STATE REVIEW FRAMEWORK
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Round 2 Report for Fiscal Year 2010
Final
February, 2014
Conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
1
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Major Issues
The State Review Framework (SRF) Round 2 review of the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection identified no major issues.
Summary of Programs Reviewed
I. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Program
Problems which necessitate state improvement and require recommendations and actions
include:
None
Areas meeting SRF program requirements or with minor issues for correction include:
Data completeness
Data Accuracy
Timeliness of Data Entry
Quality of Inspection or Compliance Evaluation Reports
Identification of Alleged Violations
Identification of SNC and HPV
Enforcement Actions Promote Return to Compliance
Timely and Appropriate Action
Penalty Calculation
Final Penalty Assessment
II. Clean Water Act NPDES Program
Problems which necessitate state improvement and require recommendations and actions
include:
NDEP did not enter single event violations (SEVs) at major facilities into EPA's ICIS-NPDES
database as required by EPA's data management policies.
Good Practices include:
NDEP exceeded EPA's NPDES inspection goals and national averages for inspection coverage in
all categories of NPDES regulated facilities in FY 2010. NDEP inspected 100 percent of major
2
-------
facilities, 24 percent of minor facilities and more than 20 percent of stormwater dischargers.
Areas meeting SRF program requirements or with minor issues for correction include:
NDEP routinely enters required data into EPA's ICIS-NPDES that is complete, timely, and
accurate.
NDEP's inspection reports properly document and accurately describe inspection observations,
however, some of NDEP's report formats do not include all of EPA's recommended elements.
NDEP accurately and timely identifies facility effluent limit violations by tracking major facility
discharge monitoring (DMR) results in EPA's ICIS-NPDES database
None of Nevada's 14 major facilities were in significant noncompliance (SNC) during FY10.
NDEP's enforcement actions reviewed by EPA were timely and appropriate, and promote return
to compliance.
Two of the three penalty actions reviewed included appropriate gravity and economic benefit
calculations. All penalties were collected in cash payments as assessed with no offsets for
supplemental environmental projects.
3
-------
State Review Framework
Nevada Division of Environmental Quality
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Round 2 Report
for Federal Fiscal Year 2010
February, 2014
Conducted by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
4
-------
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background Information on State Program and Review Process
III. Status of Outstanding Recommendations from Previous Reviews
IV. Findings and Recommendations
V. Element 13
VI. Appendices
A.
Status of Recommendations from Previous Reviews
B.
Official Data Pull
C.
PDA Transmittal Letter
D.
PDA Analysis Chart
E.
PDA Worksheet
F.
File Selection
G.
File Review Analysis
H.
Correspondence
5
-------
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Major Issues
The SRF review of Nevada identified the following major issues:
• None
Summary of Programs Reviewed
III. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Program
The problems which necessitate state improvement and require recommendations and actions
include:
• None
Areas meeting SRF program requirements or with minor issues for correction include:
Element 1 - Data completeness
Element 2 - Data Accuracy
Element 3 - Timeliness of Data Entry
Element 4 - Completion of Commitments
Element 5 - Inspection Coverage
Element 6 - Quality of Inspection or Compliance Evaluation Reports
Element 7 - Identification of Alleged Violations
Element 8 - Identification of SNC and HPV
Element 9 - Enforcement Actions Promote Return to Compliance
Element 10 - Timely and Appropriate Action
Element 11 - Penalty Calculation
Element 12 - Final Penalty Assessment and Collection
6
-------
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON STATE PROGRAM AND REVIEW PROCESS
The State Review Framework (SRF) is a program designed to ensure EPA conducts oversight of state and
EPA direct implementation compliance and enforcement programs in a nationally consistent and efficient
manner. Reviews look at 12 program elements covering data (completeness, timeliness, and quality);
inspections (coverage and quality); identification of violations; enforcement actions (appropriateness and
timeliness); and penalties (calculation, assessment, and collection).
Reviews are conducted in three phases: analyzing information from the national data systems; reviewing a
limited set of state files; and development of findings and recommendations. Considerable consultation is
built into the process to ensure EPA and the state understand the causes of issues, and to seek agreement
on identifying the actions needed to address problems.
The reports generated by the reviews are designed to capture the information and agreements developed
during the review process in order to facilitate program improvements. The reports are designed to
provide factual information and do not make determinations of program adequacy. EPA also uses the
information in the reports to draw a "national picture" of enforcement and compliance, and to identify any
issues that require a national response. Reports are not used to compare or rank state programs.
A. GENERAL PROGRAM OVERVIEW
• Agency structure: The organization structure of the NDEP is shown below. The RCRA
compliance and enforcement program is managed within the Bureau of Waste Management (see
green highlighted box):
7
-------
NDEP
Administrator
Deputy
Administrator
Administrative
Office
Public
Information
Office
Deputy
Administrator
Deputy
Administrator
Bureau jf Water
Poll it ion
Bureai of Air
Polli ition
Cor trol
Burei tu of
Admini strative
Serv ices
Bureau jf Water
Quality Planning
Bureai of Air
Quality 31 aiming
Burei tu of
Corrective
Acti ons
Bureau of
Mining
Regulation and
Reclamation
Bureau of
Federal
Facilities
Bureau cf Waste
Manas ement
Bureau of
Administrative
Services
The mission of the Bureau of Waste Management (BWM) is to protect human health, public
safety and the environment, conserve natural resources by ensuring safe management of solid and
hazardous waste, and promoting waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. BWM is composed of
two regulatory programs: the hazardous waste management programs (HW Program) and the
solid waste management program (SW Program). Hazardous waste compliance assistance,
inspection, enforcement, permitting, and data management are tasks performed within the HW
Program. RCRA corrective action is performed by the NDEP's Bureau of Corrective Action
(BCA). However, corrective actions at permitted RCRA facilities are coordinated between BCA
and BWM's HW Program.
The main NDEP offices are located in Carson City. There is a NDEP office located in Las
Vegas, Nevada which houses the following bureaus: Air Quality, Corrective Actions, Federal
Facilities, Waste Management, Safe Drinking, Water and Water Pollution Control. The Las
Vegas office serves the southern Nevada area, including Clark County. The BWM Las Vegas
branch office performs compliance inspections and investigates tips/complaints. Limited RCRA
permitting activities are performed by the Las Vegas office.
• Compliance/enforcement program structure: The RCRA compliance and enforcement
program is divided between the Carson City and Las Vegas offices based on which office
performed the inspection.
8
-------
• Roles and responsibilities: BWM manages RCRA compliance, enforcement, and tasks for all
areas of Nevada except Tribal areas. The inspectors respond to all tips and complaints located
within the agency's jurisdiction in addition to their scheduled inspections.
NDEP has the authority to pursue both informal and formal administrative actions, as well as
assess penalties in violation of state hazardous waste management regulations. The policy
governing enforcement procedures for NDEP's hazardous waste management program is
established in the "Hazardous Waste Policy and Procedure, Staff Guide" dated October 20, 2008.
BWM typically addresses violations administratively through informal and/or formal
enforcement actions. For formal enforcement actions this process is through the issuance of a
Finding of Alleged Violation(s) (FOAV) and Order. The Order requires the alleged violator to
contact BWM to schedule an enforcement conference. The purposed of the enforcement
conference is to allow the alleged violator the opportunity to provide information to the agency as
to why the matter should not be referred to the District Court. After presenting the information
provided by the alleged violator, BWM will evaluate the information and in most cases offer the
alleged violator to enter into a Settlement Agreement, providing all the violations have been
corrected. If there are outstanding compliance tasks, BWM will issue a Settlement Agreement
and Order. The alleged violator may appeal the Order to the State Environmental Commission.
If the alleged violator fails to comply with the Order, the formal enforcement action can be
referred to the Nevada Attorney General.
• Local agencies included/excluded from review: NDEP has contracted with the Washoe County
Health District (Washoe County) and the Southern Nevada Health District (SNHD), Clark
County to perform RCRA compliance evaluation inspections of small quantity generators
(SQGs), Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQGs), and of facilities that failed
to submit required biennial reports to BWM. The SQG, CESQG, and non-reporting facilities to
be inspected by the county agencies are determined by BWM. Under their respective contracts,
the agencies are authorized to perform informal enforcement actions (e.g., verbal warning) as
described in BWM's "Hazardous Waste Policy and Procedure, Staff Guide" dated October 20,
2008. Any alleged violations identified by the agencies which warrant a formal enforcement
action are referred to BWM to be addressed in accordance with BWM's enforcement policies and
procedures.
Both Washoe County and the SNHD were included in this SRF review.
• Resources:
o The resources below represent the Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions at NDEP for
implementation of the state's RCRA compliance monitoring and enforcement program:
¦ Carson City Office - BWM has 7 FTE staff assigned to hazardous waste
regulatory compliance and enforcement activities. The FTEs are funded by the
RCRA portion of the Performance Partnership Grant (PPG). These activities
include, but are not limited to, inspections of CESQGs, SQGs, large quantity
generators (LQGs), treatment, storage, disposal facilities (TSDFs) and non-
notifiers; complaint investigations; compliance assistance and outreach; database
management (i.e., RCRAInfo); review and/or preparation of reports, informal
and formal enforcement actions (including issuances of FOAVs and Orders,
enforcement conferences, and penalty assessment and negotiations), and financial
assurance record monitoring.
9
-------
¦ Las Vegas Office - BWM has 2 FTE and 2 partially funded FTEs under the
RCRA portion of the PPG. RCRA compliance and enforcement activities
performed by the Las Office include, but are not limited to, inspections of
CESQGs, SQGs, LQGs, TSDFs and non-notifiers; complaint investigations;
compliance assistance and outreach; database management (i.e., RCRAInfo), and
review and/or preparation of reports, informal and formal enforcement actions
(including issuances of FOAVs and Orders, enforcement conferences, and
penalty assessment and negotiations).
• Resource Constraints:
o The State of Nevada is experiencing severe budget shortfalls that have resulted in
mandatory monthly furlough days. However, the budget problems have not yet
significantly affected BWM programs or staffing.
o NDEP field equipment is limited to cameras and GPS hand held units. Inspectors do not
have field laptops or tablets to acquire information in field.
• Staffing/training:
o Currently the BWM inspection and enforcement program is fully staffed with
experienced personnel.
o BWM inspectors are required to receive the 40 hour OSHA health and safety training and
8-hour annual OSHA health and safety training. Additionally, BWM personnel that are
required to inspect mines also receive MSHA mine safety and health training.
• Data reporting systems/architecture:
o BWN inspectors enter inspection and enforcement information directly into RCRAInfo.
NDEP assigns U. S. EPA identification numbers and enters hazardous waste generator
notifications directly into RCRAInfo.
o SNHD and Washoe County directly enter inspection and enforcement information into
RCRAInfo.
B. MAJOR STATE PRIORITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
• Priorities:
• The priority of the Nevada inspection and enforcement program regardless of media is
protection of human health and environment, in particular the waters of the State.
• Accomplishments:
• BWM inspects nearly 100% of the RCRA LQG universe on an annual basis and the
SQGs universe on a biennial basis.
• BWM attempts to inspect each TSDF at least 4 times per year.
• Best practices:
• Through the University of Nevada's Business Environmental Program, NDEP has set up
a free and confidential counseling program for primarily Nevada small businesses (e.g.,
dry cleaners) with environmental compliance and technical assistance issues.
• Element 13: Nevada has submitted comments, which are attached as an appendix to this report.
C. PROCESS FOR SRF REVIEW
Describe key steps in the reviews of each media program, including:
• Review period: The RCRA Hazardous Waste Inspection and Compliance unit was reviewed in
2011, utilizing data from FY2010. Fiscal Year 2010, October 1, 2009 through September 30,
2010.
10
-------
• Key dates: Preliminary list of RCRA data files to be reviewed were submitted to BWM on
January 7,2011. BWN input on the pull-list was obtained during a conference call on January
10, 2011. The on-site reviews were performed on January 24 and 25, 2011 (BWM Carson City),
January 26, 2011 (Washoe County), and on January 27, 2011 (BWM Las Vegas and SNHD).
During the file review, U. S. EPA met with the BWM manager, supervisors, and inspectors, as
wells as with the primary SNHD and Washoe representatives responsible for managing the
RCRA inspection program contracted with NDEP to implement.
• Communication with the state: Communications with NDEP during the SRF review consisted
of phone conversations, e-mails, and face-to-face meetings.
• List state and regional lead contacts for review.
Lead State Contact for Review:
Evan Chambers
Bureau of Waste Management
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
775-687-9473
echamber@ndep ,nv. gov
Lead Regional Contact for Review
John Schofield
RCRA Enforcement Office
US EPA, Region 9, WST-3
415-972-3386
schofield. i ohn@epa. gov
11
-------
III. STATUS OF OUTSTANDING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
PREVIOUS REVIEWS
During the Round 1 SRF review of Nevada's compliance and enforcement programs, U. S. EPA
Region 9 and Nevada identified a number of actions to be taken to address issues found during the
review. The table in Appendix A shows all of the recommendations from the Round 1 SRF Review.
12
-------
IV. FINDINGS
Findings represent the region's conclusions regarding the issue identified. Findings are based on the
initial findings identified during the data or file review, as well as from follow-up conversations or
additional information collected to determine the severity and root causes of the issue. There are four
types of findings:
Finding
Description
Good Practices
This describes activities, processes, or policies that the SRF data metrics
and/or the file reviews show are being implemented exceptionally well
and which the state is expected to maintain at a high level of
performance. Additionally, the report may single out specific innovative
and noteworthy activities, processes, or policies that have the potential to
be replicated by other states and can be highlighted as a practice for other
states to emulate. No further action is required by either EPA or the state.
Meets SRF Program
Requirements
This indicates that no issues were identified under this element.
Areas for State*
Attention
*Or, EPA Region's
attention where program
is directly implemented.
This describes activities, processes, or policies that the SRF data metrics
and/or file reviews show are being implemented with minor deficiencies.
The state needs to pay attention to these issues in order to strengthen
performance, but they are not significant enough to require the region to
identify and track state actions to correct.
This can describe a situation where a state is implementing either EPA or
state policy in a manner that requires self-correction to resolve concerns
identified during the review. These are single or infrequent instances that
do not constitute a pattern of deficiencies or a significant problem. These
are minor issues that the state should self correct without additional EPA
oversight. However, the state is expected to improve and maintain a high
level of performance.
13
-------
Areas for State *
Improvement
Recommendations
Required
*Or, EPA Region's
attention where program
is directly implemented.
This describes activities, processes, or policies that the metrics and/or the
file reviews show are being implemented by the state that have
significant problems that need to be addressed and that require follow-up
EPA oversight. This can describe a situation where a state is
implementing either EPA or state policy in a manner requiring EPA
attention. For example, these would be areas where the metrics indicate
that the state is not meeting its commitments, there is a pattern of
incorrect implementation in updating compliance data in the data
systems, there are incomplete or incorrect inspection reports, and/or there
is ineffective enforcement response. These would be significant issues
and not merely random occurrences. Recommendations are required for
these problems, and they must have well-defined timelines and
milestones for completion. Recommendations will be monitored in the
SRF Tracker.
14
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Program
Element 1 — Data Completeness: Degree to which the Minimum Data Requirements are complete.
NDEP has entered the Minimum Data Requirements into RCRA for regulated universes,
compliance monitoring, and enforcement information.
1-1
This finding is a(n)
~ Good Practice
Meets SRF Program Requirements
~ Area for State Attention
~ Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Finding
NDEP lias entered the Minimum Data Requirements into RCRA for regulated
universes, compliance monitoring, and enforcement information.
Explanation
Element 1 is supported by SRF Data Metrics la through lg, and measures the
completeness of the data in RCRAInfo.
The number of actions is different due to data entry issues with Washoe County and
the Southern Nevada Health District (SNHD) CESQG inspections. Any generator,
including CESQGs and SQGs, is required by the State to submit biennial reports.
Washoe County and SNHD were contracted by the NDEP to perform inspections of
CESQGs to determine if filed state only BRS requirement. The NDEP has eliminated
this program and has corrected most, if not all of the data entry issues associated with
State required program. No data entry issues with NDEP delegated program.
Data Metrics
Metric(s) and
Quantitative Value(s)
lal - # of operating TSDFs in RCRAInfo
la2 - # of active LQGs in RCRAInfo
la3 - # of active SQGs in RCRAInfo
lbl - # of inspections
lcl - #of sites with violations
ld2 - # Informal Actions; number of actions
lf2 - # Formal Actions; number of actions
lg - Total amount of assessed penalties
State
6
87
365
741
200
67
7
$42,868
State Response
Element 13 -
Recommendation(s)
No further action is necessary.
15
-------
Element 2 — Data Accuracy: Degree to which data reported in the national system is accurately
Element 3 — Timeliness of Data Entry: Degree to which the Minimum Data Requirements are
timely.
2-1
3-1
This finding is a(n)
This finding is a(n)
S {$S®i$£i8ifctotQreranHcrssdigs or:tettaKtb tfiBSQGs failing to comply with $&tae
requirement of submitting a BRS. The NDEP has eliminated this program and has
corrected most, if not all of the data entry issues. No data entry issues with NDEP
delegated program.
State Response
Explanation
Recommendation(s)
File review Metric 2c measures the percentage of files where corresponding data was
missing in RCRAInfo. If any of the relevant information in the inspection reports,
enforcement actions, or civil and administrative enforcement actions, or civil
fetorftffiy©flftJrtJgfi;sponses is missing in RCRAInfo, the data for that file is
considered inaccurate. A total of 30 files were reviewed. Twenty-seven of the 30
files had accurate data reported in RCRAInfo. Two of the files did not have Return to
Compliance (RTC) entries when file information indicated otherwise. One file
indicated llial a viulaliun was ubseivedbul lliuiu was nu cuiiespunding enfuiceiiieiil
action identified in RCRAInfo (e.g., 110 Verbal Informal). These data inaccuracies
do not constitute a serious pattern of missing information. However, this is an area
for state attention and Nevada should ensure accuracy between files and information
in RCRAInfo.
Data Metrics
Metric(s) and
Quantitative Value(s)
2al - # of sites SNC made on
day of formal action
2a2 - # of sites SNC determinations made
within one week of formal action
2b - # of sites in violation greater than 240 days
2c - % files were missing data elements in RCRAInfo
State
1
0
82
10%
State Response
16
-------
Element 4 — Completion of Commitments: Degree to which all enforcement/compliance
commitments in relevant agreements are met and any products or projects are completed.
Good Practice
4-1
This finding is a(n)
x v IVICCIS Ijlvi r lUglulll J\Cl[lUltlllClll3
~ Area for State Attention
~ Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Finding
For FY2010, Nevada met or exceeded all of the enforcement and inspection
commitments in their RCRA grant workplan.
Explanation
In the Nevada grant workplan for FY2010, the state included specific commitments
and projections for inspection and enforcement activities. Nevada exceeded their
inspection commitments of 50 LQGs, 6 TSDFs, and 500 transporter, SQGs, and
CESQGs. Respectively, 75, 8, and 789 CEI or OAM inspections were conducted.
EPA appreciates NDEP's attention to conducting inspections and considers this a
noteworthy achievement for NDEP.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative Value(s)
Data Metrics State
4a - Planned inspections completed 158%
State Response
Recommendation(s)
No further action is necessary.
Element 5 — Inspection Coverage: Degree to which state completed the universe of planned
inspections/compliance evaluations.
5-1
This finding is a(n)
Good Practice
X Meets SRF Program Requirements
~ Area for State Attention
~ Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Finding
Nevada exceeds inspection coverage for TSDs (one-year coverage) and LQGs (one
year coverage). Nevada met two-year coverage for TSDs and did not meet the 5-year
inspection coverage for LQGs.
17
-------
A ,.i A
r\r^r^ \
Element 7 — Identification of Alleged Violations: Degree to which compliance determinations are
accurately made and promptly reported in the national database based upon compliance monitoring
report observations and other compliance monitoring information.
~ Good Practice
HP'F^equiremeBfs^^raminsPectloncoverage for operating TSDs.
7-1
6-1
This finding is a(n)
This finding is a(n)
es that 100% of RCRA LQGs must receive a
0 Metrics 5c shows
it 91.6% (87 out of 95) of the LOG universe received a CEI between FY200G-
Explanation
[2${§a for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Finding
Finding
Nevada's inspection reports included correct compliance determinations, and
fear.
m
WM
were review
unae
accurat
mte
feW
Explanation
and 5-
Metnc(s) and
Quantitative Value(s)
ame. i
nin tint mrli
rppnrfQ
lons/viomnons
nnp
State Response
Metric(s) and
Quantitative Value(s)
description to detennine if the inspector had investigated alftate
Due to fact this report was the only
c\cc |kttfli I tat atei itflt fyfitopOTfrsf tomniifiiil I irtris does not represent an area of tW^ffrn
7b - % of violation determinations in the files
Botht&MHEfc aqobWQd,hottl(i'mlo(t daxixi checklist/report fonn to document insp6feli4%,.
