State Review Framework
and Integrated Clean Water
Act Permit Quality Review
Nebraska
Clean Water Act
Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2011
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7, Kansas City
Final Report
April 15,2013

-------
Note to Users
This report is structured in four parts, with one integrated review section, separate Permit Quality
Review (PQR) and State Review Framework (SRF) sections, and one overarching Executive
Summary. The intent of this structure is to allow the user to choose to look exclusively at just
PQR or SRF information individually, or to look at issues across both permits and enforcement.
If you are interested in reviewing the CWA PQR information only, see the section titled "CWA-
NPDES Permit Quality Review."
If you are interested in reviewing the CWA SRF information only, look to the section titled
"State Review Framework."
Information in this report related to the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit reviews under the PQR and NPDES enforcement under the SRF have been
integrated as part of the EPA's 2009 Clean Water Act Action Plan.
The NPDES integrated oversight effort is a way to provide EPA with a comprehensive review of
a state's implementation of the permitting and compliance components of the NPDES program.
Integrated reviews reduce the burden on states by having one joint visit and integrated report.
The integrated reviews provide EPA and the public with a greater understanding of the
challenges of a state NPDES program, and increases transparency through making PQR and SRF
results publicly available on EPA's website.

-------
Integrated SRF and PQR Executive Summary
Introduction
Permit Quality Review (PQR) and State Review Framework (SRF) oversight reviews of the
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) were conducted on April 16-19, 2012,
by EPA Region 7 permitting and enforcement staff.
The Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (CWA-NPDES) program
was reviewed under both PQR and SRF. The state's Clean Air Act (CAA) Stationary Source
and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C programs were not included in
this review.
PQR findings are based on reviews of permits, fact sheets, and interviews. SRF findings are
based on file metrics derived from file reviews, data metrics, and conversations with program
staff.
Priority Issues to Address
The following are the top priority issues affecting the state's program performance:
•	Inspection reports do not consistently provide information necessary to support an
accurate compliance determination. Report narratives should make a connection between
observations and regulatory requirements, describe field activities conducted, and collect
information that supports the regulatory and compliance status of facilities.
•	Formal enforcement actions and referrals to the state Attorney General, as well as some
informal enforcement letters, are not consistently issued in a timely and appropriate
manner.
•	Permit applications do not require the necessary pollutant monitoring consistent with
federal regulations. This was also a 2008 and 2011 PQR finding.
•	Pretreatment regulations do not include the required provisions of the 2005 Streamlining
revisions. This was a 2008 and 2011 PQR finding.
CWA-NPDES Integrated Findings
The following issues are affecting performance of both the permitting and enforcement program:
•	Permit schedule violations appearing in the national database Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS) include legitimate noncompliance needing a state response as
well as violation flags that need to be updated and "turned off with milestone achieved
dates.
•	Nebraska Pretreatment Program permits lack the requirement for resampling and
resubmission of results following the discovery of a violation, which impacts follow-up
and correction of serious discharge violations.

-------
•	Nebraska's application forms are not consistent with 40 CFR 122.21 in ensuring data
submittal requirements that request discharge monitoring data to evaluate reasonable
potential to cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards (WQS).
Major PQR CWA-NPDES Findings
The PQR found the following issues to be most significant:
•	Permit applications do not require applicants to submit required pollutant scans necessary
to perform complete reasonable potential analysis for all potential pollutants of concern.
•	Some of Nebraska's Standard and Special Conditions are less stringent than federal
regulations at 40 CFR 122.41.
•	Fact sheet documentation is not always complete, consistent with 40 CFR 124.8, and
124.56.
•	Pretreatment regulations do not include the required provisions of the 2005 Streamlining
revisions.
•	Non-Categorical pretreatment permits lack either limits for BOD, TSS, and ammonia, or
a justification for why local limits for these pollutants are not needed.
Major SRF CWA-NPDES Findings
The SRF review found the following issues to be most significant:
•	Inspection reports do not consistently provide information necessary to support an
accurate compliance determination. Report narratives should make a connection between
observations and regulatory requirements, describe field activities conducted, and collect
information that supports the regulatory and compliance status of facilities.
•	Compliance determinations are not consistently made as a follow-up to inspection
evidence. State records should clearly articulate a compliance determination, and the
determination should accurately represent all evidence gathered from inspections.
•	Formal enforcement actions and referrals to the state Attorney General, and some
informal enforcement letters, are not consistently issued in a timely and appropriate
manner. The state should follow its internal guidance for timely and appropriate use of
informal and formal enforcement actions.
•	Large portions, and sometimes all, of assessed penalties are frequently waived in consent
orders issued by the state Attorney General for violators who demonstrate a prompt
return to compliance, resulting in a reduced deterrent value of monetary penalties.
Major Follow-Up Actions
Actions to address the findings found during the PQR will be implemented and tracked in an
Office of Water database. Recommendations and actions identified from the SRF review will be
tracked in the SRF Tracker.

-------
Table of Contents
CWA-NPDES Integrated SRF and PQR Review	6
I.	Introduction	6
II.	Coordination Between Permitting and Enforcement	7
III.	Integrated Review Background	8
IV.	How Report Findings Are Made	8
V.	Common Findings	8
CWA-NPDES Permit Quality Review	13
I.	PQR Background	13
II.	State Permitting Program Overview	14
III.	Core Review Findings	17
IV.	Special Focus Area Findings	35
V.	Action Items	39
State Review Framework	47
I.	Background on the State Review Framework	47
II.	SRF Review Process	48
III.	SRF Findings	50
Clean Water Act Findings	50
Appendix A: Data Metric Analysis	89
Appendix B: File Metric Analysis	95
Appendix C: File Selection	98
Appendix D: Status of Past SRF Recommendations	104
Appendix E: Program Overview	107
Appendix F: SRF/PQR Correspondence	114
Appendix G: SRF Finding 4-1 Detailed Analysis	175
Appendix H: SRF Finding 4-2 Detailed Analysis	176
Appendix I: SRF File Review Summaries	179

-------
CWA-NPDES Integrated SRF and PQR Review
I. Introduction
EPA reviews regional and state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
programs every four years. During these reviews, EPA staff review topics related to NPDES
program implementation, including permit backlog, priority permits, action items, withdrawal
petitions, and enforcement. A large component of each review is the Permit Quality Review
(PQR), which assesses whether a state adequately implements the requirements of the NPDES
program as reflected in the permit and other supporting documents (e.g., fact sheet, calculations).
A second primary component of these reviews is the State Review Framework, which evaluates
12 elements of state enforcement programs.
Through this review, EPA promotes national consistency, identifies successes in implementation
of the base NPDES program, and identifies opportunities for improvement in the development of
NPDES permits and enforcement. The findings of the review may be used by EPA headquarters
to identify areas for training or guidance, and by the EPA region to help identify or assist states
in determining action items to improve their NPDES programs.
EPA conducted an integrated oversight review of the State NPDES permitting and enforcement
and compliance program by combining a PQR and a State Review Framework (SRF) review on
April 16-19, 2012. The PQR was designed to assess how well the State implements the
requirements of the NPDES program as reflected in NPDES permits and other supporting
documents. The PQR looked at four core topic areas of national importance (nutrients, pesticide
general permit, pretreatment, stormwater) and one special focus area of regional importance
(Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs). The SRF review is designed to ensure a
minimum baseline of consistent performance across states, and that EPA conducts oversight of
state enforcement and compliance programs in a nationally consistent and efficient manner. The
SRF review looks 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).
The integrated review examined data and files generated and kept by the state's Department of
Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. This report focuses only on the integrated PQR
and SRF NPDES program findings.
The integrated review was 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 was 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 issues.
The report is designed to capture the information and agreements developed during the review
process in order to facilitate program improvements. EPA also uses the information in integrated
review reports to draw a "national picture" of the NPDES program, to develop comparable state
performance dashboards, and to identify any issues that require a national response.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 6

-------
II. Coordination Between Permitting and Enforcement
The following discussion of Nebraska's NPDES permitting, compliance, and enforcement
program is the product of verbal and written exchanges between EPA Region 7 and NDEQ
during the week of the on-site review and outside of this review process over the course of
several years. All of this information has been verified for accuracy by NDEQ during the review
of the draft report. More details about how the state runs the compliance and enforcement
program for specific NPDES program areas appear in Appendix E.
All of Nebraska's NPDES permitting and compliance monitoring responsibilities belong to the
NDEQ Water Quality Division, while enforcement work is handled between the department's
Water Quality Division and Legal Services Division. Any NPDES judicial enforcement
activities in Nebraska, including all penalty actions, also involve the Attorney General (AG)
Office, as explained below. Local agencies do not assume any NPDES program administration
responsibilities in Nebraska.
NPDES permitting and compliance monitoring responsibilities of the Water Quality Division are
divided between the Agriculture Section and the Wastewater Section. The Agriculture Section
manages permitting and compliance at CAFOs, whereas the Wastewater Section manages those
same activities at facilities having all other NPDES permits (e.g. wastewater, pretreatment, and
stormwater). The Wastewater and Agriculture Sections have their compliance monitoring
(inspection) resources spread among the central office in Lincoln and five field offices in
Norfolk, Omaha, North Platte, Holdrege, and Scottsbluff.
The Wastewater and Agriculture Sections of NDEQ both include a permitting and compliance
unit with the dual responsibilities of writing permits and monitoring compliance. Staff
responsibilities are arranged such that the permit writer and inspector for a given facility are
different individuals. Field office inspectors' coverage of facilities by county differs between the
Wastewater and Agriculture sections to reflect different demographics for municipal,
agricultural, and industrial dischargers.
Within the Wastewater Section are two individuals responsible for all permitting, compliance
assistance, and enforcement escalation for all of Nebraska's construction and industrial
stormwater sites and oversight of the state's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s).
Monitoring compliance and responding to complaints regarding stormwater pollution is handled
by compliance staff assigned to the various field offices.
When the Water Quality Division decides to escalate a case of non-compliance for formal
enforcement, the division sends an enforcement recommendation to the Legal Services Division,
which takes the lead in issuing administrative compliance orders for all cases except those
deemed worthy of a penalty action. The state's authority to collect penalties in NPDES cases
rests exclusively on the Attorney General, whose office issues any and all penalty orders within
the judicial arena. Further details of NDEQ's interaction with the AG, the enforcement
escalation process, and NDEQ's Enforcement Manual are discussed in Appendix E. There is no
state authority for administrative penalties for NDPES violations.
For more background information on the permitting and enforcement programs, please refer to
the PQR and SRF sections of this report.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 7

-------
III. Integrated Review Background
EPA's integrated review of Nebraska's NPDES permitting and enforcement programs consisted
of an independent PQR conducted by EPA Region 7 and the EPA Office of Water in April 2011,
followed by an integrated SRF and PQR on-site visit in April 2012. Most of the PQR findings
that contribute to this integrated review were made in 2011, whereas the role of EPA's
permitting staff in the 2012 on-site integrated review was to focus on core topics and special
focus areas. As a result, most of the files examined for the permitting and enforcement reviews
were selected independently of one another, and the processes for making those independent
selections are described in successive parts of this report.
Of all the Nebraska files reviewed under the PQR and SRF, 8 core program facilities selected for
the 2011 PQR were also reviewed under the SRF in 2012. All 8 of those core facilities were
major dischargers. In addition, 4 CAFO files were selected by the permitting and enforcement
teams working in concert in 2012. This review of 12 total common files fostered a more robust
identification of findings that cut across the permitting and enforcement programs.
EPA conducted the Region 7 PQR during the 3rd quarter of FY2011. One EPA HQ Water
Permits Division staff and an EPA contractor collected NPDES program information and permits
from regional and state staff. Along with one EPA regional staff member, they conducted an on-
site visit to NDEQ on April 4 and 5, 2011.
For the integrated PQR-SRF review conducted April 16-19, 2012, an EPA Region 7 team
consisting of 5 enforcement staff, 3 permitting staff, and 2 attorneys traveled to Lincoln,
Nebraska, to review files and engage NDEQ staff and managers in dialog regarding the NPDES
program. A joint introductory meeting was held on the first day of the on-site review, and an
exit meeting was held on the final day to highlight preliminary findings of both the permitting
and enforcement reviews. Senior managers from NDEQ were present for both meetings.
Following the on-site state visit, EPA Region 7 permitting and enforcement staff worked
together to formalize the findings identified during the on-site joint review, to craft
recommendations for improvement, and to draft this integrated report.
IV.	How Report Findings Are Made
The findings in this report were made by EPA Region 7's permitting and enforcement staff after
analyzing data in the national data systems and reviewing facility files at the state. Permitting
and enforcement staff consulted with state staff and each other while determining findings.
Findings cover both highlights of state performance and opportunities for improvement. Where
the state program was doing particularly well or was meeting all of its requirements, EPA
identified such areas in this report. Where EPA found the state had opportunities to improve
both permitting and enforcement, EPA suggested an appropriate course of action.
V.	Common Findings
Permit Compliance Schedules
Finding: Permit schedule violations appearing in the national database include legitimate
noncompliance needing a state response as well as violation flags that need to be updated and
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 8

-------
"turned off' with milestone achieved dates. This finding was made as part of the SRF review
and appears as Finding 7-1 in the "State Review Framework" part of this report, but it affects the
permitting program as well as the compliance and enforcement program. Legitimate violations
of permit compliance schedules are not only an enforcement concern, but they can also aggravate
the state's efforts to reissue an environmentally protective permit if the facility has not completed
all required treatment process changes within the five-year term of the expiring permit.
State Response: Please see our response in Element 7-1 of the SRF review.
Recommendation: NDEQ should submit to EPA a plan with timeframe for implementing a
process to remedy overdue compliance schedule violations. The process should include a mix of
working with the facilities where deliverables have not been received—either informally or with
enforcement actions, as appropriate—and entering achieved dates for received deliverables that
have triggered overdue violations. By October 31, 2013, EPA will verify that compliance
schedule violations in ICIS are being addressed consistently and appropriately. EPA and NDEQ
will discuss progress on a semi-annual basis. Once EPA is satisfied that state action has
addressed the underlying finding, this recommendation will be considered complete.
Pretreatment Permit Requirements
Finding: One weakness found in all Nebraska Pretreatment Program (NPP) permits was the
absence of the requirement for resampling and resubmission of results following the discovery of
a violation. General Pretreatment Regulations at §403.12(g)(2) require any industrial user who
experiences a violation while sampling, to notify its control authority within 24 hours and
resample and resubmit the results within 30 days (there are some exceptions, however). Not
only is this requirement not in any permits, but no permit holders were executing it. Primarily a
permitting issue, this matter also impacts the state's and facilities' ability to correct violations
and is a detriment to any formal enforcement that might need to be taken as a follow-up to
serious discharge violations.
State Response: Nebraska has added this to all new NPP permits being issued since October 1,
2012 (Attachment B, Part I. H.). In addition, the permit tool will include the required language.
"H. Effluent Violation Repeat Sampling
The permittee shall conduct or repeat sampling and analysis and submit the results of the
Repeat analysis to the Department within 30 days of becoming aware of the violation.
The results of the repeat analysis must be submitted with a copy of the previously
submitted noncompliance form."
Recommendation: NDEQ should expeditiously modify the NPP Standard Conditions to
include the resampling and resubmission requirement for all future permits. NDEQ should
submit to EPA a plan with timeframe for making this modification. EPA and NDEQ will discuss
progress on a quarterly basis. Once EPA is satisfied that state action has addressed the
underlying finding, this recommendation will be considered complete.
Non-Categorical Local Limits
Finding: A serious deficiency common to non-Categorical permits is the lack of limits for
BOD, TSS, and when appropriate, ammonia, or a justification in the fact sheet stating why limits
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 9

-------
for these pollutants are not needed. The EPA's Local Limits guidance manual establishes
criteria for when local limits for conventional pollutants are warranted and when they are not
necessary. However, no non-Categorical permits that did not contain limits had any calculations
or objective demonstrations justifying the absence of limits. Consequently, it was impossible to
determine if those permits were protective against interference and/or pass through.
State Response: We evaluate new and reissued permits for these requirements. Most of these
facilities have compatible food processing waste and we continue to place BOD, TSS and
ammonia in their permits. Regulations are planned for a revision this year and we have replaced
the former pretreatment coordinate so we can continue to move forward on headworks
calculations and evaluation of loadings from industry on facilities.
Recommendation: The EPA's guidance manual specifies that all POTWs that are loaded, on
average, at 80% or higher for conventional pollutants must have local limits controlling those
pollutants and the limits written into the permits. Therefore, if a permit does not contain limits
for conventional pollutants, the fact sheet should contain calculations showing that the POTW
receiving the industry's discharge is less than 80% loaded for the missing pollutants. NDEQ
should submit to EPA a plan with timeframe for implementing this guidance. EPA and NDEQ
will discuss progress on a quarterly basis. Once EPA is satisfied that state action has addressed
the underlying finding, this recommendation will be considered complete.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Discharges
Finding: Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) discharges are discharges of raw sewage from
municipal sanitary sewer systems at locations upstream of a treatment plant headworks.
Discharges, such as SSOs, that are not explicitly authorized by a permit are prohibited. As a
form of noncompliance, SSOs should be reported by the permittee; however, Nebraska NPDES
permits do not define what constitutes a reportable SSO.
State Response: The reason we have not further defined reportable SSOs in permits is that EPA
has not finalized their rule. NDEQ has dealt with SSO as a bypass for many years and has
required their reporting, and does track these events.
Recommendation: NDEQ should develop language for newly issued and reissued municipal
wastewater permits that articulates what constitutes a reportable SSO. The state should submit to
EPA a plan with timeframe for beginning to incorporate this language into permits thereafter.
EPA and NDEQ will discuss progress on a quarterly basis.
CAFO Expired General Permit Authorizations
Finding: 8 CAFO facilities maintain permit coverage under a permit that expired in 2008. It is
unclear why these facilities were not reissued coverage under the current permit, or if permit
applications were received to administratively extend coverage under the old permit.
State Response: NDEQ is diligently working to move permits to the new general permit.
Recommendation: NDEQ should make it a priority to move all permits authorized for coverage
under the expired permit to the new permit or to individual permits. NDEQ should submit to
EPA a timeframe for making this transition. EPA and NDEQ will discuss progress on a
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 10

-------
quarterly basis. Once EPA is satisfied that state action has addressed the underlying finding, this
recommendation will be considered complete.
Permit Applications
Finding: NDEQ permit applications, which are codified in the state's regulations, are not
consistent with federal requirements at 40 CFR 122.21. Permit applications do not require
submittal of discharge data necessary to evaluate reasonable potential for a discharge to cause or
contribute to a violation of WQS.
State Response: When application forms are revised they will be consistent with 40 CFR
122.21. Regulations update priorities are application forms and pretreatment requirements. We
anticipate taking regulation changes to the Environmental Quality Council (EQC) in late 2013.
Recommendation: NDEQ should ensure municipal and non-municipal application forms are
moving forward expeditiously in the state's regulatory process to be revised, and specifically,
must require data consistent with federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21. Alternatively, NDEQ
has the option of removing municipal and non-municipal application forms from state
regulations to provide greater flexibility to revise forms when necessary. NDEQ should submit
to EPA a plan with timeframe specifying how the state will accomplish this. EPA and NDEQ
will discuss progress on a quarterly basis. Once EPA is satisfied that state action has addressed
the underlying finding, this recommendation will be considered complete.
Standard Conditions
Finding: Nebraska's Standard Conditions for NPDES permits have language in several
paragraphs that is paraphrased, altered, or omitted relative to the standard conditions that are
required for all state and federally issued NPDES permits pursuant to 40 CFR 122.41.
State Response: NDEQ disagrees with portions of this finding. 40 CFR 122.41 references
different requirements for State Programs. We have evaluated the conditions in the permit and
made appropriate changes to comply with the requirements of 122.41 for state programs listed in
123.25. These requirements are 122.41 a(l) and b-n. Title 119 is consistent with 40 CFR except
for the penalty amount which matches 40 CFR 122.41 (j)(5), maximum of $10,000 for the first
offense but does not match the $20,000 for repeat offense. Our statutory limitation is $10,000.
Recommendation: NDEQ submitted revised standard conditions for EPA review. EPA
reviewed the draft standard conditions and found them to comply with 40 CFR 123.25. EPA has
determined that NDEQ has satisfactorily completed this action and no further tracking is
required.
Memorandum of Agreement
Finding: Nebraska's MOA is outdated and does not represent the CWA NPDES program as it is
currently expected to be implemented.
State Response: NDEQ has submitted a proposed Draft MOA for EPA review.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 11

-------
Recommendation: NDEQ and EPA Region 7 should review Nebraska's program authorization
documents and, as necessary, revise the Nebraska Memorandum of Agreement according to the
final approved Guidance for NPDES MO As Between States and EPA. EPA and NDEQ will
include a commitment in the FFY 2013 Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) workplan to
complete a review of Nebraska's MOA against the MOA Checklist and to commence
negotiations on any necessary revisions to the MOA during the FFY 2013 performance period.
Once EPA is satisfied that state and EPA actions have addressed the underlying finding, this
recommendation will be considered complete. At that time, EPA Region 7 will add the
completed MOA review as an addendum to the report.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 12

-------
CWA-NPDES Permit Quality Review
I. PQR Background
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Quality Reviews (PQRs) are
an evaluation of a select set of NPDES permits to determine whether permits are developed in a
manner consistent with applicable requirements established in the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
NPDES regulations. Through this review mechanism, EPA promotes national consistency,
identifies successes in implementation of the NPDES program as well as opportunities for
improvement in the development of NPDES permits.
EPA's Nebraska PQR consisted of two components, permit reviews and special focus area
reviews. The permit reviews focused on core permit quality and included a review of the permit
application, permit, fact sheet, correspondence, documentation, administrative process, and
select core topic areas, as well as other factors.
The core permit review process involves evaluating selected permits and supporting materials
using basic NPDES program criteria. Reviewers complete the core review by examining selected
permits and supporting documentation, assessing these materials using standard PQR tools, and
talking with permit writers regarding technical questions related to the permit development
process. The core review focuses on evaluation of the aspects identified in the Central Tenets of
the NPDES Permitting program. In addition, discussions between Region 7 and state staff
addressed a range of topics including program status, the permitting process, relative
responsibilities, organization, and staffing. Core topic area permit reviews are conducted to
evaluate specific issues or types of permits in all states. The core topics reviewed in Nebraska
were CAFOs, Pretreatment and the Pesticide General Permit.
EPA Reviewers selected two major municipal facilities (Tecumseh WWTF and Fremont
WWTF) and two industrial facilities (Nestle Purina Petcare Company and Sheldon Station) to
review because they were recently issued and reflect Nebraska's latest permitting practices.
Special focus area reviews target specific types or aspects of permits. These include special focus
areas selected by EPA Regions on a state-by-state basis. Region 7 chose to address the following
areas: water treatment plants, a discussion of the HQ initiative to revise Memorandum of
Agreements (MOAs) and existing Action Items.
EPA Headquarters (HQ) Water Permits Division conducted a comprehensive PQR of the
Nebraska NPDES Program on April 4 and 5, 2011. Due to the extensive nature of the HQ
review, just one year ago and the recent receipt of the final report (May 12, 2012), EPA Region
7 decided to conduct a limited core review that included an on-site visit in Lincoln, Nebraska.
The PQR review team consisted of Kimberly Hill, Donna Porter, John Dunn, and Paul Marshall.
The site visit occurred April 17-19, 2012.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 13

-------
II. State Permitting Program Overview
A. Program Structure
The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) operates a main office located at
1200 "N" Street, Suite 400, P.O. Box 98922, Lincoln, Nebraska, 68509. The main office
receives permit applications and notices of intent, generates draft permits, and fact sheets,
conducts the internal review of drafts, initiates the draft permit public notice periods, and issues
final permits. Some inspections of permitted facilities are also conducted from the Lincoln
office.
NDEQ operates six regional field offices. The NPDES program carries out facility inspections
from four of the six field offices. Compliance inspectors from the four offices also provide
technical reviews of draft permits for their respective areas.
NDEQ currently has seven full time positions that write NPDES and Nebraska Pretreatment
Program (NPP) permits. Only two of the positions write permits full time. Two writers share
NPDES permit writing with compliance, one writer shares permit writing with compliance and
enforcement, one writer shares permit writing with stormwater coordination and compliance, and
one currently vacant position shares NPP writing with Industrial Stormwater (ISW) coordination.
NDEQ also has draft permits prepared by an independent EPA contractor. Four permit writers
are trained using the steady-state modeling technique, and one permit writer uses CorMix. Each
permit writer has completed the USEPA Permit Writers Course. The more experienced staff
mentors newer personnel.
The NDEQ Water Planning Unit develops total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). This unit has
up to three individuals that may contribute some of their time to the TMDL process, but one is
the primary TMDL coordinator.
The Planning Unit provides TMDL information, prepares the list of impaired waters, data
management, develops water quality criteria and provides technical reviews of draft permits.
The Water Quality Assessment Surface Water Unit and the Planning Unit collect, analyze, sort
and interpret surface water data providing information for determining impairments and
developing wasteload allocations. The Water Quality Assessment Groundwater Unit provides
consultation on potential groundwater impacts. The Technical Assistance Unit provides
technical review of draft permits and consultation involving treatment capability. The NPDES
Permits Unit is further supported by one and one half staff assistants, one Records Management
Section staff, one Unit Supervisor, and parts of an Environmental Engineer Section Supervisor
and Acting Water Quality Division Administrator's time.
For CAFO operations, similar activities are conducted by the main office. Applications for
NPDES permit coverage are received and reviewed. The main office coordinates the permit with
existing state construction and operating permits, including drafting the permit and fact sheet,
completes the public notice process, and issues the final permit or issues coverage under the
general permit. Inspectors are designated counties for which they are responsible for compliance
inspections, annual report review, and complaint investigations. The main office also initiates
and tracks enforcement activities.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 14

-------
The CAFO program operates from four field offices plus the Lincoln office. Inspectors are
assigned specific counties and are responsible for conducting inspections and investigations,
review applications for permits, review annual reports, initiate requests for enforcement, and
general communications with the CAFOs in their areas.
NDEQ has two positions in the main office that draft permits for CAFOs located in the field
offices' areas of coverage. In addition, there are five positions in the main office that conduct
inspections and draft permits for CAFOs in other areas of the state. The draft permits follow a
template permit and are based on conditions and elements of the state construction and operating
permit. One position has been responsible for drafting the general permit that cover 317
authorizations. One full time staff assistant is available for CAFO permitting, including the
public noticing process and the data entry.
The CAFO permit writers follow a template that has been reviewed by EPA and requires little
need for changes when preparing a site-specific permit. The contents are based on the state
construction and operating permit. Training for CAFO staff is met by in-house training and
mentoring from experienced staff.
B. Universe and Permit Issuance
As of March 31, 2012, NDEQ is responsible for administering approximately 662 individual
permits. Within this permitting universe, there are 51 major facilities and 611 minor facilities.
Of the total NPDES universe, 323 of those facilities are POTWs and 339 are industrials. The
NDEQ currently has twelve general NPDES permits, with 3,047 authorizations. These
authorizations are included in Table 1.
Table 1
General Permit
Authorizations
Dewatering
37
Dewatering in Omaha
2
Hydrostatic Testing
7
Construction Stormwater
2107
Industrial Stormwater
491
Discharges from Remediation Sites
51
Discharges from sMS4s in Douglas, Sarpy, Washington
9
Discharges from sMS4s (statewide)
10
CAFO
317
CAFO - expired March 31, 2008
8
Concrete Grooving and Grinding Slurry
No NOI Required
Pesticide General Permit
8
Total
3047
The NDEQ continues to make great strides in addressing the State's permit backlog through
implementation of its internal prioritization strategy. Its first priority is to draft permits for 1)
majors; 2) 303(d) listed waters; 3) new facilities or troubled facilities; 4) expiring permits, and 5)
oldest administratively extended permits. This strategy has been in effect since October 2003
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 15

-------
and has effectively reduced the overall backlog from 48% to 12 % and the major backlog from
38% to 6%.
In the 2011 PQR, it was observed that NDEQ does not generally require major municipal
applicants to provide three full priority pollutant scans, as required by 40 CFR 122.21 (j), as part
of its state applications; instead, NDEQ requires data for only a basic subset of pollutants.
Industrial applicants, by comparison, indicate pollutants expected to be in the discharge
according to the industry. After receiving this information for new facilities, NDEQ requires
permittees to report only those pollutants during the first permit term. The permit writers
initially download discharge data from the previous permit term from ICIS, for review and
analysis. Permit writers will review the application package to identify changes since the last
permit, relevant to facility operations or treatment processes. Permit writers appear to have
strong familiarity with their permittees, and are aware of when facility changes occur or new
industries are introduced to a community. Fact sheets reviewed currently include a general
discussion of "potential pollutants" based on the industry type and historical knowledge of the
facility (in cases when it is an existing discharger). It is important to note that NDEQ has
produced a draft permit attachment requiring pollutant scans for new and reissued POTWs with a
design flow greater than 1 MGD but has not began to include them into permits. NDEQ has not
addressed sampling requirements for all POTWs, or the subset of POTWs with a design flow
greater than or equal to 0.1 MGD as required in 40 CFR 122.21(j).
Permit writers review applicable WQS for the receiving water body and identify pollutants of
concern in the discharge. NDEQ stated that typical pollutants of concern at POTWs are
ammonia and total residual chlorine. Other pollutants of concern typically identified include
chloride, conductivity, metals, and bacteria. Following identification of pollutants of concern,
permit writers check the 303(d) list for impaired waters, identify pollutants listed, and collect
basic information from the permittee regarding pollutants of concern common to the impairing
pollutants. Permit writers develop WLAs for their facilities, consult staff from the Water Quality
Planning Unit to verify WLAs developed are appropriate, and identify additional potential
pollutants of concern. WLAs are based on water quality criteria (e.g., acute, chronic, human
health); WLAs and WQBELs are calculated using the methodology presented in the TSD. In
addition to establishing numeric effluent limits in permits, permit writers also include narrative
requirements. In addition, permits may also include whole effluent toxicity (WET)
requirements, most of which address acute toxicity, but in some cases, permit limits may be
established for chronic toxicity. Permit writers are including monitoring for total nitrogen and
total phosphorus in new and reissued permits.
Antibacksliding is discussed when applicable; most often in regard to ammonia. Permit writers
review stream data to develop the WLA and WQBELs, compare it to existing WQBELs for that
pollutant, and apply the more stringent effluent limit.
Draft NPDES permits are provided to the permittee for review and all major permits are sent to
EPA during the public review period. Public notices for permits are published in the newspaper
for 30 days and NDEQ lists on its website permits that are currently available for public notice.
Comments are generally submitted by the permittee with few comments received from the
general public. The final administrative record is maintained in the main office via the
Enterprise Content Management system (ECM) where all staff has access to it. The permittee
receives the original version of the final permit.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 16

-------
The ECM system allows direct electronic access of facility files to NDEQ employees. The
system can be used directly or documents are emailed or printed. Information is shared or
distributed using Microsoft Office. The State IIS system, ICIS, and outside sources are used to
obtain information on streams and generate draft permits.
C.	State-Specific Challenges
Nebraska consists of many small communities with aging wastewater infrastructures that are
experiencing budget cuts due to losing populations. As these communities decrease in size and
municipal budgets, the NDEQ continues to struggle with how to address these communities with
looming infrastructure needs in a down turned economy.
D.	Current State Initiatives
Nebraska is currently including monitoring for total nitrogen and total phosphorus in new and
reissued permits to determine if nutrient limits should be included in permitted facilities. It has
also included the review of Fish Advisories and the 303(d) list to include monitoring of legacy
pollutants.
III. Core Review Findings
Basic Facility Information and Permit Application
1. Facility Information
Basic facility information is necessary to establish proper permit conditions for a facility. For
example, information regarding facility type, location, processes and other factors is required by
NPDES permit application regulations (40 CFR 122.21) because such information is essential for
developing technically sound, complete, clear and enforceable permits. Similarly, fact sheets
must include a description of the type of facility or activity subject to a draft permit.
Tecumseh WWTF (NE-0030911)
Tecumseh WWTF is a major POTW serving a population of 1677. The permit contains specific
authorization to discharge information on the first page. The outfall location is not in the permit
but is included in the inspection report. The fact sheet had a complete description of the plant
and its processes.
The permit included secondary treatment limits for CBOD and TSS in terms of concentration.
Mass limits were not included in the permit. There were WQBLs for ammonia and E. Coli and
monitoring for WET was included in the permit.
Fremont WWTF fNE-003138n
Fremont WWTF is a major POTW serving a population of about 25,000. The city has several
large industrial users including Hormel Foods, Fremont Beef, and Mid-America Truck wash.
Although average flows (4.27 MGD) are lower than design flows (12 MGD), the organic loading
to the plant is high with an influent BOD of about 1000 mg/L. The fact sheet had a complete
description of the plant and its processes, along with detailed description of the outfall location.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 17

-------
The permit included secondary treatment limits for CBOD and TSS in terms of concentration.
Mass limits were not included in the permit. There were WQBLs for ammonia, E. Coli, Total
Residual Chlorine, and WET. Calculated WET limits were below 1.0 TUa, but 1.0 TUa was
used as the permit limit. For calculated limits below the detection limit of the acute test, the
permit limit should be no statistically significant toxicity in the WET test as explained in the
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control.
Nestle Purina Petcare Company (NE-0000116)
The Nestle Company produces meat based cat food and dog food. The company has about 350
employees and discharges about 0.345 MGD to the Big Blue River.
The fact sheet had complete information with a description of the facility and the treatment
process. There were flow diagrams and descriptions of the outfall location and receiving stream.
Technology-based limits were set using Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) using the effluent
guidelines for the meat industry for guidance. These included controls on BOD, TSS, and
Ammonia. The permit included WQBLs for E. coli and Total Residual Chlorine.
NPPD Sheldon Power Station (NE-0111490)
The Sheldon Power Station fact sheet has a detailed facility description with a good description
of discharge location and discharge conditions. Technology based limits were properly derived
based on the steam electric ELG.
The facility has undergone significant changes during the previous permit cycle through
construction and process changes. Since original construction of the facility, it had used a
dammed stream as part of the treatment for the facility wastewaters, and had an ash pond. In the
last 5 years, the stream has been re-routed around the plant and all discharges have been diverted
to the Big Blue River through a ten mile pipe. This action has eliminated the heavy impact from
the facility on the smaller stream, and through the facility has gained additional effluent
discharge allowances for total dissolved solids due to the mixing capacity of the Big Blue River.
2. Permit Application Requirements
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.22 specify application requirements for facilities
seeking NPDES permits. Federal forms are available, but authorized states are also permitted to
use their own forms provided they include all information required by the federal regulations.
This portion of the review assesses whether appropriate, complete, and timely application
information was received by the state and used in permit development.
NDEQ's application forms have several omissions. Applications for major POTWs do not
include priority pollutant scans to identify pollutants of concern. Pollutants of concern are based
on permit history or pollutant contributions expected from known industrial users. For industrial
permittees, the applications do not include the sets of monitoring requirements as required in the
Federal 2C industrial permit applications. Similar to POTWs, the pollutants of concern are based
on permitting history and applicable effluent guidelines.
NDEQ has agreed to put the monitoring requirements into permits as they are reissued.
However, EPA is concerned that this does not address the permit application requirement in 40
CFR 122.21(j). The regulation states that applicants must provide data from a minimum of three
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 18

-------
samples taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit application and must
include the data in the pollutant data summary of the application. NDEQ must continue to
include the monitoring requirement as permits are reissued and expeditiously change the permit
application to meet the federal requirement. This was a 2008 program review finding and
should be addressed by NDEQ as soon as possible.
Other parts of the applications are complete, and require details of location, flow maps and
descriptions of treatment processes, and complete descriptions of discharge locations.
State Response: When application forms are revised they will be consistent with 40 CFR
122.21. Regulations update priorities are application forms and pretreatment requirements. We
anticipate taking regulation changes to the Environmental Quality Council in late 2013.
NDEQ has started requiring pollutant scans in new permits or by letter (Attachment C and D) if
not included with permits issued October 1, 2012. Until application forms are revised NDEQ
will include a pollutant scan reminder in the letter sent to existing facilities reminding them to
submit their permit application 180 days before the permit expires. This letter is sent 270 days
before permit expiration.
Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
NPDES regulations at section 125.3(a) require that permitting authorities impose technology-
based treatment requirements in the permits they issue. A sampling of Nebraska's permits, fact
sheets and other supporting documentation for POTWs and non-POTWs were reviewed to assess
whether the "technology based effluent limitations" (TBEL) contained in them represent the
minimum level of control that must be imposed in a permit.
1. TBELs for POTWs
POTWs must meet secondary or equivalent to secondary standards in accordance with the
Secondary Treatment Regulations at 40 CFR Part 133 (including limits for BOD, TSS, pH, and
percent removal). Thus, permits issued to POTWs, must contain limits for all of these
parameters (or authorized alternatives) in accordance with the Secondary Treatment Regulations.
Nebraska's fact sheets contain detailed descriptions of plant location, treatment processes within
the plant, and the handling of all waste streams including sludge production. Industrial users are
listed.
TBELs for secondary treatment or equivalent to secondary treatment are properly derived in
NDEQ permits and include limits for BOD (or CBOD), TSS, pH, and percent removal. Fact
sheets state which limits apply, but do not include lengthy discussions of applicability.
Permits do not include mass limits for BOD and TSS. This is not required by the regulations, but
the EPA urges use of both mass and concentration limits in permits when possible.
State Response: NDEQ uses design flows for mechanical WWTF to calculate mass limits in
permits. NDEQ has established mass limits for secondary standards and water quality based
permits since approximately 2009.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 19

-------
2. TBELs for Non-Municipal Dischargers
Permits issued to non-municipal dischargers must require compliance with a level of treatment
performance equivalent to "Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)" or
"Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for existing sources, and consistent
with "New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)" for new sources. Where effluent limitations
guidelines (ELG) have been developed for a category of dischargers, the TBELs in a permit must
be based on the application of these guidelines. If ELGs are not available, a permit must include
requirements at least as stringent as BAT/BCT developed on a case-by-case basis using BPJ in
accordance with the criteria outlined at 40 CFR 125.3(d).
Nebraska's fact sheets contain detailed descriptions of plant location, treatment processes, and
waste streams. The SIC code(s) for the facility are identified and permit limits are derived based
on the applicable ELG. Where an ELG does not apply, the state derives permit limit using BPJ.
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) require permits to include any requirements in
addition to or more stringent than technology-based requirements where necessary to achieve
state WQS, including narrative criteria for water quality. To establish such "water quality-based
effluent limits" (WQBEL), the permitting authority must evaluate the proposed discharge and
determine whether technology-based requirements are sufficiently stringent, and whether any
pollutants or pollutant parameters could cause or contribute to an excursion above any applicable
WQS.
The PQR for Nebraska assessed the processes employed by permit writers and water quality
modelers to implement these requirements. Specifically, the PQR reviewed permits, fact sheets,
and other documents in the administrative record to evaluate how permit writers and water
quality modelers determined the appropriate WQS applicable to receiving waters, evaluated and
characterized the effluent and receiving water including identifying pollutants of concern,
determining critical conditions, incorporating information on ambient pollutant concentrations,
and assessing any dilution considerations, determined whether limits were necessary for
pollutants of concern and, where necessary, calculated such limits or other permit conditions.
For impaired waters with EPA-approved TMDLs, the PQR also assessed whether and how
permit writers consulted and developed limits consistent with the assumptions of those TMDLs.
For POTWs, NDEQ assumes reasonable potential for criteria for Ammonia, E. coli, WET, and
pollutants limited in past permit cycles. For those pollutants, Wasteload Allocations are
calculated and permit limits are derived using the methods in the Technical Support Document
(TSD). For all other pollutants (WQBELs and industrial facilities), it is not clear how a
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) is conducted. The fact sheets reviewed state that RPAs
had been conducted but lacked detail and clarity in the specifics of the RPA process (e.g.,
pollutant selection for evaluation). In reissued permits, RP is typically calculated on the basis of
effluent limits in the current permit. Permit writers are familiar with permitted facilities. Unless
processes or industrial users (e.g., pretreatment permits) have changed significantly, the permit
writer would not propose additional pollutant-specific effluent limits. All permits and associated
fact sheets reviewed lack a detailed discussion of pollutants of concern. The fact sheets include
brief statements identifying potential pollutants in the discharge according to the activity, but
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 20

-------
they do not discuss data available from the permit application forms or other effluent
characterization data. Reviewing pollutant scans required during the permit application process
would be useful in identifying pollutants of concern to alert permit writers of changes in effluent
quality.
NDEQ's RPA procedure is specified in the TSD, as are its procedures for calculating WQBELs.
A review of the permits, fact sheets, and permit files on-site indicated that WQBEL calculations
followed the TSD procedures. However, after a review of the state's files, the procedure for
conducting the RPA was not always clear.
The receiving waterbody is carefully identified and uses are identified in the fact sheet. Impaired
waters are identified in the fact sheet, and permit writers assess whether the pollutant or
pollutants causing the impairment will be present in the discharge.
WQBLs tend to be data driven with calculations for seasonal low flows and data sets used to set
seasonal background levels for ammonia.
Monitoring and Reporting
The NPDES regulations require permittees to periodically evaluate compliance with the effluent
limitations established in their permits and provide the results to the permitting authority.
Monitoring and reporting conditions require the permittee to conduct routine or episodic self-
monitoring of permitted discharges and where applicable, internal processes, and report the
analytical results to the permitting authority with information necessary to evaluate discharge
characteristics and compliance status.
Specifically, the regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i) require NPDES permits to contain monitoring
requirements sufficient to assure compliance with permit limitations, including specific
requirements for the types of information to be provided and the methods for the collection and
analysis of such samples. The regulations at 40 CFR 122.48, also require that permits specify
the type, intervals, and frequency of monitoring sufficient to yield data which are representative
of the monitored activity. The regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i) also require reporting of
monitoring results with a frequency dependent on the nature and effect of the discharge.
The fact sheet should include the basis for requiring monitoring frequency and how this
frequency is representative and protective of the respective State WQS. The monitoring
frequency rationale should include an explanation for when the samples are to be taken during
the year, taking into account seasonal or production considerations, and where the samples are
taken.
The permit application for POTWs with design flow greater than 1 MGD requires monitoring for
the priority pollutants (three sets of monitoring in the permit cycle) that are still not being
included in the application, (see 40 CFR 122.21(j)). The major permits reviewed by EPA were
missing this information. NDEQ provided a draft copy of the pollutant scans that will be
attached to new and reissued permits. However, NDEQ has not decided how it will address
sampling requirements for all POTWs, and the subset of POTWs with design flows greater than
or equal to 0.1 MGD as required in 40 CFR 122.2l(j).
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 21

-------
State Response: NDEQ is currently addressing pollutant scans for all facilities. NDEQ has
started requiring pollutant scans in new permits or by letter (Appendix F, Attachments C and D)
if not included with permits issued October 1, 2012. Until application forms are revised NDEQ
will include a pollutant scan reminder in the letter sent to existing facilities reminding them to
submit their permit application 180 days before the permit expires. This letter is sent 270 days
before permit expiration.
Special and Standard Conditions
The regulations at 40 CFR 122.41 require that all NPDES permits, including NPDES general
permits, contain an enumerated list of "standard" permit conditions. Further, the regulations at
40 CFR 122.42 require that NPDES permits for certain categories of dischargers must contain
certain additional standard conditions. Permitting authorities must include these conditions in
NPDES permits and may not alter or omit any standard condition, unless such alteration or
omission results in a requirement more stringent than required by the Federal regulations.
In addition to these required standard permit conditions, permits may also contain additional
narrative requirements that are unique to a particular permittee. These case-specific narrative
requirements are generally referred to as "special conditions." Special conditions might include
requirements such as: additional monitoring or special studies, best management practices (see
40 CFR 122.44(k)), and/or permit compliance schedules (see 40 CFR 122.47). Where a permit
contains special conditions, such conditions must be consistent with applicable regulations.
For the most part, the NDEQ standard conditions are verbatim quotations of the Federal
regulations at 40 CFR 122.41. The exceptions are as follows:
•	Duty to Comply - The section is abridged and does not list the Federal penalties listed in
40 CFR 122.41(a)(2-3).
State Response: As per 40 CFR 123.25(a)(12), Section 122.41 (a)(1) and (b) through (n) -
Applicable permit conditions are required. This is referenced in the beginning of 40 CFR
122.41. "§ 122.41 Conditions applicable to all permits (applicable to State programs, see
§ 123.25)." Nebraska has revised the standard conditions which are attached (Attachment A)
for your review. While as a practice, we do not include information in permit requirements,
we reference enforcement for federal action as subject to the Clean Water Act.
•	Duty to Reapply - Paraphrases the duty to reapply, but is as stringent as the Federal rule.
•	Monitoring and Records - These requirements are broken into two separate sections in
the permit, with references to state rules for test procedures. The state rules reference the
40 CFR Part 136 methods.
•	Planned Changes - Paraphrased referring to state rules.
State Response: "The following conditions apply to all NPDES permits. Additional
conditions applicable to NPDES permits are in § 122.42. All conditions applicable to NPDES
permits shall be incorporated into the permits either expressly or by reference. If incorporated
by reference, a specific citation to these regulations (or the corresponding approved State
regulations) must be given in the permit."
•	Monitoring Reports - Some omissions.
State Response: Without Specifics NDEQ cannot comment.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 22

-------
• Twenty-four Hour Reporting - Allows the director to waive written reports if there has
been oral report within the 24 hour time frame. Federal rules do not allow this.
State Response: 40 CFR 122.41 (l)(6)(iii) allows this. "(6) Twenty-four hour reporting, (i)
The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger health or the
environment. Any information shall be provided orally within 24 hours from the time the
permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided
within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written
submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its cause; the period of
noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been
corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to
reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
(ii)	The following shall be included as information which must be reported within 24 hours
under this paragraph.
(A)	Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit. (See
§ 122.41(g). {This appears to be an error in the 40 CFR that references "Property rights.
This permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege. " the
correct reference is 40 CFR 122.41 (m)(ii) or other reference}.
(B)	Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit.
(C)	Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed by the
Director in the permit to be reported within 24 hours. (See § 122.44(g).)
(iii)	The Director may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis for reports under
paragraph (l)(6)(ii) of this section if the oral report has been received within 24 hours."
• Other Non-Compliance - Paraphrases. Refers to state requirements.
State Response: The following conditions apply to all NPDES permits. Additional
conditions applicable to NPDES permits are in § 122.42. "All conditions applicable to
NPDES permits shall be incorporated into the permits either expressly or by reference. If
incorporated by reference, a specific citation to these regulations (or the corresponding
approved State regulations) must be given in the permit."
We have revised our Standard Conditions, (Appendix F, Attachment A), to this report for
review.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) discharges are discharges of raw sewage from municipal
sanitary sewer systems at locations upstream of a treatment plant headworks. Discharges, such
as SSOs, that are not explicitly authorized by a permit are prohibited. As a form of
noncompliance, SSOs should be reported by the permittee; however, Nebraska NPDES permits
do not define what constitutes a reportable SSO. NDEQ should develop language for newly
issued and reissued municipal wastewater permits that articulates what constitutes a reportable
SSO.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 23

