to THECB evaluating the effectiveness of the funds for improving teaching
education at the TADC schools and detailing their progress to date in achieving
the following: (1) improving the ExCET pass rate for TADC first-time test-takers
and retake pass rates; (2) increasing the number of students enrolled in the
teacher preparation program at TADC schools; (3) increasing the graduation
rate of teacher preparation candidates at TADC schools; (4) integrating existing
technology into teacher preparation at TADC schools; and (5) summary evidence
that courses are sent per semester via distance education technologies at
TADC schools.
3.4.2 In response to this RFO, the Consultant must: 1. provide a detailed
description of Consultant's suggested methodology, approach and alternatives
to meeting Phase III objectives; 2. propose a detailed description of the
tasks, activities, resources and time lines for performing Phase III objectives
(the description should be sufficiently detailed to include in a Statement
of Work for the contract); 3. provide a brief description of Consultant's
qualifications to perform the Phase III objectives; 4. describe Consultant's
prior experience in performing Phase III type objectives; and 5. provide a
list of references where Phase III objectives were met, include for each reference:
the name of the organization, the name, title, address and telephone number
of a contact person and a brief description of the services performed.
3.6 Contract Deliverables 3.6.1 Consultant shall, in a good and satisfactory
manner, carry out the tasks necessary to provide analysis, advice, recommendations,
performances and Deliverables as called for in this RFO and in accordance
with the Scope of Work. Such performances shall be rendered at schools named
in Section 1 or other sites within Texas as hereinafter named by THECB or
its designee, unless THECB, or its designee, shall otherwise specify in writing.
3.6.2 Substantive Outlines. As an interim deliverable, Consultant shall
produce and present to THECB, for review and approval, a substantive outline
for the work and content for: Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III. The substantive
content of each outline shall include at a minimum a proposed final report
format and a substantive discussion of the approach and methodology for the
work to be performed. THECB and Consultant shall adjust or revise the scope
of each outline to more clearly define the Scope of Work.
3.6.3 Draft Reports. As an interim deliverable, Consultant shall produce
and present to THECB, for review and approval, an interim draft report for:
Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III. This deliverable shall include: appendices
with statistical data supporting findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Consultant shall also include: charts, graphs, and other visual representations
of core findings, conclusions and recommendations. The Consultant shall make
such corrections to substance and content as identified by THECB. The Consultant
shall make such adjustments and modifications to draft report as identified
by THECB.
3.6.4 Final Reports. As a final contract Deliverable, Consultant shall
produce a written report for: Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III. The specific
organization and substantive content of each report shall be resolved throughout
the project, with emphasis during the interim deliverable stages. Each report
shall include the following topics and such other topics, which are specifically
agreed upon between THECB and Consultant and the report must thoroughly resolve
the particular issues unique to each deliverable:
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Scope and Objectives
Summary of Significant observations and Conclusions
Overall Conclusions and Recommendations
Background
Detailed Scope and Objectives
Methodology
Assumptions
Detailed Findings and Observations
Analysis
Recommendations
Conclusion
Appendices
3.6.5 Status Reporting. During scheduled bi-weekly meetings, Consultant
shall provide oral reports on Project progress and schedule, and a schedule
of the next period's activities. Consultant shall document by written minutes
of the meetings. Details of the period's activities shall include:
planned schedule versus actual schedule;
any problems encountered and status;
any failures to meet deadlines and proposed solutions; and
any deviations from the Scope of Work;
The Consultant shall disclose at the meeting the impact that any problems,
failures or deviations have on the scheduled completion of tasks and work
segments, the Phase, and the entire Project. Bi-weekly meetings may be by
telephone conference call.
The Consultant shall submit to THECB a written report of schedule and/or
content variances from the Scope of Work for each Phase, at the deliverable,
task and activity levels, within five (5) working days from the time of their
occurrence.
The Consultant shall submit monthly written reports to THECB that shall
encompass:
the overall status of the Project, including unanticipated problems and
delays and the impact on Project completion;
the prior month's accomplishments;
any outstanding problems and/or issues and proposed solutions; and
upcoming activities.
At a minimum, Consultant shall illustrate all upcoming activities using
work plans specifically identifying tasks, personnel and begin and end dates.
3.6.6 Consultant and THECB shall develop a tentative schedule for periodic
meetings with THECB. The meetings shall be for the purpose of providing information
and additional guidance to Consultant in the performance of the Scope of Work.
THECB may request interim advice from Consultant at such meetings. If appropriate,
such meetings may coincide with regularly scheduled meetings to report status.
3.6.7 THECB shall have thirty (30) business days following delivery of
the interim or final products, Deliverables or Services ("Acceptance Period"),
to accept or reject any products, Deliverables or Services ("Deliverable")
tendered by Consultant in performance under this RFO or resulting contract.
Tendering to THECB a Deliverable for Acceptance constitutes a certification
by the Consultant that the Deliverable fully meets all of the requirements
in the RFO, Scope of Work and any resulting contract. In the event THECB elects
to reject a Deliverable during the Acceptance Period, THECB shall notify Consultant
in writing of such rejection. THECB shall assist Consultant in identifying
the error, type of error or inadequacy of the Deliverable, to permit Consultant
to understand the cause of the error or inadequacy and correct the error or
inadequacy. Upon Consultant's resolution of any errors or inadequacies, identified
during the Acceptance Period, the Deliverable shall be resubmitted to THECB
for acceptance or rejection as stated above. Acceptance of the Deliverable(s)
shall be in writing by an authorized representative of THECB ("Acceptance").
3.6.8 Time is of the essence in completing the Deliverables Phases I-III
Deliverables. Completion for the Deliverables for Phases I-III is required
no later than July 28, 2002. Consultant should provide proposed completion
dates in the format below in order to meet the project completion date of
August 31, 2002.
Phase I: Substantive Outline: tendered to THECB on or before October 5,
2001; Interim Draft Report: tendered to THECB on or before October 22, 2001;
Final Report: tendered to THECB on or before November 7, 2001; Status Reports,
according to the schedule; In-person-report(s).
Phase II: Substantive Outline: tendered to THECB on or before December
5, 2001; Interim Draft Report: tendered to theTHECB on or before February
1, 2002; Final Report: tendered to THECB on or before March 1, 2002; Status
Reports, according to the schedule; In-person-report(s).
Phase III: Substantive Outline: tendered to THECB on or before May 7, 2002;
Interim Draft Report: tendered to THECB on or before June 13, 2002; Final
Report: tendered to THECB on or before July 28, 2002 Status Reports, according
to the schedule; In-person-report(s).
3.6.9 As an additional Deliverable, Consultant shall make "in person" presentations
of its findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations on such dates,
times, and places in Austin, Travis County, Texas as requested by THECB. Such
presentations may include audiences internal or external to THECB. THECB anticipates
that no more than two or three such presentations shall be required. These
presentations may occur, within an 18-month time frame following the Acceptance
of the final report(s).
4. OFFER PROCESS
4.1 Questions relating to the RFO. Consultant is expected to examine this
Request for Offers (RFO) carefully, understand the terms and conditions for
providing the pertinent services, and respond completely. Failure to respond
completely may result in disqualification. Questions about this RFO shall
be directed, in writing only, to the address provided below, on company letterhead
or via e-mail. Verbal questions and explanations are not permitted. Electronic
submissions by facsimile shall be accepted. THECB reserves the right to provide
or not to provide additional clarification in response to Consultant's questions.
To be eligible to receive Consultant questions and responses to this RFO,
if any, the Consultant, must file a written letter of interest with THECB
no later than 2:00 p.m. on Friday, September 7, 2001. No inquiries or questions
shall be answered after 2:00 p.m. on Friday, September 7, 2001 to allow ample
distribution time for any changes. Any questions or letters of interest regarding
this RFO may be directed to:
Dr. Susan Hetzler, Program Director for Educator Preparation
Division of Participation and Success
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
P. O. Box 12788
Austin TX 78711
4.2 Delivery of Offer. A signed original and five (5) copies of the offer
must be received by THECB, no later than 5:00 p.m., Central Time, September
21, 2001. Any offer received after the specified time and date shall not be
considered. Conditioned on THECB's receipt of the requisite finding of fact
from the Governor's Budget and Planning Office pursuant to Texas Government
Code section 2254.028, THECB anticipates entering into the resultant contract
on or about September 28, 2001. The Consultant's offers shall be delivered
to:
Dr. Susan Hetzler, Program Director for Educator Preparation
Division of Participation and Success
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
1200 East Anderson Lane
Austin TX 78752
P.O. Box 12788, Austin TX 78711
4.3 THECB Reservation of Rights. THECB has sole discretion and the absolute
right to reject any and all offers, terminate this Request for Offers or amend,
delay or re-issue this Request for Offers. THECB reserves the right to remedy
technical errors in the RFO process, waive any informalities and irregularities
relating to any or all Offers submitted in response to this request and to
negotiate modifications necessary to improve the quality or cost effectiveness
of any Offer to THECB. THECB further reserves the right to accept one or more
offers and contract for any grouping or individual Deliverables described
in this RFO. The issuance of this Request for Offers does not constitute a
commitment by THECB to award any contract. THECB intends any material provided
in this Request for Offers only and solely as a means of identifying the scope
of services and qualifications sought.
4.4 Expenses for Preparing Offer. THECB shall not pay any cost incurred
by a prospective Consultant in the preparation of a response to this Request
for Offers and such costs shall not be included in the budget of the prospective
Consultant submitted pursuant to this Request for Offers. The State of Texas
assumes no responsibility for expenses incurred in the preparation of responses
to this Request for Offers. In the event that the prospective Consultant is
engaged to provide the services contemplated by this Request for Offers, any
expenses incurred by the prospective Consultant associated with the negotiation
and execution of the contract for the engagement shall remain the obligation
of the Consultant.
4.5 Non-responsive Offers. Failure to respond to all required portions
of this RFO may result in the Consultant's response being deemed non-responsive.
If a Consultant's response is deemed non-responsive by THECB, the response
shall be disqualified. Offers must be signed by an officer or principal of
the Consultant, however, they may be signed by an agent if accompanied by
written evidence of authority.
4.6 Duration of Offer. All provisions in Consultant's Offer, including
any estimated or projected costs, shall remain valid for ninety (90) days
following the deadline date for submissions or if an Offer is selected, throughout
the entire term of the Contract. Offers may be withdrawn in writing prior
to the date and time set for receipt of Offers.
4.7 Negotiation with Consultant. Preliminary and final negotiations with
top-ranked prospective Consultants may be held at the discretion of THECB.
THECB may decide, at its sole option and in its sole discretion, to negotiate
with one, several, or none of the prospective Consultants submitting Offers
pursuant to this request. During the negotiation process, THECB and any prospective
Consultant(s) with whom THECB chooses to negotiate, may adjust the scope of
the services, alter the method of providing the services, and/or alter the
costs of the services so long as the changes are mutually agreed upon and
are in the best interest of THECB. Statements made by a prospective Consultant
in the Offer packet or in other appropriate written form shall be binding
unless specifically changed by the Consultant, in writing, during final negotiations.
A contract award may be made by THECB without negotiations if THECB determines
that such an award is in THECB's best interest.
4.8 Selection Criteria. THECB shall conduct an evaluation of all offers
that conform to the requirements of this RFO. In selecting a consultant, THECB
shall: (1) base its choice on demonstrated competence, knowledge, and qualifications
and on the reasonableness of the proposed fee for the services; and (2) if
other considerations are equal, give preference to a consultant whose principal
place of business is in the State of Texas or who shall manage the consulting
contract wholly from an office in the State of Texas. Conforming offers shall
be reviewed by a Selection Committee consisting of THECB staff members.
4.9 Award/Contract Subject to Available Appropriations. This Request for
Offers and any contract which may result from it are subject to appropriation
of State funds and the Request for Offers and/or contract may be terminated
at any time if such funds are not available.
4.10 Public Information. All offers are considered to be public information
subsequent to an award of the contract. All information relating to Offers
shall be subject to the Public Information Act, Texas Government Code Annotated,
Chapter 552, after the award of the contract. All documents shall be presumed
to be public unless a specific exception in that Act applies. Prospective
Consultants are requested to avoid providing information which is proprietary,
but if it is necessary to do so, offers must specify the specific information
which the prospective Consultant considers to be exempted from disclosure
under the Act and those pages or portions of pages which contain the protected
information must be clearly marked. The specific exemption that the prospective
Consultant believes protects that information must be cited. THECB shall assume
that an Offer submitted to THECB contains no proprietary or confidential information
if the prospective Consultant has not marked or otherwise identified such
information in the offer at the time of its submission to THECB.
4.11 Negotiation of Contract Terms and Conditions. At any time after the
offers are opened, THECB may negotiate contract terms and conditions with
one or more of the Consultants. An award of a contract is expressly conditioned
upon THECB and Consultant reaching an agreement on contract terms and conditions.
THECB reserves the sole right, in its discretion, to determine if contract
terms and conditions are acceptable. If the Consultant and THECB are unable
to reach an agreement on the contract terms and conditions, THECB shall disqualify
that Consultant, and then THECB shall negotiate contract terms and conditions
with the next best Consultant.
4.12 Return of Offers After Selection Process. All offers become property
of THECB upon receipt and shall not be returned.
4.13 Ethics Standards. No person shall participate or assume a responsibility
in the implementation and execution of this RFO process including, but not
limited to, the evaluation of offers and selections of Consultant's, when
such participation constitutes a conflict of interest as defined by state
law or executive order. After the RFO is published, THECB or any employee
shall not furnish any technical information, or solicit offers and/or prices
for its requirements or take any type of action which would or could be construed
to give a direct or indirect advantage or disadvantage to any potential Consultant.
4.14 Restrictions on Communication. After the RFO has been issued, Consultant
is prohibited from communicating with THECB staff regarding the RFO or offers,
with the following exceptions:
Dr. Susan Hetzler, in writing;
The Committee, if interviews are conducted;
THECB reserves the right to contact any Consultant for clarification after
responses are opened and/or to further negotiate with any Consultant if such
is deemed desirable by THECB.
THECB shall not schedule meetings with representatives of any Consultant
to discuss offers, and Consultant should not contact THECB employees to explain,
clarify or discuss their Offers before an award has been made except as set
out in this section. Violation of this provision may lead to disqualification
from this process.
5. CONTENT OF OFFERS
5.1 All Offers must be typed, double spaced, on 8 1/2" x 11" paper, clearly
legible, with all pages sequentially numbered and bound or stapled together.
The name of the prospective Consultant must be typed at the top of each page.
Do not attach covers, binders, pamphlets, or other items not specifically
requested.
5.2 A Table of Contents must be included with respective page numbers opposite
each topic. The Offer must contain the following completed items in the following
sequence:
Transmittal Letter: A letter addressed to Dr. Susan Hetzler, Program Director
for Educator Preparation, Division of Participation and Success, Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board, PO Box 12788, Austin, TX 78711 that identifies
the person or entity submitting the Offer and includes a commitment by that
person or entity to provide the services required by THECB. The letter must
specifically identify that this Offer is in reference to THECB Texas Association
of Developing Colleges-Centers for Teacher Education RFO. The letter must
include "full acceptance of the terms and conditions of the contract resulting
from this Request for Offers." Any exceptions must be specifically noted in
the letter. However, any exceptions may disqualify the Offer from further
consideration at THECB's discretion. The letter must state, "The Offer enclosed
is binding and valid at the discretion of THECB."
Executive Summary: The Offer must include a summary of the contents of
the Offer, excluding cost information. Address services that are offered beyond
those specifically requested as well as those offered within specified deliverables.
Explain any missing or other requirements not met, realizing that failure
to provide necessary information or offer required service deliverables may
result in disqualification of the Offer.
Project Offer: The Offer must track and reference each section number in
Section 3 Scope of Work. Consultant should provide a substantive description
of how Consultant proposes to satisfy each item. If Consultant cannot satisfy
a particular item or requirement, then Consultant must clearly identify the
items or requirements it cannot satisfy. If Consultant believes it can best
meet the needs of THECB by suggesting a modification to the Scope of Work,
please suggest alternatives. If an alternative is proposed, please include
a separate section identified as "Alternative Offer to Section X.X." THECB
reserves the right to not consider alternative Offers. If a response requires
Consultant to assume facts not presented in the RFO, Consultant must clearly
identify such assumed facts. If a section requests specific information, please
include the requested information.
Cost Offer: THECB is interested in awarding a fixed fee contract. Because
THECB may enter into a contract for all or some of the deliverables, please
identify each deliverable and the corresponding fee and include a proposed
schedule of payments. Consultant is welcome to suggest alternative fee Offers,
but if an alternative is offered, please clearly identify that the fee Offer
is an alternative. The THECB reserves the right to not consider alternative
Offers.
Qualifications: While THECB is interested in the experience and qualifications
of Consultant's firm or company, THECB is particularly interested in the experience
of the individual staff Consultant intends to apply to this engagement. Therefore,
please include information relating to the firm's or company's experience
and qualification and please attach detailed resumes for each staff that Consultant
intends to apply to this engagement. The resumes should identify the specific
experience, projects and assignments for each staff offered. Emphasis should
be placed on similar projects within the public sector and/or higher education.
References: Prospective Consultants shall provide the names of at least
three (3) different references meeting the following criteria:
1. The reference company or entity must have engaged the prospective Consultant
for the same or similar services as those to be provided in accordance with
the terms of this Request for Offers.
2. The services must have been provided by the prospective Consultant to
the reference company or entity within the five (5) years preceding the issuance
of this Request for Offers.
3. The reference company or entity must not be affiliated with the prospective
Consultant in any ownership or joint venture arrangement.
4. References must include the company or entity name, address, contact
name, and telephone number for each reference. THECB may not be used as a
reference. The contact name must be the name of a senior representative of
the reference company or entity who was directly responsible for interacting
with the prospective Consultant throughout the performance of the engagement
and who can address questions about the performance of the prospective Consultant
from personal experience. References shall accompany the Offer.
5. For each such reference, the prospective Consultant shall provide a
signed release from liability in the form of a letter addressed to the reference
company or individual signed by Consultant for each reference provided in
response to this requirement. The release from liability shall absolve the
specified reference company or entity from liability for information provided
to THECB concerning the prospective Consultant's performance of its engagement
with the reference.
Financial Condition: As part of any Offer submission, the prospective Consultant
must include information regarding financial condition, including income statements,
balance sheets, and any other information which accurately shows the prospective
Consultant's current financial condition. All offers shall include the Consultant's
State of Texas vendor identification number or federal tax identification
number. THECB reserves the right to request such additional financial information
as it deems necessary to evaluate the prospective Consultant, and by submission
of an Offer, the prospective Consultant agrees to provide same. The prospective
Consultant must disclose if and when it has filed for bankruptcy within the
last seven (7) years. For prospective Consultants conducting business as a
corporation, partnership, limited liability partnership, or other form of
artificial person, the prospective Consultant must disclose whether any of
its principals, partners, or officers have filed for bankruptcy within the
last seven (7) years.
Certifications/Affirmations/Disclosures: By signing the transmittal letter
and submitting an Offer, Consultant makes and agrees to make the following
certifications, affirmations and disclosures. If any explanation or qualification
is required for any certification, affirmation or disclosure, you must include
such explanation or qualification in your transmittal letter. A false statement
or misleading statement in this section is a material breach of contract and
shall void the submitted Offer or any resulting contracts. Please restate
each of the following certifications, affirmations or disclosures in this
section of your Offer.
1. The Consultant has not given, nor intends to give at any time hereafter,
any economic opportunity, future employment, gift, loan, gratuity, special
discount, trip, favor, or service to a public servant in connection with the
submitted Offer.
2. The Consultant is not currently delinquent in the payment of any franchise
tax owed the State of Texas.
3. Neither the Consultant nor the firm, corporation or partnership or institution
represented by the Consultant or anyone acting for such firm, corporation
or institution has violated the antitrust laws of this State, the Federal
antitrust laws nor communicated directly or indirectly the Offer made to any
competitor or any other person engaged in such line of business.
4. The Consultant has not received compensation for participation in the
preparation of the specification for this Offer.
5. Pursuant to Texas Family Code, Section 231.006 (relating to delinquent
child support), the Consultant certifies that the individual or business entity
named in this Offer is not ineligible to receive a specified payment and acknowledge
that this contract may be terminated and payment may be withheld if this certification
is inaccurate.
6. An Offer must include the names and Social Security Numbers of each
person with at least a 25% ownership of the business entity submitting this
Offer.
7. Pursuant to Section 2155.004 Government Code (relating to issuance of
warrants to persons indebted to the State or who owe delinquent taxes to the
State) the Consultant certifies that the individual or business entity named
in this Offer is not ineligible to receive the specified contract and acknowledges
that this contract may be terminated and payment withheld if this certification
is inaccurate.
8. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that, to the extent Consultant owes
any debt or delinquent taxes to the State of Texas, in accordance with Section
403.055(h), Government Code, any payments Consultant is owed under this Agreement
shall be applied by the Comptroller of Public Accounts toward any debt or
delinquent taxes Consultant owes the State of Texas until the debt or delinquent
taxes are paid in full.
9. Pursuant to Article 2.45 of the Texas Business Corporation Act, Consultant
must certify that it is not delinquent in a tax owed to the State under Chapter
171 of the Texas Tax Code. Any Consultant who is delinquent may not be awarded
a contract by the State.
10. With respect to all services, if any, purchased pursuant to this RFO,
Consultant represents and warrants that it shall buy Texas products and materials
for use in providing the services authorized herein when such products and
materials are available at a comparable price and in a comparable period of
time when compared to non-Texas products and materials.
11. Consultant certifies that if a Texas address is shown as the address
of the vendor, Vendor qualifies as a Texas Resident Bidder as defined in Rule
1 TAC 111.2.
12. If the consultant is an individual not residing in Texas or a business
entity not incorporated in or whose principal domicile is not in Texas, the
consultant certifies that it either: (a) holds a permit issued by the Texas
comptroller to collect or remit all state and local sales and use taxes that
become due and owing as a result of the consultant's business in Texas; or
(b) does not sell tangible personal property or services that are subject
to the state and local sales and use tax.
13. If the Consultant is an individual who has previously been employed
by THECB or any other Texas state agency at any time during the two years
preceding their Offer, the Consultant must disclose the following:
the nature of the previous employment with THECB or any other state agency;
the date the employment was terminated;
the annual rate of compensation for the employment at the time of the Consultant's
termination.
If a Consultant is subject to this disclosure and fails to make such a
disclosure, the Offer shall be disqualified.
TRD-200104624
Gary Prevost
Director of Business Services
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Filed: August 10, 2001
Notice of Administrative Hearing
Manufactured Housing Division
Thursday, August 30, 2001, 1:00 p.m.
State Office of Administrative Hearings, Stephen F. Austin Building, 1700
N Congress, 11th Floor, Suite 1100
Austin, Texas
AGENDA
Administrative Hearing before an administrative law judge of the State
Office of Administrative Hearings in the matter of the complaint of the Texas
Department of Housing and Community Affairs vs. James W. Lee, III dba Dynasty
Housing to hear alleged violations of Sections 6(m) and 20(a) of the Act and
Sections 80.54(b) and 80.180(b) of the Rules by refusing to refund deposits,
not delivering the Formaldehyde Notice and not delivering the Site Preparation
Notice. SOAH 332-01-3639. Department MHD2001001248RD, MHD2001001379RD, MHD2001001465RD.
Contact: Jerry Schroeder, P.O. Box 12489, Austin, Texas 78711-2489, (512)
475-2894, jschroed@tdhca.state.tx.us
TRD-200104711
Daisy A. Stiner
Executive Director
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs
Filed: August 15, 2001
Important Notice Hearing Date Reschedule
RE: NOTICE OF HEARING, COMMISSIONER'S DOCKET NO. 2493, TO RECEIVE INFORMATION
CONCERNING TO THE APPLICATION FOR ACQUISITION OF CONTROL OF AMERICAN GENERAL
ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, THE NATIONAL
LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, AND THE VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN GENERAL CORPORATION (THE "DOMESTIC INSURERS')
BY AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.
This is formal notice that an informational public hearing will be held
before Commissioner Jose Montemayor, or his designee, on Tuesday, August 28,
2001, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 100 at the Texas Department of Insurance, 333
Guadalupe, Austin, Texas 78701. Unless otherwise directed by the Commissioner,
the hearing shall be continued from day to day in Room 100 at the Texas Department
of Insurance until concluded.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive information concerning the application
by AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. (AIG) to acquire control of AMERICAN
GENERAL ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
THE NATIONAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE VARIABLE ANNUITY
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, subsidiaries of AMERICAN GENERAL CORPORATION pursuant
to TEX. INS. CODE ANN. art. 21.49-1 §5.
Authority, Jurisdiction and Statutes and Rules Involved
The Commissioner has jurisdiction and legal authority over the subject
matter of this hearing pursuant to the TEX. INS. CODE ANN. art. 21.49-1 and
28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §7.205 and §7.209. The Commissioner, in his
discretion, is holding an informational public hearing concerning the acquisition
of control of American General Corporation and its subsidiaries by American
International Group, Inc. The applicable standards for approval or disapproval
are delineated in TEX. INS. CODE ANN. art. 21.49-1 §§5(c)(1)(i)
through (vi).
Matter to be Considered
The Commissioner will consider the testimony presented and information
filed by interested parties and the applicant. Interested persons may present
either oral or written comments on the acquisition of control at the hearing.
Pursuant to the TEX. INS. CODE ANN. art. 21.49-1 and 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §7.205
and §7.209, it is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate
why the Commissioner of Insurance should approve the application; therefore,
it is advised that the applicant bring competent witnesses to the hearing.
Applicant should be prepared to respond to any unresolved questions raised
by TDI, its representatives or the general public. All evidence in connection
with the hearing must be presented at the hearing, as ordinarily there will
be no recess given in order to secure additional evidence.
Comments on the application for acquisition of control should be submitted
no later than 5:00 p.m., August 22, 2001 to the Office of the Chief Clerk.
P.O. Box 149104, MC 113-2A, Austin, TX 78714-9104. An additional copy of the
comments must be simultaneously submitted to Eric Magee, Staff Attorney, Financial
Counsel Section.
TRD-200104676
Lynda H. Nesenholtz
General Counsel and Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Filed: August 14, 2001
Application for admission to the State of Texas by NATIONAL LAND TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign title company. The home office is in Barrington,
Illinois.
Application for admission to the State of Texas by ROCHE SURETY & CASUALTY
COMPANY, INC., a foreign fire and casualty company. The home office is in
Tampa, Florida.
Application to add the assumed name of PILLAR INSURANCE COMPANY for SERVICE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign fire and casualty company. The home office is
in Bradenton, Florida.
Any objections must be filed with the Texas Department of Insurance, addressed
to the attention of Godwin Ohaechesi, 333 Guadalupe Street, M/C 305-2C, Austin,
Texas 78701.
TRD-200104746
Lynda H. Nesenholtz
General Counsel and Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Filed: August 15, 2001
The following third party administrator (TPA) applications have been filed
with the Texas Department of Insurance and are under consideration.
Application for admission to Texas of EOS Claims Services, Inc., a foreign
third party administrator. The home office is Rancho Cordova, California.
Application for admission to Texas of Adminitron, Inc., a foreign third
party administrator. The home office is Brentwood, Tennessee.
Application for admission to Texas of Healthcare Resources Group, LLC.,
a foreign third party administrator. The home office is South Bend, Indiana.
Application for incorporation in Texas of TSA-Texas Surgical Associates,
LLP, a domestic third party administrator. The home office is Houston, Texas.
Any objections must be filed within 20 days after this notice was filed
with the Secretary of State, addressed to the attention of Charles M. Waits,
MC 107-5A, 333 Guadalupe, Austin, Texas 78714-9104.
TRD-200104744
Lynda H. Nesenholtz
General Counsel and Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Filed: August 15, 2001
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 Interculture Network, a domestic
third party administrator. The home office is Houston, Texas.
Any objections must be filed within 20 days after this notice was filed
with the Secretary of State, addressed to the attention of Charles M. Waits,
MC 107-5A, 333 Guadalupe, Austin, Texas 78714-9104.
TRD-200104745
Lynda H. Nesenholtz
General Counsel and Chief Clerk
Texas Department of Insurance
Filed: August 15, 2001
Request for Proposals
Pursuant to the Texas Government Code, Title 10, Article 2254, Subchapter
B, the Commission on Jail Standards invites proposals for consulting services
from qualified individuals to advise and assist TCJS in a survey of jails
across the state under the terms of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act, Public Law 93-415, as modified.