Photographs arc included in the reports. SNHD form reports provide sufficient
1'1C Processes tliat may generate waste at a facility,
however, the SNHD form does not list nor does the inspector identify specific
Explanation
S^ifiS8HftBffion(s)
regulations violated. The Washoe County report form does not include space for
facility/process description. Report forms completed by Washoe County do include
regulation citations for any violations identified. SNHD and Washoe County
Recommendation(s)
inspections are primarily limited to CESQGs and non-reporting facilities. While
rlfiyfitiii WP^SQXjs and non-reporting facilities does not necessarily have
to be as detailed as for TSDF, LQGs, and SQGs facilities, these agencies should
endeavor to prepare reports that meet the minimum guidelines set forth in "Hazardous
Waste Policy and Procedure, Staff Guide" dated October 20, 2008.
File review Metric 6c measures the timely completion of inspection reports.
Currently, there is no national EPA standard for the number of days within which a
RCRA report must be completed from the date of inspection. A general guideline of
45 days was used for the purposes of this review. A majority of Nevada's inspection
reports were completed within this timeframe.
Data Metrics
Metric(s) and
Quantitative Value(s)
6a - # of BWM inspection reports reviewed
6a - # of SNHD inspection reports reviewed
6a - # of Washoe County inspection reports reviewed
6b - % of BWM reports that were complete
6b - % of SNHD inspection reports that were complete
6b - % of Washoe County Inspection reports that were complete
State/Local Agency
40
2
2
100%
0%
0%
18
-------
6c - % of BWM inspection reports that are timely (45 days or less) 87.5%
6c - % of SNHD inspection reports that are timely (45 days or less) 100%
6c - % of Washoe County inspection reports that are
Timely (45 days or less) 100%
6c - % of BWM inspection reports that are timely (90 days or less) 97.5%
State Response
Recommendation(s)
No further action is necessary.
19
-------
Element 8 — Identification of SNC and HPV: Degree to which the state accurately identifies
significant noncompliance/high priority violations and enters information into the national system in
a timely manner.
8-1
This finding is a(n)
~ Good Practice
13 Meets SRF Program Requirements
~ Area for State Attention
~ Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Finding
In the files reviewed, Nevada correctly identified SNC and/or SV violation
determinations.
Data Metric 8a reviews the percent of facilities evaluated by the state during FY2010
that received a state SNC designation. It also compares the SNC identification rate
with the national average. Nevada's SNC identification rate is 0.3%, which is
significantly below the national average of 2.9%. The criteria that Nevada uses to
make a SNC determination are:
• A FOAV and Order were issued, and
• Alleged violator lias caused actual exposure or substantial likelihood of
exposure to hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents, or
• Alleged violator is chronic or recalcitrant, or
• Alleged violator has deviated substantially from the terms of a permit, order,
agreement or from RCRA statutory or regulatory requirements.
Explanation
NDEP has specific criteria for use in determining SNCs. Every SNC determination
must also be approved by BWM management.
Based on a review of the files, it does not appear that the low SNC rate is due to the
misclassification of SNCs as SVs. More likely, it is based on the fact the high number
of CESQG inspections performed by Nevada is diluting the SNC rate.
Data Metric 8b measures the number of SNCs determinations that were made within
150 days of the first day of inspection and reported in RCRAInfo, which is a
requirement in the RCRA ERP. In FY2010, data Metric 8b indicates that 100% (1 of
1 SNCs) where entered in a timely manner.
File Metric 8d measures the percentage of violations in the files that were accurately
determined to be in SNC. In the 12 enforcement actions reviewed, none of the
enforcement actions were identified as SNCs.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative Value(s)
Data Metrics State
8a - SNC identification rate 0.3%
8b - % of SNC determinations made within 150 days 100%
State Response
Element 9 — Enforcement Actions Promote Return to Compliance: Degree to which enforcement
actions include required corrective action (i.e., injunctive relief or other complying actions) that will
return facilities to compliance in a specific time frame.
20
-------
9-1
tefflfflfflgflW)
i Good Practice
M MffMMota
-------
Element 10 — Timely and Appropriate Action: Degree to which state takes timely and appropriate
enforcement actions in accordance with policy relating to specific media.
10-1
This finding is a(n)
~ Good Practice
~ Meets SRF Program Requirements
13 Area for State Attention
~ Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Finding
NDEP effectively and timely manages its noncompliant facilities with appropriate
enforcement responses.
Explanation
NDEP effectively and timely manages its noncompliant facilities with a variety of
enforcement responses. During the FFY 2010 review period, NDEP issued 77
enforcement actions, including 70 informal actions (e.g.. Verbal or Written Warning)
and 7 formal actions (e.g.. Findings of Alleged Violation and Order). NDEP made 3
SNC determinations during FFY 2010. For the files reviewed, it appears that NDEP
addressed violations with the appropriate type of enforcement response. EPA notes,
however, that for the overall FY10 enforcement numbers, a high proportion of
violations were resolved through informal actions rather than formal actions. EPA
believes a strong enforcement program utilizes the full range of available enforcement
tools, and should include an appropriately robust use of formal enforcement actions.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative Value(s)
Data Metrics National Goal State
10a - % Timely SNC actions 80% 100%
10c - % of enforcement actions
taken in a timely manner 100%
lOd - % of enforcement action that
are appropriate to the violations 100%
State Response
Recommendation(s)
No further action is necessary.
22
-------
Element 11 — Penalty Calculation Method: Degree to which state documents in its files that initial
penalty calculation includes both gravity and economic benefit calculations, appropriately using the
BEN model or other method that produces results consistent with national policy.
11-1
This finding is a(n)
~ Good Practice
~ Meets SRF Program Requirements
13 Area for State Attention
~ Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Finding
Nevada includes gravity-based penalty and economic benefit calculations in their
penalty calculation procedures. However, economic benefit of non-compliance
penalty assessment is not being pursued.
Explanation
Element 11 examines the state documentation of their penalty calculations.
Specifically, the metric is determining if the state penalty includes a gravity portion of
the penalty, and where appropriate, economic benefit of non-compliance. The initial
penalty calculations reviewed for two of the penalty cases reviewed included gravity-
based calculations and considered economic benefit of non-compliance, even though
economic benefit not well documented. In one of the penalty cases reviewed, the
penalty was not calculated following the procedures described in "Hazardous Waste
Policy and Procedure, Staff Guide" dated October 20, 2008. In this case, the facility
directly negotiated the settlement with Office of the Attorney General. The reason for
the direct negotiations with the Office of the Attorney General was due to the fact that
this was multi-media case. Economic Benefit for non-compliance was considered in
the two of the cases managed by the NDEP. The case managed by the Office of the
Attorney General did not consider economic benefit of non-compliance.
The RCRA Civil Penalty Policy (RCPP) requires that economic benefit be calculated
using the BEN model or other method that produces results consistent with the
national policy. The economic benefit can result from delaying or avoiding
compliance costs, or when an illegal competitive advantage is achieved through
noncompliance. In Section VIII of the RCPP (page 28), the policy provides penalty
thresholds for pursuing economic benefit.
Nevada should continue calculating economic benefit of non-compliance consistent
withBWM's "Hazardous Waste Policy and Procedure, Staff Guide" dated October
20, 2008, and the RCPP. Where appropriate, economic benefit for non-compliance
data (i.e., actual or avoided costs encumbered by the facility) should be obtained
directly from the facility. The data can be entered into the BEN model or state
method that is equivalent to and consistent with national policy.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative Value(s)
Data Metrics NDEP State
1 la - % of penalty calculations reviewed that
consider and include, were appropriate, gravity
and economic benefit consistent with national policy 100% 67%
State Response
23
-------
1 1
Element 12 — Final Penalty Assessment and Collection: Degree to which differences between initial
and final penalty are documented in the file along with a demonstration in the file that the final
penalty was collected.
~ Good Practice
•/ MppK ^RF Prnoram RpqiiirpmnnK
12-1
This finding is a(n)
~ Area for State Attention
~ Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Finding
Nevada's initial and final assessed penalties do not typically vary. All of the files,
with penalties, contained documentation the penalties were collected.
Explanation
The initial and final assessed penalties included in a negotiated Settlement Agreement
and Final Order, if applicable, did not vary. If the alleged violator does not agree with
the proposed penalty, the matter will be referred to the District Court where Nevada
will seek the highest penalty amount allowed by Nevada law. For this reason rarely
does an alleged violator fail to accept the initial penalty presented by B WM.
Nevada does maintain records of all penalty collections, as reported in Metric 12b. Of
the three (3) penalty enforcement orders reviewed as part of the SRF, all had
documentation that penalties were collected.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative Value(s)
Data Metrics State
12a - % of formal enforcement actions that
document the difference and rational
between initial and final assessed penalty N/A
12b - % of final formal actions that document the
collection of the final penalty 100%
State Response
Recommendation(s)
No further action is necessary.
24
-------
V. ELEMENT 13 SUBMISSION
[If recognition credit or resource flexibility requested, describe here and attach relevant state and
EPA documentation.]
25
-------
APPENDIX A: STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
PREVIOUS REVIEWS
During the first SRF review of Nevada's compliance and enforcement programs, EPA Region 9
and NDEP identified a number of actions to be taken to address issues found during the review.
The table below shows the status of progress toward completing those actions.
State
Status
Due Date
Media
Element
Finding
Recommendation
NV-
Round 1
Total:
LCO
Completed
12/31/2008
RCRA
E2-
Violations
ID'ed
Appropriately
Inspection
reports ranged
from no
inspection
reports to
complete
detailed
inspections.
Inspection report
information to
reflect complexity
of the facility and
to clearly identify
any potential
violations
observed
NV-
Round 1
Total:
LCO
Completed
12/31/2008
RCRA
E4-SNC
Accuracy
SNC
determination
below national
average.
NDEP to review
2003 Enforcement
Response Policy
to determine if
current procedures
conform to with
SNC identification
procedures
outlined in the
policy.
NV-
Round 1
Total:
LCO
Completed
12/31/2008
RCRA
E5 - Penalty
Calculations
Settlement
calculations
destroyed after
case closure.
Revise inspection
and enforcement
procedures to
ensure settlement
calculations are
maintained in case
files.
NV-
Round 1
Total:
LCO
Completed
12/31/2008
RCRA
E6-
Penalties
Collected
Penalty
policies and
procedures do
not include
economic
benefit.
Additionally,
penalty policy
includes
automatic
penalty
reductions.
Revised penalty
policy to include
consideration of
economic benefit
and elimination
modification of
automatic penalty
reductions.
26
-------
APPENDIX B: OFFICIAL DATA PULL
OTIS State Review Framework Results
RCRA Date for Nevada (Review Period Ending: FY10)
Please note: For display purposes, some important explanatory details about the data metrics are not included on the metrics results screen. To
see detailed information about each data metric, refer to the data metrics informational spreadsheet or data metrics plain language guide when
reviewing the data - all SRF guidance is available on the OTIS SRF documents page. The data problems page indicates any known data metrics
issues.
Production FY 2010 Data (Data Refresh Dates)
Metric
Metric Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Average
Nevada
(Metric =
x/y)°
Count
(x)
Universe
(y)
Not
Counted (y-
x)
1. Data completeness. Degree to which the minimum data requirements are complete.
0 Recommendations.
Number of Operating
TSDFs in RCRAInfo
Data Quality
State
6
NA
NA
NA
Number of Active LQGs
in RCRAInfo
Data Quality
State
82
NA
NA
NA
A
Number of Active SQGs
in RCRAInfo
Data Quality
State
345
NA
NA
NA
Number of all other
active sites in
RCRAInfo
Data Quality
State
1,315
NA
NA
NA
Number of LQGs per
latest biennial report
Data Quality
State
95
NA
NA
NA
B
Compliance monitoring:
number of inspections (1
YR)
Data Quality
State
741
NA
NA
NA
Compliance monitoring:
sites inspected (1 YR)
Data Quality
State
638
NA
NA
NA
C
Data Quality
State
200
NA
NA
NA
27
-------
Number of sites with
violations determined at
any time (1 YR)
Number of sites with
violations determined
during the FY
Data Quality
State
142
NA
NA
NA
D
Informal actions:
number of sites (1 FY)
Data Quality
State
67
NA
NA
NA
Informal actions:
number of actions (1
FY)
Data Quality
State
70
NA
NA
NA
E
SNC: number of sites
with new SNC (1 FY)
Data Quality
State
2
NA
NA
NA
SNC: number of sites in
SNC (1 FY)
Data Quality
State
4
NA
NA
NA
F
Formal action: number
of sites (1 FY)
Data Quality
State
7
NA
NA
NA
Formal action: number
taken (1 FY)
Data Quality
State
14
NA
NA
NA
G
Formal action: number
taken (1 FY)
Data Quality
State
$42,868
NA
NA
NA
2. Data accuracy: degree to which the minimum data requirements are accurate.
0 Recommendations.
A
Number of sites SNC-
determined on day of
formal action (1 FY)
Data Quality
State
1
NA
NA
NA
Number of sites SNC-
determined within one
week of formal action (1
FY)
Data Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
B
Data Quality
State
83
NA
NA
NA
28
-------
Number of sites in
violation for greater than
240 days
3. Timeliness of data entry, degree to which the minimum data requirements are complete.
0 Recommendations.
A
Percent SNCs entered >
60 days after
designation (1 FY)1
Review
Indicator
State
0%
NA
NA
NA
B
Comparison of Frozen
Data Set
Compare the production data results under Element 1 to the frozen data. Please see Plain Laneuaee Guide for
details.
5. Inspection coverage. Degree to which state completed the universe of planned inspections/compliance evaluations.
0 Recommendations.
A
Inspection coverage for
operating TSDFs (2
FYs)
Goal
State
100%
87.8%
100%
6
6
0
B
Inspection coverage for
LQGs (1 FYs)
Goal
State
20%
24.1%
74.7%
71
95
24
C
Inspection coverage for
LQGs (5 FYs)
Goal
State
100%
61.7%
91.6%
87
95
8
D
Inspection coverage for
active SQGs (5 FYs)
Informational
Only
State
84.6%
292
345
53
E
Inspection coverage for
active CESQGs (5 FYs)
Informational
Only
State
1,704
NA
NA
NA
Inspection coverage for
active transporters (5
FYs)
Informational
Only
State
97
NA
NA
NA
Inspection coverage for
non-notifiers (5 FYs)
Informational
Only
State
5
NA
NA
NA
Inspection at active sites
other than thos listed in
5a-d and 5el-5e3 (5
FYs)
Informational
Only
State
12
NA
NA
NA
7. Identification of alleged violations, degree to which compliance determinations are accurately made and promptly reported in the national
database based upon compliance monitoring report observations and other compliance monitoring information.
1 Recommendations)
29
-------
c
Violation identification
rate at sites with
inspections (1 FY)
Review
Indicator
State
22.3%
142
638
496
8. Identification of SNC and HPV. degree to which state accurately identifies significant noncompliance & high priority violations and enters
the information in the national system in timely manner.
1 Recommendations)
A
SNC identification rate
at sites with inspections
(1FY)
Review
Indicator
State
1/2
National
Avg
2.7%
0.3%
2
638
636
B
Percent of SNC
determinations made
within 150 days (1 FY)
Goal
State
100%
82.9%
50.0%
1
2
1
C
Percent of formal
actions taken that
received a prior SNC
listing (1 FY)
Review
Indicator
State
1/2
National
Avg
62.2%
63.6%
7
11
4
10. Timely and appropriate action, degree to which state takes timely and appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with policy related to
specific media.
0 Recommendations
A
Percent of SNCs with
formal actions/referral
taken within 360 days (1
FY)
Review
Indicator
State
80%
46.1%
100%
2
2
0
B
No activity indicator -
number formal actions
(1FY)
Review
Indicator
State
14
NA
NA
NA
12. Final penalty assessment and collection, degree to which differences between the initial and final penalty are documented in the file along
with a demonstration in the file that the penalty was collected.
1 Recommendations)
A
No activity indicator -
penalties (1 FY)
Review
Indicator
State
$42,868
NA
NA
NA
B
Percent of final formal
actions with penalty (1
FY)
Review
Indicator
State
1/2
National
Avg
80.5%
57.1%
4
7
3
30
-------
Note: EPA Regions must archive the state official data set (first results screen) used for a state review, as these data cannot be reproduced at a
later date. SRF data metrics results may change as data are updated in AFS, ICIS, PCS, and RCRAInfo. The above data set may be saved in
Excel or comma delimited text format by clicking on the appropriate Save Results link above. Drilldown tables that are linked from this page
also cannot be exactly reproduced after a new data refresh occurs if the state has entered or changed data. OECA does not require regions to
save the drilldown facility lists in order to document their review; however, if potential problem areas are identified through regional analysis or
via state dialogue, the region may want to save selected drilldown lists.
Caveats:
0 State Metric column is generally computed from the value in the Count column (x) divided by the value in the Universe column (y).
1 This metric includes SNC entry from 10/19/09 to 10/19/10. The data are updated annually at the end of each fiscal year.
31
-------
APPENDIX C: PDA TRANSMITTAL LETTER
Appendices C, D, and E provide the results of the Preliminary Data Analysis (PDA). The
Preliminary Data Analysis forms the initial structure for the SRF report, and helps ensure that the
data metrics are adequately analyzed prior to the on-site review.
This is a critical component of the SRF process because it allows the reviewers to be prepared and
knowledgeable about potential problem areas before the on-site review. In addition, it gives the
region focus during the file reviews and/or basis for requesting supplemental files based on
potential concerns raised by the data metric results.
This section, Appendix C, contains the letter transmitting the results of the Preliminary Data Analysis
to the state. This letter identifies areas that the data review suggests the need for further examination
and discussion during the review process.
February 15, 2011
Colleen Cripps, PhD
Administrator
NV Division of Environmental Protection
901 So. Stewart Street
Suite 4001
Carson City, NV 89701 -4209
Dear Ms. Cripps:
This letter is to confirm that EPA Region 9 is conducting the second review of Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection's delegated RCRA Subtitle C and Clean Water Act NPDES
enforcement programs this year under the State Review Framework (SRF2). We will also conduct
a review this year of the Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management's
Air Stationary Source enforcement program.
SRF2 will evaluate inspection and enforcement activity conducted by NDEP during Federal
Fiscal Year 2010 (October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010). EPA's water and waste programs
have been working closely with your program staff and managers to plan and schedule these reviews.
We will share our findings as the reviews progress, and you will have an opportunity to comment on
the draft report prior to finalizing the review.
SRF2 is a continuation of a national effort that allows Region 9 to ensure Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection meets agreed-upon minimum performance levels in providing
environmental and public health protection. As before, the review will include:
• Discussions between Region 9 and NDEP program managers and staff;
• Examination of data in EPA and NDEP data systems; and
• Review of selected NDEP inspection and enforcement files and policies.
Our intent is to assist NDEP in ensuring delegated programs meet federal standards and are
based on goals we have mutually agreed to. NDEP and Region 9 are partners in carrying out this
32
-------
review. If we find issues, we want to address them together in the most constructive manner possible.
You may recall that EPA first used State Review Framework protocol developed by EPA and
the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) to conduct an initial round of reviews in all fifty
states. NDEP was first reviewed in 2007. Upon completion of all Round 1 reviews, a work group
composed of EPA, ECOS, state associations, and state agencies convened to evaluate Round 1 and
revise the SRF elements, metrics, process and guidance. These revised protocols will be employed
in all SRF 2 reviews.
The revised State Review Framework protocol employs standard metrics, worksheets and
report templates that will be used to complete this review. In addition, EPA has designed an SRF
Tracker as the repository for SRF final reports, comment letters, etc. States are encouraged to view
these materials, and may comment on their own information securely via the internet
(http://www.epa-otis.gov/srf/srf tracking.html).
All information and materials used in this review may be subject to federal and/or state
disclosure laws, and may be released in response to a Freedom of Information Act Request. In
addition, EPA will post the final report on a public website.
Region 9's contacts for NDEP's SRF2 review are:
Coordinator: Julie Anderson (415)947-4260 anderson.iulie@epa.gov
Water Review: Ken Greenberg (415)972-3577 greenberg.ken@epa.gov
Jenee Gavette (415)972-3439 gavette.i enee@epa.gov
RCRA Review: Amy Miller (415)947-3530 miller.amy@epa.gov
John Schofield (415)972-3386 schofield.iohn@epa.gov
As part of this review, EPA conducts preliminary assessments of the NDEP RCRA and Water
Programs based on state-verified enforcement data contained in the OTIS database. All states were
informed in November, 2010 of their opportunity and deadlines to review and make corrections to
their data (Attachment 1). Any remaining changes to water data can be made by February 16, 2011;
final changes to RCRA data can be made by February 18. Attachment 2 transmits a summary of FY-
10 data recently pulled from OTIS, for your information.
We look forward to working with you again on this project, and will strive to make the review
as efficient and productive as possible.
Sincerely,
Jared Blumenfeld
Regional Administrator
Attachment 1: November 22, 2010 letter to State Commissioners
Attachment 2: Data summary sheet
33
-------
APPPENDIX D: PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS CHART
This section provides the results of the Preliminary Data Analysis (PDA). The Preliminary Data Analysis forms the initial structure for the SRF
report and helps ensure that the data metrics are adequately analyzed prior to the on-site review. This is a critical component of the SRF process
because it allows the reviewers to be prepared and knowledgeable about potential problem areas before initiating the on-site portion of the review. In
addition, it gives the region focus during the file reviews and/or basis for requesting supplemental files based on potential concerns raised by the data
metrics results.