-------
State Response: The reason we have not further defined reportable SSOs in permits is that EPA
has not finalized their rule. NDEQ has dealt with SSO as a bypass for many years and has
required their reporting, and does track these events.
Administrative Process & Documentation
The administrative process includes documenting all permit decisions, coordinating EPA and
state review of the draft (or proposed) permit, providing public notice, conduct hearings (if
appropriate), and responding to public comments, and defending the permit and modifying it (if
necessary) after issuance. The PQR team discussed each element of the administrative process
with the Nebraska permitting staff, and reviewed materials from the administrative process as
they related to permits reviewed for the core permit review.
The federal NPDES regulations and NDEQ's NPDES regulations require that permittees must
submit NPDES applications 180 days before permits expire. If complete applications are not
submitted within the 180-day deadline, then permits cannot be administratively continued and
permit coverage will terminate.
To assist permittees in submitting timely and complete permit renewal applications, NDEQ
sends out a reminder letter nine months (270 days) before permit expiration. NDEQ then uses an
in-house spreadsheet to track the arrival of applications.
When the applications are received, NDEQ staff does a preliminary review to determine whether
the applications are complete. This first review checks for an authorized signature, complete
addresses, and submission of all pages of the application. In general, these first checks are easier
for municipal facilities and more difficult for industrial facilities. If a plant operator signs an
application, NDEQ will return the application to ensure a signature is obtained from a "cognizant
official".
After the preliminary review, applications are assigned to a permit writer for technical review
and later drafting. Each permit writer is assigned to a set of counties so the permit writer can
become knowledgeable about an area of the state. (This also encourages watershed-based
decision making.) Permit writers review the technical aspects of the permit for completeness and
work with the permittee to collect any additional pertinent and/or required information. When
the application is complete, the permit writer documents the completion date and the tracking
spreadsheet is updated.
NDEQ prioritizes permit issuance. New dischargers are given priority over re-issued permits
and NDEQ indicates it makes every effort to be prompt in permit coverage so new facilities can
begin operations as quickly as possible. Permits for new facilities are tracked on a separate,
dedicated spreadsheet.
Backlogged permits are defined as permits that have been administratively extended. When
permits expire before a draft is completed, NDEQ tracks the status of the backlogged permits and
works to resolve issues. NDEQ also keeps separate tracking lists for EPA Priority Permits and
facilities located on 303(d) listed streams.
When the permit writer creates a draft permit and fact sheet or statement of basis, the drafts are
routed for internal review by specialists in compliance, Water Quality Standards (WQS) in the
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 24

-------
Planning Unit, Technical Assistance Unit and the Groundwater Unit. The permit writer takes the
comments from these individuals and updates the draft permit and fact sheet/statement of basis.
Then NDEQ sends the draft permit and fact sheet/statement of basis to the permittee for review
and comment. Once the last set of comments is considered, a final draft is reviewed by the
Permits Unit Supervisor and, after final corrections, the permit is placed on public notice. EPA's
review is concurrent with the 30 day public review period.
In the summer of 2008, the Region 7 states and EPA held a "Kaizen" event. The Kaizen process
is used to find efficiency and prevent problems in production processes or administrative
processes. As one of the improvements discussed in the Kaizen process, NDEQ will share with
EPA earlier drafts of permits that involve difficult issues earlier in the development process.
State Response: The State supports the 2008 Region 7 Kaizen results and look forward to
implementing all phases of the process improvements.
After the public notice and response to comments, the permit is reviewed one last time by the
Permits Unit Supervisor and then by the Wastewater Section Environmental Engineer Section
Supervisor or for CAFO the Agricultural Section Supervisor before the final permit is sent to be
signed by the appropriate Director and issued.
The administrative record is the foundation that supports the NPDES permit. If EPA issues the
permit, 40 CFR 124.9 identifies the required content of the administrative record for a draft
permit, and 40 CFR 124.18 identifies the requirements for final permits. Authorized states are
required to follow 40 CFR 123.25 and should have equally strong documentation. The record
allows personnel from the permitting agency to reconstruct the justification for a given permit
and defend the permit during any legal proceedings regarding the permit. The administrative
record for a draft permit consists, at a minimum, of the permit application and supporting data,
draft permit, fact sheet or statement of basis, all items cited in the statement of basis or fact sheet,
including calculations used to derive the permit limitations, meeting reports, correspondence
with the applicant and regulatory personnel, all other items supporting the file and, for new
sources where EPA issues the permit, any Environmental Assessment, Environmental Impact
Statement, or Finding of No Significant Impact.
NDEQ has written procedures outlining wasteload allocation, permit limit generation and
NPDES permitting procedures. NPDES permits and fact sheets are generated using Microsoft
Word. Formatting of the Word documents is shared among the permit writers. NDEQ is
designing a permitting tool (Tools for Environmental Permitting) it anticipates implementing in
September 2012. This permitting tool is designed to house data (e.g., discharger, surface water,
and standard language) and through an Adobe-based, wizard-like tool, develops a standardized
format for the permit document, and calculates WLAs and effluent limits. NDEQ indicated that
eventually the permitting tool would upload effluent limits to ICIS upon the permit becoming
effective. The permitting tool also tracks changes in the document, to allow for greater ease and
efficiency during the review (peer and management) process. EPA's e-NPDES provide the basis
for NDEQ's system; however, the project scope expanded when NDEQ realized the potential for
use in developing permits in addition to managing discharger data. NDEQ has implemented
Enterprise Content Management (ECM), a document and file scanning/imaging system, to allow
for easier accessibility of permit documents by permit staff, EPA, and the general public.
NDEQ has always had well organized and maintained files. Files are complete and bound into
folders with complete indexes. Paper files were organized into three sets of folders for each
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 25

-------
facility: General (G), Permit (P), Reports and Data (R). Sequential folders are marked as 0001
(Oldest), 0002, 0003, etc. Bar codes on each file can be used to access all the information on the
file, such as a complete index of the documents in the file, check out history, etc.
Files are organized by facility and the files for a facility may cover several programs (NPDES,
RCRA, LUST, etc.). Each of those programs can have multiple components. For instance,
NPDES could be broken down into discharge permits, construction storm water, MS4, etc.
Within the last year or so, NDEQ has switched completely to electronic record keeping. NDEQ
used the index methodology from the old records systems, but added other fields to further
define the documents such as sender and recipient.
The new database is an Integrated Information System (IIS) AS 400. Incoming paper documents
are scanned on a table top scanner and the processing person enters a fairly lengthy list of
indexing information. This detailed indexing is the key time investment in the filing procedure,
and is essential to the organizational structure and routing of the files.
The indexing is done through ECM software. The ECM software is an umbrella for all the
programs that might keep records on a facility, and it has been used successfully in other
branches of state government.
In the ECM system, no paper copies are produced and no paper records are kept. Incoming
documents are scanned on table top scanners (or a large format scanner for maps, plans, or other
large documents), indexed, and then routed by electronic means. For convenience, documents
over 100 pages are scanned, but routed in hard copy form. Most documents are scanned in black
and white, and colors scans (much slower and more data intensive) are only used when needed.
Scanned documents are not filed per se, but collected into boxes based on the date received and
the processor. Boxes are stored, but not further indexed. NDEQ is working on a retention
schedule for the boxed records.
Routing is built into the indexing, so a given employee gets a daily email listing the documents
routed to them. This routing has been one of the difficult aspects of the system: if a manager is
out of the office, information may not be forwarded, in the same way that a paper document can
become delayed. Some employees have struggled with the email load.
A big potential success is in the streamlined response to public requests for information. At
some point, all responsive records will be easily accessible electronically.
NDEQ is working on the fine points of adjusting to the new system. One of the main difficulties
has been covering the full breadth of subject matter that can be covered by correspondence. This
can include information from holders of general permits, individual correspondence, or records
on a general subject such as storm water, general policy, etc.
NDEQ is operating the entire record keeping system with a manager, 5 full time employees, and
2 temporary employees.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 26

-------
1. Fact Sheet or Statement of Basis
Under 40 CFR 123.25 (a)(27) and (a)(32), 40 CFR 124.8 and 124.56, fact sheets are required for
major NPDES permits, general permits, permits that incorporate a variance or warrant an
explanation of certain conditions, and permits subject to widespread public interest. Current
regulations require that fact sheets include:
•	General facility information
o Description of the facility or activity
o Sketches or a detailed description of the discharge location
o Type and quantity of waste/ pollutants discharged
•	Summary rationale of permit conditions
o Summary of the basis for draft permit conditions
o References to the applicable statutory or regulatory provisions
o References to the administrative record
•	Detailed rationale of permit conditions
o Explanation and calculations of effluent limitations and conditions
o Specific explanations of:
¦	Toxic pollutant limitations
¦	Limitations on internal wastestreams
¦	Limitations on indicator pollutants
¦	Case-by-case requirements
¦	Decisions to regulate non-publically owned treatment works under a
separate permit
o For EPA-issued permits, the requirements for any state certification
o For permits with a sewage sludge land application plan, a description of how all
required elements of the land application plan are addressed in the permit
o Reasons why any requested variances do not appear justified, if applicable
•	Administrative requirements
o A description of the procedures for reaching a final decision on the draft permit,
including:
¦	Public comment period beginning and ending dates
¦	Procedures for requesting a hearing
¦	Other procedures for public participation
o Name and telephone number of the person to contact for additional information.
The fact sheet and supporting documentation were reviewed with the administrative record of the
permit file as part of the PQR to assess whether the basis or rationale for limitations and other
permit decisions were documented in the development of the final permit.
Fact sheets are basically complete. Base line information is very complete with good descriptions
of facilities, processes, and discharge locations. Calculations for all limits are shown.
Spreadsheets and other background information are included in the files.
Better labeling of spreadsheets and more discussion and explanation of the logic behind
decision-making in the calculations could help make the fact sheets more understandable by the
general public.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 27

-------
Core Topic Areas
Core topic areas are specific aspects of the NPDES permit program that warrant review based on
the specific requirements applicable to the selected topic areas. These topic areas have been
determined to be important on a national level. Core topic areas are reviewed for all state PQRs.
Pesticide General Permits
NDEQ issued the Nebraska Pesticide General Permit (PGP) on November 1, 2011. The
Nebraska Department of Agriculture collaborates with NDEQ to control discharges from
pesticide applications by issuing restricted use licenses. NDEQ identifies waters for which
permit coverage is required for these discharges in three groups. Group III waters are required to
submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and are defined as state resource waters, impaired waters, waters
with endangered species, and waters within 250 feet of a public drinking water intake. Group II
waters are defined as flowing or discharging water bodies but must have none of the Group III
conditions. Group I waters are defined as having no flow for at least 24 hours after application,
have no discharge, or have a discharge that can be controlled for a period of 24 hours after an
application. The NDEQ Director has determined that Group I and Group II waters do not require
a NOI.
NDEQ has issued 8 authorizations to discharge and has 6 authorizations pending. Nebraska does
not anticipate it will issue an individual permit for pesticide discharges and estimates 30
authorizations issued under the PGP. NDEQ does not use an electronic NOI system and NOI
data is not currently available online. NDEQ has 7 days to deny or delay NOI authorization of
an NOI for Group III waters in Part I B(l)(a)(iv) and (v) of the permit. If they do not respond
within 7 days, the applicator has authority to proceed with the application. The remaining Group
III waters are not authorized without notice from NDEQ.
Pesticide Management Plans are reviewed by NDEQ staff and are submitted with the NOI. The
Nebraska Pesticide Management Plan is named a Pesticide Use Management Plan (PUMP) and
is kept on site by the applicant. Reports are required if there is a violation.
Permitting requirements for discharges associated with pest emergency situations such as
mosquito applications in 303(d) waters are allowed without a NOI. If there are any endangered
species issues present, NDEQ collaborates with the Nebraska Game and Parks and Commission.
Pretreatment
To obtain a reasonable understanding of the quality of Nebraska Pretreatment Program Permits, a
random sampling of 10 Non-categorical NPP permits and 10 Categorical NPP permits was
chosen and evaluated using the requirements for individual control mechanisms found at 40 CFR
403.8(f)(l)(iii), "(iii) Control through Permit, order, or similar means, the contribution to the
POTW by each Industrial User to ensure compliance with applicable Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements. In the case of Industrial Users identified as significant under § 403.3(v), this
control shall be achieved through individual permits or equivalent individual control mechanisms
issued to each such User except as follows." In addition, for Categorical industries, analysis was
conducted on the adequacy of the permit for addressing Categorical Pretreatment requirements.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 28

-------
Categorical Industrial Nebraska Pretreatment Program Permits Reviewed
Nebraska AL Castings- Hastings: NEO13337
This facility is subject to the 40 CFR 464 Metal Molding and Casting Standards, Aluminum
Casting Subcategory. The facility evaporates all process water and therefore certifies no
discharge on its monitoring reports. This Categorical Standard contains limits for Total Toxic
Organics and lists the constituents of the covered TTO in the standard, along with an alternative
monitoring indicator (oil and grease) for demonstrating compliance. However, the permit
contains the list of TTOs that apply to metal finishers (40 CFR Part 433) and the certification
option available to metal finishers. The permit needs to be modified to contain the correct TTO
limits.
Chief Custom Products- Grand Island: NE0129771
This facility performs phosphatizing in the process of manufacturing farm products and is
therefore subject to the Metal Finishing Categorical Standards 40 CFR Part 433. Overall the
permit is well written, however the identification of the sampling location is somewhat general
and could be strengthened by being more specific in its description.
Industrial Plating. Omaha: NE 0114642
This facility is classified as a job shop electroplater discharging less than 10,000 gallons per day
and is subject to the 40 CFR Part 413 Electroplating Categorical Standards. With discharges less
than 10,000 gallons per day it qualifies for a reduced list of regulated pollutants; one not
containing zinc. However, this facility performs both rack and barrel zinc electroplating so it is
not testing for the most probable pollutant it could be discharging. Moreover, a review of the
discharge monitoring reports submitted by the industry shows that it routinely discharges above
10,000 gallons per day. NDEQ needs to monitor this industry's water usage to ensure that it is
properly classified. In addition, pursuant to the definition of "new source" if this industry has
completely replaced its plating lines over the years (a possibility as it has been in business prior
to August 1984) it would no longer be an Electroplating industry but one subject to the Metal
Finishing Categorical Standards.
Hoover- Beatrice: NE0114464
Permit terminated, not reviewed
Molex- Lincoln: NE0131776
This facility electroplates copper, nickel, tin, and sometimes lead and gold, in the manufacture of
electrical connectors. As such, it is subject to the 40 CFR Part 433 Metal Finishing Standards.
Its permit is well written and provides the ability to certify compliance with its TTO limits,
however, the facility elects to sample semiannually instead.
Chief Transportation Products. Omaha: NE0132250
This facility is subject to the 40 CFR Part 433 Metal Finishing Standards which has a
requirement to comply with a TTO limit. The Standard allows for certification in lieu of
sampling if the facility has submitted, and been approved for, a solvent management plan. At
Section H of the permit, this option is explained. There is no solvent management plan in the
state's files (it could have been submitted years ago) and no record of one being approved;
however, the industry certifies compliance with TTOs routinely. Rather than the permit stating
that the holder can certify TTO compliance if it submits a solvent management plan, the permit
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 29

-------
should state that the facility has submitted a solvent plan, give the approval date, and then cite
the option for certification.
Radio Engineering, Omaha: NE0123374
Radio Engineering is classified as subject to the new source requirements of the 40 CFR Part 433
Metal Finishing Standards. Overall its permit is well written, however, the same comment for
TTO certification as for Chief Transportation applies.
Lester Electric. Lincoln: NE0060127
Lester Electric performs phosphate conversion coating in the process of manufacturing battery
chargers. It is therefore subject to the Metal Finishing Standards and must comply with a TTO
limit or certify compliance. Like the two permits reviewed above, there is no statement in the
permit that a solvent management plan has been submitted and approved yet the facility routinely
certifies compliance with TTO limits.
Exmark, Beatrice: NE014451
This Exmark facility, at 2101 Ashland Dr. has had its permit terminated; therefore, it was not
reviewed.
Vishav-Dale Plant 6. Columbus: NE0114391
This facility manufacturers electrical components and in the process performs copper and silver
plating. Cyanide is used in the plating operation and is treated in a destruction unit prior to
discharge. The permit properly has the cyanide sampling location requirement after the
destruction unit but prior to mixing with other regulated wastestreams.
NonCategorical Nebraska Pretreatment Program
Permits Reviewed
Henningsen Foods- David City: NE0133108
The facility has 2 outfalls, both of which discharge to the city: Outfall 001 covers egg cleaning
and breaking, while Outfall 002 is the discharge from egg processing. Neither outfall contains
limits; the facility is required to monitor only. A review of the fact sheet shows no reference to
city's plant capacity so it cannot be determined if the facility should have limits. A review of the
fact sheets for earlier permits from 2003 and 2008 also do not contain an analysis on the city's
plant capacity. Moreover, the fact sheet from 2003 documents lower flows from the industry,
hence, the industry has been growing over the years making it an even larger proportion of the
city's loadings. More recently, a letter from the industry dated July 29, 2009 identifies that it is
going to enter into an agreement with the city to provide funds for the city's plant expansion,
clearly indicating the significance of its discharge to the city.
Green Plains Renewable Energy. Central City: NEO134261
The permit for Great Plains expires on September 30, 2012; however, EPA's Online Tracking
Information System, OTIS, says the permit is to expire on March 31, 2015. EPA erroneously
identified this facility as a Pretreatment industry during the selection process. Because it is a
direct discharger, its permit was not reviewed.
Cornhusker Energy. Lexington: NE0134279
Cornhusker Energy has a permit that authorizes both a direct discharge (Outfall 001) and a
discharge to the City of Lexington (Outfall 002). The portion of the permit dedicated to Outfall
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 30

-------
001 was not reviewed as part of this analysis. Outfall 002 authorizes the industry to discharge
COD, TSS, and NH3 but does not place numerical limitations on any of them. Moreover, the fact
sheet states that conventional pollutants are not being discharged in loadings that exceed the
wastewater treatment plant's capacity to treat, yet provides no mathematical demonstration that
this is true. BOD, which provides a direct comparison to the city's plant capacity, is not being
measured or regulated by the permit. However, to justify the measurement of COD rather than
BOD, the fact sheet states that a positive correlation exists between COD and BOD but does not
identify what that relationship is.
An interesting element of the permit is that the industry has been authorized to discharge to the
city at a pH less than 5 standard units. This is permissible by the General Pretreatment
Regulations if the collection system has been designed to accept wastes of a lower pH.
Contained in the file and fact sheet are letters and engineering studies showing that the permitted
pH of 3.2 s.u. will not harm pipes or pumps. Hence, the fact sheet properly provides the
necessary information to justify this lower limit. The sampling requirements for pH are
confusing: The permit states that the sampling frequency is quarterly but specifies that the
sample type as "continuous."
Tyson Foods. Omaha: NE0133868
This permit identifies three outfalls, two of which discharge to the City of Omaha. There are no
limited pollutants other that pH. The fact sheet provides good details on the pretreatment units
treating the industry's wastes (001 has pH adjustment, 002 is treated with a DAF unit), however,
there is no discussion on the city's treatment plant capacity and whether not including BOD and
TSS limits is justified.
McCain Snack Foods. Grand Island: NE0137511
The fact sheet for McCain Snack Foods properly provides calculations analyzing the City of
Grand Island's plant capacity and determining the portion of the city's load that is given to
McCain through the permit. This fact sheet can be used as the model for those permits that are
deficient in this area.
ADM. Lincoln: NE0035157
The permit for ADM contains no numeric limits for BOD and TSS, the two pollutants discharged
in quantity from this industry. There is no analysis in the fact sheet based on the receiving
wastewater treatment plant's capacity so it is impossible to determine if not regulating BOD and
TSS is warranted. Moreover, the fact sheet doesn't state which of the two Lincoln plants
receives ADM's waste. The permit does contain limits for H2S and dissolved sulfide limits and
was recently modified to the remove the Oil and Grease limit of 100 mg/1. Flows can be diverted
between these facilities.
Nebraska Turkey Growers. Gibbon: NE0111791
This permit has been terminated so therefore it was not reviewed.
Swift Beef. Grand Island: NE0113891
The permit for Swift contains limits for both a direct discharge of cooling water and process
discharge to the City of Grand Island. Like McCain Snack Foods (reviewed above) the numeric
limits in the permit are properly based on the city's plant capacity.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 31

-------
Feaster Foods. Fairbury: NE0114081
Feaster Foods manufactures bacon bits and discharges about 22,000 gallons per day of
wastewater. Its permit contains no BOD or TSS sampling requirements or permit limits.
Moreover, there is no discussion in the fact sheet why BOD or TSS is not monitored or
regulated. The General Pretreatment Regulations require all Significant Industrial Users to have
a control mechanism, but there is no record provided in the fact sheet that Feaster Foods is an
SIU. By definition, a non-Categorical SIU is one that discharges 25,000 gallons per day of
process water, constitutes 5% of the receiving plant's flow, or has the ability to cause adverse
problems to the plant. Since the city discharges about 0.5 million gallons per day, 5% of the
flow load is 25,000 gallons per day, and because Feaster discharges 22,000 gpd, its flow does not
qualify it as an SIU. There are no calculations showing that Feaster constitutes 5% of the BOD
or TSS loads, and no discussion of any adverse affects Feaster could cause to the city's
wastewater treatment plant.
lams, Aurora: NE0133868
The lams permit contains limits for BOD and TSS but the fact sheet does not tell how they were
derived. The fact sheet does say that the limits protect the city from over loading but it does not
provide any calculations as proof. Unlike the fact sheet for Feaster Foods, the lams fact sheet
discusses that lams is an SIU as it discharges in excess of 25,000 gpd process water.
General Observations
Nebraska NPP permits are excellently composed and formatted. Tables are extremely easy to
read because of the use of shaded headers. In addition, NDEQ is a regional leader in its drive for
making all records available on-line. Consequently all permits are scanned and stored for
retrieval as either pdf files or tiff files. However, scanning oftentimes darkens the shaded
formatting making the heading unreadable. It is recommended NDEQ experiment with either
lighter shading that will survive scanning or use a contrasting font that allows for proper data
retention.
One weakness found in all NPP permits was the requirement for resampling and resubmission of
results following the discovery of a violation. The General Pretreatment Regulations at
§403.12(g)(2) require any industrial user who experiences a violation while sampling, to notify
its control authority within 24 hours and resample and resubmit the results within 30 days (there
are some exceptions, however). Not only is this requirement not in the permit, but no permit
holders were executing it. It is highly recommended the NPP Standard Conditions be modified
to include this requirement.
State Response: NDEQ has added this to our latest permits issued October 1, 2012 (Appendix
F, Attachment B, Part I. H.). Also, the permit tool will include the required language.
"H. Effluent Violation Repeat Sampling
The permittee shall conduct or repeat sampling and analysis and submit the results of the
repeat analysis to the Department within 30 days of becoming aware of the violation.
The results of the repeat analysis must be submitted with a copy of the previously
submitted noncompliance form." See (Attachment B), Part I. H.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 32

-------
Another area that could be strengthened is the Pretreatment requirement at 40 CFR 403.12(f) to
immediately notify the POTW of any discharge that could cause problems to the POTW,
including slug loadings. The NPP permits contain requirements for immediate notification of a
permit violation; however, this can be interpreted as a numeric violation and would not be timely
enough to provide adequate notice for plant operators.
State Response: NDEQ has added this slug language to our latest permits issued October 1,
2012 (Appendix F, Attachment B, Part I. I.). Also, the permit tool will include the required
language.
"I. Notice of Potential Problems
All categorical and non-categorical Industrial Users shall notify the POTW immediately
of all discharges that could cause problems to the POTW, including any slug loadings."
A serious deficiency common to non-Categorical permits is the lack of limits for BOD, TSS, and
when appropriate, ammonia, or a justification in the fact sheet stating why limits for these
pollutants are not needed. The EPA's Local Limits guidance manual establishes criteria for
when local limits for conventional pollutants are warranted and when they are not necessary.
However, no non-Categorical permits that did not contain limits had any calculations or
objective demonstrations justifying the absence of limits. Consequently, it was impossible to
determine if those permits were protective against interference and/or pass through. The EPA's
guidance manual specifies that all POTWs that are loaded, on average, at 80% or higher for
conventional pollutants must have local limits controlling those pollutants and the limits written
into the permits. Therefore, if a permit does not contain limits for conventional pollutants, the
fact sheet should contain calculations showing that the POTW receiving the industry's discharge
is less than 80% loaded for the missing pollutants.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
Background
The Agriculture Section provides oversight and direction of the Livestock Waste Management
Act, which includes the NPDES program for CAFOs along with inspections for all aspects of
construction and operation, application reviews, and state and federal permit issuance. The Ag
Section is divided into 2 units; an engineering services unit (4 FTEs) and compliance and permits
unit (7 FTEs). There are 4 field offices that handle CAFOs with 2 FTEs and 3 that are
essentially half-time.
As of Dec 31, 2011, 862 CAFO facilities were defined as CAFOs with 389 of those facilities
covered under an NPDES permit (45%). With a few exceptions, NDEQ does not require
NPDES permits for confinement facilities. All facilities are required to have a construction
approval and state operating permit. The current NPDES General Permit coverage for CAFOs
for open cattle feedlots expires March 31, 2013. NDEQ is in the process of revising the
individual and general permit to incorporate the revisions to Title 130. An application for
renewal of permit coverage will need to be received prior to October 1, 2012. It should be noted
that there are still 8 facilities currently covered under the 2003 - 2008 General Permit.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 33

-------
Revision of statutes and regulations
Nebraska was the first state in Region 7 to revise its regulations to include the 2008 Federal
CAFO Rule. On December 1, 2010, amendments to Title 130 were approved by the
Environmental Quality Council (EQC). The Governor signed his approval and Title 130 became
effective on June 25, 2011. Amendments to Chapter 5 (NPDES duty to apply) were approved by
EQC, Attorney General and Governor and became effective on October 4, 2011.
Nutrient Management Plans
In 2010, EPA Region 7 sent out an information request under the CWA Section 308 in order to
obtain and review the NMP and land application records at ten facilities in Nebraska. Results of
the review indicated that the majority of facilities assessed were managing and land applying
manure litter and process wastewater adequately. However, EPA did identify deficiencies at a
handful of facilities.
Many facilities submitted the NMP chapter from their engineering plan. Since many of these
plans were written prior to the 2003 CAFO Rule, they did not contain all of the nine minimum
standards required under 40 CFR 122.42 (e)(l)(i-ix) or in their NPDES Permit. In some cases
the information had not been updated over the last ten years leading to inconsistencies
concerning the application fields, application agreements, and their associated maps, and soil
samples taken from fields not listed in the NMP.
Many of the operation logs and NMPs lacked the relevant data needed to calculate or determine
if the facility was over-applying nitrogen or phosphorus. As an example, the facility recorded
the time it started and stopped pumping, but did not record the gallons pumped or what the flow
rate was for the pump. Two facilities did not indicate what fields received the wastewater.
At least two of the feedlots had discharged according to their operation logs. Facilities need to
comply with the required "start pumping" operating levels. Not pumping because fields are
being prepared to plant or to avoid crop damage is not a defensible reason to discharge under an
NPDES permit.
NDEQ has hired an NMP specialist to address many of these issues. During the last year, NDEQ
has made significant progress in dealing with previous NMP deficiencies. As part of an outreach
effort, NDEQ held 8 meetings around the state in March 2012 to inform producers of the
revisions to Title 130 that are now required in all NMPs and renewal applications by October
2012. The University of Nebraska Extension (with input from other sources) also developed a
Nutrient Management Record Keeping Calendar to assist the producer in keeping the required
records while NRCS has held training sessions related to the phosphorus index.
NMP Technical Standard
The basis for crop yields, crop soil test recommendations/removal rates, N mineralization rates,
methods for collecting manure samples, manure analysis, N credit for legumes, and soil sampling
needs to be provided in the technical standard and NMP (i.e.: Neb Guide G1450) or other
similar references or methods approved by the Director.
CAFO Permit Review
EPA reviewed 4 CAFOs covered under the NE CAFO General Permit (Winner Circle Feedyard,
Beer Creek Ranch, LLC, Darr Feedlot, Inc., and Bar K Cattle, LLC) to determine if the facilities
and their recently submitted NMPs complied with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 122
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 34

-------
and 412. Only one facility, Bar K Cattle, was found to have difficulties with manure
management.
Bar K Cattle:
Bar K Cattle has approximately 16,000 head of cattle with 6,404 total acres in its NMP.
According to its 2010 CAFO Annual Report, the facility had zero land application acres under its
control (all waste transferred). Chronic rainfall, wet fields, and a lack of control over effluent
application acres led to four discharges from June to August 2010 and one in June 2011. The
facility has added an application field for effluent that is now under its control. This situation
would seem to indicate that a facility needs to have some acreage under its control for the
application of process wastewater.
IV. Special Focus Area Findings
A.	Water Treatment Plants
EPA issued a letter last year with concerns about permits issued with schedules to do technology
and water quality studies at several water treatment plants. As we stated in that letter, EPA urges
NDEQ to better define the requirements of the studies to assure that those studies create the
necessary information needed to issue permits in the next cycle. A copy of the letter is included
in Appendix F.
State Response: EPA needs to finalize its rule for water treatment plants before this can be
accomplished. In anticipation of the rule, NDEQ is using BPJ to establish appropriate permit
conditions. NDEQ's studies are adequate to provide the information needed to evaluate Best
Professional Judgment (BPJ) to issue the next permit. NDEQ issued these permits to gather
information and to remove a potential impact to an endangered species. For these reasons,
NDEQ disagrees that this is a (category 1) for the State and this item should not be placed as a
State requirement in the tracker.
B.	Memorandum of Agreements
EPA Regional Office staff met with NDEQ management to discuss EPA's effort to review
existing Memorandum of Agreements (MOAs) between the EPA and states governing the
NPDES permit program. This effort is part of the Agency's activities under the October 15,
2009, Clean Water Act Action Plan, and the Interim Guidance to Strengthen Performance in the
NPDES Program (June 22, 2010).
EPA HQ submitted a transmittal letter and attachments containing a Criteria for MOA
Requirement, State Review Draft Checklist, and Model NPDES MOA State Review Draft to all
State Environmental Directors on April 14, 2012. The transmittal letter requested states to
review and comment on the documents by May 14, 2012.
The regional office staff reviewed the process outlined in the HQ transmittal letter with the
NDEQ management and responded to their immediate questions and concerns. The management
team was encouraged to review the documents and provide any comments to the HQ contact by
the desired date.
State Response: NDEQ agrees the MOA should be amended to better reflect the interests of the
parties given current program and budget issues. NDEQ submitted a proposed MOA for EPA
review.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 35

-------
C. Existing Action Items
The Action Items consists of commitments the Region and State made during the PPA, PPG, and
106 Grant two-year work planning process in FY 2005 to improve State and Regional NPDES
Programs. NDEQ has successfully completed all but two of these Action Items. The remaining
Action Items are listed below:
•	Permit Issuance: The State had 10 minor permits that had been expired longer than 10
years. To date, NDEQ has issued all but two of these permits. The remaining permits are
Lindsay WWTF and Northrop Grumman Systems.
State Response: The State has issued all of these permits as of October 1, 2012.
•	Pretreatment: An area of concern is the lack of the development and implementation of
local limits for cities with IUs pursuant to 40 CFR 403(10)(e). The State has committed
to work with Region 7 to develop local limits for these cities. However, initial data
collection has not yet been implemented. EPA conducted the analyses and submitted in
draft to NDEQ for comment but no further work was done to finalize them. NDEQ staff
are slowly beginning to work on this issue. The lack of dedicated staff has put NDEQ
behind schedule in completing this task.
State Response: NDEQ has hired a staff person to work on pretreatment who is currently
involved in the regulatory changes and inspections of pretreatment facilities. We have been
working with our communities on pretreatment issues and will work on local limits as time
allows. Currently most of the issues with pretreatment in Nebraska are compatible wastes
and not metals which the local limit guidance from EPA focus.
EPA Headquarters submitted a new list of Action Items in FY2008 that it believed would
improve State and Regional NPDES Programs. The Regional Office negotiated this list with
NDEQ to implement in FY2009. The remaining Action Items from this list are as follows:
•	Stormwater: The State should issue permits to the four remaining small phase II MS4s.
The four facilities are Lancaster County, University of Nebraska, City of Terrytown and
City of Gering. NDEQ has not completed Lancaster County, University of Nebraska or
Terrytown. It is determining if Gering will become part of the Scottsbluff permit. Two
other permittees, Union Pacific Railroad, and Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad are
not designated as MS4s, but will become non-traditional MS4s. Washington County has
been designated as an MS4 and has submitted an NOI, but is not authorized to discharge
at this time.
State Response: Currently Gering and Terrytown are operating under a wavier because they
are under the 10,000 population threshold and not located in an urbanized area as designated
by the 2010 census. We have a new application for University of Nebraska Lincoln but have
not received an application for University of Nebraska Omaha (UNO). We are contacting
UNO. We do not believe the Union Pacific Railroad, and Burlington Northern-Santa Fe
Railroad meet the qualification for an MS4 and therefore are not required to obtain an MS4
permit.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 36

-------
•	Applications: NDEQ should ensure that all NPDES permit application forms contain all
federal requirements stated in 40 CFR Part 122. NDEQ began drafting changes to its
regulations which have been reviewed internally and revised but remain in draft at this
time.
State Response: When application forms are revised they will be consistent with 40 CFR
122.21. Regulations update priorities are application forms and pretreatment requirements.
We anticipate taking regulation changes to the EQC in late 2013.
•	Permit Quality: NDEQ's permit documentation shall be complete and consistent with 40
CFR Part 124.8 - Fact Sheet. NDEQ continues to work on getting the database for its
permit writing tool configured. All permit requirements and applications will be stored
as electronic files in the database allowing for more complete permit documentation.
Stated Response: NDEQ continues to enhance our documentation and we have
information available on the web from files scanned into the system for the last several
years. We have generated a permit from our permit writing tool and will continue to work
on enhancements as we continue to implement this tool.
•	Monitoring: NDEQ should revise the National Pretreatment Program application to
ensure it meets the requirements of the baseline monitoring report. This Action Item has
not been addressed by NDEQ.
State Response: When application forms are revised they will be consistent with 40 CFR
122.21. Regulations update priorities are application forms and pretreatment requirements.
We anticipate taking regulation changes to the EQC in late 2013.
During the 2011 HQ conducted PQR, the following list of Category 1 Action Items was
developed and negotiated with Nebraska for inclusion into the 2011 Action Item list. The 2011
list of Action Items is as follows:
•	316: States should include section 316(b) cooling water intake structure permit
conditions and a determination of Best Technology Available for existing facilities on a
BPJ basis, and the basis for the determination of Best Technology Available should be
documented in the fact sheet. NDEQ is evaluating 316 (b) issues and is waiting until
EPA comes out with guidance.
State Response: EPA needs to finalize its rule for 316(b) before this can be accomplished.
In anticipation of the rule, NDEQ is using Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) to establish
appropriate permit conditions. For these reasons, NDEQ disagrees that this is a (category 1)
for the State and this item should not be placed as a State requirement in the tracker.
•	Core Program: NDEQ should ensure its application forms are moving forward in the
regulatory process to be revised and specifically include data submittal requirements.
The core review indicates NDEQ is not requesting pollutant scans and therefore, not
evaluating current discharge data for reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an
excursion of WQS. NDEQ indicated the forthcoming permitting tool will include
requirements for data submittals in the permit documents; however, in the meantime,
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 37

-------
NDEQ should ensure staff are evaluating the discharge for pollutants of concern and the
need for WQBELs. NDEQ is beginning to attach pollutant scans into its reissued major
permits.
State Response: NDEQ has started requiring pollutant scans in new permits or by letter
(Attachment C and D) if not included with permits issued October 1, 2012. Until application
forms are revised NDEQ will include a pollutant scan reminder in the letter sent to existing
facilities reminding them to submit their permit application 180 days before the permit
expires. This letter is sent 270 days before permit expiration. NDEQ is requiring a pollutant
scan in our new permits or by letter (Attachment C and D) to improve data for reasonable
potential and has prioritized updating our application forms with regulatory changes planned
for late 2013.
•	Core Program: NDEQ should improve its approach for identifying pollutants of concern
and ensure the evaluation of reasonable potential is current to the facility's operations and
discharge, and provide a thorough discussion in the fact sheets and supporting
documentation. NDEQ acknowledges that once the pollutant scans are fully
implemented they will assist in this determination.
State Response: NDEQ has used historic information reported in Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMR) to evaluate reasonable potential since the majority of the discharges in our
state are very small with limited industry. We are now requiring a pollutant scan in our
permits to improve data for reasonable potential even for our small communities. Many of
these small communities have consistent discharges, limited or no industry. Additional data
collection would impose a burden on these communities without providing additional benefit
or reducing the risk of unpermitted pollutants being discharged.
•	Core Program: NDEQ should expand discussions in the fact sheets regarding the status
of receiving waters with respect to impairments and TMDLs, development of effluent
limits (e.g., decision to express effluent limits for metals as dissolved or total),
application of the mixing zone policy, and rationale for monitoring requirements (i.e.,
location and minimum frequency). NDEQ has agreed to include additional language in
permits and fact sheets.
State Response: The new permit writers tool will assist NDEQ with proper documentation
and the permit writers have been notified of this item.
•	Nutrients: The State should confirm and demonstrate consideration of WQBELs for
permit limit derivation and present the selection of the more stringent effluent limitation
(40 CFR 122.44(d)). NDEQ is beginning to add nitrogen and phosphorus monitoring
only into its permits.
State Response: NDEQ includes WQBELs in our permits. This relates back to pollutant
scans which have been addressed by including the requirement in new permits or by sending
notice of the requirement to permit applicants 270 days in advance of permit issuance. The
State is gathering data on nutrients. Currently Nebraska has nutrient standards for lakes.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 38

-------
•	Nutrients: The State should ensure that it documents its reasonable potential
determinations in factsheets or administrative record where factsheets are not required
(40 CFR 124.56).
State Response: The new permit writers tool will assist NDEQ with proper documentation
and the permit writers have been notified of this item.
•	Pretreatment: Nebraska needs to update its Pretreatment regulations to include the
required provisions of the 2005 Streamlining revisions. NDEQ has developed some
drafts but has not finalized these regulations.
State Response: When application forms are revised they will be consistent with 40 CFR
122.21. Regulations update priorities are application forms and pretreatment requirements.
We anticipate taking regulation changes to the EQC in late 2013.
•	Pretreatment: Nebraska Industrial User (IU) permits need to contain all required
provisions. Specifically noted as missing are slug notification requirements at 40 CFR
403.12(f).
State Response: NDEQ has included slug notification requirements in permits issued
October 2012.
•	316a: Region 7 States should more explicitly address and document the basis for any
Section 316(a) thermal variances in their permits and fact sheets.
State Response: NDEQ does have one remaining variance for Gerald Gentleman. At
permit issuance we will evaluate the variance to ensure it is still valid. Current annual
reports do not indicate that the variance is invalid. 316(a) but has established a permit limit.
V. Action Items
This section provides a summary of the main findings of the review and provides proposed
Action Items to improve Nebraska NPDES permit programs. This list of proposed Action Items
will serve as the basis for ongoing discussions between Region 7 and Nebraska as well as
between Region 7 and EPA HQ. These discussions should focus on eliminating program
deficiencies to improve performance by enabling good quality, defensible permits issued in a
timely fashion.
The proposed Action Items are divided into three categories to identify the priority that should be
placed on each Item and facilitate discussions between Regions and states.
•	Critical Findings (Category One) - Most Significant: Proposed Action Items
will address a current deficiency or noncompliance with respect to a federal
regulation.
•	Recommended Actions (Category Two) - Recommended: Proposed Action
Items will address a current deficiency with respect to EPA guidance or policy.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 39

-------
• Suggested Practices (Category Three) - Suggested: Proposed Action Items are
listed as recommendations to increase the effectiveness of the State or Region's
NPDES permit program.
The Critical Findings and Recommended Action proposed Action Items should be used to
augment the existing list of "follow up actions" currently established as an indicator performance
measure and tracked under EPA's Strategic Plan Water Quality Goals and/or may serve as a
roadmap for modifications to the Region's program management.
A.	Basic Facility Information and Permit Application
Nebraska has developed consistent permits and fact sheets, and the forthcoming Tools for
Environmental Permitting system suggests consistency will continue. However, NDEQ still
needs to ensure discharge data are requested and evaluated during the permit application process
in order to comply with requirements to evaluate the reasonable potential for a discharge to cause
or contribute to a violation of a WQS. Proposed action items to help the state strengthen its
NPDES permit program are the following:
•	Ensure that municipal and non-municipal application forms are moving forward in the
regulatory process to be revised and, specifically, must require data consistent with
federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21. (Category 1) - Milestone: NDEQ will propose
regulation changes to the Environmental Quality Council (EQC) for their December 2013
council meeting. A draft of the proposed regulatory changes will be submitted to EPA
for their review by July 1, 2013. If the EQC approves the regulatory changes it must be
approved by the Attorney General and the Governor and registered with the Secretary of
State before it becomes final. This could take up to an additional six months.
•	Begin to include draft permit attachment requiring pollutant scans for new or reissued
POTWs with a design flow greater than 1 MGD with applications. (Category 1) -
Milestone: NDEQ began submitting letters to facilities informing them of this
requirement in October 2012. However, this will remain an Action Item until facilities
are submitting the information with their applications. EPA will evaluate in 6 months, or
End of Year FY13, for evidence of consistent implementation.
B.	Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
Proposed action items to improve implementation of technology-based effluent limitations in
Nebraska's permits are the following:
•	Include section 316(b) cooling water intake structure permit conditions and a
determination of BAT for existing facilities on a BPJ basis. The basis for the
determination of BAT should be documented in the fact sheet. The Final 316(b) rule will
be published by July 25, 2013. Until that time BPJ should be used to determine BAT.
(Category 2) - Milestone: Complete. NDEQ does use Best Professional Judgement
(BPJ) currently and will wait until EPA actually implements the final rule before we
make any changes. No further action required until EPA releases the federal rule. EPA
will re-evaluate this action at that time.
•	Permit materials should reevaluate any 316(a) thermal variances and 316(b) requirements
at each permit renewal and document the basis in the permit fact sheet. Prior
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 40

-------
determinations should also be documented in the fact sheet and reflected in the current
permit, as appropriate. NDEQ has set limits for four open-cycle power plants on the
Missouri River based on instream studies. Those limits are based on applicable state
water quality standards, so a variance is not needed. The Gerald Gentleman facility has
heat limits based on a 316(a) variance. NDEQ needs to document the renewal of the
variance when the permit is reissued. (Category 1) - Milestone: NDEQ has one
remaining variance for Gerald Gentleman. At permit issuance, NDEQ will evaluate the
variance to ensure it is still valid.
•	Permits do not include mass limits for BOD and TSS. This is not required by the
regulations, but EPA encourages use of both mass and concentration limits in permits.
(Category 3). - Complete; NDEQ does use mass and concentration limits in their
permits. EPA is satisfied that NDEQ's action has addressed the underlying finding and
considers this action is complete.
C. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
Nebraska does not appear to be doing reasonable potential analysis in accordance with its state's
standards for nutrients or putting WQBELs in permits. Where reasonable potential analyses for
WQBELs are present in permits, NDEQ must do a better job documenting its decision about
whether to include limits in permits. Proposed action items to improve implementation of
WQBELs in Nebraska's permits are the following:
•	Confirm and demonstrate consideration of WQBELs for permit limit derivation and
apply the more stringent effluent limitation. [40 CFR 122.44(d)] (Category 1) -
Milestone: NDEQ will work to ensure that permits consistently implement this language
(see response in Appendix F, PQR-C1). EPA will re-evaluate for evidence of consistent
implementation in 6 months.
•	Ensure that reasonable potential determinations are properly documented in fact sheets or
administrative record where fact sheets are not required. (40 CFR 124.56) (Category 1) -
Milestone: NDEQ will work to ensure that permits consistently implement this language
(see response in Appendix F, PQR-C2). EPA will re-evaluate for evidence of consistent
implementation in 6 months.
•	Include ambient monitoring to assess overall nutrient-related effects on receiving
waterbody quality. (Category 3) - EPA is satisfied that NDEQ's action has addressed the
underlying finding and considers this action is complete.
•	Ensure that adequate documentation is provided in the fact sheet when a limit that
implements an ELG is included. (Category 3) - NDEQ will work to ensure that permits
consistently implement this language (Appendix F, PQR-C4). EPA will re-evaluate for
evidence of consistent implementation in 6 months.
•	Ensure that permits include the requirement to monitor more frequently than annually, in
order to capture toxicity, consistent with the free from toxics WQS. (Category 3) - EPA
is satisfied that NDEQ's action has addressed the underlying finding and considers this
action is complete.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 41

-------
D. Monitoring and Reporting
•	The core review indicates NDEQ does not have an adequate data set (consistent with
regulatory requirements) and, thus, is not able to perform a complete reasonable potential
analysis for all potential pollutants of concern [40 CFR 122.44(d)], (Category 1) -
Milestone: NDEQ began requesting pollutant scans via a letter to all applicants in
October 2012. This action item is directly related to the regulatory changes required in
the permit application and will remain an action item until the regulatory revision has
been approved. NDEQ will propose regulation changes to the Environmental Quality
Council (EQC) for their December council meeting. A draft of the proposed regulatory
changes will be submitted to EPA for their review by July 1, 2013. If the EQC approves
the regulatory changes it must be approved by the Attorney general and the Governor and
registered with the Secretary of State before it becomes final. This could take up to an
additional six months. EPA will consider this Action Item complete at the time the
regulation is in effect.
•	NDEQ must address sampling requirements for all POTWs, and those with design flows
greater than or equal to 0.1 MGD as required in 40 CFR 122.21(j). (Category 1) -
Milestone: NDEQ began requesting pollutant scans via a letter to all applicants in
October 2012. This action is directly related to NDEQ's regulatory revision of their
permit applications and will remain an action item until the regulatory revision has been
approved and implemented. NDEQ will propose regulation changes to the
Environmental Quality Council (EQC) for their December council meeting. A draft of
the proposed regulatory changes will be submitted to EPA for their review by July 1,
2013. If the EQC approves the regulatory changes it must be approved by the Attorney
general and the Governor and registered with the Secretary of State before it becomes
final. This could take up to an additional six months. EPA will consider this Action Item
complete at the time the regulation is in effect.
•	The state application for industrial permittees does not include the monitoring
requirements as required in the Federal 2C industrial permit application. (Category 1) -
Milestone: NDEQ will propose regulation changes to the Environmental Quality Council
(EQC) for their December council meeting. A draft of the proposed regulatory changes
will be submitted to EPA for their review by July 1, 2013. If the EQC approves the
regulatory changes it must be approved by the Attorney general and the Governor and
registered with the Secretary of State before it becomes final. This could take up to an
additional six months. EPA will consider this Action Item complete at the time the
regulation is in effect.
E. Special and Standard Conditions
Federal regulations do not allow permitting authorities to have standard conditions that are less
stringent than federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41. Proposed action items to improve
implementation of standard and special conditions in Nebraska's permits are the following:
•	Ensure that no Standard and/or Special Conditions include omissions and paraphrasing
that create conditions that are less stringent than federal regulations. (Category 1) -
Milestone: NDEQ has revised their Standard and Special Conditions and will begin
using them in all new and reissued permits beginning April 1, 2013. EPA is satisfied that
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 42