The individual selected will conduct analyses of records for county and
municipal jails and prepare required documentation and reports to verify compliance
information regarding the removal of juveniles from the facilities. The selected
consultant shall report directly to Terry Julian at the Texas Commission on
Jail Standards.
All work performed under this contract shall be reimbursed on an hourly
basis and is expected to be completed by August 31, 2002.
Travel expenses shall be reimbursed upon state per diem rates with direct
operating expenses provided by TCJS.
Detailed specifications are contained in the Consultant Proposal Request
available August 24, 2001 from the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, 300
W. 15th Street, Suite 503, Austin, Texas between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday. For detailed information, contact Brandon S. Wood
at (512) 463-5505.
Responses will be accepted only if actually received in writing in the
Texas Commission on Jail Standards office no later than September 7, 2001,
no later than 5:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time on this date. The Texas Commission
on Jail Standards reserves the right to reject any or all proposals.
All proposals submitted by the deadline will be reviewed by the executive
director. The executive director may request interviews with the top rated
proposers. Based on proposers response, availability, experience, qualifications
and demonstrated ability to work independently, the executive director will
select the individual most qualified to provide services.
TRD-200104598
Terry Julian
Executive Director
Texas Commission on Jail Standards
Filed: August 9, 2001
Executive Director's Response to Public Comment
The Executive Director (ED) of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission (the commission or TNRCC) files this Response to Public Comment
(response) on proposed TPDES general permit No. TXR050000. As required by
TWC, §26.040(d) and 30 TAC §205.3(c), before a general permit may
be issued, the ED prepares a response to all timely, relevant and material,
or significant comment. The response shall be made available to the public
and filed with the Chief Clerk at least ten days before the commission considers
the approval of the general permit. This response addresses all timely received
public comments, whether or not withdrawn.
The Office of Chief Clerk timely received comment letters from the following
persons: American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE); American Electric
Power (AEP); American Electronics Association (AEA); Boral Bricks (Boral);
City of Austin (Austin); City of Cleburne (Cleburne); City of Dallas (Dallas);
City of Garland (Garland); City of Grand Prairie (Grand Prairie); City of
Houston (Houston); City of Lubbock (Lubbock); Commercial Metals Company (CMC);
Department of the Air Force (DAF); Harris County Public Health & Environmental
Services (Harris County); Kohler (Kohler); LG&E Power Inc. (LG&E);
Lloyd, Gosselink, Blevins, Rochelle, Baldwin & Townsend, P.C. (LGBRB&T);
Louis Bramblett Auto Parts, Inc. (Bramblett); Lower Colorado River Authority
(LCRA); National Stormwater Center (NSC); Port of Corpus Christi Authority
(PCCA); Port of Houston Authority (PHA); Printing and Imaging Association
of Texas/Oklahoma (PIATO); Reliant Energy (Reliant); San Antonio Water System
(SAWS); Separation Systems Consultants, Inc. (SSCI); Stormwater Reform Coalition
(SRC); TAMKO Roofing Products, Inc. (TAMKO); Temple-Inland Forest Products
Corporation (Temple-Inland); Texas Chemical Council (TCC); Texas Instruments
(TI); Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD); TXU (TXU); Vought Aircraft
Industries, Inc. (Vought); and WCM Group, Inc. (WCM).
BACKGROUND
TNRCC is proposing to issue a Texas Pollutant Discharge Eliminations System
(TPDES) general permit that would authorize discharges of storm water associated
with industrial activity and certain non-storm water discharges from industrial
facilities. This permit is proposed pursuant to TWC, §26.040, General
Permits. These discharges are currently authorized under a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit, issued by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) according to requirements at 40 CFR §122.26,
which expired September 29, 2000. On September 27, 2000, TNRCC assumed administrative
authority for the permit and proposed to renew the permit through issuance
of the proposed draft general permit. These existing authorizations shall
remain effective until the date on which the commission takes final action
on the proposed general permit. Issuance of the proposed general permit would
allow continued coverage for these facilities, and initial coverage for new
facilities, under the TPDES permit program. The conditions and requirements
of the proposed TPDES general permit are similar to the current NPDES general
permit.
As proposed, industrial facilities located in the state of Texas shall
only be authorized to discharge storm water under this general permit following
the development and implementation of storm water pollution prevention plans
(SWP3s). Each SWP3 must be developed according to the minimum measures defined
in the permit, and must also be tailored to the specific operations and activities
conducted at the industrial facility. Applicants must develop SWP3s that establish
effective pollution prevention measures and best management practices to reduce
pollution in their own storm water discharges. Such measures and practices
include: limiting or prohibiting exposure of storm water to materials, wastes,
and industrial activities; good housekeeping procedures; maintenance of storm
water controls; periodic inspections; and reports to assess compliance with
permit requirements and to identify necessary revisions to the SWP3.
Due to the large number of comments received, some separate comments are
combined with other related comments. 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.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Comment 1:
The AAAE and SRC commented that
trade associations can play a valuable role in information dissemination,
compliance assistance, and in establishment of minimum environmental standards.
AAAE commented that Texas should allow airports to propose and administer
a permit compliance initiative modeled after compliance programs in the states
of California and Wisconsin. AAAE commented that similar industrial facilities
could develop a group-monitoring plan as an alternative permit compliance
program. AAAE and SRC proposed that the draft permit be modified to include
Sector AE. Similar facilities could develop alternative permit compliance
programs, submit the plans to the ED for approval, and be designated as authorized
under Sector AE if the plan is determined to be better than the program proposed
in the general permit. AAAE commented that this alternative approach would
result in increased compliance rates and significant environmental benefit.
Response 1:
Although the activities of a
group of industries may be similar, facilities located in separate areas of
the state would be subject to vastly different topographical and meteorological
conditions. This could make the development of a single, acceptable, and effective
group storm water pollution prevention plan very difficult even for similar
facilities. Additionally, it would be very resource intensive for TNRCC to
establish group eligibility criteria, and to review and certify alternative
group plans.
Comment 2:
WCM commented that the proposed
general permit does not include the special SWP3 requirements for facilities
subject to EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act) §313.
WCM asked if this was purposely omitted.
Response 2:
The TRNCC did not include the
specific provisions of EPCRA, because in 1989 the Texas Toxic Chemical Release
Reporting Act, Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), Chapter 370, was passed.
It is a mirror image of the federal act, with a few minor exceptions. The
purpose of Toxic Reduction Inventory (TRI) reporting is to inform the public
and government officials about routine and accidental releases and disposal
of toxic chemicals to the environment and assist in research and development
of regulations, guidelines, and standards. The purpose of the proposed general
storm water permit, to regulate storm water discharges, is distinctly different.
The proposed general permit would not relieve any industry from complying
with the Texas Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Act, THSC, Chapter 370.
Comment 3:
PCCA commented that they had previously
provided similar comments to the TNRCC regarding the draft permit and "could
not find responses to our comments in either a preamble to the proposed permit
or in the fact sheet for the proposed permit." PCCA requested that TNRCC address
their previous comments.
Response 3:
The TNRCC held several stakeholder
meetings prior to development of the proposed permit where comments were solicited
and discussed. Comments, received prior to the public notice period, were
considered and used to develop the conditions of the proposed permit. Because
these comments were a part of the stakeholder meeting process, and not submitted
as a part of the 30-day public comment period, they are not summarized and
responded to in this response to public comments.
Comment 4:
PCCA commented, "When compared
to the reissued NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit, this permit requires much
more of the permit holder in terms of meeting the requirements of the SWP3.
Additionally PCCA commented that many requirements "add much paperwork, cost,
and maintenance requirements to the permit holder without additional environmental
benefit."
Response 4:
The conditions and requirements
of the proposed permit are substantially equal to those of the federal NPDES
Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) that was issued in September 1995. The
proposed permit, however, does provide a waiver for hazardous metal monitoring
requirements under certain circumstances.
Comment 5:
NSC suggested, "all ports with
drainage systems be designated as small MS4s." NSC states, "It is more logical
for the port owner to limit its liability by regulating tenant discharges
into the storm drainage system for which it is ultimately responsible."
Response 5:
The ED agrees that ports, which
commonly have a separate storm sewer system for multiple users, resemble small
municipal separate storm sewer systems in some respects. Portions of these
systems may even be determined to be a municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4) with storm water permit requirements separate from this proposed permit.
To clarify, the ED responds that this proposed permit applies to discharges
of storm water associated with industrial activities, and applies to a port
when the port is an owner or operator of a facility that causes one of these
discharges. The ED recognizes that where multiple industrial facilities are
located at a port, or on some other single piece of property, the quality
of storm water discharges from the property may well benefit from a concerted
effort of pollution prevention. Industrial facilities may also benefit from
a coordinated approach to satisfying permit requirements and conducting pollution
prevention efforts. Therefore, the proposed permit is revised to include new
Part II.A.3., relating to Co-located Industrial Facilities. Similarly located
facilities, or "co-located facilities," shall have the option of participating
in a shared SWP3. This approach will benefit permittees by avoiding duplication
of efforts in common areas of a property and by more clearly delineating to
permittees and to inspectors the responsibilities of co-located facilities.
Comment 6:
SAWS commented that the Texas
Local Government Code (Protection of Streams and Watersheds by Home-Rule Municipality), §401.002
should be added to ensure permittees comply with both state and local regulations.
Response 6:
Part II, Section B.10 has been
added in response to this comment. It states: "This general permit does not
limit the authority of a home-rule municipality provided by §401.002
of the Texas Local Government Code." The TNRCC has determined that this provision
will clarify that home-rule municipalities retain all authority provided by
the Local Government Code.
Comment 7:
Houston requested clarification
on the use of the words "operator," "facility," and "owner" in the draft permit
and who is responsible for obtaining permit coverage. Houston suggested adoption
of the language from 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §122.21(b)
that provides, "When a facility or activity is owned by one person but is
operated by another person, it is the operator's duty to obtain a permit."
Response 7:
The proposed TPDES general permit
would allow for the discharge of storm water from industrial facilities. TNRCC
rules at 30 TAC §305.43 specify that both the owner and the operator
of a facility must apply for a TPDES permit when the operator of the industrial
facility is different from the owner of that facility. Since this general
permit is a TPDES permit, both the owner and operator must apply.
Comment 8:
Houston commented that the term
"waste" should not be used when referring to storm water discharges. Houston
stated that the incidental exposure of materials to precipitation resulting
in a discharge of pollutants is entirely different from the discharge of wastes.
Additionally Houston commented that the use of the term "waste" has great
potential for confusion and possibly for unintended and inappropriate connections
with other regulatory programs.
Response 8:
The TNRCC disagrees with the
comment. The term "waste" does not apply to any specific program, rather it
applies to "sewage, industrial waste, municipal waste, recreational waste,
agricultural waste, or other waste..." as defined in TWC, §26.001(6).
Part I. - Definitions
Comment 9:
Houston and Harris County requested
that the terms "New Source" and "New Discharge" be defined. Houston also suggested
that TNRCC look to the definitions in 40 CFR §122.2 for guidance. Moreover
Houston commented that it is very important to clarify that storm water discharges
from facilities that had previously been operating under the federal permit,
or through a federal no exposure certification, do not constitute new sources
or new discharges.
Response 9:
Generally a facility is a new
discharger if it began to discharge after August 13, 1979 and its storm water
discharge was not previously permitted. As stated in the first paragraph in
Part I of the proposed permit, this general permit is subject to the definitions
of 30 TAC §305.2 that defines a new discharger.
Part II. - Permit Applicability and Coverage
Comment 10:
Boral commented that the term
"water in the state" should be changed to "water of the state." Boral commented
that the definition was broad and requested the change so that the definition
would not include waters impounded on private land.
Response 10:
TWC, §26.121 prohibits
the discharge of industrial and other waste causing pollution of any water
in the state. The proposed permit is drafted under the authority of TWC, §26.027
that provides the commission may issue permits for the discharge of waste
or pollutants into or adjacent to water in the state. The term "water in the
state" is a term of art that has been defined in various statutes over time
and which is subject to strict interpretation as a matter of law. The term
necessarily includes impounded waters and other waters located on private
property.
Part II. Section A.1. - Industrial Activities
Covered
Comment 11:
Dallas commented that coverage
should include facilities described by SIC codes 3281 (Cut Stone and Stone
Products) and 5169 (Chemical and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified).
Response 11:
The ED agrees, in part, with
the comment. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations §122.26(b)(14)(ii)
defines storm water discharges associated with industrial activity to include
storm water discharges from facilities classified in SIC code group 32 (with
the exception of 323), but does not include facilities classified in SIC code
5169. Therefore the draft permit is revised to include facilities described
by SIC code 3281, but is not revised to include facilities described by SIC
code 5169. Individual facilities that are not designated as requiring a permit,
but which are found to cause environmental harm from the discharge of storm
water runoff, may be required by the ED to obtain an individual TPDES permit,
on a case-by-case basis, and will be designated under Miscellaneous Industrial
Activities in Sector AD.
Additionally, to correct typographical omissions relating to other SIC
codes listed in 40 CFR §122.26(b)(14), the permit is revised to include;
SIC codes 2441 - 2449 in Sector A (Timber Products Facilities); SIC codes
3291, 3292, 3295, 3296, and 3299 in Sector E (Glass, Clay, Cement Concrete,
and Gypsum Product Manufacturing Facilities); and SIC codes 3812 - 3873 in
Sector AC (Electronic, Electrical, Photographic, And Optical Goods).
Part II.A.2. - Co-located Industrial Activities
Comment 12:
PCCA commented that facilities
should not be required to meet the sector-specific requirements for co-located
activities if those activities directly support the facilities' primary industrial
activity.
Response 12:
The sector-specific requirements
for co-located activities were conditions of the previous federal NPDES MSGP
that was issued in September 1995. The continuance of this requirement within
the proposed TPDES general permit is in agreement with the general anti-backsliding
provisions in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), §402.
However, a facility may conduct industrial activities in support of the facilities
primary activity that do not qualify as a co-located activity. For example,
routine maintenance of vehicles at an industrial facility would not qualify
as a Sector P (Motor Freight Transportation Facilities, Passenger Transportation
Facilities, Petroleum Bulk Oil Stations and Terminals, Rail Transportation
Facilities, and United States Postal Service Transportation Facilities) co-located
activity unless the use of those vehicles was described by Sector P.
Part II.A.4. - Non-Storm Water Discharges
Comment 13:
Harris County recommended that
the permit should be revised to clarify that "contaminated fire fighting water"
may not be discharged without prior treatment. TPWD commented that these discharges
may result in fish kills and requested that the permit require facilities
to monitor these discharges and to report any fish or wildlife kills directly
to TPWD.
Response 13:
The proposed permit does not
require pollution prevention measures to be identified and implemented for
fire fighting activities because discharges that result from these actions
are unplanned and occur during emergency situations. Under those circumstances
it is necessary to take immediate action to protect the public and to halt
an event that could potentially cause greater environmental harm.
Comment 14:
ATA recommended that the permit
be revised to authorize discharges from all hydrant-flushing activities. Reliant
commented that discharges from potable water sources should be allowed if
the chlorine concentration does not exceed 4.0 mg/l. Reliant further commented
that this recommendation is justified because this is the "permitted upper
limits applied to most discharges from sewage treatment plants. TCC commented
that the location of many potable water systems make it impracticable to "gather,
transport, and treat these waters because of their large volumes and remote
locations." TCC also recommended that a "chlorine limit of 4.0 mg/l would
provide "adequate water quality protection" for discharges from public water
system maintenance activities. TXU commented that the requirements for discharges
from potable water sources should be modified to allow the draining of water
plants, water storage tanks/towers, and waterline flushings following hyperchlorination
if chlorine concentrations do not exceed 2 parts per million.
Response 14:
The ED agrees in part with the
recommendations, and recognizes that discharges of hyperchlorinated water,
typically following the repair of waterlines, may be acutely toxic to fish
and other aquatic organisms. The permit is revised to remove the restriction
that hydrant flushings discharges must be the result of routine maintenance
activities. The permit is also revised to authorize discharges from all potable
water sources provided that the conveyances or tanks have either not been
hyperchlorinated, or have been dechlorinated prior to discharge and the discharges
are not expected to adversely affect aquatic life.
Comment 15:
Austin commented that the permit
should be revised to require that the routine external washing of buildings
would only be allowed "provided there is no excess silt or dirt."
Response 15:
The ED agrees in part with the
comment. Discharges resulting from routine external washing of buildings must
not include amounts of solids that would result in a water quality problem
to receiving waters. Part III of the proposed permit requires that facilities
develop a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWP3) that would identify
potential pollutants, their sources, and develop pollution prevention measures
and controls to limit pollution in authorized discharges. If a facility washes
the external surface of buildings and discharges water under the authority
of the proposed permit, this activity must be conducted under the requirements
of this SWP3, thus preventing the discharge of such solids to water in the
state.
Comment 16:
Austin commented that the permit
should be revised to specifically exclude power washing as this is an activity
that is prohibited in the EPA's NPDES MSGP permit.
Response 16:
The proposed general permit
would authorize the discharges of storm water associated with industrial activities
and a specific list on non-storm water discharges. The list of non-storm water
discharges does not include those resulting from power washing activities.
Comment 17:
TAMKO commented that the permit
should be revised to include the discharge of steam line condensate as an
authorized non-storm water discharge.
Response 17:
The ED agrees and revises Part
II.A.4.(f) to read "air conditioner condensate, compressor condensate, and
condensate that externally forms on steam lines."
Comment 18:
TCC commented that Part II.A.4.(i)
of the proposed permit incorrectly includes a reference to Part IV of the
permit. TCC further commented that the language should be revised to reference
Part V of the permit.
Response 18:
The ED agrees with the comment
and corrects the reference in Part II.A.4.(i) from "Part IV" to "Part V."
Part II.B.1. - Suspension or Revocation of Permit
Coverage
Comment 19:
Houston suggests that the last
sentence in the first paragraph should be revised so that the permittee is
only required to submit copies of records upon request of the ED.
Response 19:
The ED agrees with the suggestion
and revises the language to read "Additionally, the permittee shall provide
to the ED, upon request, copies of all records that the permittee is required
to maintain as a condition of the permit."
Part II.B.3. - Storm Water Discharges from Construction
Activity
Comment 20:
TCC commented that the permit
should be revised to clarify that storm water discharges from construction
activities that disturb less than one acre do not require a permit, and could
be mixed with storm water discharges authorized under this proposed permit.
Response 20:
The ED disagrees that this proposed
revision is necessary. The proposed permit provides that storm water authorized
under the proposed permit may only be combined with storm water runoff from
construction activities under two conditions. Storm water runoff from construction
sites must either be permitted under a separate TPDES or NPDES permit, or
the runoff must be designated as not requiring permit coverage. Storm water
runoff from small construction activities is addressed in the Phase II NPDES
final rules. These rules require authorization for the discharge of storm
water from construction sites that disturb at least one acre, but less than
five acres, of land. The rules provide that criteria may be developed to designate
discharges of runoff from certain smaller construction activities. TNRCC has
not developed TPDES Phase II storm water permits, and must do so by December
2002. Therefore the suggested language has not been included. The ED has corrected
a typographical omission in this provision by adding the word "permit," after
the acronym TPDES, in Part II.B.3.
Part II.B.5. - Discharges of Storm Water Mixed
with Non-Storm Water
Comment 21:
ATA commented that the distinction
between "storm water" and "non-storm water" may be confusing. ATA requested
that language be added to better define the storm water in question.
Response 21:
The ED agrees that clarification
is needed. The provision currently begins "Discharges of storm water that
combine with sources of non-storm water are not eligible for coverage under
this general permit, unless..." The provision is revised to begin "Storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity, that combine with sources
of non-storm water are not eligible for coverage under this general permit,
unless..." The revision includes the term, "storm water associated with industrial
activity," which is defined in Part I of the proposed permit. The specific
non-storm water discharges allowed under the proposed general permit are identified
in Part II.A.5.
Part II.B.7. - Discharges to Water Quality-Impaired
Receiving Waters
Comment 22:
PHA commented that total maximum
daily loading allocations are currently based on discharges authorized by
a TPDES individual permit. The PHA asked, "Is the intent of the TNRCC to issue
individual permit for discharges from a facility into a §303(d) waterway?"
PHA commented that it "does not believe a storm water general permit should
be affected by a total maximum daily load (TMDL) allocation if the facility
is not discharging the constituent being reduced by a TMDL." PHA also commented
that TMDLs should allow allocations or consideration for storm water discharges.
TCC commented, "If a new source or discharge does not contribute to the
impairment then the discharge should be authorized under this permit even
though the water body is listed on an §303(d) list." TCC requested a
revision to clarify that only discharges that contribute to the water body
impairment are excluded from coverage under the proposed general permit.
Houston suggested language to revise this section and to clarify that a
new source or discharge would not be issued an authorization under the proposed
permit if it caused a waterbody to be listed, or contributed the pollutant
for which a water body was listed, on the §303(d) list.
Response 22:
The ED agrees that revisions
are necessary to clarify when discharges to §303(d) listed waterbodies
are not eligible for permit coverage. It is not the intent to require individual
permits for all discharges of storm water to any receiving water that is on
the §303(d) list. The quality of the discharges authorized under the
proposed permit is dependent on effective pollution prevention measures and
controls, as opposed to requirements to meet chemical specific numeric effluent
limitations. EPA has developed "Interim Permitting Policy for Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limitations in Storm Water Permits" (November 26, 1996, Federal Register
43761) that provides that where numeric water quality-based effluent limitations
are infeasible, best management practices would serve as the water quality-based
limitation. Storm water discharges that are in compliance with the proposed
permit requirements are deemed to be in compliance with water quality standards.
However, as a result of TMDLs, additional measures for reductions of pollutants
in storm water discharges may be required. Therefore, the proposed permit
is revised to clarify that a new source or discharge would be eligible for
coverage under the proposed permit under certain conditions. The permit is
also revised to clarify that the provisions only apply to those discharges
that contain the pollutant(s) for which a waterbody is listed. The revised
permit language is as follows:
"New sources or new discharges of the constituent(s) of concern to impaired
waters are not authorized by this permit unless otherwise allowable under
30 TAC Chapter 305 and applicable state law. Impaired waters are those that
do not meet applicable water quality standard(s) and are listed on the Clean
Water Act, §303(d) list. Constituents of concern are those for which
the water body is listed as impaired.
Discharges of the constituent(s) of concern to impaired water bodies for
which there is a TMDL implementation plan are not eligible for this permit
unless they are consistent with the approved TMDL and the implementation plan.
Permitted facilities must incorporate the limitations, conditions and requirements
applicable to their discharges, including monitoring frequency and reporting
required by TNRCC rules, into their SWP3 in order to be eligible for permit
coverage. For discharge not eligible for coverage under this permit, the discharger
must apply for and receive and individual or other applicable general TPDES
permit prior to discharging."
Part II.B.9. - Discharges to Specific Watersheds
and Water Quality Areas
Comment 23:
LCRA requested the following
sentence be added to protect the Highland Lakes: "In addition to the provisions
and requirements of this general permit, new discharges located within the
Specific Watersheds and Water Quality areas as defined by Chapter 311 must
meet those specific provisions delineated in that Chapter and all applicable
requirements of any ordinances, rules and regulations administered by local
governments or political subdivisions such as municipalities and river authorities."
Response 23:
Part II.B.10 was added in response
to this comment. The TNRCC has determined that this revision will clarify
that applicants requesting coverage under this general permit must comply
with all other local, state, and federal regulations. The specific language
is included in Response 6.
Comment 24:
WCM requested that the permit
include specific information on where the completed notice of intent (NOI),
notice of change (NOC), and notice of termination (NOT) forms should be submitted.
Response 24:
The ED agrees that this information
is necessary but disagrees that it should be included in the proposed permit.
This information will be provided either directly on the forms or on the instruction
sheets that accompany the forms. Information may be more easily updated if
it is not included as a provision of the proposed five-year general permit.
Part II.C.1. - Conditional No Exposure Exclusion
from Permit Requirements
Comment 25:
Dallas commented that the list
of materials that are not required to be isolated from storm water in order
to meet the no exposure exclusion requirements is contrary to the list contained
in the federal NPDES permit. Dallas commented that the intent of the exclusion
is to ensure that facilities have "no activities which can potentially impact
storm water and/or storm water runoff." Dallas commented that they have "seen
no quantitative data which establishes that the proposed type of exclusions
will not impact the storm water runoff from the 29 industrial sectors presently
permitted under the MSGP." Dallas commented that inclusion of these exclusions
"creates disparity within the individual industrial sectors" and "fails to
provide uniformity in its application to all the industries within the individual
sectors."
Response 25:
The ED disagrees with the comment
because the no exposure exclusion was expanded in the NPDES rules and regulations
from the "light industry" category to all sectors of industrial activity when
the final "Phase II" storm water rules were published in the Federal Register,
December 8, 1999. The no exposure exclusion requirements in the proposed permit
are based on these final federal rules. The proposed permit extends this provision
equitably between all 30 sectors of industrial activities. The final NPDES
rules also delineate a list of materials that may be exposed to storm water
and that are not required to be protected by a storm resistant shelter in
order that the exclusion requirements are met. The list of materials in the
proposed permit is based on these final federal rules and on subsequent guidance
documents provided by EPA.
Comment 26:
Harris County requested the permit
contain a requirement to allow local authorities to conduct inspections. Dallas
and Harris County further commented that revisions should be made throughout
the permit to require that reports and records be furnished to local authorities
as well as to TNRCC.
Response 26:
Part II, Section B.10 was added
in response to this comment. The TNRCC has determined that this revision will
clarify that applicants requesting coverage under this general permit must
comply with all other local, state, and federal regulations. The specific
language is included in Response 6 of the ED's Response to Public Comment.
Comment 27:
Houston requested clarification
on the status of facilities that provide certification for the conditional
no exposure exclusion from permitting requirements. Houston commented that
this exclusion could be interpreted to mean that these facilities are only
excluded from having to comply with the requirements of the permit, but are
still included under the coverage of the permit. Houston requested clarification
that discharges of storm water are not discharges of storm water associated
with industrial activities if there is no exposure to industrial materials
and activities.
Response 27:
The federal regulations, at
40 CFR §122.26, define certain industrial activities as subject to permit
requirements for discharges of storm water runoff. However, facilities may
be excluded from application requirements (and requirements to develop a SWP3)
if they meet a condition of no exposure of industrial activities to storm
water runoff. Therefore, these facilities are included within the scope of
permit applicability, but may come into compliance with the requirements of
the Clean Water Act by meeting the no exposure exclusion status.
Comment 28:
PIATO commented that empty wooden
skids and pallets, that are stored outdoors, should not "trigger permitting"
and should not prohibit a facility from applying for the conditional no exposure
exclusion. The association commented that if this is decided to constitute
exposure of industrial materials to storm water, "tens of thousands of small
business owners in Texas who would otherwise qualify for exclusion would be
required to file for stormwater permits."
Response 28:
Final products that are intended
for outdoor use are not required to be isolated from storm water and storm
water runoff in order to meet the no exposure exclusion, provided the products
would not be mobilized in storm water discharges. Skids, pallets, and other
similar platforms used for the storage or conveyance of these same final products
can also be stored outside provided they are pollutant-free. Skids, pallets,
and other similar platforms used for the storage or transport of final products
not designed for outdoor use, raw materials, intermediate materials, or waste
materials are not considered to be pollutant free and would "trigger permitting"
requirements.
Comment 29:
Austin commented that facilities
that apply for conditional no exposure exclusion from permitting requirements,
and that store materials in acceptable containers that are exposed to storm
water, should be required to use pallets or similar storage structures "to
prevent the unnecessary deterioration of the structural condition of the containers."
Response 29:
The ED agrees that elevating
containers would minimize the contact of these containers with storm water
runoff, and that this might minimize the deterioration of certain types of
containers. This best management practice is not a requirement of the permit
as it may not be feasible for different types of operations or for all types
of containers. Facilities that could not utilize this method of storage could
construct storm resistant shelters for container storage or apply for general
permit coverage. Neither of these options would further reduce pollution in
storm water discharges. Instead, facilities are required to maintain containers
in good structural condition, and may incorporate this suggested practice,
or alternative practices, to ensure that the conditions for exclusion continue
to be met.
Comment 30:
SAWS commented that the certification
for conditional no exposure exclusion from permitting requirements should
be submitted on an annual basis. SAWS and Houston comment that the permit
should require the facility to submit a copy of the certification to the municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4) operator and allow the MS4 operator to inspect
the facility for verification.