The PDA reviews each data metric and evaluates state performance against the national goal or average, if appropriate. The PDA chart in this section
of the SRF report only includes metrics where potential concerns or areas of exemplary performance are identified. (The full PDA worksheet in
Appendix E contains every metric: positive, neutral, or negative.) Initial Findings indicate the observed results. Initial Findings are preliminary
observations. They are used as a basis for further investigation that takes place during the file review and through dialogue with the state. Final
Findings are developed only after evaluating them against the file review results where appropriate, and dialogue with the state have occurred.
Through this process, Initial Findings may be confirmed, modified, or determined not to be supported. Findings are presented in Section IV of this
report.
RCRA
Original Data Pulled from Online Tracking Information System (OTIS)
EPA Preliminary Analysis
Metric
Metric Description
Metric Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Average
State
Metric
Initial Findings
2B-S
Number of sites in violation
for greater than 240 days
Data Quality
State
82
Number of facilities in violation for
more than 240 days seems high.
5C-S
Inspection coverage for
LQGs (5 FYs)
Goal
State
100%
61.7%
91.6%
According to the data, Nevada did
not meet goal of 100% LQG
coverage over 5 years. Part of this
is based on variability of the LQG
universe. Another reason is that
Nevada does not perform
inspections of LQGs inspected by
the Region during the fiscal year.
Nevada inspection 5 year
inspection rated is significantly
34
-------
Original Data Pulled from Online Tracking Information System (OTIS)
EPA Preliminary Analysis
Metric
Metric Description
Metric Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Average
State
Metric
Initial Findings
above the national average.
7C-S
Violation identification rate
at facilities with inspection (1
FY)
Review
Indicator
State
22.3%
Rate of identification seems to be
low.
8A-S
SNC identification rate at
facilities with inspections (1
FY)
Review
Indicator
State
1/2 National
Average
2.7%
0.3%
Nevada is significantly below the
national average for SNC
identification. This metric
indicates a problem could exist in
applying the SNC definition to
violations the state has
discovered.
8C-S
Percent of formal actions
taken that received a prior
SNC listing (1 FY)
Review
Indicator
State
1/2 National
Average
62.6%
63.6%
Nevada is at or slightly above the
national average.
10A-S
Percent of enforcement
actions/referrals taken within
360 days (1 FY)
Review
Indicator
State
80%
46.1%
100%
Data indicates Nevada is well
above the national average.
12B-S
Percent of final formal
actions with penalty (1 FY)
Review
Indicator
State
1/2 National
Average
80.5%
57.1%
Rate of formal actions with
penalties appears to be low.
35
-------
APPENDIX E: PDA WORKSHEET
RCRA-Nevada
Metri
c
Metric
Descri
ption
Metri
c
Type
Agen
cy
Natio
nal
Goal
Natio
nal
Avera
ge
Neva
da
Metri
c
Froz
Cou
nt
Froz
Unive
rse
Froz
Not
Count
ed
Froz
State
Discrepa
ncy
(Yes/No)
State
Correct
ion
State
Data
Sour
ce
Discrepa
ncy
Explanat
ion
Evaluati
on
Initial
Findings
R01A
1S
Numbe
r of
operati
ng
TSDFs
in
RCRAI
nfo
Data
Quali
ty
State
6
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
R01A
2S
Numbe
r of
active
LQGs
in
RCRAI
nfo
Data
Quali
ty
State
87
NA
NA
NA
Minor
Issue
8.4% less
LQGs
than
2009
biennial
report.
However,
LQG
Status is
variable.
R01A
3S
Numbe
r of
active
SQGs
in
RCRAI
nfo
Data
Quali
ty
State
365
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
36
-------
R01A
4S
Numbe
r of all
other
active
sites in
RCRAI
nfo
Data
Quali
ty
State
1,305
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
R01A
5S
Numbe
r of
LQGs
per
latest
official
biennia
I report
Data
Quali
ty
State
95
NA
NA
NA
Minor
Issue
10 more
LQGs
than
current
active
status.
R01B
1S
Compli
ance
monito
ring:
numbe
r of
inspect
ions (1
FY)
Data
Quali
ty
State
741
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
R01B
2S
Compli
ance
monito
ring:
sites
inspect
ed (1
FY)
Data
Quali
ty
State
638
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
R01C
1S
Numbe
r of
sites
with
violatio
ns
determ
ined at
any
Data
Quali
ty
State
200
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
37
-------
time (1
FY)
R01C
2S
Numbe
r of
sites
with
violatio
ns
determ
ined
during
the FY
Data
Quali
ty
State
142
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
R01D
1S
Inform
al
actions
numbe
r of
sites (1
FY)
Data
Quali
ty
State
67
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
R01D
2S
Inform
al
actions
numbe
r of
actions
(1 FY)
Data
Quali
ty
State
70
NA
NA
NA
Potential
Concern
High
number
of
informal
actions
compare
d to
formal
actions.
R01E
1S
SNC:
numbe
r of
sites
with
new
SNC
(1 FY)
Data
Quali
ty
State
2
NA
NA
NA
Minor
Issue
See
R08A0S
below.
38
-------
R01E
2S
SNC:
Numbe
r of
sites in
SNC
(1 FY)
Data
Quali
ty
State
4
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
R01F
1S
Formal
action:
numbe
r of
sites (1
FY)
Data
Quali
ty
State
7
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
R01F
2S
Formal
action:
numbe
rtaken
(1 FY)
Data
Quali
ty
State
14
NA
NA
NA
Potential
Concern
High
number
of
informal
actions
compare
d to
formal
actions.
R01G
OS
Total
amoun
t of
final
penalti
es (1
FY)
Data
Quali
ty
State
$42,8
68
NA
NA
NA
Potential
Concern
5 year
average
approx.
$50,547.
Below
penalty
average.
Uncertain
if EBN
captured
R02A
1S
Numbe
r of
sites
SNC-
determ
ined
on day
of
formal
Data
Quali
ty
State
1
NA
NA
NA
Inconclu
sive
Insufficie
nt Data
39
-------
action
(1 FY)
R02A
2S
Numbe
r of
sites
SNC-
determ
ined
within
one
week
of
formal
action
(1 FY)
Data
Quali
ty
State
0
NA
NA
NA
Inconclu
sive
No new
SNC
designati
ons with
wich to
make a
finding.
R02B
OS
Numbe
r of
sites in
violatio
n for
greater
than
240
days
Data
Quali
ty
State
82
NA
NA
NA
Potential
Concern
Approx.
41% of
200 sites
in
violation
(1C1).
R03A
OS
Perce n
tSNCs
entere
d 60
days
after
design
ation
(1 FY)
Revi
ew
Indie
ator
State
0.0%
0
3
3
Appears
Accepta
ble
R05A
OS
Inspect
ion
covera
ge for
operati
ng
Goal
State
100%
87.4%
100.0
%
6
6
0
Appears
Accepta
ble
Above
national
average.
40
-------
TSDFs
(2
FYs)
R05B
OS
Inspect
ion
covera
ge for
LQGs
(1 FY)
Goal
State
20%
24.1%
74.7
%
71
95
24
Appears
Accepta
ble
Significan
tly above
national
average.
R05C
OS
Inspect
ion
covera
ge for
LQGs
(5
FYs)
Goal
State
100%
61.7%
91.6
%
87
95
8
Appears
Accepta
ble
Significan
tly above
national
average.
R05D
OS
Inspect
ion
covera
ge for
active
SQGs
(5
FYs)
Infor
matio
nal
Only
State
84.9
%
310
365
55
Appears
Accepta
ble
R05E
1S
Inspect
ions at
active
CESQ
Gs (5
FYs)
Infor
matio
nal
Only
State
1,691
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
A
significan
t number
of
CESQG
inspectio
ns are
performe
d by
Clark and
Washoe
Counties.
R05E
2S
Inspect
ions at
active
transp
orters
Infor
matio
nal
Only
State
97
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
41
-------
(5
FYs)
R05E
3S
Inspect
ions at
non-
notifier
s (5
FYs)
Infor
matio
nal
Only
State
5
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
R05E
4S
Inspect
ions at
active
sites
other
than
those
listed
in 5a-d
and
5e1-
5e3 (5
FYs)
Infor
matio
nal
Only
State
12
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
R07C
OS
Violati
on
identifi
cation
rate at
sites
with
inspect
ions (1
FY)
Revi
ew
Indie
ator
State
22.3
%
142
638
496
Potential
Concern
Violation
rate
appears
to be low.
This
could be
attributed
to
frequent
inspectio
ns
performe
d by
State.
42
-------
R08A
OS
SNC
identifi
cation
rate at
sites
with
Revi
inspect
ew
ions (1
Indie
FY)
ator
Perce n
t of
SNC
determ
ination
State
1/2
Natio
nal
Avg
2.6%
0.3%
638
636
Minor
Issue
Percent
SNC
determin
ation
below
national
average.
State
performs
frequent
inspectio
ns of
regulated
communit
_!¦
R08B
OS
s
made
within
150
days
(1 FY)
Goal
State
100%
83.2%
50.0
%
Potential
Concern
Below
national
average
and goal.
R08C
OS
Perce n
t of
formal
actions
taken
that
receive
d a
prior
SNC
listing
(1 FY)
Revi
ew
Indie
ator
State
1/2
Natio
nal
Avg
62.3%
63.6
%
11
Appears
Accepta
ble
43
-------
R10A
OS
Perce n
t of
SNCs
with
formal
action/
referral
taken
within
360
days
(1 FY)
Revi
ew
Indie
ator
State
80%
46.5%
100.0
%
2
2
0
Appears
Accepta
ble
R10B
OS
No
activity
indicat
or -
numbe
r of
formal
actions
(1 FY)
Revi
ew
Indie
ator
State
14
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
R12A
OS
No
activity
indicat
or -
penalti
es (1
FY)
Revi
ew
Indie
ator
State
$42,8
68
NA
NA
NA
Appears
Accepta
ble
R12B
OS
Perce n
t of
final
formal
actions
with
penalty
(1 FY)
Revi
ew
Indie
ator
State
1/2
Natio
nal
Avg
80.6%
57.1
%
4
7
3
Appears
Accepta
ble
44
-------
APPENDIX F: FILE SELECTION
Files to be reviewed are selected according to a standard protocol (available here: http://www.epa-
otis.gov/srf/docs/fileselectionprotocol 10.pdf) and using a web-based file selection tool (available
here: http://www.epa-otis.gov/cgi-bin/test/srf/srf fileselection.cgi). The protocol and tool are
designed to provide consistency and transparency in the process. Based on the description of the file
selection process in Section A below, states should be able to recreate the results in the table in
Section B.
A. File Selection Process
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Region 9 used the file selection tool in OTIS, which follows the SRF File Selection Protocol. The
universe of selection files (compliance monitoring and enforcement) from which to select was 644.
According to the Protocol, the range of files for a universe that size is 20 to 35. As a result, Region
picked 31 files to use for its random, representative file selection. Thirteen of these files focused on
compliance monitoring and remainder focused on enforcement. These files are from a mix of the
categories below and are geographically distributed across the state:
• Different sources
• Inspections or no inspections
• Violations and no violations
• SNCs or no SNCs
• Informal or formal actions
• Penalties or no penalties
45
-------
B. File Selection Table
Facility
Program ID
Evaluation
Violation
SNC
Informal
Action
Formal
Action
Penalty
Universe
Select
BOBBY PAGE'S
DRY CLEANERS
NVR000082297
2
2
0
0
0
0
SQG
accepted
representative
CAROLINA
LOGISTICS
SERVICES LLC
NVR000076034
1
3
0
1
0
0
LQG
accepted
representative
CHAPMANS LAS
VEGAS DODGE
NVD982001695
1
1
0
1
0
0
CES
accepted
representative
CHARLES RIVER
RESEARCH
MODEL SERVICES
NVR000030023
1
0
0
0
0
0
LQG
accepted
representative
COSTCO
WHOLESALE #25
NVD986776169
1
3
0
1
0
0
LQG
accepted
representative
DYNAGRAPHIC
PRINTING INC
NVD986773620
1
0
0
0
0
SQG
accepted
representative
E.I. DUPONT DE
NEMOURS & CO
NVR000001495
1
0
0
0
0
0
LQG
accepted
representative
EGADS LLC
NVR000076448
1
1
0
0
0
0
SQG
accepted
representative
ERICKSON
INTERNATIONAL
NVR000084996
1
6
0
1
0
0
LQG
accepted
supplemental
FAIRWAY
CHEVROLET
COMPANY
NVD981428923
1
0
0
0
0
0
SQG
accepted
representative
FEDERAL
AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION
NVR000083881
1
0
0
0
0
0
CES
accepted
representative
FIRSTGOLD CORP
NVR000084053
1
4
0
2
0
0
LQG
accepted
representative
HAMILTON
COMPANY
NVD008477820
1
1
0
0
3
1,250
LQG
accepted
representative
HAWTHORNE
ARMY DEPOT
NV1210090006
4
19
0
0
0
0
TSD(COM)
accepted
representative
46
-------
Facility
Program ID
Evaluation
Violation
SNC
Informal
Action
Formal
Action
Penalty
Universe
Select
LAKESIDE
CLEANERS
NVD982373557
2
1
0
0
0
0
CES
accepted
representative
MARATHON OIL
SANDS
NVR000084491
1
6
0
1
0
0
LQG
accepted
representative
MINAMILL
NVR000082479
1
1
0
0
0
0
OTH
accepted
representative
NEVADA CEMENT
CO
NVD982430126
1
0
0
0
0
0
SQG
accepted
representative
NEVADA
MINERAL
PROCESSING
NVR000085209
0
0
0
1
1
0
OTH
accepted
representative
NEW BOMB
FACILITY
(HAWTHORNE
ARMY DEPOT)
NV5210090010
3
2
0
0
0
0
TSD(TSF)
accepted
representative
PARAMOUNT
AUTO BODY INC
NVD986770097
2
0
0
0
0
0
CES
accepted
representative
R. R. DONNELLEY
NVD981641434
1
0
0
0
0
0
LQG
accepted
representative
SAFETY-KLEEN
SYSTEMS INC
NVR000066837
4
0
0
0
0
0
TSD(TSF)
accepted
representative
SEPHORA STORE
42 VENETIAN
NVR000078535
2
1
0
1
0
0
CES
accepted
representative
SIERRA
CHEMICAL
COMPANY
NVD982518755
1
0
0
0
0
0
CES
accepted
representative
SIERRA
ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING INC
NV0000305649
1
1
1
0
3
2,205
SQG
accepted
representative
STERLING
NEVADA LLC
NVR000083303
2
1
0
1
0
0
CES
accepted
representative
THE SHERWIN
WILLIAMS
COMPANY RENO
NV
NVR000038737
1
0
0
0
0
0
LQG
accepted
representative
47
-------
Facility
Program ID
Evaluation
Violation
SNC
Informal
Action
Formal
Action
Penalty
Universe
Select
THYSSENKRUPP
VDM USA INC.
NVD092497999
1
3
0
1
0
0
LQG
accepted
representative
WALMART
RETURN CENTER
9195
NVR000000018
1
0
0
0
1
5,000
LQG
accepted
representative
ZIONS FIRST
NATIONAL BANK
NVR000085357
1
0
0
0
0
0
LQG
accepted
representative
48
-------
APPENDIX G: FILE REVIEW ANALYSIS
This section presents the initial observations of the region regarding program performance
against file metrics. Initial findings are developed by the region at the conclusion of the file
review process. The initial finding is a statement of fact about the observed performance, and
should indicated whether the performance indicates a practice to be highlighted or a potential
issue, along with some explanation about the nature of good practice or the potential issue. The
File Review Metrics Analysis Form in the report only includes metrics where potential concerns
or areas of exemplary performance are identified.
Initial findings indicate the observed results. They are preliminary observations and are used as
a basis for further investigation. These findings are developed only after evaluating them against
the PDA results where appropriate, and talking to the state. Through this process, initial findings
may be confirmed, modified, or determined not to be supported. Findings are presented in
Section IV of this report.
The quantitative metrics developed from the file reviews are initial indicators of performance
based on available information and are used by the reviewers to identify areas for further
investigation. Because of the limited sample size, statistical comparisons among programs or
across states cannot be made.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA
Metric #
RCRA File Review
Metric
Metric
Value
Initial Findings and Conclusions
Metric 2c
% of files reviewed
where mandatory data
are accurately
reflected in the nation
data system.
97%
30 of 31 inspection and enforcement
files had data that were reflected
accurately in RCRAInfo.
Metric 4a
Planned inspections
completed
>100%
For FY2010, Nevada committed to
inspections at 50 LQGs, 6 TSDFs, and
500 transporter, SQGs, and CESQGs.
Respectively, 75, 19, and 789
inspections were conducted.
Metric 6a
# of inspection reports
reviewed
44
In the 31 files selected for the file
review (4 formal, 11 informal
enforcement, 1 SNC, 16 evaluations)
there were a total of 44 inspection
reports that were found in the files and
reviewed as part of the SRF review.
49
-------
RCRA
Metric #
RCRA File Review
Metric
Metric
Value
Initial Findings and Conclusions
Metric 6b
% of inspection
reports reviewed that
are complete and
provide sufficient
documentation to
determine compliance
at the facility.
97.5%
39 of 40 of the BWM inspection reports
were considered complete and provided
sufficient documentation to determine
compliance at the facility. The
inspection reports included narrative,
photographs, facility descriptions, and
observed violations, if any. None of the
Washoe County inspections included a
good facility description. The SNHD
reports did not list a specific regulatory
citation(s) for any potential observed, if
any.
Metric 6c
Inspections reports
completed within a
determined time-
frame.
87.5%
35 of the 40 inspection reports met the
recommended deadline of 45 days to
complete the reports.
Metric 7 a
% of accurate
compliance
determination based
on the inspection
reports.
100%
Based on the information provided in
the 40 BWM, 2 SNHD and 2 Washoe
County inspection reports, all 44
inspection reports appeared to have
accurate compliance determinations.
Metric 7b
% of violation
determinations in the
files reviewed that are
reported timely to the
national database
(within 150 days).
94.4%
There were 18 facility inspections
where SVs were found, 11 facilities
(94.4%) were issued informal
enforcement actions within 150 days
after the inspection. One facility was
identified as having a violation(s)
during the review period, but there is no
listing in RCRAInfo of the type of
enforcement action (e.g., 110-Verbal)
initiated by Nevada (BWM).
Metric 8d
% of violations in files
reviewed that were
accurately determined
to be SNC
100%
Of the 44 inspection reports reviewed,
the Region determined that Nevada had
correctly identified all SNCs.
Metric 9a
# of enforcement
responses reviewed.
15
Metric 9b
# of enforcement
responses that have
returned or will return
a source in SNC to
compliance.
100%
1 of 1 SNCs were returned to
compliance.
Metric 9c
% of enforcement
100%
14 of 14 enforcement responses that
50
-------
RCRA
Metric #
RCRA File Review
Metric
Metric
Value
Initial Findings and Conclusions
responses that have
returned or will return
SVs to compliance.
involved SVs returned, or will return,
the SVs to compliance.
Metric 10c
% of enforcement
responses reviewed
that are taken in a
timely manner.
100%
There were 11 SV files reviewed where
informal enforcement was taken, and
100% of the files were taken in a timely
manner (240 days). There was one SNC
file reviewed where final enforcement
was taken in FY2010. The case was
concluded within the recommended
360-day time-frame.
Metric lOd
% of enforcement
responses reviewed
that are appropriate to
the violations.
100%
15 of the 15 enforcement cases
reviewed contained appropriate
response to the violations.
Metric 11a
% of reviewed penalty
calculations that
considered gravity and
economic benefit for
non-compliance.
67%
Gravity portion of the penalty
calculations reviewed for 2 of the 3
penalty cases were calculated following
the Nevada RCRA policies and
procedures. The 3rd penalty action was
negotiated directly with the Attorney
General's office. The Attorney
General's office did not following the
Nevada RCRA penalty policy in
determining the penalty. The Attorney
General's penalty action did not
considered economic benefit for non-
compliance.
Metric 12a
% of penalties
reviewed that
document the
difference and
rationale between and
initial and final
assessed penalty.
100%
None of the 3 penalty actions reviewed,
differed between the initial penalty and
the final penalty paid by the facility.
Metric 12b
% of files that
document collection
of penalty
100%
All the penalty cases reviewed
contained documentation that the
penalty had been collected.
51
-------
APPENDIX H: CORRESPONDENCE
[Attach correspondence between EPA and the state including, if received, comments on Draft
Report and Final Report.l APPENDIX Hi CORRESPONDENCE
[Attach correspondence between EPA and the state including, if received, comments on Draft
Report and Final J
52
-------
igMlasHiajlliigittt
rf»e pitntt fit (©»«&«.