-------
NDEQ's action has addressed the underlying finding and considers this action is
complete (Appendix F, Attachment A).
F.	Administrative Process (including public notice)
Nebraska's administrative process is very efficient with the proper amount of quality
control/quality assurance. The recent implementation of ECM has been beneficial and it is
expected that the additional implementation of its permit writing tool will only increase
efficiencies and reduce the time to draft a permit. Proposed Action Items to help Nebraska
strengthen the administration process in its NPDES permit program include the following:
•	It would be helpful to Nebraska constituents and for efficient exchange of information
between the EPA and state if NDEQ permits were accessible online. (Category 3) -
Complete; NDEQ's website has a location with the last two years of information
available and future information will be available as well. EPA is satisfied that NDEQ's
action has addressed the underlying finding and considers this action complete.
G.	Documentation (including fact sheet)
Proposed Action Items to help Nebraska strengthen documentation in its NPDES permit program
include the following:
•	Expand discussions in the fact sheets to meet the minimum requirements at 40 CFR 124.8
and 124.56, to include the following:
Status of receiving waters with respect to impairments and TMDLs. NDEQ staff has
been instructed to include a statement in the fact sheet for the July 2013 permits.
NDEQ will work to ensure that permits consistently implement this language (see
Appendix F, PQR-Gla). EPA will re-evaluate for evidence of consistent
implementation in 6 months.
-	Development of effluent limits (e.g., decision to express effluent limits for metals as
dissolved or total). NDEQ properly uses the correct limit for metals and has
referenced Title 117 in the fact sheet. NDEQ will work to ensure that permits
consistently implement this language (see Appendix F, PQR-Glb). EPA will re-
evaluate for evidence of consistent implementation in 6 months.
Application of the mixing zone policy. This is not a policy but a regulation
requirement in Nebraska Title 117. We are properly referencing this regulation in the
fact sheet. Standard language will be included in the fact sheet for permits issued in
July 2013. NDEQ will work to ensure that permits consistently implement this
language (see Appendix F, PQR-Glc).
-	Rationale for monitoring requirements (i.e., location and minimum frequency). (All
Category 1) - NDEQ follows its standard procedures and has instructed permit
writers to add additional language to the fact sheet in the July 2013 permits. NDEQ
will work to ensure that permits consistently implement this language (see Appendix
F, PQR-Gld). EPA will re-evaluate for evidence of consistent implementation in 6
months.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 43

-------
•	Improve the approach to identifying pollutants of concern and ensure the evaluation of
reasonable potential is current to the facility's operations and discharge. Provide a
thorough discussion in the fact sheets and supporting documentation. (Category 2) -
NDEQ is requesting pollutants of concern be sampled and submitted with the
applications. We have strengthened our reasonable potential analysis discussions. EPA
will re-evaluate for evidence of consistent implementation in 6 months.
H.	Core Topic Areas
I.	Pesticide General Permit
Nebraska has done an exceptional job in implementing the Pesticide General Permit. It has
collaborated with other states agencies in providing outreach and garnered assistance from other
state agencies to control pesticide discharges to waters of the state. Nebraska should consider
implementing an electronic NOI system for the Pesticide General Permit and other general
permit NOI tracking. (Category 3)
2. Pretreatment
Nebraska's NPP permits are well composed. Proposed Action Items to help Nebraska strengthen
implementation of its NPP program include the following:
• Nebraska needs to update its pretreatment regulations to include at a minimum, the
required provisions of the 2005 Streamlining revisions. (Category 1) - Milestone: NDEQ
will propose reg81ation changes to the Environmental Quality Council (EQC) for their
December council meeting. A draft of the proposed regulatory changes will be submitted
to EPA for their review by August 15, 2013. If the EQC approves the regulatory changes
it must be approved by the Attorney General and the Governor and registered with the
Secretary of State before it becomes final. This could take up to an additional 6 months.
EPA will consider this Action Item complete at the time the regulation is in effect.
•	Nebraska Industrial User (IU) permits need to contain all required provisions.
Specifically noted as missing are slug notification requirements at 40 CFR 403.12(f).
(Category 1) - Milestone: NDEQ has submitted language to include in permits for EPA
review. NDEQ will work to ensure that permits consistently implement this language
(see Appendix F, Attachment B). EPA will re-evaluate for evidence of consistent
implementation in 6 months.
•	Nebraska pretreatment permits do not include a requirement for resampling and
resubmission of results following the discovery of a violation as required in 40 CFR
403.12(g)(2). (Category 1) - Milestone: NDEQ has submitted language to include in
permits for EPA review. NDEQ will work to ensure that permits consistently implement
this language (see Appendix F, Attachment B). EPA will re-evaluate for evidence of
consistent implementation in 6 months.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 44

-------
3. CAFOs
Nebraska was the first state in Region 7 to revise its regulations to include the 2008 Federal
CAFO Rule. NDEQ has hired a program specialist with experience and training in Nutrient
Management Plans (NMP) and has engineering staff, as part of permit approval, evaluating NMP
to address proper livestock waste reuse and management.
• NDEQ should make it a priority to move all permits authorized coverage under the expired
permit to the current permit as soon as possible. (Category 1) - Milestone: Currently there
are 5 CAFO facilities left to permit or revoke. Three application are in process. NDEQ will
complete this Action Item by issuing or revoking permits by July 1, 2013. NDEQ shall
report progress on this Action Item at mid-year and in their annual report.
I. Special Focus Areas
1. Water Treatment Plants
Proposed Action Item to help Nebraska strengthen its NPDES permit program includes the
following:
• NDEQ should better define the requirement of the water treatment studies to assure the
studies create the necessary information needed to issue permits in the next permit cycle.
(Category 1) - Milestone: NDEQ will review the information requested from the Water
Treatment Plants for the next permit and make the appropriate determination based on
BPJ and Water Quality. The EPA will re-evaluate this Action Item as the permits are
reissued.
2. Memorandum of Agreements
Proposed Action Item to help Nebraska strengthen its NPDES permit program includes the
following:
• NDEQ and EPA Region 7 should review Nebraska's program authorization documents
and, as necessary, revise the Nebraska Memorandum of Agreement according to the final
approved Guidance for NPDES MO As Between States and EPA. EPA and NDEQ will
include a commitment in the FFY 2013 Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) workplan
to complete a review of Nebraska's MOA against the MOA Checklist and to commence
negotiations on any necessary revisions to the MOA during the FFY 2013 performance
period. (Category 1) - Milestone: NDEQ has submitted a draft MOA for EPA review.
This Action Item will be complete when the document is signed and has an effective date.
3. Existing Action Items
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 45

-------
Proposed Action Items to help Nebraska strengthen its NPDES permit program includes the
following:
• The existing Action Items shall be included in the Nebraska 2013 PPA/PPG. Nebraska
should continue to address all existing Action Items to maximize its NPDES program
efficiency. (Category 1) -NDEQ shall continue to report progress on these Action Items
at mid-year and in their annual report.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 46

-------
State Review Framework
I. Background on the State Review Framework
The State Review Framework (SRF) is designed to ensure that EPA conducts nationally
consistent oversight. It reviews the following local, state, and EPA compliance and enforcement
programs:
•	Clean Air Act Stationary Source
•	Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
•	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C
Reviews cover these program areas:
•	Data — completeness, timeliness, and quality
•	Compliance monitoring — inspection coverage, inspection quality, identification of
violations, meeting commitments
•	Enforcement actions — appropriateness and timeliness, returning facilities to compliance
•	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
•	Development of findings and recommendations
Consultation is also built into the process. This ensures that EPA and the state understand the
causes of issues and seek agreement on actions needed to address them.
SRF reports are designed to capture the information and agreements developed during the review
process in order to facilitate program improvements. EPA also uses the information in the
reports to develop a better understanding of enforcement and compliance nationwide, and to
identify any issues that require a national response.
Reports provide factual information. They do not include determinations of overall program
adequacy, nor are they used to compare or rank state programs.
Each state's programs are reviewed once every four years. The first round of SRF reviews began
in FY 2004. The third round of reviews began in FFY 2012 and will continue through FFY
2016.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 47

-------
II. SRF Review Process
Review period: FFY 2011
Key dates:
•	Kickoff letter sent to state: February 27, 2012
•	Kickoff meeting conducted: December 8, 2012
•	Data metric analysis and file selection list sent to state: March 23, 2012
•	On-site file review conducted: April 16-19, 2012
•	Draft report sent to state: August 10, 2012
•	Report finalized: April 15, 2013
Communication with the state:
EPA and NDEQ held a kick-off meeting via teleconference to discuss the general process for
conducting an integrated Round 3 SRF/PQR review and how that differs from the Round 2
process. Other topics of the meeting included selection of dates for the on-site review,
outstanding issues from the Round 2 review, and NDEQ's concerns about data quality and how
that affects the program review. EPA agreed to send NDEQ a workplan outlining all major and
intermediate milestones in the process of conducting the SRF review.
During the on-site review, EPA reviewers met with NDEQ staff, managers, and attorneys
throughout the week to discuss various aspects of each NPDES program area. These
conversations covered the state's internal processes for administering the NPDES enforcement
program, recent and upcoming changes to those processes, and challenges facing NDEQ now
and into the future. EPA has described these various aspects of the state's program in Appendix
D to this report.
An exit meeting was held on the final day of the on-site review. EPA Region 7 enforcement and
permitting staff presented the preliminary findings from the SRF and PQR components of the
review during a single one-hour briefing. NDEQ management in attendance included the deputy
directors of administration and programs and several Water Quality Division managers. EPA
Region 7's program review team was joined by the permitting and enforcement branch chiefs.
Upon review of a draft of this report, NDEQ submitted a response to EPA dated November 28,
2012, that included comments addressing individual EPA findings, comments on other parts of
the report, and feedback on the SRF process. EPA then engaged NDEQ in further conversation
and met in person with state personnel regarding specific findings, recommendations, and target
dates for completion of action items. A second round of state comments was then incorporated
into the revised draft. Negotiated action items and target dates appear in the final report as well
as the SRF Tracker.
The final Integrated SRF and PQR Report was transmitted via mail to NDEQ's Water Quality
Division on April 30, 2013. Mike Linder, Director of NDEQ, received a copy as well.
See Appendix F for copies of key correspondence between EPA and NDEQ.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 48

-------
State and EPA regional lead contacts for review:
•	EPA Region 7 PQR lead reviewer: Kimberly Hill
•	EPA Region 7 SRF Clean Water Act lead reviewer: Michael Boeglin
•	EPA Region 7 SRF coordinator: Kevin Barthol
•	NDEQ Water Quality Division lead contact for the review: Steve Goans
On-site review process:
During the on-site review, EPA reviewed all compliance monitoring and enforcement
information present in NDEQ's records for the 109 facilities selected by EPA. The scope of
records covered only the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2011 period, in addition to compliance and
enforcement records with dates before and after the FFY 2011 period if those records were
related to state activities in FFY 2011. For example, if an inspection file in FFY 2011 had an
enforcement action associated with it, both activities will be reviewed regardless of when the
enforcement action occurred. Similarly, if a facility was selected for an enforcement action
dated FFY 2011, EPA reviewed not only the enforcement records but also any associated
inspection records that supported the decision to take enforcement, regardless of the date of the
inspections.
EPA also held conversations with NDEQ managers and staff responsible for particular NPDES
program areas. EPA consulted with NDEQ throughout the week to discuss questions and
concerns regarding the content of facility files.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 49

-------
III. SRF Findings
Findings represent EPA's conclusions regarding the issue or issues identified. They are based
on:
•	Initial findings made during the data and/or file reviews;
•	Annual data metric reviews conducted since the state's Round 2 SRF review;
•	Follow-up conversations with state agency personnel;
•	Additional information collected to determine an issue's severity and root causes; and
•	Review of previous SRF reports, MO As, and other data sources.
There are four types of findings:
Good Practice: Activities, processes, or policies that the SRF metrics show are being
implemented at the level of Meets Expectations, and are innovative and noteworthy, and can
serve as models for other states. The explanation must discuss these innovative and noteworthy
activities in detail. Furthermore, the state should be able to maintain high performance.
Meets Expectations: Describes a situation where either: a) no performance deficiencies are
identified, or b) single or infrequent deficiencies are identified that do not constitute a pattern or
problem. Generally, states are meeting expectations when falling between 91 to 100 percent of a
national goal. The state is expected to maintain high performance.
Area for State Attention: The state has single or infrequent deficiencies that constitute a minor
pattern or problem that does not pose a risk to human health or the environment. Generally,
performance requires state attention when the state falls between 85 to 90 percent of a national
goal. The state should correct these issues without additional EPA oversight. The state is
expected to improve and achieve high performance. EPA may make recommendations to
improve performance but they will not be monitored for completion.
Area for State Improvement: Activities, processes, or policies that SRF data and/or file metrics
show as major problems requiring EPA oversight. These will generally be significant recurrent
issues. However, there may be instances where single or infrequent cases reflect a major
problem, particularly in instances where the total number of facilities under consideration is
small. Generally, performance requires state improvement when the state falls below 85 percent
of a national goal. Recommendations are required to address the root causes of these problems,
and they must have well-defined timelines and milestones for completion. Recommendations
will be monitored in the SRF Tracker.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 50

-------
Clean Water Act Findings
Element 1 — Data Completeness: Completeness of Minimum Data Requirements.
Finding 1-1	Area for State Improvement
Description	The state has not entered any formal enforcement action or penalty records
into ICIS.
Explanation	Nebraska issued formal enforcement actions to 18 facilities in FFY 2011,
including unilateral administrative and consent orders, judicial referrals,
and consent decrees. One of these actions was taken against a P.L. 92-500
non-major facility (Bruning WWTF), and another 6 actions included
penalties collected judicially. Both categories are enforcement actions
required to be tracked in ICIS; however, the state did not enter any of these
7 required actions into ICIS.
NDEQ staff and managers, as well as all personnel who use ICIS-NPDES,
must sign an ICIS-NPDES User Agreement and Sensitive Access Rules of
Behavior in order to create new enforcement action records in ICIS-
NPDES. NDEQ, which has never signed the agreement, can currently
enter enforcement action details into an existing record but cannot create
new enforcement records.
This finding is a carry-over from SRF Rounds 1 and 2. During the SRF
Round 2 review of Nebraska in FFY 2007, the state and EPA agreed to
work toward negotiating an acceptable ICIS-NPDES User Agreement and
Sensitive Access Rules of Behavior. NDEQ's Legal Section has been
resistant to signing the User Agreement based on language in the Rules of
Behavior regarding expectations and potential liabilities levied upon
supervisors. After at least 9 years of negotiating with EPA Region 7 and
Headquarters offices, Nebraska remains the only state in the country that
still refuses to sign the User Agreement. By the time of the current Round
3 review, EPA had made substantial concessions to placate NDEQ's
concerns, but negotiations have nevertheless stalled.
On a related matter, the review found that NDEQ entered most, but not all,
of its inspection records for major facilities in ICIS. The national database
shows that 33 majors were inspected in FFY 2011, whereas NDEQ has
inspection records for 36 majors. The 3 major facility inspections not yet
appearing in ICIS need to be added to the database, as they constitute
Water Enforcement National Database (WENDB) data.
Relevant metrics lfl - Facilities with formal actions: 4 identified during Data Metrics
Analysis, but the accurate number was found to be 18.
If2 - Total number of formal actions at CWANPDES facilities: 5
identified during Data Metrics Analysis, but the accurate number was
found to be 19.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 51

-------
lgl - Number of enforcement actions with penalties: 0 identified during
Data Metrics Analysis, but the accurate number was found to be 6.
State response NDEQ disagrees with EPA's explanation. The proposed ICIS User
Agreement and Sensitive Access Rules of Behavior is unacceptable to
NDEQ. We submitted a revised draft to headquarters that was rejected
without specific comments or counter proposal. The use of "stalled in the
active negotiation and signature" is inaccurate. NDEQ is interested in
finalizing a User Agreement which is acceptable.
Follow-up to the January 2013 meeting with EPA: NDEQ received a
revised ICIS proposal on February 11, 2013. We are in the process of
working through this agreement even though there is no federal regulation
or statute requiring that ICIS must be used.
Recommendation EPA Headquarters, Region 7, and NDEQ need to reach agreement on
acceptable language in the ICIS-NPDES User Agreement so that NDEQ
can sign the Agreement and begin to create complete enforcement records
in ICIS. If agreement cannot be reached by June 1, 2013, the issue will be
elevated to the Region 7 WWPD Director and NDEQ Associate Director
for resolution within 30 days thereafter. EPA and NDEQ will discuss
progress on a quarterly basis. Once EPA is satisfied that these actions have
addressed the underlying finding, this recommendation will be considered
complete.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 52

-------
Element 1 — Data Completeness: Completeness of Minimum Data Requirements.
Finding 1-2	Meets Expectations
Description	Permit limits and DMR data for the vast majority of major and minor
facilities are present in ICIS.
Explanation	Based on an analysis of data metrics for FFY 2011, Nebraska's ICIS data
for permit limits and DMR data meet or exceed the national goal and/or
national average for all metrics. EPA notes that this performance
represents a significant improvement relative to the findings during the
Round 2 SRF review in FFY 2007.
Relevant metrics lbl - Permit limits rate for major facilities: 100%.
•	National goal: >=95% entry of permit limits.
•	National average: 99%.
Ib2 - DMR entry rate for major facilities: 99%.
•	National goal: >=95% entry of DMR data.
•	National average: 97%
lcl - Permit limits rate for non-major facilities: 91%
•	National average: 66%
lc2 - DMR entry rate for non-major facilities: 91%.
•	National average: 73%.
State response NDEQ response not required.
Recommendation None required.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 53

-------
Element 2 — Data Accuracy: Accuracy of Minimum Data Requirements.
Finding 2-1	Area for State Attention
Description	Most required data for major and minor facilities is accurately entered into
ICIS, with some exceptions.
Explanation	NDEQ accurately enters most Water Enforcement National Database
Elements into ICIS for its major and non-major facilities, with some
isolated exceptions. 3 of the 43 files reviewed under this metric did not
have all required data accurately present in ICIS due to an inaccurate
Notice of Violation (NOV) date (TMCO Powder Coating), a missing NOV
(Nemaha WWTF), and a missing inspection (B.S. Wash, Inc.). Note that
evaluation of this metric did not consider entry and accuracy of formal
enforcement action records, which is discussed in Finding 1-1.
Enforcement violation type codes are accurate and complete in ICIS only
because NDEQ did not take any formal actions involving majors in FFY
2011. To date, NDEQ has never entered enforcement violation type codes
for actions taken at majors prior to FFY 2011. To begin doing so, NDEQ
would first need to enter the underlying formal enforcement actions, and
that scenario is addressed in Finding 1-1 above.
Relevant metrics 2a - Number of formal enforcement actions taken against major facilities
with enforcement violation type codes entered: 0
•	Goal: >= 95% completion of required information.
2b - Files reviewed where data are accurately reflected in the national data
system: 40/43 = 93%.
•	Goal: >=95% of data accurately reflected.
State response NDEQ has addressed this element.
Recommendation None required.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 54

-------
Element 3 — Timeliness of Data Entry: Timely entry of Minimum Data Requirements.
Finding 3-1	Meets Expectations
Description	Required data for major and minor facilities is entered into ICIS in a timely
manner.
Explanation	Based on the files reviewed, NDEQ enters WENDB data elements into
ICIS in a timely manner.
Relevant metrics 3a - Timeliness of mandatory data entered in the national data system:
41/43 = 95%.
• Goal: 100% of data entered timely.
State response NDEQ response not required.
Recommendation None required.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 55

-------
Element 4 — Completion of Commitments: Meeting all enforcement and compliance
commitments made in state/EPA agreements.
Finding 4-1
Description
Explanation
Relevant metrics
Meets Expectations
All inspection commitments for FFY 2011 were completed.
NDEQ exceeded all inspection commitments made in the FFY 2011
Compliance Monitoring Strategy. Appendix H presents a tabular analysis
of NDEQ's performance for each of the 11 CMS inspection categories.
Refer to metric 5 for CMS commitments aligned with inspection coverage
goals that are tracked in ICIS.
4a - Percent of planned inspections completed: 100%
• Goal: 100% of commitments.
State response NDEQ response not required.
Recommendation None required.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 56

-------
Element 4 — Completion of Commitments: Meeting all enforcement and compliance
commitments made in state/EPA agreements.
Finding 4-2	Area for State Attention
Description	The state completed most of its commitments from the PPG workplan for
FFY 2011, with two minor but notable exceptions.
Explanation	The Wastewater and Agriculture Sections of NDEQ made 22 measurable
commitments - not related to compliance inspections - in the state's PPG
workplan for FFY 2011. NDEQ completed all of these commitments with
the exception of the following 2 activities that were partially completed:
1.	NDEQ agreed to send copies of sludge reports to EPA as they are
received from facilities. NDEQ provided biosolids reports upon
request from EPA but did not automatically forward the reports to
EPA. EPA continues to encourage Nebraska NPDES permit
holders to submit biosolids reports directly to EPA.
2.	NDEQ agreed to complete action items in the Round 2 SRF final
report, as negotiated and approved by NDEQ and EPA. NDEQ has
made satisfactory progress toward completion of most action items
but stalled in the active negotiation and signature of an acceptable
ICIS User Agreement and Sensitive Access Rules of Behavior. The
role of this document is discussed in Finding 1-1.
See Appendix I for a complete analysis of NDEQ's performance in the
completion of PPG workplan tasks.
Relevant metrics 4b - Planned commitments completed: 20/22 = 90%.
• Goal: 100% of commitments.
State response This should not be an "Area for State Attention" since we are not delegated
the Federal sludge program. The NDEQ, in the future, will be
reconsidering our commitment to include sludge requirements in State
NPDES permits if it leads to a negative finding in the SRF.
Regarding item #2 above see State response for Element 1-1.
Recommendation None required.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 57

-------
Element 5 — Inspection Coverage: Completion of planned inspections.
Finding 5-1	Meets Expectations
Description
Explanation
Relevant metrics
Inspection goals for major and non-major traditional dischargers were
satisfied in FFY 2011.
In the FFY 2011 CMS, NDEQ negotiated an inspection coverage goal for
majors of 46%, or 24 of 52 facilities, and agreed to inspect 101 of 409, or
24.7%, of its traditional minors universe. NDEQ satisfied and, in the case
of its minors universe, exceeded these goals.
5a - Inspection coverage—NPDES majors: 36/52 = 69%.
5b - Inspection coverage—NPDES non-majors: 123/409 = 30%.
State response NDEQ response not required.
Recommendation None required.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 58

-------
Element 6 — Quality of Inspection Reports: Proper and accurate documentation of
observations and timely report completion.
Finding 6-1	Area for State Improvement
Description	Inspection reports did not consistently provide information necessary to
support an accurate compliance determination.
Explanation	41 of the 125 inspection reports reviewed lacked sufficient information to
support a compliance determination and to inform an accurate compliance
determination. Most of these 41 inspection reports relied heavily on
checklists in which items are marked as unsatisfactory, marginal, or
satisfactory; however, they contained very little narrative inside or outside
the checklists to substantiate why marginal or unsatisfactory items were
classified as such and what that classification means for the facility's
compliance status. The narrative sections of reports frequently discuss
recommendations for improvement but not the presence or absence of
deficiencies.
Many of the 41 reports did not make a clear connection between
observations in the checklists/narrative and regulatory requirements.
Without a clear connection, the reviewer cannot ascertain whether the
listed item is a deficiency needing correction versus only a
recommendation for improved performance.
Some of the 41 instances cited above were due to insufficient preparation
by the inspector before conducting the inspection. For example, a reading
of the ADM Columbus and PC West-Tarnov inspection reports alongside
the entire facility file suggests that the inspector did not review previous
inspection reports and self-monitoring records such as DMRs prior to the
inspection. Doing so is essential to account for all potential areas of
noncompliance in order to produce an accurate compliance determination,
and these two examples show that ongoing NPDES noncompliance
documented prior to the inspection was not captured in the inspection
report. This particular issue was also raised during EPA's oversight
inspections in FFY 2011. Inspections at Beatrice and North Platte were
oversight inspections reviewed during this program review, and in both
cases the report did not account for the facility's recent compliance history.
Likewise, all CAFO inspections that EPA oversaw in FFY 2011 lacked any
indication that the inspector considered the facility's noncompliance
history.
The 41 inspection reports without sufficient information to support a
compliance determination were distributed across the NPDES program
areas as follows:
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 59

-------

# reports lacking
sufficient info
# reports
reviewed
% reports lacking
sufficient info
CAFOs
30
73
41%
Stormwater
1
18
6%
Pretreatment
2
10
20%
Wastewater
8
24
33%
Total
41
125
33%
EPA also identified this finding during the Round 2 SRF review of
Nebraska in FFY 2007. In response, NDEQ agreed to modify its
inspection checklists and reports to clearly indicate deficiencies. The
finding under this metric has improved since the earlier SRF review, as
reflected by checklists with more discrete options for the inspector to
characterize observations. However, the use of narrative combined with
checklists still stands to improve how the state communicates deficiencies
at facilities.
EPA addendum in follow-up to the January 2013 meeting with NDEQ
noted in the state response below: EPA acknowledges that NDEQ
inspectors look for items that were noted previously as compliance
problems and consider effluent violations as part of the current compliance
status, as noted on the Inspection Data Sheet. If a past issue remains a
compliance problem, NDEQ clarified that they note the deficiency in the
inspection report; otherwise, the inspectors have no need to mention past
problems.
Relevant metrics 6a - Inspection reports reviewed that provide sufficient documentation to
determine compliance at the facility: 84/125 = 67%.
State response The NDEQ uses inspection reports to document observations. A separate
Notice of Violation (NOV), if necessary, accompany inspection reports and
are used to notify individuals of compliance issues and previous violations
of limits. Inspectors receive a printout of ICIS compliance issues or IIS
event tracking and use this information along with inspection observations
to complete NOVs which is where past noncompliance is addressed.
NDEQ does not agree that past noncompliance issues need to be identified
in the inspection report. Inspectors have ready access to file information
for review when preparing for inspections. The lack of listing previous
noncompliance issues does not indicate the inspector was not properly
prepared. NDEQ continues to enhance its inspection tools and inspector
skills. We ask EPA to recognize that NDEQ has a different but effective
procedure for addressing violations.
NDEQ has discussed potential improvements to the inspection checklist
and documentation of violations. Inspectors have been sent the SRF
review to make them aware of potential improvements. The annual field
office retreat held October 4, 2012, had a short session on how the SRF
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 60

-------
review impacts their inspection activities. Documentation was expressed
as the main area for enhancement. Past noncompliance issues will
continue to be an issue for the Notice of Violation (NOV).
NDEQ proposes that EPA R7 come to NDEQ by March 2013 to
specifically discuss potential modifications to the inspection reports and
the use of NOVs for compliance notification. Furthermore, NDEQ requests
EPA send examples and guidance that would be compatible with NDEQ
process of using NOVs for official notice by December 31, 2012. We will
consider adding regulatory citations to the inspection report where the
information would be helpful to understand the regulatory or permit
requirement in question.
Follow-up to the January 2013 meeting with EPA: NDEQ has included
draft language in Attachment R1 Section SRF 6-1. NDEQ will work to
ensure that Inspection Reports consistently implement this or similar
language.
Recommendation NDEQ needs to add sufficient narrative to inspection reports, either within
checklists or outside of checklists, to describe whether an observation is a
deficiency needing correction relative to regulatory or statutory
requirements. NDEQ should modify its inspection report checklist for
wastewater and CAFOs to use more precise nomenclature on observations,
such as "potential violation" versus "in compliance." NDEQ should
provide copies of the modified checklists to EPA. By June 1, 2013, NDEQ
should implement these changes, and EPA will consider this
recommendation complete upon satisfactory implementation.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 61

-------
Element 6 — Quality of Inspection Reports: Proper and accurate documentation of
observations and timely report completion.
Area for State Improvement
CAFO inspections do not consistently collect sufficient information to
answer questions pertaining to the regulatory and compliance status of the
facilities.
EPA reviewed 73 inspection reports associated with CAFOs and
determined that in 30 instances (41%) the inspection reports did not
provide sufficient information to determine the compliance status of the
facility. The review found that the short form checklist, in contrast to the
long form, does not collect adequate information to document whether
there is any evidence that a discharge to a waterbody has occurred and
what the regulatory status of the facility is and/or should be.
NDEQ stated that during FY 2011 approximately 51% of large CAFO
inspections and 100% of inspections at medium-sized facilities were
documented using the short form checklist. Given that the majority of
NDEQ's inspections at CAFOs utilize this short form, it is imperative that
it accurately document the compliance status of these facilities.
Relevant metrics 6a - Inspection reports reviewed that provide sufficient documentation to
determine compliance at the facility: 84/125 = 67%; for CAFOs, this
metric is 43/73 = 59%.
State response NDEQ reminds EPA that non-discharging CAFOs without NPDES permits
are not under the jurisdiction of EPA and should not be used in this
evaluation.
NDEQ understands the limits of the short form and will upgrade the form
to better identify compliance status by March 2013. EPA has in the past
agreed that the long form would be used at least once during the term of
the permit. Because of the resources required in completing the long form,
the short form will continue to be a necessary alternative. The narrative
portion of the short form is still available for indications of noncompliance
issues.
Recommendation NDEQ should modify its approach for collecting information during
inspections at medium unpermitted CAFOs to ensure that sufficient
information is obtained to make determinations of discharge and regulatory
status, as described in the first paragraph of the Explanation block. By
June 1, 2013, NDEQ has agreed to modify appropriate checklists for
medium unpermitted AFOs to determine whether they are CAFOs and
need to be permitted. NDEQ will share this document with EPA by the
target date. Once EPA is satisfied that state action has addressed the
underlying finding, this recommendation will be considered complete.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 62
Finding 6-2
Description
Explanation

-------
Element 6 — Quality of Inspection Reports: Proper and accurate documentation of
observations and timely report completion.
Finding 6-3	Area for State Improvement
Description	Inspection reports do not describe which field activities were conducted or
capture observations of all important facility features.
Explanation	Approximately half of the inspection reports reviewed did not include a
description of field activities conducted, either in narrative or tabular form.
Without a clear indication of what the inspector did during the facility visit,
the reader cannot confidently determine the scope of the inspection and
fully understand whether particular features of the site, facility, or
operation were evaluated. The distribution across NPDES program areas
of inspection reports lacking a description of field activities was as follows:

# reports without
field activity info
# reports
reviewed
% reports without
field activity info
CAFOs
37
82
45%
Stormwater
2
18
11%
Pretreatment
0
10
0%
Wastewater
9
24
38%
Several features of facilities are particularly important in compliance
inspections for certain types of facilities or for all facilities; however, those
features either were not evaluated consistently or were not consistently
documented as having been evaluated. First, and most commonplace,
inspection reports did not indicate whether, or how much of, the facility
was walked by the inspector. Second, most reports did not document any
observation of receiving waters at the point of discharge. Third, some
CAFO discharge investigation reports lacked any description or
photography of the discharge conveyance or receiving waters. 8 CAFO
inspection reports documented unpermitted facility discharges, 2 of which
failed to document whether the discharge entered a water of the state.
Fourth, many stormwater inspection reports did not document any
observation of stormwater BMPs. NDEQ should consider modifying the
inspection checklist to include statements that would make it evident that
the exterior of the facility, including BMPs, was evaluated during the
inspection.
Relevant metrics 6a - Inspection reports reviewed that provide sufficient documentation to
determine compliance at the facility: 84/125 = 66%.
State response Wastewater Treatment facilities:
NDEQ will evaluate modification of inspection procedures and tools. For
Wastewater Treatment Facilities, the current procedure is observation of
the entire facility. We would have documented if the entire facility was not
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 63

-------
observed. We are considering adding a checkbox for entire facility
walkthrough or partial with description. Many facilities in Nebraska can
be viewed from one location because of their small size. NDEQ
wastewater facility inspection procedures are to observe the receiving
stream at the outfall or if inaccessible, the receiving stream downstream of
the outfall or the discharge location after treatment.
The EPA State meeting timeframe proposed in item 6-1 (March 2103)
should be applied here as well. A fundamental discussion on procedures
for inspections and on the need to repeat those procedures in the text of an
inspection report needs to occur before we can make effective changes to
our Inspection reports.
Follow-up to the January 2013 meeting with EPA: NDEQ has included
draft language in Attachment R1 Section SRF 6-3. NDEQ will work to
ensure that Inspection Reports consistently implement this or similar
language.
CAFO:
NDEQ reminds EPA that non-discharging CAFOs without NPDES permits
are not under the jurisdiction of EPA and should not be used in this
evaluation.
The normal process is to observe the entire facility at the time of a routine
inspection, unless weather conditions prevent access to specific areas. We
would normally document if an area was not observed. For example, at
CAFO facilities the depth of each holding pond is recorded on the
inspection form on the day of the inspection. The lack of any depth
readings would indicate that part of the facility was not observed.
Also, if a CAFO discharge is being investigated, a complete facility
compliance inspection may or may not be conducted. A separate
Discharge Investigation Report form is available and was amended last
year with language added that requires the inspector to document where the
discharge originates and terminates and provide a map of such locations.
We have a copy of the amended Discharge Investigation Report form is
(Attachment E).
Recommendation NDEQ should modify its inspection checklist for stormwater to account for
the inspector's observation of BMPs and evaluation of the SWPPP. For
wastewater inspections, NDEQ should add a checkbox or similar
modification to the wastewater inspection form to indicate whether all
regulated components of the facility have been observed. Observation of
receiving waters should be clarified on the report forms. CAFO discharge
investigation reports should include a map or other visual aid showing
discharge path and whether flow from the facility would reach receiving
waters. NDEQ has agreed to make these changes and should share these
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 64

-------
documents with EPA by June 1, 2013. Once EPA is satisfied that state
action has addressed the underlying finding, this recommendation will be
considered complete.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 65

-------
Element 6 — Quality of Inspection Reports: Proper and accurate documentation of
observations and timely report completion.
Finding 6-4	Area for State Attention
Description	Discharge investigations at CAFOs are not consistently conducted in a
timely manner following receipt of the discharge notice.
Explanation	There is a performance issue that falls generally under Element 6. 36 of
the 73 CAFO inspections reviewed were discharge investigations prompted
by a self-reported discharge or a complaint. Most of the investigations
were conducted within a few days of receipt of the discharge notice or
complaint, but 5 investigations were not conducted until 5, 7, 9, 30, and 60
days following receipt of notice. Because wet weather conditions at a
facility can be ephemeral and the circumstances under which an isolated
discharge occurs can change, inspectors need to investigate alleged
discharges within a few days of the occurrence in order to accurately
characterize any noncompliance that might have occurred and capture any
evidence of discharge that would lead to an accurate compliance
determination.
Upon further discussion with NDEQ following the on-site file review, EPA
understands that NDEQ's normal procedure for conducting discharge
investigations at AFOs is to visit the site as soon as possible following
receipt of the discharge allegation. EPA acknowledges that most, if not all,
of the investigations in FFY 2011 completed outside the three-day
recommended window following the alleged discharge were concentrated
during an intense period of heavy rainfall throughout the state, thereby
spreading inspectors thinly across the state and making timely response
very challenging. Barring circumstances such as this, EPA is satisfied that
NDEQ has procedures in place to promptly investigate alleged discharges
from AFOs.
Relevant metrics
State response NDEQ reminds EPA that non-discharging CAFOs without NPDES permits
are not under the jurisdiction of EPA and should not be used in this
evaluation.
NDEQ conducts discharge investigations as soon as possible, usually the
same day or the day following a report unless there are significant
widespread precipitation events. NDEQ prioritizes investigations based on
potential impacts to the environment, knowledge of the facility, and
location. Under normal conditions NDEQ performs inspections within a
day or two of receipt of the report. As the explanation states, most of the
investigations reviewed were conducted within a few days of the notice.
The investigation timeframe is subject to ongoing conditions. For
example, there were 114 discharges reported to NDEQ in a 5 week period
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 66

-------
in 2010. Abnormal rainfall amounts in large areas of the state created
discharge conditions for most CAFO operators and thus limited our ability
to conduct all discharge inspections timely. NDEQ acknowledges the
importance of a quick response to discharge reports. The NDEQ will work
to ensure documentation of these wet weather observations and
determinations is made and placed in the file.
Recommendation None required.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 67

-------
Element 6 — Quality of Inspection Reports: Proper and accurate documentation of
observations and timely report completion.
Finding 6-5	Area for State Attention
Description	A small portion of inspection reports are not completed in a timely manner.
Explanation	124 inspection reports were evaluated under this metric, 109 of which were
completed within 45 days of the inspection. In the absence of a goal for
inspection report timeliness in NDEQ's Enforcement Manual, a nationally
consistent benchmark of 45 days is used for this metric. For 91 of the 124
inspection reports, EPA recorded the number of days from inspection to
report completion and found the average to be 24 days.
The 15 inspection reports not completed in a timely manner were
distributed across all of NDEQ's central and field offices and represent all
NPDES program areas except pretreatment. Because the value for this
metric deviates notably from the 100% goal, this finding is brought to the
state's attention as needing improved consistency.
Relevant metrics 6b - Inspection reports completed within the prescribed timeframe:
109/124 = 88%.
• Goal: 100% of reports completed in timely manner.
State response Wastewater Facilities:
The NDEQ has had a policy of requiring wastewater facilities inspection
reports completed in three weeks and sent for internal review. With
review, a 24 day turnaround is normal. NDEQ will clarify its enforcement
manual on this issue. The NDEQ respectfully requests a report on EPA's
average time of report completion on inspections it conducts in Nebraska.
CAFO:
The SOP for conducting routine compliance inspections at CAFOs is to
complete the inspection report and a draft response letter within three
weeks of the inspection. NDEQ will clarify its enforcement manual on this
issue. The NDEQ respectfully requests a report on EPA's average time of
report completion on inspections it conducts in Nebraska.
Recommendation None required.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 68

-------
Element 7 — Identification of Alleged Violations: Compliance determinations accurately
made and promptly reported in national database based on inspection reports and other
compliance monitoring information.
Finding 7-1	Area for State Improvement
Description	Permit schedule violations appearing in the national database include
legitimate noncompliance needing a state response as well as violation
flags that need to be updated and "turned off' with milestone achieved
dates.
Explanation	38 facilities, including 4 majors and 34 non-majors, had permit compliance
schedule violations appearing in OTIS during one or more quarters of FFY
2011. EPA reviewed 3 of these facilities. In the cases of Lewiston and
Madrid, the schedule violations appearing in OTIS were found to be
legitimate, and NDEQ needs to continue working with those facilities until
they achieve their scheduled milestones and NDEQ receives the
corresponding deliverables required by the permit. Once the deliverables
are received, NDEQ needs to enter the achieved dates into ICIS so that
violation flags do not appear in future quarters on the facility's compliance
record. In the case of Plattsmouth, the scheduled milestones have been
achieved, and the deliverables received, but NDEQ has not entered
achieved dates in ICIS to clear the record of noncompliance. Even if
deliverables are received late, entry of achieved dates will limit the
appearance of noncompliance flags to only those quarters in which the
deliverable was overdue but not yet received.
As a related matter, EPA reviewed 1 of the 15 facilities flagged for having
compliance schedule violations in FFY 2011. Western Sugar Cooperative
is a major with a compliance schedule driven by an EPA administrative
order, but EPA had not entered a final achieved date in ICIS, which
triggered the violation. EPA identified several major and minor facilities
with similar compliance schedules in ICIS that needed to be updated and
has made procedural changes to regularly update those schedule dates in
the database.
Note that this finding has been included as a common finding in the
"CWA-NPDES Integrated SRF and PQR Review" part of this report.
Relevant metrics 7c - Permit schedule violations: 38.
7b - Compliance schedule violations: 15.
State response NDEQ does not presently have authority to enter schedules into ICIS. In
addition, ICIS did not have an acceptable resolution code for the State to
use during the periods that were reviewed. NDEQ has exerted
considerable effort to update ICIS and maintain this data base. Currently,
NDEQ is in the process of replacing the Compliance Specialist that entered
the ICIS data. Discussions after December 31, 2012 would allow time for
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 69

-------
the new individual to get familiar with the ICIS system.
Many of these compliance issues are in small communities with elderly,
poor populations and the solution and costs of the project makes
compliance complicated. We actively work with these communities. The
Wastewater Section has an individual who tracks compliance issues and we
have periodic meetings to discuss progress. Management meets to discuss
compliance issues. NDEQ has procedure in place but would like to discuss
this in more detail by March 2013 with EPA R7. EPA's experience with
Tilden and Winnebago Nebraska may help provide a common issue to
develop more effective strategies.
Recommendation NDEQ should submit to EPA a plan with timeframe for implementing a
process to remedy overdue compliance schedule violations. The process
should include a mix of working with the facilities where deliverables have
not been received—either informally or with enforcement actions, as
appropriate—and entering achieved dates for received deliverables that
have triggered overdue violations. By October 31, 2013, EPA will verify
that compliance schedule violations in ICIS are being addressed
consistently and appropriately. EPA and NDEQ will discuss progress on a
semi-annual basis. Once EPA is satisfied that state action has addressed
the underlying finding, this recommendation will be considered complete.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 70

-------
Element 7 — Identification of Alleged Violations: Compliance determinations accurately
made and promptly reported in national database based on inspection reports and other
compliance monitoring information.
Finding 7-2	Area for State Improvement
Description	Compliance determinations are not consistently made as a follow-up to
evidence gathered during inspections.
Explanation	91 of the 125 inspection reports reviewed led to an accurate compliance
determination; however, 34 inspection reports either did not lead to a
compliance determination or resulted in a compliance determination that
appears inaccurate because it did not reflect all information gathered during
the inspection. This finding applies to all NPDES program areas. The
distribution across NPDES program areas of inspection reports not leading
to a clear and accurate compliance determination (complDet) is as follows:

# reports not leading
# reports
% reports not leading

to a complDet
reviewed
to a complDet
CAFOs
21
73
29%
Stormwater
3
18
17%
Pretreatment
1
10
10%
Wastewater
9
24
38%
In the case of inspection reports not leading to a compliance determination,
the report and other associated documents in the file (e.g. cover letters,
memos to file, etc.) did not clearly indicate whether NDEQ determined that
any violations had been observed as part of the inspection. Lack of a clear
compliance determination accounts for most of the 34 instances cited
above.
In other instances, information in an inspection report strongly suggests
that a particular observation constitutes a deficiency or violation, without
explicitly saying as much, but the compliance determination ultimately
made by NDEQ either indicated that violations were not found or was
silent regarding the observation in question. Examples include Barneston,
Behlen Manufacturing, Bruning, and CVS Pharmacy.
Finally, many wastewater inspection files included an inspection data sheet
that is routed with the inspection report for use by data entry staff
responsible for entering summary information about the inspection into
ICIS. The inspection data sheet asks whether noncompliance was found at
the facility. For many inspection files, the answer to this question was the
only indication that NDEQ made a compliance determination. Reliance on
the inspection data sheet is not inherently a problem but does require that
NDEQ answer the question carefully. In one instance, Crofton WWTF, the
inspection data sheet said the facility was in compliance, but the inspection
report contradicted this assertion with evidence strongly suggesting that
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 71

-------
violations had in fact been found.
EPA addendum in follow-up to the January 2013 meeting with NDEQ
noted in the state response below: During the meeting, NDEQ better
articulated its process for making determinations of compliance, including
recent enhancements. NDEQ also shared an example of its improved
process for using inspection reports and cover letters to identify potential
violations that are under evaluation by the Department prior to making a
decision about issuance of an NOV.
Relevant metrics 7e - Inspection reports reviewed that led to an accurate compliance
determination: 93/125 = 74%.
State response Previous violations are addressed in LOWs or NOVs not the inspection
report. The inspection report is for factual observations to be used for
compliance determinations. This section is similar to Element 6, therefore
we request that EPA R7 come to NDEQ by March 2013 to specifically
discuss potential modifications to the inspection reports and the use of
NOVs for compliance notification. Furthermore, NDEQ requests EPA
send examples and guidance that would be compatible with NDEQ
process of using NOVs for official notice by December 31, 2012.
Obviously, EPA has a different procedure for the timing of violation
determinations. Element 7 itself does not deal with the timing issue and
provides flexibility in methodology.
Follow-up to the January 2013 meeting with EPA: See follow-up responses
for Elements 6-1, 6-3 and 8-1.
Recommendation By June 1, 2013, NDEQ should submit a summary of its various
compliance determination mechanisms, including those that do and do not
involve an NOV and under what circumstances each option is expected to
be used. Once EPA is satisfied that state action has addressed the
underlying finding, this recommendation will be considered complete.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 72

-------
Element 7 — Identification of Alleged Violations: Compliance determinations accurately
made and promptly reported in national database based on inspection reports and other
compliance monitoring information.
Finding 7-3
Description
Area for State Improvement
The state does not make prompt determinations of noncompliance based on
DMR data.
Explanation	There is a performance issue that falls generally under Element 7. The
NDEQ central office in Lincoln receives Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) from facilities within one month following the end of each
monitoring period, enters the DMR data into ICIS, and forwards a copy of
DMRs to the field office or central office compliance staff responsible for
monitoring each facility's compliance status. Many files reviewed by EPA
included a compliance determination concerning DMR effluent violations
or DMR non-receipt. Though appropriate and accurate, five of those
determinations were not made until two to seven months following
NDEQ's receipt of the DMRs. Those five instances include Crofton,
Lodgepole, Nemaha, North Platte, and TMCO Powder Coating,
representing three different field offices and the central office.
Relevant metrics
State response NDEQ will look into the issues surrounding timeliness of those facilities
noted. NDEQ has made considerable effort on training communities to
properly submit DMRs and has sent letters to communities for resubmittal
for omissions. Most DMR non-receipts are for non-discharging facilities
or after investigation the information from the lab was found but the DMR
was not submitted. We print off non-compliance reports from ICIS and
distribute them to inspectors. We are addressing DMR issues. We are
willing to discuss this issue with EPA and how this will change once
permittees submit directly to EPA with e-DMR.
NDEQ requests a meeting with EPA separate from the meeting proposed in
Element 6-1 to further discuss DMR review, timely review and expected
actions including the new e-reporting rule. This meeting should occur
before March 2013 at NDEQ offices.
NDEQ follow-up: The meeting with EPA occurred in January 2013.
Recommendation NDEQ should enhance and implement procedures that can be applied
consistently among all compliance staff for reviewing and responding to
DMR violations. EPA recommends that such procedures cover the
spectrum of written and non-written responses that are appropriate to
different types of DMR violations and record-keeping protocols for non-
written responses. NDEQ should submit a report to EPA on enhancements
that have been implemented by October 31, 2013. Once EPA is satisfied
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 73

-------
that state action has addressed the underlying finding, this recommendation
will be considered complete.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 74