Response 30:
The ED agrees in part with the
comments. The proposed permit currently requires facilities to provide a copy
of no exposure certifications to operators of municipal separate storm sewer
systems (MS4) and to allow inspections of the facility by the operators of
those systems, if the discharge is to the MS4. The ED disagrees with the comment
that certifications should be submitted on an annual basis. The no exposure
exclusion is a "conditional" exclusion provided to the person responsible
for a point source discharge that meets the conditions of no exposure of industrial
materials to storm water. The certification includes a signed statement that
prior to altering conditions at the facility that would result in exposure
of industrial materials to storm water, the person must obtain coverage under
the proposed permit. The exclusion is from the permitting requirements of
the proposed five-year term general permit. To require certification on an
annual basis, when there have not been changes that would disqualify a person
from the exclusion, would defeat one intent of the provision, which is to
reduce the regulatory burden on the agency and industrial facilities.
Comment 31:
Boral commented that if a facility
obtains the conditional no exposure exclusion, and subsequently changes operations
to a condition of exposure of industrial activities to storm water, the facility
should be granted provisional coverage until an individual permit can be obtained.
Response 31:
The ED disagrees with the comment.
The draft permit currently requires facilities that propose to make such changes
to obtain permit coverage prior to discharging storm water associated with
industrial activities. The ED recognizes the time frame for obtaining an individual
permit is lengthier than the time frame for obtaining coverage under the proposed
general permit. However, facilities that propose to go from a condition of
no exposure to a condition of exposure have several options. They may either
obtain coverage under the proposed general permit, or may elect to obtain
coverage under an individual permit. If the option of coverage by individual
permit is chosen, a facility may elect to isolate industrial materials and
activities from storm water and continue to operate in a condition of no exposure,
or to obtain coverage under the proposed general permit, until the application
for the individual permit is submitted and the individual permit is issued.
Comment 32:
Houston commented that a facility
that submits a certification for conditional no exposure exclusion from permitting
requirements, which is subsequently denied this exemption, should be given
15 days to prepare a draft storm water pollution prevention plan (SWP3) and
to submit a notice of intent for permit coverage. Houston commented that the
applicant should then be allowed an additional 180 days in order to finalize
the SWP3.
Response 32:
The conditions that must be
met in order to receive the exclusion from permit requirements are clearly
delineated in the proposed permit and will be reiterated on the certification
form. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that these conditions
are met prior to submitting the sworn certification to TNRCC. If inspection
of the facility reveals that industrial activities or materials are exposed
to storm water, the operator may be issued a notice of violation, or other
enforcement action, and given a prescribed period of time to either obtain
permit coverage or to meet the conditions of no exposure.
Comment 33:
Cleburne requested the opportunity
to provide input on what information will be required of individuals that
submit a certification for the conditional no exposure exclusion from permit
requirements. Specifically, Cleburne requested clarification on who would
apply for the exclusion where the facility is owned by one entity, and a separate
entity operates the facility and has operational control over the industrial
activities of the site.
Response 33:
The ED will prepare a certification
form that contains, at a minimum, the information required under the final
federal rules published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1999. For industrial
facilities that are owned by one person, and under the operational control
of a separate person, both the operator and the owner must provide the required
certification. This is in accordance with the TNRCC's application requirements
at 30 TAC §305.43.
Comment 34:
Houston commented that facilities
are eligible for conditional no exposure exclusion from permitting requirements
if operators certify that all industrial activities and materials are isolated
from storm water and storm water runoff by storm resistant shelters. Houston
requested that the certification requirements be revised to allow operators
to certify all industrial activities and materials are isolated from storm
water and storm water runoff by storm resistant shelters or other means of
isolation. Houston gives the example of wastewater treatment plants where
uncovered reactors isolate process materials from storm water.
Response 34:
The ED disagrees that the criteria
for meeting the no exposure exclusion should be expanded. For the example
given, if storm water falls into an uncovered treatment unit and is either
retained or discharged through a final outfall authorized under a separate
TPDES wastewater discharge permit, the facility may still qualify for a condition
of no exposure.
Comment 35:
Houston commented that the proposed
permit allows for conditional no exposure exclusion from permitting requirements
only if the entire facility can meet the conditions. The City of Houston requested
clarification for the following situations: only a part of the facility can
meet these requirements; only a portion of the co-located activities at a
facility can meet the requirements; activities described by the primary SIC
code meet the requirements, but other industrial activities or materials are
exposed. TCC commented that the conditional no exposure exclusion from permitting
requirements should be allowed for specific areas of a facility, and not be
limited on a facility-wide basis.
Response 35:
The no exposure exclusion from
permitting is available only on the condition that applicants can certify
that there is no exposure of industrial activities or materials to storm water
and storm water runoff on a facility-wide basis. For example, exclusion of
permit requirements for certain outfalls, or for certain drainage areas within
the facility, may be done within the storm water pollution prevention plan
when a facility applies for coverage under the general permit. A condition
of the proposed permit is that the permittee identify areas of the facility
where storm water contacts industrial materials and industrial activities.
The storm water pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must then identify best management
practices, and other pollution prevention controls, to reduce or eliminate
pollution in storm water runoff from these areas. Areas of the facility where
there is no exposure of materials and activities to storm water may also be
identified in the SWP3. There are no further permit requirements for these
areas of the facility so long as they are inspected during each annual compliance
inspection and no new activities in these areas are identified.
Part II.C.2. - Application for Coverage
Comment 36:
Dallas and Houston commented
that applicants that propose to discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer
system (MS4) should be required to notify the operator of the MS4 system.
Response 36:
The ED agrees with the comment.
This requirement is in the proposed draft permit at Section C.8., Additional
Notification.
Comment 37:
WCM commented that the permit
should contain application requirements for oil and gas facilities that are
not initially required to submit an application for permit coverage, but may
be required to submit an application following a reportable quantity release.
Response 37:
The proposed general permit
does not apply to oil and gas production activities in Texas. These activities
are under the jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission of Texas, a state agency
without NPDES permitting authority. Therefore, discharges of storm water runoff
from these activities continue to be authorized under the federal NPDES storm
water permit in Texas.
Comment 38:
Houston commented that the opening
sentence in Part II.C.2. should reference Part II.C.4. regarding the contents
of the notice of intent form.
Response 38:
Part II.C.2. states that application
must be made on a form that is approved by the ED. Part II.C.4. lists the
minimum information that the form must contain. The form will be provided
by the ED, and may require information beyond that listed at Part II..C.4.
Therefore, the suggested reference is not necessary.
Comment 39:
Houston commented that the permit
should state that permit coverage will not be provided if the NOI does not
contain all of the required information.
Response 39:
The ED agrees with the comment
and revises the language to include: "Following review of the NOI, the ED
may determine the NOI is complete and confirm coverage by providing a notification
and an authorization number, determine the NOI is incomplete and deny coverage
until a completed NOI is submitted, or deny coverage and require an application
for an individual permit be submitted."
Comment 40:
PCCA commented that the requirement
for currently permitted facilities to submit the notice of intent (NOI) for
continued coverage within 90 days following issuance of the proposed permit
is severely limiting. PCCA commented that EPA issued notice of the final permit
180 days prior to expiration, and allowed 90 days following issuance for existing
facilities to submit an NOI. PCCA suggests that TNRCC allow a similar 270-day
period for these facilities to submit an NOI. DAF commented that the 90-day
time frame may be difficult for some military installations "due to the Federal
budget cycle." DAF requested that the permit be revised to allow extension
of the 90 day deadline to 180 days at the discretion of the ED.
Response 40:
Currently permitted facilities
were authorized under the federal permit that was issued with a five-year
term set to expire on September 30, 1999. These facilities should have been
well aware of the need to renew the permit. Currently permitted facilities
already have a SWP3 in place. The proposed TPDES permit requirements are very
similar to the current NPDES permit. Therefore, most facilities will only
need to make minor modifications to the existing SWP3 before completing and
submitting the NOI. However, the following provision is added to the proposed
permit: "The ED may grant a written request for extension for good cause if
such written request is received no later than 15 days before the deadline
for filing the NOI."
Comment 41:
Houston commented that facilities
should be required to submit an NOI at least 48 hours prior to conducting
industrial activities, instead of the proposed requirement to submit the NOI
at least 48 hours prior to the discharge of storm water associated with industrial
activities.
Response 41:
The proposed general permit
is to authorize, and to regulate, the discharge of storm water associated
with industrial activities. Authority to regulate these discharges stems from
TWC, Chapter 26. TNRCC does not have regulatory authority for the industrial
activity itself. However, because storms and resultant discharges are not
controllable, TNRCC does recognize that it would be prudent to submit an NOI
and obtain authorization as soon as is possible.
Part II.C.3. - Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWP3)
Comment 42:
WCM commented the storm water
pollution prevention plan should be signed according to the signatory requirements
in Part II.C.7. of the proposed permit.
Response 42:
Part II.C.3. of the proposed
permit, relating to Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3), requires
that the SWP3 be signed, and references the signatory requirements in Part
III.E.3.(g), relating to Signatory Requirements for Reports and Certifications.
Part II.C.4. - Contents of the Notice of Intent
Comment 43:
Houston recommends that the list
of minimum information for notice of intent forms should be revised to include
the sector(s) of industrial activities for which coverage is sought, and a
signature and date according to requirements in Part II , Section C.7. of
the proposed permit, relating to Signatory Requirement for NOI, NOT, and NOC
Forms.
Response 43:
The ED agrees in part with comments
and revises the list to include the sector of industrial activities. The signature
and date is not included in the list as "minimum information" as the requirement
for this information is specified in Part II Section C.7. of the proposed
permit, relating to Signatory Requirement for NOI, NOT, and NOC Forms
Comment 44:
Houston commented that the notice
of intent (NOI) should include additional information to determine if the
facility is located in the Edwards Aquifer recharge or contributing zones,
and to determine if any listed or endangered species are in the proximity
of the proposed discharge.
Response 44:
Facilities located within the
Edwards Aquifer may not commence the construction of any regulated activity
until an Edwards Aquifer protection plan, or modifications to the plan, or
an exception has been filed with the appropriate TNRCC regional office, and
the application has been reviewed and approved by the ED, according to 30
TAC Chapter 213, relating to Edwards Aquifer. The requirements of the proposed
general permit are in addition to requirements of Chapter 213, and would not
differ depending on the location of the facility with respect to the Edwards
Aquifer.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the federal agency responsible for
implementation of the Endangered Species Act, received notice of the proposed
general permit. The ED did not receive any comments or recommendations from
this agency. The proposed general permit is drafted such that storm water
discharges from facilities that meet the terms and conditions of the permit
will not be in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act.
Comment 45:
Houston commented that the NOI
should require the applicant to list the name of the MS4 operator for any
system that the facility is located within, whether or not the proposed discharge
would enter the system.
Response 45:
The permit requires facilities
that contribute storm water to a MS4 system to notify the operator of that
system. Notification to the MS4 operator is important, as the operator of
that system is ultimately responsible for the quality of the discharges from
the MS4. Facilities that are located within the jurisdictional area of an
MS4, but that do not contribute to the MS4, are dischargers directly to water
in the state. The operator or the adjacent MS4 does not receive the discharge
and is not responsible. The proposed permit contains requirements that will
ensure that these direct discharges are protective of water in the state.
Comment 46:
Houston commented that the NOI
should require applicants to provide a written description of the discharge
route from the permitted facility to the nearest major watercourse.
Response 46:
The ED disagrees with the comment
to require applicants to describe the discharge route. The proposed general
permit contains requirements and conditions that are protective of receiving
waters regardless of the discharge route. The requested information would
not be required in order to process the application and would not be verified
during this process. The NOI will, however, require that the name of the receiving
water and the SWP3 will require a site map with the location of each outfall
clearly identified.
Part II.C.5. - Notice of Change
Comment 47:
PHA requested that the permit
be revised so that only the operator of a facility, and not the owner, is
required to submit a notice of change. PHA further commented that the owner
of the facility may not obtain a copy of the NOI and may not realize that
the information submitted by the operator was incorrect.
Response 47:
If the operator of a facility
is different than the owner, both must complete and sign the NOI and they
must both sign and submit the notice of change. Under this scenario, both
the owner and operator would be equally responsible for assuring that all
information provided is correct.
Comment 48:
ATA commented that it is not
necessary to require the same level of signatory requirements for a notice
of change (NOC) as is required for a notice of intent or notice of termination.
ATA commented that a NOC may be for very minor items such as a change in the
mailing address. ATA commented that the signature for all submissions, with
the exception of NOIs and NOTs, should be delegated to other facility personnel.
Response 48:
Part III.E.3.(g) of the proposed
permit delineates that signatory requirements for reports and certifications
must be according to 30 TAC §305.128 (relating to Signatory Requirements).
According to these rules, the responsibility for signing these reports and
certifications may be delegated to certain other levels of authority.
Comment 49:
WCM commented that the federal
multi-sector general permit only required industrial facilities that contribute
storm water discharges to a MS4 to provide a copy of the NOI to the operator
of that system if the system was for a medium or large city. WCM requested
clarification on whether TNRCC proposes that facilities discharging to MS4s
provide this notification regardless of the size of the system. ATA commented
that the section should be revised to require notification only to medium
and large MS4 system operators and that notice should only be required when
requested by the operator.
Response 49:
The proposed permit requires
facilities to notify MS4 operators regardless of the size of the city. The
term of the proposed permit will extend past the deadline for development
and issuance of Phase II municipal separate storm sewer system storm water
permits. The criteria for determining which of these small MS4s will be required
to obtain permit coverage has not been developed. Therefore, the most efficient
notification process is to require dischargers to an MS4 to notify the operator
of that system regardless of the size of the city.
Comment 50:
Harris County commented that
the permit should require permittees to provide a copy of NOIs, NOCs, and
NOTs to all local authorities.
Response 50:
The permit requires that MS4
operators be notified. MS4 operators are responsible for the quality of storm
water discharges from their systems, and necessarily need to know the contributors
to these systems. Many other local authorities, such as health districts and
law enforcement agencies, may exist that have either no interest or only peripheral
interest in these discharges of storm water. A requirement that all local
authorities must be notified would be excessive and potentially confusing.
Comment 51:
LGBRB&T commented that the
general permit does not indicate the amount of the annual watershed monitoring
and assessment fee, and that the amount of the fee should be specifically
identified in the general permit. LGBRB&T stated that any annual fee would
have negative impacts for many facilities.
Response 51:
The proposed general permit
does not propose to require watershed monitoring and assessment fees during
the five-year term of this proposed permit.
Comment 52:
LGBRB&T commented that the
commission does not have the statutory authority to require fees in connection
with general permits, except waste treatment inspection fees that are authorized
by TWC, §26.0291. LGBRB&T further commented §26.040 of the TWC
specifically authorizes the Commission to impose "a reasonable and necessary
fee" related to waste treatment inspections, and this provision does not authorize
any other fee regarding general permits. Furthermore, according to LGBRB&T,
TWC, §5.235(a) authorizes the commission to collect fees, but only fees
"prescribed by law."
Response 52:
The ED disagrees with the comment
that only waste treatment inspection fees may be required for authorizations
under a TPDES general permit. Under TWC, §26.0135(h) the commission shall
assess watershed monitoring and assessment fees to "users of water and wastewater
permit holders in the watershed according to the records of the commission
generally in proportion to their right, through permit or contract, to use
water from and discharge wastewater to the watershed." Persons authorized
to discharge under the proposed general permit are holders of a permit, albeit
a general rather than individual permit, that have a right to discharge by
virtue of their coverage under a general permit. Therefore, persons discharging
under authority of a general permit fall within the scope of TWC, §26.0135.
Application fees may also be required for authorization under a TPDES general
permit. TWC, §5.235(b) specifically provides that "{E}xcept as otherwise
provided by law, the fee for filing an application or petition is $100 plus
the cost of any required notice." Additionally, 30 TAC §3.2(4) defines
an application as "{A} petition or written request to the commission for an
order, permit, license, registration, standard exemption, or other approval."
Part I of the MSGP defines an NOI as "{A} written submission to the ED from
an applicant requesting coverage under a general permit." Thus, an NOI is
an application and as such is subject to the $100 application fee.
Comment 53:
LGBRB&T commented that municipalities
that have a population over 10,000 persons may not be charged watershed monitoring
and assessment fees. TWC, §26.0135(h) (stating that "no municipality
shall be assessed costs" for the water quality management activities of §26.177
-- the water pollution abatement plan requirements).
Response 53:
The commenter is correct that §26.0135(h),
provides, with respect to watershed monitoring and assessment fees, that no
municipality shall be assessed cost for any efforts that duplicate water quality
management activities described in TWC, §26.177. However, the ED disagrees
that municipalities having a population greater than 10,000 may not be charged
watershed monitoring and assessment fees. In order to qualify for the exemption
for assessment of costs that duplicate water quality management activities,
the municipality must have established and implemented a water pollution control
and abatement program under TWC, §26.177(a), that includes, at a minimum,
the services and functions described in TWC, §26.177(b)(1) - (6), and
the program must have been submitted to and approved by the commission under
TWC, §26.177(c).
Comment 54:
WCM requested specific information
on when the proposed annual fees would be billed so that permittees may budget
in advance.
Response 54:
The $100 annual waste treatment
inspection fee will be billed in September of each year for every facility
that is authorized under the proposed permit on September 1st of that year.
The application fee must be submitted with the NOI.
Comment 55:
Bramblett requested reconsideration
for the amounts of the proposed annual fees. Bramblett commented that some
smaller facilities may have difficulty budgeting the proposed $100 annual
waste treatment inspection fee, an additional watershed assessment fee, and
costs associated with monitoring and compliance. CMC commented that a $100
application fee and a $100 annual waste treatment inspection fee will be a
hardship for smaller businesses and for those with multiple locations. CMC
commented that a budget should be developed to justify fees.
Response 55:
The ED has considered costs
of permit compliance and costs of administrating the permit program in establishing
the proposed fees. The application fee is proposed at the minimum amount allowed
in 30 TAC §305.503 (relating to Consolidated Permits). Annual waste treatment
inspection fees for a permit issued under the authority of TWC, Chapter 26
are described in §305.503 (relating to Consolidated Permits). The minimum
waste treatment inspection fee for storm water permits is set at $900, and
may be adjusted to a maximum annual fee of $2,070. Title 30 TAC Chapter 205
(relating to General Permits for Waste Discharges) was recently amended to
allow that waste treatment fees could either be established according to §305.503
or established in a general permit. The ED, according to Chapter 205, now
establishes a $100 annual fee in the general permit to recover the cost of
administering the proposed permit. The ED has noted in the proposed permit
that dischargers are subject to an annual watershed assessment fee, but does
not propose to assess this fee. Finally, the costs for maintaining authorization
under the proposed permit are estimated to be less than the costs for obtaining
the alternative individual TPDES permit coverage.
Comment 56:
Cleburne commented that the proposed
application fee and annual waste treatment inspection fee are reasonable.
Cleburne commented that it is concerned that annual watershed assessment fees
are increasing and may be an exorbitant cost for a small city to bear. Cleburne
stated it would be more appropriate for the state to fund the statewide monitoring
of waters in Texas using the budget surplus, rather than requiring municipalities
and other entities to come up with the funds through local tax increases.
Response 56:
The TNRCC has no control over
the state budget or any surplus found therein. The TNRCC is required by the
Legislature to support its regulatory activities through the assessment of
fees within the guidelines provided by the Texas Legislature. There is no
watershed monitoring and assessment fee proposed during the five-year term
of the proposed general permit.
Comment 57:
PCCA asked if the language in
Part II.C.10. of the permit, requiring facilities to apply for an individual
permit if the general permit is not renewed, reflects an intent to require
all individual permits.
Response 57:
The ED does not intend to require
all facilities to obtain individual permit coverage. The language in this
provision provides guidance to permittees on how to maintain authorization
for discharges of storm water in the event that coverage under the proposed
general permit is not available. As stated, coverage may be available through
either an individual permit or an alternative general permit.
Comment 58:
Boral requested revisions to
the language in Part II.C.10. of the permit, requiring facilities to apply
for an individual permit if the general permit is not renewed. Boral requested
that in the event that the ED decides not to renew the general permit, and
issues notice to this fact, currently authorized facilities may submit an
application for an individual permit within 90 days of this notice and the
general permit will remain in effect until the individual permit authorization
is issued.
Response 58:
TPDES permits may be issued
for a maximum term of five years. Authorizations under an expiring permit
may only be continued beyond the expiration date for those situations where
the commission proposes to renew that permit, but has not yet made a final
decision on the re-issuance of the permit.
Part II.D.2. - Individual Permit Required
Comment 59:
Dallas requested that language
be included to define or clarify the terms "substantive non-compliance" and
"anti-backsliding policy."
Response 59:
The ED disagrees with the comment
that the proposed general permit must necessarily include the definition of
anti-backsliding. All TPDES discharge permits are subject to this provision.
Anti-backsliding is an NPDES requirement that is defined in 40 CFR §122.44(l),
as amended and adopted under 30 TAC §305.531(3), relating to Establishing
and Calculating Additional Conditions and Limitations for TPDES Permits. This
is a general prohibition that limits the renewal, reissuance, or modification
of a TPDES permit if it would result in a permit that contained less stringent
effluent limitations than those contained in the originally issued permit.
Title 30 TAC Chapter 205, relating to General Permits for Waste Discharges,
defines the compliance factors that will be considered when determining the
eligibility of an applicant for a general permit. All applications for authorization
under all TPDES general permits are subject to the provisions of Chapter 205
and therefore Parts II.D.2. and II.B.2.(d) of the proposed permit are revised
to include references to Chapter 205.
Comment 60:
Dallas commented the draft permit
contains many references that require permittees to maintain certain documents
and records and that these be made readily available for review by TNRCC personnel
upon request. Dallas requested that the requirements be revised to make these
available "for review by an authorized representative of EPA, TNRCC, or an
authorized representative of the MS4 municipality."
Response 60:
The suggested language is not
necessary because Part II.B.10. has been added to clarify that applicants
must comply with all other local, state, and federal laws. The specific language
is included in Response 6.
Part III.A. - Minimum Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWP3) requirements
Comment 61:
WCM commented that the permit
should require that the SWP3 be kept onsite, and not allow it to be kept offsite
but readily available for review.
Response 61:
The proposed permit will apply
to a wide and varied range of industrial activities. Most facilities will
probably find it most efficient and convenient to maintain the SWP3 onsite.
Some facilities, however, may not be staffed year-round or may not have offices
onsite where the SWP3 can be kept. For example, certain mine sites may only
be active on a seasonal basis or operate daily on an "on demand" basis.
Comment 62:
WCM commented that the language
in Part III.A. that provides how SWP3 requirements may be met by compliance
with other, separate regulatory requirements, should be titled "Consistency
with Other Plans" and be a numbered item in the permit.
Response 62:
The ED agrees with the comment
and includes the following language as Part III.A.1. of the permit, and the
remainder of Part III.A. is renumbered accordingly. "Consistency With Other
Plans Existing plans and measures that stem from other regulatory requirements,
such as Spill Prevention Control Countermeasures (SPCC plans required for
certain operations under the federal guidelines of 40 CFR Part 112) may satisfy
in whole or in part specific requirements of this general permit. These plans
may either be attached as a component of the SWP3, or referenced in the SWP3
and made readily available for review by authorized TNRCC personnel upon request."
Comment 63:
Harris County commented that
the permit should include a requirement to allow local authorities to review
storm water pollution prevention plans.
Response 63:
The ED has determined that the
additional language is not necessary, however, Part II.B.10 has been added
to clarify that applicants must comply with all other local, state, and federal
laws. Additionally, Part II.B.10 states that all aspects of the general permit
must be made available to all authorized inspectors. The specific language
is included in Response 6.
Comment 64:
Vought inquired if the SWP3 included
the following certification statement, as was included in the federal NPDES
Multi-Sector General Permit: "I certify under penalty of law that this document
and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance
with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered
and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person
or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for
gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility
of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
Response 64:
All signed reports, SWP3s, NOIs,
NOTs, and NOCs must contain the following signed certification according to
30 TAC §305.44: "I certify under penalty of law that this document and
all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance
with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather
and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person
or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for
gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware there are significant
penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations."
Comment 65:
Boral and Cleburne requested
deletion of language in Part III.A.(4) that requires the use of references
to literature or site-specific information in order to describe the effectiveness
of proposed storm water practices and measures.
Response 65:
The ED agrees in part with the
comment that references to literature are not always necessary in order to
describe and discuss effective pollution prevention controls and measures.
The language in the draft permit is revised to indicate that references and
site-specific information may be used in these discussions.
Comment 66:
TPWD requested that the permit
require quarterly visual monitoring requirements to inspect for fish and wildlife
kills, and that the permit require notification of the TPWD if wildlife mortalities
occur as a result of a spill or leak.
Response 66:
Part III.E.4.(b) of the proposed
permit, relating to Noncompliance Notification, requires that the permittee
notify the TNRCC of any noncompliance which "may endanger human health or
safety, or the environment." This is a standard permit requirement that appears
in other TNRCC water quality permits. Coordination between TNRCC and TPWD
on these matters already exists for wastewater discharges and the ED disagrees
that additional procedures are necessary for discharges of storm water runoff
associated with industrial activities.
Comment 67:
SAWS commented that the permit
should include the requirement that a copy of the SWP3 be made available to
the MS4 operator upon request.
Response 67:
The ED agrees with the comment.
Part III.A. of the proposed permit is revised to include the following: "Facilities
that contribute storm water discharges to a municipal separate storm sewer
system must provide a copy of the SWP3 to the operator of that system upon
request."
Comment 68:
DAF notes that the permit requires
that a SWP3 be developed and implemented prior to submittal of a notice of
intent for permit coverage. DAF requested clarification on what constitutes
implementation of the SWP3. DAF asked if budgeting and contracting for construction
of structural best management practice equals implementation of the SWP3.
Response 68:
The ED clarifies that development
of a SWP3 means to produce a document that addresses all of the requirements
of Part III.A. of the proposed permit, relating to Minimum Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWP3) Requirements. Implementation of the SWP3 means to set
into motion the storm water pollution prevention measures and best management
practices that are described in the facility's SWP3. Some of the measures
and practices may be implemented fully and immediately, while others may be
commenced subject to a schedule that is identified in the SWP3.
Part III.A.3. - Description of Potential Pollutants
and Sources (Renumbered III.A.4.)
Comment 69:
PCCA commented that the requirements
for describing potential pollutants and sources is subjective and can not
be "easily quantified." Houston commented that the opening sentence at this
section of the permit requires identification of "significant" materials,
while Part III.3.(b), relating to Narrative Description, requires a description
of activities and sources that "may reasonably be expected to add measurable
amounts of pollutants to storm water discharges." Houston commented that the
permit should be revised to eliminate this contradiction and require a listing
and description of "significant" sources.
Response 69:
The ED agrees that the proposed
requirement for permittees to "identify and describe all activities and significant
materials that may potentially be pollutant sources," in Part III.A.3. of
the proposed permit, is subjective. However, a good pollution prevention plan
and identification of best management practices both rely on first identifying
potential sources of pollutants. The proposed permit will cover a great number
of industrial facilities that conduct a wide range of industrial activities.
The potential activities and sources of pollution will vary greatly for each
different sector of activity, and in many instances from facility to facility.
It would not be possible to identify specifically what each of these sources
is in the language of the proposed permit. The proposed permit recognizes
that the identification of these sources must rely on the site-specific expertise
of the facility's storm water pollution prevention team and provides examples
of activities and areas of plant activity that the team must consider. However,
Part III.A.3.(a) of the permit is revised to include the following language
to clarify what levels of increased exposure or changes in material handling
practices would constitute a "significant" change: "A significant change in
the types of materials is exposure of a material, not already included in
the inventory, that could be transported by precipitation or storm water runoff
and subsequently discharged. A significant change in material management practices
is a change that would result in either initial exposure of a material not
already listed in the inventory, or increased exposure of a material to the
extent that the material could be transported by precipitation or storm water
runoff and subsequently discharged." Part III.A.3.(b) only requires a narrative
discussion for those activities and materials on the inventory if they are
expected to contribute pollutants to the extent that they are measurable in
the discharge. This may, or may not include the entire inventory of exposed
materials.
Part III.A.4. - Pollution Prevention Measures
and Controls (Renumbered III.A.5.)
Comment 70:
PCCA commented that compliance
with these requirements will be time consuming and cost prohibitive for most
permit holders. PCCA further commented that permittees will simply choose
a few general best management practices, rather than establishing many site-specific
best management practices, in order to avoid additional required documentation.