STATE OF NEVADA
DepartiTHKit qf C«l»erwtjon A f^turil teiourett
DIVISION Of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Jfntm Sofastera^ Gswr.n&f
tea M Uraxfhff,P,S^ Ommt
Chilean f% b.^dWrifetaKcr
D*xonb« 14,2011
Mr. J*r«J Blumcofefd, RegtcnaJ Adunuistatoi
US EPA Begun IX
7f Hawthorne Street
Ssn Francisco. CA 94105-5901
RE" Draft Report for Round 2 of the State R«vie>* Framework
State of Nevada fcEaforeemetu Propaoa reviews by EPA
Bear Mi. BI«i*B#eWi
Wc have reviewed the draft report neflwairug the results %ti Round 2 of the State Review
Framework. I be report review! compliance and enforcement activities conducted by Ihe
Division of Environmental Protection fNDBP) reisatd t® RCRA SiibfMe C erd
the Nation#! Pullwtttt Discharge Hiininatiaii System of tie Clean W«r Act. Our
comments on the findings of each of these two frogr&m rcvinvs arc attached, We bfrvc
olto attached a narrative lor cacfe plagium area to la included « Element 13 of tte final
report,
0«r o&nvwmb reflect a consistent theme that \ve h«ve repeated many limes uver the
years in our discussions with HP A Tic primary goal of NDFP has always been to
adrieve and maintain compliance with environmentai regulations. Toward thai end. wc
mvew in compliance assistance, outreach, «nd an active and eflevtivc field presence. Wc
find rtinl the effectiveness of ow efforts is beat measured by tlte rate of compliance
among reflated facilities, m>t"hy (be number or amount of penalties eoltoted. We
recognize that this strategy may be impractical for EPA «ixt States with very large
regulatory *»iver*es and that a mom festive upproacli /imy "be needed, However, given
the reMvely mal] number of regulated tacilUicj is Nevada and our willingness to invest
State w»ur€«s beyond fedouj grant fittdmg. w% find that our pri>«.l?v«, complitKC«-
focased approach woifes.
Thank vou for tte opportunity to comment an this draft SRF. Wc also appreciate the
positive commendations on our good iospectkm programs, Please factor our cotnumb
into your flnalizatbft of (he 2010 SRF and bcJudc our respective Elernept 13 narratives.
Sincerely,
Coiteeri Grippe ph,li,
Administrator
'
! S. StswiuSeresc,.W -90• * Cirtcn Gtr, N«w>.*»
53
-------
Page 2
Atudmients
cc: David Qaakln, Deputy Administrator, NDEP
David Emrac, Deputy Administrator, NDEP
Eric Noack, Chief, Bureau of WaMe Management, NDEP
Alan Tinney, CMcf, Bureau of Water Million Control, NDEP
Mr. Ken Gteenfjetg, US EPA Region IX. WTR-7,75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
J John Schofieid, US EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA
94105-3901
f
54
-------
NDEP Bureau of Water Pollution Control
NFDES CWA Comments on Draft SRFII
The* comments we specific to the EPA review of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Program enforcement activities in the SRF report.
Before providing our comments and responses, NDEP reiterates that as with past SRF
responses, the recent drat SRF would require NDEP to allocate additional time and
financial resources for efforts thai will ml add any substantive value to our compliance
and enforcement programs. We stress to EPA that NDEP remains one of the leanest state
environmental programs in the U.S. and as such we focus our resources on achieving
water pollution control compliance statewide based upon our State priorities.
With this in mind, NDEP offers the following comments to EPA:
1. Date reporting svstema/arehitectige:
The general program overview section, page 6 of the report states that NDEP
enters general permit information into 1C1S, This is not correct, Per our mutual
agreement (June 18,2004 letter to John Kwnmerer) on 1C1S entry roles, NDEP is
not responsible for entering information on general permits or storm water
permits into JC1S. This reference to general permit entry should be removed.
2. Single Evcti enta into 1C1S (Element 7):
Element ? of the SRF report states that EPA is in consultation with NDEP on
options and procedures for entering SEV's into I CIS for major NPDES facilities.
TTiis is not an accurate statement as NDEP has not agreed to entry of SEV's into
1C1S. NDEP does not have sufficient staffing or funding for this additional data
entry activity and to do so would take critical resources away from our
compliance and enforcement program.
3. Economic Benefit Penalty Calculation MgftodiElement 11)
lie Element 11 review recommendation is to obtain facility cost data, where
appropriate, when determining the economic benefit factor in assessing
noncompliance penalties. While economic benefit is not broken out as a reparole
line item, NDEP factors economic benefit into ill its NPDES penalty
detemM nations,
NDEP docs no! believe that a compliance and enforcement program should be evaluated
merely by counting violations and the response to those violations. NDEP is proud of its
compliance record and believes the compliance rate to be the true metric necessary to
55
-------
accurately represent the effectiveness and success of a compliance and enforcement
program,.
ff NDEP is forced to Increase data entry info the national database, we will need to shift
resources away from environmental protection efforts identified as priorities in Nevada.
This will have a direct negative impact on our ability to ensure compliance and protect
the waters of the state,
NDEP thanks you for the opportunity to comment on this draft SRF, Please contact
Deputy Administrator David Oasktn at (775) 687*9302 or dmskin@mlen.nv onv if yoq
have my questions or would like to discuss these comments farther.
56
-------
State Review Framework II
Element 13 Clean Water Act
Introduction
NDEP docs not believe the SRF fully defines the effectiveness of a Clean Water Act
compliance and enforcement program, The 12 elements evaluate a program on its ability
to identify and react appropriately to violations and subsequently track them, bat ignore
the important efforts implemented by 6 program to achieve and maintain compliance so
that violations are not realized. An enforcement program's success should be measured
by the compliance rate, as opposed to the violation/enforcement rate. This philosophy is
the cornerstone ofNDEP's successful compliance and enforcement program.
NDEP strives for compliance by working cooperatively and reasonably with the
regulated community. This allows us to achieve and maintain a high level of compliance,
in many cases outside of formal enforcement. In certain areas, we go above and beyond
federal requirements to achieve better environmental results. For example, we require
that all wastewater treatment plants be managed by certified wastewater treatment
operators. We ensure that all design plans for construction of wastewater treatment plants
are prepared by Nevada Licensed Professional Engineers, Such requirements greatly
enhance the compliance rate for many of oar NPDES facilities.
Inspections and Asmstajucg
NDEP inspects all of its eleven major NPDBS facilities on an annual basis, doubling the
KPA national coverage goal of inspecting the majors every two years. At each of the
major Publically Owned Treatment Works inspections, NDEP performs compliance
sampling inspections (CIS) over a two-day period. Additionally, we conduct compliance
evaluation inspections (CEl)on at least 20% of all minor NPDES facilities statewide
each year. We do this because we know inspections are a critical factor in tracking and
ensuring compliance for these key dischargers. Our storm water inspection schedule is
robust, and each year NDEP far exceeds the minimum criteria of site inspections for this
program.
NDEP also believes public outreach and education efforts are key to a successful
compliance program. Our efforts associated with public outreach and education continue
to be effective in achieving and maintaining compliance. One example is the NPDES
storm water program, We provide storm-water compliance workshops each year to
developers, contractors, consultants, engineers and other interested parties. In 2010,
NDEP participated in ten separate training sessions with N DOT to educate all of their
field stations in stormwater permit requirements. Also, we assisted tit training sessions for
MS4 permittees in Clark County and Washoe County.
57
-------
We continue to fund our wastewater operator's Circuit Elder Program even after federal
landing stopped several years ago, This is because our program has proven to be
significant for achieving compliance in the State of Nevada for the rural wastewater
treatment plants.
Compliance inspections conducted by NDEP CWA Program;
Enforcement
NDBP uses both formal and informal enforcement to achieve compliance with all its
permittees. Our priority is to get noncompliaijt facilities to return to compliance as
quickly as possible and minimize environmental impacts. Tools that we use include
Cease and Desist Orders, formal Findings of Alleged Violation and Orders, informal
compliance Action Letters and Administrative 'Orders on Consent. Through the judicious
use of these options, we are able to address compliance matters quickly and effectively,
NDEP maintains a database in which pertinent compliance and enforcement data are
stored and managed. We are able to track submittal dates and follow up on failures to
submit required reports. Exceedances of DMR limits are tracked to establish compliance
histories of permittees. Our state database is the system of record and is available for
public review. NDEP is currently enhancing the database to allow OMR data to be
submitted electronically which will allow us to process DMRs more rapidly, and
therefore address noncompliance issues in «timelier manner,
NDEP issues formal enforcement actions and collects penalties when necessary. Formal
enforcement is implemented mainly in cases demonstrating culpability and harm to the
environment, and also where corrective actions by the permittee are not being made or
are not sufficient.
NDEP Enforcement Actions:
SFY2010 SFY2011
Major NPDES CEl/CIS conducted
Minor NPDES CE1
Industrial sto-rmwater inspections
Construction site stormwatcr inspections
8
16
75
150
II
17
698
690
11
22
183
710
Total NPDES Permittees
informal enforcement actions
Formal enforcement actions
Compliance rate
SPYZOiO
84
9
2
87%
SFY2011
85
2
2
94%
58
-------
Conclusion
To sununans, NDEP docs not believe del a compliance and enforcement program
thoujld be evaluated merely by coimttog violations and the response to those violations.
NDEP is proud, of its complian.ce record and believes the compliance rate to be tie true
metric necessary to accurately represent, the effectiveness and smeeeis of* compliant*
aid enforcement program.
59
-------
60
-------
State Review Framework
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
Clean Water Act, NPDES Program
Round 2 Report
for Federal Fiscal Year 2010
Final
February, 2014
Conducted by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9
61
-------
Table of Contents
VII. Executive Summary
VIII. Background Information on State Program and Review Process
IX. Status of Outstanding Recommendations from Previous Reviews
X. Findings and Recommendations
XI. Appendices
A. Status of Recommendations from Previous Reviews
B. Official Data Pull
C. PDA Transmittal Letter
D. PDA Analysis Chart
E. PDA Worksheet
F. File Selection
G. File Review Analysis
H. Correspondence
62
-------
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Major Issues
The SRF review of the State of Nevada identified the following major issues:
• None.
Summary of Programs Reviewed
II. Clean Water Act/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program
The problems which necessitate state improvement and require recommendations and
actions include:
• NDEP does not enter single event violations (SEVs) at major facilities into EPA's
ICIS-NPDES database as required by EPA's data management policies.
The good practices include:
• NDEP exceeded EPA's NPDES inspection goals and national averages for inspection
coverage in all categories of NPDES regulated facilities in FY 2010. NDEP
inspected 100 percent of major facilities, 24 percent of minor facilities and more than
20 percent of stormwater dischargers.
Areas meeting SRF program requirements or with issues for attention and correction
include:
• NDEP routinely enters required data into EPA's ICIS-NPDES that is complete,
timely, and accurate.
• NDEP's inspection reports properly document and accurately describe inspection
observations, however, some of NDEP's report formats do not include all of EPA's
recommended elements.
• NDEP accurately and timely identifies facility effluent limit violations by tracking
major facility discharge monitoring (DMR) results in EPA's ICIS-NPDES database.
• None of Nevada's 14 major facilities were in significant noncompliance (SNC)
during FY10.
• NDEP's enforcement actions reviewed by EPA were timely and appropriate, and
promote a return to compliance.
• Two of the three penalty actions reviewed included appropriate gravity and economic
benefit calculations. All penalties were collected in cash payments as assessed with
no offsets for supplemental environmental projects.
63
-------
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ON STATE PROGRAM AND REVIEW PROCESS
The State Review Framework (SRF) is a one tool for EPA oversight of state and EPA
direct implementation compliance and enforcement programs in a nationally consistent and
efficient manner. Reviews examine 12 program elements covering data (completeness,
timeliness, and quality); inspections (coverage and quality); identification of violations;
enforcement actions (appropriateness and timeliness); and penalties (calculation, assessment, and
collection).
Reviews are conducted in three phases: analyzing information from the national data
systems; reviewing a limited set of state files; and development of findings and
recommendations. EPA and the state discuss all aspects of the review to understand the causes
of issues, and to seek agreement on identifying the actions needed to address problems.
The reports generated by the reviews capture the information and agreements developed
during the review process to facilitate program improvements. The reports provide factual
information and do not make determinations of program adequacy. EPA also uses the
information in the reports to describe enforcement and compliance at the national level and to
identify issues that require a national response. Reports are not used to compare or rank state
programs.
64
-------
A. GENERAL PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Agency Structure: The organization structure of the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection at the time of review is shown below. The NPDES compliance and enforcement
program is managed within the Bureau of Water Pollution Control (see green highlighted box).
At the writing of this report, NDEP was reorganizing its Bureau of Water Pollution Control to
reconfigure the Branches represented in the organization chart below.
NDEP
Administrator
Public Information
Office
Administrative
Office
Deputy
Administrator
Deputy
Administrator
Deputy
Administrator
Bureau (if Mining
Regula ion and
Reclamation
Bureau of Air
Pollutior Control
Bureau Df Water
Quality Planning
Bureau
Pollutio
3f Water
1 Control
Bureau of Air
Quality Manning
Bureau of Federal
Facilities
Permits
Branch
Technical
Services
Branch
Enforcement
Branch
Groundwater
Protection
Branch
Clerical
Services
Burenu of
Correctiv; Actions
Bureau of
Administrative
Services
Burenu of
Admini: trative
Services
Bureau < f Waste
Management
Roles, Responsibilities, and Staffing: For purposes of this review, only the Technical Services
and Enforcement Branches are described below:
• Technical Services Branch: Responsible for conducting inspections, as follows:
NPDES major and minor facilities; NPDES general permitted sites (construction,
industrial, small MS4s); groundwater; permitted remediation projects; and complaint
response. Ensures that stormwater sites have filed a Notice of Intent and reviews plans
and specifications for proposed facilities. This branch has six inspectors and one
supervisor.
• Enforcement Branch: Responsible for NPDES DMR review and compliance and
enforcement activities related to NPDES and other facilities. Responsible for data entry
into ICIS-NPDES the following items: NPDES major DMRs, NPDES major and minor
permits and inspections, and formal enforcement actions. This branch has 3 staff and one
65
-------
supervisor.
Compliance/Enforcement Program Structure: NDEP's NPDES compliance and enforcement
program is centralized and conducted from one office in Carson City, Nevada.
Local Agencies Included/Excluded From Review: There are no NPDES program
responsibilities assumed by other agencies.
Resources: As described above, 11 staff and supervisors are currently in place for
implementing NDEP's NPDES compliance and enforcement program. The Technical Services
and Enforcement Branches have three vacancies. Also, due to state budget constraints, all staff
is furloughed one day each month. At the writing of this report, the Bureau of Water Pollution
Control is reorganizing to support program implementation with a reduced staffing level.
Data reporting systems/architecture: NDEP enters the following NPDES information into
EPA's ICIS-NPDES data system: major, minor, and general permits, major DMRs, major and
minor inspections, and formal enforcement actions issued to major and minor facilities. The
NDEP also maintains a separate data base for tracking major and minor permits and inspections,
and general permitted facilities and inspections. NDEP manually reviews all minor facility
DMRs and maintains a record of DMR review findings in the facility files.
B. MAJOR STATE PRIORITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Priorities: [NDEP, please enter a brief summary of NPDES compliance and enforcement
priorities, and how they were established (e.g., legislature, EPA national priorities,
tips/complaints).]
Accomplishments:
• NDEP exceeded EPA's national NPDES inspection coverage goals and averages for all
categories of inspections in FY 2010, as established by EPA's Compliance Monitoring
Strategy (CMS). NDEP inspected 100 percent of major facilities, exceeding the 50
percent goal; 24 percent of minor facilities, exceeding the 20 percent goal; 29 percent of
industrial stormwater facilities, exceeding the 10 percent goal; and 21 percent of Phase I
and II construction facilities, exceeding the 10 percent and five percent goals.
C. PROCESS FOR SRF REVIEW
Key steps in the review of NDEP's NPDES compliance program are described below.
• Review period: Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2010 (October 1, 2009 through September 30,
2010)
• Key dates:
o January 20, 2011, EPA Region 9 establishes a frozen data set (via OTIS) and
generates the data query for the Preliminary Data Analysis (PDA)
o February 2, 2011, EPA Region 9 transmits the PDA spreadsheet to NDEP for
66
-------
completion, along with the frozen data set.
o February 24, 2011, EPA initiates by letter, its SRF evaluation of NDEP's
enforcement activity for FFY 2010
o March 4, 2011, NDEP transmits the completed PDA to EPA
o April 29, 2011, EPA transmits to NDEP a revised PDA generated from EPA
Headquarters' frozen data set and requests additional information,
o May 3, 2011, NDEP transmits the completed spreadsheet to EPA
o May 9-10, EPA conducts the on-site SRF review at the NDEP offices in Carson
City, Nevada
o June 30, 2011, EPA completes the SRF review at EPA offices in San Francisco,
California
o July 8, 2011, EPA and NDEP teleconference to discuss the SRF review findings.
• Communication with NDEP: Throughout the SRF process, EPA communicated with
NDEP managers via official letters, emails, and phone calls. At the on-site opening
meeting with NDEP managers, EPA explained the SRF purpose, process, and schedule.
The programs areas to be evaluated (commitments, inspections, enforcement, and data
management) were discussed along with the methods of evaluation (file and data review
and interviews). A teleconference was held with the NDEP managers to discuss the
review findings.
• State and EPA contacts for review:
NDEP: Dave Gaskin, Deputy Administrator, Environmental Programs (775-687-9032)
Alan Tinney, Chief, Bureau of Water Pollution Control (775-687-9433)
Cliff Lawson, Supervisor, Permits Branch (775-687-9414)
Val King, Supervisor, Enforcement Branch (775-687-9427)
EPA: Ken Greenberg, Manager, CWA Compliance Office (415-972-3477)
Jenee Gavette, Environmental Protection Specialist, CWA Compliance Office
(415-972-3439)
67
-------
III. STATUS OF OUTSTANDING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
PREVIOUS REVIEWS
During the first SRF review of NDEP's compliance and enforcement programs, EPA
Region 9 and Nevada identified a number of actions to be taken to address issues found during the
review. All actions have been satisfactorily addressed by NDEP. Appendix A contains a
comprehensive list of completed actions for reference.
68
-------
IV. FINDINGS
Findings represent the region's conclusions regarding the issue identified. Findings are
based on the initial findings identified during the data or file review, as well as from follow-up
conversations or additional information collected to determine the severity and root causes of the
issue. There are four types of findings:
Finding
Description
Good Practices
This describes activities, processes, or policies that the SRF data metrics
and/or the file reviews show are being implemented exceptionally well, and
which the State is expected to maintain at a high level of performance.
Additionally, the report may highlight specific innovative and noteworthy
activities, processes, or policies that have potential to be replicated by
other States. No further action is required by either EPA or the State.
Meets SRF Program Requirements
This indicates that no issues of concern were identified under this Element.
Areas for State Attention
This describes activities, processes, or policies that SRF data metrics and/or
file reviews show are being implemented with minor deficiencies. The
State must monitor these deficiencies to strengthen its performance, but
they are not significant enough to require the region to identify and track
State actions to correct. This can describe a situation where a State is
implementing either EPA or State policy in a manner that requires self-
correction to resolve concerns identified during the review. These are
single or infrequent instances that do not constitute a pattern of
deficiencies or a significant problem. These are minor issues that the State
should self-correct without additional EPA oversight. However, the State is
expected to improve and maintain a high level of performance.
Area for State Improvement-
Recommendations Required
This describes activities, processes, or policies that the metrics and/or the
file reviews show are being implemented by the State that have significant
problems that need to be addressed and that require follow-up EPA
oversight. This can describe a situation where a State is implementing
either EPA or State policy in a manner requiring EPA attention. For
example, in areas where the metrics indicate that the State is not meeting
its commitments, there is a pattern of incorrect implementation in
updating compliance data in the data systems, there are incomplete or
incorrect inspection reports, and/or there is ineffective enforcement
response. These would be significant issues and not random occurrences.
Recommendations are required for these problems to have well-defined
timelines and milestones for completion. Recommendations will be
monitored in the SRF Tracker.
69
-------
Element 1: Data completeness. Degree to which the Minimum Data Requirements are
complete in EPA's national database.
El.01
Finding
NDEP routinely enters required data into EPA's ICIS-NPDES
database.
Finding is:
~ Good Practice
13 Meets SRF Program Requirements
~ Area for State Attention
~Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Explanation
During the FFY 2010 review period, the NDEP maintained a complete
and accurate inventory of its NPDES permits by entering the
following information into EPA's ICIS-NPDES database:
• NPDES major individual permits: Permit ID, permit tracking,
inspections, pipe schedules, permit limits, discharge monitoring
report (DMR) data, and formal enforcement.
• NPDES major general permits: Permit ID.
• NPDES non-major (minor) individual permits: Permit ID,
inspections, and formal enforcement.
• NPDES non-major general permits: Permit ID.