-------
Element 8 — Identification of SNC and HPV: Accurate identification of significant
noncompliance and high-priority violations, and timely entry into the national database.
Finding 8-1	Area for State Improvement
Description	Instances of Significant Noncompliance (SNC) present in the file or
alluded to in inspection reports are not brought to the facility's attention as
SNC, High Priority Violations (HPV), or otherwise serious violations
needing correction.
Explanation	10 facilities had legitimate SNC violations present in the file across the
categories of facilities for which SNC determinations should be made.
These categories include major, non-major P.L. 92-500 (federal grant
awardees), and pretreatment facilities. For major and P.L. 92-500
facilities, SNC criteria in the national program guidance closely relate to
HPV criteria in the state's Enforcement Manual. For pretreatment
facilities, SNC criteria and the state's obligation to respond accordingly are
codified in federal regulation.
SNC violations for 8 of the 10 facilities were not identified to the facility as
significant deficiencies needing the facility's attention. Those facilities
include Blair, Nucor Steel, Plattsmouth, Novartis Consumer Health, CJ
Foods, lams Co., Tasty Toppings, and Gibbon Packing. The first four are
wastewater facilities, and violation types included effluent exceedances,
SSOs, and bypasses. In the case of Blair and Plattsmouth, violations were
due to flooding. While a facility cannot control this cause of violations,
progress toward repair in both instances followed a protracted timeline
extending beyond receding of floodwaters. NDEQ should emphasize in
writing the importance of expeditiously repairing a facility in SNC to
restore proper wastewater treatment. The latter four facilities are
pretreatment permittees, for which 40 CFR 403.8 establishes SNC criteria
and requires the control authority to take appropriate enforcement and
comply with public participation requirements of 40 CFR Part 25.
NDEQ's Enforcement Manual categorizes HPVs at pretreatment facilities
in accordance with the federal regulation on SNC.
Relevant metrics 8al - Major facilities in SNC during the reporting year: 21.
8a2 - Percent of major facilities in SNC during the reporting year: 21/54 =
39%.
•	National average: 22%.
8b - Percentage of Single Event Violations that are accurately identified as
SNC or non-SNC: 2/6 = 33%.
•	Goal: 100% of files with appropriate determination of SNC or non-
SNC.
8c - Percentage of Single Event Violations identified as SNC reported
timely: 1/2 = 50% (Note that not all SEVs evaluated under 8b could be
evaluated under 8c).
•	Goal: 100%.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 75

-------
7al - Number of major NPDES facilities with single event violations
(reported to ICIS): 2.
7a2 - Number of non-major facilities with single event violations (reported
to ICIS): 2.
State response NDEQ worked with Blair and Plattsmouth during and after the flood to get
or stay in compliance. NDEQ encouraged the facilities to work as quickly
as possible to return to compliance. This flood was an extreme event and
the river and ground water levels remained high for some time even after
flood waters receded.
Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) are investigated. If the SSO is actually
caused by the community, the issue is addressed and documented.
We have not consistently used the terms Significant Non-Compliance
(SNC) or Single Event Violations (SEV) in our discussions with
communities. That may be because these terms are not defined in the
Clean Water Act (CWA) or Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) but by
EPA guidance or policy. NDEQ will evaluate procedures to identify and
make a enforcement determination for SNC and SEV. Violation
notification would be in NOVs, not the inspection report.
NDEQ request that this issue be discussed in the same meeting to address
Section 7-3.
Follow-up to the January 2013 meeting with EPA: NDEQ will work to
ensure reports or checklists consistently implement notification to
facilities. Example of an NOV in Attachment R section SRF 8-1 and
proposed checklist additions in Section SRF 6-1.
Recommendation NDEQ should better identify SNC at pretreatment facilities as well as SNC
at majors, including Single Event Violations (SEVs). NDEQ should
follow its Enforcement Manual guidelines for issuing NOVs to facilities
with HPVs. For pretreatment industries, NDEQ should adhere to the
requirements of 40 CFR 403.8. By October 31, 2013, NDEQ should send
to EPA a sample of recent pretreatment NOVs sent to facilities in SNC and
an example NOV sent to a major in SNC, showing the improvements
made. Once EPA is satisfied that state action has addressed the underlying
finding, this recommendation will be considered complete.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 76

-------
Element 8 — Identification of SNC and HPV: Accurate identification of significant
noncompliance and high-priority violations, and timely entry into the national database.
Finding 8-2	Meets Expectations
Description	NDEQ uses Reportable Noncompliance resolution codes to appropriately
end strings of faulty DMR non-receipt and other reporting violations in
ICIS.
Explanation	A large number of major and non-major traditional NPDES permittees in
Nebraska have had years of continuous DMR non-receipt or other
reporting violation codes dictating the compliance status in ICIS and OTIS.
While such codes are usually legitimate for the initial quarter when the
reporting violation occurred, ICIS continues to show the violation in
subsequent quarters until the missing data is satisfied or the state overrides
the RNC code with an appropriate resolution code. The result is that many
major facilities appear to be in SNC long after the initial reporting violation
occurred, and many of the 21 majors in SNC in FFY 2011 were on the list
due to such missing data. In late FFY 2011, NDEQ began to use an
appropriate RNC resolution code to end the string of unwarranted non-
receipt and reporting violation codes, which results in more accurate
compliance data in the national databases. Starting in FFY 2012, EPA
expects fewer majors to appear on the SNC list for this reason. Facilities
reviewed by EPA that received an RNC resolution code in FFY 2011
include Beatrice, Fremont, McCook, MG Waldbaum, Tyson Fresh Meats,
and Western Sugar Cooperative. NDEQ should continue this practice
where appropriate for both major and non-major facilities.
Relevant metrics 7d - Major facilities in noncompliance: 40/51 = 78%.
7g - Non-major facilities in Category 2 noncompliance: 88.
8al - Major facilities in SNC during the reporting year: 21.
8a2 - Percent of major facilities in SNC during the reporting year: 21/54 =
39%.
• National average: 22%.
State response NDEQ response not required.
Recommendation None required.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 77

-------
Element 9 — Enforcement Actions Promote Return to Compliance: Enforcement actions
include required corrective action that will return facilities to compliance in specified
timeframe.
Area for State Attention
Informal enforcement actions do not consistently result in violators
returning to compliance.
57 of the 64 informal enforcement actions reviewed by EPA either
succeeded in getting a return to compliance or ultimately led to a formal
enforcement action that legally required a return to compliance. The 7
informal actions that did not accomplish one or the other consists of Letters
of Warning (LOWs) and NOVs that required actions and/or a facility
response by a specified date but did not result in the facility returning to
compliance, as indicated by subsequent documents in the file showing
unresolved noncompliance. The 7 facilities are Nemaha, Industrial Powder
Coating, Novartis Consumer Health, Tasty Toppings, 37 Land & Cattle,
Sioux County Feeders, and St. George Ranch. These facilities were also
not required by a subsequent state action (formal or informal) to take
actions that would return the facility to compliance. In such cases, the state
needs to ensure that appropriate voluntary or binding actions are required
of the violator and that additional follow-up measures are taken when the
required actions are not completed.
All 11 formal enforcement actions reviewed by EPA required corrective
actions by the violator by a date certain.
Because this finding concerns a deficiency for a small fraction of informal
actions and none of the formal actions, the finding is categorized as an
Area for State Attention not requiring a trackable recommendation.
Relevant metrics 9a - Percentage of enforcement responses that return or will return a source
in SNC to compliance: 68/75 = 91%.
• Goal: 100% of enforcement actions return a source in SNC to
compliance.
State response NDEQ actions are appropriate and we work to bring facilities back into
compliance. NDEQ also attempts to make uniform determinations and
apply requirements consistently. NDEQ continues to work on procedures
to make sure enforcement actions are addressed. In some cases the
informal enforcement action is based on a violation where there is no
action required to return to compliance, except to not repeat the violation.
Thus, there is no compliance timeframe.
Recommendation None required.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 78
Finding 9-1
Description
Explanation

-------
Element 10 — Timely and Appropriate Action: Timely and appropriate enforcement
action in accordance with policy relating to specific media.
Finding 10-1	Area for State Improvement
Description	Formal enforcement actions and referrals to the state Attorney General, as
well as some informal enforcement letters, are not issued in a timely
manner.
Explanation	The 76 enforcement actions reviewed under this metric included 11 formal
actions (i.e. administrative orders, consent orders, AG referrals, and
consent decrees) and 65 informal actions (i.e. NOVs, LOWs, and
Corrective Action Required letters). Altogether, 27 actions were not
timely, representing formal and informal enforcement actions at traditional
dischargers, stormwater sites, and CAFOs.
7 of the 11 formal actions were not issued or referred within 180 days of
discovery of the underlying violations. 180 days is the benchmark for
timely action according to the Water Quality Division's Enforcement
Manual as well as federal guidance. The time from violation discovery to
formal action or AG referral for the formal actions not timely ranged from
240 to more than 400 days. In all 7 cases, informal enforcement and
voluntary tools were first used to move the facility toward compliance, and
in 5 of those 7 cases the preceding informal actions were themselves not
issued timely, i.e. within 90 days of discovery according to state guidance.
In the majority of the 7 cases, however, the initial use of informal tools did
not consume the bulk of time leading up to formal enforcement; rather, the
lag times from use of informal tools to the initial enforcement request, and
from enforcement request to issuance of an administrative order or AG
referral, were responsible for most of the duration.
45 of the 65 informal enforcement actions reviewed were issued within 90
days of violation discovery, leaving 20 (31%) that were not issued timely.
90 days is the timeframe in the Water Quality Division's Enforcement
Manual for escalating noncompliance to formal enforcement if voluntary
measures fail. These 20 informal actions originated from a broad cross
section of NDEQ's field offices.
The distribution across NPDES program areas of formal and informal
enforcement actions that were not timely is captured in the following two
tables.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 79

-------
Formal actions not timely:

# actions not
# actions
% actions not

timely
reviewed
timely
CAFOs
2
4
50%
Stormwater
1
2
50%
Pretreatment
0
0
-
Wastewater
4
5
80%
Informal actions not timely:

# actions not
# actions
% actions not

timely
reviewed
timely
CAFOs
11
39
28%
Stormwater
3
7
43%
Pretreatment
2
6
33%
Wastewater
4
13
31%
For majors only, NDEQ did not take any formal enforcement action in
FFY 2011. Metric 10a, noted below as a relevant metric, is a data and goal
metric that combines state and EPA actions. EPA took formal action at
one major discharger (Fairbury WWTF) to address SNC, which explains
why the numerator for metric 10a is 1 and not 0.
Relevant metrics 10a - Percent of major NPDES facilities with enforcement action taken in
a timely manner:
1/14 = 7%
•	Goal: 100% timely action
10b - Enforcement responses reviewed that address violations in a timely
manner: 49/76 = 64%.
•	Goal: 100%) appropriate enforcement actions.
State response The Department is reviewing its process regarding formal and informal
enforcement on facilities. The Department has implemented a monthly
meeting to identify and address enforcement actions. This issue will be
identified for discussion at a monthly review.
NDEQ request that this issue be discussed in the same meeting to address
Element 7-3.
Recommendation NDEQ should conduct informal and formal enforcement according to state
and federal guidelines for timeliness. NDEQ should review its
Enforcement Manual and notify EPA of any modifications by June 1,
2013. By October 31, 2013, NDEQ should report to EPA on process
enhancements it has implemented to ensure that field and central office
personnel consistently escalate noncompliance, make enforcement referrals
to the Legal Section, and issue formal administrative actions within
timeframes established by the Enforcement Manual. NDEQ has agreed to
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 80

-------
take these actions, and once EPA is satisfied that state actions have
addressed the underlying finding, this recommendation will be considered
complete.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 81

-------
Element 10 — Timely and Appropriate Action: Timely and appropriate enforcement
action in accordance with policy relating to specific media.
Finding 10-2	Area for State Improvement
Description	NDEQ does not take appropriate enforcement actions to address violations
at CAFOs.
Explanation	There is a performance issue that falls generally under Element 10.
Through a review of NDEQ's Enforcement Manual and discussions with
personnel from the Agriculture Section, EPA has determined that NDEQ
has no formal enforcement escalation policy for NPDES violations at
CAFOs. In the absence of state guidance on priority violations and
appropriate responses, EPA reviews state enforcement actions based on
national program management guidance documents.
EPA reviewed 39 enforcement actions issued by NDEQ for violations
associated with CAFOs. 15 of these 39 (38%) actions were informal
enforcement action letters (e.g. LOWs, NOVs, and Correction Action
Required letters) taken by the Agriculture Section that were not
commensurate with the nature of violations, and under national guidance
they should have been addressed through a formal enforcement action. 13
of the 15 informal actions were sent in response to illegal discharges of
pollutants that arguably reached waters of the state. 3 of these facilities
(Timmerman Feeding Corporation, RDO Ind. Feedlot, and S&A Feedlot)
received two informal attempts to return them to compliance.
Notwithstanding NDEQ's statutory requirement to use voluntary means to
return violators to compliance (see Appendix E), these 3 facilities, as well
as several others that received only one informal letter following a long
history of noncompliance, were granted generous opportunities to
voluntarily change their operations to avoid escalated enforcement. None
of the 15 informal actions ultimately led to formal enforcement. Because
illegal discharge can be one of the most serious CWA violations, the
threshold for escalating informal actions to formal enforcement to ensure a
return to compliance should be lower than that for less serious violations.
Relevant metrics
State response NDEQ reminds EPA that non-discharging CAFOs without NPDES permits
are not under the jurisdiction of EPA and should not be used in this
evaluation.
EPA has been consistently stating in this review that the CAFO inspection
reports lack the detail to determine whether or not the CAFO was in
compliance with the CWA. Yet, in this Finding EPA has made a
determination that 13 of the 15 informal actions were illegal discharges
EPA should explain this inconsistency.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 82

-------
NDEQ evaluates each non-compliance event discovered during inspections
or investigations at all AFOs, not only NPDES permitted CAFOs, to
determine the appropriate enforcement tool. During wet weather period
discharges, the NDEQ determines whether the discharge was legal or
illegal. Discharges are considered legal if rainfall exceeded the 25-year,
24-hour storm event and the livestock waste control facility was being
properly managed prior to the start of the rainfall. Informal actions are
used extensively to obtain compliance. However, formal actions are also
used when necessary and appropriate to return the facility to compliance
and to seek penalties for violations. For example, each illegal discharge
into waters of the state is referred for formal enforcement.
The current decision-making on the enforcement tool of choice may not be
well documented in the file. NDEQ will implement steps to make sure the
file reflects the decision in each alleged discharge or other violation.
NDEQ requests a meeting with EPA to discuss enforcement response
policy for CAFO violations by March 2013.
Recommendation NDEQ has agreed to develop an enforcement response policy for NPDES
violations at CAFOs and should submit it to EPA for review by June 1,
2013. Once EPA is satisfied that the state has developed and begun to
implement an acceptable policy, this recommendation will be considered
complete.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 83

-------
Element 10 — Timely and Appropriate Action: Timely and appropriate enforcement
action in accordance with policy relating to specific media.
Finding 10-3	Meets Expectations
Description	NOVs and informal notices of DMR non-receipt are appropriately used to
return facilities with isolated reporting violations back to compliance.
Explanation	There is a performance issue that falls generally under Element 10. NDEQ
sent NOVs and notices of DMR non-receipt to 8 facilities reviewed by
EPA. These informal letters notified the facilities of their deficient DMRs
and requested a response with the corrected or missing data. Facilities
receiving these letters represent the major, non-major, and pretreatment
universes and include the following: Barneston, Beatrice, Behlen
Manufacturing, Grand Island, lams Company, Nemaha, North Platte, and
Valmont Industries. This use of informal enforcement is appropriate to the
type of violation and should continue to be used. Also, EPA notes that this
performance is an improvement over what was found during the FFY 2007
SRF Round 2 review.
Relevant metrics
State response NDEQ response not required.
Recommendation None required.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 84

-------
Element 11 — Penalty Calculation Method: Documentation of gravity and economic
benefit in initial penalty calculations using BEN model or other method to produce results
consistent with national policy.
Area for State Improvement
Economic benefit and gravity are consistently included in penalty
calculations, but a rationale for how BEN is calculated is missing from
some penalty worksheets.
6 of the 7 penalty actions reviewed accounted for the economic benefit
gained by the violator, and 7 of 7 included a gravity component. For the
one instance in which economic benefit was not considered (Timm Soil
Mining), NDEQ did not provide a rationale for its exclusion from the
penalty calculation. While the state may use discretion to exclude
economic benefit in exceptional circumstances, the file must indicate why
that decision was made, as it represents a departure from the national
expectation for consistency.
For 3 of the 6 cases that did account for economic benefit, NDEQ's penalty
calculation worksheet described the types of delayed and avoided costs
included in the calculation, while the other 3 cases lacked such description.
EPA credits NDEQ for making notable improvement to its use of the
penalty calculation worksheet, including descriptions of economic benefit
and gravity, since the Round 2 review covering FFY 2007. As a follow-up
to the Round 2 review, NDEQ agreed to ensure that penalty calculation
information included injudicial referrals is useful to the Nebraska AG.
Relevant metrics 1 la - Penalty calculations that include gravity and economic benefit: 6/7 =
86%.
• Goal: 100% of penalty calculations include gravity and BEN as
appropriate.
State response The Department recognizes the importance of ensuring a level playing field
and will work to ensure that penalty calculations and settlements achieve
this goal. We believe we have made gains with our penalty calculation
worksheet which we share with the Attorney General in our enforcement
referrals. We understand that our files do not typically include information
or documentation as to the rationale for final settlements. The Department
will address this concern with the Attorney General and provide a response
by March 2013.
Recommendation NDEQ referrals to the state AG should consistently include a well
documented economic benefit component of penalty calculations,
including specific categories of delayed and avoided costs, and should
provide a rationale for any cases in which economic benefit is being
excluded from the penalty. NDEQ should discuss these concerns with the
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 85
Finding 11-1
Description
Explanation

-------
state Attorney General and provide a report of improvements to EPA by
March 31, 2013. EPA and NDEQ will discuss progress on a quarterly
basis. Once EPA is satisfied that state action has addressed the underlying
finding, this recommendation will be considered complete.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 86

-------
Element 12 — Final Penalty Assessment and Collection: Differences between initial and
final penalty and collection of final penalty documented in file.
Finding 12-1	Area for State Attention
Description	Nebraska files for penalty actions generally account for the difference
between proposed and final assessed penalties and contain proof that
assessed penalties are collected.
Explanation	3 of the 4 penalty action files reviewed for documentation of the difference
between initial and final assessed penalties contained information on how
any reduction in penalty was derived. 2 of the 3 penalty action cases
reviewed for verification that penalties were collected contained the
required documentation. Although these proportions do not measure up to
the 100% goal, only one case from a small sample size was not counted
under each metric (BS Wash, Inc., and Classic Dairy, respectively), which
leads EPA to conclude that NDEQ and the Nebraska AG are generally
successful in their documentation under metric 12a. EPA brings the two
aberrations to the state's attention to encourage greater consistency.
Relevant metrics 12a - Documentation on difference between initial and final penalty:
3/4 = 75%.
•	Goal: 100% of penalties document difference between initial and
final assessed penalty.
12b - Penalties collected: 2/3 = 67%.
•	Goal: 100% of penalties collected.
State response The Department will continue to work with the Attorney General to
achieve appropriate and consistent penalties for violations referred for
enforcement.
Recommendation None required.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 87

-------
Element 12 — Final Penalty Assessment and Collection: Differences between initial and
final penalty and collection of final penalty documented in file.
Finding 12-2	Area for State Improvement
Description	Large portions of assessed penalties are frequently waived for violators
who demonstrate a prompt return to compliance, resulting in a reduced
deterrent value of monetary penalties.
Explanation	There is a performance issue that falls generally under Element 12. 3 of
the 4 settled penalty actions reviewed by EPA had a provision to assess a
much smaller penalty than what NDEQ recommended to the Nebraska AG,
due to the AG practice of waiving half or more of the monetary penalty
contingent on a prompt return to compliance by the violator. Specifically,
the entire $10,000 and 7,500 penalties for B.S. Wash and Dinsdale
Brothers, respectively, were slated to be waived on this condition.
Likewise, $5,000 of the penalty for Blue River Pork could be waived
contingent on a prompt return to compliance.
This practice of including a provision in final orders to waive a significant
portion of the settled penalty significantly reduces the deterrent value of
these actions.
Relevant metrics
State response The Department will discuss this concern with the Attorney General and
provide a report by March 2013. We would note that the Attorney General
has filed follow-up actions to collect waiveable penalties where the facility
fails to meet the specified compliance requirement in the consent decree.
Recommendation EPA recognizes NDEQ may not have direct control over the conditions for
penalty assessment that are placed in orders by the state AG; however,
NDEQ and the state AG should discuss appropriate uses of waivers to
discontinue or at least minimize their use. EPA will be available to assist
NDEQ in these discussions upon request. NDEQ and the state AG should
reach agreement on how to address this concern and provide a report to
EPA on the path forward by March 31, 2013. EPA will check with the
state on a quarterly basis to determine progress in this area. Once EPA is
satisfied that state action has addressed the underlying finding, this
recommendation will be considered complete.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 88

-------
Appendix A: Data Metric Analysis
Attached below are the results of the SRF data metric analyses. All data metrics are analyzed prior to the on-site file review. This provides
reviewers with essential advance knowledge of potential problems. It also guides the file selection process as these potential problems
highlight areas for supplemental file review.
The initial findings are preliminary observations. They are used as a basis for further investigation during the file review and through dialogue
with the state. Where applicable, this analysis evaluates state performance against the national goal and average. Final findings are developed
only after evaluating the data alongside file review results and details from conversations with the state. Through this process, initial findings
may be confirmed or modified. Final findings are presented in Section III of this report.
Clean Water Act
Metric
Metric Name
Measure
Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Averaqe
Nebraska
Metric
Count
Uni-
verse
Initial Findinq
Explanation
1a1
Number of Active
NPDES Majors with
Individual Permits
Data
Verification
State


51


Meets SRF Program
Requirements

1a2
Number of Active
NPDES Majors with
General Permits
Data
Verification
State


0


Meets SRF Program
Requirements

1a3
Number of Active
NPDES Non-Majors
with Individual
Permits
Data
Verification
State


647


Meets SRF Program
Requirements
Consists of non-major municipal facilities,
non-major industrial direct dischargers,
pre-treatment dischargers, and
individually-permitted Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations.
1a4
Number of Active
NPDES Non-Majors
with General Permits
Data
Verification
State


448


Meets SRF Program
Requirements
Consists of Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations with a general permit. The
state maintains an internal inventory of
facilities with general stormwater permits.
1b1
Permit Limits Rate
for Major Facilities
Goal
State
>= 95%
98.6%
100%
51
51
Meets SRF Program
Requirements
Permit limits were coded for all major
facilities.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 89

-------
Metric
Metric Name
Measure
Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Average
Nebraska
Metric
Count
Uni-
verse
Initial Finding
Explanation
1b2
DMR Entry Rate for
Major Facilities.
Goal
State
>= 95%
96.5%
99.5%
2021
2032
Meets SRF Program
Requirements
The State's performance exceeds the
national qoal and the national averaqe.
1b3
Number of Major
Facilities with a
Manual Override of
RNC/SNC to a
Compliant Status
Data
Verification
State


0


Meets SRF Program
Requirements
The State did not execute any manual
overrides of RNC or SNC codes.
1c1
Permit Limits Rate
for Non-Major
Facilities
Informational
only
State

66.1%
90.6%
586
647
Meets SRF Program
Requirements
The State's performance exceeds the
national average. The 61 facilities not
counted are all Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations that do not have
limits in their permits.
1c2
DMR Entry Rate for
Non-Maior Facilities.
Informational
only
State

72.6%
91.4%
8591
9402
Meets SRF Program
Requirements
The State's performance exceeds the
national average.
1e1
Facilities with
Informal Actions
Data
Verification
State


51


Meets SRF Program
Requirements
All of the State's NOVs issued to majors
and many of the NOVs issued to minors
are included within these 51 NOVs.
1e2
Total Number of
Informal Actions at
CWA NPDES
Facilities
Data
Verification
State


61


Meets SRF Program
Requirements
All of the State's NOVs issued to majors
and many of the NOVs issued to minors
are included within these 51 NOVs.
1f1
Facilities with Formal
Actions
Data
Verification
State


4


Area for State
Improvement
The State issued 1 formal enforcement
action to a P.L. 92-500 non-major facility
in FFY 2011 but did not enter the action
in ICIS, as is required for such non-
majors as well as for majors and all
actions with a judicial penalty component.
1f2
Total Number of
Formal Actions at
CWA NPDES
Facilities
Data
Verification
State


5


Area for State
Improvement
The State issued 1 formal enforcement
action to a P.L. 92-500 non-major facility
in FFY 2011 but did not enter the action
in ICIS, as is required for such non-
majors as well as for majors and all
actions with a judicial penalty component.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 90

-------
Metric
Metric Name
Measure
Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Average
Nebraska
Metric
Count
Uni-
verse
Initial Finding
Explanation
1q1
Number of
Enforcement Actions
with Penalties
Data
Verification
State


0


Area for State
Improvement
The State issued 6 formal enforcement
actions with penalties through its Attorney
General, which is in the judicial arena. All
6 of those actions needed to be entered
into ICIS.
1q2
Total Penalties
Assessed
Data
Verification
State


$0


Area for State
Improvement
The State issued 6 formal enforcement
actions with penalties through its Attorney
General, which is in the judicial arena. All
6 of those actions needed to be entered
into ICIS.
2a1
Number of formal
enforcement actions,
taken against major
facilities, with
enforcement
violation type codes
entered.
Data
Verification
State


0


Meets SRF Program
Requirements
The State did not issue any formal
enforcement actions to major facilities in
FFY 2011.
5a1
Inspection Coverage
- NPDES Majors
Goal metric
State

54.4%
64.7%
33
51
Area for State
Attention
33 of the 36 inspections completed by
NDEQ in FFY 2011 were recorded in
ICIS. The other 3 had not been, but
should have been, entered.
5b1
Inspection Coverage
- NPDES Non-
Majors
Goal metric
State

23.7%
19%
123
647
Meets SRF Program
Requirements
ICIS shows 132 inspections at non-
majors in this category, compared to 133
reported under the CMS. These two
nearly agreeable numbers differ by a
larger margin with the 123 non-majors
appearing in OTIS for this data metric.
Some of the facilities absent from the
OTIS list were second inspections at the
same facility. OTIS counts the number of
facilities inspected whereas ICIS counts
the number of inspections. The other
facilities absent from the OTIS list have
permits relegated to inactive status.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 91

-------
Metric
Metric Name
Measure
Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Average
Nebraska
Metric
Count
Uni-
verse
Initial Finding
Explanation
5b2
Inspection Coverage
- NPDES Non-
Majors with General
Permits
Goal metric
State

19.2%
0/0
0
0
Meets SRF Program
Requirements
This category does not match any of the
CMS inspection categories in which
NDEQ made inspection commitments;
hence the Nebraska metric is 0.
Completion of inspections under the CMS
is evaluated under Metric 4a.
7a1
Number of Major
Facilities with Single
Event Violations
Data
Verification
State


2


Meets SRF Program
Requirements
ICIS shows reporting, monitoring, and
SWPPP implementation violations for 2
major facilities. File review needs to
determine whether the State is identifying
and tracking other SEVs.
7a2
Number of Non-
Major Facilities with
Single Event
Violations
Informational
only
State


2


Meets SRF Program
Requirements
This data is not required for entry in ICIS.
7b1
Compliance
schedule violations
Data
Verification
State


15


Area for State
Attention
4 of the 15 facilities with outstanding
compliance schedule violations were
majors, for which the maintenance of
enforcement action compliance
schedules in ICIS is a requirement. EPA
will review 1 of the 4 majors on this list.
7c1
Permit schedule
violations
Data
Verification
State


38


Area for State
Improvement
4 of the 38 facilities with outstanding
permit schedule violations were majors,
for which the maintenance of permit
compliance schedules in ICIS is a
requirement. The initial finding is justified
based on the long list of 38 facilities that
have either inaccurate data or violations
in ICIS. EPA will review 1 of the 4 majors
and 2 of the non-majors on this list.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 92

-------
Metric
Metric Name
Measure
Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Average
Nebraska
Metric
Count
Uni-
verse
Initial Finding
Explanation
7d1
Major Facilities in
Noncompliance
Review
Indicator
State

71.2%
78.4%
40
51
Area for State
Improvement
The noncompliance rate for majors is
greater than the national average. Some
facilities are in noncompliance due to
effluent or schedule violations while
others have data problems. EPA will
review 11 of the majors on this list
representing a cross-section of the
problem types.
7f1
Non-Major Facilities
in Category 1
Noncompliance
Data
Verification
State


509


Area for State
Improvement
The 509 facilities in Category 1 non-
compliance represents a large portion of
the non-major facilities in Nebraska that
have effluent limits in their permits. EPA
will review 9 non-maiors from this list.
7g1
Non-Major Facilities
in Category 2
Noncompliance
Data
Verification
State


88


Area for State
Attention
Many of the 88 non-majors on this list
appear to have DMR reporting violations,
whether legitimate or not. EPA will
review 3 of the non-majors from this list.
7h1
Non-Major Facilities
in Noncompliance
Informational
only
State


83.8%
542
647
Area for State
Improvement
The 509 facilities in Category 1 non-
compliance represents a large portion of
the non-major facilities in Nebraska that
have effluent limits in their permits. EPA
will review 12 non-majors from this list,
which includes all facilities in Category 1
or 2 noncompliance.
8a1
Major Facilities in
SNC
Review
indicator
metric
State


21


Area for State
Improvement
The 21 majors in SNC during FFY 2011
appear to have had myriad different
violations that need further investigation.
EPA will review 9 majors from this list.
8a2
Percent of Major
Facilities in SNC
Review
indicator
metric
State

22.3%
38.9%
21
54
Area for State
Improvement
Nebraska's SNC rate exceeded the
national average. EPA will review 9
majors from this list.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 93

-------
Metric
Metric Name
Measure
Type
Agency
National
Goal
National
Average
Nebraska
Metric
Count
Uni-
verse
Initial Finding
Explanation
10a1
Major facilities with
Timely Action as
Appropriate
Goal metric
State


7.1%
1
14
Area for State
Improvement
The 13 majors without timely action
during FFY 2011 appear to have had
myriad different violations that need
further investigation. EPA will review 4
majors from this list.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 94

-------
Appendix B: File Metric Analysis
This section presents file metric values with EPA's initial observations on program performance. Initial findings are developed by EPA at the
conclusion of the file review.
Initial findings are statements of fact about observed performance. They should indicate whether there is a potential issue and the nature of
the issue. They are developed after comparing the data metrics to the file metrics and talking to the state.
Final findings are presented above in the CWA Findings section.
Because of limited sample size, statistical comparisons among programs or across states cannot be made.
State: Nebraska
Review Year: FY 2011
CWA
Metric
#
Description
Numerator
Denominator
Metric
Value
Goal
Initial
Findings
Details
2b
Files reviewed where data are
accurately reflected in the national
data system: Percent of files reviewed
where data in the file are accurately
reflected in the national data systems
40
43
93.0%
95%
State
Attention
Most required data appear to be
present in ICIS, with a small number of
exceptions. This metric value is just
below the national goal, which warrants
state attention.
3a
Timeliness of mandatory data entered
in the national data system
41
43
95.3%
100%
Meets
Requirements

4a1
Percent of planned inspections
completed: Majors
36
24
150.0%
100%
Meets
Requirements

4a2
Percent of planned inspections
completed: Individual non-majors
124
106
117.0%
100%
Meets
Requirements

Percent of planned inspections
completed: General non-majors
56
43
130.2% 100%
Meets
Requirements
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 95

-------
4b
6a
6b
7e
8b
Planned commitments completed:
CWA compliance and enforcement
commitments other than CMS
commitments, including work
products/commitments in PPAs, PPGs,
grant agreements, MOAs, MOUs or
other relevant agreements
Inspection reports reviewed that
provide sufficient documentation to
determine compliance at the facility:
Percentage of inspection reports
reviewed that are complete and provide
sufficient documentation to determine
compliance
Inspection reports completed within
the prescribed time frame: Percent of
inspection reports reviewed that are
timely
Inspection reports reviewed that led to
an accurate compliance determination
Percentage of single event
violation(s) that are accurately
identified as SNC or Non-SNC
Enter
Number of
Yes
84
109
93
Enter Total
Number of
0	Responses
Responses
Here	ere
#VALUE!
100%
State
Attention
127
66.1%
100%
124
125
87.9%
74.4%
33.3%
100%
100%
100%
State
Improvement
Meets
Requirements
State
Improvement
State
Attention
NDEQ completed most of the tasks
listed in the FFY 2011 PPG workplan.
Two minor exceptions are noted, which
pertain to transmission of copies of
sludge reports to EPA and completion
of all items from the Round 2 SRF final
report.
Many reports lacked enough
information in checklist and narrative
sections to inform a complete and
accurate compliance determination.
A clear compliance determination, and
in some cases an accurate
determination, were not always made
following inspections.
4 SNC violations were not identified to
facilities as significant deficiencies
needing attention.
8c
Percentage of SEVs Identified as SNC
Reported Timely
50.0%
100%
Meets
Requirements
9b
10b
11a
Percent of enforcement responses
that return or will return source in
SNC to compliance
Enforcement responses reviewed that
address SNC that are appropriate to the
violations
Percentage of penalty calculations
reviewed that consider and include,
where appropriate, gravity and
economic benefit.
68
60
75
75
91%
80.0%
85.7%
100%
100%
100%
State
Attention
State
Improvement
State
Improvement
Informal enforcement actions did not
consistently require follow-up actions by
the facility and/or were not successful,
without further escalation, in returning
facilities to compliance.
Informal enforcement letters sent to
CAFOs were not appropriate, as stand-
alone enforcement tools, to address the
magnitude of some violations observed.
Economic benefit rationale is still
lacking from half of the penalty cases
reviewed that included economic
benefit.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 96

-------
Documentation on difference between
initial and final penalty: Percentage of
penalties reviewed that document the
difference between the initial and final
assessed penalty, and the rationale for
that difference
3
4
75.0% 100%
Meets
Requirements
Penalties collected: Percentage of
12b penalty files reviewed that document
2
3
66.7% 100%
Meets
Requirements
collection of penalty
Finding Categories
Good Practice: Activities, processes, or policies that the SRF metrics show are being implemented exceptionally well. In addition, there must also be innovative
and noteworthy activities, processes, or policies that the state used to achieve these results that can serve as models for other states.
Meets Requirements: No performance deficiencies identified. The state is expected to maintain high performance.
Area for State Attention: Single or infrequent instances that do not constitute a pattern of deficiencies or a significant problem.
Area for State Improvement: Activities, processes, or policies that SRF data and/or file metrics show as major problems requiring EPA oversight.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 97

-------
Appendix C: File Selection
In the SRF, files are selected according to a standard protocol using a web-based file selection
tool supplemented by state activity lists. This protocol and tool are designed to provide
consistency and transparency to the process. Based on the description of the file selection
process below, states should be able to recreate the results in the table that follows.
File Selection Process
EPA selected facility files to represent the various types of permits, industries, and facilities that
were subject to NDEQ compliance monitoring and/or enforcement activities in FFY 2011.
Nebraska had a universe of 745 NPDES permitted facilities that were subject to compliance
monitoring or enforcement in FFY 2011, including the following permit groups:
•	36 core program majors;
•	133 core program minors;
•	100 pretreatment industries;
•	22 construction stormwater permittees;
•	98 industrial stormwater permittees; and
•	356 large, permitted concentrated animal feeding operations.
A total of 109 facility files were selected for the SRF review, consisting of 99 representative
files, 8 PQR files, and 2 supplemental files. The 99 representative files were selected to
represent compliance inspections and enforcement actions taken at facilities from the municipal
and industrial groups listed above as well as from the state's 6 field offices. The relative
proportions of facilities selected within each permit group largely reflect the relative spread of
NDEQ's compliance monitoring and enforcement resources across the NPDES program areas.
EPA selected representative files using the Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) SRF
File Selection Tool to the extent possible, which depended on the amount of data that NDEQ has
entered into ICIS for the activities of interest. With compliance monitoring records in ICIS for
core program majors and minors, EPA was able to select inspections from those two groups
using the OTIS tool. For all other permit types, as well as for enforcement actions taken at core
program facilities, EPA obtained inspection and enforcement records from NDEQ and made
selections from NDEQ's lists. In both cases, the approach to facility selection was randomized
as much as possible. The OTIS SRF File Selection Tool enables random selection from within
each permit group, while random selection from NDEQ lists was facilitated using Excel
spreadsheets.
The second category of facility files is supplemental files, which EPA selected to enable a better
understanding of one potential concern raised during the Data Metrics Analysis. The SRF
protocol allows the selection of targeted, supplemental facility files to aid reviewers in evaluating
initial findings from the Data Metrics Analysis that could not be analyzed with confidence using
randomly selected representative files alone. The particular data metric of concern in this case is
7c: Facilities with unresolved permit schedule violations.
The final category of facility files is PQR core program files. To foster EPA's process for
identifying findings that cut across the permitting and enforcement programs, the 8 core program
facilities reviewed under the PQR were also reviewed under the SRF. More details about the
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 98

-------
review of common files is found in the part titled "NPDES Integrated SRF and PQR Review,"
Section III.
The table that follows displays information for the 109 facilities selected for the SRF review.
Information for core program majors and minors, as discussed above, is present in the national
database and therefore was available via the OTIS File Selection tool. For other facilities in the
table, information on violations, SEVs, and enforcement outputs is not present in the national
database and was included in the table below only to the extent that EPA obtained it from NDEQ
for the purpose of selecting representative files.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 99

-------
File Selection Table
ID Number
Facility Name
City
State Reqion
Inspections
Violation
SEVs
SNC
Informal
Formal
Penalties
Selection
or Inspector
Actions
Actions
Rationale
Core Program - Majors
NE0000647
BEHLEN MANUFACTURING CO.
COLUMBUS
Northeast
0
Yes
0
SNC
0
0
0
PQR
NE0020915
BEATRICE WWTF
BEATRICE
Lincoln







Representative
NE0021121
PLATTSMOUTH WWTF
PLATTSMOUTH
Eastern
0
Yes
0
SNC
0
0
0
PQR
NE0021482
BLAIR WWTF
BLAIR
Eastern
1
Yes
0
No
0
0
0
PQR
NE0021504
MCCOOK WWTF
MCCOOK
West Central
1
Yes
2
No
0
1
0
PQR
NE0031381
FREMONT WWTF
FREMONT
Eastern
1
Yes
0
SNC
0
0
0
Representative
NE0032891
NORTH PLATTE WWTF
NORTH PLATTE
West Central
1
No
0
No
1
0
0
Representative
NE0036820
LINCOLN THERESA ST. WWTF
LINCOLN
Lincoln







PQR
NE0043702
GRAND ISLAND WWTF
GRAND ISLAND
Central
0
Yes
0
SNC
1
0
0
Representative
NE0111287
NUCOR STEEL - NORFOLK
NORFOLK
Northeast
1
Yes
0
SNC
0
0
0
PQR
NE0111686
WESTERN SUGAR COOP.
SCOTTSBLUFF
Panhandle
1
Yes
0
SNC
0
0
0
Representative
NE0113735
MG WALDBAUM COMPANY
WAKEFIELD
Northeast
1
Yes
0
SNC
0
0
0
Representative
NE0123501
TYSON FRESH MEATS
LEXINGTON
West Central
0
Yes
0
No
0
0
0
PQR
NE0130141
ADM CORN DIVISION
COLUMBUS
Northeast
1
Yes
0
SNC
0
0
0
PQR
Core Program - Minors
NE0026565
VALMONT INDUSTRIES INC
VALLEY
Eastern
1
Yes
0
No
0
0
0
Representative
NE0045071
BRUNING WWTF
BRUNING
Lincoln
0
Yes
0
Category 1
2
0
0
Representative
NE0049123
DECATUR WWTF
DECATUR
Northeast
1
Yes
0
Category 1
0
0
0
Representative
NE0049131
CROFTON WWTF
CROFTON
Northeast
1
Yes
0
Category 1
2
0
0
Representative
NE0112119
BRIDGEPORT WWTF
BRIDGEPORT
Panhandle
1
Yes
0
Category 1
0
0
0
Representative
NE0112542
LODGEPOLE WWTF
LODGEPOLE
Panhandle
1
Yes
0
Category 1
1
0
0
Representative
NE0113891
SWIFT BEEF COMPANY
GRAND ISLAND
Central
0
Yes
0
Category 1
0
0
0
Representative
NE0121304
NEMAHA WWTF
NEMAHA
Lincoln
0
Yes
0
Category 1
0
0
0
Representative
NE0121509
KUGLER CO FERTILIZER
CULBERTSON
West Central
1
Yes
0
Category 1
1
0
0
Representative
NE0121711
BARNESTON WWTF
BARNESTON
Lincoln
1
Yes
0
Category 1
1
0
0
Representative

DON HUWALDT

Northeast









BS WASH, INC.

Central








Pretreatment
NE0000701
NOVARTIS CONSUMER
HEALTH
LINCOLN
Lincoln
0
Yes
0
No
1
0
0
Representative
NE0060011
TELEDYNE ISCO INC.
LINCOLN
Lincoln
0
Yes
0
Category 1
0
0
0
Representative
NE0060062
GENERAL DYNAMICS LINCOLN
LINCOLN
Lincoln
0
Yes
0
Category 1
0
0
0
Representative
NE0060089
BECTON DICKINSON
COLUMBUS
Northeast
0
Yes
0
Category 1
0
0
0
Representative
NE0114081
FEASTER FOODS
FAIRBURY
Lincoln
0
Yes
0
No
1
0
0
Representative
NE0114537
CNH AMERICA LLC
GRAND ISLAND
Central
0
Yes
0
Category 1
0
0
0
Representative
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 100

-------



State Reqion




Informal
Formal

Selection
ID Number
Facilitv Name
ICitv
or Inspector
Inspections
Violation
SEVs
SNC
Actions
(Actions
Penalties
Rationale
NE0123846
GREAT PLAINS POLYMERS INC
OMAHA
Eastern

Yes
0
Category 1
0
0

Representative
NE0124061
GIBBON PACKING INC
GIBBON
Central
0
Yes
0
Category 1
0
0
0
Representative

HYDRAULIC COMPONENTS










NE0124435
IND.
HARTINGTON
Northeast
0
Yes
0
Category 1
0
0
0
Representative
NE0124605
EXMARK MFGCO INC
I BEATRICE
Lincoln
0
Yes
0
No
0
0
0
Representative
NE0129348
CHIEF INDUSTRIES

Central








NE0132683
C J FOODS INC
i PAWNEE CITY
Lincoln
0
Yes
0
Category 1
1
11
0
Representative
NE0133175
IAMS COMPANY (P&G)
AURORA
Central
0
Yes
0
Category 1
1
0
0
Representative
NE0133752
TMCO POWDERCOATING, INC
(LINCOLN
Lincoln
0
Yes
0
Category 1
2
10
0
Representative
NE0137448
TASTY-TOPPINGS, INC.
I DUNCAN
Northeast
0
Yes
0
Category 1
1
0
0
Representative
NE0137472
HUNT CLEANERS, INC.
ICOZAD
West Central
0
Yes
0
No
0
0
0
Representative



SW Industrial







NER000005
Lincoln Industries, Inc.

Cunningham
Yes







NER000696
Behlen Manufacturing Co.

B Anderson
Yes







NER000783
Thermo King Corporation

Stittle
Yes







NER000880
lams Co.

Ewoldt
Yes







NER001259
Ballantyne Strong, Inc.

B Anderson
Yes







NER001315
Industrial Powder Coating

Cunningham




1




Papio Valley Auto Parts

Renner




1




iRock Concrete, LLC

Renner




1






SW construction







NER111779
Dorchester V\A/.

R Anderson
Yes







NER112420
CVS Pharmacy 04033

Ewoldt
Yes







NER112242
Custer Campus

Stittle
Yes








Timm Soil Mining







1



Southwest Implement Inc.







