STATE REVIEW FRAMEWORK
Nebraska
Clean Water Act
Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
Final Report
July 30, 2019

-------
I. Introduction
A.	Overview of the State Review Framework
The State Review Framework (SRF) is a key mechanism for EPA oversight, providing a
nationally consistent process for reviewing the performance of state delegated compliance and
enforcement programs under three core federal statutes: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Through SRF, EPA periodically reviews such
programs using a standardized set of metrics to evaluate their performance against performance
standards laid out in federal statute, EPA regulations, policy, and guidance. When states do not
achieve standards, the EPA will work with them to improve performance.
Established in 2004, the review was developed jointly by EPA and Environmental Council of the
States (ECOS) in response to calls both inside and outside the agency for improved, more
consistent oversight of state delegated programs. The goals of the review that were agreed upon
at its formation remain relevant and unchanged today:
1.	Ensure delegated and EPA-run programs meet federal policy and baseline performance
standards
2.	Promote fair and consistent enforcement necessary to protect human health and the
environment
3.	Promote equitable treatment and level interstate playing field for business
4.	Provide transparency with publicly available data and reports
B.	The Review Process
The review is conducted on a rolling five-year cycle such that all programs are reviewed
approximately once every five years. The EPA evaluates programs on a one-year period of
performance, typically the one-year prior to review, using a standard set of metrics to make
findings on performance in five areas (elements) around which the report is organized: data,
inspections, violations, enforcement, and penalties. Wherever program performance is found to
deviate significantly from federal policy or standards, the EPA will issue recommendations for
corrective action which are monitored by EPA until completed and program performance
improves.
The SRF is currently in its 4th Round (FY2018-2022) of reviews, preceded by Round 3
(FY2012-2017), Round 2 (2008-2011), and Round 1 (FY2004-2007). Additional information
and final reports can be found at the EPA website under State Review Framework.
II. Navigating the Report
The final report contains the results and relevant information from the review including EPA and
program contact information, metric values, performance findings and explanations, program
responses, and EPA recommendations for corrective action where any significant deficiencies in
performance were found.

-------
A. Metrics
There are two general types of metrics used to assess program performance. The first are data
metrics, which reflect verified inspection and enforcement data from the national data systems
of each media, or statute. The second, and generally more significant, are file metrics, which are
derived from the review of individual facility files in order to determine if the program is
performing their compliance and enforcement responsibilities adequately.
Other information considered by EPA to make performance findings in addition to the metrics
includes results from previous SRF reviews, data metrics from the years in-between reviews,
multi-year metric trends.
B.	Performance Findings
The EPA makes findings on performance in five program areas:
•	Data - completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of data entry into national data systems
•	Inspections - meeting inspection and coverage commitments, inspection report quality,
and report timeliness
•	Violations - identification of violations, accuracy of compliance determinations, and
determination of significant noncompliance (SNC) or high priority violators (HPV)
•	Enforcement - timeliness and appropriateness of enforcement, returning facilities to
compliance
•	Penalties - calculation including gravity and economic benefit components, assessment,
and collection
Though performance generally varies across a spectrum, for the purposes of conducting a
standardized review, SRF categorizes performance into three findings levels:
Meets or Exceeds: No issues are found. Base standards of performance are met or exceeded.
Area for Attention: Minor issues are found. One or more metrics indicates performance
issues related to quality, process, or policy. The implementing agency is considered able to
correct the issue without additional EPA oversight.
Area for Improvement: Significant issues are found. One or more metrics indicates routine
and/or widespread performance issues related to quality, process, or policy. A
recommendation for corrective action is issued which contains specific actions and schedule
for completion. The EPA monitors implementation until completion.
C.	Recommendations for Corrective Action
Whenever the EPA makes a finding on performance of Area for Improvement, the EPA will
include a recommendation for corrective action, or recommendation, in the report. The purpose
of recommendations are to address significant performance issues and bring program
performance back in line with federal policy and standards. All recommendations should include

-------
specific actions and a schedule for completion, and their implementation is monitored by the
EPA until completion.