Response 70:
The ED disagrees that the proposed
requirements are excessive. Part III.A.4. requires records of maintenance
activities, inspections, spills, discharge quality, employee training activities,
employee education activities, SWP3 modifications, and other similar events.
These requirements are continued from the federal NPDES permit that was issued
by EPA in 1995. These requirements are important tools for establishing the
effectiveness of a facility's SWP3.
Part III.A.1. - Pollution Prevention Team (Renumbered
III.A.2.)
Comment 71:
WCM commented that paragraph
(b) states that the team is responsible for assisting the plant manager in
implementation, maintenance, and revision of the SWP3. WCM commented that
not all companies have a position with the job title of "plant manager," and
requested that this term be replaced with "responsible personnel" or "qualified
individual" or "designated individual." Houston commented that not all facilities
have a plant manager position and requested the provision be revised by striking
the reference to the plant manager.
Response 71:
The ED agrees with the commenter
that the use of the term "plant manager" could be confusing. The ED, however,
has opted to change the term to "operator," since this is defined in Part
I of the general permit as "{T}he owner or person that is responsible for
the management of an industrial facility subject to the provisions of this
general permit." Additionally, to ensure that the appropriate individual is
involved with development and implementation of the SWP3, the ED has added
the phrase "or the operator's designee" to the section. Thus, the section
now reads "{T}he team is responsible for development of the SWP3, and for
assisting the operator or the operator's designee in implementation, maintenance,
and revision of the SWP3."
Comment 72:
Reliant, TXU, and Cleburne commented
that the members of the pollution prevention team should not be restricted
to facility personnel. Reliant and TXU both commented that it is often appropriate
to include facility personnel from various corporate functions as members
of the team. Reliant further commented that many facilities are not staffed
and may necessarily rely on a team composed entirely of members from outside
of the facility. Cleburne commented that many facilities have small staffs
and ask if contracted environmental professionals may be designated as members
of the team.
Response 72:
The ED agrees with the comments
and revises the requirement such that the team is not limited to only employees
of the permitted facility. Paragraph (a) in Part III.A.1. of the proposed
permit, relating to Pollution Prevention Team, is revised to read: "The SWP3
must identify a specific individual, or group of individuals, from within
the facility as members of a storm water pollution prevention team. If the
facility is not staffed on a continuous or permanent basis, a company employee,
or employees, from outside of the facility may be identified as a part of
the team. Additional members of the team may include environmental professionals
that are under contract to the permittee. The responsibilities for each member
of the team shall be listed and clearly described."
Comment 73:
ATA disagrees with the requirement
that states "The SWP3 shall be kept readily available to the members of the
team, as well as all employees." ATA commented that this could be a significant
administrative burden, particularly for facilities with large numbers of non-affected
employees. ATA requested the permit be revised to make the SWP3 readily available
only to the members of the storm water pollution prevention team.
Response 73:
Pollution prevention measures
may become more effective when employees are aware of the program. The TNRCC,
however, does not intend for this requirement to be overly burdensome. The
section requires each employee to have easy access to the SWP3; it does not
require that each employee be provided a copy of the SWP3.
Part III.A.2. - Non-Storm Water Discharges (Renumbered
III.A.3)
Comment 74:
PCCA commented that the requirements
"seem excessive for storm water regulations and seem more applicable to MS4
permitting."
Response 74:
The proposed requirements duplicate
and essentially continue the requirements of the federal NPDES Multi-Sector
General Permit that was issued in 1995.
Comment 75:
PCCA asked why paragraph (a)
requires a description of the discharge points for "eligible non-storm water
discharges." PCCA asked what "what pollution reducing benefits result from
listing and describing the non-storm water discharge locations." PCCA additionally
questioned why the permit holder should list and describe best management
practices for non-storm water discharges. PCCA further commented that non-storm
water discharges eligible for permit coverage are "incidental when compared
to the industrial storm water system." PCCA further commented that these requirements
"will be both time consuming and cost prohibitive for most permit holders."
PCCA finally suggested that the permit be revised to require permittees only
list eligible non-storm water discharges.
Response 75:
Requirements to investigate
and then document non-storm water discharges within the facility's SWP3 are
valuable components of an effective pollution prevention plan. For example,
during the investigation of the potential cause for exceedance of a benchmark
monitoring value, the pollution prevention team will have the necessary information
to readily consider potential non-storm water sources. Also, if these sources
are identified and documented, any new fugitive non-storm water discharges
can be easily recognized. Finally, providing this information will assist
TNRCC staff in readily identifying and confirming that non-storm water discharges
are authorized under the permit during compliance inspections of permitted
facilities.
Comment 76:
PCCA requested clarification
on paragraph (b) and asked if the required investigation for non-storm water
discharges is for "eligible or non-eligible non-storm water sources." PCCA
further commented that these requirements "will be both time and cost prohibitive
for most permit holders."
Response 76:
The requirement is to investigate
all non-storm water discharges, whether or not they are eligible for coverage
under the proposed permit. The ED disagrees that the requirements are cost
prohibitive, as these requirements are identical to the requirements of the
federal NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit that was issued in 1995.
Comment 77:
SAWS commented that paragraph
(d) should be revised to require facilities to notify the operator of the
local MS4 if the facility is unable to certify that certain parts of the storm
water system do not contain non-storm water discharges.
Response 77:
Some discharges may be to a
permitted MS4 system, and others discharges may be to a non-permitted MS4
system or directly to water in the state. The permit is revised to require
that facilities provide this information to the operator of any MS4 system
that receives the discharge, upon request of the operator.
Comment 78:
Houston recommended that paragraph
(d) be revised to require notification of failure to certify certain parts
of the storm water system do not contain non-storm water discharges within
90 days, rather than the 180-day proposed deadline.
Response 78:
The 180-day time frame will
allow additional time for a facility to investigate alternatives for meeting
the requirements of this provision. Additionally, this is the same time frame
that was provided in the federal NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit issued
in 1995.
Comment 79:
Harris County requested that
a time frame be established for when a survey of potential non-storm water
discharges must be completed.
Response 79:
Paragraph (c) Part III.A.2.
of the proposed permit is revised to clarify that the investigation and certification
for non-storm water discharges must be completed within 90 days of filing
the notice of intent for permit coverage.
Comment 80:
ATA requested that signatory
requirements for SWP3s be changed to allow delegation to the position of station
manager with respect to facilities under Part V.S. of the proposed permit,
relating to Air Transportation.
Response 80:
Part III.E.3.(g) of the permit,
relating to Signatory Requirements for Reports and Certifications, delineates
that signatory requirements for the SWP3 and other reports must be according
to 30 TAC §305.128 (relating to Signatory Requirements). These rules
allow that signature requirements for reports may be delegated to certain
other levels of authority.
Comment 81:
Houston commented that the phrase
"prevent or effectively reduce pollution" in Part III.A.(2) of the proposed
permit, relating to Minimum Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWP3) Requirements,
is not consistent with the phrase "effectively prevent or lessen pollution"
in Part III.A.3.(3) of the permit.
Response 81:
The phrase in Part III.A.(2)
is revised for consistency to read "prevent or effectively reduce pollution."
Comment 82:
Houston requested that the permit
be revised to require permitted facilities to make the SWP3 readily available
for review by representatives of local government upon request. Houston references
TWC, §26.173 (a). Houston additionally recommends that permitted facilities
be encouraged to provide review and copies of the SWP3 to the general public
upon written request.
Response 82:
The ED has determined that the
additional language is not necessary, however, Part II.B.10 has been added
to clarify that applicants must comply with all other local, state, and federal
laws. Additionally, Part II.B.10 states that all aspects of the proposed general
permit must be made available to all authorized inspectors. The specific language
is included in Response 6 of the ED's Response to Public Comment.
Comment 83:
Dallas commented that the words
"wherever possible" should be deleted from the proposed permit requirements
throughout the permit. Dallas further commented that this revision would remove
ambiguity from the requirements.
Response 83:
The phrase "wherever possible"
is deleted except where it appears in Sector E of the permit, relating to
Glass, Clay, Cement Concrete, and Gypsum Product Manufacturing Facilities.
The requirement in this sector is to prevent exposure of cement, fly ash,
and kiln dust to precipitation and runoff by storing these materials in enclosed
silos, hoppers, buildings or other structures "wherever possible." This requirement
has not been revised as it may not be practicable for all facilities to meet
this condition in every instance. It is also noted that the current NPDES
multi-sector general permit only requires this practice "wherever practicable."
Part III.A.3.(b) - Narrative Description (Renumbered
III.A.4.(b))
Comment 84:
Grand Prairie, Cleburne, and
CMC commented that the requirement for facilities to list the materials exposed
to storm water during the three years before an NOI is submitted is an impossible
standard. Commenters stated that these records are either typically not available
or complete. Boral commented that the list should only include "significant
materials" that are exposed to precipitation. Additionally, Boral requested
that a 60-day time frame be allowed for updating the list, commencing with
the exposure of new materials to precipitation.
Response 84:
The requirement to list the
materials exposed to storm water during the three years before submittal of
an NOI is deleted from the proposed permit. The ED also agrees that a time
frame should be established for updating this list following a change in exposed
materials. However, because this list serves as a resource to the facility's
storm water pollution prevention team, it must remain relatively current.
For example, the team must consider these materials when establishing an effective
and comprehensive pollution prevention plan for the facility. A current inventory
is also an important tool for the team when researching potential causes for
exceedance of a benchmark value, an effluent limitation, or for tracking the
source of a condition noted in a visual examination of discharges. The ED
disagrees with the comment that a 60-day time frame is necessary, and instead
revises the permit to provide a 30-day time frame for updating this inventory.
Comment 85:
PHA commented that materials
stored in containers should be excluded from the inventory of exposed materials.
PHA further commented that many materials are stored in various containers
at the port and that the permittee would not be able to maintain an accurate
inventory.
Response 85:
Many industrial facilities may
store or transport many different materials within containers, and it would
not be impossible to list these materials on an inventory of exposed materials.
However, the permit is revised to allow an exclusion for listing materials
stored in drums, barrels, bins, and other containers that are tightly sealed,
waterproof, and in good structural condition.
Comment 86:
SRC commented that the proposed
permit would not allow a facility to qualify for a condition of no exposure
if storage tanks have "operational valves." SRC further commented that all
tanks have operational valves and that they are "functionless without them."
SRC recommends either eliminating the term "tanks" from the definition of
exposure, or to qualify that tanks "with leaking operational valves" do not
qualify for the condition of no exposure of industrial activities to storm
water.
Response 86:
The ED agrees with the comment.
The proposed permit is revised to allow a condition of no exposure for "drums,
barrels, and similar containers that are tightly sealed, in good structural
condition, without operational valves, and storage tanks in good structural
condition without leaking valves;" The ED does not revise the requirement
that smaller containers, such as drums and barrels, must not have valves in
order to meet this exclusion. When materials are stored outdoors in small
containers that have operational valves, it is more likely that workers will
access the materials on a regular basis. This condition increases exposure
or potential exposure of industrial materials to storm water and runoff.
Comment 87:
Houston and Austin commented
that the words "measurable amounts" should be deleted in the permit requirements
to provide a narrative description of potential pollutants. Houston commented
that the term is subjective and that permittees should narratively describe
all activities and potential sources of pollutants that may be reasonably
expected to contribute pollutants to storm water runoff.
Response 87:
The ED agrees in part with the
comments. The words "reasonably expected to contribute pollutants" is also
subjective. However, the permit is revised to require that the inventory contain
a list of all pollutants that may be reasonably expected to contribute pollutants
to storm water runoff. The requirement to revise the list is also amended
so that the list must be updated when, in the judgment of the storm water
pollution prevention team, changes have occurred that could reasonably be
expected to add pollutants to storm water runoff. It is a reasonable responsibility
for the team, as they are most familiar with the overall industrial activities,
storm water drainage, and SWP3 requirements.
Comment 88:
Reliant and TXU commented that
it would be more beneficial to identify the location of outfalls and drainage
areas where potential sources of pollution occur by referencing the required
site map, rather than relying on a narrative description. Both commenters
further stated that this revision would eliminate potential for confusion
to persons not familiar with the specific facility terminology.
Response 88:
Part III.A.3.(b) of the proposed
permit is revised to allow for the option of either providing a narrative
description or a reference to the site map.
Comment 89:
ATA requested that the requirement
to narratively describe potential dry weather discharges from the storm sewer
system be deleted.
Response 89:
No basis is provided for the
request to delete this requirement, and therefore no changes to the proposed
permit have been made.
Part III.A.3.(c) - Site Map (Renumbered III.A.4.(c))
Comment 90:
PCCA commented that the "requirement
to develop multiple site maps will be both time consuming and cost prohibitive
for most permit holders."
Response 90:
Multiple maps are only required
in the event that the amount of information on a single map would render it
difficult to read and interpret. The amount of information required on the
map is necessary to understand the flow of storm water, location of potential
pollutants, location of storm water controls, and other things necessary to
understand and manage a comprehensive SWP3.
Comment 91:
TXU commented that the list of
items to be included on a facility's site map should be qualified with the
phrase "that may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of storm water
discharges from the facility." TXU further commented that "often a majority
of buildings, structures, etc. are not within a storm water drainage area
covered by this permit, and are not reasonably expected to affect the quality
of storm water discharges." TXU suggests that items listed in the permit,
but that are not within a drainage area to an outfall covered by the permit,
could be addressed in the SWP3 and not be included on the site map.
Response 91:
The list of items to be included
on the site map are activities, structures, and areas that may influence the
quality of storm water runoff. Locating these items on a map will help to
provide an overall understanding of the activities and layout of the industrial
site.
Comment 92:
Cleburne commented that it would
be difficult to comply with the requirement to identify the location of all
spills that have occurred in the three years prior to submitting the NOI on
the site map. Boral requested that the requirement to locate these prior spills
on the site map be limited to those spills that occurred at a reportable quantity.
Response 92:
A comprehensive list of all
spills and leaks may not be available for the three-year period prior to applying
for permit coverage. Therefore the requirement to identify previous spills
on the facility site map is revised and limited to those that occurred at
a reportable quantity. A definition for reportable quantity is also included
in Part I of the draft permit.
Part III.A.3.(d) - Spills and Leaks (Renumbered
III.A.4.(d))
Comment 93:
WCM commented that the required
list of reportable spills and leaks of toxic or hazardous pollutants should
be updated within 14 days following knowledge of the release, instead of on
the proposed quarterly basis. PCCA suggests that the list be updated on an
annual basis. ATA requested that the requirement to update the list either
be deleted, or that the frequency be set at once per year. ATA further commented
that more frequent updates to the list will focus resources on paperwork rather
than on storm water management.
Response 93:
Maintaining a current list of
spills will assist the facility's storm water pollution prevention team to
identify areas where repeated spills may occur and allow the team to consider
additional measures prevent the future occurrence of spills on a more timely
basis. The ED responds that the proposed quarterly frequency is not overly
burdensome and defines the minimum time frame for updating and maintaining
a current list of spills and leaks.
Comment 94:
WCM commented that the permit
should require a written notification of reportable quantity spills and releases
and suggests that the permit contain the mailing address for notification
to the TRNCC.
Response 94:
The requirements that govern
these events are delineated in 30 TAC § 327 (relating to Spill Prevention
and Control). The permit makes reference to these requirements, but these
activities are not regulated under the proposed storm water general permit.
Comment 95:
CMC commented that only reportable
quantity spills should be listed and included on the quarterly update of the
list. CMC further commented that the list should cover a limited time period,
such as a list of spills that occurred in the previous five-year period. TXU
requested that the requirement to update the list of spills and leaks be revised
to clarify that this revision is only required if a spill or leak has occurred.
Response 95:
The ED disagrees that only reportable
quantity spills and leaks of both hazardous substances and oil should be documented.
A spill may not meet this threshold, and may still cause a negative impact
on water quality. Recognizing the frequency and location of spills, and having
these documented as a part of the facility's SWP3, will assist the storm water
pollution prevention team in assessing potential future spills, and the need
for revising existing best management practices. The ED disagrees that it
is necessary to revise the proposed permit to define a limited period of time
for maintaining the current list of spills and leaks. Updates to the list
are limited to the term of the five-year permit plus the preceding three-year
period for reportable quantity spills and leaks, and to the five-year permit
term for all other spills and leaks. The ED agrees with the comment that this
list only requires updating if there has been a spill or leak, but does not
agree that revision to the permit language is necessary.
Comment 96:
Dallas requested that the following
statement be added to this section: "The plan must include a list of any significant
spills and leaks of toxic or hazardous pollutants that occurred in the three
years prior to the date of the submissions of a Notice of Intent (NOI). Significant
spills include, but are not limited to, releases of oil or hazardous substances
in excess of quantities that are reportable under CWA, §311 or CERCLA, §102.
Significant spills may also include releases of oil or hazardous substances
that are not in excess of reporting requirements and releases of materials
that are not classified as oil or hazardous substances. Any spill that has
the potential to contribute pollutants to the storm water must be listed.
The list of spills must include a description of the cause of the spill/leak,
the actions taken to respond to the release and actions taken to prevent similar
spills/leaks in the future."
Response 96:
The ED agrees to limit the list
of spills that must be developed for the period three years before the NOI
is submitted to those that occurred at a reportable quantity. It is probable
that many facilities will not have complete or accurate historic records of
other spills for this period. Additionally, the following definition is included
in Part I of the permit: "Reportable Quantity Spill - a discharge or spill
of oil, petroleum product, used oil, hazardous substances, industrial solid
waste, or other substances into the environment in a quantity equal to or
greater than the reportable quantity listed in 30 TAC §327.4 (relating
to Reportable Quantities) in any 24-hour period."
Part III.A.3.(e) - Sampling Data (Renumbered III.A.4.(e))
Comment 97:
Houston commented that permit
should allow for the summary of sampling data either be an attachment to the
SWP3, or referenced in the SWP3.
Response 97:
The proposed permit already
provides that the summary may either be included as an attachment to the SWP3,
or may be referenced in the SWP3, maintained separately, and be readily available
for inspection.
Comment 98:
PCCA asked if equivalent plans
in the proposed permit can substitute for the requirements in Part III.A.4.,
relating to Pollution Prevention Measures and Controls. PCCA commented that,
"Development and implementation of these measures will be time extensive and
expensive for facilities that currently have some portions of these measures."
PCCA further commented, "The costs and time requirements will be ridiculous
for new facilities never before covered under a storm water permit." Reliant
Energy commented that facilities should be allowed to reference an Integrated
Contingency Plan rather than to provide an inventory of spill cleanup materials
and equipment in the SWP3. TXU commented that many of the required spill prevention
and response measures that must be included in the SWP3 are already required
by other state and federal regulations.
Response 98:
The proposed permit, at Part
III.A., relating to Minimum Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) Requirements,
contains a provision that any existing plans and measures that stem from other
regulatory requirements, may satisfy in whole or in part the specific requirements
of the general permit.
Part III.A.4.(a) - Good Housekeeping Measures
(Renumbered III.A.5.(a))
Comment 99:
AEP commented that requirement
for facilities to list housekeeping practices in the SWP3 is overly intrusive,
inflexible, and that facilities may be less innovative in developing new measures
if the SWP3 must be continually updated. AEP commented that facilities should
not receive a notice of violation for not specifically listing the good housekeeping
measures in the SWP3.
Response 99:
The quality of the discharges
authorized under the proposed permit is dependent on effective pollution prevention
measures and controls, as opposed to requirements to meet chemical specific
numeric effluent limitations. Good housekeeping measures are an effective
and important component of a pollution prevention plan. Facilities are encouraged
to continually develop, revise, and improve on good housekeeping measures.
Facilities are only required to maintain a current description of these practices
within the SWP3, and are not required to report changes, or to request for
amendments to the SWP3. A current SWP3 is important as this document serves
as the basic guideline when the storm water pollution prevention team conducts
required inspections of the facility to evaluate pollution prevention plan
effectiveness. It will also be necessary to have a current SWP3 plan when
TNRCC staff inspect a facility to determine compliance with permit requirements.
Part III.A.4. - Pollution Prevention Measures
and Controls (Renumbered III.A.5.)
Comment 100:
Austin commented that additional
language should be included in Part III.A.4.(a) to note that "maintenance
activities should not be implemented in a way that would generate wastewater
discharges that contain pollutants."
Response 100:
The proposed permit would authorize
and regulate discharges of storm water and a limited number of non-storm water
discharges. The ED agrees that maintenance activities that are effective,
and that either reduce or eliminate the production of a waste, are preferable.
The proposed permit encourages the facility's storm water pollution prevention
team to develop best management practices to either eliminate or lessen exposure
of precipitation to pollutants. However, in the course of conducting maintenance
activities, facilities may generate wastewater as a necessary result and dispose
of it in a number of approved manners.
Part III.A.4.(b)(7) - Spill Prevention and Response
Measures (Renumbered III.A.5.(b)(7))
Comment 101:
ATA commented that Sector S
facilities, Vehicle Maintenance Areas, Equipment Cleaning Areas, or Deicing
Areas located at Air Transportation Facilities, should not be required to
include an inventory of spill cleanup materials and equipment in the SWP3,
and should not be required to include this information as a part of the employee
training program. ATA commented that these requirements are inappropriate
for the airline industry because each "station" may have access to different
materials and equipment. ATA commented that, "periodically maintaining such
a listing would far outweigh its usefulness." ATA further commented that incorporating
"station-specific lists of materials and equipment would hamstring training
programs" because training materials would have to be constantly modified
when training was conducted at different locations.
Response 101:
Standardized training materials
and presentations may be developed to cover general procedures and protocols
for spill prevention and cleanup that is appropriate to all employees. If
each "station" has specific cleanup materials, equipment, and procedures,
it would be very important that the employees in each of those locations be
aware of what is available and appropriate for their specific location. Therefore,
the maintenance of a current inventory of these materials and equipment within
the SWP3 would be especially useful to the storm water pollution prevention
team, and to the employees working in each of these "stations."
Part III.A.4.(c) - Erosion Control Measures (Renumbered
III.A.5.(c))
Comment 102:
Boral commented that a soil
erosion section of the SWP3 should only be required if "applicable to the
facility." Cleburne commented that it is the "nature of the site layout" that
should determine what erosion control measures should be evaluated.
Response 102:
Soil erosion may be a major
source of pollution to storm water runoff. The storm water pollution prevention
team must develop an inventory of potential pollutants and determine if soil
erosion constitutes a source. If there is no erosion problem identified by
the team, this finding may be documented in this section of the SWP3, and
no further action would be required. If the team identifies an erosion problem,
erosion prevention measures may be developed based on the site-specific conditions
if the site.
Comment 103:
Cleburne commented that many
times the nature of the site layout can determine what type of erosion control
measures can be used. It should not be necessary to evaluate vegetative cover,
contouring slopes, paving and structural controls just because they are being
required "at a minimum."
Response 103:
It may be necessary to evaluate
a number of alternative methods for erosion control, based on local topography,
meteorological conditions, and other factors. The permit contains only a minimum
number of common methods that must be considered; not necessarily utilized
to the exclusion of any possible alternatives.
Part III.A.4.(d) - Maintenance Program for Structural
Controls (Renumbered III.A.5.(b))
Comment 104:
Dallas commented that storm
water structural controls are not the only apparatuses that may fail and contribute
pollution. Dallas suggested that "many facilities could easily maintain adequate
controls over pollutant releases simply monitoring the normal industrial equipment
used in their day to day operations," and commented that a requirement for
facilities to conduct preventive maintenance on all equipment that could release
pollutants would better satisfy the intent of this section of the permit.
Response 104:
This specific part of the proposed
permit pertains specifically to the maintenance of storm water structural
controls. Potential sources of pollutants, such as industrial equipment, must
be identified by the facility's storm water pollution prevention team according
to Part III.A.4. of the permit, relating to Description of Potential Pollutants
and Sources. The team should identify industrial equipment that is a potential
source in this section of the proposed permit, and then develop measures to
prevent spills and leaks according to Part III.A.4.(b), relating to Spill
Prevention and Response Measures, and renumbered Part III.A.5.(b).
Comment 105:
ATA, Cleburne, and Boral commented
that records for estimated volumes of solids removed from catch basins, sediment
ponds and other similar structural controls should not be required. ATA commented
that estimates would only be educated guesses and therefore not be useful.
Cleburne commented that maintaining records of solids "will be labor intensive,
may reduce the efficiency of the facility, and increase costs of maintenance."
Response 105:
The quality of the discharges
authorized under the proposed permit is dependent on effective pollution prevention
measures and controls, as opposed to requirements to meet chemical specific
numeric effluent limitations. Estimating the volumes of solids removed from
structural controls is a performance measure of a facility's pollution prevention
plan. These estimates not only assist the storm water pollution prevention
team in measuring structural control performance, but also may indicate effectiveness
of other best management practices (such as erosion control practices or material
storage pile management) conducted at the facility. Estimations should be
simple and not labor intensive. The volumes of solid waste removed from a
storm water detention pond, for example, may be based on the number and size
of the dump trucks that were used to transport the materials for disposal.
Comment 106:
CMC commented that the requirement
that structural controls must be "cleaned and maintained on a regular basis"
should be revised to require regular inspection of structural controls. CMC
commented that the need for maintenance on these structures depends on the
frequency of rainfall. CMC additionally commented that this section of the
permit requires equipment must be "inspected and tested to prevent failures"
and requested clarification on what equipment this language includes.
Response 106:
The permit is revised to require
that structural controls be inspected on a regular basis and to include the
following statement for clarification: "Mechanical equipment that is part
of a structural control, such as a storm water pump, must also be inspected
at intervals described in the SWP3 and maintained at intervals necessary to
prevent failures that could result in a discharge of pollutants." The ED agrees
that maintenance schedules are dependent on the frequency of rainfall. The
maintenance schedules identified in the SWP3 may be an established frequency
based on historical experience, or may be a set of criteria that defines when
maintenance activities must occur. Part III.A.5.(d) is further revised to
clarify that inspection and maintenance schedules for any mechanical equipment
related to structural controls must be established in this component of the
SWP3.
Part III.A.4.(f) - Employee Training and Employee
Education Programs (Renumbered III.A.5.(f))
Comment 107:
ATA commented that it would
be wasteful and "potentially counter productive" to require training on storm
water pollution prevention to employees that are not directly responsible
for implementing the facility's SWP3.
Response 107:
The permit does not require
an employee training program for all employees. Training on the specific pollution
prevention requirements and best management practices is only required for
employees who are responsible for implementing or maintaining activities identified
in the SWP3.
Comment 108:
Houston commented the permit
should be revised to require employee training for employees who are responsible
for implementing and "maintaining" SWP3 activities, not for employees who
are responsible for implementing and "sustaining" these activities. Houston
further commented that the description of the employee education program should
be revised to clarify that it pertains to those employees, at the permitted
facility, who do not participate in the employee training program.
Response 108:
The word "maintaining" is substituted
for the word "sustaining." The requirements for employee education are also
clarified by including the following statement in the proposed permit: "Training
must be provided to all employees who are responsible for implementing and
maintaining activities identified in the SWP3." Language describing employee
education is also revised to clarify that it applies to employees at the permitted
facility.
Comment 109:
PCCA, Vought, DAF, and ATA commented
that the employee education program should be deleted. PCCA asked why employees
that are not involved in the industrial activities or storm water programs
must be educated. DAF inquires if all personnel at a military base must be
educated, and notes that some bases include family housing.
Response 109:
The permit is based on minimizing
exposure of pollutants to precipitation and storm water runoff, rather than
relying on engineered treatment technologies. Therefore it is important for
all employees to be aware of the basic goals. Employees that are working at
the facility but not actively participating in implementation of the SWP3,
may be an asset to the facility's pollution prevention efforts, but only if
they are aware of the program. Employee education does not require an extensive
training program, but should give employees a basic understanding of on-going
efforts to prevent pollution. The education program does not apply to the
families of service men who simply reside on a base. The language in this
section of the permit describing employee education is revised to delete the
term "program," to more clearly illustrate the basic information that must
be provided, and to define to which the employee education program applies.
The following language is included: "Education must be provided to those employees
at the facility that are not directly responsible for implementing or maintaining
activities identified in the SWP3, and that do not participate in the employee
training program. At a minimum, these employees must be informed of the basic
goal of the SWP3 and on how to contact the facility's storm water Pollution
Prevention Team regarding storm water issues."
Part III.A.4.(g) - Quarterly Inspections (Renumbered
III.A.5.(g))
Comment 110:
WCM commented that "Quarterly
Inspections" should be renamed "Periodic Inspections." WCM Group, Inc. commented
that many sectors are required to conduct these inspections at different frequencies,
such as once per month.