1



Indianola WWTF

Stittle




1




Kenneth Deinert Residence

Renner




1






Supplemental files for review






NE0026051
LEWISTON WWTF
LEWISTON
Main
o
Yes
0
No
0
0
0
Supplemental
NE0040037
MADRID WWTF
MADRID
West Cen
o
Yes
0
Category 1
0
0
0
Supplemental



CAFOs







NE0044521
COE Cattle Company

Northeast
Yes



1



NE0097110
S&A Feedlots

Northeast
Yes



1



NE0100625
Weltzenkamp Farms Southwest

Eastern
Yes







NE0136123
Kroenke Farms

Eastern
Yes



1



NE0136212
Butler County Dairy	

Lincoln	
Yes









SRF-PQR Report
Nebraska
Page 101

-------
ID Number
INEO136361
INEG010032
1NEG010051
INEG010252
NEG011021
NEG011023
NEG011036
NEG011037
NEG011043
NEG011048
NEG011049
NEG011052
NEG011056
NEG011079
NEG011080
NEG011089
NEG011126
INEG011129
INEG011147
NEG011160
INEG011181
INEG011191
NEG011210
NEG011223
INEG011263
INEG011269
NEG011284
NEG011300
INEG011311
NEG011317
NEG011321
Facility Name
Herd Co
137 Land & Cattle
(Art Dose & Son Inc.
Beller Feedlot
(Bowman Farms
Nebraksa ILS Feeders
Keller Cattle Co
Oahkosh Feedyard Corporation
3B Farms
RDO Inc Feedlot
Arbuck & Underwood Feedyard
HJR Dose
Darr Feedlot
Bar K Cattle
i Winner Circle Feedyard
i Imperial Beef
Sunderman Feedlots West
i Mayes General Partnership West
R Benjamin Inc. Livestock
jZutavern Ranch Livestock
Linder Stock Farms
Adams Land & Cattle Co. South
[Nebraska Feeders McClymont
Mayes General Partnership East
Mid Plains Cattle Company
[Timmerman Feeding Corp.
iWillow Island Land & Cattle
jDenker Inc.
B&B Cattle
Dinsdale Brothers Inc North
i Beer Creek Ranch LLC
JD Cattle Co.
Wolfden Dairy
|Niewohner Granchildren East
j Novak Pork
i PC West Tarnov
Ortmeier Feedyard
I City
State Region
or Inspector
[Northeast
(Central
(Central
(Northeast
[Eastern
i West Central
(West Central
Scotts Bluff
Northeast
[Central
(Central
(Central
West Central
(Northeast
) Scotts Bluff
[West Central
Northeast
Central
[Central
J Northeast
[Northeast
Inspections I Violation SEVs SNC
Yj"-
Yes	|	[	I
Yes	]	|	|
Yes	I	I	I
Yes	j	|	|
Yes	|	|	|
Yi
Yi
Yes	[	j	I
Yes	[	|	|
Yes	|	|	|
Yes	|	|	|
Yes	|	j	|
Yi
Yi
Yes	[	I	I
Yes	I	I
Informal Formal
Actions iActions Penalties Rationale
Selection
Central
West Central
West Central
| Central
West Central
[Central
[Central
[Lincoln
[Lincoln
(West Central
i West Central
j Central
Northeast
[West Central
Northeast
Northeast
Yes
Yes
Yes
i Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
i Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
i Yes
Yes
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 102

-------
ID Number
1 Facility Name
Blue River Pork
PPKLLC
j Livingston Enterprises
Prairie Land Dairy
(Classic Dairy
(Henry Hass & Sons Inc
Sioux County Feeders
[St. George Ranch	
ICitv
State Region
or Inspector
[Lincoln
J Lincoln
J Lincoln
J Lincoln
(Lincoln
Scotts Bluff
Scotts Bluff
Scotts Bluff
1 Informal i Formal
[Selection
Inspections [Violation SEVs SNC
Yes	|	[	I
Yes	]	|	|
Yes	I	I	I
Yes	|	|	|
Yes	[	1	|
Yes	I	I
[Actions iActions 1 Penalties [Rationale
1
hi)	I
11 ] I	I
f )l |	[
hi]	1
h	1	1
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 103

-------
Appendix D: Status of Past SRF Recommendations
During the Round 1 and 2 SRF reviews of Nebraska's compliance and enforcement programs, EPA Region 7 recommended actions to address issues
found during the review. The following table contains all completed and outstanding actions for Round 2. There are no outstanding
recommendations for Round 1. The status entries in this table are current as of March 9, 2012.
For a complete and up-to-date list of recommendations from Rounds 1 and 2, visit the SRF website.
Round
Status
Due Date
Media
E#
Element
Finding
Recommendation
Round
2
Completed
6/18/2010
CWA
E1
Data
Completeness
DMR violations for multiple major facilities are due to inaccurate
permit data in ICIS-NPDES. EPA reviewed 4 of 18 majors that
were flagged for missing DMRs under metric 1 b2, and all 4 of
them had inaccurate permit limit set data or DMR due dates in
ICIS-NPDES. These inaccuracies create three distinct data
quality problems.
The state and EPA will jointly investigate the reasons why facilities are on the
Quarterly Non-Compliance Report (QNCR) for the second and third quarters of
FFY 2009, with a focus on whether erroneous permit data in ICIS-NPDES is the
underlying reason for any QNCR violations. Note that there were approximately
30 majors with QNCR violations in the third quarter of FFY 2009. To be complete
by April 30, 2010.
Round
2
Completed
12/31/2011
CWA
E1
Data
Completeness
DMR violations for multiple major facilities are due to inaccurate
permit data in ICIS-NPDES. EPA reviewed 4 of 18 majors that
were flagged for missing DMRs under metric 1 b2, and all 4 of
them had inaccurate permit limit set data or DMR due dates in
ICIS-NPDES. These inaccuracies create three distinct data
quality problems.
If the effort from Recommendation #1 reveals that 10% or more of the majors on
the QNCR (i.e. 3 or more on the FFY 2009 third quarter QNCR) are on the report
due to violations triggered by erroneous permit data, the state will implement a
method for conducting quality assurance on permit data upon entry into ICIS-
NPDES. EPA's recommended method is to run limit summary reports. If
applicable, the quality assurance method is to be in place by December 31, 2010.
Round
2
Completed
6/30/2010
CWA
E1
Data
Completeness
Minor facilities in violation for not submitting DMRs were not
consistently sent violation notices or otherwise notified in a timely
manner that submission is required. 56 facilities were flagged for
non-receipt over 3 continuous years. EPA reviewed files for 8 of
them, 4 of which had either DMRs missing from the files or, when
DMRs were present in the file, they had not been entered in I CIS.
When the state did respond to non-reporting violations, as it did
with 2 NOVs in the 8 files reviewed by EPA, the enforcement
response was not timely according to state and EPA definitions.
A large portion of the 56 facilities flagged for DMR non-receipt
are lagoon systems with intermittent discharge that did not
submit required DMRs when no discharge occurred.
State will implement procedures or routines viewed as productive uses of
resources, such as those identified in the state response, to streamline the
accounting and review of incoming DMRs. To be in place by April 30, 2010.
Round
2
Completed
12/31/2010
CWA
E1
Data
Completeness
After the conclusion of FFY 2010, EPA and the state will evaluate the status of
DMR non-receipts to assess whether sufficient progress has been made by steps
1 and 2. If the value of metrics 1d3 (3-year rolling average of non-receipts at non-
majors) and 7d (DMR violations at majors) have not both declined by at least 50%
relative to the FFY 2007 levels, the state will begin to run DMR non-receipt reports
at the end of each quarter, as described in the Explanation for this finding. To be
complete by December 31, 2010.
Round
2
Long Term
Resolution
4/16/2012
CWA
E1
Data
Completeness
The state did not enter in ICIS-NPDES any formal or informal
enforcement actions for major or P.L. 92-500 minor facilities in
FFY 2007, as required. The state also did not enter any penalty
information for civil judicial settlements involving majors.
State and EPA will negotiate an acceptable ICIS user agreement by June 30,
2010.
Round
2
Long Term
Resolution
4/16/2012
CWA
E1
Data
Completeness
The state did not enter in ICIS-NPDES any formal or informal
enforcement actions for major or P.L. 92-500 minor facilities in
FFY 2007, as required. The state also did not enter any penalty
information for civil judicial settlements involving majors.
EPA will assist the state with entry of formal enforcement actions as long as
necessary until an acceptable ICIS user agreement is signed by the state. Once
the state has signed an ICIS user agreement, EPA will provide training and any
other assistance to help the state with entry of formal enforcement actions until the
state can independently enter these actions. Also, the state will continue entering
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 104

-------







NOVs into ICIS-NPDES. To be fully implemented by December 31, 2010.
Round
2
Completed
2/28/2010
CWA
E2
Data
Accuracy
With no formal enforcement actions entered in ICIS-NPDES in
FFY 2007, the state did not link those actions to the
corresponding violations.
State will send final enforcement documents to EPA electronically as PDFs so that
EPA can enter them into ICIS-NPDES and properly link them to the corresponding
violations. To be in place by February 28, 2010.
Round
2
Long Term
Resolution
3/31/2012
CWA
E2
Data
Accuracy
With no formal enforcement actions entered in ICIS-NPDES in
FFY 2007, the state did not link those actions to the
corresponding violations.
Once an acceptable ICIS-NPDES user agreement is signed by the state, EPA will
provide training and any other assistance to help the state with entry of formal
enforcement actions and linkage of actions to the corresponding violations. The
state should be able to independently enter and link formal actions in ICIS-NPDES
by December 31, 2010.
Round
2
Completed
12/31/2010
CWA
E5
Inspection
Coverage
The state does not have a record for conducting inspections at 6
of 51 majors in FFY 2007. 44 major inspections had been
entered into ICIS-NPDES at the time of the data analysis, and
one additional inspection not in ICIS-NPDES was uncovered
during EPA's file reviews.
State will continue following its protocol for ensuring timely entry of inspection data
into ICIS-NPDES, with a goal of entry within 30 days following the inspection.
Effectiveness of this protocol is to be demonstrated through FFY 2010, with
success determined by December 31, 2010.
Round
2
Completed
6/18/2010
CWA
E6
Quality of
Inspection of
Compliance
Evaluation
Reports
Inspection reports for facilities that have an industrial stormwater
permit did not discuss compliance with industrial stormwater
permit requirements. EPA reviewed files for 4 such facilities and
found that no inspection report discussed stormwater
compliance.
State will begin using modified inspection checklists, with items for evaluating
industrial stormwater and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan requirements, by
April 30, 2010.
Round
2
Completed
12/31/2011
CWA
E6
Quality of
Inspection of
Compliance
Evaluation
Reports
19 of 44 inspection reports reviewed by EPA did not contain a
clear identification of violations, despite that many of those
reports included an indication that the facility could make
improvements in some areas. Alternatively, if no violations were
identified, the reports did not contain a statement of compliance.
With the exception of complaint investigations, most inspection
reports utilized a checklist format in which the inspector used
very limited narrative to describe aspects and areas of the
facility. In some cases, "yes" and "no" were used in the checklist
table, but the absence of contextual or supporting information
leaves the reviewer unable to determine whether the yes/no is an
indication of satisfactory versus unsatisfactory condition or rather
only an indication that the aspect or area of the facility was
evaluated. More importantly, many inspection reports did not
make a connection between satisfactory versus unsatisfactory
performance-when indicated-and whether that performance
was in compliance with the permit. With respect to CAFOs, the
state documents a portion of its inspections using a one-page
checklist. Subsequent reviewers might find it difficult to make a
determination regarding facility compliance based on just the
information in this CAFO checklist. With respect to complaint
investigations, particularly those for stormwater, the state
documents its investigations using a narrative-only format that
did not always indicate clearly whether the facility was in
compliance with the subject matter alleged in the complaint.
State will modify inspection checklists and reports to clearly indicate deficiencies
and will continue using NOV letters and other mechanisms to notify entities of
violations. To be implemented by December 31, 2010.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 105

-------
Round
2
Long Term
Resolution
4/15/2012
CWA
E7
Identification
of Alleged
Violations
The state did not enter single-event violations (SEVs) in ICIS-
NPDES in FFY 2007 and has not yet begun doing so.
EPA will develop best practices for the entry of SEVs after completing the region's
first full year of SEV tracking. To be completed by December 31, 2010.
Round
2
Being
Negotiated
4/15/2012
CWA
E7
Identification
of Alleged
Violations
The state did not enter single-event violations (SEVs) in ICIS-
NPDES in FFY 2007 and has not yet begun doing so.
EPA will share the best practices with the state, at which time EPA and the state
will reconsider what the state can do to begin tracking SEVs for majors in ICIS-
NPDES. EPA will offer training if necessary. Information sharing and
reassessment to be conducted by June 30, 2011.
Round
2
Long Term
Resolution
4/15/2012
CWA
E8
Identification
of SNC and
HPV
EPA identified 4 distinct instances of SNC/HPV to which the state
did not respond through some type of enforcement mechanism.
Chief among those was non-reporting of SSOs by 3 high-priority
SSO communities. EPA found that all 3 communities are out of
compliance with their permit requirements for reporting SSOs. 2
of the 3 communities also did not comply with the state's request
to report SSOs semi-annually.
The state will report to EPA on the status of its efforts to modify the standard
language in NPDES permits for SSO violations. Status report due June 30, 2010.
Round
2
Completed
6/30/2010
CWA
E11
Penalty
Calculation
Method
The state did not have sufficient information in its files for 3 of the
5 judicial referrals that EPA reviewed to explain how the state
calculated recommended penalties for gravity and economic
benefit or to demonstrate that gravity and economic benefit were
incorporated into the final pleading penalty.
State will continue using its penalty calculation worksheet, for actions referred to
the Nebraska AG, to calculate gravity and economic benefit in a manner that is
consistent with national policy for economic benefit calculations. State will have a
dialog with its AG on the usefulness of the penalty worksheet and will report to
EPA on the status of sharing information with the AG on this matter. Status report
due June 30, 2010.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 106

-------
Appendix E: Program Overview
Agency Structure
All of Nebraska's NPDES permitting and compliance monitoring responsibilities belong to the
NDEQ Water Quality Division, while enforcement work is handled between the department's
Water Quality Division and Legal Services Division. Any NPDES judicial enforcement
activities in Nebraska, including all penalty actions, also involve the Attorney General (AG)
Office, as explained below. Local agencies do not assume any NPDES program administration
responsibilities in Nebraska.
NPDES permitting and compliance monitoring responsibilities of the Water Quality Division are
divided between the Agriculture Section and the Wastewater Section. The Agriculture Section
manages permitting and compliance at CAFOs, whereas the Wastewater Section manages those
same activities at facilities having all other NPDES permits (e.g. wastewater, pretreatment, and
stormwater). The Wastewater and Agriculture Sections have their compliance monitoring
resources spread among the central office in Lincoln and four field offices in Norfolk, Omaha,
North Platte, and Scottsbluff
Compliance and Enforcement Program Structure
As noted above, compliance and enforcement for the NPDES program resides entirely in the
Water Quality Division. Compliance and enforcement for other media programs likewise reside
in their respective program divisions.
Roles and Responsibilities
The Wastewater and Agriculture Sections of NDEQ both include a permitting and compliance
unit with the dual responsibilities of writing permits and monitoring compliance. Staff
responsibilities are arranged such that the permit writer and inspector for a given facility are
different individuals. Field office inspectors' coverage of facilities by county differs between the
Wastewater and Agriculture sections to reflect different demographics for municipal,
agricultural, and industrial dischargers.
Within the Wastewater Section are two individuals responsible for all permitting, compliance
assistance, and enforcement escalation for all of Nebraska's construction and industrial
stormwater sites and oversight of the state's MS4s. Monitoring compliance and responding to
complaints regarding stormwater pollution is handled by compliance staff assigned to the various
field offices.
When the Water Quality Division decides to escalate a case of non-compliance to formal
enforcement, the division sends an enforcement recommendation to the Legal Services Division,
which issues administrative compliance orders for all cases except those deemed worthy of a
penalty action. The state's constitution gives authority to collect penalties in NPDES cases to the
state AG, whose office issues any and all penalty orders within the judicial arena.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 107

-------
The guidance that NDEQ follows to ensure compliance and conduct enforcement is described in
the department's Enforcement Manual, which was last revised January 2002. To better
understand the state's protocol for escalating non-compliance to enforcement, EPA discussed
this matter with the Water Quality Division and Legal Services Division. For the purpose of this
program review, EPA's definition of informal enforcement includes NOVs, LOWs, Corrective
Action Required (CAR) letters, notices of incomplete DMRs, and similar warning letters.
Formal enforcement includes administrative compliance orders, judicial referrals, judicial
compliance and/or penalty orders, complaints, and consent decrees.
When violations of the Nebraska's Environmental Protection Act or the Livestock Waste
Management Act are discovered, state law requires that NDEQ "make every effort to obtain
voluntary compliance through warning, conference, or any other appropriate means prior to
initiating enforcement proceedings" unless an emergency exists. In the case of reporting
violations, for example, the state sends the facility a notice of missing information. CAFOs that
have minor deficiencies are sometimes sent CAR letters. If the attempt to voluntarily return the
facility to compliance does not succeed, or if the need for formal enforcement is anticipated upon
discovery of the violation, the state sends the facility a written NOV—or occasionally a less
formal LOW.
NDEQ's Enforcement Manual suggests a time limit of 90 days following discovery of a violation
to achieve voluntary compliance before escalation to enforcement should begin. For matters
rising to formal enforcement, the manual suggests that an administrative order or civil referral be
made within 180 days of discovery. Beyond these guidelines, the state had no standard protocol
in FFY 2007 for how decisions should be made and what criteria should be used to escalate a
case of non-compliance beyond an NOV or other unsuccessful voluntary effort. NDEQ is
currently contemplating how to accomplish enforcement escalation without relying only on case-
by-case judgments to address violations.
The Wastewater Section makes a distinction between high-priority and low-priority violations
that closely resembles the federal distinction between violations constituting SNC and those that
are non-SNC. Violations that belong in these two categories are described in the Enforcement
Manual separately for major facilities, minor facilities, and exempt facilities. This prioritization
of violations might guide the state's development of a protocol with criteria for making
enforcement escalation decisions.
When the Water Quality Division determines that a case merits formal enforcement, an
enforcement recommendation is forwarded to the Legal Services Division. This constitutes the
earliest point in the escalation process when the Legal Services Division becomes involved in a
case ultimately leading to formal enforcement. A staff attorney is then assigned to develop the
case and, if no penalty will be sought, to prepare an administrative order. If NDEQ determines
that a penalty is appropriate, the staff attorney prepares a proposed complaint and litigation
report, which includes a recommended penalty. These documents are then forwarded to the
office of the state Attorney General (AG), which determines an appropriate penalty amount and
prosecutes the case in the judicial arena. Because NDEQ does not have legal authority to assess
administrative penalties, all penalties must be assessed in the context of a civil or criminal
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 108

-------
judicial action taken by the AG. The AG has sole authority to issue a judicial compliance order
and/or assess penalties. If penalties are deemed appropriate, the amount of any negotiated
penalty is left to the discretion of the AG. NDEQ senior management is informed of the status of
actions referred to the AG's office, but staff in the Legal Services Division and the Water
Quality Division get inconsistent feedback regarding the basis for a final penalty assessment by
the AG's office.
According to EPA's discussion with NDEQ, the Legal Services Division formulates
recommended penalties based on input from the Water Quality Division and practical experience
regarding nature of the violation and magnitude of penalty likely to be palatable to the courts. In
its enforcement referral to Legal Services, the Water Quality Division develops recommended
penalties using the Civil Penalty Policy and Guidance found in the Enforcement Manual. The
policy provides guidance on the magnitude of penalty to be considered for each of four statutory
factors and three mitigating factors, and it articulates this guidance on a penalty computation
worksheet included in the enforcement referral.
Local Agencies Included and Excluded From Review
Nebraska does not have any local agencies involved in implementation of the NPDES program.
Resources
The Wastewater and Agriculture Sections, combined, have approximately 18 full-time equivalent
staff in the central Lincoln office who are funded by a CWA Section 106 grant from EPA, in
addition to section chiefs and unit supervisors. The two sections also have staff in the state's
field offices, with at least one compliance staff person responsible for wastewater inspections
and one for CAFO inspections in each of four field offices. Water Quality Division inspectors
perform, on average, approximately 60 inspections per year per person.
The Legal Services Division consists of four full-time attorneys. This number includes the
director of the division. The four attorneys are responsible for pursuing formal enforcement for
not just the CWA-NPDES program but for all of NDEQ's environmental programs.
Staffing and Training
To train new employees, the Water Quality Division provides a training manual containing
instructions on work flow, information tracking, and other agency requirements. New inspectors
take the EPA Permit Writer's Course and shadow seasoned inspectors for a short period after
joining the staff. The Legal Services Division provides occasional presentations on matters
germane to the enforcement process, such as record-keeping, photo documentation, and witness
preparation. All wastewater inspectors take the operator's certification course for treatment plant
operation.
Data Reporting Systems and Architecture
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 109

-------
The Water Quality Division of NDEQ uses four databases to track and report permitting,
compliance, and enforcement information under the NPDES program. ICIS is used for tracking
and reporting all permit and DMR information for facilities with effluent monitoring
requirements. Via direct entry into ICIS, NDEQ shares such data with EPA and tracks the
receipt and compliance of DMR data for violation identification.
The second database, the Integrated Information System (IIS), is an in-house system that the
division uses to track all correspondence with facilities as well as all compliance monitoring
activities, including dates and inspection reports. IIS also serves as the division's interface with
the agency's Records Management Section, providing a catalog to identify documents in facility
files. To track formal and informal enforcement actions, the state relies on a Microsoft Access
database. Items tracked include Notices of Violation (NOVs), responses to NOVs as requested
by the state and actually received from facilities, administrative compliance orders, penalty
referrals, and milestones associated with the issuance of formal orders and any required
injunctive relief. The final data system is a series of spreadsheets that NDEQ uses to track
general permit authorizations issued to industrial and construction stormwater permittees. This
system also tracks complaint investigations associated with stormwater permittees.
Although NDEQ is currently a direct user of ICIS, the department has the intention to eventually
transition toward batch status, whereby NDEQ will enter and track permit, compliance, and
enforcement data entirely into an in-house data system and batch that data to ICIS for the sole
purpose of federal reporting. NDEQ will not make this transition before 2014, which is the year
that Nebraska plans to have a data system in place to allow facilities to directly enter their own
monitoring data.
NDEQ is developing a permitting tool made available through an EPA grant, Tools for
Environmental Permitting, which it hopes to implement in September 2012. The tool will house
data to calculate WLAs and effluent limits to develop a standard-formatted permit document.
Eventually the permitting tool will upload effluent limits to ICIS once the permit becomes
effective.
NDEQ has always had well organized and maintained files that were complete and bound into
folders with indexes. Paper files were organized in three sets of folders for each facility: General
(G), Permit (P), Reports and Data (R). Sequential folders are marked as 0001 (oldest), 0002,
0003, etc. Bar codes on each file can be used to access all the information on the file, such as a
complete index of the documents in the file, check out history, etc.
Within the last year, NDEQ switched to an electronic record keeping database that uses
Enterprise Content Management (ECM) software. In the ECM system, no paper copies are
produced and no paper records are kept. Incoming documents are scanned and routed by
electronic means. In the future, all records will be easily accessible electronically, or may be
openly available on the NDEQ website.
Major State Priorities and Accomplishments
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 110

-------
Nebraska's priorities for NPDES enforcement are communicated in the Water Quality Division's
Enforcement Manual, as discussed above in the Roles and Responsibilities section. Priorities are
defined in terms of hierarchy of violation severity, ranging from low to high priority violations.
Priorities for NPDES compliance, and the state's activities to monitor and assure compliance, are
best discussed by NPDES program area. Following is a summary of NPDES compliance
priorities and activities for wastewater, pretreatment, stormwater, and CAFOs.
Wastewater
The core element of Nebraska's NPDES compliance and enforcement program is the state's
annual inspections of wastewater dischargers. NDEQ's inspection goal reflects federal
regulatory requirements. The state targets more than half of all major dischargers for a
comprehensive, non-sampling inspection annually. Starting in FFY 2011, NDEQ began using
the flexibility of federal Compliance Monitoring Strategy guidance to exchange the commitment
of inspecting a portion its majors for inspecting non-discharging lagoons, to ensure that such
facilities remain exempt from NPDES permit requirements. Therefore, the approved CMS
inspection goal for majors in FFY 2011 was not 100% as in past years, but rather 50%. For non-
major dischargers, the state conducts a comprehensive, non-sampling inspection at
approximately one-fifth of facilities each year, such that most if not all non-majors receive an
inspection every five years in accordance with CMS requirements.
To document inspections, NDEQ's inspectors across all regions of the state use some variation
of the department's wastewater treatment inspection. This form contains a list of entries for
information to characterize the facility and various aspects of permit compliance, and it
sometimes includes narrative to describe the overall compliance status of the facility.
A critical component in the state's process of screening NPDES permit violations is the review
of DMRs. According to the state, NDEQ reviews all incoming DMRs against what is expected
to be populated on the DMRs. If a DMR is significantly overdue or has been submitted with
missing information, NDEQ frequently sends the facility a 'notice of DMR omission/missing
information' in an attempt to promptly obtain missing data that is sometimes the result of a
facility oversight. Facilities typically respond promptly, according to NDEQ staff.
To facilitate more consistent and accurate use of DMRs by the state's facilities, the Wastewater
Section sends each new or reissued permit to the facility with a CD-ROM containing pre-
formatted custom DMRs for a complete permit cycle (i.e. five years). By providing each facility
all of the DMR forms it needs in advance, with each DMR reflecting the facility's monitoring
requirements, the state has prevented many monitoring and reporting violations that might have
otherwise occurred.
Pretreatment
The State of Nebraska was authorized to implement the Pretreatment program as a "403.10(e)"
state. This means that the state has elected to implement the entire program as both the approval
authority and the control authority, as it does not delegate Approved Pretreatment Programs to
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 111

-------
municipalities. Under the General Pretreatment Regulations, all cities with publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) of greater than 5 million gallons per day (mgd) are required to
develop a Pretreatment program that controls industrial discharges to its system. The state has
waived this requirement and shouldered the entire burden of implementation. Analogous to the 5
mgd requirement, the state has entered into 12 Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with its
larger cities. Responsibilities by these cities range from submitting annual reports with
summaries of industrial discharger's activities, to inspecting and sampling and sharing the results
with NDEQ. All permitting and enforcement activities are retained by the state.
As a 403.10(e) state, NDEQ is required to annually inspect, and independently determine
compliance through annual sampling, each of its Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). NDEQ
inspects each industry once per year and documents the inspection using the standard inspection
checklist used for NPDES inspections. Grab sampling is performed at each SIU by NDEQ
except for those SIUs in Omaha; through the MOU, the City of Omaha performs the sampling
and provides the data to NDEQ. All permitted SIUs were inspected and sampled in FFY 2011.
Stormwater
NDEQ's stormwater coordinator in the Wastewater Section is responsible for all compliance
monitoring and enforcement escalation for all of Nebraska's construction and industrial
stormwater sites and oversight of the state's MS4s. Nebraska's compliance monitoring for
construction stormwater consists primarily of investigations in response to complaints. Recently,
NDEQ initiated targeted inspections of construction and industrial sites for compliance
monitoring inspections. Each region is given a number of inspections to target each year.
Criteria used to prioritize targeted inspections include sites that are unauthorized and/or sites
with no controls.
The industrial stormwater permit was reissued on 7/1/2011. Notices of Intent to be covered
under this permit are still trickling in. NDEQ has issued approximately 500 authorizations for
the new permit whereas there were 1,200 authorizations under the previous permit. NDEQ
cannot be sure how many entities covered under the first industrial stormwater permit failed to
submit a Notice of Termination when their activities ceased. In addition to inspections in
response to complaints and targeted inspections, NDEQ also performs an abbreviated industrial
stormwater inspection whenever an inspection is scheduled at a facility that has either a core
NPDES or Nebraska Pretreatment Program permit as well as the general industrial stormwater
permit. Although the primary purpose of such inspections is to evaluate compliance with the
wastewater or pretreatment permit, inspectors always review the industrial stormwater SWPPP
and site inspections to determine if they are current. Sometimes they also perform a walk-
through of the exterior portions of the facility to determine if materials are exposed to
stormwater and if controls to prevent contamination of stormwater were present and adequate.
EPA includes an evaluation of this practice in Finding 6-2.
Aside from complaints dealing with construction sites, the focus of complaint investigations also
includes industrial sites subject to authorization under a stormwater general permit, although this
latter category is a small fraction of the whole. If the focus of a stormwater complaint lies within
the geographic jurisdiction of a permitted MS4, NDEQ forwards the complaint to the MS4 for
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 112

-------
follow-up. The compliance staff assigned to each region of the state investigate complaints, not
associated with an MS4, as they are received.
In FFY 2011, Nebraska did not have a mechanism for monitoring compliance of permitted MS4s
and had not yet conducted inspections or audits of MS4s. However, NDEQ has committed to
begin an MS4 inspection program in FFY 2012.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
General Information on CAFO Facilities:
The Agriculture Section of the Water Quality Division has responsibility for assuring NPDES
compliance at all permitted CAFOs in the state. EPA estimates that there are approximately
1,000 facilities (both permitted and unpermitted) that meet the definition of a CAFO, with more
than 300 of these having NPDES permits. During FFY 2011, the Agriculture Section completed
356 planned inspections of large and medium NPDES-permitted CAFOs, 247 inspections of
large unpermitted CAFOs, 266 inspections of medium unpermitted CAFOs, and 90 inspections
of Small Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs). The Agriculture Section, including staff in field
offices, also conduct investigations of discharges self-reported by facilities as well as discharges
alleged in citizen complaints.
NDEQ uses two different inspection checklists for planned CAFO and AFO inspections. The
first is a "Compliance Inspection Data Sheet," also known as the 'short form' checklist, which is
a one-page checklist with a section at the bottom available for remarks/comments. The other
format is a "Routine Inspection Checklist for Animal Feeding Operations". Also known as the
'long form' checklist, it is a four-page checklist with a section at the end available for comments.
NDEQ management indicated that the one-page checklist is used for smaller facilities or for
frequent inspections, with the 4 page format being completed once every 5 years at these
facilities.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 113

-------
Appendix F: SRF/PQR Correspondence
Included in this appendix are the following items of correspondence between EPA and NDEQ
concerning the SRF and PQR review and report:
•	Kickoff letter from EPA to NDEQ, sent February 27, 2012 (p. 115)
•	Draft report transmittal letter from EPA to NDEQ, sent August 10, 2012 (p. 121)
•	Initial comments from NDEQ on the draft report, sent November 28, 2012 (p. 124)
•	Second set of NDEQ comments on the draft report, sent March 14, 2013 (p. 163)
•	Permits correspondence - Water Treatment Plants (p. 172)
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 114

-------
Kickoff letter from EPA to NDEQ, sent February 27, 2012. (See next page)
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 115

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 7
901 NORTH 5TH STREET
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101
Pat Rice, Assistant Director	.. -FEB 2 7 2012
Nebraska Dept. ot Environmental Quality
1200 N St., Suite 400. The Atrium
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922
Dear Mr, Rice:
Through this letter, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 is initiating a review of
Nebraska's Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System enforcement program
and a follow-up to the Permit Quality Review. The HP A and the Nebraska Department ol Environmental
Quality recently determined that most of the review will take place April 16-19, 2012, in Lincoln, as
described herein.
The previous review of Nebraska's NPDES permitting and enforcement programs was conducted in
November 2008 anil consisted of parallel reviews of the two programs. During the next round of reviews
in 2012 through 2015, the EPA will further integrate permitting and enforcement reviews in all states.
However, because the EPA Headquarters and Region 7 offices recently conducted a Permit Quality
Review in Nebraska in April 2011, the present program review will consist of a modified Permit Quality
Review, conducted by Region 7 permitting program staff, and a review of Nebraska's NPDES
enforcement program in Federal Fiscal Year 2011 using the State Review Framework.
Enclosed is a proposed agenda for the enforcement review, which will begin with a review ol the
Nebraska Pretreatment Program by Paul Marshall in late February or early March on a date to be
arranged with you in the very near future. As discussed by the EPA and NDEQ stall, the pretreatment
review will occur separate from the other program components to accommodate scheduling constraints,
but the findings from the pretreatment review will be treated with the findings lor both the permitting
and SRF enforcement reports. The EPA NPDES permitting program slatt will submit a separate agenda
after consultation with the Nebraska NPDES permitting program. An exit briefing is scheduled on April
19 for us to discuss the major findings of the entire review with you.
Following are descriptions of what is entailed in the modified PQR and SRF enforcement review and the
responsibilities of the EPA and the NDEQ to prepare for the on-site review.
Permits Program Visit
The EPA will conduct a modified PQR of the Nebraska NPDES permitting program. Because a HQ
PQR was conducted in April 2011, this review will not focus on a core review of selected files or topic
specific reviews that are usually conducted during a PQR. Instead, this review will focus on a review ol
outstanding Action Items which are the result of previous PQRs and Regional Program Reviews, a
discussion on the status of the State's study on water treatment plants, a demonstration of the project
deliverable — Permitting for Environmental Results, a permit writing tool, and an evaluation of the State-
EPA Memorandum of Agreement. Consistent with the PQR. the review will also include discussions on
the state's current permitting process and the effect ECM and the permit writing tool has had on this
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 116

-------
process, staffing and resources, and training needs. The primary contact for the permitting review will be
Kimberly Hill, who works under the direction of Glenn Curtis in the Wastewater and Infrastructure
Management Branch. Ms. Hill will lead a team of program staff to discuss the state's program. Ms. Hill
can be reached at 913-551-7841.
Enforcement Review using the State Review Framework (SRF)
The EPA will conduct the review of Nebraska's NPDES enforcement program using the State Review
Framework Round 3 protocol. While this protocol closely resembles the Round 2 protocol, Region 7 has
made several modifications that it will begin implementing during the 2012 SRF cycle. One of these
changes involves an increase in the number of files reviewed that are associated with concentrated
animal feeding operations. Region 7 has assembled a team of managers and staff to implement the
review. The primary contact for the review will be Mike Boeglin, who works under the direction of
Diane Huffman in the Water Enforcement Branch. Mr. Boeglin will lead a team of program staff to
review files and discuss the state's program. The EPA Region 7 contact for overseeing the SRF
enforcement review across all three media programs (CAA Stationary Sources, CWA NPDES, and
RCRA Subtitle C) is Kevin Barthol, who works in the Region 7 Enforcement Coordination Office. Mr.
Boeglin can be reached at 913-551-7252 and Mr. Barthol at 913-551-7264.
Please read Enclosure #2 for more detailed information about the SRF Round 3 process. The first step
for EPA and NDEQ was to verify the official data set representing FFY 2011 activities, which has been
discussed separately with your staff and will be completed by the end of February 2012. At least one
week in advance of the pretreatment visit and at least three weeks prior to the main SRF visit in April,
we will transmit via email the list of files selected for the respective components.
We look forward to working with you on this project. Please direct any questions to the appropriate staff
contacts listed above.
Sincerely,
Karen A. Floumoy	fj
Director
Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division
Enclosures
1.	Proposed Agenda
2.	Information on the SRF Process
cc; Mike Under, Director, NDEQ
Steve Goans, NDEQ, Wastewater Section
Lisa Lund, EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Karl Brooks, EPA, Regional Administrator
Glenn Curtis, EPA, Wastewater and Infrastructure Management Branch
Diane Huffman, EPA, Water Enforcement Branch
Althea Moses, EPA, Enforcement Coordination Office
Wendy Luebbe, EPA, Program Operations and Integration
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 117

-------
ENCLOSURE#!
Review of Nebraska's NPDES Enforcement Program
Spring 2012
Lincoln, Nebraska
Proposed Agenda
Pretreatraent program review
Late February / Early March - dates to be determined
Remainder of NPDES Enforcement Program
Monday, April 16
Morning: Arrive in Lincoln approximately 1 lam
Introductions and overview of the week
Get oriented to work space
Afternoon: Begin reviewing files
Tuesday and Wednesday, April 17-18
All day: Programmatic dialog and interviews with NDEQ staff
o CAFOs
o Storm water
o Core program
o Outstanding action items from previous program review
o Data management and impending changes
o Enforcement response policies and internal escalation
Review files
Thursday. April 19
Morning: Finish reviewing files
EPA to caucus and consolidate findings
Afternoon: Exit conference proposed for 1pm
Return to Kansas' City
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 118

-------
Enclosure #2: Information on the SRF Process
In Federal Fiscal Years 2008-2011, EPA regions completed the second round of
compliance and enforcement reviews using the State Review Framework. All authorized
NPDES programs will be reviewed in FFY 2012-2015 using the SRF Round 3 protocol, which
was modified from the Round 2 process based on input from EPA Headquarters, Regions, and
State representatives. Nebraska will be the first state in Region 7 reviewed under SRF Round 3,
and we expect to complete the NPDES enforcement review, including the final report with any
negotiated action Items, by August 2012.
The SRF Round 3 process closely resembles the process used during the Round 2 review
in 2008. We will begin with an evaluation of data in the national data system that NDEQ entered
and maintained for FFY 2011, which NDEQ had an opportunity to review and critique during the
annual date verification process from December 2011 through February 2012. The next step in
the Round 3 process is selection of facility files for review and EPA's preparation for the on-site
review. The on-site review will consist of the following:
¦	Discussions between EPA and NDEQ staff regarding program management,
¦	Review of selected NDEQ inspection and enforcement files and policies, and
¦	Further examination of data in EPA and NDEQ date systems relative to what is found in
facility files.
The EPA will discuss the proposed facility file selections with NDEQ and transmit the
final selections to NDEQ at least one week in advance of the pretreatment program review in late
February or early March and three weeks in advance of the main component of the review in
April. The EPA expects the complete NPDES program file for a facility to include records for
permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement, to the extent that such records have been
created. We understand that Nebraska maintains all of these records in the central NDEQ office
and will be able to pull them for the review. To assist you in pulling together all relevant
records, we will include a checklist with the file selection list.
The EPA and NDEQ have the option of agreeing to examine components of the state's
program that broaden the scope of traditional enforcement. This may include initiatives such as
pollution prevention, compliance assistance, innovative approaches to achieving compliance,
supplemental environmental projects, or programs to document and report outputs, outcomes,
and indicators. We welcome NDEQ to suggest these or other such programs for inclusion in the
review.
Our intent is to assist NDEQ in achieving implementation of programs that meet federal
standards and are based on the goals and procedures we have agreed to in the NPDES
Memorandum of Agreement and Performance Partnership Grant Workplan. EPA Region 7
and NDEQ are partners in carrying out the review. If we find issues, we want to address them
in the most constructive manner possible.
Enclosure #2 •	Page 1 of2 ,
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 119

-------
Status of Outstanding Issues from the 2008 Enforcement Program Review
One component of the SRF Round 3 review is to evaluate the status of recommendations
and action items from the Round 2 review conducted in 2008, The EPA and NDEQ have made
progress since 2009 to complete 10 of the 15 action items in the Round 2 report, but 5 of the
action items remain unresolved and have been pegged for reevaluation during the Round 3
review. During the on-site review in April, the EPA and NDEQ will continue the conversation
on how to address the underlying program weaknesses that prompted the original findings and
recommendations. The 5 incomplete action items include the following:
•	Negotiation of acceptable language in the ICIS-NPDES sensitive access Rules of
Behavior, which will enable the state to enter new enforcement action data into the
national data system.
•	Entry of formal enforcement actions for majors and P.L. 92-500 non-majors.
•	Linkage of formal enforcement actions to underlying violations.
•	Entry of Single Event Violations in ICIS-NPDES for major facilities.
•	Modification of the standard language in NPDES permits for reporting of Sanitary Sewer
Overflows to the state.
Role of the SRF Tracker
EPA has designed the SRF Tracker as the repository for holding all SRF products
including the official data set, draft and final documents, letters, etc. It is also a management
tool used to track the progress of a state review and to follow-up on the recommendations. EPA
Regions will enter and update all information for their states in the SRF Tracker. The EPA
Headquarters - Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance will use the Tracker to
monitor implementation of the SRF Round 3. As stakeholders in the review, NDEQ staff are
encouraged to request access to the Tracker, where you can view and comment on state
information securely over the internet.
Please note that all information and materials used in this review may be subject to
federal and/or state disclosure laws. The EPA will release documents from the Round 3 process
in response to a properly submitted request under the Freedom of Information Act.
In addition, the EPA has posted SRF Round 2 reports, recommendations, and other products on
its public website and ultimately will do the same for Round 3.
Enclosure #2	Page 2 of 2
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 120

-------
Draft report transmittal letter from EPA to NDEQ, sent August 10, 2012. (See next page)
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 121

-------
UNITED -^ATi'S r 1J" j'>: .'7IP4 PROP i
AUG 1 0 2012
Matty I ink. Acting Assistant Director
Nebraska Dept. al l nv ironmental Quality
1200 N St., Suite -KM),'! he \trium
i incoin. Nebraska f>X50'>->W2r!
Dear Ms. Link:
Hrtelosed is the draft integrated report for the rinvironmental Protection Agency's rev iew of the
Nebraska National Pollutant Discharge Flimination System permitting and enforcement program for
Federal Fiscal Year 2011.1 lie program review was conducted April 1 (i-11>. 201 ?. usiny the Permit
Quality Review and Stale Rev iew Framework. The findings in the report re Heel what was discussed
during the program review exit conference on April 1'i as well as additional findings made upon doing
further analysis. With this transmittal, the id'A is requesting >our response to the llndirtgs and
recontniendations contained in the report.
As we discussed during the exit conference, Nebraska's NPDFS program has notable strengths and has
improved in several areas since the last program review. 1 he Nebraska Department of Pnvironmeutal
Qualilj has .signilkantlv reduced its overall permit backlog since and has improved the etiir> and
accuracy of permit and Discharge Monitoring Report data in the national database. I he skill*, ol
NDlA.J's wa.Nieuatei inspectors are enhanced through the training required to maintain treatment plant
operator certification. An ulvvavx Nl)l ON recordkeeping .-astem performs to the highest standards.
I he Fl'A also identified parts of Nebraska's Nl'Dl-S program needing improvement, winch von will
find in three sections of the report, t "nder Common Findings. PQR Action Items, and SRF Findings, the
report describes the tvpes of improvements that the HP A envisions as being appropriate to resolve each
finding. As part of v our response, please expand upon these general descriptions bv providing moie
specific actions with aggressive and realistic milestones. We welcome uhi to insert suggested actions
into the corresponding sections of the report. l:pon reviewing vour response, we will work with voti to
establish agreeable language for a final report, With exceptions for anv actions that inav require a long-
term commitment of resources, we request that all actions he planned lot completion h\ the end of I I Y
2014.
I he 1:1'A anticipates finalizing the teport within the next fill days. Please submit voui response to the
recommendations, along with anv comments or clarifications of the llndings. \\ ithin the next 4? dav s.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 122

-------
If \ou has v am questions or would like additional information, please contact Kimbcrly Hill at (913)
551-7x4] regarding the FOR or Mike Boeglin at (913) 551-7252 regarding the SRF,
cc: Mike Under. Director. NDH,)
lorn 1 amherson, Deput} Director. NDhH
l'at Rice. NDFQ
Steve Ciouns. NDliQ. Wastewater Section
Glenn Curtis. l-.I'A. Wastewater awl Infrastructure Management Branch
Diane Huffman. liPA, Water Inforccment Branch
Althea Moses, I/PA. Knforcement (."iHmlittatkm Office
Wend> l.ucbbe, HPA. Program Operations and Integration
Sincere!}.
Karen A. Flourno)
-Director
\\ 'ater. Wetlands and Pesticides Division
Enclosure
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 123

-------
Initial comments from NDEQ on the draft report, sent November 28, 2012.
Nebraska Note to Reviewers
for
State Review Framework
and
Integrated Clean Water Act Permit Quality Review
(SRF/PQR)
A copy of the SRF/PQR follows as well as a copy of the SRF/PQR in revision mode so the
reviewer can identify changes throughout the document. The use of RED strikethrough is for
deletions and	underscore is for insertions. We also identified comments with the
statement: "State Comments" and "State Response" and with * to mark a reference location in
the livestock comments in appendix J of the SRF/PQR.
Nebraska commented in the locations identified for a state response in the SRF and Section V.
Action Items in the PQR. In addition, we commented throughout the document and in Appendix
J: SRF File Review Summaries Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations adding corrections
and responses. Many of these comments are repeated in the sections identified for our response.
However, we did not comment on the tables and in several other locations of the SRF/PQR.
These appear to be repeated or summarized information from other locations in the document.
Nebraska has attached draft Standard Conditions (Attachment A), resampling and slug load
language (Attachment B), pollutant scan letters with pollutant list (Attachment C and D) and the
Livestock Discharge Investigation Report Checklist (Attachment E) which should address some
of the comments in the SRF/PQR. We have already sent a draft MOA for your review and have
drafted changes to our pretreatment regulations to start the regulatory change process.
If you have questions about Nebraska's comments please contact Steven M .Goans, P.E. at (402)
471-2580 or e-mail at steve.goans@nebraska.gov
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 124

-------
Attachment A of NDEQ's initial comments on draft report - draft Standard Conditions
Appendix A
Conditions applicable to all NPDES permits
Hie following conditions apply to all NPDES permits. t	
1.	Information Available
a. All permit applications, fact sheets, permits, discharge data, monitoring reports, and any
public comments concerning such shall be available to the public for inspection and
copying, unless such information about methods or processes is entitled to protection as
trade secrets of the owner or operator under Neb. Rev. Stat. $81-1527. (Reissue 1999)
and NDEO Title 115. Chapter 4.
2	.	Duty to Comply
a.	The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance
constitutes a violation of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Applicable State Statues
and Regulations and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination,
revocation and reissuance, or modification; or denial of a permit renewal application.
b.	The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under
section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants and with standards for sewage
sludge use or disposal established under section 405(d) of the CWA within the time
provided in the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions or standards for
sewage sludge use or disposal, even if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate
the requirement.
3.	Violations of this permit
a.	Any person who violates this permit may be subject to penalties and sanctions as
provided by the Clean Water Act.
b.	Any person who violates this permit may be subject to penalties and sanctions as
provided bv the Nebraska Environmental Protection Act.
*	I
4.	Duty to Reapply
a. If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration
date of this permit, the permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit.
5.	Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense
a. It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been
necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the
conditions of this permit.
6.	Duty to Mitigate
Deleted: Additional conditions applicable to
NPDES permits are in § 122.42. All conditions
applicable to NPDES permits shall be incorporated
into the permits either expressly or by reference. If
incorporated by reference, a specific citation to these
regulations (or the corresponding approved State
regulations) must be given in the permit.
Deleted: |
(2)	The Clean Water Act provides that any person
who violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or
405 of the Act, or any permit condition or limitation
implementing any such sections in a permit issued
under section 402, or any requirement imposed in a
pretreatment program approved under sections
402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of the Act, is subject to a civil
penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each
violation. The Clean Water Act provides that any
person who negligently violates sections 301, 302,
306,307,308, 318, or 405 of the Act, or any
condition or limitation implementing any of such
sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the
Act, or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment
program approved under section 402(a)(3) or
402(b)(8) of the Act, is subject to criminal penalties
of $2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation, or
imprisonment of not more than 1 year, or both. In the
case of a second or subsequent conviction for a
negligent violation, a person shall be subject to
criminal penalties of not more than $50,000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 2
years, or both. Any person who knowingly violates
such sections, or such conditions or limitations is
subject to criminal penalties of $5,000 to $50,000
per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more
than 3 years, or both. In the case of a second or
subsequent conviction for a knowing violation, a
person shall be subject to criminal penalties of not
more than $100,000 per day of violation, or
imprisonment of not more than 6 years, or both. Any
person who knowingly violates section 301, 302,
303,306,307, 308,318 or 405 of the Act, or any
permit condition or limitation implementing any of
such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of
the Act, and who knows at that time that he thereby
places another person in imminent danger of death or
serious bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be
subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or
imprisonment of not more than 15 years, or both. In
the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a
knowing endangerment violation, a person shall be
subject to a fine of not more than $500,000 or by
imprisonment of not more than 30 years, or both. An
organization, as defined in section 309(c)(3)(B)(iii)
of the CWA, shall, upon conviction of violating the
imminent danger provision, be subject to a fine of
not more than $ 1,000,000 and can be fined up to
$2,000,000 for second or subsequent convictions.'|
(3)	Any person may be assessed an administrative
penalty by the Administrator for violating section
301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of this Act, or
any permit condition or limitation implementing any
of such sections in a permit issued under section 402
of this Act. Administrative penalties for Class I
violations are not to exceed $10,000 per violation,
with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty
assessed not to exceed $25,000. Penalties for Class II
violations are not to exceed $10,000 per day for each
day during which the violation continues, with th^
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 125

-------
a. The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or
sludge use or disposal in violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of
adversely affecting human health or the environment.
7.	Proper Operation and Maintenance
a. The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of
treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the
permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and
maintenance also includes effective performance based on designed facility removals-
effective management, adequate operator staffing and training, adequate process controls.
adequate funding that reflects proper user fee schedules, adequate laboratory controls and
appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-
up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed by a permittee only when
the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit.
8.	Permit Actions
a. This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing of
a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or
termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not
stay any permit condition.
9.	Property Rights
a. This permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege.
10.	Duty to Provide Information
a. The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable time, any information
which the Director may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying,
revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit or to determine compliance with this
permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Director upon request, copies of records
required to be kept by this permit.
11.	Inspection and Entry
a. The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative (including an
authorized contractor acting as a representative of the Administrator), upon presentation
of credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to:
i)	Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or
conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
ii)	Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the
conditions of this permit;
iii)	Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and
control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit;
and
iv)	Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit
compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act, any substances or
parameters at any location.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 126