-------
Executive Summary
Areas of Strong Performance
The following are aspects of the program that, according to the review, are being implemented at
a high level:
Clean Water Act (CWA)
•	NDEQ accuracy and completeness of data entry related to major and non-major
Discharge Monitoring Reports is above the national average and very close to the
national goal.
•	State enforcement actions document facility return to compliance.
•	NDEQ files contain calculation sheets which define gravity and economic benefit.
Priority Issues to Address
The following are aspects of the program that, according to the review, are not meeting federal
standards and should be prioritized for management attention:
Clean Water Act (CWA)
•	The facility data information entered into the national database ICIS does not match the
state activities, indicating the state is not reporting certain Minimum Data Requirements
(MDRs).
•	NDEQ did not perform MS4, SSO inspections, and NDEQ did not meet the Compliance
Monitoring Strategy (CMS) Goal for Construction Stormwater inspections.
•	Information reported in ECHO identified facility noncompliance and violations. NDEQ
inspection reports did not evaluate facilities for SNC. NDEQ did not incorporate SNC
violations from compliance schedule violations or DMR non-compliance into inspections
or when making compliance determinations, therefore NDEQ did not adequately identify
and address SNC violations.
•	NDEQ compliance determinations are not communicated to the facility when
noncompliance is found during inspections.
•	The national database reported that there were no NDEQ responses to Majors that were in
noncompliance. Based on the reported and available data, NDEQ did not respond
appropriately to facilities listed as SNC.
•	NDEQ files did not contain information which identified the difference or justification
between the initial penalty and the final penalty.

-------
Clean Water Act Findings
CWA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-1
Area for Attention
Summary:
NDEQ completeness of data entry of major and non-major permit limits is above the national
average yet is not meeting the national goal.
Explanation:
EPA Enforcement Compliance History Online (ECHO) pulls data from EPA Integrated
Compliance Information System (ICIS). This data is attached to this report as an Excel spreadsheet
lb5. Out of 699 facilities that should have permit limit data entered, 74 facilities were missing
permit limit data. EPA suggests that NDEQ review the attached spreadsheet and correct all missing
data, such as, permit limits or any other missing Minimum Data Requirements. EPA also suggests
that NDEQ develop a strategy to ensure MDRs are entered into ICIS in the future and that the
missing data in ICIS corrected. Update: Since the EPA concluded its SRF review, the NDEQ has
addressed the initial explanation as explained in the State Response section below.
State Response:
NDEQ currently has 100% of its permits that contain limits entered into ICIS. 73 of the 74 facilities
listed are NPDES CAFO permits and do not have limits, therefore cannot be entered. The
remaining discharge permit is the Nebraska Emergency management, ice dusting which also does
not have permit limits.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
lb5 Completeness of data entry on major and
non-major permit limits. [GOAL]
95%
88.1%
625
699
89.4%
CWA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations

-------
Summary:
NDEQ accuracy and completeness of data entry related to major and non-major Discharge
Monitoring Reports is above the national average and very close to the national goal.
Explanation:
EPA ECHO data pulled from ICIS is attached to this report as Excel spreadsheet lb6. This metric
evaluated the state DMR entry rate for majors and non-majors. The ECHO data pull identified that
the state had 215 facilities that required discharge monitoring data to be entered. Given the universe
of facilities, 2,412 DMRs were missing in ICIS from FY17.
NDEQ performed a complimentary data pull from the state data system using the same data
elements that EPA used, resulted in the NDEQ data completeness meets the national goal. An EPA
review of the FY 2018 frozen data shows NDEQ above the national goal at 95.56%. Based on the
state response and the FY 2018 data, the EPA has adjusted the finding level and metric numbers.
State Response:
The Department reviewed the first 75 facilities listed on sheet lb6_missing DMRs. 45 of the 75
reviewed for missing DMRs did not have any missing DMRs in ICIS. 21 of 75 did have missing
DMRs but had less than what lb6 is listing. After reviewing 75 facilities if was found that 88%
are inaccurately listed on sheet lb6. With the findings above the Department ran a current
unsubmitted DMR report from ICIS and concluded the following as of 4/6/2019. Attached excel
doc: Unsubmitted_Status_FY2017 153 Facilities with missing DMRs 612 total missing DMRs
11,006 total submitted DMRs 11,618 total expected DMRs 94.73% revised lb6 metric, meets
recommended metric of 90%
Relevant metrics:
Natl
Metric ID Number and Description Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
%
lb6 Completeness of data entry on major and
non-major discharge monitoring reports. 95%
[GOAL]
90.6%
11006 | 11618
94.7%
CWA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-3
Area for Improvement
Summary:

-------
The facility data information entered into the national database ICIS does not match the reported
state activities, indicating the state is not reporting certain Minimum Data Requirements (MDRs)
into ICIS.
Explanation:
The EPA reviewed 23 facility files where data should be entered into the National Database. ICIS
was missing data for 13 of the 23 facilities. Majority of the missing data was associated with either
a formal or informal enforcement action taken by NDEQ yet not identified as occurring in the
database report. This is a similar finding that was eventually closed in the NDEQ SRF Round 3
Report after NDEQ signed the ICIS Rules of Behavior (ROB) agreement and therefore allowed
the MDRs to be entered by the state. The review of Specific File Data identified formal and
informal enforcement information that was not entered or captured into the national database
including: Notices of Violation (NOV), Administrative Orders, and Consent Decrees.
The FY17 NDEQ Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) Annual Report reported that the agency
conducted 52 major inspections, however, 10 of the inspections were not captured in ICIS. Because
NDEQ does not sub-divide their 5b 1 and 5b2 inspections, the EPA cannot differentiate which
inspections were conducted of Minor individual or Minor general permitted facilities. NDEQ
reported to EPA that 100 inspections were conducted at Minor facilities; while only 90 Minor
inspections were captured in ICIS.
State Response:
The department has created an internal process to input informal enforcement actions into ICIS.
Going forward informal enforcement will be entered. Nebraska RA users currently do not have
access in ICIS to record formal enforcement.
Recommendation:
Due Date
04/01/2020
Recommendation
NDEQ should ensure that their completed activities are accurately
entered into and reflected in the national database. Please respond to
EPA with the following: 1. Report to EPA quarterly on the actions
taken to address this finding; and, 2. Provide a written explanation to
improve data quality and describe why the information has not been
entered; 3. Describe corrective actions taken to address the findings,
including actions to address missing or inaccurate data and to ensure
entry of the missing data is conducted in the future; 4. Complete the
data entry by April 1, 2020. EPA will randomly pull 5 facilities in the
2nd quarter of FY 2020 in order to review the NDEQ data for FY
2019. If this random sampling indicates that data entry processes and
accuracy has sufficiently improved (90% or greater) the
recommendation will be deemed complete.

-------
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
2b Files reviewed where data are accurately
reflected in the national data system [GOAL]
| 100%
%
10
23
43.48%
CWA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-1
Area for Improvement
Summary:
NDEQ did not perform MS4, SSO inspections, and NDEQ did not meet the Compliance
Monitoring Strategy (CMS) Goal for Construction Stormwater inspections.
Explanation:
NDEQ did not perform MS4 and SSO inspections, while Construction Stormwater inspections are
conducted infrequently. NDEQ did not define their activities to address the CMS goals of these
sectors in an approved alternative CMS Plan.
State Response:
Since May 2018, the Department has conducted 5 MS4 inspections. The ability to perform these
is largely attributed to the implementation of the online CSW NOI process. The online process
frees more time for the coordinator to conduct these inspections. Based on this, the Department
will be able to commit to a limited number in the CMS. SSO inspections are conducted on an as-
needed basis. These are documented but are not specifically identified as a SSO inspection or
reported as a CMS parameter. These can be documented and reported as SSO inspections in the
future. The Department will consider how to approach this as part of the CMS. The CMS goal for
completing CSW inspections would require additional full time effort that is not available to the
Department. The Department can continue committing to a smaller number in the CMS.
Recommendation:

-------
Rec
#
Due Date
Recommendation
NDEQ should develop an alternative CMS plan to EPA Region 7 to
account for resource restrictions or other issues that the state may have
1 I 09/30/2019 in meeting the MS4, SSO, and construction stormwater sector CMS
Goals. Complete the recommendation by September 30, 2019 for the
FY20 CMS plan.
Relevant metrics:

-------
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
4al Number of pretreatment compliance
inspections and audits at approved local
pretreatment programs. [GOAL]
-
-
-
-
-
4al0 Number of comprehensive inspections
of large and medium concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) [GOAL]
100%
-
480
841
57.07%
4a2 Number of inspections at EPA or state
Significant Industrial Users that are
discharging to non-authorized POTWs.
[GOAL]
100%
-
13
14
92.86%
4a4 Number of CSO inspections. [GOAL]
100%
-
1
1
100%
4a5 Number of SSO inspections. [GOAL]
100%
-
0
315
0%
4a7 Number of Phase I and IIMS4 audits or
inspections. [GOAL]
100%
-
0
21
0%
4a8 Number of industrial stormwater
inspections. [GOAL]
100%
-
165
772
21.37%
4a9 Number of Phase I and Phase II
construction stormwater inspections.
[GOAL]
100%
-
14
31
45.16%
5al Inspection coverage of NPDES majors.
[GOAL]
100%
54.2%
39
51
76.47%
5b 1 Inspections coverage of NPDES non-
majors with individual permits [GOAL]
100%
22%
86
648
13.27%
5b2 Inspections coverage of NPDES non-
majors with general permits [GOAL]
100%
5.9%
0
1031
0%
CWA Element 2 - Inspections

-------
Finding 2-2
Area for Attention
Summary:
NDEQ performed complaint, follow-up, and other informational inspections. These are not being
entered into ICICS, the database, as completed inspections.
Explanation:
NDEQ performed inspections that were not being captured or accounted for either in ICIS, the
CMS, or any other type of inspection accounting system. The inspections completed by NDEQ
meet many of the requirements of an inspection. The NDEQ should consider making some changes
to these inspections, for example, making a compliance determination, to receive credit for
resources expended to perform these inspections. These inspections should be captured and entered
into the national database.
State Response:
The Department will review its current process to record inspections / complaints in ICIS and
revise accordingly. Consideration may be needed for complaint investigations not linked to an
ICIS affiliated facility.
CWA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-3
Area for Attention
Summary:
NDEQ inspection reports typically contained enough information to determine compliance.
NDEQ inspection reports are typically completed within established timeframes.
Explanation:
The EPA selected 34 inspection reports to review. 28 of the 34 inspection reports contained enough
information for the reader to understand the compliance status and noncompliant items of the
facility. Eight of the inspection reports did not contain enough data to determine compliance. The
summary from review of the Specific File Information revealed that: 1. An inspection report
indicated that samples were collected at the time of the inspection. However, the inspection report
did not contain a discussion of the sample results. 2. A facility inspection report discussed outfall
discharges with flow data. However, DMRs stated no discharge. The report did not contain
narrative descriptions to clarify the discrepancy. 3. A facility had DMR effluent violations in the
previous quarters prior to the NDEQ inspection. Questions during an inspection should specifically
ask for a compliance report or compliance history for DMRs. Inspection Reports should address
and incorporate DMR noncompliance in the months, years, or designated time period prior to the
inspections. 4. A facility inspection report identified that DMRs were satisfactory yet requested a