NDEP's permit limit and DMR data entry rates for major individual
permits exceeds the national goals set forth in EPA's national data
management policies. These policies establish data elements known
as the Water Enforcement National Database (WENDB), along with
standards for data in terms of completeness, accuracy, and timeliness.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative
Value
1-a-l. Number of NPDES majors with individual permits: 14
l-a-2. Number of NPDES majors with general permits: 0
l-a-3. Number of NPDES non-majors with individual permits: 75 (at
end of state FY).
l-a-4. Number of NPDES non-majors with general permits: 5
general permits.
1-b-l. Of majors with individual permits, the percent with permit
limits present in the national database: 100% compared to the
national goal of 95% and the national average entry rate of 92.9%.
l-b-2. DMR entry rate for those majors with individual permits with
multiple outfalls present in the national database: DMR entry rate for
100% compared to the national goal of 95% and the national average
entry rate of 96.9%.
l-b-3. Of majors with individual permits, percent with DMR data in
the national database: 100% compared to the national goal of 95%
and national average entry rate of 93.7%.
l-b-4. Rate of manual override ofRNCSNC of major facilities to a
compliant status: 0
1-c-l, l-c-2, l-c-3. Of non-majors with individual permit limits, the
percent with permit limits, DMRs with multiple outfalls, and DMR
present in the national database: Zero. This information is not
70
-------
Element 1: Data completeness. Degree to which the Minimum Data Requirements are
complete in EPA's national database.
required to be entered per EPA data management policy; NDEP does
not enter this information into ICIS-NPDES.
1-d-l, l-d-2, l-d-3. Noncompliance rate in database at non-major
facilities individual permits, reported under the Annual
Noncompliance Report, andDMR nonreceipt in database: This
information is not required to be entered per EPA's data management
policy; NDEP does not enter this information into ICIS-NPDES.
1-e-l, l-e-2. Informal actions at major facilities: Zero. NDEP had no
informal actions against major facilities during the review period.
l-e-3, l-e-4. Informal actions at non-major facilities: EPA's data
management policy does not require states to enter informal actions
against non-majors; NDEP does not enter this information in ICIS-
NPDES.
If Formal actions at major and non-major facilities: the NDEP
normally enters its formal enforcement actions for major and minor
facilities in ICIS-NPDES as required. NDEP missed entering one
major facility formal action, but has since corrected the omission.
lg-1, I-g-2: Number of enforcement actions with penalties and Total
State Penalties: States are only required to enter penalty actions and
amounts for judicial actions; NDEP had no judicial penalties during
FY10 and does not enter its administrative penalty actions in ICIS-
NPDES.
l-g-3: Total penalties assessed pursuant to civil judicial settlements:
N/A, NDEP had no judicial penalties during the review period.
l-g-4: Total penalties assessed pursuant to administrative actions:
States are not required to enter administrative penalty data in ICIS-
NPDES; NDEP does not enter this information.
l-g-5: Number of penalties taken by state in FY: States are only
required to enter penalty actions and amounts for judicial actions;
NDEP had no judicial penalties during FY10 and does not enter its
administrative penalty actions in ICIS-NPDES.
State Response
Recommendations
None
71
-------
Elements 2: Data accuracy. Degree to which data reported in the national system is
accurately entered and maintained.
E2.01
Finding
NDEP's inspections and enforcement actions are accurately reported
to EPA's ICIS-NPDES database.
Finding is:
~ Good Practice
13 Meets SRF Program Requirements
~ Area for State Attention
~Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Explanation
NDEP's inspections and enforcement actions are accurately reported
to EPA's ICIS-NPDES database as required by EPA's data
management policies.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative
Value
2-a. Actions linked to violations at major facilities: NDEP had no
enforcement actions against majors in FFY10, therefore, N/A,
2-b. % of files reviewed where data is accurately reflected in the
national database : 100%.
State Response
Recommendations
None
Element 3: Timeliness of Data Entry. Degree to which the Minimum Data Requirements are timely.
E3.01
Finding
The NDEP routinely enters data into EPA's ICIS-NPDES database in
a timely manner.
Finding is:
~ Good Practice
0 Meets SRF Program Requirements
~ Area for State Attention
~Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Explanation
During the FFY 2010 review period, NDEP timely entered required
data into EPA's ICIS-NPDES database as set forth in EPA's national
data management policies.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative
Value
3a: Percent change in each of the data metrics that represent
required data: NDEP timely entered 100% of required data into
ICIS-NPDES.
State Response
Recommendations
None
72
-------
Element 4: Completion of Commitments. Degree to which all enforcement/compliance
commitments in relevant agreements are met and any products or projects are completed.
E4.01
Finding
NDEP completed their inspections in accordance with their
Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) inspection plan. See
Element 5 findings.
Finding is:
~ Good Practice
13 Meets SRF Program Requirements
~ Area for State Attention
~Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Explanation
NDEP did not use the CWA 106 grant to fund their NPDES
activities. Therefore they have no enforcement or compliance
commitments other than the state/EPA CMS inspection plan. NDEP
completed their inspections in accordance with the CMS plan (see
Element 5 findings).
Metric(s) and
Quantitative
Value
4-a. % planned inspections completed. 100%
4-b: Planned commitments completed: 100%, per CMS plan
State Response
Recommendations
None
73
-------
Element 5: Inspection Coverage. Degree to which state completed the universe of planned
inspections/compliance evaluations.
E5.01
Finding
NDEP met and exceeded EPA's national inspection goals and
averages for all categories of inspections.
Finding is:
13 Good Practice
~Meets SRF Program Requirements
~ Area for State Attention
~Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Explanation
NDEP efficiently utilized its limited resources on inspection coverage,
one of NDEP's top priorities. NDEP met and exceeded EPA's
national inspection goals and averages for all categories of
inspections.
Inspections at Majors:
In FFY 2010, NDEP inspected each of its active NPDES major non-
stormwater facilities (100% coverage), exceeding EPA's national
coverage goal of 100% of majors inspected every two years, and the
national average inspection rate of 60.7%.
Inspections at Minors:
During state FY 2010, the NDEP conducted at least one inspection at
24% of its NPDES minor facilities with individual permits, exceeding
EPA's national coverage goal of 20%.
General Permit Inspections:
In FFY 2010, the NDEP inspected 29% of its stormwater industrial
facilities and 21% of its Phase I and II construction facilities. This
exceeds EPA's national goal of 10% for industrial and 10% and 5%
for construction Phase I and II.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative
Value
5-a. Inspections at NPDES majors with individual permits or general
permits: 100% coverage compared to the national goal and national
coverage average of 50% and 60.7 %.
5-h-l. Inspections at NPDES non-majors with individual permits (i.e.,
minors): 24% inspected, compared to national coverage goal of 20%.
5-b-2. Inspections at NPDES non-majors with general permits: N/A
5-c. Other inspections performed for non-major NPDES permittees
whose permit address solely stormwater, pretreatment, CAFOs, or
CSOs: Coverage rates are 29% of stormwater industrial facilities and
21% of Phase I and II construction sites. This exceeds EPA's national
goal of 10% for industrial and 10% and 5% for construction Phase I
and II.
State Response
Recommendations
None
74
-------
Element 5: Inspection Coverage. Degree to which state completed the universe of planned
inspections/compliance evaluations.
Element 6: Quality of Inspection or Compliance Evaluation Reports. Degree to which
inspection or compliance evaluation reports properly document observations, are completed
in a timely manner and include accurate description of observations.
E6.01
Finding
NDEP's inspection reports properly document and accurately
describe inspection observations.
Finding is:
~ Good Practice
~ Meets SRF Program Requirements
13 Area for State Attention
~Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Explanation
The EPA evaluated NDEP's reports from 38 inspections conducted at
22 different facilities in FFY and FY 2010. Most of the inspection
reports included a completed EPA Form 3560-3, and properly and
accurately documented the following:
¦ NPDES/ID number, facility name, address, and description,
inspection participants;
¦ inspection date, type and purpose, regulated activities pertinent to
the inspection, regulated areas evaluated;
¦ inspector observations, deficiencies, findings, documentary
support (photos, statements, records, etc.), compliance
conclusions, corrective actions taken by facilities;
¦ inspector signature and date.
Even though most reports included these categories, not all
information was consistently included in each report. Many reports
had minor omissions that did not affect the quality of the reports.
Several reports omitted inspection time. A few reports did not
identify the areas subject to inspection and did not clarify if the
regulated areas were inspected. While most reports mentioned the
"permit" or other requirements, some did not cite the requirements,
and did not relate the observations back to cited requirements. NDEP
does not use inspection checklists, but is considering EPA's
inspection checklist form as a model for revisions to its standard
report formats. Despite the omission of certain elements from EPA's
report guidance, a majority of NDEP's reports sufficiently
documented observations to make a compliance determination.
75
-------
Element 5: Inspection Coverage. Degree to which state completed the universe of planned
inspections/compliance evaluations.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative
Value
6-a. Number of inspection reports reviewed: 38 reports from
inspections of 22 facilities.
6-b. % of reports reviewed that are complete: 5% of the reports
reviewed were complete, per EPA's SRF review criteria (many
reports had minor omissions that did not affect the report findings).
6-c. % of reports reviewed that provide sufficient documentation to
lead to an accurate compliance determination: 97 % of the reports
reviewed provide sufficient documentation.
6-d. % of reports reviewed that are timely. 100% of the reports
reviewed were prepared timely.
State Response
Recommendations
None
76
-------
Element 7: Identification of Alleged Violations. Degree to which compliance determinations
are accurately made and promptly reported in the national database based upon compliance
monitoring report observations and other compliance monitoring information.
E7.01
Finding
NDEP accurately and timely identifies facility effluent limit
violations by tracking major DMR results in EPA's ICIS-NPDES
database.
Finding is:
~ Good Practice
13 Meets SRF Program Requirements
~ Area for State Attention
~Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Explanation
NDEP enters all major NPDES facility DMRs into EPA's ICIS-
NPDES database, providing NDEP with accurate information on
violations at major facilities. One of Nevada's 14 major facilities
(7.1%) had one or more effluent violations in FFY 2010, lower than
the national average violation rate of 52.8 percent.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative
Value
7-d. Percentage of major facilities with DMR violations reported to
the national database: One of Nevada's 14 facilities had one or more
effluent violations correctly reported to the database, representing
7.1% noncompliance, lower than the national average violation rate
of 52.8 percent.
State Response
Recommendations
None
77
-------
Element 7: Identification of Alleged Violations. Degree to which compliance determinations
are accurately made and promptly reported in the national database based upon compliance
monitoring report observations and other compliance monitoring information (e.g., facility
reported information).
E7.02
Finding
NDEP does not enter single event violations (SEVs) into EPA's ICIS-
NPDES database. However, NDEP uses its state database to track
stormwater general permit SEVs observed during inspections. This is
a data management issue and does not hinder NDEP's ability to
identify and track violations.
Finding is:
~ Good Practice
~Meets SRF Program Requirements
~ Area for State Attention
0Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Explanation
EPA's data management policy requires that states enter SEVs in the
ICIS-NPDES database for major facilities only. NDEP does not enter
SEVs into EPA's ICIS-NPDES database for majors or any other
NPDES regulated facilities. SEVs are violations discovered by means
other than DMR-reported effluent limit violations. Examples of
SEVs include spills or violations observed during an inspection.
Entering major facility SEVs in ICIS-NPDES would give EPA and
the public access to a more complete listing of violations at Nevada
NPDES facilities.
Although NDEP does not enter SEVs in ICIS-NPDES, they use their
state database to identify and track stormwater general permit SEVs.
This has been an efficient and effective tool for NDEP to track SEVs
at the large number of storm water permittees.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative
Value
7-a I. Number of single-event violations at active majors reported to
national system: Zero. NDEP does not enter SEVs in EPA's ICIS-
NPDES database.
7-a2. Number of single-event violations at active non-majors
reported to national system: Zero. EPA's data management policy
does not require states to enter SEVs for non-major facilities and
NDEP does not enter SEVs in EPA's ICIS-NPDES database.
7-h. Compliance schedule violations at active majors: Zero
7-c. Permit schedule violations at active majors: Zero.
7-e. % of reports reviewed that led to accurate compliance
determination: 97 % of the reports reviewed provide sufficient
documentation.
State Response
Recommendations
EPA is now consulting with NDEP about options and procedures for
entering SEVs into ICIS-NPDES so that NDEP will begin entering
SEVs by December 31, 2014.
78
-------
79
-------
Element 8: Identification of SNC and HPV. Degree to which State accurately identified
significant noncompliance/high priority violations and enters information into the national
system in a timely manner.
E8.01
Finding
During FFY 2010, none of Nevada's major individual facilities were
in significant noncompliance (SNC), better than the national average
SNC rate of 24.6%.
Finding is:
~ Good Practice
0 Meets SRF Program Requirements
~ Area for State Attention
~Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Explanation
NDEP prepares Quarterly Noncompliance Reports (QNCRs), which
identify major individual facility violations that meet EPA's criteria
for SNC. In FFY 2010, there were no Nevada major facilities in SNC
for effluent limit violations or for failure to submit required DMRs.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative
Value
8-ct-l. Number of active majors in SNC during reporting year: Zero.
None of the 14 majors were in SNC during FFY2010.
S-a-2. Percent of active majors in SNC during the reporting year:
0%, lower than the national average of 24.6%.
8-b. Percent of SEVs that are accurately identified as SNC or non-
SNC in major facility inspection reports that were reviewed: 100%
8-c: Percent of SNC SEVs timely reported to ICIS-NPDES: N/A
8-d. Wet weather SNC placeholder: metric(s) likely to be developed
in the future: N/A
State Response
Recommendations
None
80
-------
Element 9: Enforcement Actions Promote Return to Compliance. Degree to which State
enforcement actions include required corrective action (i.e., injunctive relief or other
complying actions) that will return facilities to compliance in a specific time frame.
E9.01
Finding
NDEP's enforcement actions include required corrective actions and
have been effective at returning facilities to compliance. Of the 14
enforcement actions reviewed, all of the facilities returned to
compliance or remain open with enforceable deadlines.
Finding is:
~ Good Practice
0 Meets SRF Program Requirements
~ Area for State Attention
~Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Explanation
During the FFY 2010 review period, NDEP issued 96 enforcement
actions, including 88 Notices of Noncompliance (NONCs), five
Warning Letters, two Findings of Alleged Violation and Orders
(FAVOs-formal); and one Notice of Intent to Seek Penalty. There
were no violations classified as SNC during FFY 2010.
NDEP's NONCs are informal enforcement actions used at general
permitted stormwater facilities that identify violations and may or
may not include deadlines for a return to compliance or for corrective
actions.
NDEP's warning letters are informal enforcement actions that
identify violations and may or may not include deadlines for a return
to compliance or for corrective actions.
NDEP's FAVOs are formal enforcement actions that cite the alleged
violations, establish enforceable deadlines for a return to compliance,
and require a meeting to show cause why NDEP should not seek a
civil penalty for the cited violations. Failure to comply with an
FAVO can result injudicial action. One hundred percent of the
FAVOs reviewed by EPA required corrective action within a
specified timeframe and the subject facilities have returned to
compliance.
When NDEP has determined that a facility has complied with
warning letters and FAVOs, NDEP notifies the facility in writing and
closes the case. When NDEP has determined that a facility has
complied with a NONC, NDEP verbally notifies the facility, and
enters the status in its database.
The enforcement actions reviewed by EPA are listed below.
81
-------
Element 9: Enforcement Actions Promote Return to Compliance. Degree to which State
enforcement actions include required corrective action (i.e., injunctive relief or other
complying actions) that will return facilities to compliance in a specific time frame.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative
Value
9.a. Number of formal informal enforcement responses reviewed.
three formal; eight informal reviewed; three penalties
9.b. % of enforcement responses reviewed that have returned or will
return a source in SNC to compliance: N/A—There were no SNC
facilities during FFY2010
9.c. % of enforcement responses reviewed that have returned or will
return a source with non-SNC violations to compliance: 100%
State Response
Recommendations
None
Enforcement Actions Reviewed
Facility
Formal
Informal
Penalty
Minor
Harrahs
FAVO
3/28/2010
1/25/2011
Fountainbleau
Warning Letter
6/27/2010
Hawthorne Army Depot
Warning Letter
3/26/2010
Warning Letter
12/4/2009
Ponderosa Dairy
Warning Letter
3/10/2010
Small MS4
Carson City
FAVO
8/19/2009
3/5/2010
Unpermitted
Tahoe Estates
FAVO
9/23/2009
1/26/2011
Stormwater
Boulder Village
NONC
8/18/2010
Highway System SR317
NONC
2/28/2010
NONC
4/27/2010
Coyote Springs Valley Well
NONC
2/24/2010
Totals
3
8
3
82
-------
Element 10: Timely and Appropriate Action. Degree to which a state takes timely and
appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with policy relating to specific media.
E10.01
Finding
NDEP effectively and timely manages its noncompliant facilities
with appropriate enforcement responses.
Finding is:
~ Good Practice
~Meets SRF Program Requirements
0Area for State Attention
~Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Explanation
NDEP effectively and timely manages its noncompliant facilities
with a variety of enforcement responses. During the FFY 2010
review period, NDEP issued 98 enforcement actions, including 88
Notices of Noncompliance (NONCs), five Warning Letters, two
Findings of Alleged Violation and Orders (FAVOs-formal); and one
Notice of Intent to Seek Penalty. All of these enforcement actions
were against non-major facilities. NDEP did not have any major
facilities in SNC during FFY 2010. For the files reviewed, it appears
that NDEP addressed violations with the appropriate type of
enforcement response. EPA notes, however, that for the overall
FY10 enforcement numbers, a high proportion of violations were
resolved through informal actions (i.e. 93 NONCs or Warning
Letters) rather than formal action (2 FAVO and 1 penalty). EPA
believes a strong enforcement program utilizes the full range of
available enforcement tools, and should include an appropriately
robust use of formal enforcement actions.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative
Value
10-a. Major facilities in SNC without timely action: N/A
10-b. % of enforcement responses reviewed that address SNC that
are taken in a timely manner: N/A
10-c. % of enforcement responses reviewed that address SNC that
are appropriate to the violations: N/A
10-d. % of enforcement responses reviewed that appropriately
address non-SNC violations: 100%
10-e. % of enforcement responses reviewedfor non-SNC violations
where a response was taken timely. 100%
State Response
Recommendations
None
83
-------
Element 11: Penalty Calculation Method. Degree to which State documents in its files that
initial penalty calculation includes both gravity and economic benefit calculations,
appropriately using the BEN model or other method that produces results consistent with
national policy.
El 1.01
Finding
EPA reviewed three penalty actions taken by NDEP, and found that
the NDEP assessed appropriate penalties that considered both
gravity and economic benefit in two of the three penalties.
Finding is:
~ Good Practice
~Meets SRF Program Requirements
0Area for State Attention
~Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Explanation
Two of the penalty actions reviewed appear to be consistent with
NDEP's Enforcement Manual, and appropriately considered both
gravity and economic benefit. The calculated penalties were
appropriate for the types and length of the violations. For the third
penalty action reviewed, NDEP's penalty calculation properly
accounted for the gravity of the violations. NDEP did not add an
economic benefit component to its penalty calculation despite
correspondence from the discharger detailing its expenditures to
comply with NDEP's FAVO.
Where appropriate, information on the economic benefit for non-
compliance (i.e., actual or avoided costs encumbered by the facility)
should be obtained directly from the facility and considered as a
component of the assessed penalty. Facility cost data can be entered
into the BEN model or state method that is equivalent to and
consistent with EPA's national policy.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative
Value
Element 11-a. % ofpenalty calculations that consider and include
where appropriate gravity and economic benefit: of the cases
reviewed, 66% calculated appropriate gravity and economic benefit
State Response
Recommendations
84
-------
Element 12: Final Penalty Assessment and Collection. Degree to which differences between
initial and final penalty are documented in the file along with a demonstration in the file that
the final penalty was collected.
E12.01
Finding
EPA reviewed three penalty actions taken by NDEP, and found that
NDEP collected all penalties as assessed. The penalty information
and status are properly documented in NDEP's files.
Finding is:
~ Good Practice
13 Meets SRF Program Requirements
~ Area for State Attention
~Area for State Improvement - Recommendations Required
Explanation
For the three penalty actions reviewed by EPA, NDEP assessed a
total amount of $94,000 and collected $94,000. Each penalty was
collected as a cash payment with no supplemental environmental
project as an offset.
Metric(s) and
Quantitative
Value
12-a. % of penalties reviewed that document the difference and
rationale between the initial andfinal assessed penalty: 100%;
NDEP properly documented that there was no difference between
initial and final penalty assessments.
12-b. % of enforcement actions with penalties that document
collection of penalty: 100% documented the penalty collection.
State Response
Recommendations
None
85
-------
APPENDIX A: STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS REVIEWS
During the first SRF review of NDEP's compliance and enforcement programs, EPA Region
9 and Nevada identified a number of actions to be taken to address issues found during the review.
The table below shows the status of progress toward completing those actions.
State
Status
Due Date
Media
E#
Element
Explanation
Finding
NV - Round 1
Completed
12/31/2009
CWA
E2
Violations ID'ed
Appropriately
Nevada DEP should
prepare reports for
all of its storm water
inspections.