-------
12.	Monitoring and Records
a.	Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be representative of
the monitored activity.
b.	Except for records of monitoring information required by this permit related to the
permittee's sewage sludge use and disposal activities, which shall be retained for a period
of at least five years (or longer as required by 40 CFR part 503), the permittee shall retain
records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records
and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies
of all reports required by this permit, and records of all data used to complete the
application for this permit, for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the sample,
measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the
Director at any time.
c.	Records of monitoring information shall include:
i)	The datef si exact place, _time and methods of sampling or measurements;	Deleted: and	]
ii)	The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
iii)	The date(s) analyses were performed;
iv)	The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
v)	The analytical techniques or methods used; and
vi)	The results of such analyses.
d.	Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved under NDEO Title
119. Chapter 27 002j.mless another method is required under 40 CFR subchapters N-	Deleted: 40 cfr Part 136	]
Effluent Guidelines and Standards Parts 425 to 471 or O- Sewer Sludge Parts 501 and
503.
e.	Falsities. Tampers, or Knowingly Renders Inaccurate
i)	On actions brought by EPA. The Clean Water Act provides that any person who
falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or
method required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon convictionj_be
punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 2
years, or both. If a conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first
conviction of such person under this paragraph, punishment is a tine of not more than
$20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 4 years, or both.
ii)	On action brought by the State. The Nebraska Environmental Protection Act provides
that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any
monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon
conviction: be punished pursuant to Neb. Stat. §81-1508.01.
13.	Signatory requirement
a. All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Director shall be signed and
certified. ¥	
i) All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
(a) For a corporation
(i) By a responsible corporate officer: For the purpose of this section, a
responsible corporate officer means:
Deleted: (See § 122.22)
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 127

-------
(a)	A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in
charge of a principal business function, or any other person who
performs similar policy or decision-making functions for the
corporation, or
(b)	The manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating
facilities, provided, the manager is authorized to make management
decisions which govern the operation of the regulated facility
including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major capital
investment recommendations, and initiating and directing other
comprehensive measures to assure long term environmental
compliance with environmental laws and regulations; the manager can
ensure that the necessary systems are established or actions taken to
gather complete and accurate information for permit application
requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate
procedures.
(b)	For a partnership or sole proprietorship
(i) By a general partner or the proprietor.
(c)	For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency
(i) By either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. For
purposes of this section, a principal executive officer of a Federal agency
includes:
(a)	The chief executive officer of the agency, or
(b)	A senior executive officer having responsibility for the overall
operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency (e.g., Regional
Administrators of EPA).
Reports and Other Information
i) All reports required by permits, and other information requested by the Director
shall be signed by a person described in this section [paragraphsl2. a. i) (a),(b), or
(c)], or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly
authorized representative only if:
(a)	The authorization is made in writing by a person described in paragraphs 12.
a. i) (a),(b), or (c);
(b)	The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity such
as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or a well field,
superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or
position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the
company, (a duly authorized representative may thus be either a named
individual or any individual occupying a named position) and;
(c)	The written authorization is submitted to the Director.
Changes to Authorization
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 128

-------
i) If ail authorization of paragraphs 12. a. i) (a),(b), or (c);is no longer accurate
because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall
operation of the facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of this
section must be submitted to the Director prior to or together with any reports,
information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative.
d.	Certification
i) All applications, reports and information submitted as a requirement of this permit
shall contain the following certification statement:
(a) I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were
prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed
to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,
or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the
information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,
and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
e.	False Statement, Representation, or Certification
i)	The CWA provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement,
representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required
to be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of
compliance or non-compliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not
more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 6 months per
violation, or by both.
ii)	The Nebraska Environmental Protection Act provides criminal penalties and
sanctions for false statement, representation, or certification in any application, label.
manifest, record, report, plan, or other document required to be filed or maintained by
the Environmental Protection Act, the Integrated solid waste Management Act, or the
Livestock Waste Management Act or the rules or regulations adopted and
promulgated pursuant to such acts.
14. Reporting Requirements
a. Planned Changes
i) Hie permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned
physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is required only
when:
(a)	The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria
for determining whether a facility is a new source inTitle 119. Chapter 4 and	Deleted: § 122.29(b);
8J3r
(b)	The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the
quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification applies to pollutants which
are subject neither to effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification
requirements under .Title 119. Chapter 15.	Deleted: § 122.42(a)(1).	]
(c)	The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the permittee's
sludge use or disposal practices, and such alteration, addition, or change may
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 129

-------
justify the application of permit conditions that are different from or absent in
the existing permit, including notification of additional use or disposal sites
not reported during the permit application process or not reported pursuant to
an approved land application plan; The sludge program is not delegated to the
State so notification to the Regional Administrator for EPA in addition to the
State are required.
Anticipated Noncompliance
i) Hie permittee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes in
the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit
requirements.
Transfers
i) This permit is not transferable to any person except after notice to the Director.
The Director may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit
to change the name of the permittee and incorporate such other requirements as
may be necessary under .Title 119. Chapter 24 in some cases, modification or
revocation and reissuance is mandatory,	
Monitoring Reports
i)	Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified elsewhere in this
permit.
ii)	Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) or
forms provided or specified by the Director
iii)	Monitoring results shall be submitted on a quarterly basis using the reporting
schedule set forth below, unless otherwise specified in this permit or by the
iv)	Jor reporting results of monitoring of sludge use or disposal practices additional
reports may be required by the Regional Administrator (RA).
v)	If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by the
permit using test procedures approved in Title 119, Chapter 27, Section 002, or
another method required for an industry-specific waste stream under 40 CFR
subchapters N - Effluent Guidelines and Standards Parts 425 to 471 and
subchapter or O- Sewer Sludge Parts 501 and 503. the results of such monitoring
shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the
DMR or sludge reporting form specified by the Director or RA.
Department.
Monitoring Quarters DMR Reporting Deadlines
January - March
April - June
July - September
October - December
January 28
April 28
July 28
October 28
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 130

-------
vi) Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall
utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified by the Director in the
permit.
e.	Compliance schedules.
i) Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress reports on, interim
and final requirements contained in any compliance schedule of this permit shall
be submitted no later than 14 days following each schedule date.
f.	Twenty-four hour reporting.
i)	The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger human health
or the environment. Any information shall be provided orally within 24 hours
from the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. A written
submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes
aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall contain a description of
the noncompliance and its cause; the period of noncompliance, including exact
dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated
time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate,
and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
ii)	The following shall be included as information which must be reported within 24
hours under this paragraph.
(a)	Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit..	Deleted: (see § 122.41(g).
(b)	Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit.
(c)	Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants
listed by the Director in the permit to be reported within 24 hours.tDeleted: (see § 122.44(g).)
g.	The Director may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis for reports under
^ection_j_4. f. ii~) (al fb) and ("cl if the oral report has been received within 24 hours.	Deleted: paragraph ®(6)(ii) of this
h.	Other noncompliance,
i) The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under
paragraphs _d., e., and f. of this section, at the time monitoring reports are	
submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in paragraph£_ of this
section.
i.	Other information
i) Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a
permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in
any report to the Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
j.	Noncompliance Report Forms
i) Noncompliance Report Forms are available from the Department and shall be
submitted with or as the written non-compliance report.
Deleted: (1) (4), (5), and (6)
Deleted: (1)(6)
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 131

-------
ii) The submittal of a written noncompliance report does not relieve the
permittee of any liability from enforcement proceedings that may result
from the violation of permit or regulatory requirements.
15. Bypass
a. Definitions.
i)	Bypass means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a
treatment facility.
ii)	Severe property damage means substantial physical damage to property, damage
to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial
and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to
occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean
economic loss caused by delays in production.
b.	Bypass not exceeding limitations. The permittee may allow any bypass to occur
which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it also is for
essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to
the provisions of paragraphs 15. c. and d. of this section.
c.	Notice.
i)	Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it
shall submit prior notice, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass.
ii)	Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated
bypass as required in paragraph 14. f. of this section (24-hour notice).
d.	Prohibition of bypass.
i) Bypass is prohibited, and the Director may take enforcement action against a
permittee for bypass, unless:
(a)	Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe
property damage;
(b)	There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary
treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during
normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if
adequate back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of
reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during
normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and
(c)	The permittee submitted notices as required under paragraph 15. c. of this
section.
e.	The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects,
if the Director determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in
paragraph J 5^j_i)(a),_(bX and (c),		Deleted: (mx4xi)	]
Deleted: of this section
16. Upset
a.
Definition.
i) Upset means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and
temporary noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 132

-------
because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does
not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly
designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
b.	Effect of an upset.
i) An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for
noncompliance with such technology based permit effluent limitations if the
requirements of paragraph 16. c. of this section are met. No determination made
during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was caused by upset,
and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to
judicial review.
c.	Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset.
i)	A permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall
demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other
relevant evidence that:
ii)	An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset;
iii)	Hie permitted facility was at the time being properly operated; and
iv)	The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in paragraph, 14. f. ii) (a),	Deleted: nxoxiixB)	]
of this section (24 hour notice).
v)	The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under paragraph (d)
of this section.
d.	Burden of proof.
i]	In any enforcement proceedings the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence
of an upset has the burden of proof.
17.	Other Rules and Regulations Liability
a. The issuance of this permit in no way relieves the obligation of the permittee to
comply with other rules and regulations of the Department.
18.	Severability
a. If any provision of this permit is held invalid, the remainder of this permit shall not be
affected.
Other Conditions that Apply to NPDES and NPP Permits
19.	Land Application of Wastewater Effluent
a. The permittee shall be permitted to discharge treated domestic wastewater effluent by
means of land application in accordance with the regulations and standards set forth
in NDEO Title 119, Chapter 12 002. The Wastewater Section of the Department must
be notified in writing if the permittee chooses to land apply effluent.
20.	Toxic Pollutants
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 133

-------
a. The permittee shall not discharge pollutants to waters of the state that cause a
violation of the standards established inNDEO Titles 117. 118 or 119. All discharges
to surface waters of the state shall be free of toxic (acute or chronic) substances which
alone or in combination with other substances, create conditions unsuitable for
aquatic life outside the appropriate mixing zone.
21.	Oil and Hazardous Substances/Spill Notification
a. Nothing in this permit shall preclude the initiation of any legal action or relieve the
permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities or penalties under section 311 of the
Clean Water Act. The permittee shall conform to the provisions set forth in NDEO
Title 126. Rules and Regulations Pertaining to the Management of Wastes. If the
permittee knows, or has reason to believe, that oil or hazardous substances were
released at the facility and could enter waters of the state or any of the outfall
discharges authorized in this permit, the permittee shall immediately notify the
Department of a release of oil or hazardous substances. During Department office
hours (i.e.. 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday, except holidays),
notification shall be made to the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality at
telephone numbers (402) 471-2186 or (877) 253-2603 (toll free). When NDEO
cannot be contacted, the permittee shall report to the Nebraska State Patrol for referral
to the NDEO Immediate Response Team at telephone number (402) 471-4545. It
shall be the permittee's responsibility to maintain current telephone numbers
necessary to carry out the notification requirements set forth in this paragraph.
22.	Removed Substances
a.	Solids, sludge, filter backwash or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment
or control of wastewater shall be disposed of at a site and in a manner approved bv
the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.
i)	Hie disposal of nonhazardous industrial sludges shall conform to the standards
established in or to the regulations established pursuant to 40 CFR. Part 257.
ii)	Hie disposal of sludge shall conform to the standards established in or to the
regulations established pursuant to 40 CFR. Part 503.
iii)	If solids are disposed of in a licensed sanitary landfill, the disposal of solids shall
conform to the standards established in NDEO Title 132.
b.	Publicly owned treatment works shall dispose of sewage sludge in a manner that
protects public health and the environment from any adverse effects which may occur
from toxic pollutants as defined in Section 307 of the Clean Water Act.
c.	This permit may be modified or revoked and reissued to incorporate regulatory
limitations established pursuant to 40 CFR. Part 503.
23.	Representative Sampling
a. Samples and measurements taken as required within this permit shall be
representative of the discharge. All samples shall be taken at the monitoring points
specified in this permit and, unless otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is
diluted bv any other waste stream, body of water or substance. Monitoring points
shall not be changed without notification to the Department and with the written
approval of the Director.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 134

-------
i)	Composite sampling shall be conducted in one of the following maimers
(a) Continuous discharge - a minimum of one discrete aliquot collected every
three hours.
("b) Less than 24 hours - a minimum of hourly discrete aliauots or a continuously
drawn sample shall be collected during the discharge, or
(c) Batch discharge - a minimum of three discrete aliauots shall be collected
during each discharge.
ii)	Composite samples shall be collected in one of the following manners:
(a) The volume of each aliquot must be proportional to either the waste stream
flow at the time of sampling or the total waste stream flow since collection of
the previous aliquot.
("b) A number of equal volume aliquots taken at varying time intervals in
proportion to flow.
(c) A sample continuously collected in proportion to flow, and
iii)	Where flow proportional sampling is infeasible or non-representative of the
pollutant loadings, the Department may approve the use of time composite
samples.
iv)	Grab samples shall consist of a single aliquot collected over a time period not
exceeding 15 minutes.
b.	All sample preservation techniques shall conform to the methods adopted in NDEO
Title 119. Chapter 21 006 unless:
i)	In the case of sludge samples, alternative techniques are specified in the 40 CFR.
Part 503. or
ii)	Other procedures are specified in this permit.
c.	Flow Measurements
i) Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted
scientific practices shall be used to insure the accuracy and reliability of
measurements. The devices shall be installed, calibrated and maintained to insure
that the accuracy of the measurements. The accepted capability shall be consistent
with that type of device. Devices selected shall be capable of measuring flows
with a maximum deviation of +/- 10%. Hie amount of deviation shall be from the
true discharge rates throughout the range of expected discharge volumes.
Guidance can be obtained from the following references for the selection-
installation. calibration and operation of acceptable flow measurement devices:
24. Changes of Loadings to Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW)
a. All POTWs must provide adequate notice to the Director of the following:
i)	Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger
which would be subject to NDEO Title 119. Chapter 26. if it were directly
discharging those pollutants: and
ii)	Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced
into that POTW bv a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of
issuance of the permit.
iii)	For purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on the
quality and quantity of effluent introduced into the POTW. and any anticipated
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 135

-------
impact of the change on the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from
the POTW.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 136

-------
A. Definitions
Administrator: The Administrator of the USEPA.
Aliquot: An individual sample having a minimum volume of 100 milliliters that is collected
either manually or in an automatic sampling device.
Annually: Once every calendar year.
Authorized Representative: Individual or position designated the authorization to submit
reports, notifications, or other information requested by the Director on behalf of the Owner
under the circumstances that the authorization is made in writing by the Owner, the
authorization specifies the individual or postion who is duly authorized, and the authorization
is submitted to the Director.
Bimonthly: Once every other month.
Biosolids: Sewage sludge that is used or disposed through land application, surface disposal.
incineration, or disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill.
Biweekly: Once every other week.
Bypass: The intentional diversion of wastes from any portion of a treatment facility.
Certifying Official: See Section 13. Standard Conditions above.
Daily Average: An effluent limitation that cannot be exceeded and is calculated by averaging
the monitoring results for any given pollutant parameter obtained during a 24-hour day.
Department: Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.
Director: The Director of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.
Industrial Discharge: Wastewater that originates from an industrial process and / or is
noncontact cooling water and / or is boiler blowdown.
Industrial User: A source of indirect discharge (a pretreatment facility).
Monthly Average: An effluent limitation that cannot be exceeded. It is calculated by averaging
any given pollutant parameter monitoring results obtained during a calendar month.
Operator: A person (often the general contractor) designated bv the owner who has day to day
operational control and/or the ability to modify project plans and specifications related to the
facility.
Owner: A person or party possessing the title of the land on which the activities will occur: or if
the activity is for a lease holder, the party or individual identified as the lease holder: or the
contracting government agency responsible for the activity.
Outfall: A discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe,
ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, or container from which pollutants are
or may be discharged into Waters of the State.
Passive Discharge: A discharge from a POTW that occurs in the absence of an affirmative
action and is not authorized bv the NPDES permit (e.g. discharges due to a leaking valve,
discharges from an overflow structure) and / or is a discharge from an overflow structure not
designed as part of the POTW (e.g. discharges resulting from lagoon berm / dike breaches).
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW): A treatment works as defined bv Section 212 of
the Clean Water Act (Public Law 100-4) which is owned bv the state or municipality,
excluding any sewers or other conveyances not leading to a facility providing treatment.
Semiannually: Twice every year
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 137

-------
Significant Industrial User (SILT): All industrial users subject to Categorical Pretreatment
Standards or any industrial user that unless exempted under Chapter 1. Section 105 of
NDEO Title 119. discharges an average of 25.000 gallons per day or more of process water:
or contributes a process waste stream which makes up 5 percent or more of the average dry
weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW; or is designated as such by the Director
on the basis that the industrial user has a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the
POTW's operation or for violating any National Pretreatment Standard or requirement.
Sludge: Any solid, semisolid, or liquid waste generated from a municipal, commercial,
or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution
control facility or any other such waste having similar characteristics and effect.
30-Dav Average: An effluent limitation that cannot be exceeded. It is calculated by averaging
any given pollutant parameter monitoring results obtained during a calendar month.
Total Toxic Organics (TTO): The summation of all quantifiable values greater than 0.01
milligrams per liter ("mg/1) for toxic organic compounds that may be identified elsewhere in
this permit. ("If this term has application in this permit, the list of toxic organic compounds
will be identified, typically in the Limitations and Monitoring Sectionf s) and/or in an
additional Appendix to this permit.)
Toxic Pollutant: Those pollutants or combination of pollutants, including disease causing
agents, after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into an
organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly bv ingestion through food chains
will, on the basis of information available to the administrator, cause death, disease,
behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunction (including
malfunctions in reproduction) or physical deformations in such organisms or their offspring.
Upset: An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with technology based permit effluent limitations because of factors bevond the reasonable
control of the permittee, excluding such factors as operational error, improperly designed or
inadequate treatment facilities or improper operation and maintenance or lack thereof.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): The summation of all quantifiable values greater than
0.01 milligrams per liter fmg/1) for volatile, toxic organic compounds that may be identified
elsewhere in this permit. ("See the definition for Total Toxic Organics above. In many
instances. VOCs are defined as the volatile fraction of the TTO parameter. If the term
"VOC" has application in this permit, the list of toxic organic compounds will be identified,
typically in the Limitations and Monitoring Sectionf s) and/or in an additional Appendix to
this permit.)
Waters of the State: All waters within the jurisdiction of this state including all streams, lakes.
ponds, impounding reservoirs, marshes, wetlands, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs,
irrigation systems, drainage systems, and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface
and underground, natural or artificial, public or private, situated wholly or partly within or
bordering upon the state.
Weekly Average: An effluent limitation that cannot be exceeded. It is calculated bv averaging
any given pollutant parameter monitoring results obtained during a fixed calendar week. The
permittee may start their week on any weekday but the weekday must remain fixed. The
Department approval is required for any change of the starting day.
"X" Day Average: An effluent limitation defined as the maximum allowable "X" day average
of consecutive monitoring results during any monitoring period where "X" is a number in the
range of one to seven days.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 138

-------
B. Abbreviations
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
kg/Dav: Kilograms per Day
MGD: Million Gallons per Day
mg/L: Milligrams per Liter
NOI: Notice of Intent
NDEO: Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
NDEO Title 115: Rules of Practice and Procedure
NDEO Title 117: Nebraska Surface Water Quality Standards
NDEO Title 118: Ground Water Oualih' Standards and Use Classification
NDEO Title 119: Rules and Resulations Pertainins to the Issuance of Permits under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NDEO Title 126: Rules and Resulations Pertainins to the Management of Wastes
NDEO Title 132: Intezrated Solid Waste A fanasementResulations
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPP: Nebraska Pretreatment Program
POTW: Publicly Owned Treatment Works
ug/L: Micrograms per Liter
WWTF: Wastewater Treatment Facility
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 139

-------
Attachment B of NDEQ's initial comments on draft report- Pretreatment Conditions and Requirements
Part I. Other Conditions and Requirements
A.	Prohibited Discharge Standards
In accordance with NDEQ Title 119, Chapter 26, the facility discharge shall not cause the
introduction of pollutants into the POTW which will interfere with the operation of the POTW,
including interference with its use or disposal of municipal sludge; shall not introduce pollutants into
the POTW which will pass through the treatment works or otherwise be incompatible with such
works; and not reduce opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal and industrial wastewaters and
sludges.
Discharges authorized under this permit:
1.	Shall not create a fire or explosion hazard in the publicly owned treatment works (POTW);
2.	Shall not cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW;
3.	Shall not cause obstruction to the flow in the collection system;
4.	Shall not cause interference or process upset at the treatment facility including slug loads;
5.	Shall not contain heat in amounts that can inhibit biological activity at the POTW;
6.	Shall not result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within a POTW in a quantity that may
cause acute worker health and safety problems;
7.	Shall not contain petroleum oil, non-biodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in
amounts that will cause interference or pass through; and
8.	Shall not include trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the POTW. Prior
approval shall be obtained from the Department and the appropriate POTW.
B.	Notification of Additional Pollutant Potential
The Department and the appropriate POTW shall be notified prior to any system changes, production
increases and/or the use of any new chemicals or additives that may result in a significant increase in
the discharge of pollutants.
C.	Reporting Results below Detection Limitation
The minimum detection limit (MDL) is defined as the minimum level at which the analytical system
gives acceptable calibration points. If the analytical results are below the MDL, then the reported
value on the DMR shall be a numerical value less than the MDL. For example, if the MDL is equal
to 0.005 and sample analysis finds the concentration in the sample to be less than the MDL, the
result should be reported as <0.005.
D.	Notification of City POTW
The permittee shall submit copies of all Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) and non-compliance
reports to the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality and to the appropriate contact at the
City Publicly Owned Treatment Works. This includes the immediate and 24 hour reporting
requirements set forth in Appendix A, Part D. Contact addresses and telephone numbers current at
the time of permit development are listed in the following paragraphs:
NPDES Permits and Compliance Unit
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality	City of
1200 N Street, The Atrium, Suite 400	PO Box
P.O. Box 98922	, Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922	Telephone Number
Telephone Number (402) 471-4220
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 140

-------
E.	Wastes Trucked or Hauled to the POTW
Prior Departmental and city approval shall be obtained for any waste and wastewater disposal
practice that involves the trucking or hauling of waste to the POTW.
F.	Best Management Practices
The permittee shall employ Best Management Practices for identifying and minimizing potential
pollutant loading sources being discharged. The practices shall address processes as well as
maintenance and management procedures that include, but not limited to, material storage and
handling, employee training, recordkeeping, cleaning procedures, water conservation, and spill
prevention.
G.	Additional Monitoring
The Department may require increases in the monitoring frequencies set forth in this permit to
address new information concerning a discharge, evidence of potential non-compliance, suspect
water quality in a discharge, evidence of water quality impacts in the receiving stream or waterway,
or other similar concerns.
The Department may require monitoring for additional parameters not specified in this permit to
address new information concerning a discharge, evidence of potential non-compliance, suspect
water quality in a discharge, evidence of water quality impacts in the receiving stream or waterway,
or other similar concerns.
H.	Effluent Violation Repeat Sampling
The permittee shall conduct or repeat sampling and analysis and submit the results of the repeat
analysis to the Department within 30 days of becoming aware of the violation. The results of the
repeat analysis must be submitted with a copy of the previously submitted noncompliance form.
I.	Notice of Potential Problems
All categorical and non-categorical Industrial Users shall notify the POTW immediately of all
discharges that could cause problems to the POTW, including any slug loadings.
J. Sludge Disposal or Use
The permittee shall dispose of all solid wastes and sludges in accordance with the Department's
regulations, and shall get Departmental approval prior to land applying any waste.
K. Permit Modification, Reopening, Suspension, and Revocation
This permit may be reopened and modified after public notice and opportunity for a public hearing
may be requested for reasons specified in NDEQ Title 119 - Rules and Regulations Pertaining to the
Issuance of Permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Chapter 24. This
permit may be modified or revoked pursuant to this regulation, including violations of discharge
limits or the Prohibited Discharge Standards set forth in this permit.
L. Modification of Attachments
The attachments to this permit (e.g. forms and guidance) may be changed without a formal
modification of this permit.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 141

-------
M. TO Certification
The permittee may certify compliance with the Total Toxic Organic (TTO) parameter in lieu of
testing using the following procedure, unless the Department specifically requests monitoring:
1.	Develop a toxic organic management plan;
2.	Submit the toxic organic management plan to the Department for review and acceptance;
3.	Make revisions to the plan as requested by the Department;
4.	Annually review the plan and submit any revisions to the Department for review and
acceptance;
5.	Provide the following certification statement on or, as an attachment to, the discharge monitoring
reports.
"Based upon my inquiry of the person or persons directly responsible for managing
compliance with the permit limitation for total toxic organics (TTO), I certify that, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, no dumping of concentrated toxic organics into the
wastewaters has occurred since filing of the last discharge monitoring report. I further
certify that this facility is implementing the toxic organic management plan submitted to
the NPDES Program at the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality."
The TTO certification is valid for the term of the permit. The permittee must recertify compliant
with the TTO parameter within 180 days after permit reissuance or begin sampling in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the permit. TTO sampling and analysis must be conducted and
reported to the Department. This submission must include analysis results and a copy of the updated
Toxic Organic Management Plan.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 142

-------
Attachment C of NDEQ's initial comments on draft report - Municipal Pollutant Scan Letter and List
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pollutant Screen
RE:
NDEQ ID:
Program ID: PCS NE
Dear
The Clean Water Act regulations promulgated under 40 CFR 122.21 requires all publically owned
treatment works (POTWs) to provide data from a minimum of three samples taken within four and one-
half years prior to the date of the permit application. Samples must be representative of the seasonal
variation in the discharge from each outfall and the analytical results provided with the NPDES permit
application. At a minimum, all POTWs must provide analytical results for the following pollutants:
•	Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD-5 or CBOD-5)
•	Fecal coliform (unless E. coli is a current permit requirement)
•	Design Flow Rate
•	pH
•	Temperature
•	Total suspended solids
POTWs with an effluent design flow equal to or greater than 0.1 million gallons per day (MGD) must additionally
sample for:
•	Ammonia (as N)
•	Chlorine (total residual, TRC), if chlorine is used for disinfection
•	Dissolved oxygen
•	Nitrate/Nitrite
•	Kjeldahl nitrogen
•	Oil and grease
•	Phosphorus
•	Total dissolved solids
If the POTW has an effluent design flow equal to or greater than 0.1 MGD or the permittee is a city with
an approved pretreatment program, Attachment 1. Additional Pollutant Monitoring for Selected POTWs,
is provided.
All POTWs are required to submit NPDES Combined Form 1 & 2 A, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit Application for a Facility Discharging Domestic Wastewater six months
prior to permit expiration. These requirements must be met at that time and the analytical results
attached. If any pollutants listed above or in Attachment 1 are monitored in the accompanying NPDES
permit, redundant sampling will not be necessary. If you have questions, please feel free to call me at
402-471-1367.
Sincerely,
Reuel Anderson, Supervisor
NPDES Permits and Compliance Unit
Water Quality Division
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 143

-------
Attachment 1. Additional Pollutant Monitoring for Selected POTWs
The permittee shall monitor the effluent for the parameters set forth in the Tables below using the
analytical methods in 40 CFR 136. The monitoring is required during the current permit term and the
analytical data obtained from the monitoring shall be submitted as an attachment to the next NPDES
permit application.
Table 1: Metals Monitoring
Parameters
Units
Effluent
Data
Analytical
method
Method
detection
limit
Monitoring
Frequency (h)
Sample
Type
Antimony, Total Recoverable
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Arsenic, Total Recoverable
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Beryllium, Total Recoverable
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Cadmium, Total Recoverable
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Chromium, Total Recoverable
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Copper, Total Recoverable
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Lead, Total Recoverable
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Mercury, Total Recoverable
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Nickel, Total Recoverable
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Selenium, Total Recoverable
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Silver, Total Recoverable
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Thallium Total Recoverable
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Zinc, Total Recoverable
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Footnotes
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 144

-------
Tsihle 2: lnor»nnic C ompounds
Piii'ii mclcrs
1 nils
i: in nc in
l);il;i
\nal> lical
mclhud
Mclhud
deleclinii
11 mi l
Moiiiuiiiim
.. .i>.
1 ia|iienc>
Sample
T\ pe
Cyanide
mg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Chloride
mg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Total Phenolic Compounds
mg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Hardness, as CaC03
mg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
I'luiiiKiies
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 145

-------
Tiihk>3: YOC Monitoring
Paraim'krs
1 Mils
1! I'll lie ill
Dala
\nal> lical
inelhod
Mclliod
dckVlKHl
limn
\K)iiiUiiiim
.. .i>.
1 ia|iienc>
Sample
T\ |V
Acrolein
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Acrylonitrile
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Benzene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Bromoform
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Chlorobenzene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Chlorodibromomethane
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Chloroethane
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
2-Choroethylvinyl Ether
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Chloroform
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Dichorobromo methane
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
1,1 -Dichloroethane
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
1.2-Dichloroethane
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
I'luiiiKiies
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 146

-------
Tsihk'4: YOC Monitoring
Piii'iiiiKMors
1 Mils
1! I'll lie ill
Dala
\nal> lical
inelhod
Method
dckvlinii
limn
Moiiiioi'iim
.. .i>.
1 ia|iienc>
Sample
T\ |V
1,1 -Dichroethylene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
1,2-Dichloropropane
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
1,3 -Dichloropropylene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Ethylbenzene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Methyl Bromide
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Methyl Chloride
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Methylene Chloride
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Tetrachloroethylene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Toluene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Trichloroethylene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Vinyl Chloride
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
I'luiiiKiies
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 147

-------
Tsihle?: Acid Kxlnicliihlc Com pounds
Piii'iiimMors
1 Mils
i; iti no mi
\n;il> lic;il
inelhod
Mcllmil
dekVlKHI
lllllll
\K)iiiUiiiim
.. .1'.
1 ¦ia|iiciic\
S;imple
T\ |V
p-Chloro-m-Cresol
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
2-Chlorophenol
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
4,6-Dinitro-o-Cresol
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
2,4-Dintrophenol
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
2-Nitrophenol
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
4-Nitrophenol
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Pentachlorophenol
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Phenol
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
I'lUillKilCS
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 148

-------
Tiihlcft: Usise Neuli nl Coin pounds
Para mil its
1 Mils
1 Til no ill
l);il;i
\nal> lical
mcllmil
Moll mil
lIckVlKHl
li mil
\K)iiiUiiiim
.. .i>.
1 ia|iiene>
Sample
T\ pe
Acenaphthene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Acenaphthylene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Anthracene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Benzidine
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Benzo(a)anthracene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Benzo(a)pyrene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
3,4 Benzo-fluoranthene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Bis (2-chloroethoxy)methane
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Bis (2-chloroethyl)ether
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Bis (2-chlorosiopropyl)ether
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
4-bromophenyl phenylether
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
hmiimies
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 149

-------
Tsihle 7: liiiso Nculml Coin pounds
Pill'illlKMlTS
1 Mils
1! III lie ill
Dala
\nal> lical
inelhod
Mclliod
dckVlKHI
limn
\K)iiiUiiiim
.. .i>.
1 ia|iienc>
Sample
T\ |V
2-Chloronaphthalene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
4-Chorphenyl phenyl ether
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Chrysene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Di-N-butyl phthalate
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Di-N-octyl phthalate
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Dibenzo(A,H) anthracene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
1,2-Dichorobenzene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Diethyl phthalate
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Dimethyl phthalate
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
2,6-Dinitrotolune
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
I'luiiiKiies
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 150

-------
Tiihlctt: liiiso Neuli nl Coin pounds
Piii'ii mclcrs
1 Mils
1! I'll lie ill
Dala
\nal> lical
inelhod
Method
dckvliim
limn
Moiiiioi'iim
.. .i>.
1 ia|iienc>
Sample
T\ |V
Fluoranthene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Fluorene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Hexachlorobenzene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Hexachloroethane
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Indeno( 1,2,3 -CD)pyrene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Isophorone
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Naphthalene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Nitrobenzene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
N-nitro sodimethy lamine
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Phenanthrene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
Pyrene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hg/L
Report
Report
Report
3 tests per
permit term
24 hour
composite
I'luiiiKiies
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 151

-------
Attachment D of NDEQ's initial comments on draft report - Industrial Pollutant Scan Letter and Lists
Jeff Briggs
Green Plains Ord, LLC
9420 Underwood Ave. STE 100
Omaha, NE 68814
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pollutant Screen
RE: Green Plains Ord, LLC
NDEQ ID: 85861
Program ID: PCS NE0137812
Dear Mr. Briggs
The Clean Water Act regulations promulgated under 40 CFR 122.21 requires dischargers to sample their effluent
for a specific list of pollutants and provide the analytical results with the NPDES permit application. Direct
dischargers of process wastewater must provide effluent data in accordance with Attachment 1, Sampling and
Analysis Requirements for Process Wastewater Discharges for the NPDES Permit Renewal Application. Direct
dischargers of non-process wastewater must provide effluent data in accordance with Attachment 2, Sampling
and Analysis Requirements for Non-Process Wastewater Discharges for the NPDES Permit Renewal
Application. The requirements must be completed for each outfall as applicable.
All permittees are required to submit the NPDES application six months prior to permit expiration. The above
requirements must be met at that time and the analytical results attached. If any pollutants listed above or in the
attachments are monitored in the accompanying NPDES permit, redundant sampling will not be necessary. If you
have questions, please feel free to call me at 402-471-1367.
Sincerely,
Reuel Anderson, Supervisor
NPDES Permits and Compliance Unit
Water Quality Division
Attachments:	Attachment 1, Sampling and Analysis Requirements for Process Wastewater Discharges
for the NPDES Permit Renewal Application
Attachment 2, Sampling and Analysis Requirements for Non-Process Wastewater
Discharges for the NPDES Permit Renewal Application.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 152

-------
Attachment 1 - Sampling and Analysis Requirements for Process Wastewater Discharges for the NPDES
Permit Renewal Application
Except for stormwater discharges, all manufacturing, commercial, mining and silvicultural dischargers applying
for NPDES permits which discharge process wastewater shall provide the information in Section A through to the
Department.
A.	General Required Sampling and Analysis
Every applicant must report quantitative data for every outfall directly discharging process wastewater for the
following pollutants:
1.	Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
2.	Chemical Oxygen Demand
3.	Total Organic Carbon
4.	Total Suspended Solids
5.	Ammonia (as N)
6.	Temperature (both winter and summer)
7.	pH
The Director may waive the reporting requirements for individual point sources or for a particular
industry category for one or more of the pollutants listed in Section A if the applicant has demonstrated
that such a waiver is appropriate because information adequate to support issuance of a permit can be
obtained with less stringent requirements.
B.	Industry Specific Sampling and Analysis
Each applicant with processes in one or more primary industry category (see Section C) contributing to a
discharge must report quantitative data for the following pollutants in each outfall containing process wastewater:
1.	The organic toxic pollutants in the fractions designated in Table I for the applicant's industrial category or
categories unless the applicant qualifies as a small business under paragraph (g)(8) of 40 CFR 122.21.
Table II lists the organic toxic pollutants in each fraction. The fractions result from the sample preparation
required by the analytical procedure which uses gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. A determination
that an applicant falls within a particular industrial category for the purposes of selecting fractions for
testing is not conclusive as to the applicant's inclusion in that category for any other purposes (see Part D).
2.	The pollutants listed in Table III (the toxic metals, cyanide, and total phenols).
3.	Each applicant must indicate whether it knows or has reason to believe that any of the pollutants in Table
IV (certain conventional and nonconventional pollutants) is discharged from each outfall. If an applicable
effluent limitations guideline either directly limits the pollutant or, by its express terms, indirectly limits
the pollutant through limitations on an indicator, the applicant must report quantitative data. For every
pollutant discharged which is not so limited in an effluent limitations guideline, the applicant must either
report quantitative data or briefly describe the reasons the pollutant is expected to be discharged.
4.	Each applicant must indicate whether it knows or has reason to believe that any of the pollutants listed in
table II or table III (the toxic pollutants and total phenols) for which quantitative data are not otherwise
required under paragraph (g)(7)(v) of 40 CFR 122.21 are discharged from each outfall. For every
pollutant expected to be discharged in concentrations of 10 ppb or greater the applicant must report
quantitative data. For acrolein, acrylonitrile, 2,4 dinitrophenol, and 2-methyl-4, 6 dinitrophenol, where
any of these four pollutants are expected to be discharged in concentrations of 100 ppb or greater the
applicant must report quantitative data. For every pollutant expected to be discharged in concentrations
less than 10 ppb, or in the case of acrolein, acrylonitrile, 2,4 dinitrophenol, and 2-methyl-4, 6
dinitrophenol, in concentrations less than 100 ppb, the applicant must either submit quantitative data or
briefly describe the reasons the pollutant is expected to be discharged. An applicant qualifying as a small
business under paragraph (g)(8) of 40 CFR 122.21 is not required to analyze for pollutants listed in table
II (the organic toxic pollutants).
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 153

-------
Each applicant must indicate whether it knows or has reason to believe that any of the pollutants in table
V (certain hazardous substances and asbestos) are discharged from each outfall. For every pollutant
expected to be discharged, the applicant must briefly describe the reasons the pollutant is expected to be
discharged, and report any quantitative data it has for any pollutant.
Each applicant must report qualitative data, generated using a screening procedure not calibrated with
analytical standards, for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) if it:
a.	Uses or manufactures 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5,-T); 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)
propanoic acid (Silvex, 2,4,5,-TP); 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy) ethyl, 2,2-dichloropropionate (Erbon);
0,0-dimethyl 0-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl) phosphorothioate (Ronnel); 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (TCP); or
hexachlorophene (HCP); or
b.	Knows or has reason to believe that TCDD is or may be present in an effluent.
C. Applicable Primary Industry Categories
Adhesives and sealants
Ore mining
Aluminum forming
Organic chemicals manufacturing
Aluminum forming
Paint and ink formulation
Auto and other laundries
Pesticides
Battery manufacturing
Petroleum refining
Coal mining
Pharmaceutical preparations
Coil coating
Photographic equipment and supplies
Copper forming
Plastics processing
Electrical and electronic components
Plastic and synthetic materials manufacturing
Electroplating
Porcelain enameling
Explosives manufacturing
Printing and publishing
Foundries
Pulp and paper mills
Gum and wood chemicals
Rubber processing
Inorganic chemicals manufacturing
Soap and detergent manufacturing
Iron and steel manufacturing
Steam electric power plants
Leather tanning and finishing
Textile mills
Mechanical products manufacturing
Timber products processing
Nonferrous metals manufacturing

SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 154
5.
6.

-------
Table I—Testing Requirements for Organic Toxic Pollutants by Industrial Category for Existing
Dischargers
Industrial category
Volatile
GC/MS Fraction1
Acid Base/neutral
Pesticide
Adhesives and Sealants
2
2
2

Aluminum Forming
2
2
2

Auto and Other Laundries
2
2
2
2
Battery Manufacturing
2

2

Coal Mining
2
2
2
2
Coil Coating
2
2
2

Copper Forming
2
2
2

Electric and Electronic Components
2
2
2
2
Electroplating
2
2
2

Explosives Manufacturing

2
2

Foundries
2
2
2

Gum and Wood Chemicals
2
2
2
2
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
2
2
2

Iron and Steel Manufacturing
2
2
2

Leather Tanning and Finishing
2
2
2
2
Mechanical Products Manufacturing
2
2
2

Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
2
2
2
2
Ore Mining
2
2
2
2
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
2
2
2
2
Paint and Ink Formulation
2
2
2
2
Pesticides
2
2
2
2
Petroleum Refining
2
2
2
2
Pharmaceutical Preparations
2
2
2

Photographic Equipment and Supplies
2
2
2
2
Plastic and Synthetic Materials Manufacturing
2
2
2
2
Plastic Processing
2



Porcelain Enameling
2

2
2
Printing and Publishing
2
2
2
2
Pulp and Paper Mills
2
2
2
2
Rubber Processing
2
2
2

Soap and Detergent Manufacturing
2
2
2

Steam Electric Power Plants
2
2
2

Textile Mills
2
2
2
2
Timber Products Processing
2
2
2
2
'The toxic pollutants in each fraction are listed in Table II.
2Testing required.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 155

-------
Table II—Organic Toxic Pollutants in Each of Four Fractions in Analysis by Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectroscopy (GS/MS)
Volatiles
IV acrolein
11V chloroform
22V methylene chloride
2V acrylonitrile
12V dichlorobromomethane
23 V 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
3V benzene
14V 1,1-dichloroethane
24V tetrachloroethylene
5V bromoform
15V 1,2-dichloroethane
25V toluene
6V carbon tetrachloride
16V 1,1-dichloroethylene
26 V 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
6V carbon tetrachloride
17V 1,2-dichloropropane
27 V 1,1,1-trichloroethane
7V chlorobenzene
18V 1,3-dichloropropylene
28V 1,1,2-trichloroethane
8V chlorodibromomethane
19V ethylbenzene
29V trichloroethylene
9V chloroethane
20V methyl bromide
31V vinyl chloride
10V 2-chloroethylvinyl ether
21V methyl chloride

Acid Compounds
1A 2-chlorophenol
5A 2,4-dinitrophenol
9A pentachlorophenol
2A 2,4-dichlorophenol
6A 2-nitrophenol
10A phenol
3A 2,4-dimethylphenol
7A 4-nitrophenol
11A 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
4A 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
8A p-chloro-m-cresol

Base/Neutral
IB acenaphthene
17B 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
32B fluorene
2B acenaphthylene
18B chrysene
33B hexachlorobenzene
3B anthracene
19B dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
34B hexachlorobutadiene
4B benzidine
20B 1,2-dichlorobenzene
35B hexachlorocyclopentadiene
5B benzo(a)anthracene
2 IB 1,3-dichlorobenzene
36B hexachloroethane
6B benzo(a)pyrene
22B 1,4-dichlorobenzene
37B indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
7B 3,4-benzofluoranthene
23B 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
38B isophorone
8B benzo(ghi)perylene
24B diethyl phthalate
39B napthalene
9B benzo(k)fluoranthene
25B dimethyl phthalate
40B nitrobenzene
10B bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
26B di-n-butyl phthalate
4IB N-nitrosodimethylamine
11B bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
27B 2,4-dinitrotoluene
42B N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
12B bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
28B 2,6-dinitrotoluene
43B N-nitrosodiphenylamine
13B bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
29B di-n-octyl phthalate
44B phenanthrene
14B 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
3 OB 1,2-diphenylhydrazine (as
azobenzene)
45B pyrene
15B butylbenzyl phthalate
46B 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
16B 2-chloronaphthalene
3 IB fluroranthene

Pesticides
IP aldrin
10P dieldrin
19P PCB-1254
2P alpha-BHC
IIP alpha-endosulfan
20P PCB-1221
3P beta-BHC
12P beta-endosulfan
21P PCB-1232
4P gamma-BHC
13P endosulfan sulfate
22P PCB-1248
5P delta-BHC
14P endrin
23P PCB-1260
6P chlordane
15P endrin aldehyde
24P PCB-1016
7P 4,4'-DDT
16P heptachlor
25P toxaphene
8P 4,4'-DDE
17P heptachlor epoxide

9P 4,4'-DDD
18P PCB-1242

SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 156

-------
Table IV—Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants Required to Be Tested by Existing Dischargers if
Expected to be Present
Bromide
Phosphorus, Total
Boron, Total
Chlorine, Total Residual
Radioactivity
Cobalt, Total
Color
Sulfate
Iron, Total
Fecal Coliform
Sulfide
Magnesium, Total
Fluoride
Sulfite
Molybdenum, Total
Nitrate-Nitrite
Surfactants
Manganese, Total
Nitrogen, Total Organic
Aluminum, Total
Tin, Total
Oil and Grease
Barium, Total
Titanium, Total
Table V—Toxic Pollutants and Hazardous Substances Required To Be Identified by Existing Dischargers if
Expected To Be Present
Toxic Pollutants
Asbestos


Hazardous Substances
Acetaldehyde
Dintrobenzene
Nitrotoluene
Allyl alcohol
Diquat
Parathion
Allyl chloride
Disulfoton
Phenolsulfanate
Amyl acetate
Diuron
Phosgene
Aniline
Epichlorohydrin
Propargite
Benzonitrile
Ethion
Propylene oxide
Benzyl chloride
Ethylene diamine
Pyrethrins
Butyl acetate
Ethylene dibromide
Quinoline
Butylamine
Formaldehyde
Resorcinol
Captan
Furfural
Strontium
Carbaryl
Guthion
Strychnine
Carbofuran
Isoprene
Styrene
Carbon disulfide
Isopropanolamine
Dodecylbenzenesulfonate
2,4,5-T (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy
acetic acid)
Chlorpyrifos
Coumaphos
Kelthane
TDE (Tetrachlorodiphenylethane)
Cresol
Kepone
2,4,5-TP [2-(2,4,5-
Trichlorophenoxy) propanoic acid]
Crotonaldehyde
Malathion
Cyclohexane
Mercaptodimethur
Trichlorofan
2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic
acid)
Methoxychlor
T riethanolamine
dodecylbenzenesulfonate
Methyl mercaptan
Diazinon
Methyl methacrylate
Triethylamine
Dicamba
Methyl parathion
T rimethylamine
Dichlobenil
Mevinphos
Uranium
Dichlone
Mexacarbate
Vanadium
2,2-Dichloropropionic acid
Monoethyl amine
Vinyl acetate
Dichlorvos
Monomethyl amine
Xylene
Diethyl amine
Naled
Xylenol
Dimethyl amine
Napthenic acid
Zircon
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 157

-------
D. Suspensions
The Environmental Protection Agency has suspended the requirements of 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(ii)(A) and Table I
as they apply to certain industrial categories. The suspensions are as follows:
1.	At 46 FR 2046, Jan. 8, 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency suspended until further notice
§ 122.2l(g)(7)(ii)(A) as it applies to coal mines.
2.	At 46 FR 22585, Apr. 20, 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency suspended until further notice
§ 122.2 l(g)(7)(ii)(A) and the corresponding portions of Item V-C of the NPDES application Form 2c as
they apply to:
a.	Testing and reporting for all four organic fractions in the Greige Mills Subcategory of the Textile
Mills industry (Subpart C—Low water use processing of 40 CFR part 410), and testing and reporting
for the pesticide fraction in all other subcategories of this industrial category.
b.	Testing and reporting for the volatile, base/neutral and pesticide fractions in the Base and Precious
Metals Subcategory of the Ore Mining and Dressing industry (subpart B of 40 CFR part 440), and
testing and reporting for all four fractions in all other subcategories of this industrial category.
c.	Testing and reporting for all four GC/MS fractions in the Porcelain Enameling industry.
3.	At 46 FR 35090, July 1, 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency suspended until further notice
§ 122.2 l(g)(7)(ii)(A) and the corresponding portions of Item V-C of the NPDES application Form 2c as
they apply to:
a.	Testing and reporting for the pesticide fraction in the Tall Oil Rosin Subcategory (subpart D) and
Rosin-Based Derivatives Subcategory (subpart F) of the Gum and Wood Chemicals industry (40 CFR
part 454), and testing and reporting for the pesticide and base/netural fractions in all other
subcategories of this industrial category.
b.	Testing and reporting for the pesticide fraction in the Leather Tanning and Finishing, Paint and Ink
Formulation, and Photographic Supplies industrial categories.
c.	Testing and reporting for the acid, base/neutral and pesticide fractions in the Petroleum Refining
industrial category.
d.	Testing and reporting for the pesticide fraction in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategories (subparts J and
U) of the Pulp and Paper industry (40 CFR part 430); testing and reporting for the base/neutral and
pesticide fractions in the following subcategories: Deink (subpart Q), Dissolving Kraft (subpart F),
and Paperboard from Waste Paper (subpart E); testing and reporting for the volatile, base/neutral and
pesticide fractions in the following subcategories: BCT Bleached Kraft (subpart H), Semi-Chemical
(subparts B and C), and Nonintegrated-Fine Papers (subpart R); and testing and reporting for the acid,
base/neutral, and pesticide fractions in the following subcategories: Fine Bleached Kraft (subpart I),
Dissolving Sulfite Pulp (subpart K), Groundwood-Fine Papers (subpart O), Market Bleached Kraft
(subpart G), Tissue from Wastepaper (subpart T), and Nonintegrated-Tissue Papers (subpart S).
e.	Testing and reporting for the base/neutral fraction in the Once-Through Cooling Water, Fly Ash and
Bottom Ash Transport Water process wastestreams of the Steam Electric Power Plant industrial
category.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 158