Response 110:
The proposed permit is revised
to refer to these inspections as "periodic inspections."
Comment 111:
PCCA commented that facilities
should not be required to develop a summary report for quarterly (periodic)
inspections, but should instead be allowed to document inspections using a
checklist developed by the permittee. Reliant commented that a summary report
should only be required if the inspections identify revisions or additional
measures are necessary to increase effectiveness of the SWP3. Cleburne commented
that all documentation regarding the effectiveness of the SWP3 that is generated
during these periodic inspections should be submitted in an annual report
rather than at the conclusion of each inspection.
Response 111:
The proposed permit is revised
to require a checklist, a summary of any proposed revisions to the SWP3, and
any necessary time frames for implementing revisions to the SWP3. The ED disagrees
that the summary of proposed SWP3 revisions should be included in an annual
report. The purpose of periodic inspections is not only to document that current
control measures are effective, but also to improve on current measures during
the course of the permit term. A delay of up to nine months could occur if
the conclusions of the periodic inspection are not acknowledged until the
annual summary report is prepared. Revision of the SWP3 is only required if
the results of the inspection indicate the need to revise or add additional
controls.
Comment 112:
TXU commented that periodic
inspections do not have to be conducted by the facility's storm water pollution
prevention team. TXU commented that it is the storm water pollution prevention
team's responsibility to review the results of inspections and determine if
revisions or additions to the SWP3 are necessary. TXU requested that the language
in the permit be revised to clarify that the summary report includes recommendations
for revisions or additions to the facility's SWP3.
Response 112:
The language in the proposed
permit is revised to require a summary of any "recommended" revisions or additional
measures be included with the periodic inspection checklist.
Part III.A.4.(h) - Quarterly Visual Monitoring
(Renumbered III.A.5.(h))
Comment 113:
WCM commented that the proposed
permit should be revised to delete the word "monitoring" and to refer to these
actions as an "examination of storm water quality." WCM further commented
that this revision would alleviate any confusion with the analytical monitoring
requirements of the permit.
Response 113:
The requirements for quarterly
visual monitoring make no reference to laboratory analyses and should not
be confused with other requirements of the proposed permit.
Comment 114:
Vought commented that the first
sentence should be revised for clarity to read, "Storm water discharges from
each outfall authorized by this general permit must be visually examined on
a quarterly basis."
Response 114:
The suggested revision is included
in the proposed permit.
Comment 115:
Reliant and TXU commented that
requirements for quarterly visual monitoring should be waived for inactive
and unstaffed facilities.
Comment 115:
Provisions to set aside certain
monitoring requirements for inactive industrial facilities were included in
Part III.C.5. of the proposed permit, relating to Temporary Suspension and
Waivers from Monitoring Requirements.
Comment 116:
PCCA commented that the permit
should provide a specific time frame for performing visual examinations after
obtaining storm water samples.
Response 116:
Part III.A.5.(a) of the proposed
permit is revised to include the following clarification: "Some examinations,
such as an examination for odor and foam, may necessarily be conducted immediately
following collection of the sample. All examinations must be performed within
a time frame that ensures the sample is representative of the discharge."
Comment 117:
ATA commented that the requirement
to modify the SWP3 to address the conclusions from quarterly visual examinations
of storm water discharges should be deleted. The ATA commented that sources
of storm water contamination identified during quarterly examinations should
be summarized during the SWP3 annual review.
Response 117:
Revision of the SWP3 based
on visual examinations is not overly burdensome, and is only required if new
sources of pollutants, or the need to revise or add additional controls, are
identified. A delay of up to nine months could occur if the conclusions of
the pollution prevention team's review are not acknowledged until the annual
summary is prepared.
Comment 118:
Reliant and TXU commented that
requirements for quarterly visual monitoring should be revised to allow for
representative monitoring and to restrict the requirements to only those outfalls
that include drainage from areas where industrial activities occur.
Response 118:
Part III.C.2. of the proposed
permit, relating to Representative Discharges for Substantially Similar Outfalls,
provides that sampling may be conducted at one outfall and the results reported
as representative of other outfalls. This language is revised to clarify that
both sampling and monitoring activities may qualify for the representative
sampling allowance.
Comment 119:
Cleburne commented that it is
unnecessary for the entire storm water pollution prevention team to review
the results of each of the quarterly visual monitoring samples.
Response 119:
Part III.A.1.(a) and (b) of
the proposed permit contains the requirements and responsibilities of the
pollution prevention team. If the team consists of more than one member, the
SWP3 must identify the responsibilities for each team member. One or more
members could be identified with the responsibility of reviewing quarterly
visual monitoring samples.
Comment 120:
WCM commented that the permit
should contain a requirement for the length of time quarterly visual monitoring
records must be maintained. Vought commented that the draft permit should
reference Part III.E.3.(e), relating to Retention of Records.
Response 120:
Records retention requirements
are already specified in Part III.C.6., relating to Records Retention, and
in Part III.E.3.(e), relating to Retention of Records.
Part III.A.4.(i) - Records (Renumbered III.A.5.(i))
Comment 121:
WCM commented that the proposed
permit should require for records to be maintained onsite, if not attached
to the SWP3.
Response 121:
Some industrial sites may not
have an office or other places for maintaining records onsite. Whether the
SWP3 and other records are maintained onsite, or at another location, the
most important consideration is that these documents are made readily available
to TNRCC personnel and to the facility's storm water pollution prevention
team.
Part III.A.5. - Management of Runoff (Renumbered
III.A.6.)
Comment 122:
Reliant, TXU, Cleburne, SRC,
PCCA, TXU, and LGBRB&T, and ATA commented that the requirements were unclear,
subjective, might require costly hydrologic studies, and beyond the capabilities
of many applicants. Several commenters stated that the permit appeared to
require flow dissipation devices, and commented that the permit should be
revised to clarify that these control strategies are optional.
Response 122:
The proposed permit is revised
to include the following description of how structural controls may be used:
"Physical structures may be used in conjunction with other pollution prevention
measures and controls, as necessary, to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges.
Examples of structural controls that may be utilized include vegetated swales,
oil/water separators, settling ponds, and other physical structures."
The proposed permit is also revised with the following language to clarify
that the control of discharge velocities is only required under certain circumstances:
"Discharge velocities must be controlled to the extent necessary to prevent
the destruction of the natural physical characteristics of receiving waters
by erosion. Velocity dissipation devices may be constructed at discharge points
or along channels and other storm water collection areas that lead to outfalls.
Management alternatives to minimize runoff, such as limiting impervious cover,
may also be considered."
Comment 123:
LGBRB&T commented that requirements
to consider the quantity or rate of flow for permitted discharges goes beyond
the TNRCC's legal authority pursuant to TWC, Chapter 26.
Response 123:
The TWC, §26.040, relating
to General Permits, authorizes the commission to issue a general permit to
allow the discharge of industrial waste such as storm water when "the category
of discharges covered by the general permit will not include a discharge of
pollutants that will cause significant adverse effects to water quality."
(See also the definitions of "pollutant," "pollution," and "waste" in TWC, §26.001).
One method of assuring that the discharge of storm water associated with industrial
activities will not cause adverse effects to water quality is by managing
runoff volume and rate of flow so that certain qualities of the receiving
waters are maintained. Specifically, bank erosion and the destruction of the
natural physical characteristics of receiving waters must be avoided and biological
habitat must be maintained. In the absence of proof that structural controls
are adequate to protect receiving waters, applicants cannot be allowed to
discharge storm water under authority of a general permit. In some instances,
applicants will have to install velocity dissipation devices in order to comply
with the requirements of the general permit.
Part III.A.6. - Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation (Renumbered III.A.7.)
Comment 124:
WCM commented that language
in part (b) requires that "qualified employees" or "designated representatives"
must conduct a comprehensive site compliance evaluation. WCM requested that
these references be revised from the plural to the singular form and commented
that the permit should allow a single individual to conduct the evaluation.
Response 124:
The proposed permit is revised
to provide that the evaluation may be conducted by one or more individuals.
Comment 125:
TXU and Reliant Energy comment
that the permit should be revised to only require inspections of receiving
waters downstream of permitted outfalls to those areas that are "reasonably
accessible."
Response 125:
The ED agrees with the comment
and makes the proposed revision.
Part III.A.6.(c) - Site Compliance Evaluation
Report (Renumbered III.A.7.(c))
Comment 126:
PCCA commented that the proposed
permit contains many requirements and further stated that a permittee is not
in compliance with the permit if any element of the SWP3 is not in place,
or if any permit condition is not met. PCCA further commented that permittees
may not be in compliance with one of the requirements of the SWP3, and yet
discharges may meet Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. PCCA asked "What
is the benefit of all the requirements of the SWP3 when the permit holder
meets water standards without meeting the new SWP3 requirements?"
Response 126:
The proposed permit is developed
based on an approach of pollution prevention, rather than compliance with
numeric water quality-based effluent limitations for specific chemical pollutants.
Applicants will develop, implement, and subsequently revise their own SWP3
based on the outline of SWP3 components contained in the proposed permit.
When an effective SWP3 is developed, and implemented according to the permit
requirements, discharges are expected to be in compliance with water quality
standards. If, following a comprehensive site compliance inspection, certain
elements of a facility's SWP3 are determined to not be effective, the permittee
should consider better implementation of existing measures, revision of the
SWP3 to include equal but alternative measures, or application for coverage
under an individual TPDES storm water permit.
Comment 127:
ATA commented that it may require
several months for an airport to complete a comprehensive site compliance
evaluation. ATA asked that the permit be clarified to state that revisions
to the SWP3 do not have to occur until after the evaluation is completed.
Cleburne, Boral, and PCCA commented that 14 days is not adequate time for
the pollution prevention team to meet, discuss the compliance evaluation report,
and decide on revisions to the SWP3. Boral and PCCA recommend that the time
frame be revised to a 30-day time frame.
Response 127:
The ED agrees with the comment
that the revisions are not required to be completed until after the comprehensive
site compliance evaluation is completed. The ED additionally agrees with the
comments to revise the time frame for revisions to the SWP3. The time frame
is revised from 14 to 30 days.
Comment 128:
Vought commented that the requirement
to update the compliance report to contain a certification that the facility
is in compliance with the SWP3, should be deleted as it is repetitive.
Response 128:
The ED agrees with the comment
and deletes the language requiring this certification. The remaining language,
stating that the site compliance evaluation reports may either be included
as an attachment to the SWP3 or maintained separately, is retained for clarity.
Part III.A.6.(d) - Revision of the SWP3 (Renumbered
III.A.7.(d))
Comment 129:
Reliant commented that the permit
should be revised to clarify that revisions to the SWP3 are not always required
following the annual site compliance evaluation. TXU commented that the second
sentence in this section appears to reference site compliance report requirements,
rather than requirements for modification of the SWP3.
Response 129:
The language is revised to
clarify that "Revisions must include all applicable changes that result from
the comprehensive site compliance report..." and updates are only required
where the findings of the annual site compliance report concludes that modifications
are necessary. The language is also revised to clarify that these requirements
apply to revisions of the SWP3, rather than to the site compliance report.
Part III.B.(b) - SWP3 Review
Comment 130:
WCM commented that the signatory
requirements for the SWP3 should be moved to Part II.C.3. of the proposed
permit, relating to Signatory Requirements for NOI, NOT, and NOC Forms. ATA
commented that the permit should allow the SWP3 to be signed by a delegated
person.
Response 130:
The requirement that the SWP3
be signed is removed from Part III.B., as suggested by WCM, and included in
Part II.C.3. of the permit, relating to SWP3. The signatory requirements for
reports, such as the SWP3, must be according to 30 TAC §305.128 (relating
to Signatory Requirements). These rules allow that signature requirements
for reports may be delegated to certain other levels of authority.
Comment 131:
Cleburne commented that language
in Part III.B.(b), requiring that the "SWP3 must be modified as often as necessary,"
is unclear. Cleburne further commented that confusion could exist when many
versions of the SWP3 exist and this could be avoided by requiring the SWP3
to be revised on an annual basis. Cleburne commented that prior to the annual
revision, notations of changes could be entered directly into the SWP3 so
that employees are assured that they are following the most current provisions.
Response 131:
The SWP3 must be updated whenever
specific measures in the plan are changed or revised. Depending on the sector-specific
requirements of the permit, facilities may conduct inspections and evaluations
of the facility on a monthly, quarterly, or other regular basis. The findings
of these inspections could indicate a change in pollution prevention measures
or controls is necessary. Changes must be implemented as soon as possible
in order to improve or maintain the quality of permitted discharges. The SWP3
must be revised as soon as possible in order to accurately reflect the pollution
prevention measures that are in effect. The ED agrees that revisions may be
inserted directly into an existing plan, with a notation for the effective
date of the change, at any time during the year. It is not necessary or required
that the entire SWP3 be revised and reprinted with each modification. The
facility may also decide that a "clean" and revised copy of the SWP3 is desirable
on an annual basis, or on some other appropriate schedule, so that the document
remains legible and understandable.
Comment 132:
Cleburne commented that the
proposed permit states the ED may determine the SWP3 is not sufficient, following
a site inspection, and may require revisions to correct deficiencies. Cleburne
commented that this provision would not allow a method for a facility to negotiate
with TNRCC for implementing best management practices that are based on cost
effectiveness, performance, and in consideration for manpower constraints.
Response 132:
Development of pollution prevention
measures and controls must be according to the general requirements of the
permit. However, it is the responsibility of the permittee to develop and
implement the specific measures. The proposed permit would provide great latitude
for consideration and selection of these pollution controls. If inspectors
determine that best management practices, or other measures, are insufficient
for controlling pollutants, facilities may be given a specific time frame
to correct the deficiency, and will be allowed to develop their own specific
measures to replace or bolster existing measures.
Part III.C.1. - Representative Storm Events
Comment 133:
PCCA commented that discharges
may not result from storm events that exceed 0.1 inches of rainfall. PCCA
asked how to comply with sampling and monitoring requirements if a storm event
meets the minimum criteria for a representative event, but does not result
in a discharge.
Response 133:
Monitoring and sampling requirements
are for discharges of storm water. If a storm event meets the criteria of
a representative storm event, but there is not resultant discharge, there
are no sampling and monitoring requirements for that storm event.
Part III.C.2. - Representative Discharges from
Substantially Similar Outfalls
Comment 134:
PCCA asked if multiple non-storm
water discharges, that are eligible for coverage under the proposed permit,
can qualify as substantially similar outfalls.
Response 134:
The permit specifically states
"Substantially similar outfalls may not be established for non-storm water
discharges."
Part III.C.3. - Representative Discharge Samples
Comment 135:
Grand Prairie commented that
the requirement to either obtain grab samples of discharges within the first
30 minutes, or within the first 60 minutes of discharge under certain conditions,
is impractical. Grand Prairie stated that this requirement is impractical
for reasons concerning manpower, transportation, and nighttime rain events.
Response 135:
In order that the results of
sampling may serve as an on-going assessment of effectiveness of the SWP3
measures, samples must be both representative of the discharge and comparable.
The standard of obtaining a grab sample within 30 minutes of discharge was
established as a part of the EPA's Baseline General Permit in 1992, was a
condition of the EPA Multi-Sector General Permit issued in 1995, and is proposed
by EPA for oil and gas producing facilities in Texas in the Multi-Sector General
Permit issued in October 2000. Therefore, existing industrial facilities have
successfully conducted sampling under the proposed requirements for some period
of time. Automatic samplers may be utilized where manpower is not sufficient,
for sites where access is limited, and for sampling during times when the
facility is not conducting business.
Comment 136:
Boral commented that if storm
water runoff associated with industrial activities commingles with a wastewater
that is covered under an individual permit, that discharge of storm water
is covered under the individual permit, and sampling of that storm water should
not be required.
Response 136:
The sampling requirements described
in the proposed general permit only apply to discharges authorized under the
proposed permit. If the individual wastewater permit for a facility specifically
contains the authorization for a discharge of storm water runoff associated
with industrial activities, the facility would not apply for coverage under
this permit, for that discharge of storm water. It is possible that an industrial
facility could have coverage under both the proposed general permit and an
individual wastewater discharge permit. In this instance, storm water authorized
under the proposed permit must be sampled prior to combining with the wastewater.
Comment 137:
Boral commented that the permit
should specify that all storm water sampling must be conducted at the final
outfall. ATA commented that airport drainage systems often combine storm water
and non-storm water flows prior to discharge, and the requirement to monitor
storm water discharges prior to combining with other flows is frequently impossible.
Temple-Inland commented that the permit should clarify if sampling for allowable
non-storm water discharges must be conducted prior to that flow combining
with other storm water or non-storm water flows.
Response 137:
The proposed permit is revised
to clarify sampling requirements. The permit is revised to clarify that samples
to determine compliance with numeric effluent limitations in Sectors D, E,
J, and O must be obtained prior to combining with other flows. These limitations
are derived directly from federal categorical guidelines, are technology-based,
and must be met prior to dilution with other flows. The permit is revised
to clarify that samples to determine compliance with numeric effluent limitations
for hazardous metals, in Part III.D. of the proposed permit, must be taken
at the final outfall. These limitations are derived directly from Texas Administrative
Code § 319 and are applicable to all discharges. The permit is revised
to clarify that if storm water discharges authorized under this general permit
combine with either wastewater or other storm water authorized under a separate
permit, sampling must be conducted at a point before the waters combine. This
is necessary so that the results of analyses are not influenced by discharges
that are not covered under the proposed permit, and so that results are useful
to the facility's pollution prevention team for assessing the SWP3 effectiveness.
Part III.C.5. - Temporary Suspension and Waivers
from Monitoring Requirements
Comment 138:
Vought requested clarification
on requirements to conduct "make-up" sampling when monitoring for one quarter
is temporarily suspended.
Response 138:
If monitoring is temporarily
suspended, and can not be completed in one quarter, it must be scheduled to
occur in the following quarter. This make-up monitoring is in addition to
any regularly scheduled or required monitoring for the following quarter.
If the make-up monitoring can not be completed during the following quarter,
as a result of adverse weather or other allowable conditions, these requirements
are then permanently waived. This procedure will prevent make-up monitoring
requirements from "accumulating" beyond the following quarter. The permit
is revised to clarify that the make-up monitoring may be "permanently waived"
under this condition.
Comment 139:
Houston commented that the spelling
of "wavers" should be corrected to "waivers."
Response 139:
This typographical error is
corrected.
Comment 140:
Reliant and TXU commented that
waivers from sampling and monitoring requirements should be allowed for inactive
and unstaffed facilities. TXU commented that the definition of "inactive status"
should be revised to more clearly allow for waivers at inactive and unstaffed
facilities.
Response 140:
The definition for "inactive
status" is deleted, and a definition for "inactive industrial facilities"
is substituted. The draft permit is further revised to remove the language
regarding visual monitoring requirements at inactive Sector J facilities from
this section of the permit and to include the language in the sector-specific
requirements of Part V.J. of the permit.
Part III. Section C.6. - Records Retention
Comment 141:
WCM comments that the permit
should be revised to require that all monitoring and reporting records, copies
of all other records, and the SWP3 be maintained on the site.
Response 141:
Some industrial sites, such
as mine sites that are not staffed on a regular basis, may not have an office
or other building in which to store these documents. It is not necessary that
all documents be maintained on the site, but it is necessary that documents
be made readily available for inspection upon request.
Comment 142:
TCC commented that the permit
should state where discharge monitoring reports should be mailed and further
requested that TNRCC accept electronic submission of these forms.
Response 142:
The proposed permit has been
revised to require that analytical results to determine compliance with permit
limitations shall be retained at the facility or shall be readily available
for review by authorized TNRCC personnel upon request. The submittal of a
DMR form to the TNRCC is not required. TNRCC is aware of the many advantages
of electronic reporting. In anticipation of developing an electronic application
system, the permit includes language that provides a more rapid provisional
authorization when NOIs are received electronically.
Comment 143:
Harris County commented that
the permit should be revised to require permittees to make SWP3s available
for inspection and review by local authorities.
Response 143:
Part II.B.10 has been added
to clarify that applicants must comply with all other local, state, and federal
laws. The specific language is included in Response 6 of the ED's Response
to Public Comment. If local laws require access by local authorities, SWP3s
must be made available for their inspection and review.
Comment 144:
Cleburne commented that the
requirement to maintain the SWP3 for a minimum of three years from the date
of the last modification, and for at least one-year after coverage under the
general permit expires or terminates, is unclear. Cleburne questions if the
SWP3 must be maintained up to three years after the permit is terminated or
expired.
Response 144:
The language is revised to
clarify that if the permit is terminated, or is allowed to expire and is not
renewed, the SWP3 must be made readily available for review for a period of
one-year. During the term of coverage under the permit the current SWP3 must
be maintained and be made readily available. During the term of permit coverage
every revised copy of the SWP3 for the preceding three-year period must be
maintained, or where this is burdensome due to numerous revisions, a simple
log or record of changes must be maintained.
Part III.D. - Numeric Effluent Limitations
Comment 145:
LGBRB&T, TXU, Houston, SRC,
and ATA commented that monitoring requirements for hazardous metals should
be deleted from the permit. LGBRB&T further commented that these limitations
were not included in previous federal permits. TXU, Boral, and CMC commented
that these limitations should be removed because the state permit should not
be more stringent than the federal storm water permit requirements. LGBRB&T
and Houston commented that the limitations are inappropriate for storm water
discharges as they were developed for low-flow receiving water conditions.
Response 145:
These effluent limitations
were a requirement of the federal NPDES MSGP that was issued by EPA in September
1995. The proposed permit is, therefore, not more stringent than the federal
permit. These effluent limitations are derived from 30 TAC Chapter 319 and
are applicable to all discharges, including storm water, regardless of receiving
stream conditions. Finally, these limitations must be continued in the proposed
TPDES permit according to the federal anti-backsliding policy.
Comment 146:
ATA commented that the permit
should be revised to clarify that monitoring for hazardous metals should be
conducted at the final discharge point. ATA clarified that monitoring should
not be required at every point where storm water leaves a tenant's facility,
such as at an airport where several airlines may operate.
Response 146:
All required monitoring must
be conducted at the final discharge point from the permitted facility. A tenant
at an airport, authorized to discharge storm water under the proposed permit,
must conduct monitoring at the final discharge point from the tenants area
of control. This may or may not be the final "discharge point" from the airport
property.
Comment 147:
SRC commented that the numeric
effluent limitations for hazardous metals are contradictory, incompatible
with benchmark monitoring values, and cause confusion. ATA commented that
the numeric effluent limitations for certain metals should not be included
for Sector S facilities if they conduct benchmark monitoring for these same
metals. Vought requested clarification if the numeric effluent limitations
for hazardous metals were "action" levels, or if an exceedance of these numbers
would be a violation of the permit.
Response 147:
Benchmark monitoring values
and numeric effluent limitations for hazardous metals are included in the
proposed permit for separate purposes. Therefore, the value for a specific
pollutant is not necessarily the same for each of these requirements. Benchmark
values are simple measures of pollution prevention plan effectiveness. The
exceedance of one of these values is not a violation of the permit. Hazardous
metals values are numeric effluent limitations. The exceedance of one of these
values is a violation of the permit. Therefore, for facilities that must monitor
the same pollutant for both purposes, the more important value is the numeric
effluent limitation. The number of facilities that experience this situation
should be limited. All facilities must monitor for hazardous metals, unless
they qualify for a waiver. Not all facilities must conduct benchmark monitoring.
Of the facilities that conduct benchmark monitoring, only a subset must monitor
for a hazardous metal.
Comment 148:
Cleburne commented that monitoring
for hazardous metals can be expensive and should not be required of every
discharger. Cleburne further commented that the permit should be revised to
reduce the monitoring requirements to the first and second periods of the
permit term, similar to the benchmark monitoring requirements. Cleburne also
requested clarification on waivers for adverse conditions.
Response 148:
Not all dischargers must monitor
for these hazardous metals. The proposed permit allows that permittees may
certify that either these metals are not used as a part of the industrial
process, or there is no exposure of these metals to precipitation and runoff.
This certification can provide a waiver for a facility from these requirements
on a metal-by-metal basis, and also on an outfall-by-outfall basis. This provision
will lessen the monitoring costs for facilities that do not potentially contribute
these pollutants to storm water discharges.
Comment 149:
Harris County commented that
the permit should contain a numeric effluent limitation for total organic
carbon. Harris County further commented that this limitation is frequently
included in individual TPDES permits for storm water discharges.
Response 149:
Although a numeric effluent
limitation for total organic carbon may be a common requirement in individual
TPDES permits, these permits are very different from the proposed general
TPDES permit. Applications for individual TPDES permits provide a great amount
of very site-specific information on industrial activities and proposed discharges.
Individual TPDES permits can then be drafted to contain fewer, but more site-specific
requirements, including chemical-specific numeric effluent limitations. In
contrast, the application for authorization under the proposed general is
minimal, and the permit contains many requirements to control pollution through
the use of effective pollution prevention measures and controls. The proposed
general permit only contains numeric effluent limitations for storm water
where they were either delineated in the CFR or in TAC.
Comment 150:
Houston commented that the protocol
is unclear for results of analyses that exceed the effluent limitations.
Response 150:
Permittees must sample, analyze,
and report all results of analyses according to the requirements of the permit.
Standard requirements for noncompliance notification are in Part III.E. of
the proposed permit, relating to Standard Permit Conditions.
Comment 151:
Vought commented that the terms
"Monthly Average," "Daily Composite," and "Daily Maximum," that describe numeric
limitations for hazardous metals in discharges to inland and tidal waters,
should be modified. Boral commented that monthly average and daily composite
limitations, and the definitions for these terms, should be deleted from the
permit. Boral further commented that because monitoring was only required
on an annual basis, these limitations were not applicable.
Response 151:
The effluent limitations and
accompanying definitions are included in the draft permit as they appear in
TAC Chapter 309 and also as they appear in the federal NPDES Multi-Sector
General Permit (MSGP) that was issued by EPA in September 1995. Monthly average
and daily composite limitations cannot be deleted from the proposed permit
according to federal anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR §122.44(l)(2).
The ED, however, clarifies that if a facility only monitors for a hazardous
metal at a frequency of once per year, the result of analysis would only be
compared to the daily maximum limitation. Some facilities may either choose
to do additional monitoring for metals, or may be required to monitor according
to benchmark monitoring requirements. In this case the results may be compared
to the monthly average limitations, the daily composite limitations, or the
daily maximum concentrations. The appropriate limitation for comparison would
depend on the number of samples taken and the time period of the sampling.
Comment 152:
Dallas commented that aluminum
and iron should be added to the list of hazardous metals. Dallas further commented
that in the storm water sampling they have conducted, aluminum, iron, and
zinc have consistently been present in storm water runoff.
Response 152:
The proposed general permit
is based on control of pollution through the use of effective pollution prevention
measures and controls, rather than chemical-specific effluent limitations.
Numeric effluent limitations have only been included where they were either
delineated in the CFR or in TAC. Neither of these regulations contain numeric
effluent limitations for aluminum or iron in storm water discharges.
Comment 153:
Boral commented that there should
be clarification as to what concentration of a metal constitutes a "hazardous
metal." Boral commented that the permit should define a de minimis concentration
for these metals.
Response 153:
The term "hazardous metal,"
and the proposed effluent limitations, are taken directly from 30 TAC Chapter
319, relating to Hazardous Metals. The definition identifies the term "hazardous
metal" to include a specific list of metals, and is not dependant upon a de
minimis concentration.
Comment 154:
Reliant and TXU commented that
the criteria for obtaining a waiver from monitoring requirements for hazardous
metals should include a better definition of how these metals may be used
in the industrial process. Both commented that the language should base monitoring
requirements on whether facilities use metals as a raw material, or produce
intermediate or final products containing these metals, and whether the metals
are exposed to storm water or runoff.
Response 154:
The description for this waiver
is revised to read: "Facilities qualify for a waiver from hazardous metal
monitoring requirements if they do not use a raw material, produce an intermediate
product, or produce a final product that contains one of these hazardous metals.
Facilities may qualify for a waiver if the raw material, intermediate product,
or final product contains a hazardous metal but it is not exposed to storm
water or runoff. Final products are not considered to expose hazardous metals
to storm water or runoff if the final product is designed for outdoor use,
unless it is a product that could be transported by storm water runoff. The
waiver must be obtained by certifying that these conditions exist. This certification
must be completed on a form provided by the ED and must be either maintained
onsite or made readily available for review by authorized TNRCC personnel
upon request."
Comment 155:
Cleburne requested clarification
on the requirements for waivers from monitoring requirements for hazardous
metals and asked if the waiver certification form would be similar to the
federal no exposure certification form.