Nevada DEP logs inspection
findings in its storm water database
and prepares written Notices of
Noncompliance to document
deficiencies observed during
inspections. NDEP does not use an
inspection checklist form or
otherwise prepare reports for its
storm water inspections.
NV - Round 1
Completed
12/31/2009
CWA
El
Insp Universe
NDEP should conduct
MS4 inspections.
NDEP conducted MS4 inspections
at Reno and Clark County in 2008.
NV - Round 1
Completed
12/31/2009
CWA
E5
Return to
Compliance
NDEP should keep
copies of all
enforcement actions,
including NONCs, in
its enforcement case
files.
In 2008, NDEP ensured that copies
of NONCs are placed in case files.
NV - Round 1
Completed
12/31/2009
CWA
E5
Return to
Compliance
NDEP should escalate
cases to formal
enforcement orders,
especially for
significant violations,
nonresponsive
respondents or long
duration remedies.
NDEP uses informal enforcement
actions as its primary enforcement
response for storm water
violations.
NV - Round 1
Completed
9/30/2011
CWA
E8
Penalties
Collected
NDEP should review
its penalty policy and
practice of diverting
100% of penalty to
SEPs.
NDEP often diverts 100% of penalty
to SEPs.
NV - Round 1
Completed
12/31/2009
CWA
E12
Data Complete
NDEP should enter
its enforcement
actions in ICIS-
NPDES.
NDEP is not entering all of its
enforcement actions in ICIS-NPDES.
86
-------
APPENDIX B: OFFICIAL DATA PULL
OTIS State Review Framework [
)rill Down (Review Period Ending: FFY10)
FINAL PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS (PDA) SHEET
Report Generated on 4/26/2011
Metric
Metric Description
Metric
Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Average
Nevada
Metric
Froz
Count
Froz
Universe
Froz
Not
Counted
Froz
P01A1C
Active facility universe: NPDES
major individual permits
(Current)
Data
Quality
Combined
14
NA
NA
NA
P01A2C
Active facility universe: NPDES
major general permits
(Current)
Data
Quality
Combined
0
NA
NA
NA
P01A3C
Active facility universe: NPDES
non-major individual permits
(Current)
Data
Quality
Combined
97
NA
NA
NA
P01A4C
Active facility universe: NPDES
non-major general permits
(Current)
Data
Quality
Combined
0
NA
NA
NA
P01B1C
Major individual permits:
correctly coded limits (Current)
Goal
Combined
>=; 95%
92.9%
100.0%
11
11
0
C01B2C
Major individual permits: DMR
entry rate based on MRs
expected (Forms/Forms) (1
Qtr)
Goal
Combined
>=; 95%
93.7%
100.0%
112
112
0
C01B3C
Major individual permits: DMR
entry rate based on DMRs
expected (Permits/Permits) (1
Qtr)
Goal
Combined
>=; 95%
96.9%
100.0%
11
11
0
P01B4C
Major individual permits:
manual RNC/SNC override rate
(1FY)
Data
Quality
Combined
0/0
0
0
0
P01C1C
Non-major individual permits:
correctly coded limits (Current)
Informatio
nal Only
Combined
0/0
0
0
0
C01C2C
Non-major individual permits:
DMR entry rate based on
DMRs expected (Forms/Forms)
(1 Qtr)
Informatio
nal Only
Combined
0/0
0
0
0
C01C3C
Non-major individual permits:
DMR entry rate based on
DMRs expected
(Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)
Informatio
nal Only
Combined
0/0
0
0
0
P01D1C
Violations at non-majors:
noncompliance rate (1 FY)
Informatio
nal Only
Combined
0.0%
0
97
97
C01D2C
Violations at non-majors:
noncompliance rate in the
annual noncompliance report
(ANCR)(1 CY)
Informatio
nal Only
Combined
0/0
0
0
0
P01D3C
Violations at non-majors: DMR
non-receipt (3 FY)
Informatio
nal Only
Combined
0
NA
NA
NA
P01E1S
Informal actions: number of
major facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
P01E2S
Informal actions: number of
actions at major facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
P01E3S
Informal actions: number of
non-major facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
1
NA
NA
NA
87
-------
OTIS State Review Framework [
)rill Down (Review Period Ending: FFY10)
FINAL PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS (PDA) SHEET
Report Generated on 4/26/2011
Metric
Metric Description
Metric
Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Average
Nevada
Metric
Froz
Count
Froz
Universe
Froz
Not
Counted
Froz
P01E4S
Informal actions: number of
actions at non-major facilities
(1FY)
Data
Quality
State
1
NA
NA
NA
P01F1S
Formal actions: number of
major facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
P01F2S
Formal actions: number of
actions at major facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
P01F3S
Formal actions: number of
non-major facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
P01F4S
Formal actions: number of
actions at non-major facilities
(1FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
P01G1S
Penalties: total number of
penalties (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
P01G2S
Penalties: total penalties (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
So
NA
NA
NA
P01G3S
Penalties: total collected
pursuant to civil judicial
actions (3 FY)
Data
Quality
State
So
NA
NA
NA
P01G4S
Penalties: total collected
pursuant to administrative
actions (3 FY)
Informatio
nal Only
State
So
NA
NA
NA
P01G5S
No activity indicator - total
number of penalties (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
So
NA
NA
NA
P02A0S
Actions linked to violations:
major facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
>=; 80%
0/0
0
0
0
P 05 AOS
Inspection coverage: NPDES
majors (1 FY)
Goal
State
100%
60.7%
90.9%
10
11
1
P05B1S
Inspection coverage: NPDES
non-major individual permits
(1FY)
Goal
State
9.6%
9
94
85
P05B2S
Inspection coverage: NPDES
non-major general permits (1
FY)
Goal
State
0/0
0
0
0
P05C0S
Inspection coverage: NPDES
other (not 5a or 5b) (1 FY)
Informatio
nal Only
State
0.0%
0
6
6
P07A1C
Single-event violations at
majors (1 FY)
Review
Indicator
Combined
0
NA
NA
NA
P07A2C
Single-event violations at non-
majors (1 FY)
Informatio
nal Only
Combined
0
NA
NA
NA
P07B0C
Facilities with unresolved
compliance schedule violations
(at end of FY)
Data
Quality
Combined
22.6%
0/0
0
0
0
P07C0C
Facilities with unresolved
permit schedule violations (at
end of FY)
Data
Quality
Combined
21.9%
0/0
0
0
0
P07D0C
Percentage major facilities
with DMR violations (1 FY)
Data
Quality
Combined
52.8%
7.1%
1
14
13
P08A1C
Major facilities in SNC (1 FY)
Review
Indicator
Combined
0
NA
NA
NA
P08A2C
SNC rate: percent majors in
SNC (1 FY)
Review
Indicator
Combined
24.6%
0.0%
0
14
14
88
-------
OTIS State Review Framework [
)rill Down (Review Period Ending: FFY10)
FINAL PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS (PDA) SHEET
Report Generated on 4/26/2011
Metric
Metric Description
Metric
Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Average
Nevada
Metric
Froz
Count
Froz
Universe
Froz
Not
Counted
Froz
P10A0C
Major facilities without timely
action (1 FY)
Goal
Combined
<2%
18.3%
0.0%
0
14
14
89
-------
APPENDIX C: PDA TRANSMITTAL LETTER
Appendices C, D, and E provide the results of the Preliminary Data Analysis (PDA). The
Preliminary Data Analysis forms the initial structure for the SRF report, and helps ensure that the
data metrics are adequately analyzed prior to the on-site review.
This is a critical component of the SRF process because it allows the reviewers to be
prepared and knowledgeable about potential problem areas before the on-site review. In addition, it
gives the region focus during the file reviews and/or basis for requesting supplemental files based
on potential concerns raised by the data metric results.
This section, Appendix C, contains the letter transmitting the results of the Preliminary Data
Analysis to the state. This letter identifies areas that the data review suggests the need for further
examination and discussion during the review process.
EPA State Review Framework (SRF) first steps and visit to Nevada DEP
02/02/2011 Jenee Gavette to: vking
03:33 PM
Cc: Ken Greenberg, Julie Anderson, Laura Bose
F rom: Jenee Gavette/R9/USEPA/US
To: vking@ndep.nv.gov
Cc: Ken Greenberg/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Julie Anderson/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Laura Bose/R9/USEPA/US@EPA
Hi Val,
Per your recent discussions with Ken Greenberg, EPA's State Review Framework (SRF) review of Nevada's
FY2010 Clean Water Act (CWA) program has been scheduled for the week of March 14, 2011. I suggest
that we visit your offices on March 15-18, 2011. Please confirm if these dates are suitable.
With this e-mail, I'm sending you instructions on the State Review Framework (SRF) and, in particular, how
to complete your part of the first step in the SRF process - the Preliminary Data Analysis (PDA). When the
PDA is completed, we can proceed with the file selection.
This is the SRF homepage on the OTIS web site. You should be able to access this web site from your
office, but not from home. From the SRF homepage, you can read SRF instructions under the "SRF
Documentation" link. (I pulled a few key instructions from this Documentation page and attached them
below.) Here's the homepage:
http://www.epa-otis.gov/otis/stateframework.html
The attached PDF (Nevada FY10 SRF OTIS Results 1.20.11) is the summary report that lists the results of
the SRF data query (generated on January 20, 2011) for Nevada FY10 data for each SRF metric.
Nevada FY10 SRF OTIS Results 1.20.11.pdf
90
-------
The attached excel spreadsheet (Nevada FINAL FY10 SRF OTIS Report and Metrics Frozen on 1.20.11),
contains the summary report described above along with the related detailed results as further described
below.
This excel spreadsheet is a download of Region 9's Nevada FY2010 data query, generated on January 20,
2011. This will be our "frozen" data set and will be used for the SRF review. The spreadsheet includes
several worksheets that contain the report results and drill down data sets for each metric, where applicable.
The second worksheet in the spreadsheet, titled "OTIS NV 2010 SRF Summary & PDA", has extra columns
that can be used to record information about data discrepancies. You should complete columns K, L, M,and
N. Column M is where you insert the correct number if the figures in columns G through J are incorrect.
Each discrepancy/correction should be supported by a spreadsheet that provides a detailed list, by facility,
that provides the pertinent information, i.e., facility name, facility type and sub-type, permit no, type of action
(eg. type of inspection, type of enforcement action, etc.), and related dates, etc. This step is known as the
Preliminary Data Analysis (PDA).
Nevada FINAL FY10 SRF OTIS Report and Metrics FROZEN on 1.20.11.xls
Here are instructions for the PDA. At this point, we're asking you to work only on step 1. This is the data
reconciliation step in which you review the attached Nevada FY 2010 data query and resolve data
discrepancies.
PDA 0 verview and T emplate 82508.pdf
Once we receive the completed PDA and complete our review, we will proceed with Step 2, file selection.
Finally, I'm attaching two files that provide an explanation of the data metrics:
Cia E'TM
iV >
cwadatametric-final-3-11 -09 version 2.2.pdf Final SRF CWA PLG 3-11-2009 Version 2.2.pdf
Please submit the complete PDA by February 16, 2010 to ensure time for our review, to resolve any
questions, and to allow enough time for file selection and preparation.
I will call you early next week (week of February 7, 2011) to walk you through this data reconciliation
process. Also, in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Jenee Gavette
Water Division Compliance Office (WTR-7)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-972-3439 (phone)
415-947-3537 (fax)
gavette.jenee@epa.gov
91
-------
04/29/2011
01:22 PM
RE: SRF 2nd Round: revised PDA, file review list, and review dates-now with attachments
Jenee Gavette to: Valerie King 04/29/2011 01:22 PM
Cc: Ken Greenberg
F rom: Jenee Gavette/R9/USEPA/US
To: Valerie King
Cc: Ken Greenberg/R9/USEPA/US@EPA
Hi Val, thanks for your quick response. I will contact you next week about the particulars of our visit. Sorry, I
failed to add the attachment in my previous email. . . sigh . . .
In this email, I have provided two attachments:
I. A new PDA because EPA HQs has recently frozen the data and we now have an official data set
(final FY10 SRF OTIS Report & Metrics-attached). There are a few revised numbers and the associated
supporting lists are different. I copied your comments-verbatim-from your first PDA submittal and
pasted them into this new PDA (green-colored entries). I also provided explanations and requests for
additional info, etc. in the new PDA (see peach-colored entries).
II. The list of files we have selected for our CWA SRF on-site review, scheduled for May 9-10, 2011.
The list represents each CWA program, facility type, and includes 29 facilities that had compliance or
enforcement activity-inspections, enforcement, violations, -during FFY2010). Please make available
all compliance and enforcement files (DMRs, inspection reports, enforcement and penalty documents,
etc.) related to each facility so that we may begin reviewing them on May 9. Please note that I need
additional information for some of the facilities so that I can finalize the review list, as follows: Please
provide correct information where there are questions marks (?) for Tahoe Estates, Clark County WRDs,
Lander County, Ponderosa Dairy, & Carson City).
Can you please provide the requested information for the PDA and file review list, as well as comments and
the correct numbers on any discrepancies you identify, and provide the requested supporting information by
May 4, 2011. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thanks, and have a good weekend.
Nevada FINAL FY 10 SRF OTIS Report and Metrics FROZEN on 4.26.11.xls
NV Preliminary FY10 SRF File Review List 4.29.11.xlsx
Jenee Gavette
Water Division Compliance Office (WTR-7)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-972-3439 (phone)
415-947-3537 (fax)
92
-------
gavette.jenee@epa.gov
93
-------
APPPENDIX D: PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS CHART
This section provides the results of the Preliminary Data Analysis (PDA). The Preliminary
Data Analysis forms the initial structure for the SRF report and helps ensure that the data metrics
are adequately analyzed prior to the on-site review. This is a critical component of the SRF process
because it allows the reviewers to be prepared and knowledgeable about potential problem areas
before initiating the on-site portion of the review. In addition, it gives the region focus during the
file reviews and/or basis for requesting supplemental files based on potential concerns raised by the
data metrics results.
The PDA reviews each data metric and evaluates state performance against the national goal
or average, if appropriate. The PDA chart in this section of the SRF report only includes metrics
where potential concerns or areas of exemplary performance are identified. (The full PDA
worksheet in Appendix E contains every metric: positive, neutral, or negative.) Initial Findings
indicate the observed results. Initial Findings are preliminary observations. They are used as a basis
for further investigation that takes place during the file review and through dialogue with the state.
Final Findings are developed only after evaluating them against the file review results where
appropriate, and dialogue with the state have occurred. Through this process, Initial Findings may
be confirmed, modified, or determined not to be supported. Findings are presented in Section IV of
this report.
OTIS State Review Framework [
)rill Down (Review Period Ending: FFY10)
FINAL PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS (PDA) SHEET
Report Generated on 4/26/2011
Metric
Metric Description
Metric
Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Average
Nevada
Metric
Frozen
EPA Initial Findings
P01A1C
Active facility universe: NPDES
major individual permits
(Current)
Data
Quality
Combined
14
P01A2C
Active facility universe: NPDES
major general permits
(Current)
Data
Quality
Combined
0
P01A3C
Active facility universe: NPDES
non-major individual permits
(Current)
Data
Quality
Combined
97
P01A4C
Active facility universe: NPDES
non-major general permits
(Current)
Data
Quality
Combined
0
Need inventory for each
permit type
P01B1C
Major individual permits:
correctly coded limits (Current)
Goal
Combined
>=; 95%
92.9%
100.0%
C01B2C
Major individual permits: DMR
entry rate based on MRs
expected (Forms/Forms) (1
Qtr)
Goal
Combined
>=; 95%
93.7%
100.0%
C01B3C
Major individual permits: DMR
entry rate based on DMRs
expected (Permits/Permits) (1
Qtr)
Goal
Combined
>=; 95%
96.9%
100.0%
P01B4C
Major individual permits:
manual RNC/SNC override rate
(1FY)
Data
Quality
Combined
0/0
P01C1C
Non-major individual permits:
correctly coded limits (Current)
Informatio
nal Only
Combined
0/0
94
-------
OTIS State Review Framework [
)rill Down (Review Period Ending: FFY10)
FINAL PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS (PDA) SHEET
Report Generated on 4/26/2011
Metric
Metric Description
Metric
Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Average
Nevada
Metric
Frozen
EPA Initial Findings
C01C2C
Non-major individual permits:
DMR entry rate based on
DMRs expected (Forms/Forms)
(1 Qtr)
Informatio
nal Only
Combined
0/0
C01C3C
Non-major individual permits:
DMR entry rate based on
DMRs expected
(Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)
Informatio
nal Only
Combined
0/0
P01D1C
Violations at non-majors:
noncompliance rate (1 FY)
Informatio
nal Only
Combined
0.0%
C01D2C
Violations at non-majors:
noncompliance rate in the
annual noncompliance report
(ANCR)(1 CY)
Informatio
nal Only
Combined
0/0
P01D3C
Violations at non-majors: DMR
non-receipt (3 FY)
Informatio
nal Only
Combined
0
P01E1S
Informal actions: number of
major facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
Check if more
P01E2S
Informal actions: number of
actions at major facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
Check if more
P01E3S
Informal actions: number of
non-majorfacilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
1
Check if more
P01E4S
Informal actions: number of
actions at non-majorfacilities
(1FY)
Data
Quality
State
1
Check if more
P01F1S
Formal actions: number of
major facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
Check if more
P01F2S
Formal actions: number of
actions at major facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
Check if more
P01F3S
Formal actions: number of
non-majorfacilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
Check if more
P01F4S
Formal actions: number of
actions at non-majorfacilities
(1FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
Check if more
P01G1S
Penalties: total number of
penalties (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
Check if any
P01G2S
Penalties: total penalties (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
So
Check
P01G3S
Penalties: total collected
pursuant to civil judicial
actions (3 FY)
Data
Quality
State
So
Check
P01G4S
Penalties: total collected
pursuant to administrative
actions (3 FY)
Informatio
nal Only
State
SO
Check
P01G5S
No activity indicator - total
number of penalties (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
SO
Check
P02A0S
Actions linked to violations:
major facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
>=; 80%
0/0
P 05 AOS
Inspection coverage: NPDES
majors (1 FY)
Goal
State
100%
60.7%
90.9%
Check 90.9% coverage
P05B1S
Inspection coverage: NPDES
non-major individual permits
(1FY)
Goal
State
9.6%
check
P05B2S
Inspection coverage: NPDES
non-major general permits (1
FY)
Goal
State
0/0
Need to get inventories for
each type
P05C0S
Inspection coverage: NPDES
other (not 5a or 5b) (1 FY)
Informatio
nal Only
State
0.0%
95
-------
OTIS State Review Framework [
)rill Down (Review Period Ending: FFY10)
FINAL PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS (PDA) SHEET
Report Generated on 4/26/2011
Metric
Metric Description
Metric
Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Average
Nevada
Metric
Frozen
EPA Initial Findings
P07A1C
Single-event violations at
majors (1 FY)
Review
Indicator
Combined
0
Check
P07A2C
Single-event violations at non-
majors (1 FY)
Informatio
nal Only
Combined
0
Check
P07B0C
Facilities with unresolved
compliance schedule violations
(at end of FY)
Data
Quality
Combined
22.6%
0/0
P07C0C
Facilities with unresolved
permit schedule violations (at
end of FY)
Data
Quality
Combined
21.9%
0/0
P07D0C
Percentage major facilities
with DMR violations (1 FY)
Data
Quality
Combined
52.8%
7.1%
P08A1C
Major facilities in SNC (1 FY)
Review
Indicator
Combined
0
P08A2C
SNC rate: percent majors in
SNC (1 FY)
Review
Indicator
Combined
24.6%
0.0%
P10A0C
Major facilities without timely
action (1 FY)
Goal
Combined
<2%
18.3%
0.0%
96
-------
APPENDIX E: PDA WORKSHEET (with State and EPA
Comments)
Frozen Data FY2010
|OTIS State Review Framework Drill Down (Review Period Ending: FFY10) Report Generated on 4/26/2011
FINAL PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS (PDA) SHEET
Entries (in green) NV's 5/3/11 PDA submittal;
entries (in peach) entered by EPA on
4/26/2011.
Metric
Metric
Description
Metric
Type
Agency
Nation
al Goal
National
Average
NV
Metric
Froz
Count
Froz
Universe
Froz
Not
Counte
d Froz
State
Discrep
ancy
(Y/N)
State
Correct
ion
State
Data
Source
State Discrepancy
Explanation
EPA
Initial
Findings
EPA
Evaluation
P01A1C
Active facility
universe: NPDES
major individual
permits
(Current)
Data
Quality
Combin
ed
14
NA
NA
NA
N
P01A2C
Active facility
universe: NPDES
major general
permits
(Current)
Data
Quality
Combin
ed
0
NA
NA
NA
N
P01A3C
Active facility
universe: NPDES
non-major
individual
permits
(Current)
Data
Quality
Combin
ed
97
NA
NA
NA
Y
85
State
DB
Verified:
97 correct
P01A4C
Active facility
universe: NPDES
non-major
general permits
(Current)
Data
Quality
Combin
ed
0
NA
NA
NA
Y
5
Small MS4
NVS040000, SW
Minining NVR300000,
SW Construction
NVR100000, SW
Industrial
NVR050000, De
Minimus NVG201000
Need
inventory
for each
permit
type
now have
inventory
for each
type
Please provide inventory lists of individual
facilities covered under each general permit
(permit type, permittee/facility name, permit
no.)