-------
4. For the duration of the suspensions, therefore, Table I effectively reads:
Table I—Testing Requirements for Organic Toxic Pollutants by Industry Category
GC/MS fraction2
	Industry category	Volatile Acid Neutral Pesticide
Adhesives and sealants	1 1 1
Aluminum forming	1 1 1
Auto and other laundries	l l l	l
Battery manufacturing
Coal mining
Coil coating
Copper forming
Electric and electronic compounds	l l l	l
Electroplating
Explosives manufacturing
Foundries
Gum and wood (all subparts except D and F)
Subpart D—tall oil rosin
Subpart F—rosin-based derivatives
Inorganic chemicals manufacturing
Iron and steel manufacturing
Leather tanning and finishing
Mechanical products manufacturing
Nonferrous metals manufacturing	i i i	i
Ore mining (applies to the base and precious metals/Subpart B)
Organic chemicals manufacturing	i i i	i
Paint and ink formulation
Pesticides	i i i	i
Petroleum refining
Pharmaceutical preparations
Photographic equipment and supplies
Plastic and synthetic materials manufacturing	l l l	l
Plastic processing
Porcelain enameling
Printing and publishing	i i i	i
Pulp and paperboard mills—see Page C8
Rubber processing
Soap and detergent manufacturing
Steam electric power plants
Textile mills (Subpart C—Greige Mills are exempt from this table)
Timber products processing	l l l	l
'Testing required.
2The pollutants in each fraction are listed in Table II.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 159

-------
Pulp and Paperboard Mills:
GS/MS fractions
Subpart3	VOA Acid	Base/neutral	Pesticides
A 2
1 2
1
B 2
1 2
2
C 2
1 2
2
D 2
1 2
2
E 1
1 2
1
F 1
1 2
2
G 1
1 2
2
H 1
1 2
2
I 1
1 2
2
J 1
1 1
2
K 1
1 2
2
L 1
1 2
2
M 1
1 2
2
N 1
1 2
2
0 1
1 2
2
P 1
1 2
2
Q 1
1 2
1
R 2
1 2
2
S 1
1 2
1
T 1
1 2
1
U 1
1 1
2
1 Must test.
2Do not test unless "reason to believe" it is discharged.
3Subparts are defined in 40 CFR Part 430.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 160

-------
Attachment 2
Sampling and Analysis Requirements for Non-Process Wastewater Discharges for the NPDES
Permit Renewal Application
Except for stormwater discharges, all manufacturing, commercial, mining and silvicultural dischargers
applying for NPDES permits which discharge only non-process wastewater not regulated by an effluent
limitations guideline or new source performance standard shall provide the information in Section A and
B to the Department.
E.	Required Sampling and Analysis for Permit Renewal
Quantitative data for the pollutants or parameters listed below is required, unless testing is waived by the Director.
The quantitative data may be data collected over the past 365 days, if they remain representative of current
operations, and must include maximum daily value, average daily value, and number of measurements taken. The
applicant must collect and analyze samples in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136. When analysis of pH,
temperature, residual chlorine, oil and grease, or fecal coliform (including E. coli), and Enterococci (previously
known as fecal streptococcus) and volatile organics is required, grab samples must be collected for those
pollutants. For all other pollutants, a 24-hour composite sample, using a minimum of four (4) grab samples, must
be used unless specified otherwise at 40 CFR Part 136. For a composite sample, only one analysis of the
composite of aliquots is required. New discharges must include estimates for the pollutants or parameters listed
below instead of actual sampling data, along with the source of each estimate. All levels must be reported or
estimated as concentration and as total mass, except for flow, pH, and temperature.
1.	Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5).
2.	Total Suspended Solids (TSS).
3.	Fecal Coliform (if believed present or if sanitary waste is or will be discharged).
4.	Total Residual Chlorine (if chlorine is used).
5.	Oil and Grease.
6.	Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (if non-contact cooling water is or will be discharged).
7.	Total Organic Carbon (TOC) (if non-contact cooling water is or will be discharged).
8.	Ammonia (as N).
9.	Discharge Flow.
10.	pH.
11.	Temperature (Winter and Summer).
The Director may waive the testing and reporting requirements for any of the pollutants or flow listed above if the
applicant submits a request for such a waiver before or with his application which demonstrates that information
adequate to support issuance of a permit can be obtained through less stringent requirements.
F.	New Discharges
If the outfall is a new discharge, the applicant must complete and submit quantitative data for the above
parameters no later than two years after commencement of discharge. However, the applicant need not
submit data for parameters which he has already monitored and reported under the discharge monitoring
requirements of his NPDES permit.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 161

-------
Attachment E of NDEQ's initial comments on draft report - Livestock Discharge Investigation Report
ATTACHMENT E
DISCHARGE INVESTIGATION REPORT
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
INVESTIGATED BY!
DATE DISCHARGE REPORTED: ,
date(s) Of discharge: #1: .
#2:,
BATE OF INVESTIGATION:
time:
time:
TIME OF investigation: .
n a.m. o ?m-
Q a.m. O p-m-
	 D A.M. Q p.m.
IEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE LOCATION:
. Section	Township,	N, Range.
. 	, SECTION	, TOWNSHIP		N, RANGE,
~E Qw
~e Qw
County
County
NAME Of OPERATION:
1!S#
CONTACT PERSON (ON-SITE):_
owner's address: ___
title:
cmr/sTATE/ziP:.
phone;
e-mail:
DOES THE OPERATION HAVE A PERMIT? [JyTS QnO PERMIT TYPE(s): ,
NAME OF PERSON REPORTING DISCHARGE:,
IS THIS PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATION? QyES QnO
IF YES, ASSOCIATION WITH OPERATION: _____
DETAILS OF DISCHARGE
1. WHEN DID THE discharge occur? (rain, night, land application, eft J:.
2.	What was responsible or caused the discharge? 			
3.	Where did the discharge originate and terminate? (attach map).
4.	Describe the nature of the discharge and how it occurred. 			
5, Was the start pump and pre-winter level reached before the discharge? _
6, Is THE STAFF GAUGE CORRECT?_
SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION:
~not IN IIS OR UNKNOWN
Phone:(
Signature of investigator(s) .
DATE SIGNED:
7/2011
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 162

-------
Second set of NDEQ comments on the draft report, sent March 14, 2013.
Zq: $Zrj D-avc Ileknenum
:, 4 .¦ i '.I:.*
Leriexa, KS 65213	1"""'		
RE: Nebraska Second Round Comments
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit Guali;y Review [PQR) and
State Review Framework (SRF)
~ear Mr. Brooks:
In April 2012 EPA Rogion VII started the PQR'SRF combined review of the Nebraska
NPDES program. A draft, report was sent to Nebraska for comment in August 2012.
Nebraska submitted a response and supporting documents in November 2012,
In our response we requested a meeting with the SRF group to clarify some comments
The meeting was held in January 2013 and allowed for a better understanding of the
issues and what is needed to satisfy these issues. We received some modified
comments from EP.A after this meeting and our attached response is based an these
comments. The attached document, SRF findings recommendations proposed final
language 2-1-2D13 contains our comments.
Vie received PQR comments to our November response in February. We held a
conference call with the PQR group in mid February. We have attached a resporse
based on these comments. The attached document NDEQ PQR of Integrated Repor.
contains our comments.
As a supp einert to thaso documents we have included a table, Nebraska Permit
Quality Review and State Review Framework Action Items, to identify action items that
have been addressed and those that still need addressed. From this table you can sec
that Nebraska has made many changes in the NPDES program before tie review
began or upon receipt of comments.
This concludes our response to the PQR/SRF review, We would support a lessons
learned session since it may be beneficial Tor future review and help to shorten the
process and reduce the burden ori both EPA and the State.
Mich act J. Under
Director
CC: Glen Curtis
Diane Huffman
Aa L^SS.Xcpcrr.'-v A-iVi > F'-"nr:j.v-r
Fiiih. ill «y I"-* .-n ny-f.- -vr --{vr
SRF-PQR Report j Nebraska | Page 163

-------
February 25, 2013
PQR-SRF Response Attachment R1
Page 1 of 8
This attachment supplements NDEQ's responses to the combined Permit Quality Review/ State Review
Framework.
The labels for the Permit Quality Review are designated as PQR The section A, B, C ... is listed next with the
number designating the corresponding bulleted paragraph. Example PQR-C1. The State Review Framework is
labeled SRF with the section following, for example SRF 6-1
PQR-C1. Water Quality - Based Effluent Limitations
VVQBEL or ELG more stringent documentation
Below is an example of a WQBEI. and ELG based comparison and selection from an existing fact sheet:
b. Ammonia Discharge Limits
Ammonia limits are based on a comparison of the WQBELs and the ELGs. Where the WQBELs or the
ELGs are more stringent, they have been included in the draft permit as required by Title 119, Chapter
17.
The direct comparison was displayed as follows:
Water Quality Based Permit Limit Calculations for:
Ammonia


Spring
Summer
Winter
Acute WLA
Chronic WLA
Acute LTA
Chronic LTA
63.20
40.42
10.250
12.118
24.82
3.05
6.190
1.341
50.66
237.83
26.720
169.987

Effluent Limitation Guideline
for Ammonia
Spring
Summer
Winter
Concentration Based Permit Limits:

Maximum Daily (mg/L)
63.2
5.4
50.7

8.0
8.0
8.0
Average Monthly (mg/L)
22.8
2.35
33.8
4.0
4.0
4.0
Mass Based Permit Limits:


Maximum Daily (kg/dav)
837
73
671

106 109 106
Average Monthly (kg/day)
302
32.0
447
53 54.5 53
Whole Effluent Toxicity Limits
**Based on CV of 0.3


Spring
Summer
Winter

Acute Wf.A
Chronic WLA
Acute LTA
Chronic LTA
Acute Toxicity (TUa)
Chronic Toxicity (TUc)
0.57
1.00
0.30
0.71
0.57
1.36
0.64
1.00
0.34
0.71
0.64
1.36
0.65
1.00
0.34
0.71
0.65
1.36
Permit Limits:
Acute Toxicity (TUa)
1.00
1.00
1.00
When an ELG requires calculation, that documentation would be similar to that shown in section PQR-C4 below.
PQR-C2. Water Quality - Based Effluent Limitations
Documentation of reasonable potential in Fact Sheet
SRF-PQR Report j Nebraska | Page 164

-------
February 25, 2013
PQR-SRF Response Attachment R1
Page 2 of 8
Below is a recent fact sheet example of reasonable potential documentation:
b. Basis for removal of temperature limits and inclusion of monitoring
Temperature standard to protect aquatic life are set forth in NDEQ Title 117 Nebraska Surface Water
Standards in Chapter 3 General Criteria for Aquatic Life. According to the requirements of Title 117, the
temperature of a receiving water shall not be increased by a total of more than 5 °F from ambient outside
the mixing zone and for warm waters, the maximum limit is 90 °F. CORMIX was used to model the
change in temperature downstream from the Chief Ethanol, Inc. facility. These results were used to
develop a maximum end of pipe temperature such that the downstream temperature was not raised by
more than 5 °F and did not exceed 90 °F. The temperature data reported during the previous permit term
was used in reasonable potential calculations. The results of these calculations indicated no reasonable
potential exists for the effluent from Chief Ethanol to cause an exceedance on instream criteria.
Therefore report only monitoring is included in the permit.
Limit = 136 °F	Average = 77.6 °F	Std Dev = 3,7 °F
CV = 3.7/77.6 = 0.05	RP Factor = 1.2	Max = 88 °F
Reasonable Potential = 1.2*88 = 105.6 °F < 136 °F
NOTE: This type of documentation will be included as it applies to nitrates based on agricultural season
designations.
PQR-C4. Water Quality - Based Effluent Limitations
ELG documentation
Below are two examples of ELG calculation documentation from existing fact sheets:
Example 1.
	Effluent Limitation Guideline Summary	
Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG)
40 CFR Part 432 Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category
Subpart B Complex Slaughterhouse
432.22 Effluent Limitations Attainable by the Application of the
Best Practiable Control Technology Currently Avaialble (BPT)
Table 1. BPT Effluent Limitations at 40 CFR Part 432.22
Parameter
Dlv. max.*
Monthly ave.*
Units
BODS
0.42
0.21
g/kg
TSS
0.50
0.25
g/kg
Oil & Grease
0.16
0.08
g/kg
* g/1000 kg live weight killed (LWK)
The liLG also includes a limitation for fecal coliform bacteria and ammonia. The fecal coliform limit is a maximum
of 400 colony forming units per 100 mL at any time. The ammonia limit is a daily maximum of 8.0 mg/1 and a
monthly average of 4 mg/1.
Table 2. Production Based Permit Limits Limits	
Production in
	Parameter	Ply, max.	30 day ave. Units	LWK/dav	
BOD5	1,303	651	kg/day	6,840,000	lbs
SRF-PQR Report j Nebraska | Page 165

-------
February 25, 2013
PQR-SRF Response Attachment R1
Page 3 of 8
TSS	1,551	776	kg/day
	Oil & Grease	496	248	kg/day	3,102,041	kg
kg per Jay/month - (categorical standard x LWK/day)!l000
Example 2.
a. Basis for TSS Discharge Limitations and Monitoring
Total Suspended Solids limits have been established by EPAs building block approach for developing
permits. The facility falls under three categorical limits sets in 40 CFR. The calculations are listed in
the table below. These limits are calculated on the Live Weight Killed (LWK) for the facility.
FS 12: TSS Limits Calculated for Outfall 001
40 CFR
Weight
Multiplier
Monthly Av,
(lbs/1000 lbs)
Value (lbs/day)
Monthly Av.
Multiplier
Daily Max
(lbs/1000 lbs)
Value (lbs/day)
Daily
Maximum
40 CFR
432.22
6,360,000
0.25
1590
0.5
3180
40 CFR
432.25(b)(2)
5,040,756
0.04
202
0.08
403
40 CFR
432.12(a)(2)
2,835,756
0,04
113
0.08
227
40 CFR
425.64
364,000
2.1
764
4.7
1,711

2669

5521
PQR-Gla. Documentation (including fact slicct)
Status of receiving waters with respect to impairments and TMDLs.
Below is a example from an existing fact sheet:
Impairments and Parameters of Concern for the North Fork of the Big Nemaha River (NE2-12500)
Impairments; E.coli, Impaired aquatic community
Parameters of Concern: E. coli, Unknown
Below is proposed additional language:
A TMDL has been prepared for this impairment. The TMDL is a 30 day geometric mean of 126/100 ml for
E. coli. The draft permit limit satisfies the TMDL.
In some cases a TMDL may not be prepared. The fact sheet will state a TMDL is not prepared, is in development,
or the cause of the impairment is unknown as indicated in the most current integrated report.
SRF-PQR Report j Nebraska | Page 166

-------
February 25,2013
PQR-SRF Response Attachment R1
Page 4 of 8
PQR-Glb. Documentation (including fact sheet)
Expand sheet - metals limits
Title 117, Chapter 4 provides that the criteria for metals, with the exception of mercury, apply to dissolved
concentrations. The following is copied from a fact sheet when dissolved metals were applied:
b. Dissolved Zinc
The dissolved zinc parameter is being retained in the draft permit. In addition to the existing summer season
limitations, spring and winter season limitations have been included based on reasonable potential, water
quality criteria, and to support the Anti Degradation Review. Mass limits have been included as required by
Title 119, Chapter 18. The summer season limits in (he current permit are more restrictive than those
calculated in the draft and are retained to satisfy the anti-backsliding provision of Title 119, Chapter 17. The
summer mass limits are calculated from the existing concentration limits and the reported median maximum
Facility flow for the season. Wasteload and limit calculations are included as Attachment 4.
Attachment 4 would be the support documentation developed from Excel spreadsheets and attached to the fact
sheet. Further clarification can be achieved by adding:
The monthly average and daily maximum limitations specified in the draft permit are water quality-based criteria in
accordance with NDEQ Title 117.
Total metal parameters arc usually associated with an ELG or categorical limitation. The following is copied from
an existing fact sheet when total metals were applied:
b. Basis for Metals, Cyanide, TSS, and TTO limits and Monitoring Requirements
Limits and monitoring requirements for cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, zinc, cyanide, total
suspended solids (TSS), and total toxic organics (TTO) are set forth in 40 CFR, Part 433 for existing point
sources. These limits and monitoring requirements are continued in the permit. Quarterly monitoring is
required in the permit.
PQR-Glc. Documentation (including fact sheet)
Mixing zone requirements
Current example from an existing fact sheet:
c. Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
Water quality monitoring and limitations are included in the permit to protect the receiving stream from the
discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts. In NDEQ Title 117, Nebraska Surface Water Quality Standards,
water quality criteria are established for whole effluent toxicity (WET), conductivity, temperature, chloride,
chlorine, and pH. If there is a reasonable potential to cause an instream excursion of the water quality criteria for
any pollutants of concern, then limitations are included in the NPDES permit.
Proposed language:
b. Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
Water quality monitoring and limitations are included in the permit to protect the receiving stream from the
discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts. In NDEQ Title 117, Nebraska Surface Water Quality Standards, the
water quality criteria for specific pollutants are determined as acute and chronic instream criteria. The NDEQ
develops seasonal (spring, summer, winter) wasteload allocations (WLA) to protect these criteria. Title 117,
Chapter 2, promulgates the use of mixing zones when developing acute and chronic WLAs. Mixing zones are
limited to as small an area and volume of a receiving stream as is practical to prevent interference with or
SRF-PQR Report j Nebraska | Page 167

-------
February 25, 2013
PQR-SRF Response Attachment R1
Page 5 of 8
impairment of any beneficial uses. Maximum limitations on the length and width of mixing zones arc applicable
based on the receiving water use classification. If there is a reasonable potential to cause an instream excursion of
the water quality criteria for a parameter, then limitations are included in the NPDES permit. The permit limitations
are established from the WLAs according to the procedures given in the Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD). WLA and limitation worksheets for the permit are attached.
The following tables are from NDEQ's WLA calculation worksheet and provide examples where information is
found that shows the application of the mixing zone. The relevant in format ion is highlighted.
Facility
General Information
Receiving Water Title 117 ID: Prepared By:
Date
Review
by:
Date

West Fork of the Big Blue River
BB3-30000




State
Resource
Water
Aquatic Life
Use Class
Recreation
(Y/N)
Assigned Beneficial Uses
Agriculture
(A/B) Water Supply
Aesthetics
Key Species
N
B
N
A
1
%
None Listed
Is the waterbody on the current
303(d) List?
N
Does (he Facility Discharge
303(d) Listed Pollutant?
N

Receiving Stream
tnfvrmatiun




Chronic
Known Known
Known
Known
Stream

Mixing
Stream Average
Flow (eft) Velocity (ft/s)
Average
Depth (ft)
A verage
Width (ft)
Slope
(ft/mile)
U/Ly
Zone to
5000 Ft?
33600 | 3.73
.3,95 |
645

I 45
110



Spring


Summer


Winter

Chronic
SH3
WIA
%
Stream
Acute
NH3
WLA
%
Stream
Chronic
NH3
WLA
%
Stream
^ *r
%
Stream
NH3
WLA
% Stream
Acute
AHi
WLA
%
_ ft1!!0**"! .
JESBBM
2050.40
3.8
405.86
16.6
2427.7'J
3.78
862.75
i
17.0 i
1613.66

Chronic
WLA
%
Stream
Acute
WLA
%
Stream
Chronic
WLA
%
Stream
Acute
WLA
%
Stream
Chronic
WLA
% Stream
Acute
WLA
%
Stream
3J4
17.18 |
1.15
3.81
	
4.10
16.97
1.42
	
3.78
3.45
17.18 ,
1.00
3.84
SRF-PQR Report j Nebraska | Page 168

-------
February 25, 2013
PQR-SRF Response Attachment R1
Page 6 of 8
PQR-Gld. Documentation (including fact sheet)
Rationale for monitoring requirements
NDEQ has guidance for establishing monitoring frequencies in NPDES permits. This current guidance is based on
design flow. The guidance also states that frequency may be increased based on water quality excursions,
enforcement actions, poor operation and maintenance or the number of significant industrial users. NDEQ also
uses EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual, Chapter 8, Section 8.1.3 as additional guidance. NDEQ will include
in future fact sheets a statement identifying the rationale. An example of this statement is as follows:
"Monitoring frequency is based on the Department's guidance for facilities with a design flow ofO.10 to 0.99
millions of gallons per day (MGD)."
A deviation from this guidance will require an additional description supported by the guidance referenced above.
The description will include the specific reason, (i.e. compliance history).
SRF 6-1. Inspection Report - Consistent Compliance Determination
Existing inspection reports document compliance through the use of modifiers associated with the observations in a
checklist. These modifiers will be more consistent and are suggested as follows:
y = indicates compliance, m = marginal, indicates a possible deficiency, pv = indicates a potential violation,
na = not applicable
Below are examples from an inspection report observation checklist:
Lagoon (s)
pv
A stand of cattails is observed growing in the northwest corner of the


lagoon.
Discharge Monitoring Reports
y
3 years of DMR records are complete and available.
Discharge Monitoring Report
Compliance
pv
A noncompliance for TSS was reported for January 2013. The monthly
average was exceeded by 18 mg/L. The exeeedance was reported within
24 hours and followed by a written report within 5 days. The written
report identified the cause as a result of clarifier cleaning operations. A
description of the mitigation is not included.
Splitter Box(s)
Accumulated sludge needs to be cleaned from the influent splitter box.
Sample Handling
pv
Samples collected for pH arc not analyzed within the 15 minute holding


time.
The checklist will include the following three additional checkboxes to identify' violations:
Potential Significant Non-
Compliance Violations (SNC)
n
List

Potential Single Event
n
List
SRF-PQR Report j Nebraska | Page 169

-------
Vi.tiiiiinn* 1SFV1
( iilH'l \.>;t * . M \
! Violation-
When a situation is considered marginal, the comments am! suggestions section ofthe report should include a
recommendation the facility needs more attention in this area, but no further response is necessary. NDFQ will
include a section in the inspection reports that clarifies when a potential violation (pv) is identified sn report
observations. '1 he section is suggested as follows:
SI MMARY OK POTFFs 1 i \l. \ lOAl/HONS .p. .
1.	1'itle 119- Rules and Regulations Pursuant to the Issuance of Permits Under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDF.S).
a.	Failure to oomph- with secondary treatment requirements. Facility files indicate the monthly average
concentration for total suspended solids (1 SS) was exceeded for the monitoring period ending January
1. 2013. This is a violation of Title 119, Chapter 21.
b.	Failure to comply with permit conditions. Samples collected for pH arc not analyzed within the 15
minute holding time. This is a violation of Title 119, Chapter 27.
2.	Title 123-Opemlion and Maintcnunv*' at'SVavtev atcr Works.
a. Failure to comply with operation and maintenance regulations. Cattails are observed growing in the
northwest corner of the wastewater lagoon, l'his is a violation of Title 123, Chapter 11.
This summary will, reflect a p\ documented in the observation section. This summary in turn will tie into the
comments and suggestions:
COMMENTS AMI) SlKiCKSTIONS
1.	Secondary treatment standards require POTWs practicing a combination of physical and biological treatment to
remove biodegradable organic* and suspended solids. These standards are adopted in Title 119,1'h ipler 21.
The Violation of these standards can be considered significant noncompliance (SNO and may require further
action at the Department's request.
2.	Samples collected for the purpose of monitoring effluent pll must be analyzed within the 15 minute holding
time. This requirement is established in 40 (T'R 136 and adopted by reference in Title 119. Chapter 27. The
operator was made aware of this during the site inspection and has changed his procedure to ensure the 15
minute holding time is adhered to.
3.	Htle 123. Chapter i 1, requires emergent vegetation such as cattails are to be removed promptly as they appear.
Further infestation may damage the lagoon liner, attract wildlife that con damage the (.likes, act as a pathogen
vector attractant, or inhibit the treatment ability of the WWTF. l'o prevent further infestation the Department
recti mm ends the cattails be removed as soon as possible.
NRf- h-3. Inspection Report - t 'ofisistent ('itHipliance Determination
J-r.urv I'aeihiv InMnvtwi in \lfno describe what was observed.
February 25, 2013
PGR-SRf Response Attachment Rt
Pago 7 of 8
Lis*
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 170

-------
February 25,2013
POR-SRf Response Attachment R1
Page 8 of 8
SKI 8-1. S\C	io facility attention
In section SRF 6-1 above, the example describes a potential violation is identified as a monthly average
concentration exceedance for TSS, Internally at NDEQ it would be determined a single event violation and
significant noncompliance under the technical review criteria. The facility would be notified through a Notice of
Violation (NOV). Am example NOV, minus administrative details, is included below:
Dear Mayor Smith:
This Notice of Violation is being issued to (be City of XXXXX WW'TF for violations of litle 119, /?«/o* ami
Rei>utdtMns Pertaining to the iwiutnci nfPermin under the \'utioihil i'allutiim Distiuirge kiimimtiiwt Sysh'm. The
violations were determined during a facility inspection and file review conducted on January 24. 201?.
The Department documented the following;
A. Failure to comply with secondary treatment requirements, facility files indicate the monthly average
concentration for total suspended solids (FSSi was exceeded by 18 mg/L for the monitoring period ending
January 1,2013 as a result of claritier cleaning maintenance. This Is a violation of Title 119, Chapter 21.
Regulations that have been referenced are available online at the I )epartment's website: www.deg.state.Be.u5
In order to cease and/or mitigate these \ lolaiions the Department requests that you provide the following:
1. Within 3® days from the date of this Notice of Violation, identify and provide in writing, a best
management practice (BMP) to prevent effluent violations during routine operations and maintenance
activities.
The Department requests that you voluntarily comph with these corrective measures. Compliance with this request
does not mean that enforcement action relative to these violations will not be considered. We will evaluate your
prompt compliance and will consider youi efforts to determine if enforcement action is warranted. Hnforeement
action may include issuance of an administrative order, or referral to the Attorney Genual for penalties of up to
S10.000 per day per violation, andor injunctive relief
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 171

-------
Permits correspondence -Water Treatment Plants
$ \
%PR0^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 7
901 NORTH 5TH STREET
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101
Mr. Steve Goans	MAR 2 8 2011
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922
Dear Mr. Goans:
This letter regards National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits issued by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) in
2009 and 2010 for several Water Treatment Plants (WTPs). These permits allowed
the direct discharge of lime sludge and included permits for the Nebraska City Water
Treatment Plant {WTP) (NE0111368), Florence Potable WTP (NE0000914), Platte
South Potable WTP (NE0000906), and PIattsmouth Potable WTP (NE0132446).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has now had an opportunity to
carefully review these four WTP permits and has several concerns regarding their
appropriateness under the Clean Water Act (CWA) NPDES program, as follows:
Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
o Nebraska WQS set criteria for pH within the range of6.5 to 9.0 SUa.
The upper limit of9.0 was removed for Outfalls 001, 002 and 005 ofithe
Florence permit and Outfalls 001 and 002 of the Platte South permit, although
this limit was included in the previous version of these permits. In lieu of the
upper pH limits in the Florence permit and Outfall 002 for the Platte South
permit, the permits include monitoring-only requirements and allow two to
four years for the facilities to complete a study to determine ifthe discharges
will attain the pH standard at the end of the acute mixing zone. With regard
to Outfall 001 at the Platte South facility, which has been determined to cause
pH impairment to Zweibel Creek, the permit allows three years to close the
outfall and transfer all ofthe facility's discharges to the Mssouri River
outfall.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 172

-------
• The permits for MUD Platte South and Nebraska City do not include
WQBELs for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC), although there are applicable
water quality criteria for the receiving waters and chlorine is known to be
present in each discharge. Nor is there discussion in the permits' fact sheets
regarding this pollutant. The 2008 fact sheet for Nebraska City includes a
determination that there should be monthly average and daily maximum TRC
limits for both Outfalls, but there are monitoring-only limits imposed in the
permit.
• The Florence permits contain only monitoring requirements for total suspended
solids
{TSS) and allow a three year study for all outfalls to evaluate water quality
impacts of the solids and evaluate selected technologies. The Platte South
permit contains a similar provision for Outfall 002.
The NPDES permit regulations at 40 CFR § 122.47 require that a compliance schedule
only be included in an NPDES permit where "appropriate" and require compliance with the
final effluent limitation "as soon as possible." Additionally, the regulations require any
NPDES
permit establishing a compliance date of more than one year from permit issuance to set forth
interim requirements and dates for their achievement and/or progress reports. A 2007
memorandum from James A. Hanlon, Di rector of the Office of Wastewater Management,
addresses EPA's principles under 40 CFR § 122.47 regarding the use of compliance schedules
to achieve WQBELs (see enclosed memo). The above referenced WTP permits did not
follow, and/or did not demonstrate through clear and adequate information in the met sheets
that they followed, the principles set forth in the Hanlon memo. Several key principles from
the Hanlon memo that are of concern include:
1.	A demonstration that the compliance schedules were appropriate
2.	A demonstration that the discharger cannot immediately comply with the
WQB
EL.
3.	A demonstration that compliance will be achieved as soon as possible.
4.	Inclusion of at least annual interim requirements for al I schedules.
5.	Establishment of final e:ffiuent limitations.
6.	A certain date for achieving compliance with WQBELs.
Technology-Based Limitations for TSS
• The compliance schedules for TSS in the permits noted above do not clearly
indicate in al I circumstances whether they are for achieving compliance with
WQBELS or technology-based effluent limitations.
o None of the permits make a finding of the appropriate Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) or documented a Best Professional Judgment
(BPJ) finding using any of the requirements of 40 CFR § 125.3.
e The compliance schedule directions for the studies to "eval uate selected
technologies" m the Florence and Piatt South permits do not appear to require all of
the information required under 40 CFR § 125.3 to complete a BPJ analysis.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 173

-------
• The 2008 fact sheet for the Nebraska City permit includes a statement that
monthly average and daily maximum limits are appropriate, but there are no limits
imposed in the final permit.
The provisions of 40 CFR § 122.47 prohibit the use of compliance schedules to
achieve compliance with technology-based effluent limitations if the date for compliance with
those limits has already passed. The date for compliance with BCT provisions was March
1989. If the permitting authority believes that a new analysis of technology-based limitations
should be performed though a BPJ analysis, then the final limits should be include in the
permit and the BPJ analysis should be implemented through an enforcement mechanism, such
as an administrative order.
EPA has coordinated with the Iowa Department ofNatural Resource (IDNR) to
prepare a request for information under the authority of Section 308 of the CWA to gain
information needed for development ofBPJ-derived technology-based permit limitations for
the Council Bluffs Water Works. That letter was sent to Council Bluffs on March 7,2011. A
copy is enclosed for your information. We urge NDEQ to consider sending a similar letter to
the WTP facilities in Nebraska to assure that complete information needed to assess BPJ
technology requirements and water quality-based permit limits is available.
EPA looks forward to working with you on this issue. Please contact me at 913-551-
7726 to further discuss.
Glenn Curtis, Chief
Wastewater and Infrastructure
Management Branch
Enclosures
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 174

-------
Appendix G: SRF Finding 4-1 Detailed Analysis
Review Period: FFY 2011
Percent of planned inspections
completed: Planned inspections per the
negotiated CMS Plan completed in the review
year. Calculate as a percentage by category
where the numerator = number of inspections
completed; denominator = number of
inspections planned.
Metric	Universe	inspections	. Percentage
¦ *	inspect	a
completed	K
4a 1
Majors
36
24
150.0%
4a2
Minors, Total inspections
124
106
117.0%
4a3
Minors: Comprehensive, 303d (subset of 4a2)
119
101
117.8%
4a4
NonDischarging Lagoons
56
43
130.2%
4a5
Pre-Treatment
104
104
100.0%
4a6
Construction Stonn water Inspections
22
0
-
4a7
Industrial Storm water
98
30
326.7%
4a8
Large and Medium CAFO inspections - permitted
356
125
284.8%
4a9
Large Unpermitted CAFO inspections
247
70
352.9%
4a10
Medium Unpermitted CAFO inspections
266
20
1330.0%
4a11
Small AFO inspections
90
20
450.0%
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 175
State: Nebraska
Metric 4a

-------
Appendix H: SRF Finding 4-2 Detailed Analysis
WW Section
State Commitment
Accomplishments
Data Source
Evaluation'
Initial Findings
Commitment 1
Negotiate,finalize, and implement an
annual Compliance Monitoring Strategy
(CMS) for the subsequent FFY.
Jointly developed a CMS plan,
per EPA's 10/17/07 CMS
Guidance. Conducted
inspections according to CMS
commitments.
ICIS, State
database,
Conversations
between EPA and
state
Appears
Acceptable
Jointly developed a CMS plan, per EPA's
10/17/07 CMS Guidance. Conducted
inspections according to CMS
commitments.
Commitment 2
Address non-compliance issues per the
NDEQ enforcement manual, procedures
and policies
4 formal enforcement actions
provided to EPA
State NPDS
database;
Conversation
between EPA and
the state
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ provides copies of enforcement
actions to EPA for entry
Commitment 3
Input WENDB data elements into ICIS
for major NPDES permitted dischargers.
Provided WENDB data
elements inputted by NDEQ
ICIS
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
Commitment 4
Provide access to copies of compliance
inspection reports and transmittal letters
for facilities, upon request
NDEQ provided documents on
requests through Records
Management
State database
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
Commitment 5
Provide copies of final enforcement
orders and judicial actions (mail or e-
mail)
NDEQ provided associated
documents
Conversation
between EPA and
the state
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
Commitment 6
Complete action items in State Review
Framework (SRF) program review and
final report, as negotiated and approved
by NDEQ and EPA.
Final SRF report for FY07
Action Items:
Conversation
between EPA and
the state
TBD
Evaluation to be completed during FY11
SRF Review
Commitment 7
Ensure that any new database/system
to be used for batching to ICIS-NPDES
will be able to accommodate all
WENDB
Coordinate state, regional EPA
and HQ EPA on development
and implementation
EPA correspondence
file
TBD
No reported progress during FY11; Will
address during FY11 SRF Review
Commitment 8
Verify the quality of ICIS-NPDES data
prior to creation of frozen data
EPA HQ will initiate data
verification process following
the end of the fiscal year.
NDEQ reviewed data for FY 11
and corrected data issues in
ICIS prior to data being frozen.
ICIS, OTIS
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ reviewed data for FY11 and
corrected data issues in ICIS prior to data
being frozen for SRF Review.
Commitment 9
Provide copies of any CSO enforcement
related correspondence (mail or e-mail),
as requested
No enforcement actions related
to CSO taken during FY 11
Conversation
between EPA and
the state
Ongoing
Flooding during 2011 prevented
inspections of CSO communities during
FY11. NDEQ to conduct 2 CSO
inspections during FY12.
Commitment 10
Certify or recertify onsite professionals. Total population of certified
Provide training and testing. professionals = 586 for FY 11
PPG Report
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 176

-------
WW Section
State Commitment
Accomplishments
Data Source
Evaluation"
Initial Findings
Commitment 11
Investigate, respond, followup on
compliants. Cooperate with state and
local agencies on Onsite Wastewater
Treatment (OWT) issues.
Compliants received = 103,
Compliants closed = 123, Local
gov. OWT related inspections =
10, OWT Advisory Committee
Meetings = 3
PPG Report
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
Commitment 12
For Major permittees, a Quarterly Non-
Compliance Report (QNCR) as
specified and further qualified in EPA
guidance.
Submitted a QNCR for each
quarter during FY11
Conversation
between EPA and
the state
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
Commitment 13
Provide the necessary information to
EPA to update the Watch List Report
NDEQ provided responses for
each quarter's Watch List
inquiries
Conversation
between EPA and
the state
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
Commitment 14
For Major permittees, submit summary
information for those permittees with
two or more violations of the same
monthly average permit limitation in a
six month period.
Submitted sumary information
for the Semi-Annual Statistical
Summary (SSSR)
SSSR
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
Commitment 15
Provide information to EPA for update
of Annual Non-Compliance Report
(ANCR) for minors
NDEQ provided response to
ANCR generated by HQ
Regional and State
Reporting Criteria for
CY2010 NPDES
Nonmajors
Statistical Non-
Compliance Reports
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
Commitment 16
Provide Enforcement Activities Semi-
Annual Report of all enforcement
activities taken in the FFY against any
major facility.
NDEQ provided copies of all
formal enforcement actions
taken during FY11
Enforcement Activity
Report
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
Commitment 17
Send copies of sludge reports to EPA
as received. EPA continues to
encourage permit holders to submit
sludge reports directly to EPA.
NDEQ provided bio-solid
reports upon request from EPA,
but does not automatically
forward the reports to EPA.
Conversation
between EPA and
the state
Minor Issue
NDEQ should forward original or copies
of sludge reports to EPA following receipt
of the reports.
Commitment 18
Submit an annual storm water and MS4
report for the FFY
NDEQ submitted information
with Annual Report
Annual PPG Report
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
Commitment 19
Report number of inspections
NDEQ submitted information
with Annual Report
Annual PPG Report
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
Commitment 20
Report number of enforcement actions
semi-annually
34 - LOW; 19 - NOV; 1 -
Administrative Order; 5-
Consent Decrees issued w/
penalties
Annual PPG Report
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 177

-------
WW Section
State Commitment
Accomplishments
Data Source
Evaluation"
Initial Findings
Commitment 21
Update Title 130 to bring into harmony
with new federal rules
Amendments to Title 130
effective 6/25/11
Annual PPG Report
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
Commitment 22
Provide copies of final enforcement
orders and judicial actions (mail or e-
mail)
NDEQ provided electronic copy
of 2 actions
Correspondence
between EPA and
State
Appears
Acceptable
NDEQ appears to be fulfilling this
commitment on an ongoing basis
"Evaluation Criteria:
Minor issues/Appears Acceptable - No EPA recommendation required.
Potential Concern - Not a significant issue. Issues that the state may be able to correct without specific recommendation. May require additional analysis.
Significant Issue - File review shows a pattern that indicates a significant problem. Will require an EPA Recommendation.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 178

-------
Appendix I: SRF File Review Summaries
This appendix to the report includes a summary of findings for each of the 109 facility files
reviewed by EPA. Each summary discusses NDEQ's compliance monitoring and enforcement
activities with the facility that occurred during the FFY 2011 review period or that began or
continued during the preceding or subsequent year(s).
ADM Columbus (NE0103141)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 5/13/11 (7)
Inspection notes: The inspector found the facility to be in compliance. Nearly every item was
found to be satisfactory including the indication of "Yes" in the box corresponding to DMR
compliance. The inspector even noted awards the facility had won. The inspection report was
transmitted with the standard transmittal letter on 6/15/11.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: This facility has a long history of noncompliance with effluent limits, mostly
chloride, TRC, and TSS. There are many letters of noncompliance to the facility from NDEQ in
the file. On 11/11/2011, NDEQ sent ADM an NOV capturing all of the effluent exceedances
from the 4th quarter 2009, 1st quarter 2010, 3rd quarter 2010, 1st quarter 2011, and 3rd quarter
2011. In response the facility conducted a mixing zone study and suggested a permit
modification to NDEQ. The findings of the inspection report are not consistent with the DMRs
and other documents in the file and suggest the inspector had not reviewed documents prior to
the inspection or while preparing his report.
Beatrice WWTF (NE0020915)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 9/21/2011 (51)
Inspection notes: The inspection report narrative discusses several shortcomings in the facility's
operations relative to regulatory requirements, and this discussion comports with findings in the
report checklist. However, neither the report nor its cover letter to the facility reach any
conclusions about the compliance status of the facility.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-12/3/2010
Enforcement action notes: The NOV cited a failure to submit quarterly DMRs in the fourth
quarter of calendar year 2009 and the first quarter of calendar year 2010, as noted during a
records review conducted as part of a 6/2/2010 inspection. It also notes that the missing reports
were received by NDEQ on 6/16/2010. The NOV was an appropriate use of enforcement but
does not appear to be the reason for the facility's return to compliance, as it wasn't issued until
six months after violation discovery and many months after the facility had submitted the
missing DMRs.
Other notes: The DMR non-receipt violations addressed by the NOV constituted SNC.
The 9/21/2011 inspection also served as an EPA oversight of the NDEQ inspector. The
constructive findings from the oversight inspection were that the inspector made verbal
observations regarding hold time excursions for two parameters but did not discuss those
observations in the report. Other findings included lack of any receiving stream observations, no
specification of a date by which the facility should correct deficiencies identified in the
inspection report, and no clear compliance determination. In addition, the oversight inspection
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 179

-------
found an absence of compliance history as part of the inspection (see "Other notes" for North
Platte, below).
Behlen Manufacturing Company (NE0000647)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 3/10/2010 (9); 4/5/2011 (35).
Inspection notes: Both inspection reports followed the same format, with general facility
information on the first page followed by a complete description of the facility's processes and
treatment equipment. The permit issuance and renewal dates are listed in the inspection reports
on the final page; it would be helpful to have this information on the front cover page with all the
other general permit information. Neither report contained a description of the investigative
activities performed during the inspection or the specific observations from the inspection. A
checklist was filled in, but no additional comments were added. There were no conclusions
within the body of the inspection reports themselves to indicate the compliance status of the
facility. The inspection coding sheets for each inspection included a checkmark to indicate "in
compliance" but also included a checkmark in the field for "effluent observation" indicating
"turbid" with regard to the 2010 inspection and "solids present" with regard to the 2011
inspection.
Enforcement action date(s): Notice of DMR non-receipt - July 2011.
Enforcement action notes: NDEQ issued a notice of DMR non-receipt for failure to include page
3 of a DMR due in April - June 2011, requiring Behlen to resubmit the corrected DMR.
Other notes: None
Blair WWTF (NE0021482)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 2/11/2011 (14).
Inspection notes: The inspection report included general facility information on the first page
followed by a description of the facility's processes and treatment equipment. The permit
issuance and renewal dates are listed in the inspection on the final page; it would be helpful to
have this information on the front cover page with all the other general permit information. The
report contained no description of the investigative activities performed during the inspection or
the specific observations from the inspection. Checklists for overall mechanical processes and
sludge handling processes were filled in, but little to no additional comments were added. There
were no conclusions within the body of the inspection report itself to indicate the compliance
status of the facility. There are no questions in the checklist regarding SSOs or bypasses and no
additional information regarding these matters was added to the inspection narrative.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: The facility experienced SSOs, bypasses and bacteria violations in mid-2011 that
were concurrent with extensive flooding in the area. These violations were noted in the City's
DMRs. There is no documentation in the files reviewed to indicate whether NDEQ confirmed
that the nature of the reported violations was attributable to the flooding.
Fremont WWTF (NE0031381)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 12/28/2010 (14)
Inspection notes: A reading of the report checklist and narrative did not indicate whether any
deficiencies were found at the facility, and the cover letter for the report indicated that NDEQ
was reviewing the report for violations. The only evidence of a compliance determination took
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 180

-------
the form of an "Inspection Data Sheet" that was routed internally with the report. This data sheet
asks the question "Did you observe deficiencies," which was answered "No."
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: The file included several one-time and semi-annual reports of SSOs, which
documented many SSOs from Fremont's system. The file had no other correspondence from the
review period regarding SSOs.
Grand Island (NE0043702)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: None
Inspection notes: None
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-1/7/2011
Enforcement action notes: The NOV addressed a missing sludge DMR for September 2010 and
was issued by the state within 90 days of the due date of the DMR. The facility promptly
submitted the missing DMR on 1/11/2011, citing administrative error as the cause of the delay.
A follow-up letter from NDEQ dated 1/26/2011 acknowledges receipt of the DMR and closes
out the issue.
Other notes: The DMR non-receipt violation addressed by the NOV constituted SNC.
Lincoln - Theresa St. WWTF (NE0036820)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: None
Inspection notes: None
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: This facility was selected as a Permit Quality Review file. EPA did not identify
any issues with discharges or permit language that would have an association with PQR findings.
McCook WWTF (NE0021504)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 2/28/11 (7)
Inspection notes: The inspector marked two items as marginal in the inspection report: effluent
flow measurement may need to be calibrated, and failure of January 2011 toxicity test. The
narrative states that the chronic toxicity test will be repeated and the cause of the failure was
thought to be rejected wastewater from the WWTF. The toxicity test was repeated in March
2011 and the city passed. The inspection report was transmitted with the standard transmittal
letter on 3/30/11.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
MG Waldbaum Company (NE0113735)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 6/17/2011 (12)
Inspection notes: The inspection report does not note any deficiencies, and neither does the
cover letter transmitting the report to the facility. The only indication of a compliance
determination by NDEQ is the Inspection Data Sheet routed internally with the report. This data
sheet asks the question "Did you observe deficiencies," which was answered "No."
Enforcement action date(s): None
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 181

-------
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
North Platte WWTF (NE0032891)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 9/20/2011 (7)
Inspection notes: The inspection report discussed two potential violations regarding
implementation of the facility's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan - specifically, a failure to
conduct site inspections and a failure to define outfalls in the SWPPP. Observations supporting
these deficiencies were noted in the report checklist as well as the supporting narrative; however,
nowhere in written correspondence or internal memos or forms did NDEQ articulate a
compliance determination regarding these deficiencies (i.e. if they were violations needing
correction).
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-8/10/2011
Enforcement action notes: The NOV was issued to address missing DMR data for dissolved
metals and toxicity that were due 4/28/2011. This response was appropriate to address a non-
SNC violation and was issued independently of the subsequent inspection on 9/20/2011. The
NDEQ compliance officer in the field office first reviewed the DMRs for deficiencies on
5/25/2011. Based on the due date of the DMR data, the NOV was not a timely response within
90 days following discovery of the violation, with a presumption that the NDEQ central office
data steward should have been aware of the deficiency, or been able to inform compliance staff
of it, prior to 5/25/2011. The facility submitted a response to the NOV that resolved the
violation.
Other notes: The 9/20/2011 inspection was also an EPA oversight inspection. The constructive
finding from the oversight inspection of this facility and others was that NDEQ's inspectors do
not consistently discuss a facility's inspection and compliance history in inspection reports,
raising the question of how well informed inspectors are concerning compliance history prior to
doing inspections. The oversight inspection report also noted the lack of a clear compliance
determination.
Nucor Steel (NE0111287)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 2/11/2011 (7).
Inspection notes: The inspection report included general facility information on the first page
followed by a complete description of the facility's processes and treatment equipment. The
permit issuance and renewal dates are listed in the inspection report on the final page; it would
be helpful to have this information on the front cover page with all the other general permit
information. The report contained no description of the investigative activities performed during
the inspection or the specific observations from the inspection. A checklist was filled in, but no
additional comments were added. There were no conclusions within the body of the inspection
report itself to indicate the compliance status of the facility. At the time of the inspection, the
facility was under a compliance schedule in the permit for bacteria, but the inspection does not
mention the status of compliance schedule activities.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: There were two quarters of SNC level ammonia violations in FY2011 (after the
date of the February 2011 inspection). There was no information in the file relating to NDEQ's
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 182