-------
noncompliance report. Requests for noncompliance reports indicate facility non-compliance or
violations. Inspections should include information and reasons for why the noncompliance reports
are needed. The facility was identified to be in SNC the two quarters prior to the NDEQ inspection.
The inspection report did not define or discuss the instance of SNC. 5. ECHO reported that a
facility had been in SNC noncompliance for DMR-NR for the quarter before and the quarter that
the inspection occurred. No discussion of the DMR non-receipt was in the inspection report. 6. A
facility inspection report stated that past DMRs were reviewed, however it did not make an
affirmative statement that the lab reports supporting the DMRs were reviewed. Without reviewing
the lab sheets, permit and sampling reporting requirements were unable to be verified. 7. An
inspection report did not address whether the facility's fact sheet or the permit stated affirmatively
that the facility does not use the lead sheathing process; therefore, there was some difficulty in
knowing the true compliance status of the industry with the 40 CFR 428 regulations. 8. ECHO
listed a facility as being in SNC for compliance schedule violations. The facility inspection report
did not mention the compliance schedule violations. Inspection Report Timeliness information:
Based on the review of inspections and inspection reports, approximately 73.5% of the inspection
reports were completed within timeframes established in NDEQ's Compliance Manual.
State Response:
1. Findings should take into account that sample results may not be available at the time the
inspection report is completed and sent to the facility. 2. The discrepancy should be attributed to
an oversight in preparing the inspection report. 3. Most inspections and reports do account for
reporting history. The Department has updated the inspection template to be clearer about DMR
compliance. 4. DMRs can be reported correctly yet a violation may still have occurred. Reporting
noncompliance is a reporting issue, but not necessarily a DMR issue. SNC can be shown in ECHO
even if the reporting violation has been addressed and resolved. The Department has yet to receive
an answer from EPA that addresses the appearance of violations after resolution. SNC was also
not a defining program priority in 2017. 5. The Department will clarify this in inspection reports.
However, ECHO will continue to show noncompliance after the issue has been resolved. 6.
Inspection reports include the line 'Laboratory'. At a minimum, this line included an affirmative
yes or no, with a column designated for comment. This has been sufficient for making this
determination. The Department has updated the inspection template to be clearer. 7. The fact sheet
and permit are available in the records system. Fact sheets and permits go through a review process
that includes the compliance inspector. 8. Inspection templates have been updated to include
compliance schedule information.
Relevant metrics:

-------
Natl
Metric ID Number and Description Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
6a Inspection reports complete and sufficient to ^00°/
determine compliance at the facility. [GOAL] 0
%
26
34
76.47%
6b Timeliness of inspection report completion 0/
[GOAL] 100/o
%
25
34
73.53%
CWA Element 3 - Violations
Finding 3-1
Area for Improvement
Summary:
Information reported in ECHO identified facility noncompliance and violations. NDEQ inspection
reports did not evaluate facilities for SNC. NDEQ did not incorporate SNC violations from
compliance schedule violations or DMR non-compliance into inspections or when making
compliance determinations, therefore NDEQ did not adequately identify and address SNC
violations.
Explanation:
EPA selected 11 files that were identified by ECHO to be in either SNC or Category 1
noncompliance. Seven of the 11 files did not identify or determine whether the facility was in still
in SNC during the site inspection The NDEQ inspection reports often neglected to review DMR
compliance or non-compliance prior to conducting an inspection.
This is a similar finding to the NDEQ SRF Round 3 Report. This item was closed on October 31,
2014. At the time of closure, NDEQ reported that they would take the following actions: NDEQ
has established a procedure for the quarterly reception of DMRs. Data from the DMRs is entered
by the 28th of the following month. The compliance evaluation is made at the time of entry and if
further action is needed the information is forwarded to an inspector to review during a site
evaluation. Inspectors verify DMR compliance with file review prior to conducting an evaluation.
The EPA has attached Metric 7kl and 8a3 spreadsheets if NDEQ would like to review the National
Database information.
The summary from review of the Specific File Information revealed that: 1. A facility had
compliance schedule violations from a previous enforcement action. There was no discussion in
the inspection report of compliance schedule noncompliance. 2. A facility was identified where
non-compliance was Resolved and SNC resolved. 3. A Major facility with Resolved/DMR Non-
receipt. The facility was reported to be in SNC two quarters prior to the NDEQ inspection. The
inspection did not define or discuss the instance of SNC. 4. A Major facility with DMR Non-
receipt violations. The inspection report only identified one WET test violation. Inspection report