P01B1C
Major individual
permits:
correctly coded
limits (Current)
Goal
Combin
ed
>=;
95%
92.9%
100.0%
11
11
0
Y
14/14
state
databas
e
This metric looks for correctly coded limits; it
says 100% (11 out of 11) are coded correctly,
which is good. 1 am not sure what the
"2556/2556" represents. At any rate, for
some reason, the report is only counting 11 as
NV's universe, ratherthan 14. See "Major Ind
Correct Coded Limits" worksheet.
C01B2C
Major individual
permits: DMR
entry rate based
on MRs
expected
(Forms/Forms)
(1 Qtr)
Goal
Combin
ed
>=;
95%
93.7%
100.0%
112
112
0
Y
56/56
OK
97
-------
OTIS State Review Frarm
;work Drill Down (Review Period Ending:
FINAL PRELIMINARY
Entries (in green) NV's S/3/11 PDA submittal;
entries (in peach) entered by EPA on
4/26/2011.
2011
Metric
Metric
Description
Metric
Type
Agency
Nation
al Goal
National
Average
NV
Metric
Froz
Count
Froz
Universe
Froz
Not
Counte
d Froz
State
Discrep
ancy
(Y/N)
State
Correct
ion
State
Data
Source
State Discrepancy
Explanation
EPA
Initial
Findings
EPA
Evaluation
This metric represents the number of
individual "monitoring reports" (MRs) required
and submitted for each major facility. See
"Major and DMR entry (MRs)" worksheet.
C01B3C
Major individual
permits: DMR
entry rate based
on DMRs
expected
(Permits/Permit
s) (1 Qtr)
Goal
Combin
ed
>=;
95%
96.9%
100.0%
11
11
0
Y
14
OK
P01B4C
Major individual
permits: manual
RNC/SNC
override rate (1
FY)
Data
Quality
Combin
ed
0/0
0
0
0
P01C1C
Non-major
individual
permits:
correctly coded
limits (Current)
Inform
ational
Only
Combin
ed
0/0
0
0
0
C01C2C
Non-major
individual
permits: DMR
entry rate based
on DMRs
expected
(Forms/Forms)
(1 Qtr)
Inform
ational
Only
Combin
ed
0/0
0
0
0
Y
Not required
C01C3C
Non-major
individual
permits: DMR
entry rate based
on DMRs
expected
(Permits/Permit
s) (1 Qtr)
Inform
ational
Only
Combin
ed
0/0
0
0
0
Y
Not required
P01D1C
Violations at
non-majors:
noncompliance
rate (1 FY)
Inform
ational
Only
Combin
ed
0.0%
0
97
97
Y
not required
C01D2C
Violations at
non-majors:
noncompliance
rate in the
annual
noncompliance
report (ANCR)(1
CY)
Inform
ational
Only
Combin
ed
0/0
0
0
0
Y
not required
P01D3C
Violations at
non-majors:
DMR non-
receipt (3 FY)
Inform
ational
Only
Combin
ed
0
NA
NA
NA
Y
not required
98
-------
lOTIS State Review Framework Drill Down (Review Period Ending: FFY10)
Frozen Data FY2010
Report Generated on 4/26/2011
FINAL PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS (PDA) SHEET
Entries (in green) NV's 5/3/11 PDA submittal;
entries (in peach) entered by EPA on
4/26/2011.
State
NV
Not
Discrep
State
State
EPA
Metric
Metric
Nation
National
Metric
Count
Universe
Counte
ancy
Correct
Data
State Discrepancy
Initial
EPA
Metric
Description
Type
Agency
al Goal
Average
Froz
Froz
Froz
d Froz
(Y/N)
ion
Source
Explanation
Findings
Evaluation
P01E1S
Informal
actions: number
of major
facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
Y
2
Carson City MS4
NVS04000 10/5/09
and CCWRD
NV0021261 5/24/10
check if
more
verified:
none issued
This metric represents the number of major
facilities that had an informal enforcement
action during FFY2010. If any meet this
criteria, please provide a list of the facilities
and include: name & permit no, enforcement
type(s) and date(s).
P01E2S
Informal
actions: number
of actions at
major facilities
(1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
Y
2
CCWRD NV0021261
5/24/10
check if
more
verified:
none issued
This metric represents the number of informal
enforcement actions at major facilities during
FFY2010. If any meet this criteria, please
provide a list of the enforcement actions and
include: name & permit no, enforcement
type(s) and date(s).
P01E3S
Informal
actions: number
of non-major
facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
1
NA
NA
NA
Y
4
check if
more
5 non-
major
This metric represents the number of minor
facilities that had an informal enforcement
action during FFY2010. If any meet this
criteria, please provide a list of the facilities
and include: name & permit no, enforcement
type(s) and date(s).
P01E4S
Informal
actions: number
of actions at
non-major
facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
1
NA
NA
NA
Y
5
2 x Hawthorne
NV0021946,
Ponderosa Dairy
NV002307, Caesars
Palace NV0023191,
Fontainebleau
NV0023566
check if
more
5 non-
major; 88
general
permitted
This metric represents the number of informal
enforcement actions at minorfacilities during
FFY2010. If any meet this criteria, please
provide a list of the enforcement actions and
include: name & permit no, enforcement
|type(s) and date(s).
P01F1S
Formal actions:
number of
major facilities
(1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
check if
more
none
P01F2S
Formal actions:
number of
actions at major
facilities (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
check if
more
none
99
-------
lOTIS State Review Framework Drill Down (Review Period Ending: FFY10)
Frozen Data FY2010
Report Generated on 4/26/2011
FINAL PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS (PDA) SHEET
Entries (in green) NV's 5/3/11 PDA submittal;
entries (in peach) entered by EPA on
4/26/2011.
State
NV
Not
Discrep
State
State
EPA
Metric
Metric
Nation
National
Metric
Count
Universe
Counte
ancy
Correct
Data
State Discrepancy
Initial
EPA
Metric
Description
Type
Agency
al Goal
Average
Froz
Froz
Froz
d Froz
(Y/N)
ion
Source
Explanation
Findings
Evaluation
P01F3S
Formal actions:
number of non-
major facilities
(1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
check if
more
2 facilities
P01F4S
Formal actions:
number of
actions at non-
major facilities
(1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
Y
1
Harrah's NV0021598
3/10/10
check if
more
1 amended;
1 new
This metric represents the number of formal
enforcement actions at minor facilities during
FFY2010. If any meet this criteria, please
provide a list of the enforcement actions and
include: name & permit no, enforcement
type(s) and date(s).
P01G1S
Penalties: total
number of
penalties (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
0
NA
NA
NA
Y
2
Harrah's and Tahoe
Estates
check if
any
verified: 1
issued
during
review
period;
others
issued after
review
period
Please provide a list of the penalty actions and
include: facility type, name & permit no;
penalty type(s) and date(s); amounts assessed;
and amounts collected and dates.
P01G2S
Penalties: total
penalties (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
So
NA
NA
NA
Y
66,000
Harrah's and Tahoe
Estates
check if
any
verified:
$26,000
during
review
period;
others
penalized
after
review
period
Please provide a list of the penalty actions and
include: facility type, name & permit no;
penalty type(s) and date(s); amounts assessed;
and amounts collected and dates.
P01G3S
Penalties: total
collected
pursuant to civil
judicial actions
(3 FY)
Data
Quality
State
So
NA
NA
NA
check
N/A
100
-------
lOTIS State Review Framework Drill Down (Review Period Ending: FFY10)
Frozen Data FY2010
Report Generated on 4/26/2011
FINAL PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS (PDA) SHEET
Entries (in green) NV's 5/3/11 PDA submittal;
entries (in peach) entered by EPA on
4/26/2011.
State
NV
Not
Discrep
State
State
EPA
Metric
Metric
Nation
National
Metric
Count
Universe
Counte
ancy
Correct
Data
State Discrepancy
Initial
EPA
Metric
Description
Type
Agency
al Goal
Average
Froz
Froz
Froz
d Froz
(Y/N)
ion
Source
Explanation
Findings
Evaluation
P01G4S
Penalties: total
collected
pursuant to
administrative
actions (3 FY)
Inform
ational
Only
State
So
NA
NA
NA
Y
37,000
Harrah's and Tahoe
Estates
check
verified:
$26,000
during
review
period;
others
collected
after
review
period
Please provide a list of the penalty actions and
include: facility type, name & permit no;
penalty type(s) and date(s); amounts assessed;
and amounts collected and dates.
P01G5S
No activity
indicator-total
number of
penalties (1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
So
NA
NA
NA
check
1
This metric represents the total
number/amount of ALL types of penalties.
Please provide a list of the penalty actions and
include: facility type, name & permit no;
penalty type(s) and date(s); amounts assessed;
and amounts collected and dates.
P02A0S
Actions linked
to violations:
major facilities
(1 FY)
Data
Quality
State
>=;
80%
0/0
0
0
0
This metric represents formal enforcement
actions taken against major facilities with
enforcement violation type EVTP in PCS or
equivalent in PCS-ICIS.
P05A0S
Inspection
coverage:
NPDES majors
(1 FY)
Goal
State
100%
60.7%
90.9%
10
11
1
Y
13 See attachment
check
90.9%
coverage
100%
coverage
P05B1S
Inspection
coverage:
NPDES non-
major individual
permits (1 FY)
Goal
State
9.6%
9
94
85
Y
17 See attachment
check
14%
coverage,
but on
track for 5
yr coverage
P05B2S
Inspection
coverage:
NPDES non-
major general
permits (1 FY)
Goal
State
0/0
0
0
0
Y
1162
See attachment
Need to
get
inventorie
s for each
type
CMS
coverage
goals met
P05C0S
Inspection
coverage:
NPDES other
(not 5a or 5b) (1
FY)
Inform
ational
Only
State
0.0%
0
6
6
P07A1C
Single-event
violations at
majors (1 FY)
Review
Indicat
or
Combin
ed
0
NA
NA
NA
check
not entered
101
-------
lOTIS State Review Framework Drill Down (Review Period Ending: FFY10)
Frozen Data FY2010
Report Generated on 4/26/2011
FINAL PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS (PDA) SHEET
Entries (in green) NV's 5/3/11 PDA submittal;
entries (in peach) entered by EPA on
4/26/2011.
Metric
Metric
Description
Metric
Type
Agency
Nation
al Goal
National
Average
NV
Metric
Froz
Count
Froz
Universe
Froz
Not
Counte
d Froz
State
Discrep
ancy
(Y/N)
State
Correct
ion
State
Data
Source
State Discrepancy
Explanation
EPA
Initial
Findings
EPA
Evaluation
P07A2C
Single-event
violations at
non-majors (1
FY)
Inform
ational
Only
Combin
ed
0
NA
NA
NA
check
not
entered;
not
required
These metrics (A1C & A2C) represents the
number of "single-event" violations (SEVs)
(e.g., spills, those not reported on DMRs, etc.)
at major and minorfacilities during FFY2010.
If NV tracks this info, please provide a list of
the SEVs and include: facility type, name &
permit no, SEVtype(s) and date(s).
P07B0C
Facilities with
unresolved
compliance
schedule
violations (at
end of FY)
Data
Quality
Combin
ed
22.6%
0/0
0
0
0
P07C0C
Facilities with
unresolved
permit schedule
violations (at
end of FY)
Data
Quality
Combin
ed
21.9%
0/0
0
0
0
P07D0C
Percentage
major facilities
with DMR
violations (1 FY)
Data
Quality
Combin
ed
52.8%
7.1%
1
14
13
This represents those facilities that reported
one or more effluent violation on their DMRs
and subsequent entry into the PCS-ICIS.
P08A1C
Major facilities
in SNC (1 FY)
Review
Indicat
or
Combin
ed
0
NA
NA
NA
none
P08A2C
SNC rate:
percent majors
in SNC (1 FY)
Review
Indicat
or
Combin
ed
24.6%
0.0%
0
14
14
good
P10A0C
Major facilities
without timely
action (1 FY)
Goal
Combin
ed
<2%
18.3%
0.0%
0
14
14
n/a
102
-------
APPENDIX F: FILE SELECTION
Files to be reviewed are selected according to a standard protocol (available here:
http://www.epa-otis.gov/srf/docs/fileselectionprotocol 10.pdf) and using a web-based file
selection tool (available here: http://www.epa-otis.gov/cgi-bin/test/srf/srf fileselection.cgi). The
protocol and tool are designed to provide consistency and transparency in the process. Based on
the description of the file selection process in section A below, states should be able to recreate
the results in the table in section B.
A. File Selection Process
For NDEP's review, EPA was unable to use the web-based file selection tool described
above because NPDES-ISIS was not sufficiently populated with relevant information.
Therefore, using the information gathered during the Preliminary Data Analysis (PDA), EPA
identified the universe of facilities and actions that should be considered during the review
period. File selection was based on the "range of files based on size of universe" criteria, set
forth in EPA's SRF Implementation Guidance, April 2006. Specifically, the guidance suggests
reviewing between 15 and 30 files, that the files represent different categories of dischargers and
include inspections and enforcement actions. The selected files included several inspections and
most of the enforcement actions taken by NDEP in FFY 2010. The files selected and reviewed
by EPA are listed below.
B. File Selection Table
103
-------
EPA FFY 2010 NEVADA DEP CWA SRF REVIEW
FINAL FILE REVIEW LIST
5/6/2011
Compliance & Enforcement Activities During
2010
Facility Name
Program ID
Facility
City/County
Inspection
Violation
SEV
SNC
Informal
Action
Formal
Action
Penalty
Type
Type
Total
Tahoe Estates
Lake Tahoe
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
unper
mitted
1
TRONOX KerMcGee
NV0000078
Henderson
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Major
5
City of Las Vegas WPCF
NVoo 20133
Las Vegas
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Truckee Meadows WRF
NV0020150
Reno
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
Clark Cnty WRDAWT
NV0021261
Las Vegas
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Twin Creeks Mine
NV0021725
Golconda
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storey Cnty-Virginia City
NVoo 20451
Virginia City
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Minor
9
Lander Cnty-Battle Mtn WWTP
NVoo 23167
7
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moody Lane Reg WRF
NV0023582
Fallon
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Flawthorne Army Facility
NV0021946
Hawthorne
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Ponderosa Dairy
NV0023027
7
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
McCarran Airport
NVoo 23761
Las Vegas
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fountainbleau Casino & Resort
NV0023566
Las Vegas
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Harrahs Basement Dewatering
NV0021598
Reno
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
U.S. NavyNAS Fallon
NV0110001
Fallon
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Carson City
NVS040000
Carson City
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Small
MS4
1
Blue Diamond-Green Vly Stge
NVR050000
Clark
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
SWInd
5
Elevation T ransport
NVR050000
Elko
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
Veka West Inc.
NVR050000
Washoe
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Myrnas Hot Shot & Air Freight
Co.
NVR050000
Clark
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
TS Power Plant
NVR050000
Eureka
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Carson City Fairgrounds/Fuji
Urban Park
NVR100000
Carson City
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
SW
Const
5
Coyote Springs Valley Well &
Moapa Transmission System
NVR100000
Clark
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Highway Systems SR 317
NVR100000
Lincoln
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ruby Pipeline
NVR100000
Elko
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Boulder Village
NVR100000
Clark
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Heap Leach Facility
NVR050000
Storey
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mining
2
Lone Tree Mine
NVR050000
Humboldt
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
2
1
0
6
0
1
28
104
-------
APPENDIX G: FILE REVIEW ANALYSIS
This section presents the initial observations of the region regarding program performance
against file metrics. Initial findings are developed by the region at the conclusion of the file review
process. The initial finding is a statement of fact about the observed performance, and should
indicated whether the performance indicates a practice to be highlighted or a potential issue, along
with some explanation about the nature of good practice or the potential issue. The File Review
Metrics Analysis Form in the report only includes metrics where potential concerns or areas of
exemplary performance are identified.
Initial findings indicate the observed results. They are preliminary observations and are used
as a basis for further investigation. These findings are developed only after evaluating them against
the PDA results where appropriate, and talking to the state. Through this process, initial findings
may be confirmed, modified, or determined not to be supported. Findings are presented in Section
IV of this report.
The quantitative metrics developed from the file reviews are initial indicators of performance
based on available information and are used by the reviewers to identify areas for further
investigation. Because of the limited sample size, statistical comparisons among programs or across
states cannot be made.
Appendix G
Nevada DEP
Review Period: FFY 2010
CWA Metric #
CWA File Review Metric:
Metric
Value
Initial Findings and Conclusions
Metric 2b
% of files reviewed where data
is accurately reflected in the
national data system.
did not
calculate
Most WENBE elements are in system
Metric 4a
% of planned inspections
completed
various
All planned inspections, per NDEP's CMS, conducted
Metric 4b
Other planned commitments
completed.
N/A
NDEP does not use CWA 106 grant funds to implement
its NPDES compliance and enforcement program, so
there are no other relevant commitments
Metric 6a
# of inspection reports
reviewed.
38
Metric 6b
% of inspection reports
reviewed that are complete.
5%
Most are incomplete, per SRF review criteria; but the
minor omissions do not hinder compliance
determinations.
Metric 6c
% of inspection reports
reviewed that provide
sufficient documentation to
lead to an accurate compliance
determination.
97%
One report not sufficient.
Metric 6d
% of inspection reports
reviewed that are timely.
100%
105
-------
Appendix G
Nevada DEP
Review Period: FFY 2010
CWA Metric #
CWA File Review Metric:
Metric
Value
Initial Findings and Conclusions
Metric 7e
% of inspection reports or
facility files reviewed that led
to accurate compliance
determinations.
97%
Most made accurate determinations.
Metric 8b
% of single event violation(s)
that are accurately identified as
SNC
100%
SEVs not tracked in ICIS, however, SW SEVs tracked in
state database. In major files reviewed, NDEP
inspections found no SEVs, therefore no SNC based on
SEVs, therefore NDEP properly assessed SNC rate at its
majors.
Metric 8c
% of single event violation(s)
identified as SNC that are
reported timely.
0%
SEVs not tracked in ICIS, however, SW SEVs timely
tracked in state database; SNC criteria not used by
NDEP.
Metric 9a
# of formal/informal
enforcement responses
reviewed
11
3 FAVOs, 4 warning letters, 4 NONCs
Metric 9b
% of enforcement responses
that have returned or will
return a source in SNC to
compliance.
0%
N/A: no SNC facilities
Metric 9c
% of enforcement responses
that have returned or will
returned a source with non-
SNC violations to compliance.
100%
All facilities returned to compliance or remain open with
enforceable deadlines.
Metric 10b
% of enforcement responses
reviewed that address SNC that
are taken in a taken in a timely
manner.
0%
N/A: no SNC facilities
Metric 10c
% of enforcement responses
reviewed that address SNC that
are appropriate to the
violations.
0%
N/A: no SNC facilities
Metric lOd
% of enforcement responses
reviewed that appropriately
address non-SNC violations.
100%
Metric lOe
% enforcement responses for
non-SNC violations where a
response was taken in a timely
manner.
100%
Metric 11a
% of penalty calculations that
consider and include where
appropriate gravity and
economic benefit.
100% of
reviewed
All documented
Metric 12a
% of penalties reviewed that
document the difference and
rationale between the initial
and final assessed penalty.
100% of
reviewed
All assessed amounts properly documented.
Metric 12b
% of enforcement actions with
penalties that document
100% of
reviewed
All collections documented. All were cash settlements
and did not include SEPs.
106
-------
Appendix G
Nevada DEP
Review Period: FFY 2010
CWA Metric #
CWA File Review Metric:
Metric
Value
Initial Findings and Conclusions
collection of penalty.
107
-------
APPENDIX H: CORRESPONDENCE
raoiEct»crt<
tfe (met f*> gtmmxte.
STATE OF NEVADA
division Of environmental protect jqn
Dqwrtmtrit of Cartiervabon & JSbturai Kjrsour^
tnws Sm'xkrscd Ctmaf
In M On•?£>
Calm otyu. Pti 0, AtfmnhMttr
Dcccmbci 14,2011
Mr. Jnrod Bluracxifefd, Regions] AdraiataCtsKnj
US EPA Region K
75 Hawthorn* Strort
San Francisco, CA ^4tflS»3Ml
R£: Draft Report for Rcunc«r» i« ow discussions witJi EPA. The primary' goal nfNDFP has always been to
wirieve and mstnuw compliance with «jvixrainentaJ regulations. Toward thai <7td. we
invent in compliance asmtance,, outreach. wi4 an active: and effective ficid ptccoxe. Wc
fi»d that the effectiveness of w»i efforts is beat raexHtrcd by the rate rtf compiiance
among regulated facilities, rwtfcy the number or amount of penalties «>M«te4 We
reeogaL® Ow tMs strategy may be impractical for EPA md States with very large
regulator/ univertw and that a wore reactive approach m»y "be needed. However, given
the relatively mmJ) number of regulated tec-iMli« in Nevwu and
-------
Page 2
Atudmients
cc: David Qaakln, Deputy Administrator, NDEP
David Emrac, Deputy Administrator, NDEP
Eric Noack, Chief, Bureau of WaMe Management, NDEP
Alan Tinney, CMcf, Bureau of Water Million Control, NDEP
Mr. Ken Gteenfjetg, US EPA Region IX. WTR-7,75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
J John Schofieid, US EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA
94105-3901
f
109
-------
110
-------
NDEP Bureau of Water Pollution Control
NPDES CWA Comments on Draft SRFII
These comments are specific to (he EPA review of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Program enforcement activities in the SRF report,
Before providing our comments and response*, NDEP reiterates that as with past SRF
responses, the recent draft SRF would require NDEP to allocate additional time and
financial resources for efforts that wilt not add any substantive value to our compliance
and enforcement programs. We stress lo EPA that NDEP remains one of the leanest stole
environmental programs in the U.S. and as such we focus our resources on achieving
water pollution control compliance statewide based upon our State priorities.