Response 155:
The requirements for the waiver
from hazardous metal monitoring requirements have been modified for clarity.
The permit now explains that the form will be provided by the ED and that
it will be maintained by the permittee. The form will be a simple certification.
Waivers are provided for any number of metals that meet the criteria, and
for any number of storm water outfalls draining areas of the facility that
qualify for the waiver.
Part III.D.3. - Coal Pile Runoff
Comment 156:
WCM commented that the federal
MSGP permit required annual monitoring of coal pile runoff, and other discharges
with numeric effluent limitations, while the proposed permit required once
per month monitoring. TAMKO also commented that monthly monitoring was proposed
for Sector D facilities, while the federal permit required annual monitoring
for compliance with numeric effluent limitations. WCM requested the rationale
for increased monitoring frequency. TAMKO commented that the proposed increase
in monitoring frequency is inconsistent with the agency's policy and legislative
intent to not impose more stringent requirements than those established in
the federal regulations.
Response 156:
The monitoring frequency for
discharges subject to numeric effluent limitations is revised from once per
month to once per year. This frequency is comparable to the federal MSGP that
was issued by U.S. EPA in September 1995. Part V.E.4.(a) (relating to Self-Reporting)
is also revised to agree with an annual monitoring requirement.
Comment 157:
WCM commented that the description
of the sample type for monitoring coal pile runoff should be revised to read,
"At a minimum one grab sample shall be taken for analysis." WCM further commented
that the draft permit did not contain a discussion regarding requirements
for discharges of coal pile runoff from retention ponds designed for a 24-hour
detention period.
Responses 157:
The sampling requirement is
revised to read: At a minimum, one grab sample shall be taken, prior to combining
with other flows, for analysis. The proposed permit already contains a provision
regarding waivers from numeric effluent limitations during overflows of treatment
units designed to ten-year, 24-hour storm event criteria at Part III.D.3.(d),
relating to Waiver from Numeric Effluent Limitations and at Part V.O.6., relating
to Waivers for Numeric Effluent Limitations.
Part III.E.4. - Reporting Requirements
Comment 158:
Vought commented that a reference
to 40 CFR Part 136 should be included, and that this would be in agreement
with a similar reference in Part III.E.3.(c), relating to Monitoring Procedures.
Response 158:
The proposed permit is revised
to include the suggested reference in Part III.E.4.(a).
Comment 159:
Vought requested that permittees
be able to generate a discharge monitoring report form equivalent to the required
EPA No. 3320-1 form. Vought commented that if this form could be generated
electronically, printed, and then submitted to TNRCC that it would be more
efficient for the permittee.
Response 159:
Permittees may generate their
own forms if they are duplicate to the EPA discharge monitoring form. The
following language is included in the draft permit: "The DMR must either be
an original EPA No. 3320-1 form, a duplicate of the form, or a self-generated
form that is comparable."
Part III.E.4.(b)(2) - Noncompliance Notification
Comment 160:
Vought requested clarification
on which effluent limitations the 40% noncompliance notification requirements
applies. TCC requests clarification if the reporting requirements apply to
results of analyses for benchmark monitoring parameters.
Response 160:
This requirement is applicable
to all numeric effluent limitations contained in the proposed permit. It does
not apply to benchmark monitoring parameters, as these are not numeric effluent
limitations. In response to these comments, the following sentence is included
in Part IV, relating to Benchmark Monitoring Requirements Common to Many Industrial
Activities: "Analytical results that exceed a benchmark value are not a violation
of this permit, as these values are not numeric effluent limitations."
Comment 161:
Cleburne commented that if a
noncompliance occurs that may endanger human health, safety, or the environment,
the permit should contain language that requires the permittee to notify the
operator of an MS4 if the discharge is to an MS4. Houston commented that MS4
operators should be notified of noncompliance within 24 hours.
Response 161:
The proposed noncompliance
notification requirements are the same standard requirements contained in
the "boiler plate" language for individual TPDES wastewater discharge permits.
MS4 operators may require this notification as a condition of accepting permitted
discharges to their system. Part II.B.10., relating to Protection of Streams
and Watersheds by Home-Rule Municipalities, has been added in response to
related comments.
Comment 162:
TCC commented that the permit
should provide the address, telephone number, and FAX number where noncompliance
notifications must be sent.
Response 162:
When noncompliance notifications
are required, the notification must be made to the TNRCC regional field office
in the area that serves the facility. There are 16 regional offices located
throughout the state. This information is not included in this five-year term
permit as it is subject to change. The address, telephone number, and FAX
number may be obtained by contacting the TNRCC directly or by accessing the
TNRCC Internet website.
Part III.E.5. - Solid Waste
Comment 163:
AEA, Reliant, TXU, Temple-Inland,
Houston, ATA, Boral, TAMKO, TI, and Harris County all commented on the proposed
requirements for solid waste. Most commented that the proposed requirements
were overly burdensome and that it was unclear how these requirements applied
to storm water runoff. Several commented that it was unclear what would constitute
a solid waste management unit and that it might be interpreted that these
requirements applied to every berm, grass swale, silt fence, or other storm
water structural control. Several commented that these requirements would
discourage the use of any structural controls. Temple-Inland commented that
the entire industrial facility might be designated as a solid waste management
unit since storm water is conveyed across the site prior to discharge. Additional
comments were that a general statement regarding solids should be substituted
for the specific requirements.
Response 163:
The solid waste requirements
in the proposed permit are standard "boiler plate" requirements that are included
in TPDES wastewater discharge permits. The ED disagrees that the requirements
should be deleted from the proposed permit, but agrees that revisions are
necessary in order to clarify how solid waste rules apply to solids generated
through the use of storm water structural controls at regulated industrial
facilities. The requirements are revised to define that only storm water detention
and retention ponds, used to provide settling of suspended solids, are defined
as industrial solid waste management units. Other common storm water structural
controls are specifically listed as not being included in this definition.
By strictly limiting the definition of an industrial solid waste management
unit to those larger dedicated settling ponds, the registration and record-keeping
requirements are significantly reduced and clarified.
Part IV. - Benchmark Monitoring Requirements Common
to Many Industrial Activities
Comment 164:
Vought commented that the term
"pollutant" in the second sentence of the opening paragraph in Part V should
be plural and read "pollutants." Houston and TXU commented that the third
sentence incorrectly refers to Part IV, and should be revised to reference
Part V.
Response 164:
The proposed permit is revised
to include the suggested revisions.
Comment 165:
LCRA requested elimination of
benchmark monitoring values for those parameters in Sectors C, D, E, and J
for which separate numeric effluent limitations are established. LCRA commented
that different criteria for the same parameter "would be confusing to a permittee."
LCRA gives the example that Sector J has a benchmark value for total suspended
solids of 100 parts per million and a numeric effluent limitation for total
suspended solids of 45 parts per million as a daily maximum.
Response 165:
The ED disagrees with the request
to eliminate benchmark monitoring requirements for these sectors. Benchmark
values and numeric effluent limitations may differ as these values are included
for separate purposes. In the example cited by LCRA, the numeric effluent
limitation for TSS of 45 parts per million applies to discharges of accumulated
ground water and storm water discharged from a mine pit during dewatering
activities. The benchmark value of 100 parts per million is a measure of storm
water pollution prevention plan effectiveness for other discharges of storm
water associated with industrial activities from these same sites. Although
discharges of mine pit water may be compared to the benchmark value, the overriding
permit requirement is to comply with the numeric effluent limitation for this
specific discharge.
Comment 166:
Kohler commented that the permit
should include clarification on what the reporting requirements are for benchmark
monitoring.
Response 166:
The proposed permit is revised
to specify that average results of analyses from the First Period must be
submitted before March 2004 and average results from the Second Period must
be submitted before March 2005. Additionally, the calendar periods that define
the First Period and Second Period of monitoring are revised, based on the
projected date of permit issuance, so that these occur during the second and
third years of the permit term.
Comment 167:
PCCA asked if the pollution
prevention team must repeatedly investigate the cause for each exceedance
of a benchmark value. TCC commented that the permit should add "naturally
occurring materials in soils" to the list of example background sources that
are in the permit. AEP commented that the permit should be revised to allow
a permittee to conduct additional monitoring if a benchmark value is exceeded,
in lieu of an investigation for the cause of the elevated concentration.
Response 167:
Benchmark monitoring is an
evaluation of SWP3 effectiveness. An exceedance of a benchmark value is a
preliminary indication that the SWP3 may not be effective for reducing a specific
pollutant in storm water runoff. Therefore the pollution prevention team must
investigate the cause for each exceedance of a benchmark value. The team should
review the inventory of exposed materials, the allowable non-storm water discharges,
the narrative description of pollutant sources, the facility site map, reported
spills and leaks, and other elements of the SWP3 to determine if there are
additional sources that were not considered or additional controls that should
be in place. The exceedance of a benchmark value may also be caused from background
sources beyond the control of the permittee. The permit is revised to more
clearly describe these background sources and to describe how subsequent exceedances
of benchmark values from the influence of a background source may be documented
without requiring repetitive monitoring or investigation.
Comment 168:
ATA commented that the permit
should clarify that the exemptions from benchmark monitoring, for airports
that use less than 100 tons of urea or less than 100,000 gallons of ethylene
glycol per year, apply to the facility as a whole and not to each air carrier
serving that airport.
Response 168:
The exemption is based on the
combined activities at an airport. The following language in the Sector S
requirements in Part V of the permit, relating to Specific Requirements for
Industrial Activities, has been added: "These volumes of deicing materials
refer to the combined activities and usage at the airport as a whole, and
not independently to each carrier or operator."
Comment 169:
Houston commented that the footnote
for Sector S, regarding deicing activities, should be revised as follows to
include the underlined words: "Monitoring only required for airports with
deicing activities that utilize for deicing more than 100 tons of urea or
more than 100,000 gallons of ethylene glycol per year."
Response 169:
The footnote for Sector S is
revised to read "Monitoring is only required for airports with deicing activities
that utilize for deicing more than 100 tons of urea or more than 100,000 gallons
of ethylene glycol per year."
Comment 170:
LGBRB&T commented that the
benchmark monitoring periods should be established for the second and fourth
years of the permit term, similar to the federal permit requirements, so that
facilities will have time to evaluate the monitoring and revise the SWP3 based
on the results.
Response 170:
It is the ED's intent to evaluate
the effectiveness of benchmark monitoring requirements prior to re-issuance
of this permit. If benchmark monitoring is found to be an effective tool,
it may be continued when the permit is reissued. If it has not been an effective
tool, the requirements may be modified or replaced by a different measure
of pollution prevention. If benchmark monitoring is conducted in the second
and third years of the permit term, the results of the fourth year monitoring
will not be available to the TNRCC for analysis until the renewal process
for the expiring permit is nearly completed. Monitoring in concurrent years
may also benefit the permittee. It is likely that permittees may not recognize
that monitoring must be initiated following a one-year absence in monitoring
activities. Also, if employees are trained to conduct sampling, it is more
likely that additional training will be required following a one-year absence
of monitoring.
Comment 171:
Reliant commented that a waiver
should be provided from Second Period benchmark monitoring requirements for
facilities that collect less than four samples in the First Period, provided
that no sample exceeded the benchmark value. Reliant further commented that
the frequency of rainfall in Texas is highly variable and may not provide
a sampling opportunity. TXU commented that the proposed waiver would unduly
penalize facilities that do not receive adequate rainfall during one or more
quarters of the First Period. Both commenters stated that obtaining a sample
in the third and fourth quarters of the year could be difficult. TXU commented
that facilities should be allowed a waiver for any three consecutive samples
that do not exceed the benchmark value, during either the First Period or
the Second Period.
Response 171:
The ED disagrees with the comment
the requirements unduly penalize facilities that cannot obtain samples during
third and fourth quarter of the year. A facility in the described situation
would only collect a total of four samples in the two years of monitoring.
This is equivalent to the number of samples that facilities receiving "adequate
rainfall" would collect in order meet the waiver requirements. Also, facilities
may collect three samples during the First Period, if adverse weather conditions
prohibit collection of a fourth sample. These three samples could qualify
the facility for the waiver, depending on the average of the results of analyses.
Comment 172:
Cleburne asked about facilities
that retained most of their storm water in a detention basin, and did not
discharge during a quarterly monitoring period. Cleburne requested clarification
if these facilities should monitor the water contained in the basins.
Response 172:
Monitoring and sampling requirements
are applicable only to discharges of storm water.
Comment 173:
PCCA commented that the proposed
waiver from benchmark monitoring requires that the permittee certify that
concentrations of the pollutant will not exceed the benchmark value in future
discharges. PCCA stated that this certification was "useless" unless further
monitoring is conducted to verify the certification.
Response 173:
A conclusion that there will
not be a future exceedance of the benchmark value would be based on consideration
of the SWP3 requirements, and on a knowledge of current and future industrial
activities at the site, not on additional sampling. In response to the comment,
however, the certification requirement is removed, and the following language
is substituted: "(c) the current and projected potential pollutant sources
of the particular benchmark parameter are not expected to significantly increase."
Comment 174:
WCM commented that Sections
G, H, P, and T of the proposed permit detail descriptions of industrial activities
that must be covered under the general permit. SEM commented that detailed
descriptions should be provided in all sections of Part V of the permit, relating
to Specific Requirements for Industrial Activities.
Response 174:
Industrial activities described
by these sections of the permit, Sector G, H, P, and T facilities, are either
only required to obtain coverage under certain conditions, or are only required
to obtain coverage if certain limited activities occur. The remaining sectors
of industrial activities must all obtain coverage, unless they qualify for
a no exposure exclusion.
Part V.A.4.- Non-Storm Water Discharges
Comment 175:
Temple-Inland asked if wet decking
water is authorized for discharge regardless of whether it is discharged from
a storage pond containing storm water or discharged directly from the wet
decking operation. Temple-Inland further requested guidance on where the monitoring
point for these discharges would be located, and referenced Part III.C.3.
of the permit, relating to Representative Discharge Samples.
Response 175:
Discharges of wet decking water
are authorized, regardless of whether the discharge is from a wet deck storage
pond or if it is a discharge from a "once-through" process. Sampling for discharges
from wet deck storage ponds, to determine compliance with the numeric effluent
limitations, must be taken at the discharge point from the pond and before
to combining with other water. Compliance sampling for wet decking water from
lumber and wood storage yards that is not routed to a storage pond must be
taken at any point before it combines with other water. The following language
is added to the permit: "Sample Type - Grab samples shall be taken prior to
combining with other flows, for analyses."
Part V.A.7. - Numeric Effluent Limitations
Comment 176:
WCM suggested that the first
sentence should be revised to clarify that the numeric effluent limitations
"apply to discharges of water from the storage of unprocessed wood, i.e.,
the storage of logs or roundwood before or after the removal of bark in self-contained
bodies of water (mill ponds or log ponds) or the storage of logs or roundwood
on land during which water is sprayed or deposited on the logs (wet decking)."
Response 176:
Non-storm water discharges
from Sector A facilities, Timber Products Facilities, are limited to wet decking
water. Wet decking water is water sprayed on timber storage piles to deter
decay or infestation by insects. Discharges from mill ponds and log ponds
are not covered under the proposed general storm water permit.
Comment 177:
WCM and Harris County commented
that a typographical error, "shall not," occurred in the second sentence of
the first paragraph, and that adding a space to create two words would correct
the error.
Response 177:
The typographical error is
corrected.
Comment 178:
WCM commented that the permit
should clarify that benchmark monitoring is not required for discharges of
wet decking water.
Response 178:
All discharges of storm water
associated with industrial activities from Sector A facilities are subject
to benchmark monitoring requirements. Monitoring for compliance with numeric
effluent limitations must be conducted prior to commingling with other water
or storm water runoff. Benchmark monitoring should be conducted prior to discharge
to water in the state or at a point where storm water runoff leaves the permitted
facility, whichever is first. If wet deck water does not commingle with storm
water prior to leaving the facility, the discharge must necessarily be monitored
for compliance with numeric effluent limitations and for comparison to the
benchmark concentration. Refer to Response 148, which addresses a similar
comparison of benchmark monitoring requirements to numeric effluent limitation
monitoring requirements.
Comment 179:
WCM commented that several typographical
errors occur in the numbering of items in Part V.B. and Part V.C. of the proposed
permit. WCM further commented on a typographical error in the first paragraph
in Part V.C. of the permit that incorrectly references "Sector A" instead
of Sector "C." Finally WCM commented on a typographical error at Part V.C.3.
that incorrectly references "Part A.5." rather than "Part V.A.5."
Response 179:
The typographical errors are
corrected.
Part V.C.5. - Benchmark Monitoring Requirements
Comment 180:
WCM commented that in the third
column of the benchmark monitoring table, under the heading "Benchmark Parameter,"
"Nitrate" should be revised to "Nitrite."
Response 180:
"Nitrate + Nitrate" is revised
to "Nitrate + Nitrite" where it appears throughout the proposed draft permit.
Part V.D.4. - Numeric Effluent Limitations
Comment 181:
Grand Prairie commented that
the draft permit should contain specific sampling protocols for portable asphalt
plants. Grand Prairie further commented that the results of analyses of discharges
from this industrial activity could be influenced by various sampling errors.
Response 181:
This specific industrial activity
does not require a separate or more specific sampling protocol than the other
industrial activities proposed for authorization under the terms of the permit.
Part V.D.4. requires that samples of the discharge be obtained before combining
with other storm water runoff. Additionally, Part III.C. relating to General
Monitoring and Record Requirements, contains requirements to ensure that samples
are representative of the discharge.
Comment 182:
WCM commented that the applicability
of the proposed numeric effluent limitations be clarified by stating that
the limitations applied to discharges from "areas of industrial activities
described by SIC codes 2951 and 2952" for storm water runoff that contacts
raw materials, intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or waste.
Response 182:
The ED agrees with the comment
and makes the suggested revision.
Comment 183:
TAMKO commented that the permit
should clarify that the numeric effluent limitations only apply to those facilities
using asphalt emulsions.
Response 183:
The proposed permit is revised
to clarify that the numeric effluent limitations apply to storm water runoff
from asphalt paving and roofing emulsion production areas. For clarification,
these numeric limitations apply to runoff from areas of facilities that produce
asphalt emulsions, and not to plants that use asphalt emulsions.
Part V.D.5. - Benchmark Monitoring Requirements
Comment 184:
WCM commented that the permit
should clarify that benchmark monitoring is not required for discharges of
storm water runoff from asphalt paving and roofing emulsion production areas.
Response 184:
The ED disagrees with the comment.
Please refer to previous Responses 148 and 180 on this subject.
Part V.E.1. - Description of Industrial Activity
Comment 185:
Kohler commented that industrial
activities described by SIC code 3261 (Vitreous China Plumbing Fixtures, Earthenware
Fitting, and Bathroom Accessories) should be included in this section of the
permit as a Sector E facility. Kohler further commented that this industry
has similar processing steps to most of the facilities included in this sector.
Response 185:
The proposed permit is revised
to include this industrial activity in Sector E.
Part V.E.5. - Numeric Effluent Limitations
Comment 186:
WCM and Boral commented that
the applicability of the proposed numeric effluent limitations be clarified
by stating that the limitations apply to discharges of storm water runoff
that have come into contact with raw materials, intermediate products, finished
products, by-products or waste materials "that are used or derived from the
manufacture of cement."
Response 186:
The proposed permit is revised
to clarify the applicability of the effluent limitations.
Part V.F.4. - Benchmark Monitoring Requirements
Comment 187:
WCM commented that the benchmark
value of "0.0.636" for SIC codes 3363 - 3369 was a typographical error that
should be corrected.
Response 187:
The proposed permit is revised
to include a value of "0.0636."
Part V.G.6. - Benchmark Monitoring Requirements
Comment 188:
WCM commented that the benchmark
monitoring requirements for runoff from waste rock and overburden piles from
active ore mining or dressing operations should be established on a biennial
frequency.
Response 188:
Sector G is revised to add
clarification for both the specific benchmark monitoring requirements for
copper ore mining and the general benchmark monitoring requirements for all
Sector G metal mining facilities. For additional clarification, the monitoring
requirements specific to waste rock and overburden piles are separated from
the benchmark monitoring requirements as Item 7 of Section G. Monitoring of
runoff from waste rock and overburden piles is at a biennial frequency, with
no provision for waivers.
Part V.H.6. - Benchmark Monitoring Requirements
Comment 189:
TXU commented that the benchmark
values for iron and aluminum are lower than the effluent limitations established
for these same pollutants in individual TPDES wastewater permits. TXU further
stated that best management practices are less capable of reducing pollution
than the settling ponds facilities may use to meet the numeric effluent limitations
in TPDES wastewater permits.
Response 189:
The benchmark value for iron
may be similar to effluent limitations established in wastewater permits as
the value is based on aquatic life chronic criteria from a publication titled
"EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria." Similarly, the benchmark
value for aluminum was based on aquatic life acute criteria. The specific
parameters for monitoring, and the benchmark values were previously determined
by EPA and included in the federal MSGP that was issued in September 1995.
TNRCC conducted stakeholder meetings during the development of this proposed
TPDES permit that included discussions on benchmark monitoring. Discussions
centered on whether or not the federal benchmark monitoring requirements provided
a useful assessment of SWP3 plans, and also on the appropriateness of the
benchmark values. The stakeholder workgroup could not suggest an alternative
measure of SWP3 effectiveness. Therefore, the ED proposes to continue benchmark
monitoring requirements and to evaluate whether to continue, modify, or replace
them based on prior to renewal of this permit.
Part V.I. - Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities
Comment 190:
WCM commented that this section
of the permit should be revised to include clarification that "contaminated"
storm water means storm water that has contacted an area where there has been
a reportable quantity release of oil or hazardous substance in storm water
since November 16, 1987. WCM further commented that similar language is included
in the EPA storm water permit for discharges of storm water associated with
industrial activities.
Response 190:
The applicability of the proposed
TPDES permit for oil and gas extraction facilities is limited. Most of the
state regulatory authority for industrial activities described in Sector I
of the proposed permit is under the jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission
of Texas. The Railroad Commission of Texas does not administer the NPDES program
for these activities in Texas. Therefore, EPA Region 6 will issue NPDES storm
water permits for most of the industrial facilities described in Sector I
of the draft permit. The proposed draft permit would only authorize discharges
of storm water runoff from petroleum refineries that are not subject to federal
effluent limitation guidelines at 40 CFR Part 419. "Contaminated runoff" is
defined at 40 CFR Part 419 as "runoff which comes into contact with any raw
material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product or waste product
located on a petroleum refinery property." Contaminated runoff is not eligible
for coverage under this proposed permit, and therefore definition is not included
in this proposed permit.
Part V.J. - Mineral Mining and Processing Facilities
Comment 191:
WCM commented that the permit
should include definitions of "active mineral mining facility," "inactive
mineral mining facility," and "temporary inactive mineral mining facility"
since the site inspection frequency is dependant upon these terms.
Response 191:
Definitions for these three
terms are not necessary as the permit has been revised to include the following
definition of inactive industrial facilities: "A facility where all industrial
activities that are described in Part II.A.1. of this permit are suspended,
and where an authorization under this general permit is maintained." Also,
please refer to Response 141 on this subject.
Part V.J.3. - Numeric Effluent Limitations
Comment 192:
WCM commented that the phrase
"industrial sand, or crushed stone mining facility (mine dewatering operations"
should be added to the end of the first sentence in the first paragraph of
Part V.J.3., relating to Numeric Effluent Limitations.
Response 192:
The permit is revised to include:
"The following numeric effluent limitations, based on guidelines for mine
dewatering from the Processing Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 436), shall
apply to mine dewatering operations (discharges from the mine pit of accumulated
storm water and ground water seepage) at construction sand and gravel, industrial
sand, or crushed stone mining facilities."
Comment 193:
SSCI requested clarification
on the requirement that samples must be obtained prior to combining with other
storm water runoff.
Response 193:
The numeric effluent limitations
apply to discharges of storm water and ground water that have accumulated
within a mine pit. Samples of mine pit water discharges must be taken at a
point prior to where the discharge may be influenced by storm water runoff
from a separate area of the mine site. Samples may be taken directly from
the pump at the discharge point from the pit, for example, but not from a
ditch where other runoff is also conveyed from the site.
Part V.J.4. - Benchmark Monitoring Requirements
Comment 194:
WCM commented that the permit
should clarify that mine dewatering discharges are not subject to benchmark
monitoring.
Response 194:
The ED disagrees with the comment.
Please refer to previous Responses 148 and 180 on this subject.
Comment 195:
SSCI commented that the permit
requirements to sample within the first 30 minutes of discharge may not appropriately
address Sector J facilities. SSCI further commented that some facilities may
establish BMPs to temporarily capture storm water and storm water runoff within
the pit. These waters may only leave the site when mine active dewatering
occurs.
Response 195:
The discharge must be sampled
according to the requirements of the proposed permit, and be representative
of the quality of the discharge. It would not matter whether discharges were
the direct result of a storm event, or as a result of mechanically pumping
or otherwise physically controlling the release of water from the pit.
Part V.K. - Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
or Disposal Facilities
Comment 196:
Vought questioned if there are
any sector-specific requirements for industries described in this sector.
Response 196:
The permit does include any
additional sector-specific requirements for hazardous waste storage facilities.
Comment 197:
Houston commented that the title
of the section should be revised, as the applicability of the permit requirements
is restricted to facilities that store hazardous waste. Houston commented
that it is confusing to include hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities
in the title, but then to exclude them from permit coverage.
Response 197:
The title of the Section K
of the proposed permit is revised to read "Sector K of Industrial Activity
- Hazardous Waste Storage Facilities." Additionally, other similar references,
including the reference in the benchmark monitoring table in this section,
are modified for clarity.
Part V.K.1. - Description of Industrial Activity
Comment 198:
Vought and WCM commented that
this section contains a typographical error and that the reference to "Sector
I" should be revised to reference "Sector K"
Response 198:
The ED agrees with the comments
and corrects this error in the draft permit.
Part V.K.2. - Limitations on Permit Coverage
Comment 199:
SSCI commented that Sector K
should apply to commercial facilities that store, but do not treat or dispose
of hazardous waste. SSCI additionally commented that they had contacted EPA
Region 6 regarding the federal storm water permit requirements for these facilities
and that EPA indicated that the intent of the federal permit was to include
commercial facilities that stored hazardous waste.
Response 199:
The permit is revised to contain
the following limitation on applicability: "Coverage is limited to those facilities
that store hazardous waste. Facilities that treat or dispose of hazardous
waste must be authorized under an individual TPDES permit."
Comment 200:
Vought commented that this section
contain the sentence "This sector does not apply to those facilities that
only store wastes on site for less than 90 days without a RCRA permit."
Response 200:
The ED disagrees that these
facilities be required to obtain individual TPDES permit coverage for storm
water discharges. The conditions of the proposed permit are sufficient for
any facilities where the storage of hazardous waste is the primary activity.
Comment 201:
Houston commented that it is
not necessary for this sector to cover onsite waste generators because all
other sectors covered by the general permit must address hazardous waste handling
as part of their SWP3, since hazardous wastes would be included as significant
materials.
Response 201:
The ED agrees in part with
the comment. The requirement to obtain permit coverage for storm water discharges
is based on either the facilities primary SIC code or primary activity code.
The generation of on-site hazardous waste would be the result of some other
industrial activity, and not the primary activity of a facility. This sector
would only apply to a facilities that store, as a commercial service, hazardous
waste. Hazardous waste that is generated onsite at a facility covered under
a sector other than Sector K, may address the handling of the waste in the
SWP3. Finally, facilities may be covered under a separate sector of the permit,
but must comply with the requirements of Sector K if hazardous waste storage
is a co-located industrial activity, as defined in Part I of the proposed
permit.
Part V.K.3. - Benchmark Monitoring
Comment 202:
Vought commented that the benchmark
monitoring value for magnesium for discharges from Sector K, Hazardous Waste
Storage Facilities, may naturally occur in storm water runoff at concentrations
that exceed the proposed benchmark value of 0.0636 mg/l.
Response 202:
The pollution prevention team
may verify if a result of analysis exceeds the benchmark value due to "background"
concentrations during the team's investigation for the cause of the exceedance.
This should be documented in the SWP3, and may be referenced as the continuing
cause for future events without further investigations, if operations at the
facility have not subsequently changed and provided an additional potential
source of the pollutant.
Part V.J.3. - Benchmark Monitoring Requirements
Comment 203:
WCM and Vought commented that
the permit contains a typographical error in the benchmark concentration values,
if the values are based on those established by EPA. The first benchmark parameter
is incorrectly established as aluminum, and should be revised to be ammonia.