-------
checked the box for potential violation ~PV". ECHO reported that the facility had been in SNC for
DMR-NR for the quarter before and the quarter in which the inspection occurred. No discussion
of the DMR non-receipt in the inspection report. 5. A Minor facility identified in ECHO as a
facility in SNC for compliance schedule violations from an enforcement action. The inspection
report did not mention the compliance schedule noncompliance. 6. A facility that ECHO listed to
be in SNC for effluent violations. No NDEQ inspection in FY17. Two NOVs were issued to the
facility in 2017. One for numerous effluent violations and other for not having an industrial SW
permit. The facility was under a compliance order in 2017. 7. A facility that ECHO identified as
being in SNC for effluent violations. The facility had DMR noncompliance in the months prior to
the inspection. The inspection did not identify this noncompliance. 8. A facility where an NOV
stated that the facility was in SNC for TSS violations that occurred in the six-month period between
October 2016 and March 2017. ICIS did not reflect SNC for this period. NDEQ data from the
inspection was not entered into ICIS. 9. A facility with SNC for failing to sample and submit
reports from October 2016 through April 2017. ICIS did not show SNC for this period. NDEQ
data from the inspection was not entered into ICIS. 10. A facility that failed to submit multiple
DMRs for nearly 3 years, and continued failure to submit DMRs in 2018. The NDEQ issued NOV.
11. A facility that ECHO listed in SNC for compliance schedule violations. NDEQ inspection
report identified noncompliance. The past violations should have warranted at a minimum an
informal action, i.e. warning letter. Based on the information in the file, the facility received
nothing other than the inspection report.
State Response:
The Department will update the NPDES inspection manual to include these determinations.
Updated inspection report templates already include these database reviews. Transmittal letters are
issued from the main office in Lincoln. Examples from each field office are not necessary.
Recommendation:
Due Date
Recommendation

The EPA recommends that NDEQ review the facility's compliance
status in the national database prior to inspections and prior to creating
the facility's inspection report or transmittal letter. EPA recommends
NDEQ: 1. Report to EPA quarterly on the actions taken to address this
finding. 2. Revise the inspection manual to ensure this requirement is
defined and memorialized. 3. Report to EPA when the inspection
manual has been updated. 4. Provide an example inspection report
template which identifies the review of database compliance when
performing inspections by April 1, 2020. 5. Submit to EPA an example
transmittal letter where a clear compliance determination has been
made from inspections.
Relevant metrics:

-------
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
7kl Major and non-major facilities in
noncompliance.
I %
18.6%
468
1744
26.83%
8a3 Percentage of major facilities in SNC and
non-major facilities Category I
noncompliance during the reporting year.
| %
7.5%
249
1737
14.34%
CWA Element 3 - Violations
Finding 3-2
Area for Improvement
Summary:
NDEQ compliance determinations are not communicated to the facility when noncompliance is
found during inspections.
Explanation:
The EPA reviewed 34 NDEQ inspection reports, most of which contained adequate information
to determine compliance. However, NDEQ does not follow their ERG requirements to issue
Letters of Warnings or Notices of Violations when noncompliance is found. It is unclear how or
when a compliance determination is made by NDEQ and how it is communicated to the facility.
State Response:
Inspection cover letters as of 2018 now include a clear determination statement. These letters either
state compliance or request corrective actions for infrequent noncompliance. NOVs are used in
place of a cover letter where informal enforcement is required, such as with SNC. Exit summaries
are now used to close an inspection on site that gives the facility our initial observed concerns.
Recommendation:

-------
Rec
#
Due Date J Recommendation
1
	|
Based on the state process changes indicated in the response above, the
recommendations below have been altered. The EPA recommends that
NDEQ clearly define the compliance status of a facility within the
12/31/2019 insPecti°n report transmittal letter when issuing the inspection report.
1. Submit to EPA an example transmittal letter where a clear
compliance determination has been made from inspections. 2. Provide
EPA an example exit summary to illustrate the process changes
identified in the state response.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
7e Accuracy of compliance determinations
[GOAL]
| 100%
%
27
34
79.41%
CWA Element 4 - Enforcement
Finding 4-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
State enforcement actions document facility return to compliance.
Explanation:
90 % of NDEQ enforcement actions will result in a facility returning to compliance.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:

-------
Natl
Metric ID Number and Description Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State State
D %
9a Percentage of enforcement responses that
returned, or will return, a source in violation to 100%
compliance [GOAL]
%
18
20 J 90.06%
CWA Element 4 - Enforcement
Finding 4-2
Area for Improvement
Summary:
The national database reported that there were no NDEQ responses to Majors that were in
noncompliance. Based on the reported and available data, NDEQ did not respond appropriately to
facilities listed in SNC.
Explanation:
For the review period, the national database reported that 9 Majors in Nebraska were in SNC. The
database also reported that the NDEQ did not perform any follow-up responses to address the
SNC. NDEQ submitted their data with their CMS annual report and PPG annual report. According
to the 2017 PPG Annual Report, NDEQ took one enforcement action at a Major in SNC. This data
is attached to this report as excel spreadsheet lOal.
State Response:
The Department is reviewing procedures to enter this data into ICIS.
Recommendation:
Rec
#
Due Date
Recommendation
1
	1
09/30/2019
NDEQ should take appropriate action against facilities listed in SNC
and ensure that their activities are accurately entered into the national
database. EPA's recommendation: 1. Report to EPA quarterly on the
actions taken to address these actions. 2. Describe corrective actions
taken to develop a process for identifying and addressing SNC
violations. 3. Begin tracking informal and formal enforcement data
entry into ICIS for Majors by September 30, 2019.
Relevant metrics:

-------
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
lOal Percentage of major NPDES facilities with
formal enforcement action taken in a timely
manner in response to SNC violations
%
14.3%
0
9
0%
CWA Element 4 - Enforcement
Finding 4-3
Area for Attention
Summary:
The majority of the NDEQ enforcement actions resulted in the facility coming back into
compliance; however, a percentage of the enforcement actions did not result in a return to
compliance.
Explanation:
The EPA selected 22 files where either a formal or informal enforcement action occurred. The
EPA found that 18 of the 22 actions were expected to result in the facility returning to compliance.
The summary from review of the Specific File Information revealed that: 1. A facility file with:
No response to violations was found during a complaint inspection on May 8, 2017, the compliance
inspection on June 27, 2017, or the chronic violations submitted in the DMRs. 2. A facility file
where: An industry was allowed to certify compliance with its TTO limit because it had developed,
and had approved, a Toxic Organics Management Plan. The Plan could not be located in the file;
however, it may have been prior to the electronic format. The TTO certification statement is
required to be submitted every six months but the Industry failed to certify for TTO compliance
for the April through September 2017 period. 3. Facility with: Numerous O&M violations noted
at the time of the inspection. The facility had not submitted DMRs in nearly 3 years, so compliance
with effluent limits was unknown. A formal action would likely have increased the chance of the
facility returning to compliance. 4. A facility file indicating: The facility's past violations should
have warranted at a minimum an informal enforcement action, i.e. warning letter. Based on the
information in the file, the facility received nothing other than the inspection report.
State Response:
The actions described in the above responses 2-1 through 3-2 address the finding in 4-3.
Relevant metrics:

-------
Natl
Metric ID Number and Description Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State State
D %
10b Enforcement responses reviewed that
address violations in an appropriate manner 100%
[GOAL]
%
18
22 J 81.82%
CWA Element 5 - Penalties
Finding 5-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
NDEQ files contain calculation sheets which define gravity and economic benefit.
Explanation:
EPA selected six files to review. Each penalty action included the documentation which provides
the calculations made to determine gravity and economic benefit which were then referred to the
State AGO for collection of penalties.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
1 la Penalty calculations reviewed that document
and include gravity and economic benefit
[GOAL]
100%
%
6
6
100%
CWA Element 5 - Penalties
Finding 5-2
Area for Improvement
Summary:

-------
NDEQ files did not contain information which identified the difference or justification between
the initial penalty and the final penalty.
Explanation:
The EPA reviewed six penalty actions by NDEQ. Each penalty action included a penalty
calculation sheet which is completed either by the Attorney General attorneys or NDEQ. The file
did not include any statements that show how the calculated penalty and the penalty contained in
the formal penalty actions were completed. The summary from review of the Specific File
Information revealed the following: 1. No documentation in a facility's file explaining the
difference between the penalty amount calculated by NDEQ, the AG valuation of the case and the
final penalty settlement. 2. AG first memo listed case value of $20-37K. Next memo almost 3
years later says $18,500: $9,250 cash & $9,250 SEP. No justification for difference between
NDEQ calculation and AG valuation or for the difference between the 2 AG memos. 3. August
2014: NDEQ calculated a penalty. August 2015: The AG's office issued a consent decree, after
negotiating new penalty with the facility for approximately 10% of the initial penalty calculation.
The facility could also pay stipulated penalties for additional violations if the facility did not repair
the system within the ordered timeframes. September 2017: The NDEQ calculated a second
penalty amount that was less than the original penalty, but more than the AG penalty and stipulated
penalty amount. June 2017: Demand letter sent to the facility for penalty amount approximately
$21,000 more that the 2nd calculated penalty noncompliance with an August 2015 Consent
Decree. 4. July 2011: The NDEQ calculated a penalty. April 2014: NDEQ and the facility reached
a settlement figure to settle the case. Facility to pay approximately 2%, of the initial calculated
penalty, in penalties and approximately 1% in a SEP to a local Fire Department. 5. Initial penalty
proposed was calculated by NDEQ and the final settlement amount was determined by the NE
AG's office. No information was available for review that provided justification for the reductions
given by the AG. 6. Initial penalty proposed was calculated by NDEQ and the final settlement
amount was determined by the NE AG's office. No information was available for review that
provided justification for the reductions given by the AG.
State Response:
The Department does not have direct authority to administer penalties or enforce penalty payment.
Penalties are administered through the State Attorney General's Office. The ability to achieve this
recommendation is outside the scope of the Department's ability.
Recommendation:
Due Date
Recommendation

Based on the state response above, the recommendation has been
altered. NDEQ should encourage the NDEQ AG's office to include a
memo to the file to track the final penalty determination.
Relevant metrics:

-------
Natl
Metric ID Number and Description Goal
Natl State
Avg N
State
D
State
%
12a Documentation of rationale for difference
between initial penalty calculation and final
penalty [GOAL]
100%
% | 0
6
0%
CWA Element 5 - Penalties
Finding 5-3
Area for Attention
Summary:
NDEQ files contain information which identifies that penalties were collected.
Explanation:
The majority of the penalties reviewed contained information which identified that penalties were
collected. These are often in narrative statements within the documents of the file. EPA
recommends that NDEQ also add a statement of payment from the account were penalties must be
paid by the facility to ensure this occurred. In instances where a SEP was done, EPA recommends
that NDEQ include a statement of payment from the facility to show the money allocated for SEPs
was actually delivered.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State [
% |
12b Penalties collected [GOAL]
1 100%
%
4
6
66.67% |
I

-------