With this in mind, NDEP offers the following comments to EPA;
The general program overview section, page 6 of the report states that NDEP
enters general permit information into 1C1S. This is not correct. Per our mutual
agreement {Jane II, 2004 letter to John Kcmmerer) oh ICIS entry roles, NDEP is
not responsible for entering information on general permits or storm water
permits into ICIS, This reference to general permit entry should be removed.
2. MnRleEyenlMriatimlSlV)entry intoICIS(Element. 1):
Clement 7 of the SRF report states that EPA is in consultation with NDEP on
options and procedures for entering SEV's into ICIS for major NPDES facilities.
"Hiis is not an accurate statement as NDEP has not agreed to entry of SEV's into
ICIS, NDEP does not have sufficient staffing or funding for this additional data
entry activity and to do so would take critical resources away from our
compliance and enforcement program,
3. Economic Benefit Penalty Calculation Mgthmj [Element 13)
The Element 11 review recommendation is to obtain facility cost data, where
appropriate, when determining the economic benefit factor in assessing
noncompliance penalties. While economic benefit is not broken out as a separate
line item, NDEP factors economic 'benefit into fill its NPDES penalty
determinations.
NDFP does not believe that a compliance and enforcement program should be evaluated
merely by counting violations and the response to those violations. NDEP is proud of its
compliance record and believes the compliance rate to be the true metric necessary to
111
-------
accurately represent the effectiveness and success of a compliance and enforcement
program.
If NDBP is forued to increase data entry into the national database, we will need to shift
resources away from environmental protection efforts identified as priorities in Nevada.
This will hive a direct negative impact on our ability to ensure compliance and protect
the waters of the state.
NDEP thanks you for the opportunity to comment on this draft SRF. Please contact
Deputy Administrator David Gaakin at (775) 687-9302 or dcaskin^nden nv if you
have any questions or would like to discuss these comments further.
112
-------
State Review Framework II
Element O Clean Water Act
Introduction
NDEP does not believe the SRP felly defines the effectiveness of a Clean Water Act
compliance and enforcement program. Hie 12 elements evaluate a program on its ability
to identify and read appropriately to violations and subsequently track them, but ignore
the important efforts implemented by ft program to achieve and maintain compliance so
that violations are not realized. An enforcement program's success should be Measured
by the compliance rate, as opposed to the violation/enforcement rate. This philosophy is
the cornerstone ofNDEP's successful compliance and enforcement program.
NDEP strives for compliance by working cooperatively and reasonably with the
regulated community. This allows us to achieve and maintain a high level of compliance,
iti many cases outside of formal enforcement. In certain areas, we go above and beyond *
federal requirements to achieve better environmental results. For example, we require
that all wastewater treatment plants be managed by certified wastewater treatment
operators. We ensure that all design plans for construction of wastewater treatment plants
are prepared by Nevada Licensed Professional Engineers. Such requirements greatly
enhance the compliance rate for many of our NPDES facilities.
Inspection* and Assistance
NDEP inspects all of its eleven major NPDES facilities on an annual basis, doubling the
BPA national coverage goal of inspecting the majors every two years. At each of the
major Publically Owned Treatment Works inspections, NDEP performs compliance
sampling inspections (CIS) over a two-day period. Additionally, we conduct compliance
evaluation inspections (CEI) on at least 20% of all minor NPDES facilities statewide
each year. We do this because we know inspections are & critical factor in tracking and
ensuring compliance for these key dischargers. Our stormwater inspection schedule is
robust, and each year NDEP far exceeds the minimum criteria of site inspections for this
program.
NDEP also believes public outreach and education efforts are key to a successful
compliance program. Our efforts associated with public outreach and education continue
to be effective in achieving and maintaining compliance. One example is the NPDES
stonn water program. We provide stormwater compliance workshops each year to
developers, contractors, consultants, engineers and other interested parties. In 2010,
NDEP participated in ten separate training sessions with NDOT to educate all of their
field stations in stormwater permit requirements. Also, we assisted m training sessions for
MS4 permittees in Clark County and Washoe County.
113
-------
We continue to fund oar wastewater operator's Circuit Rider Program even after federal
funding stopped several years ago, This is because our program has proven to be
significant for achieving compliance in the State of Nevada for the rural wastewater
treatment plants.
Compliance inspections conducted by NDEP CWA Program:
Minimum Required SFY2010 SFY2011
Major NPDES CE1/CIS conducted 6 11 11
Minor NPDESCE1 16 17 22
Industrial storm water inspections 75 698 183
Construction site stormwater inspections 150 690 710
Enforcement
NDEP uses both format and informal enforcement to achieve compliance with all its
permittees. Our priority is to get noncompjiant facilities to return to compliance as
quickly as possible and minimize environmental impacts. Tools thai we use include
Cease and Desist 'Orders, formal Findings of Alleged Violation and Orders, informal
compliance Action I alters and Administrative Orders tin Consent. Through the judicious
use of these options, we are able to address compliance matters quickly and effectively,
NDEP maintains a database in which pertinent compliance and enforcement data are
stored and managed. 'We are able to track submittal dates and follow up on failures to
submit required reports. Exceedances of DMR limits are tracked to establish compliance
histories of permittees. Our stale database is the system of record and is available for
public review. NDEP is currently enhancing the database to allow DMR data to be
submitted electronically which will allow as to process DMRs more rapidly, and
therefore addr«S6 noncompliance issues in a timelier manner.
NDEP issues formal enforcement actions and collects penalties when necessary. Formal
enforcement is implemented mainly in cases demonstrating culpability and harm to the
environment, and also where corrective actions by the permittee are not being made or
are not sufficient.
NDEP Enforcement Actions;
S.FY2010
SFY2011
Total NPDES Permittees
84
85
Informal enforcement actions
9
2
Formal enforcement actions
2
2
Compliance rate
87%
94%
114
-------
To summarise, NDEP doe* not believe flat a compliance and enforcement program
should be evaluated merely by couating violations and the asp® to those violations.
MDEP is proud of its compliance record and believes the compliance rate to he the true
metric necessaiy to accurately represent the effectiveness sail laeeegi of a complianoe
and enforcement program,.
115
-------
NDEP Bureau of Waste Management
RCRA Comments on Draft SRFII
Element 1; No Comment
Klement Z: Mo Comment
Element 3:
The 2003 RCRA ERP requires SNC determination by a Stale or Region within I SO days of the
initial inspection (Day Zero),
The Description for element 3a stales "[pjercenl of SNCs that are entered to RCRA Info more
than 60 days after the determination. Measures the "lag" between the date of SNC determination
and the actual reporting of the SNC determination to RCRAinfo."
Furthermore, the Guidance Requirement or Goal for element 3a states "data should be entered
when the determination is made (determination most be made by 150 days after Day Zero). SNC
entry should not be withheld until the action is completed. EPA expects SNC data to be entered
more quickly than 60 days after determination, so this metric provides some "cushion"."
Therefore, the statement in the Finding section of Element 3 "All SNCs were entered into
RCRAinfo within 60-days of the first day of the inspection [Day Zero]" incorrectly states the
data metric. The data metric requires SNC data entry within §0 days of SNC determination not
Day Zero, NDEP has 100% compliance with the data metric. All SNCs were entered into
RCRAinfo within 60 days of SNC determination.
Element 4: No Comment
Elements:
NDEP's RCRA C&E program has annual inspection goals of; 100% Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) annually, 100% Large Quantity Generators (LQG) of hazardous
waste annually, and 100% Small Quantity Generators (SQC) of hazardous waste biennially,
USEPA annually inspects a number of LQG and TSDF facilities in Nevada. In order to
eliminate duplication of effort, efficient allocation of resources, and unnecessary confusion and
burden to the regulatory community, USEPA inspections are counted towards NDEP's
commitment goals.
The inspection universe of LQG is established on July 1 of each state fiscal year (SPY). The
RCRA C&E program established the goal to inspect al Small Quantity Generator (SQGs)
facilities on a biennial cycle. The inspection universe of SQG facilities was established on July
1, 2009 for SFYs 2010*2011. The inspection universes are provided to USEPA Region IX in the
form of an excel spreadsheet,
• AH TSDFs were inspected during SFY2010 (6/6) 100% and Sf ¥2011 (6/6) 100%,
116
-------
• W!<3 *» f!S>F inspections SYF 2010,99% (75/76) and SYF 201 ],9M (77/78)
The federal goal is 20%, or 15 facility inspections.
• SQG inspections SFY 2010-2011 Menni um, 100% {429/429)
There is no federal inspection goat for SQGs
Ms»fa« 6: No Comment
dement 7;MoComment
Klement 8; Mo Comment
Element >)-. No Comment
Element 10;
100% of egfinMunt actions Issued by NDBP were bath timely mad apfropriaie, NDfiP meets
or exceeds ill date metrics found is Element 10, It is difficult to comfmhend why a finding of
"Are# for State Attention" is indicated under 'this cntainaancse. We find no additional attention
is retfuiraL
msnicntil:
Economic benefit is considered in all pma% ealeniatiflw % MDBP as described in the
"Hszwdous Waste Policy mi Procedures, Staff Guide" dated October 20,2008,
lleaeai 12: No Comment
117
-------
State Review Framework ii
Element 13 RCRA
Introduction
The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (MDEP) has an obligation to protect
human health and the environment and a responsibility to safeguard our limited natural
resources particularly waters of the State, One of the key elements in the protection of
Nevada's water resources is the RCRA Compliance & Enforcement (C&F.) Program.
Recognizing the need for proactive water resource protection, NDEP has developed its
RCRA C&E program maximizing the prevention of hazardous constituent releases to
waters of the Stale, Nevada cannot afford to implement USKPA's typical RCRA C&E
program that relics on reactive enforcement metrics as the measurement of success. This
reactive approach is unacceptable to Nevada as it drastically increases the threat to waters
of the State,
NDEP's RCRA G&E program's primary goal as a regulatory program is to gain
Voluntary compliance with applicable regulations throughout the regulated universe.
Compliance rates aire a measurement of success for the NDEP's RCRA C&E program no!
the number of enforcement actions or facilities designated as Significant Non-Coropliers
(SNC), The program has developed a number of strategics to reach its goal of voluntary
complicate within the regulated universe. The most important and successful strategy
employed by the program is a visible field presence. Saturating the regulated universe
with compliance inspections has facilitated voluntary compliance.
An Assistance Agreement of $750,000 per year from the USEPA supports less than 50%
of the Nevada's RCRA C&E program. The amount of the Assistance Agreement has
remained constant since 2004.
Inspections ant) Assistance
A typical EPA approved RCRA C&E program attempts to inspect 20% of the generator
universe annually and finds a large percentage of those facilities out-of-compliance with
some facilities significantly out-of-compliance. In contrast, NDEP's RCRA €&B
program has committed to EPA Region IX a goal of annual inspections for all Large
Quantity Generator (LQG) of hazardous waste and all Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities (TSDfs). Additionally, NDEP's RCRA C&E program has committed to EPA
Region IX a goal of biennial inspections for Small Quantity Generator (SQG) of
hazardous waste, USEPA annually inspects a number of LQG and TSDF facilities in
Nevada, In order to eliminate duplication of effort, efficient allocation of resources, and
unnecessary confusion and burden to the regulatory community, USEPA inspections are
counted towards NDEP's commitment goals.
Nevada is fortunate in that the regulated universe is relatively small; approximately 1,700
facilities posses active EPA ID numbers, as compared with heavily industrialized states.
Facilities, as of July 1,2011 with active EPA ID numbers, broken down by Handler
status;
118
-------
119
-------
~ 6 TSDF also LQG
~ 78 LQG non TSDF
~ 329 SQG
t Is207 Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG)
~ 100 (est.) other facilities, primarily "Used Oil" regulated activities
AH Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) are inspected annually by the
The inspection universe of LQG non TSDF facilities is established on July I of each state
fiscal year (SFY), The annual LQG non TSDF inspection universe is provided to
USEPA Region IX in the form of an excel spreadsheet, During SYF2010,99% (75/76)
of the identified LQG non TSDF facilities were inspected. During SYF 2011,99%
(77/78) of the identified LQG non TSDF facilities were inspected, The federal goal is
20%, or 15 facility inspections, for SFYs 2010 and 2011.
The RCRA C&E program established the goal to inspect all Small Quantity Generator
(SQGs) facilities on a biennial cycle, 'lie inspection universe of SQG facilities was
established on July 1, 2009 for SFYs 2010-2011. The biennial SQG inspection universe
is provided to1 USEPA Region IX in the form of an excel spreadsheet. During SFY 2010-
2011 bictmium, 100% (429/429) of identified SGQ facilities were inspected. There is no
federal inspection goal for SQGs.
To expand our coverage in the two largest urban counties, the RCRA C&E program has
also entered into contracts with the Southern Nevada Health District in Clark County and
Washoe County District Health Department to conduct inspections at Conditionally
Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG) and some SQG facilities. Bach county
agency completes approximately 300 inspections annually from a regulated universe of
approximately 500 in Clark and 400 in Washoe County. Approximately halfof the
CESQG universe in Nevada is inspected annually. There is no federal inspection goal for
CESQGs,
Hazardous waste statutes and regulations are complicated and public Finds them difficult
to understand. Many small businesses lack environmental compliance staff and have a
poor understanding of the statutes and regulations. In an effort to maximize compliance,
the RCRA C&E program has entered into a contract with the Nevada Small Business
Development Center, Business Environmental Program (BEP). The amount of the
contract is Si 50,000 per year.
In a free and confidential setting, the BEP provides the public mid regulated community
information ami answers to hazardous waste management questions. The BEP also
provides one-on-onc free and confidential counseling on environmental management and
waste minimization over the phone and through on-site visits. Additionally, BEP
produces a newsletter covering environmental compliance issues and develops fact sheets
on key regulatory issues awl case studies.
During calendar year 2009, the BEP responded to 1,582 requests for assistance through
the compliance assistance hotline, trained 233 individuals in compliance assistance
seminars, completed 73 on-site consultations, distributed the "BEP Reporter" newsletter
120
-------
121
-------
to 6 targeted mailing list of4,300 readers, and maintained a compliance assistance
website which received more than 70,000 hits, The number of contacts with the public
and regulated community was enormous when compared to the size of Nevada's
regulated universe. Additionally, at three facilities receiving on-site BBP assistance,
hazardous waste was reduced by more than 3,000 pounds.
Results from BRP's 2010 effectiveness survey include:
* 100% of the respondents found the information BEP provide was helpful for their
operation
* 84% had improved operations or processes
* 100% indicated BEP helped them maintain or improve compliance with
hazardous waste regulations
* 72% passed information onto other businesses or referred businesses to BEP
* 54% indicated a reduction in generated waste as a result of BEP information
Environmental Results Program
The NDEP received grant funding from USEPA for an "Environmental Results Program"
for dry cleaners. The program measures improvements in compliance and provides
quantifiable estimates of emissions that were prevented by dry cleaners using
perchloroethylene. Baseline measures were developed in the first year of the project for
Washoe County and in year two for Clark County. Educational materials, including a
detailed compliance manual for dry cleaners, and free training were provided to the
participating dry cleaners. A Self-Certification was developed for dry cleaning
businesses to conduct internal compliance audits. The program was successfully
concluded with the September 30, 2011 publication of the Nevada Dry Cleaner ERP
Final Report.
Compliance and Enforcement
Compliance
The data metrics chosen for the State Review Framework (SRF) by the USEPA's Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) only address Inspections,
Enforcement Activity, and Data Integrity. Noticeably absent from the data metrics is any
mention of Compliance. As stated earlier, NDEP's RCRA C&E program primary goal as
a regulatory agency is to gain voluntary compliance with applicable regulations thereby
protecting human health and the environment, particularly preventing releases to waters
of the State.
The RCRA C&E program calculates compliance rates and reports the results to EPA
Region IX quarterly. Compliance rates are calculated for the previous quarter using the
following data criteria: facilities in compliance at the time of inspection, and facilities
thai corrected alleged violations within 90 days of the inspection are considered to be in
compliance. The number of Facilities in compliance divided by the lota} number of
inspections for that quarter yields the compliance rate. The compliance rate for SFY2010
was 98% and SFY2011 was 91%. The RCRA C&E program is extremely proud of our
122
-------
123
-------
high compliance rates and look to these rates of compliance as a measure of program
success.
The SRF neglects to consider this measure of achievement.
Enforcement
The RCRA C&E program credits the high rates of compliance to the intense inspection
schedule and a successful enforcement program, A successful enforcement program
relies on a broad array of tools to achieve voluntary compliance not the single solution
approach for every compliance issue. It is the policy of the RCRA C&E program that
whenever possible, enforcement should be progressive, generally selecting the least
aggressive enforcement tool necessary to achieve compliance, While a certain degree of
flexibility and discretion are permitted, procedures are in place to ensure, to the extent
possible, that enforcement of the stale and federal hazardous waste statutes and
regulations is applied consistently within the RCRA C&E program. The selection of an
appropriate enforcement action is based upon the worst alleged violation present and the
facility's previous compliance history.
Enforcement Actions taken by the Nevada RCRA C&E Program are listed below.
EPA Region IX has slated thai all Formal Enforcement Actions, some Informal
Enforcement Actions, and even some facilities without alleged RCRA violations require
SNC designation. Nevada fundamentally disagrees with EPA'3 position that facilities
receiving an Informal Enforcement Action and facilities without alleged RCRA
violations arc candidates for SNC designation by Nevada's RCRA C&E program. It is
important to note that Nevada's program has issued formal Enforcement Actions for
relatively minor alleged violations in order to meet with facilities in Formal Show Cause
Conferences. The Enforcement Conference provides an early opportunity for compliance
before minor alleged violations become larger compliance issues and potential threats to
human health and the environment. Under Nevada's program procedures, final SNC
designations are made by the BWM Chief from recommendations developed by RCRA
C&E program staff. The RCRA C&E program recommendations arc based on specific
information about the actual facility, processes, generated wastes, and alleged RCRA
violations observed during an inspection. USEPA's position arbitrarily removes an
effective enforcement tool from our program and eliminates another compliance
opportunity.
It is critical for the SRF to include in the report that the Nevada RCRA C&E program
continues to follow the guidelines contained in the Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement
Response Policy (BRP) document dated December 2003. In particular, Nevada's RCRA
C&E program SNC designation procedure falls within the guidelines of the 2003 ERP.
SFY201Q
smaii
152
7
3
Informal Enforcement Actions
Formal Enforcement Actions Initiated
SNC designations
58
3
2
124
-------
1 he Nevada RCRA C&E program acknowledges that the number ofSNC designated
facilities (0 3%) ^ significantly below the national average (2.9%). Nevada maintains
thai this validates the effectiveness of our RCRA C&E program, intense field presence
through inspections and compliance assistance activities, Nevada's RCRA C&E nrocram
stoves to have zero tolerance for SNCs.
It appears that the goal of the federal program has shifted away from compliance to an
arbitrary statistic of national average ofSNC designations. For Nevada to comply with
this nem approach, Nevada would need to conduct less frequent inspections {20% of
LQGs annually instead of 100%) and eliminate compliance assistance in its entirety
This course of action would certainly increase the number of facilities that are' out-of-
compliance and increase the number of facilities designated as SNCs; however; this
reactive approach to environmental protection is unacceptable to Nevada, The reactive
approach is undesirable as ii drastically increases the threat to waters of the State.
Nevada prefers the proactive, preventive approach to environmental protection by
complete coverage of the regulated universe through field presence and compliance
assistance, '
Conclusion
The obligation to protect human health and the environment and a responsibility to
safeguard our limited natural resources, particularly waters of the State, is not taken
lightly by NPEP. NDEP developed its RCRA C&E program to maximize prevention of
hazardous constituent releases. The key elements of the program are inspection
situration, aggressive compliance assistance, program innovation, and enforcement
flexibility, NDEP's RCRA C&E program measures success, through compliance not in
the number of enforcement actions or facilities designated as Significant Non-Compliers
Nevada cannot afford to implement USEPA's typical RCRA C&E program that relies on
reactive enforcement metrics as the measurement of success, Nevada's RCRA C&E
program, as configured, effectively and efficiently protects human health and the
environment and safeguards waters of the State
125
-------
126
------- |