Response 203:
Benchmark values in the permit
are based on those previously established by EPA and contained in the NPDES
general permit for these same discharges. The benchmark monitoring table is
revised to show that the benchmark value of 19.0 mg/l is for ammonia.
Part V.L. - Landfills and Land Application Sites
Comment 204:
Houston commented that facilities
can not qualify for the no exposure exclusion unless the activity is isolated
from storm water and runoff through the use of storm resistant. Houston requested
that the permit be revised to allow landfills to meet this exclusion if equipment
and materials are not exposed to storm water and runoff.
Response 204:
In order to meet the no exposure
exclusion, all industrial activities must be isolated from storm water and
storm water runoff. Facilities that do not meet this exclusion criteria on
a facility-wide basis may, however, exclude certain drainage areas and outfalls
from SWP3 requirements if there is no exposure of industrial activities to
storm water in those areas of the facility.
Part V.L.4. - Pollution Prevention Measures and
Controls (Renumbered V.L.5.)
Comment 205:
Houston commented that it is
not clear how including a narrative discussion for the benefit of more frequent
inspections in the SWP3 would benefit the quality of the discharge.
Response 205:
The proposed inspection frequencies
are adequate, and in response to the comment the requirement for the narrative
rationale on inspection frequencies is omitted.
Comment 206:
TXU commented that quarterly
inspections and erosion control measures should be removed from the requirements
for facilities that have been closed under TNRCC solid waste rules and guidance
documents. TXU further commented that these requirements already existed.
Boral requested that monthly inspection requirements for finally stabilized
landfills be deleted as they are "unnecessary and burdensome." Boral recommended
that quarterly inspections are sufficient to assess potential issues at a
site that has stabilized cover.
Response 206:
The monitoring frequency in
the proposed permit for inactive landfills was previously established by EPA
and contained in the NPDES general permit for these same discharges and is
proposed to be continued in the TPDES general permit. There has been no evidence
provided that less frequent monitoring is appropriate for these facilities.
Inspections and other activities that are performed to satisfy a separate
regulatory requirement may be referenced to satisfy an equivalent requirement
of the proposed general permit. In response to the comment, the ED includes
the following definition of "inactive landfill" as Part V.L.2. of the permit,
and renumbers the remaining provisions of this section accordingly: "Inactive
landfill - A facility that no longer receives waste and has completed closure
according to all applicable federal, state, and local requirements."
Comment 207:
Kohler, Cleburne, and LGBRB&T
commented that the requirement for active landfills to inspect on a weekly
basis was excessive. Cleburne and LGBRB&T commented that this was a new
or increased frequency over previous NPDES permit requirements. Grand Prairie
asked, other than the increased industrial activity at an active landfill,
what TNRCC considered when deciding that increased inspections would benefit
the quality of discharges. Kohler commented that the requirement would be
a burden on manpower. Cleburne commented that the requirement would tax their
ability to operate the landfill as the operator would not be available to
work the face of the landfill while conducting inspections and recordkeeping.
Response 207:
The requirement to conduct
inspections of active landfills at a frequency of once per week was previously
established by EPA and contained in the NPDES general permit for these same
discharges. The frequency in the proposed permit is based on the conditions
of the previous federal permit for these same facilities. Manpower constraints
from the proposed permit should not exceed those of the previous NPDES permit.
The proposed permit does not require specific persons to conduct the inspections,
but only that inspections be conducted by "qualified personnel, who are familiar
with the industrial activities performed at the facility."
Comment 208:
Grand Prairie commented that
there is no definition for a stabilized landfill or application site.
Response 208:
Part V.L.5.(3) of the proposed
permit (renumbered from V.L.4.(3.)) defines alternative inspection requirements
for sites where future waste disposal and application will not disturb the
soil, and where soils are finally stabilized through revegetation or possibly
other means. Part V.L.5(3) is revised to read: " For areas of landfill sites
where landfill activities are completed and soils are finally stabilized,
and for land application sites where land application has been completed,
inspection procedures must be developed according to the standard periodic
inspection requirements described in Part III.A.4.(g) of this general permit
(Renumbered from III.A.5.(g)), but inspections must be conducted at least
once every month."
Part V.L.4.(b) - Erosion Control Measures (Renumbered
V.L.5.(b))
Comment 209:
LGBRB&T commented that it
was unclear why sector-specific erosion control measures were included in
the proposed permit, as municipal solid waste landfill permits include strict
stabilization and storm water requirements. LGBRB&T commented that the
requirements are unduly burdensome for facilities as they will have to take
multiple actions to satisfy the same purpose.
Response 209:
These sector-specific requirements
were established by EPA, contained in the NPDES general permit for these same
discharges, and are being continued in the proposed general TPDES permit.
Part III.A.1. of the proposed permit allows that plans and measures that stem
from other regulatory requirements may satisfy in whole or in part specific
requirements of the proposed general permit. This will prevent the duplication
of efforts by permittees.
Comment 210:
Cleburne commented that the
"additional requirements" to provide temporary stabilization for stockpiled
materials will also require a large effort on the part of the facility. Cleburne
commented that the operator must have access to the materials on a daily basis,
and to place and remove stabilizing materials on a daily basis would be difficult.
Response 210:
These sector-specific requirements
are in addition to the general SWP3 requirements, but were established by
EPA and previously required in the NPDES general permit for these same discharges.
The storm water pollution prevention team may consider a variety of stabilization
measures, in order to find something that is practical for local conditions
and activities. Any techniques that prevent or lessen the possibility of erosion
and off-site transport of stockpiled materials following precipitation may
be appropriate. Stabilization techniques for daily-use materials may necessarily
be very different than those stockpiled for intermediate or final cover. It
may be appropriate, for example, that stabilization is only provided for daily
use materials when rainfall is imminent or during periods when the landfill
is closed or unstaffed. Other techniques, including seeding or mulching, may
be more appropriate for materials stockpiled and reserved for intermediate
or final cover.
Part V.L.4.(c) - Records (Renumbered V.L.5.(c))
Comment 211:
Cleburne and LGBRB&T commented
that it would be difficult for landfill operators to maintain a tracking system
that listed the specific types of waste, volumes of waste, and that defined
the cells where each waste was disposed. Both commented that facilities typically
only recorded general information based on trip tickets, and might track the
origin of waste and annual tonnage disposed of in the landfill. Grand Prairie
commented that there would be great disparity between the records kept at
different facilities. LGBRB&T commented that these record requirements
should not be required for landfill and land application sites.
Response 211:
The proposed permit is revised
to remove the sector-specific record keeping requirements for landfills, but
requirements to maintain record keeping for land application sites is maintained.
The proposed permit would not authorize the discharge of leachate, drained
free liquids, contaminated storm water, and other wastewaters for which the
character and quality might largely depend on the nature of the waste. Record
keeping requirements are retained for land application sites.
Part V.L.5. - Benchmark Monitoring Requirements
(Renumbered V.L.6.)
Comment 212:
Boral commented that monitoring
for iron should be deleted or justified, as it is not a predominant pollution
issue at most landfills.
Response 212:
This benchmark parameter is
proposed to be continued in the TPDES permit from a condition of the previous
NPDES permit for discharges from these same facilities. Refer to the response
to comment number 188.
Part V.M. - Automobile Salvage Yards
Comment 213:
Cleburne commented that it expected
the permit would contain requirements to monitor for petroleum hydrocarbons
in storm water runoff. Cleburne further commented that the permit should require
more frequent inspections of storage and disassembly areas.
Response 213:
The proposed permit is based
on pollution prevention, as opposed to numeric effluent limitations for parameters
such as total petroleum hydrocarbons. Rather than relying on numeric effluent
limitations or monitoring requirements, the proposed permit contains requirements
specific to auto salvage yards to ensure that sources of oil and other motor
vehicle-related fluids are identified and measures are taken to ensure that
there is no contamination of storm water and runoff.
Part V.N. - Scrap and Waste Recycling Facilities
Comment 214:
Houston requested clarification
on permit requirements for one-day household hazardous waste collection activities.
Houston further commented that some of the requirements in Sector N of the
proposed permit seemed inappropriate for these activities.
Response 214:
Temporary household hazardous
waste collection sites and activities, are not typically a commercial activity
with a primary SIC code 5015. These collection activities are more usually
conducted by municipalities, and may even be related to the municipality's
storm water management plan if it has a storm water permit for the municipal
separate storm sewer system.
Comment 215:
DAF inquired if Sector N requirements
applied to an industrial facility that collects self-generated waste materials,
such as aluminum cans and cardboard, that are then sold off-site as scrap.
Response 215:
Sector N applies to facilities
that receive scrap materials from other sources. No changes to the proposed
draft permit are made.
Part V.N.2. - Limitations on Permit Coverage
Comment 216:
SRC commented that the proposed
permit requires structural controls in areas of the facility where metal turnings
that were previously exposed to cutting oils are stored and handled. SRC requested
that the permit be revised to require these controls only in areas where these
materials are stockpiled.
Response 216:
The proposed permit is revised
to clarify that structural controls are only required where these materials
are "stored and stockpiled" in areas where there is exposure to storm water.
Part V.N.4. - Pollution Prevention Measures and
Controls
Comment 217:
SRC and CMC commented that this
section inaccurately refers to recyclable materials as "waste." Both commenters
stated that this distinction is included in the THSC.
Response 217:
The proposed permit is revised
to replace the references to "waste materials" in this section with references
to "scrap materials."
Part V.O.3. - Pollution Prevention Measures and
Controls
Comment 218:
TXU and Reliant commented that
a requirement in the Best Management Practices section to cover all residue
hauling vehicles should be revised to allow for some flexibility. Reliant
further commented a BMP of wetting the surface of a load is a very effective
BMP for eliminating dust when the material is hauled for a short distance.
Response 218:
The ED agrees with the comments.
The requirement is revised to allow for the suggested best management practice
as an option. It will remain the responsibility of the pollution prevention
team to identify and implement the most appropriate BMP.
Comment 219:
LG&E and WCM commented that
a requirement in the Periodic Inspections section to conduct inspections of
above-ground tanks, pipelines, pumps, and related equipment should be revised
to require these inspections on a monthly frequency. LG&E commented that
the requirement to conduct inspections once every seven days was much too
onerous and labor intensive.
Response 219:
The required inspections are
proposed at the same frequency that was established in the previous federal
NPDES permit for these facilities. There is no evidence that facilities were
not able to conduct these weekly inspections during the term of the previous
permit, or that less frequent inspections would ensure an equivalent pollution
prevention measure.
Comment 220:
TXU and Reliant commented that
the inspection frequency of "once every seven days" should be changed to "once
per week." Both commented that this change would allow some flexibility with
employee work schedules during holidays and vacation periods. Both commented
that the inspection requirement should be revised to clarify that these are
"visual inspections."
Response 220:
The proposed permit is revised
to define the monitoring frequency as "once per week," rather than "once every
seven days." This revision is additionally made in Sector L of the proposed
permit for consistency. The ED additionally agrees to clarify that in addition
to the periodic inspections required from Part III.A.4.(g) of this permit
(Renumbered III.A.5.(g)), Sector O facilities must conduct visual examinations
of certain equipment and structures at the once per week frequency.
Part V.O.4. - Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation
Comment 221:
WCM commented that the sector-specific
additional requirements for the Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation should
be deleted because Sector O facilities must already conduct the more frequent
once per seven-day inspections to comply with Part V.O.3. requirements.
Response 221:
The weekly visual inspection
required in Part V.O.3. of the proposed permit, relating to Periodic Inspections,
is a different inspection than the Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation.
Periodic Inspection requirements are described in Part III.A.4.(g) of the
proposed permit, and Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation requirements
are described in Part III.A.6. of the proposed permit. Although these requirements
are for different purposes, facilities may be able to use the findings of
one evaluation or inspection to satisfy portions of the requirements for the
other evaluation or inspection.
Comment 222:
LG&E commented that the
frequency for the Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation in coal handling
and certain other areas of Sector O facilities should be revised from the
proposed frequency of once per month to a semi-annual frequency. LG&E
commented that the requirement to conduct inspections on a more frequent basis
was much too onerous and labor intensive.
Response 222:
The required inspections are
proposed at the same frequency that was established in the previous federal
NPDES permit for these facilities. There is no evidence that facilities were
not able to conduct these inspections during the term of the previous permit,
or that less frequent inspections would ensure an equivalent pollution prevention
measure.
Part V.O.7. - Benchmark Monitoring Requirements
Comment 223:
LG&E commented that the
benchmark monitoring requirements for total iron should be revised to a frequency
of once per year, in agreement with the monitoring frequency for measuring
compliance with the numeric effluent limitations for hazardous metals in Part
III.D. of the permit. LG&E further commented that a "no pollution certification"
monitoring waiver be provided for this benchmark monitoring requirement, similar
to that provided for the numeric effluent limitations for hazardous metals
in Part III.D. of the permit.
Response 223:
Benchmark monitoring requirements
and numeric effluent limitations for hazardous metals are included in the
proposed permit for separate purposes. The hazardous metals values are numeric
effluent limitations, and results of analyses for these metals are compared
to the numeric limitations to determine either compliance with, or violation
of, the terms of the permit. All facilities must monitor for these hazardous
metals, unless they can qualify for a waiver by certifying that there is no
exposure of these metals to storm water. There are no waivers from benchmark
monitoring requirements based on the finding that there is no exposure of
these pollutants. EPA previously determined, during development of the federal
storm water program, that the sector-specific benchmark monitoring parameters
were pollutants commonly associated with each of these sectors of industrial
activities. The results of analyses for benchmark monitoring parameters are
compared to the benchmark values to evaluate the effectiveness of the SWP3,
not to determine compliance with the terms of the permit. Benchmark monitoring
is included as a condition of the permit in order that the effectiveness of
the SWP3 may continue be evaluated following revisions that are made to the
SWP3.
Part V.P. - Motor Freight Transportation Facilities,
Passenger Transportation Facilities, Petroleum Bulk Oil Stations and Terminals,
Rail Transportation Facilities, and United States Postal Service Transportation
Facilities
Comment 224:
LGBRB&T suggested the permit
should be revised to clarify that vehicle and equipment maintenance facilities
owned by municipalities are not required to obtain permit coverage unless
they are a co-located activity at a site that must otherwise obtain permit
coverage. LGBRB&T further commented that the EPA's general permit for
discharges of storm water associated with industrial activities did not require
these municipally owned facilities to obtain permit coverage under the federal
rules.
Response 224:
Municipally owned facilities
are not exempt from the description of Sector P facilities. Sector P, in the
EPA and in the proposed TPDES permits, applies to facilities that haul substantial
amounts of freight, materials, or passengers and applies to those areas of
the facility where vehicle and equipment maintenance activities take place.
If a city-owned bus line conducts vehicle and equipment maintenance activities,
Sector P would describe this municipally owned industrial site, and the facility
would require permit coverage for discharges of storm water. However, the
performance of simple vehicle and equipment maintenance by a municipality
is not described as a Sector P activity. If vehicle equipment maintenance
is conducted at a municipally owned site that is not described by Sector P,
or another sector of the proposed permit, this activity does not trigger the
requirement for permit coverage.
Part V.Q. - Water Transportation
Comment 225:
WCM commented that the requirements
for the site map should be revised to read: "The site map shall clearly show
the locations of the following activities where such activities are exposed
to precipitation: fueling; engine maintenance and repair; vessel maintenance
and repair; pressure washing; painting; sanding; blasting; welding; metal
fabrication; loading and unloading areas; locations used for the treatment,
storage or disposal of wastes; liquid storage tanks; liquid storage areas
(e.g., paint, solvents, resins); and material storage areas (e.g., blasting
media, aluminum, steel, scrap iron)."
Response 225:
The proposed permit is revised
to include the suggested language with minor revision: "The site map shall
clearly show the locations of the following activities if the activities are
exposed to precipitation or runoff: fueling; engine maintenance and repair;
vessel maintenance and repair; pressure washing; painting; sanding; blasting;
welding; metal fabrication; loading and unloading areas; locations used for
the treatment, storage or disposal of wastes; liquid storage tanks; liquid
storage areas (e.g., paint, solvents, resins); and material storage areas
(e.g., blasting media, aluminum, steel, scrap iron)."
Comment 226:
PHA commented that the activities
conducted by Sector Q (Water Transportation) and Sector R (Ship and Boat Building
or Repair Yards) facilities are very different PHA further commented that
the proposed permit contained requirements related to pressure washing vessel
hulls and drydock activities for both sectors of industrial activity. PHA
commented that these activities are only associated with Sector R facilities
and the requirements should be deleted from Sector Q of the permit.
Response 226:
The requirements in Sector
Q of the draft permit only apply to areas of water transportation facilities
where these maintenance activities take place. While these activities may
more commonly occur at facilities described by Sector R, they may also be
performed at water transportation facilities as a matter of maintenance.
Part V.Q.4. - Pollution Prevention Measures and
Controls
Comment 227:
PHA commented that a requirement
to conduct monthly periodic inspections, and to document the inspections,
will be both time and cost prohibitive for most permit holders.
Response 227:
The required inspections are
proposed at the same frequency that was established in the previous federal
NPDES permit for these facilities. There is no evidence that facilities were
not able to conduct these inspections during the term of the previous permit,
or that less frequent inspections would ensure an equivalent pollution prevention
measure.
Part V.R. - Ship and Boat Building or Repair Yards
Comment 228:
WCM commented that the requirements
for the site map should be revised to read: "The site map shall clearly show
the locations of the following activities where such activities are exposed
to precipitation: fueling; engine maintenance and repair; vessel maintenance
and repair; pressure washing; painting; sanding; blasting; welding; metal
fabrication; loading and unloading areas; locations used for the treatment,
storage or disposal of wastes; liquid storage tanks; liquid storage areas
(e.g., paint, solvents, resins); and material storage areas (e.g., blasting
media, aluminum, steel, scrap iron)."
Response 228:
Part V.R.2. of the proposed
permit is revised to include the suggested language with minor revision: "The
site map shall clearly show the locations of the following activities where
such activities are exposed to precipitation or runoff: fueling; engine maintenance
and repair; vessel maintenance and repair; pressure washing; painting; sanding;
blasting; welding; metal fabrication; loading and unloading areas; locations
used for the treatment, storage or disposal of wastes; liquid storage tanks;
liquid storage areas (e.g., paint, solvents, resins); and material storage
areas (e.g., blasting media, aluminum, steel, scrap iron)."
Part V.S. - Vehicle Maintenance Areas, Equipment
Cleaning Areas, or Deicing Areas located at Air Transportation Facilities
Comment 229:
Houston commented that the description
of Sector S facilities is too broad and that the applicability of the permit
requirements should be narrowed to match the federal permit language and state:
"Only those portions of the facility or establishment that are either involved
in vehicle maintenance (including vehicle rehabilitation, mechanical repairs,
painting, fueling and lubrication), equipment cleaning operations, or deicing
operations are addressed under this section."
Response 229:
Part V.S.1. of the proposed
permit is revised to include the suggested language with minor revision: "The
requirements of Section S apply to storm water discharges from those portions
of facilities described by SIC codes 4512 - 4581 that are either involved
in vehicle maintenance (including vehicle rehabilitation, mechanical repairs,
painting, fueling and lubrication), equipment cleaning operations, or deicing
operations."
Comment 230:
Houston commented that the permit
should be revised to clarify that the threshold for benchmark monitoring is
based on the use of more than 100 tons of urea, or 100,000 gallons of ethylene
glycol (chemical, not mixture) for deicing or anti-icing activities based
on the average yearly usage for the three years prior to submittal of the
NOI. Houston commented that deicing chemical usage is highly dependent on
weather conditions in a given year. Houston further commented that it is possible
that a facility might only reach this threshold during the latter part of
its permit term, and it is currently unclear how the permit obligations would
be met when this occurred.
Response 230:
The ED agrees in part with
the comments and clarifies the benchmark monitoring requirements with the
following language: "Benchmark monitoring is only required for airports with
deicing activities that have used more than 100 tons of urea, or more than
100,000 gallons of ethylene glycol, in any calendar year in the three years
prior to submittal of an NOI for coverage under this permit."
Part V.S.2. - Description of Potential Pollutants
and Sources (Renumbered V.S.3.)
Comment 231:
WCM commented that the language
for sector-specific site map requirements references the general site map
requirements in Part III.A.3.(c) of the permit (Renumbered III.A.4.(c)), and
that further clarification is needed. WCM commented that the language should
be amended as follows: "The site map shall clearly show the location of each
tenant at the site that conducts industrial activity subject to coverage under
this section of this general permit."
Response 231:
The ED agrees with the comment
and makes the suggested revision.
Part V.S.3. - Pollution Prevention Measures and
Controls (Renumbered V.S.4.)
Comment 232:
WCM and Cleburne commented that
deicing activities should be added to the list of industrial activities for
which best management practices should be developed.
Response 232:
The proposed permit already
includes requirements to develop best management practices for deicing activities.
The permit is revised in response to the comment, however, to include this
activity in the list of activities that must be addressed through good housekeeping:
"This section of the SWP3 must describe specific measures to prevent or minimize
contamination of storm water from areas used for the maintenance or cleaning
of equipment, aircraft, and other vehicles, and for areas where aircraft deicing
and anti-icing activities occur."
Comment 233:
NSC commented that requirements
related to deicing activities should be removed from the permit because the
discharge of these materials is a process wastewater rather than a storm water
discharge. NSC further commented that discharges of deicing materials may
occur during dry weather, and are controlled by airport tenants.
Response 233:
The ED disagrees with the comment
to delete all requirements related to deicing activities. Requirements to
develop best management plans for these activities, to reduce or eliminate
contact of these materials with storm water runoff, will result in improved
quality of storm water discharges. The ED, in response to the comment on dry-weather
discharges, revises the permit to include Part V.S.2, relating to Limitations
on Permit Coverage, to clearly state that dry-weather discharges containing
deicing chemicals are not authorized under this general permit. The following
language is included: "This general permit does not authorize dry weather
discharges of deicing chemicals. If these discharges occur, they must be covered
by a separate TPDES permit."
Comment 234:
ATA commented that it supported
including an evaluation of existing pollution prevention measures in the SWP3
and further commented that the safety of aircraft operations can never be
compromised.
Response 234:
The permit does not need to
be revised, as the storm water pollution prevention team should always consider
existing pollution controls and activities, as well as safety issues, during
development of SWP3 requirements.
Comment 235:
ATA commented that the permit
requires weekly inspections during periods of deicing operations, and that
these periods of time may be difficult to define. ATA further commented that
inspections would likely take considerable time allocation of highly qualified
personnel, and may not be readily scheduled. ATA requested that the draft
permit be revised to require monthly inspections during the deicing season
(October to April of each year). ATA indicated that the requested change would
allow for more efficient scheduling, which would also help to minimize additional
congestion in busy ramp areas.
Response 235:
Revising the monitoring frequency
from once per week to once per month will not assist facilities in identifying
periods of deicing. Deicing periods must be identified by the permittee in
the SWP3 and may be based on historic records. The definition of these periods
may be modified, as necessary, throughout the term of the permit. The required
inspections are proposed at the same frequency that was established in the
previous federal NPDES permit for these facilities. There is no evidence that
facilities were not able to conduct these inspections during the term of the
previous permit, or that less frequent inspections would ensure an equivalent
pollution prevention measure.
Comment 236:
ATA commented that air carriers
do not typically develop monthly figures on deicing fluid use because many
of the deicing vehicles cannot incorporate meters capable of recording the
amount of fluid applied. ATA requested that the permit be revised to require
records be maintained of an estimate of the annual deicing chemical usage
based on inventory data. ATA further commented that airlines have had a difficult
time estimating the monthly usage in the past. ATA indicated that the requirement
to provide the annual estimate, as well as identifying the dates that deicing
events occurred, would be useful for airport SWP3s.
Response 236:
Monthly records on the amount
of deicing chemicals may be based on inventory records, application rates,
or other methods.
Part V.S.4. - Management of Runoff
Comment 237:
ATA commented Part V.S.3., relating
to Pollution Prevention Measures and Controls, and Part V.S.4. should be combined
and expanded to ensure that the full range of alternative pollution measures
is considered at each airport, and that the SWP3 for each facility contains
those measures most effective and appropriate at each site. ATA noted that
the EPA recognized that there are many BMPs and controls that could be effective
for use at a particular airport, and that airports should be allowed to select
and implement those measures found to be appropriate to the site to control
storm water runoff from deicing and anti-icing operations.
Response 237:
The proposed permit is revised
to combine Parts V.S.3 and V.S.4 to be consistent with how these additional
sector-specific requirements are structured in other sections of the permit.
The ED agrees with the comment that there are many BMPs and controls that
could be effective for use at a particular airport, and that airports should
be allowed to select and implement those measures found to be appropriate
to the site to control storm water runoff from deicing and anti-icing operations.
The draft permit contains the minimum requirements for the different sections
of a SWP3. It is the responsibility of the permittee to identify and select
controls that are the most effective, and to identify and select appropriate
measures for that particular facility. Part III.A.(4) of the permit, relating
to Minimum Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) Requirements, already
requires that the SWP3 be developed to include a consideration of how controls
and practices relate to each other such that together they comprise an integrated,
facility-wide approach for pollution prevention in storm water discharges.
Part V.U. - Food and Kindred Products Facilities
Comment 238:
Harris County commented that
the draft permit should either include facilities described by SIC codes 2033
- 2038 or an explanation of why they are not included for coverage under the
proposed permit.
Response 238:
The proposed permit is revised
to include SIC codes 2032 - 2038.
Part V.V. - Textile Mills, Apparel, and other
Fabric Product Manufacturing Facilities
Comment 239:
WCM commented that the draft
permit should include monthly periodic inspections, as was required in the
federal NPDES permit for discharges of storm water associated with industrial
activities from Sector V facilities.
Response 239:
Part V.V.3. of the proposed
permit is revised to include monthly inspection requirements for material
storage, material transfer areas, and for transmission areas. This inspection
frequency was established in the previous federal NPDES permit for these facilities
and is continued in the proposed permit.
Part V. AA. - Fabricated Metal Products Facilities
Comment 240:
WCM commented that the table
of benchmark monitoring requirements in Part V.AA.3. of the proposed permit
should be revised to clarify that facilities described by SIC code 3479 are
not required to monitor for those parameters in the first row of the table.
WCM further commented that the benchmark value in the first row of the benchmark
monitoring table should be corrected from the value of 0.068 mg/l to 0.68
mg/l. WCM further commented that this was a typographical error in the NPDES
storm water permit issued by EPA in 1995,
Response 240:
The ED agrees with the comments
and revises the first row of the benchmark monitoring table to include "(except
3479)." Facilities described by SIC code 3479 must conduct benchmark monitoring
defined in row two of the table. The ED additionally corrects the benchmark
value for Nitrate + Nitrite N from 0.069 mg/l to 0.68 mg/l.
Part V.AC. - Electronic and Electrical Equipment/Components,
and Photographic/Optical Goods Manufacturing Facilities
Comment 241:
Houston commented that SIC codes
3821 - 3872 were not included, and requested that they either be included
or an explanation provided.
Response 241:
The proposed permit only included
SIC code 3812 from the SIC group 38 industries. The ED corrects an omission
by revising Sector AC to include SIC codes 3812 - 3873.
Comment 242:
Cleburne commented that discharges
of storm water from Sector AC industries have a potential to contain metals,
and that this should be addressed with additional requirements.
Response 242:
The ED disagrees that additional
sector-specific requirements are necessary for Sector AC facilities. Metals
were not previously identified in the federal regulations as a pollutant of
concern during development of NPDES permit requirements, therefore the proposed
permit does not include a benchmark monitoring requirement for Sector AC.
The proposed permit does, however, contain effluent limitations for hazardous
metals that apply to any facility that is unable to certify that they meet
certain waiver criteria.
TRD-200104753
Ramon Dasch
Acting Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 15, 2001
Invitation to Comment
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission)
announces the availability of the draft "July 2001 Update to the Water Quality
Management Plan for the State of Texas" (draft 2001 WQMP).
The WQMP is developed and promulgated pursuant to the requirements of the
Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), §208. The draft July 2001 WQMP update
includes projected effluent limits of indicated domestic dischargers useful
for water quality management planning in future permit actions. Once the commission
certifies a WQMP update, the update is submitted to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. For some Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (TPDES) permits, the EPA's approval of a corresponding WQMP update
is a necessary precondition to TPDES permit issuance by the commission. The
draft July 2001 WQMP update also contains service area populations for listed
wastewater treatment facilities, and documentation of Designated Management
Agency resolutions.
A copy of the draft July 2001 WQMP update may be found on the commission's
web page located at
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/wqmp
. A copy of the draft may also be viewed at the TNRCC Library located
at TNRCC, Building A, 12100 Park 35 Circle, North Interstate 35, Austin, Texas.
Written comments on the draft July 2001 WQMP shall be submitted to Ms.
Suzanne Vargas, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Water Permits &
Resource Management Division, MC 150, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087.
Comments may also be faxed to (512) 239-4420, but must be followed up with
the submission and receipt of the written comments within three working days
of when they were faxed. Written comments must be submitted no later than
TRD-200104710
Ramon Dasch
Acting Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 15, 2001
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission),
under Texas Water Code (TWC), §26.040, proposes to issue a general permit
(proposed General Permit No. WQG200000) covering the disposal of wastewater
by irrigation and evaporation from livestock manure operations under TWC, §26.040.
The proposed general permit covers the entire State of Texas.
The executive director has prepared a draft general permit that sets the
limitations and design requirements for disposal of wastewater from livestock
manure compost operations via irrigation and evaporation. The proposed permit
would not authorize discharges into water in the state. The executive director
has reviewed this action for consistency with the goals and policies of the
Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP) according to Coastal Coordination Council
regulations, and has determined that the action is consistent with applicable
CMP goals and policies.
A copy of the draft general permit and fact sheet are available for viewing
and copying at the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office
of the Chief Clerk, Building F, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin; the
TNRCC's Region 4 Office, 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas; the Region
4 Special Project Office, 222 East College, Stephenville, Texas; the Region
9 Office, 6801 Sanger Avenue, Waco, Texas; and at
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/waterperm/wwperm/index.html
.
The public comment period for this proposed general permit has been extended
to September 24, 2001 as a result of requests received at public meetings
held in Stephenville and Waco, Texas on August 6 and 7, 2001, respectively.
Notices of these public meetings were published on July 2, 2001 in the
Written public comments may be submitted to the attention of Clyde E. Bohmfalk,
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Environmental Policy,
Analysis, and Assessment, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087
or faxed to (512) 239-6195. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on September
24, 2001.
After the comment period, the executive director will consider all the
public comments, including those received before and during the public meetings,
and prepare a response. The response to comments will be mailed to everyone
who submitted comments or who asked to be on the mailing list for this general
permit. The general permit will then be set for the commissioners' consideration
at a scheduled commission meeting.
Additional information can be obtained about this general permit or the
permitting process, by calling the TNRCC, Office of Public Assistance, 1-800-687-4040;
or by calling Clyde E. Bohmfalk, Policy and Standards Section, at (512) 239-1315.
General information about the TNRCC can be found at the commission's web site
at
www.tnrcc.state.tx.us
.
TRD-200104677
Ramon Dasch
Acting Division Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 14, 2001
TNRCC Internal Control No. 05302001-D01; Plan Development, L.P. (Petitioner)
filed a petition for creation of Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District
Number 131 with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC).
The petition was filed pursuant to Article XVI, Section 59 of the Texas Constitution;
Chapters 49 and 54 of the Texas Water Code; 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter
293; and the procedural rules of the TNRCC. The petition states that: (1)
the petitioner is the owner of a majority in value of the land to be included
in the proposed District; (2) the petition states that there is only one lienholder
on the property to be included in the proposed district; (3) the proposed
District will contain approximately 276.491 acres located within Fort Bend
County, Texas; and (4) the proposed District is not within the corporate limits
or the extraterritorial jurisdiction of any city. According to the petition,
a preliminary investigation has been made to determine the cost of the project,
and it is estimated by the petitioners, from the information available at
this time, that the cost of said project will be approximately $11,100,000.
The TNRCC may grant a contested case hearing on this petition if a written
hearing request is filed within 30 days after the newspaper publication of
this notice. 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) the name
of the petitioner and the TNRCC Internal Control Number; (3) the statement
"I/we request a contested case hearing"; (4) a brief description of how you
would be affected by the petition in a way not common to the general public;
and (5) the location of your property relative to the proposed district's
boundaries. You may also submit your proposed adjustments to the petition
which would satisfy your concerns. Requests for a contested case hearing must
be submitted in writing to the Office of the Chief Clerk at the address provided
in the information section below.
The Executive Director may approve the petition unless a written request
for a contested case hearing is filed within 30 days after the newspaper publication
of this notice. If a hearing request is filed, the Executive Director will
not approve the petition and will forward the petition and hearing request
to the TNRCC Commissioners for their consideration at a scheduled Commission
meeting. If a contested case hearing is held, it will be a legal proceeding
similar to a civil trial in state district court.
Written hearing requests should be submitted to the Office of the Chief
Clerk, MC 105, TNRCC, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. For information
concerning the hearing process, please contact the Public Interest Counsel,
MC 103, 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 TNRCC can be found at our web site at www.tnrcc.state.tx.us.
TRD-200104707
LaDonna Castañuela
Chief Clerk
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 14, 2001
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) will conduct
a public hearing to receive testimony concerning revisions to 30 Texas Administrative
Code (TAC) Chapter 39, concerning Public Notice, new §39.402, Applicability
for Air Permit Amendments, under the requirements of Texas Health and Safety
Code, §382.017 and Texas Government Code, Subchapter B, Chapter 2001.
Proposed new §39.402 would implement the provisions of House Bill
2518, enacted by the 77th Texas Legislature, 2001, concerning public notice
requirements for applications for amendments to air quality permits. The proposal
would establish criteria to govern whether an application for amendment is
subject to public notice. Specifically, the proposed rule will establish emission
rates for total emissions increases from all facilities authorized under the
amended permit greater than significant for public notice for agricultural
facilities, or greater than de minimis for public notice for all other facilities.
A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin on September 20,
2001 at 10:00 a.m. at the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 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 the Office of
Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment at (512) 239-4900. Requests
should be made as far in advance as possible.
Comments may be submitted to Lola Brown, MC 205, Office of Environmental
Policy, Analysis, and Assessment, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission,
P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or by fax to (512) 239-4808. All
comments should reference Rule Log Number 2001- 028A-039-AD. Comments must
be received by 5:00 p.m., September 24, 2001. For further information, please
contact Ray Henry Austin, Policy and Regulations Division, (512) 239-6814.
TRD-200104642
Ramon Dasch
Acting Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 10, 2001
In accordance with the requirements of Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001,
Subchapter B, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or
commission) will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony concerning
the proposed amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 80, Contested Case Hearings.
These rules would require the executive director to be a party in commission
proceedings where the executive director bears the burden of proof. This rulemaking
would allow the executive director to participate in contested case hearings
concerning permitting matters as a party if certain conditions are met.
These rules would also specify the factors the executive director must
consider in determining, case-by-case, whether to participate in a contested
case hearing as a party. Factors that the commission must consider in developing
these rules include the technical, legal, and financial capacity of the parties;
whether the parties have previously participated in a hearing; the complexity
of the pertinent issues; and the available resources of commission staff.
Further, these rules would expressly prohibit the executive director from
rehabilitating the testimony of witnesses, unless the witness is an agency
employee who is testifying for the sole purpose of completing the administrative
record. Finally, these rules would prohibit the executive director from helping
an applicant meet its burden of proof unless the applicant fits a category
under amended §80.108(e) that would make it eligible for such assistance.
A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin on September 18,
2001 at 10:00 a.m., in Building F, Room 2210 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.
Comments may be submitted to Angela Slupe, Office of Environmental Policy,
Analysis, and Assessment, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087
or faxed to (512) 239-4808. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., September
24, and should reference Rule Log Number 2001-027-080-AD. This proposal is
available on the commission's web site at
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rules/propadopt.html
. For further information, please contact Kathy Ramirez, Policy and
Regulations Division at (512) 239-6757.
Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation
needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the Office of
Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment at (512) 239-4900. Requests
should be made as far in advance as possible.
TRD-200104566
Ramon Dasch
Acting Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 9, 2001
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission will conduct public
hearings to receive testimony concerning amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 114,
Subchapter A and Subchapter C, concerning Control of Air Pollution from Motor
Vehicles, and a revision 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 regulations concerning
SIPs. Both subchapters will be submitted as a revision to the SIP.
The proposed amendments would revise rules related to the implementation
of the state's Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program.
The proposed rulemaking requires all vehicle emissions test stations in the
Dallas/Fort Worth, extended Dallas/Fort Worth, and Houston/Galveston program
areas, with the exception of low volume stations, to offer both acceleration
simulation mode (ASM-2) testing and on-board diagnostics (OBD) testing to
the public; defines the term low volume emissions test station; requires all
vehicle emissions test stations in the El Paso program area to offer both
two-speed idle (TSI) testing and OBD testing to the public; adjusts the administrative
portion of the test fees remitted to the state; increases fees for the El
Paso area should the county opt into the low- income vehicle repair assistance,
retrofit, and accelerated vehicle retirement program; requires a test-on-
resale component; incorporates the TSI and ASM-2 specifications into one equipment
specification document with an amended date; provides for new equipment requirements
and specifications regarding OBD equipment; deletes the section related to
waivers and extensions; and creates a new section to establish an early participation
incentive program.
The proposed SIP revisions clarify the new program elements such as applicability
changes; state resources for the program; the new program performance standard;
emissions testing network type; emissions testing; affected vehicle populations;
strategies for quality control and quality assurance; data collection, analysis,
and reporting; public information strategies; on-road vehicle emissions testing;
and the implementation schedule. The proposed SIP excludes the Beaumont/Port
Arthur ozone nonattainment area from the I/M program requirements.
Public hearings on the proposal will be held at the following times and
locations: September 13, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. and at 7:00 p.m., Houston City
Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 901 Bagby, Houston; September 14, 2001, at 2:00
p.m. and at 7:00 p.m., North Central Texas Council of Governments, Transportation
Board Room, 3rd Floor, 616 Six Flags Drive, Arlington; and September 14, 2001,
at 7:00 p.m., City of El Paso Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 2 Civic Center
Plaza, El Paso.
The hearings are structured for the receipt of oral or written comments
by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called
upon in order of registration. Open discussion will not occur during the hearings;
however, an agency staff member will be available to discuss the proposal
30 minutes prior to the hearings, and answer questions before and after the
hearings.
Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation
needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the agency at
(512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.
Comments may be submitted to Joyce Spencer, Office of Environmental Policy,
Analysis, and Assessment, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087;
or by fax at (512) 239-4808. All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on
September 14, 2001, although oral and written comments submitted at the September
14, 2001 hearings will be accepted. All comments should reference Rule Log
No. 2001-035-114-AI. For further information, please contact Jill Burditt
at (512) 239-0560. Copies of the proposed rules and SIP revisions can be obtained
from the commission's web site at www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/sips/cover.html,
or by calling Ms. Spencer at (512) 239-5017.
TRD-200104638
Ramon Dasch
Acting Division Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 10, 2001
In accordance with the requirements of Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001,
Subchapter B, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission)
will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the proposed
amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 305, Consolidated Permits; Chapter 331, Underground
Injection Control; and Chapter 281, Application Processing.
The proposed rules would address the requirements of Senate Bill 324, 77th
Legislature, 2001, by proposing amendments to Chapters 281, 305, and 331.
The proposed amendments to Chapters 281 and 331 would apply to underground
injection control (UIC) applications submitted or pending on or after May
26, 2001, and before September 1, 2002. The proposed amendments to Chapter
305 would apply to all UIC applications submitted on or after May 26, 2001.
The proposed amendments to Chapter 281 would establish a procedure for the
preparation of comprehensive summaries of a UIC permit applicant's compliance
history, including the compliance history of any corporation or business entity
managed, owned, or closely related to the applicant. The proposed amendments
to Chapter 305 would provide for the fee amount collected for injection well
permit applications and would require that all applications for hazardous
and nonhazardous injection well permits be processed for the benefit of the
state and the preservation of its natural resources. The proposed amendments
to Chapter 331 would expand the applicability of certain requirements relating
to the commission's consideration of compliance history in the determination
whether the use or installation of an injection well is in the public's interest.
Additionally, the proposed amendments to Chapter 331 would require the commission
to deny a UIC permit if the commission determines that an applicant's compliance
history is unacceptable.
A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin on September 13,
2001 at 2:00 p.m., in Building F, Room 2210 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.
Comments may be submitted to Angela Slupe, Office of Environmental Policy,
Analysis, and Assessment, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087
or faxed to (512) 239-4808. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., September
24, 2001, and should reference Rule Log Number 2001-049-305-WT. This proposal
is available on the commission's web site at
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rules/propadopt.html
. For further information, please contact Michael Bame, Policy and
Regulations Division at (512) 239-5658.
Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation
needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the Office of
Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment at (512) 239-4900. Requests
should be made as far in advance as possible.
TRD-200104581
Ramon Dasch
Acting Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 9, 2001
The following notices were issued during the period of August 7, 2001 -
August 10, 2001.
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.
BOLES CHILDREN'S HOME, INC. has applied for a renewal of Permit No. 13220-001,
which authorizes the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average
flow not to exceed 16,100 gallons per day via surface irrigation of 4.25 acres
of nonpublic access grasses. This permit will not authorize a discharge of
pollutants into waters in the State. The facility and disposal site are located
approximately 2000 feet southeast of State Highway 34 and Farm-to-Market Road
2101 in Hunt County, Texas.
DRIFTWOOD EQUITIES, LTD. has applied for a new permit, Proposed Permit
No. 14235-001, to authorize the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at
a daily average flow not to exceed 10,000 gallons per day via subsurface (low
pressure dosed) irrigation of 3.5 acres of public access rangeland. This permit
will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The
facility and disposal site are located approximately 300 feet northwest of
the intersection of Farm-to-Market Road 1826 and Farm-to-Market Road 967 and
1400 feet north of Camp Ben McCulloch in Hays County, Texas.
TOWN OF LINDSAY has applied for a renewal of TNRCC Permit No. 10923-001,
which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average
flow not to exceed 66,000 gallons per day. The plant site is located at 100
Sycamore Street, approximately 600 feet east of the Farm-to-Market Road 3108
bridge over Elm Fork Trinity River, southeast of the Town of Lindsay in Cooke
County, Texas.
NORTH ALAMO WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION has applied for a renewal of Permit
No. 13747-003, which authorizes the disposal of treated domestic wastewater
at a daily average flow not to exceed 122,000 gallons per day via surface
irrigation of 34 acres of land. The facility and disposal site are located
approximately 6000 feet southwest of the intersection of Farm-to-Market Road
490 and Farm-to-Market Road 493, southwest of the City of Hargill in Hidalgo
County, Texas.
TOWN OF PONDER has applied for a renewal of NPDES Permit No. TX0072010,
which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average
flow not to exceed 45,000 gallons per day. The plant site is located approximately
0.3 of a mile south of the Town of Ponder, 1,000 feet southeast of the intersection
of Farm-to-Market Road 2449 and Farm-to-Market Road 156 and 1,200 feet east
of Farm-to-Market Road 156, and approximately 9.5 miles southwest of the City
of Denton central business district in Denton County, Texas.
ROCHE VITAMINS, INC. has applied for a renewal of an existing wastewater
permit. The applicant has an existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit No. TX0064912 and an existing Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Permit No. 02216. The draft permit authorizes
the discharge of process wastewater, utility wastewater, water treatment waste,
domestic wastewater and stormwater runoff at a daily average flow not to exceed
190,000 gallons per day via Outfall 001. The applicant operates a facility
that manufactures beta-carotene. The plant site is located immediately south
of Oyster Creek and north of Farm-to-Market Road 332 near the City of Freeport,
Brazoria County, Texas.
CITY OF SAN SABA has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 10687-001,
which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average
flow not to exceed 310,000 gallons per day. The facility is located 2,000
feet north of U.S. Highway 190 and 6,000 feet east of State Highway 16 in
the City of San Saba in San Saba County, Texas.
CITY OF WHITEHOUSE has applied for a renewal of TNRCC Permit No. 11222-001,
which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average
flow not to exceed 680,000 gallons per day. The facility is located on the
east side of State Highway 110 approximately 900 feet north and 3300 feet
east of the intersection of State Highway 110 and County Road 2175 and approximately
1.7 miles southeast of the City of Whitehouse in Smith County, Texas.
TRD-200104706
LaDonna Castañuela
Chief Clerk
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 14, 2001
The State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) issued a Proposal for
Decision and Order to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC)
on August 6, 2001, Executive Director of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, Petitioner v. Micor Energy, L.L.C., Respondent; SOAH Docket Number
582-01-2644; TNRCC Docket Number 1999-1238-PST-E. In the matter to be considered
by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission on a date and time to
be determined by the Chief Clerk's Office in Room 201S of Building E, 12118
North 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 publication. Written public comments should be submitted
to the Office of the Chief Clerk, MC-105 TNRCC P.O. Box 13087, Austin Texas
78711-3087. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Doug
Kitts, Chief Clerk's Office, (512) 239-3317.
TRD-200104705
Douglas A. Kitts
Agenda Coordinator
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: August 14, 2001
Notice of Application for Amendment to Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority
On August 8, 2001, LCI International Telecom Corporation filed an application
with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) to amend its service
provider certificate of operating authority (SPCOA) granted in SPCOA Certificate
Number 60010. Applicant intends to reflect an internal corporate restructuring
merging into Qwest Communications Corporation.
The Application: Application of LCI International Telecom Corporation for
an Amendment to its Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket
Number 24493.
Persons with questions about this docket, or who wish to intervene or otherwise
participate in these proceedings should make appropriate filings or comments
to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326
no later than August 29, 2001. You may contact the commission's Customer Protection
Division at (512) 936-7120. Hearing and speech- impaired individuals with
text telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence
should refer to Docket Number 24493.
TRD-200104594
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 9, 2001
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on August 6, 2001, for a service provider
certificate of operating authority (SPCOA), pursuant to §§54.151
- 54.156 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA). A summary of the application
follows.
Docket Title and Number: Application of Paging Professionals of Oklahoma,
Inc., doing business as ProTel Communications, for a Service Provider Certificate
of Operating Authority, Docket Number 24479 before the Public Utility Commission
of Texas.
Applicant intends to provide plain old telephone services.
Applicant's requested SPCOA geographic area includes the area served by
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Verizon Southwest, Inc. throughout
the state of Texas.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or
call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 no later
than August 29, 2001. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephone
(TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.
TRD-200104557
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 9, 2001
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on August 3, 2001, for waiver of denial
by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) of applicant's
request for a second NXX code.
Docket Title and Number: Application of K2C TelCom for Waiver of Denial
by NANPA of Request for a Second NXX and Request for Expedited Action. Docket
Number 24470.
The Application: On August 3, 2001, K2C TelCom (K2C), filed with the commission
a request that the commission find good cause to waive the NANPA's denial
of K2C's request for a second NXX code. The Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC) Numbering Resource Optimization Order (NRO Order) amended the FCC's
rules to provide that a carrier may challenge the NANPA's decision to withhold
numbering resources to the appropriate state regulatory commission. The applicant
stated that a second NXX is necessary in order to offer Optional 2-Way Extended
Area Service (EAS) from Boerne to the San Antonio area which requires a second
NXX, in addition to the NXX assigned for basic local service. Applicant asserted
that it will not be able to achieve proposed growth utilization rates in its
first six months, and therefore, cannot compete on an equal basis with the
incumbent local exchange company (LEC) in Boerne, Texas.
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 call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or
toll free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with
text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. The deadline
for comment is September 5, 2001. All comments should reference Docket Number
24470.
TRD-200104708
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 15, 2001
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application filed on August 7, 2001, to amend
a certificate of convenience and necessity for a service area boundary change
pursuant to the Public Utility Commission Substantive Rule §26.101(b)(4).
A summary of the application follows.
Docket Style and Number: Application of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
to Amend Certificate of Convenience for a Service Area Boundary Change. Docket
Number 24490.
The Application: The proposed revision will transfer a portion of the Angleton
exchange to the Clute/Jackson exchange. The proposed amendment will provide
for a more economical plant facility design for Southwestern Bell Telephone
Company to serve customers in the affected area. Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §26.101(b)(4), the presiding officer must enter a final order in
this docket within one year of the filing of the application.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, P. O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or
call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or (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.
TRD-200104593
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 9, 2001
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) on August 6, 2001, of an application of Garland Power &
Light (GPL), to amend certificated service area boundaries within Dallas County.
Docket Style and Number: Application of Garland Power & Light to Amend
Certificated Service Area Boundaries within Dallas County, Texas-Docket Number
24478.
The Public Utility of Commission of Texas (commission) has jurisdiction
over this matter pursuant to §§14.001, 37.051, 37.053, 37.054 and
37.056 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) and P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §25.101. Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §25.101(c)(5)(B),
the presiding officer must enter a final order in this docket within 45 days
of the filing of the application, if the Applicant's request is deemed a minor
boundary change. A summary of the application follows:
The Application: GPL stated the proposed service area boundary change is
necessary to provide three-phase service to the new Firewheel Golf Course
Clubhouse that is under construction in Garland, Texas. Presently, TXU Electric
(TXU) is serving the area with a single- phase primary. The new Firewheel
Golf Course Clubhouse will require a three-phase 208/120. GPL has a three-phase
primary directly across the road from the new facility. GPL stated all parties
have agreed to the proposed amendment to allow GPL to serve the new Firewheel
Golf Course Clubhouse.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, P. O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or
call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or (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.
TRD-200104595
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 9, 2001
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an Application of Lower River Colorado Authority
(LCRA) to Amend Certificated Service Area Boundaries within Travis County,
Texas filed on August 7, 2001. The Public Utility of Commission of Texas has
jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to §§14.001, 37.051, 37.053,
37.054 and 37.056 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) and P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §25.101. Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §25.101(c)(5)(B),
the presiding officer must enter a final order in this docket within 45 days
of the filing of the application, if the Applicant's request is deemed a minor
boundary change. A summary of the application follows:
Docket Style and Number: Application of Lower Colorado River Authority
to Amend Certificated Service Area Boundaries within Travis County, Texas-
Docket Number 24489.
The Application: On August 7, 2001, Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)
filed an application to transfer retail service area to the University of
Texas Pickle Research Campus to Austin Energy within Travis County. The Pickle
Research Campus is within the certificated service area in Austin Energy's
certificated service area, but pursuant to the final order in Docket Number
5284, issued on March 27, 1984, the LCRA's Certificate of Convenience and
Necessity (CCN) was amended to include the transmission facilities then referred
to as Balcones Research Project. This transfer would complete LCRA's phaseout
of retail service. LCRA submitted a letter of support from the University
of Texas with its application and stated both parties are in agreement to
this transfer.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, P. O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or
call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or (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.
TRD-200104592
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 9, 2001
On August 7, 2001, CO Space Services Texas, L.P. filed an application with
the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) to relinquish its service
provider certificate of operating authority (SPCOA) granted in SPCOA Certificate
Number 60340. Applicant intends to relinquish its certificate.
The Application: Application of CO Space Services Texas, L.P. to Relinquish
its Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket Number 24486.
Persons with questions about this docket, or who wish to intervene or otherwise
participate in these proceedings should make appropriate filings or comments
to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326
no later than August 29, 2001. You may contact the commission's Customer Protection
Division at (512) 936-7120. Hearing and speech- impaired individuals with
text telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence
should refer to Docket Number 24486.
TRD-200104590
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 9, 2001
On August 7, 2001, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and QuantumShift
Communications, Inc., collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint
application for approval of amendment to an existing interconnection agreement
under §252(i) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law
Number 104-104, 110 Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered sections
of 15 and 47 United States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act,
Texas Utilities Code Annotated, Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998 & Supplement
2001) (PURA). The joint application has been designated Docket Number 24484.
The joint application and the underlying interconnection agreement are available
for public inspection at the commission's offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the amendment
to the interconnection agreement. Any interested person may file written comments
on the joint application by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's
filing clerk. Additionally, a copy of the comments should be served on each
of the applicants. The comments should specifically refer to Docket Number
24484. As a part of the comments, an interested person may request that a
public hearing be conducted. The comments, including any request for public
hearing, shall be filed by September 5, 2001, and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P. O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may
call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll
free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence
should refer to Docket Number 24484.
TRD-200104588
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 9, 2001
On August 7, 2001, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and E.T. Telephone,
Inc., collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application for
approval of amendment to an existing interconnection agreement under §252(i)
of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-104,
110 Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 and 47 United
States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities
Code Annotated, Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998 & Supplement 2001) (PURA).
The joint application has been designated Docket Number 24485. The joint application
and the underlying interconnection agreement are available for public inspection
at the commission's offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the amendment
to the interconnection agreement. Any interested person may file written comments
on the joint application by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's
filing clerk. Additionally, a copy of the comments should be served on each
of the applicants. The comments should specifically refer to Docket Number
24485. As a part of the comments, an interested person may request that a
public hearing be conducted. The comments, including any request for public
hearing, shall be filed by September 5, 2001, and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P. O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may
call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll
free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence
should refer to Docket Number 24485.
TRD-200104589
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 9, 2001
On August 9, 2001, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and HinoTel, Inc.,
collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application for approval
of amendment to an existing interconnection agreement under Section 252(i)
of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-104,
110 Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 and 47 United
States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities
Code Annotated, Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998 & Supplement 2001) (PURA).
The joint application has been designated Docket Number 24494. The joint application
and the underlying interconnection agreement are available for public inspection
at the commission's offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the amendment
to the interconnection agreement. Any interested person may file written comments
on the joint application by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's
filing clerk. Additionally, a copy of the comments should be served on each
of the applicants. The comments should specifically refer to Docket Number
24494. As a part of the comments, an interested person may request that a
public hearing be conducted. The comments, including any request for public
hearing, shall be filed by September 6, 2001, and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P. O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may
call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll
free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence
should refer to Docket Number 24494.
TRD-200104678
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 14, 2001
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission), of a long run incremental cost (LRIC) study pursuant
to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.214
Docket Title and Number. United Telephone Company of Texas doing business
as Sprint for Approval of LRIC Study for Selective Call Acceptance Pursuant
to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.214 on or about August 13, 2001, Docket
Number 24487.
Any party that demonstrates a justiciable interest may file with the administrative
law judge, written comments or recommendations concerning the LRIC study referencing
Docket Number 24487. Written comments or recommendations should be filed no
later than 45 days after the date of a sufficient study and should be filed
at the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701 North Congress Avenue, P.
O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may call the commission's Customer
Protection Division at (512) 936-7120. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals
with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.
TRD-200104591
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: August 9, 2001
Notice of Extension of Comment Period
Due to a delay in the publishing of the proposed rules from the June 27,
2001 Commission meeting, there was an insufficient comment period for the
following rules:
§301.1. Definitions.
§309.206. Rails.
§309.208. Gates.
§315.31. Racing Judges.
Therefore, the comment period will be extended until September 27, 2001.
The proposed text was published in the July 27, 2001, issue of the
Texas Register
(26 TexReg 5558). These rules will be proposed for adoption
at the October 8, 2001, Commission meeting. Any questions regarding this matter
should be directed to Judith L. Kennison, General Counsel for the Texas Racing
Commission at (512) 833-6699 or send an e-mail to judith@txrc.state.tx.us.
TRD-200104692
Judith L. Kennison
General Counsel
Texas Racing Commission
Filed: August 14, 2001
Texas Department on Aging
Request for Proposals
Brazos Valley Council of Governments
Coastal Coordination Council
Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner
Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities
Request for Proposals #2001-08
Request for Proposals #2001-09
Request for Proposals #2001-09
East Texas Council of Governments
Office of the Governor
Request for Grant Applications for Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs
Texas Department of Health
Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Heart of Texas Council of Governments
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs
Texas Department of Insurance
Name Applications
Third Party Administrator Applications
Third Party Administrator Applications
Texas Commission on Jail Standards
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Invitation to Comment - Draft July 2001 Update for the Water Quality Management Plan for the State of Texas
Notice of a Proposed General Permit Authorizing the Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation and Evaporation from Livestock Manure Compost Operations
Notice of District Petition
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice of Water Quality Applications
Proposal for Decision
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Notice Of Application For Service Provider Certificate Of Operating Authority
Notice of Application for Waiver of Denial by NANPA of Request for a Second NXX Code
Notice of Application to Amend Certificate of Convenience and Necessity
Notice of Application to Amend Certificated Service Area Boundaries
Notice of Application to Amend Certificated Service Area Boundaries
Notice of Application to Relinquish Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority
Public Notice of Amendment to Interconnection Agreement
Public Notice of Amendment to Interconnection Agreement
Public Notice of Amendment to Interconnection Agreement
Public Notice of Intent to File Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.214
Texas Racing Commission
The University of Texas System