-------
review of or response to the violations. The violations did not continue following the 2 quarters
of noncompliance.
Plattsmouth WWTF (NE0021121)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: None
Inspection notes: None
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: This facility was selected as a Permit Quality Review file. EPA did not identify
any issues with discharges or permit language that would have an association with PQR findings.
The facility reported SNC effluent limit violations for the first two quarters of FFY 2011
due to "extreme flooding [that] caused damage to piping and plant." The flooding responsible
for that damage occurred in 2010. Then, in the third and fourth quarters of FFY 2011, extreme
flooding beginning in May further aggravated the damage from the previous year that the facility
had not yet repaired. This second round of flooding resulted in reports of Analysis Not
Conducted (ANC) by the facility in the third and fourth quarters. NDEQ did not respond in
writing to the facility's situation. Although an enforcement response was not warranted
following such extraordinary circumstances, some level of notice to the facility following the
first round of flooding would have been appropriate to encourage the facility to make repairs as
expeditiously as possible once floodwaters receded. According to NDEQ management, NDEQ
staff did work extensively with emergency management teams following the 2010 floods and
visited the facility periodically.
Plattsmouth was also flagged for three permit schedule violations whereby milestones
were marked unachieved in OTIS. Upon discussion with NDEQ staff, EPA learned that the
facility did submit the required plans and reports. It was not clear whether all the reports had
been received on time; however, all three milestones marked past due by OTIS should have been
updated by NDEQ to show the actual received date of the plan or report.
Tyson Fresh Meats - Lexington (NE0123501)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: None
Inspection notes: None
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: This facility was selected as a Permit Quality Review file. EPA did not identify
any issues with discharges or permit language that would have an association with PQR findings.
The facility has a recently reissued permit with limits for chloride, bacteria, and ammonia
that are more stringent than those in the old permit, as well as new limits for total nitrogen. The
file had self-reported documentation of several minor non-SNC violations during FFY 2011 that
EPA and NDEQ would not consider "actionable" violations.
Western Sugar Cooperative (NE0111686)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 6/16/2011 (40)
Inspection notes: The inspection report checklist states that "Riprap is needed along the eastern
bank of Pond 3;" however, for this item of the checklist, the inspector entered ' Y' for
satisfactory. A reader might interpret the checklist to mean that the absence of riprap did not
constitute a deficiency or violation, but the narrative portion of the report presents further
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 183

-------
contrast by reinforcing the need for the facility to remedy the absence of riprap. The report does
not present enough information, such as a comparison of regulatory requirements against
observations, to determine the compliance status of the facility; nor does the file indicate whether
the state made a compliance determination following this inspection.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: Western Sugar was flagged for an overdue compliance schedule violation whereby
a milestone was marked unachieved in OTIS. EPA learned that the underlying enforcement
action is an EPA order with a final "estimated termination date" of 6/3/2011. EPA entered the
actual received date for the milestone, thereby accurately showing the facility as being in
compliance.
The facility also had a SNC reporting violation in the third quarter of FFY 2011, which
NDEQ manually resolved with an appropriate RNC resolution code.
Core Program - Non-majors
Barneston WWTP (NE0121711)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 4/18/2011 (7).
Inspection notes: The inspection report included general facility information on the first page
followed by a description of the facility's processes and treatment equipment. The report
contained no description of the investigative activities performed during the inspection or the
specific observations from the inspection. Photos of the facility were included in the report, but
no samples were taken or records reviewed. The checklist for overall mechanical processes was
filled in, but little to no additional comments were added. The inspection indicates that there
were "no violations" but also includes statements that DMRs are being incorrectly filled out and
that the monitoring location is problematic. There are no questions in the checklist regarding
SSOs or bypasses and no additional information regarding these matters was added in the
inspection narrative.
Enforcement action date(s): Notice of DMR Non-receipt - January 2011.
Enforcement action notes: NDEQ issued a Notice of DMR Non-receipt for Quarterly DMRs and
2009-2010 annual influent DMR, due 10/28/2011. The City submitted the missing DMRs within
30 days of receipt of the NOV, as required by the NOV.
Other notes: None
Bridgeport WWTF (NE0112119)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 3/15/11 (90)
Inspection notes: The compliance inspection was documented with an inspection checklist. The
facility description included specific treatment system information and the permit information
included that the permit was Active with the permit expiration date. The inspector reviewed
recent DMR data, the lagoon and collection system and observed that the influent monitoring
was incomplete. The checklist thoroughly captured the treatment processes involved. The
inspector made good use of photographs (including a photo of the outfall), aerial photos, and
diagrams. The inspector observed the receiving stream and documented the status.
There was no mention of SSO tracking, bio-solids handling, or inspection of the lift
stations or pumps.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 184

-------
Enforcement action date(s): The checklist states that an NOV would be issued. No NOV or
follow-up letter explaining a compliance determination was in the file.
Enforcement action notes: OTIS does not show that an NOV has been issued to date.
Other notes: DMR history was reviewed and incomplete DMRs were found during the
inspection.
Bruning WWTF (NE0045071)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 8/31/2010 (77)
Inspection notes: The inspection report cites numerous problems, including pH method,
documentation of date and time on analytical reports, failure to report fecal coliform, and failure
to report influent sampling. In the "Suggestions and Observations" section, the report lists
regulatory requirements that the reader can infer as being associated with the aforementioned
problems. A cover letter said that NDEQ was reviewing the report for violations.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-12/9/2010; AO - 11/2/2011
Enforcement action notes: NDEQ made a compliance determination regarding the inspection
report with the NOV; however, the NOV omitted some of the deficiencies mentioned in the
inspection report that the reader was led to believe were highly likely to be violations. The NOV
was issued 100 days following inspection, which is outside the 90-day window for voluntarily
resolving or escalating the matter. The NOV requested 30- and 90-day responses from the
facility. The Wastewater Section made an enforcement referral to the Legal Section 9 months
following inspection, and the AO was issued more than 5 months later. The sequence of
enforcement responses was appropriate for the violations, but all of the enforcement tools were
employed outside the NDEQ's established timeframes. The AO required milestones and
completion dates for construction of an upgrade to the WWTF, all of which post-date this file
review.
Other notes: Because Bruning is a P.L. 92-500 grant-awarded non-major, NDEQ was expected
to identify SNC violations as such. However, effluent exceedances and DMR non-receipts that
occurred prior to the inspection rose to the level of SNC (i.e. High-Priority violations according
to state guidance) but were not brought to the attention of the facility as such, neither in the
inspection report nor through other correspondence.
B. S. Wash (Buckshot Livestock Truck Wash) (NE0138274)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 2/4/2010 (5).
Inspection notes: General data about the permit and the inspection was included in the
inspection report, but there was little to no information about the facility itself. The inspection
report included an overview of field activities performed and observations during the inspection;
no checklist was used. The report was signed and dated and a copy was transmitted to the
facility. There was minimal written information in the report to explain the compliance status of
the facility, but there were some good photos. An NOV was issued following the inspection.
Enforcement action date(s): NOVs - 9/30/2005, 2/28/2007, 3/1/2007, and 3/30/2010; Referral -
(w/in 180 days of 2010 inspection); Consent Order.
Enforcement action notes: The Referral was sent from NDEQ to the Nebraska Attorney
General's office within 180 days of the 2/4/2010 inspection, but there had previously been an
inspection in January 2008 as well as 3 previous NOVs. The referral included a description of
the violations and a penalty calculation worksheet with an initial penalty recommendation. The
AG settled the action for specified injunctive relief (to be completed beyond the date of EPA's
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 185

-------
file review) and a penalty of $10,000. The penalty, however, will be waived if the Defendant
stays in compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree for 9 months. The Consent Decree
was modified to extend the compliance schedule and to impose stipulated penalties for failing to
meet interim and final schedule deadlines.
Other notes: Because the facility is a minor, none of the inspection or enforcement information
was entered into ICIS.
Crofton WWTF (NE0049131)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 1/5/2011 (9)
Inspection notes: The inspection report consisted of a checklist and limited narrative covering
only comments and suggestions without describing what field activities were conducted at the
facility. The comments and suggestions did, however, make it clear that there were reporting
deficiencies for four consecutive quarters of missing influent and sludge DMRs, from October
2009 through September 2010. In contrast, the "Did you observe deficiencies" question on the
Inspection Data Sheet had been answered "no" despite the ultimate compliance determination,
which was conveyed in an NOV (below).
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-3/16/2011
Enforcement action notes: The NOV addressed failure to submit DMRs, which was documented
in the 1/5/2011 inspection report. For DMRs due as late as October 28, 2010, corresponding to
the monitoring period ending September 2010, NDEQ should have discovered these violations
prior to the January inspection. The date of the NOV followed discovery of the violations by
fewer than 90 days, and it required the facility to submit all influent and sludge samples due
since September 2010 within 30 days of the NOV and to outline measures taken to correct these
violations.
Other notes: This facility was flagged for Category 1 violations and non-major facility
noncompliance under SRF metric 7. The underlying violations were deficient sludge and
influent reporting, which the state addressed with an NOV.
Decatur WWTF (NE0049123)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 9/7/2011 (8)
Inspection notes: The inspector indicated that there were effluent limit exceedances in the
inspection checklist by appropriately marking "no" in the "DMR compliance" box. The WWTF
exceeded nitrogen ammonia on 4/13/2011. The DMR states the city does not know why the
exceedance occurred and that it did not notice the violation until July. The WWTF exceeded
fecal coliform on 5/25/2011 and states on the DMR it was due to heavy rains. The WWTF
exceeded fecal on 7/27/2011 and states on the DMR that an aeration motor had failed and was
later repaired. It appears NDEQ made a determination of compliance and after sending the
inspection report using the standard cover letter on 11/4/2011, there is nothing further in the file
regarding this inspection. An overall determination of compliance reflects that no further effluent
exceedances had been documented following the July 2011 fecal excursion.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Don Huwaldt d/b/a Don Huwaldt Trucking (discharge without permit)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 2/12/2010 (1).
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 186

-------
Inspection notes: This investigation, documented through a memorandum to NDEQ
management, was specifically performed to support a potential enforcement action against an
illegal discharge from a truck wash. The report contained limited preliminary information and
focused on documenting the discharge and detailing the facilities. Photos, but no samples, were
taken. The report was dated with the investigator's name but was not signed.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV - 5/7/2010; Complaint/Administrative Compliance Order -
2/11/2011; Administrative Consent Order - 6/24/2011.
Enforcement action notes: NDEQ received a tip from the Neb. Natural Resource District that
discharges from the Truck Wash were entering a steam. NDEQ preformed a site
visit/investigation, issued an NOV and referred the matter to the legal department for a
compliance order. The NOV was timely issued within about 90 days of the investigation. There
is a gap between the issuance of the NOV and issuance of the Compliance Order with little
documentation regarding any actions or communications in the intervening period. The
Compliance Order and subsequent Consent Order included adequate injunctive relief to require
the facility to comply (either cease operations causing discharge or by date certain submit
construction permit application and construct appropriate full-retention facilities). There was no
penalty in the order. At the time of the file review, NDEQ had not performed, but plans to
schedule, a follow-up inspection to ensure compliance.
Other notes: Because there is no permit for this facility, there are few records in NDEQ's system
regarding the facility. The legal file does not itself include a significant amount of information
regarding communications with the facility, additional inspections or any actions taken outside
the scope of the compliance order and consent order, including backup documentation (e.g., the
evidentiary record for the actions).
Kugler Co. Fertilizer Plant (NE0121509)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 11/15/2010(3).
Inspection notes: The inspection report included general facility and permit information with a
description of the facility's processes and the general site layout. The report contained little
description of the investigative activities performed during the inspection or the specific
observations from the inspection. A checklist for overall mechanical processes was filled in, but
little to no additional comments were added. The report included photos and a description of a
scum or residue covering rocks at the outfall, but no samples were taken. The report noted that
the discharge was of an unknown pollutant.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV - 1/3/2011; follow-up to NOV response - 2/2/2011;
compliance assistance visit - 2/28/2011.
Enforcement action notes: The NOV was timely issued following the inspection (about 45
days), and NDEQ followed up on the facility's response to the NOV within about 2 weeks with
additional communications. Soon thereafter, NDEQ made another site visit for compliance
assistance. The timing was appropriate to address and correct violations by a cooperative
facility.
Other notes: If the facility had not been cooperative in addressing the violations, there might not
have been adequate evidence in the inspection report to initiate and prosecute an enforcement
action.
Lodgepole WWTF (NE0112542)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 8/18/2011 (110)
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 187

-------
Inspection notes: The inspection report contained all of the items on the NPDES Inspection File
Evaluation Checklist and provided sufficient information to support a compliance determination.
The report narrative clearly stated what violations were identified. This inspection was
conducted subsequent to the DMR records reviews that prompted the NOV described below.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV - 8/2/2011; Consent Order - 11/11/2011
Enforcement action notes: Lodgepole reported monthly and non-monthly exceedances of
ammonia, BOD, and TSS in March and October of 2009 and again in March and July of 2010.
These exceedances coincided with most, if not all, of the controlled discharges that Lodgepole
reported during this two-year period. The NDEQ field office reviewed the DMRs for violations
on 9/9/2010—approximately 7 months after NDEQ received the latest 2009 DMR with
violations—and again on 2/24/2011—approximately 4 months after receiving notice of the 2010
violations. These lag times between DMR receipt and DMR review are rather lengthy. NDEQ
followed the latter DMR review with a request for enforcement to the Legal Section less than
one month later on 3/18/2011. It wasn't until 8/2/2011, or more than 5 months after the latter
DMR review, however, that NDEQ sent the facility an NOV notifying Lodgepole of its
excessive effluent exceedances. The NOV noted that enforcement would be considered but did
not explicitly request a response from the facility.
On 11/11/2011, 8 months following the program's enforcement request to Legal, NDEQ
and Lodgepole signed a consent order requiring a return to compliance by 10/1/2012. The
reason for this lag time was negotiation between Lodgepole and the state on how the consent
order should account for a high water table where the third lagoon was to be built. The third
lagoon was part of Lodgpole's conversion from a two-celled controlled discharge system to a
three-celled complete retention system. The final consent order did not include any penalties.
Other notes: None
Nemaha WWTF (NE0121304)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: None
Inspection notes: None
Enforcement action date(s): NOVs - 10/25/2010, 12/19/2011
Enforcement action notes: NDEQ issued the first of the two NOVs to address missing DMRs
from March 2008 through June 2010. The NOV was sent fewer than 90 days following the last
due date of the string of missing DMRs and required the facility to submit noncompliance
reports, copies of analytical results, and a description of how it will address failure to submit
DMRs. The file did not contain any records indicating that Nemaha had responded to this NOV.
The second NOV addressed similar missing DMRs from the December 2010 through September
2011 monitoring periods and was issued less than two months following the last DMR due date
for this monitoring period. NDEQ received a response from the facility dated 1/9/2012 and sent
an NOV closure letter to the facility dated 1/20/2012 to indicate that no further actions were
planned.
Other notes: The earlier NOV has not been entered into ICIS but is a required record for P.L.
92-500 non-majors, including this facility.
Swift Beef Company (NE0113891)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 9/1/2010 (5); 3/16/2011 (6).
Inspection notes: Both inspections include facility and permit specific information as well as a
description of the regulated processes inspected, but they do not indicate if all process were
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 188

-------
actually inspected or just selected processes. The 3/16/2011 inspection report was completed on
a "municipal" instead of industrial inspection report template. There was no description of the
inspection process or procedures in either inspection. The checklist for the September 2010
inspection report indicates noncompliance, but there is no further information explaining what
the violations were. The March 2011 inspection report indicates the DMRs for the facility are
okay, but gives no further assessment of compliance or noncompliance and many factual
observations were not compared to or assessed against compliance requirements. There were
some ammonia and pH violations in early 2010 that were not discussed in the September 2010
inspection report. Neither report provides much more than observations about the facility; there
is no clear assessment of compliance. Both inspection reports were signed, dated and sent to the
facility.
Enforcement action date(s): No enforcement actions related to the inspection reports.
Enforcement action notes: This facility was selected based on execution of a formal enforcement
action in FFY 2011. At the time of this program review, EPA and Nebraska were negotiating a
Consent Decree with Swift regarding Pretreatment violations, which has now been entered.
Because the violations that were the subject of the CD occurred prior to FFY 2011 and were not
discovered primarily by NDEQ, EPA did not review the state's involvement in the enforcement
action as part of this program review.
Other notes: None
Supplemental Files for Review
Lewiston WWTF (NE0026051)
Selection rationale: This facility was selected to ensure that EPA reviewed a sufficient number
of facilities with permit schedule violations appearing in ICIS, given that permit schedule
violations were flagged as a concern during the data metrics analysis.
Findings: OTIS shows three unachieved permit schedule milestones. The first milestone in the
permit is submittal of design and specifications for a WWTF upgrade to meet final E. coli limits,
with a due date of 4/1/2009. At one-year intervals, two subsequent milestones are to initiate
construction of the upgrade and to operate the WWTF to meet final E. coli limits. NDEQ staff
revealed that the facility has not yet satisfied any of these requirements.
The compliance schedule violations in OTIS are legitimate, and the state needs to get the
facility back on track in a timely fashion. The compliance record is also littered with CBOD,
ammonia, and TSS violations. NDEQ sent an NOV to the City on 4/27/2010, citing the failure to
submit the first deliverable due one year earlier as well as poor operation and maintenance
discovered during a 3/18/2010 complaint investigation. An NOV was a timely response to the
operation and maintenance citation, but it followed the due date of the first permit milestone by
more than a year. The City did not respond to the NOV. An administrative order from NDEQ
dated 6/16/2010 addressed the same violations as the NOV and did elicit a written response from
the facility on 7/8/2010. The City's letter stated that a facility plan from the consulting engineer
would be sent to the state within days, and NDEQ received the plan. The two subsequent
milestones due in 2010 and 2011 have not been satisfied. Therefore, NDEQ needs to update
ICIS to show receipt of the first deliverable and to continue working with the City, given that
Lewiston remains in violation of its permit and order.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 189

-------
Madrid WWTF (NE0040037)
Selection rationale: This facility was selected to ensure that EPA reviewed a sufficient number
of facilities with permit schedule violations appearing in ICIS, given that permit schedule
violations were flagged as a concern during the data metrics analysis.
Findings: The first milestone in the permit is submittal of a facility plan / engineering report
with plans and specifications for any modification to the WWTF necessary to meet final
ammonia limits, with a due date of 9/1/2007. Subsequent milestones have unspecified dates
contingent on approval by NDEQ of preceding milestones. The violation appearing in OTIS was
for unachieved completion of construction by 1/1/2009. NDEQ staff revealed that the facility
has not yet moved into a construction phase because the City has had difficulty getting a suitable
plan from the consulting engineer. The most recent letter in the file from Madrid to NDEQ
included the contradictory statement that "plans have been submitted for lagoons."
The compliance schedule violation in OTIS is legitimate, and the state needs to get the
facility back on track in a timely fashion. The compliance record is also littered with CBOD,
ammonia, and TSS violations. An administrative complaint and compliance order from NDEQ
dated 6/17/2009 was issued to address CBOD exceedances and requires the facility to complete
construction of wastewater facility improvements by 10/1/2011.
Once the facility has satisfied its overdue permit schedule milestones, NDEQ should
update OTIS with the actual achieved dates for those milestones.
Pretreatment Industries
CJ Foods (NE0132683)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: None
Inspection notes: None
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-1/7/2011
Enforcement action notes: The NOV was issued for failure to submit reports for the second and
third calendar quarters of 2010. The second quarter report, covering the March through June
2010 time period, was due no later than 7/28/2010 and would constitute Significant
Noncompliance (SNC) when it had not been received by 8/28/2010. The report for the third
quarter was due no later than 10/28/2010 (part of FFY 2011) and constituted SNC when it was
not received by 11/28/2011. The NOV did not cite the facility for being in SNC, but it should
have done so.
CJ Foods responded to the NOV on 2/1/2011, claiming that it had submitted both reports
on time via first class U.S. mail and again at the EPA inspection of 12/8/2010. It further stated
that all subsequent reports would be submitted by certified mail. NDEQ acknowledged CJ's
response in a letter to them dated 3/7/2011 and stated that no further action was warranted.
Other notes: None
Feaster Foods (NE0114081)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: None
Inspection notes: None
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-1/19/2011
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 190

-------
Enforcement action notes: NDEQ issued the NOV following a file review of 1/6/2011, whereby
NDEQ determined that Feaster had exceeded its daily maximum temperature limit in July,
August, and September of 2012. The facility was also cited for failing to notify NDEQ within 24
hours of the violation followed by written notification within five days.
The industry replied promptly on 1/21/2011 stating that it believed its temperature probe
was in the wrong location and that it had been relocated. The industry returned to compliance.
Other notes: None
lams Company (NE0133175)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: None
Inspection notes: None
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-1/7/2011
Enforcement action notes: NDEQ issued the NOV following a file review of 12/21/2010 that
determined lams had not submitted its quarterly monitoring report due on October 28, 2010. The
facility responded on 1/12/2011 claiming it had submitted the report on 10/14/2010 and enclosed
a copy of a faxed document from that date.
The NOV did not identify that lams was in Significant Noncompliance but should have,
as the report had not been received by 11/28/2011, which was the end of the 30-day period when
SNC is triggered.
Other notes: None
Norvartis Consumer Health (NE0000701)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: None
Inspection notes: None
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-9/14/2011
Enforcement action notes: Norvartis was issued an NOV by NDEQ for acetone violations
reported on 4/28/2011 and 8/9/2011. The industry replied to the NOV on 9/27/2011 stating that
it were unable to determine how acetone was being generated in its system. On 10/17/2011, the
industry submitted additional sampling results still showing acetone violations. These violations
constituted SNC, and NDEQ's response was appropriate. However, the facility has continued to
measure high acetone exceedances even after responding to the NOV. Therefore, the informal
enforcement did not resolve the matter.
Other notes: Norvartis is subject to the 40 CFR Part 439 Pharmaceutical Categorical
Pretreatment Standards which contain a limit for acetone. Although Norvartis does not use
acetone during its manufacturing processes, it does appear to generate it as a byproduct.
Tasty Toppings (NE0137448)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: None
Inspection notes: None
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-1/3/2011
Enforcement action notes: Tasty Toppings, a salad dressing manufacturer, received an NOV
following an NDEQ inspection conducted on 12/1/2010. The NOV cited Tasty Toppings for
violating the effluent limits contained in its permit, interference potential, and for obstruction of
flow. There were no calculations in the file showing how interference potential was determined.
Interference potential would be inferred if the limits in Tasty Toppings' permit are based on the
plant capacity of the Duncan wastewater treatment plant. However, a review of the fact sheet
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 191

-------
states that the BOD limit (300 mg/1), the TSS limit (350 mg/1), and the Oil and Grease limit (100
mg/1) are based on the city's sewer use ordinance limits. These are common surcharge limits and
not technically derived. Therefore, it cannot be said that violating them establishes interference
potential without further evaluation.
The data set of violations indicated that Tasty Toppings was in SNC; however, SNC was
not cited in the NOV as it should have been.
Other notes: None
TMCO Powdercoating, Inc. (NE0133752)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: None
Inspection notes: None
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-3/16/2011
Enforcement action notes: NDEQ inspected TMCO Powdercoating on 1/20/2011 and followed
with the NOV because the inspection determined the facility had failed to submit required
monitoring data between July 2008 and October 2010. The industry had overlooked submitting
monthly flow information when its permit had been changed to require only semiannual
sampling.
Rather than detecting the reporting violation only during the course of an inspection,
NDEQ should have issued the NOV years earlier as a result of regularly reviewing DMRs
submitted by the facility.
Other notes: None
Becton Dickinson (NE0060089)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 6/28/2011 (10)
Inspection notes: At the time of inspection, the industry was operating under an administratively
extended permit, as its permit had expired on 12/31/2008. The inspection report was transmitted
to the facility on 8/10/2011.
The inspection report stated that Becton Dickinson was in the process of installing
additional pretreatment systems, of which chromium precipitation was included. The report was
not clear if this was an upgrade, a replacement for an existing chromium precipitation system, or
a completely new addition. The report did not discuss why this system was needed, whether
because of past violations of chrome or because a new manufacturing process was being added
that would discharge chrome.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Chief Industries (NE0129348)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 1/19/2011 (13)
Inspection notes: The inspection covered all significant elements of the facility's operation and
permit requirements. It is not the practice to take photographs, so none were included. The
report was completed five days later and transmitted to the facility on 2/9/2011.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 192

-------
CNH America, LLC (NE0114537)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 5/5/2011 (13)
Inspection notes: From the report, the reviewer is able to determine important information such
as the manufacturing process, regulated process and applicable Categorical standard (40 CFR
Part 433 Metal Finishing), regulated flow, and pretreatment system employed to achieve and
maintain compliance.
The report was completed in 13 days but took awhile to get through the system.
Completed on 5/18/2011, it was processed on 5/24 and concurred on by the supervisor on 6/2. It
wasn't mailed, however, until 6/20.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Exmark Manufacturing Co. (NE0124605)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 5/3/2011 (7)
Inspection notes: The standard NDEQ inspection checklist was used. While no photos were
taken, the report was complete and comprehensive. The report was completed within seven days
and transmitted to the facility 22 days later on 5/25/2011.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
General Dynamics (NE0060062)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 2/15/2011 (16)
Inspection notes: Overall, the inspection report contained sufficient information to determine the
facility's manufacturing processes, the applicable environmental regulations and permit limits,
and the compliance of the facility. The inspection report was transmitted to the facility on
3/10/2011.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Gibbon Packing (NE0124061)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 10/19/2010 (6)
Inspection notes: The inspection found the facility to be in compliance with its recently
modified permit of 7/1/2010, which consisted of increasing the limits of what could be
discharged to the City of Gibbon. The report was completed in six days and transmitted to
Gibbon Packing on 11/12/2010. The inspection discussed that Gibbon had been consistently
violating its limits in the past but did not identify whether the violations constituted Significant
Noncompliance.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: Shortly after the inspection report was sent to Gibbon Packing, the
facility began violating its limits again. Gibbon Packing was not one of the facilities for which
an NOV was issued in FY 2011, but some type of enforcement would have been appropriate.
Other notes: None
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 193

-------
Great Plains Polymers (NE0123846)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 12/6/2010(11)
Inspection notes: While no photos were taken, the inspection report description captured all of
the information needed to understand the workings of the facility and its permit requirements.
The report was completed in 11 days and transmitted to the facility on 1/14/2011.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Hunt Cleaners (NE0137472)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 6/15/2011 (5)
Inspection notes: In general, the report was thorough; however, it did not discuss adequately the
facility's permit requirements but stated that Hunt Cleaners may have BOD problems in the
future because of limited capacity at the Cozad WWTP. The report also contained some good
photographs in support of the narrative observations.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Hydraulic Components (NE0124435)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 8/18/2011 (27)
Inspection notes: The inspection report was completed in 27 days. The report contained an
aerial photograph of the property and a wastewater flow schematic, both of which assisted in
understanding the operations at the plant. The narrative, however, did not identify what the
facility manufactures so it difficult to gauge the operations inspected.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Teledyne ISCO (NE0060011)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 5/10/2011 (13)
Inspection notes: The inspection report was completed 13 days following the inspection but not
mailed to the facility until 6/15/2011. Overall, the report was well written and contained all of
the information necessary to determine the facility's manufacturing and regulated processes and
compliance information.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Industrial Stormwater
Ballantyne Strong, Inc. (NER001259)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 3/11/2011 (11)
Inspection notes: The stormwater inspection was an add-on to the pretreatment inspection done
at the facility. The inspection contained observations related to a review of stormwater related
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 194

-------
paperwork. The inspection also included a walk-through of the exterior of the facility and the
observation that an improvement had been made to the metal load-out area to prevent
contaminants from contacting stormwater. The inspection appears adequate insofar as providing
all that was necessary to make an accurate compliance determination. The facility was found to
be in compliance. The standard transmittal cover letter was dated 3/30/2011.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Behlen Manufacturing Co. (NER000696)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 4/5/2011 (36)
Inspection notes: The inspection was an add-on to the core industrial inspection done at the
facility. The inspection contained observations related to a review of stormwater related
paperwork. It is unclear if the inspector also performed a walk-through of the perimeter and
exterior grounds of the facility to determine if pollutants are exposed to stormwater and if
appropriate stormwater controls are in place. By extension, sufficient information was not
provided to support a compliance determination. The standard transmittal cover letter was dated
5/25/11.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
lams Co. (NER000880)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 2/23/2011 (10)
Inspection notes: The inspection was an add-on to the pretreatment inspection done at the
facility. The inspection contained observations related to a review of stormwater related
paperwork. The inspection also included a walk-through of the exterior of the facility. The
inspection report appears adequate, and the facility was found to be in compliance. The standard
transmittal cover letter was dated 3/10/2011.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Industrial Powder Coating (NER001315)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 2/23/2011 (8)
Inspection notes: The inspector found that the site failed to meet the requirements for no
exposure (NEC) and failed to obtain permit authorization. The inspection report was transmitted
with the standard cover letter on 3/10/2011.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV - 3/16/2011, 21 days after the inspection.
Enforcement action notes: The NOV cited failure to meet requirements for NEC and failure to
obtain permit authorization. The NOV required completion of a SWPPP. There were several
emails in the file documenting progress on development of the SWPPP but that the facility
wouldn't meet the NOV deadline to do so. NDEQ performed a second inspection on 12/6/2011,
which EPA did not evaluate using the NPDES Inspection File Evaluation Checklist. The
inspector found the facility failed to meet the deadline to develop a SWPPP as detailed in the
NOV. NDEQ transmitted this inspection with language stating they are evaluating whether to do
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 195

-------
enforcement and tell them what fines may be. This is the last item in the file. It is unclear if the
facility completed an adequate SWPPP and achieved compliance.
Other notes: None
iRock Concrete, LLC (no permit number)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 7/28/2010 (75)
Inspection notes: The inspector observed that the site discharged wastewater and process water
to waters of the state and to land without a permit. The inspection report was transmitted to the
facility on 11/1/2010 with the NOV.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV - 11/1/2010, 96 days after the inspection was conducted.
Enforcement action notes: The NOV cited failure to obtain authorization and non-stormwater
discharges including the discharge of process and waste waters to waters of the state. The NOV
required the facility to 1) immediately take steps to minimize pollutant discharges from the site;
2) immediately initiate development of a non-stormwater management strategy to eliminate the
discharge of process wash waters; 3) immediately initiate development of a SWPPP in
compliance with permit requirements; 4) within 90 days submit a SWPPP to NDEQ; and 5)
within 90 days submit a NOI to NDEQ. The only response to the NOV observed in the file was
an NOI submitted 12/30/2011, just over one year after the NOV was issued. The NOI is the
most recent item in the file. The file did not contain a permit authorization.
Other notes: Based on the documentation in the file, it cannot be determined if the site achieved
compliance.
Lincoln Industries, Inc. (NER000005)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 2/26/2011 (5)
Inspection notes: The inspection was an add-on to the pretreatment inspection done at the
facility. The inspection contained observations related to a review of stormwater related
paperwork. The inspection also included a walk-through of the exterior of the facility. The
inspection report appears adequate, and the facility was found to be in compliance. The standard
transmittal cover letter was dated 3/16/2011.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Papio Valley Auto Parts (NER001116)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 10/4/2010 (3)
Inspection notes: The inspection found several violations of the industrial stormwater permit.
The inspection report was transmitted with the NOV on 12/9/2010.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-12/9/2010.
Enforcement action notes: The NOV was sent 66 days after the inspection. The NOV cited
failure to implement and maintain the SWPPP, failure to conduct inspections, failure to conduct
SWPPP reviews, failure to implement spill prevention and response procedures, and failure to
implement an employee training program. NDEQ received three responses to the NOV from the
consultant hired to help the site owner achieve compliance with the permit. The responses
indicate that all violations cited in the NOV were addressed. The last (2/7/2011) response in the
file states that equipment had been ordered to address one of the violations but had not yet been
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 196

-------
received. If that equipment was received, installed, and used properly, the site likely achieved
compliance.
Other notes: None
Thermo King Corporation (NER000783)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 3/17/2011 (4)
Inspection notes: The inspection was an add-on to the pretreatment inspection done at the
facility. The inspection contained observations related to a review of stormwater related
paperwork. It is unclear if the inspector also performed a walk-through of the perimeter and
exterior grounds of the facility to determine if pollutants are exposed to stormwater and if
appropriate stormwater controls are in place. The standard transmittal cover letter was dated
4/21/2011.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Construction Stormwater
Custer Campus (NER112242)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 12/2/2010 (7)
Inspection notes: Several deficiencies were observed, including 1) no entrance sign, 2) no
designated concrete washout area, 3) no documented site-inspection reports, and 4) the site
entrance needed maintenance. The standard transmittal cover letter was dated 1/14/2011.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: The inspection report contained language stating that the site operator told the
inspector he would address the deficiencies.
CVS Pharmacy (NER112420)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 9/28/2011 (6)
Inspection notes: The facility was found to be in compliance and the inspection states, "The
facility has taken proper precautions for erosion control and to prevent runoff. No track-out was
observed along Old Cheney." However, photo #2 is a picture of the main entrance to the site
along Old Cheney. There was significant track-out along the entrance and out onto the public
road. A car can be seen along the public roadway and it was in a cloud of dust caused by the
severe track-out on the roadway. There is a discrepancy between the conclusion in the narrative
report and the photo. The standard transmittal cover letter was dated 11/4/2011.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Dorchester WWTF (NER111779)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 8/3/2011 (26)
Inspection notes: The facility was found to be in compliance, as stated in the report, and this
finding corresponds with the inspector's observations. Construction of the WWTF's new lagoon
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 197

-------
had just been completed at the time of the inspection. The standard transmittal cover letter was
dated 10/17/2011.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Indianola WWTF (NER111673)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 9/29/2010 (5)
Inspection notes: The inspector observed several deficiencies including failure to provide access
to all records (NOI, permit, SWPPP) and failure to properly maintain site entrances. The
inspection was transmitted twice; first with the NOV on 10/27/2010 and again with the standard
cover letter on 11/12/2010.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV - 10/27/2010, 28 days after the inspection.
Enforcement action notes: The NOV cited the deficiencies listed above and required that the
entrance be immediately maintained, that all required paperwork be kept on site, and that a copy
of the SWPPP be submitted to NDEQ within 15 days. The SWPPP was received by NDEQ on
11/8/2010. It is unknown if the site complied with the other requirements of the NOV because
the NOV did not require submittals to NDEQ regarding the other violations.
Other notes: None
Kenneth Deinert Residence (no permit)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 5/26/2011 (27); 8/4/2011 (7)
Inspection notes: Both inspections were based on complaints. The inspections include findings
of noncompliance. The site was not permitted at the time of the inspections. In addition to the
failure to apply for a permit and develop and implement a SWPPP, there was a nearly complete
lack of structural and non-structural controls including the failure to stabilize large portions of
the site, which resulted in sediment running offsite and into a waterbody (presumably an
unnamed tributary). The owner was not on site during at least the first inspection. Both
inspection reports were transmitted with the standard cover letter on 8/23/2011.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-9/1/2011
Enforcement action notes: The NOV was sent 31 days after the second inspection and 97 days
after the first inspection. The NOV cited failure to obtain authorization and a lack of erosion and
sediment controls which caused the discharge of sediment to nearby receiving waters. The NOV
required 1) immediate steps to minimize discharge of pollutants through proper application and
maintenance of controls; 2) immediately begin preparing a SWPPP that complies with the
requirements of the permit; 3) submit an NOI within 30 days; and 4) within 30 days, incorporate
all required elements of a SWPPP into the SWPPP for the site and submit a copy of the SWPPP
to NDEQ.
Other notes: The Respondent never replied to the NOV. Authorization under the general permit
was never sought. NDEQ performed a third inspection of the site on 10/10/2011. At that time
controls had been installed and temporary and permanent stabilization had occurred on portions
of the site. Construction was nearly complete. The 10/10/2011 inspection report was transmitted
on 11/4/2011.
Southwest Implement, Inc. (NER112161)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 12/28/2010 (6); 5/12/2011 (6)
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 198

-------
Inspection notes: The inspections both revealed deficiencies. The first inspection report
documents the failure to have an entrance sign; failure to document inspections; failure to have a
trained inspector; failure to include details for all SWPPP elements; and failure to implement all
BMPs. The inspection was transmitted to the facility with the standard cover letter on
1/14/2011. The second inspection revealed nearly the identical deficiencies, including failure to
have an entrance sign; failure to document inspections; failure to have a trained inspector; failure
to include details for all SWPPP elements; and failure to implement all BMPs and some vehicle
track-out. The second inspection was transmitted with the standard cover letter on 6/16/2011.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV - 7/18/2011, 202 days after the first inspection and 67 days
after the second inspection. Enforcement request to Legal Section - 7/27/2011.
Enforcement action notes: The NOV cites the deficiencies observed during the inspections and
requires Southwest Implement to maintain entrances immediately; immediately start
documenting self site inspections; immediately post a proper sign near the main entrance;
immediately install BMPs and repair all damaged BMPs; and to submit a copy of the SWPPP
within 15 days. NDEQ received a response to the NOV on 7/29/2011, which included a copy of
the SWPPP, pictures that illustrate some stabilization, and an NOT. The NOT was denied by
NDEQ on 9/2/2011.
In addition to the Request for Enforcement dated 7/27/2011, the file also contains a
9/6/2011 letter from Michael Linder to the state AG asking AG to represent NDEQ in the matter
and seek penalty. An undated and unsigned complaint cites failure to provide proper signage,
failure to conduct and record self site inspections, and the failure to minimize erosion on
disturbed areas. The complaint "prays a decision will be granted in the form of a civil penalty
together with the costs of this action."
A 9/29/2011 email from Blake Johnson, Assistant AG, to Blayne Renner forwards a
memo from the Respondent demonstrating the actions taken to comply. EPA notes that there
were still unstabilized areas.
NDEQ performed two additional site visits on 6/14/2011 and 8/19/2011, which reveal
improvements in the condition of the site but still show areas without BMPs and with inadequate
stabilization.
Other notes: The NDEQ attorney assigned to the case developed a penalty calculation in the
amount of $21,500, which includes $4,500 for economic benefit. The economic benefit
calculation describes several areas where the Respondent saved money by not taking action
and/or not installing controls. The calculation method and result are similar to how EPA would
calculate economic benefit. It is unclear from the file if the complaint has been issued;
negotiations between the AG and the Respondent are ongoing.
Timm Soil Mining (NER111337)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 10/22/2010 (4) & 10/10/2011 (3)
Inspection notes: The inspections both revealed deficiencies. The site lacked a proper basin,
BMPs and stabilization. Site inspections had not been conducted or documented. The SWPPP
and NOI were not on site. The SWPPP was not updated to reflect actual site conditions. The file
did not contain the standard cover letter for either inspection.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV - 12/7/2010, 46 days after the inspection. Enforcement
request to Legal Section - 12/3/2010. The complaint is signed and dated 3/11/2011, 140 days
after the 10/22/2010 inspection.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 199

-------
Enforcement action notes: The NOV cites the deficiencies observed during the inspections and
requires that Mr. Timm: Immediately inspect the site for inadequate controls and update the
SWPPP; immediately implement all controls; immediately address maintenance of existing
controls; initiate development of a drastic slopes stabilization plan that addresses steep slopes;
and within 20 days submit a written report, SWPPP and photos documenting changes made to
the site. No response to the NOV was ever received by NDEQ.
The 3/11/2011 complaint requires Mr. Timm to cease soil mining until he is in
compliance with his original 1/7/2009 SWPPP or with a revised (and approved by NDEQ)
SWPPP, and to initiate stabilization within 120 days.
The file contains a penalty calculation, completed by the NDEQ attorney assigned to the
case, in the amount of $55,040. The penalty does not include a calculation of economic benefit
but does contain a notation stating economic benefit was not computed.
Other notes: The state AG continues to negotiate the case. There is an email from the NDEQ
attorney to the AG's office dated 8/5/2011 stating that Mr. Timm wanted someone from NDEQ
to look at the site and see the improvements he made. NDEQ performed an inspection on
10/10/2011. The inspector observed that many violations observed during the previous
inspection were still ongoing including poor vegetation on slopes, continued erosion of slopes,
no stabilized outlet structure in the basin, no submittal of a required slope stabilization plan to
NDEQ, and the failure to prepare steep slopes prior to attempts at stabilization. This email is the
most current item in the file.
It should be noted that NDEQ performed complaint investigations at this site in August
2007, April 2008, and November 2008. The 12/7/2010 NOV was the first issued at this site.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
General Comments from NDEQ on CAFO Facilities:
The inspection reports do not normally list all the historical events that have occurred at an
operation. The inspector has access to the entire file, either in paper files or electronic files, to
use prior to conducting the inspection. Through the frequent visits to an operation, the inspector
develops a knowledge of an operation that isn't always reflected in the inspection report, but still
available for compliance determination.
The inspection report is also not used to list the compliance status of an operation. The
inspection is to gather data and evidence to assist program managers in making decisions.
Noncompliance action is documented in corrective action letters, letters of warning, notice of
violation, or requests for enforcement action.
37 Land & Cattle (NEG010032)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 8/21/2008 (14), 7/7/2011 (6)
Inspection notes: The first inspection was a complaint and discharge investigation documented
on the Discharge Investigation Checklist. The checklist did not provide a detailed facility
description or a description of the NPDES activity pertinent to the inspection, nor did the
checklist cover regulated areas or activities evaluated during the inspection or make it clear what
was and was not inspected. **In addition, the Inspector's Observations section did not provide a
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 200

-------
clear description of the permit requirements that the inspection would be evaluating against. The
inspector noted that the discharge entered Lost Creek.
The second discharge investigation was documented with the discharge checklist. The
same issues were noted, with the lack of information from the checklist as listed above.
Enforcement action date(s): 8/11/2011
Enforcement action notes: The NOV was issued for failure to complete construction and illegal
discharges.
Other notes: A discharge occurred on 6/5/2008, but the investigation was not conducted until
*8/21/08* **The second discharge occurred on 7/5/2011 and NDEQ investigated it on 7/7/2011.
Information from the file determined that the facility had discharges on 8/16/2006, 4/24/2007,
6/5/2008, 7/5/2011, and 10/7/2011. The last of these occurred after the NOV was issued.
State Response: The discharge investigation is done to determine compliance with a certain
discharge and not an evaluation of the entire operation. Several discharges at other CAFOs
occurred at the same time because of rainfall events.
3 B Farms (NEG011043)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 3/10/2011 (14); 9/8/2011 (12)
Inspection notes: 3/10/2011 - Initial inspection found faults with several areas of the facility.
Photographs were not collected during the initial inspection. **A compliance determination was
made in the inspection report. An LOW was issued; however, the inspection checklist was not
sent to the facility. **
The second inspection (9/8/2011) was conducted as a follow-up that focused primarily on
the areas of non-compliance noted during the initial inspection. The follow up inspection
contained photographs of the corrected areas. The inspection determined that the feedstock
storage area was exempt from permit requirements. The inspection checklists were not sent to
the facility.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: NDEQ worked with the facility and conducted 3 inspections to
achieve voluntary compliance. A formal action was not taken given the return to compliance and
nature of violations.
Other notes: None
State Response: Photos were not taken during this inspection because most of the non
compliance was record keeping. Policy is to send a copy of the inspection report with the
response letter. The lack of a checkmark on the routing slip does not mean the report was not
sent to the operation.
Adams Land & Cattle Co - South (NEG011191)
Ongoing EPA Enforcement - file not evaluated
Arbuck & Underwood Feedyard (NEG011049)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 7/7/2011 (within 45 days), 1/6/2011 (within 45 days)
Inspection notes: The first inspection was a routine compliance inspection documented with the
routine inspection checklist. The checklist provided adequate information except for not
providing a thorough narrative of the field activities conducted. Photographs were not taken
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 201

-------
during the inspection. The inspection report did not provide a specific compliance
determination, but a separate letter provided the determination.
The second inspection was a discharge investigation documented with the discharge
checklist. The checklist did not provide a thorough description of the facility operations, permit
status, activities covered during the inspection, or the permit requirements that were evaluated
against during the inspection. The inspector did not collect photographs or collect samples
during the investigation. From the information provided in the inspection report, it was unclear
what NDEQ determined to be the compliance status. It was also unclear whether the discharge
reached waters of the state.
Enforcement action date(s): LOW - 8/23/2011
Enforcement action notes: The LOW addressed failure to submit an NMP, failure to dewater,
failure to meet increased recordkeeping requirements, and the failure to pump when facility was
above 'must-pump' status. However, the action did not address the fact that the facility was not
in compliance with its NDPES permit at the time of the discharge and, therefore, the discharge
was not authorized. This appears to be a situation that called for escalation of noncompliance to
enforcement action above an LOW.
Other notes: Some inspection information was not contained in the inspection report, but was
found in other parts of the file.
Art Dose & Sons Inc. (NEG010051)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 7/7/2011 (w/in 45 days)
Inspection notes: A discharge investigation was documented with the discharge checklist. The
checklist did not provide a thorough description of the facility description, permit status,
activities covered during the inspection, or the permit requirements that were evaluated against
during the inspection. The inspector did collect photographs, but did not collect samples during
the investigation. From the information provided in the inspection report, it was unclear what
NDEQ determined was the compliance status. The investigation stated that the discharge did not
reach the receiving stream.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: It did not appear that any follow-up activity was conducted or documented. The
facility's discharge notification report states that discharge reached the stream, but the inspection
report states that no discharge entered waters of the state.
B&B Cattle (NEG011311)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 11/16/2010(16)
Inspection notes: The compliance inspection was documented with the compliance short form
checklist. The checklist did not provide a thorough description of the NPDES activities pertinent
to the inspection or the regulated areas evaluated during the inspection. **The checklist also did
not provide a narrative description of field activities conducted or a description of the permit
requirements that were evaluated against. Two photographs were taken during the inspection
and included in the report. The reviewer was able to determine the compliance status of the
facility.
Enforcement action date(s): Corrective Action Required Letter - 12/2/2010.
Enforcement action notes: The transmittal letter for the inspection report, which also served as
the CAR letter, described deficiencies and requested corrective action within 30 days.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 202

-------
Other notes: None
State Response: The short form was never intended to cover all regulated NPDES activities.
The current practice is to use the long form at least once during the permit term as agreed to
by EPA.
Bar K Cattle (NEG011079)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 5/20/2010 (32), 8/25/2010, 6/29/2011 (within 45 days),
12/5/2011 (within 45 days),
Inspection notes: An NDEQ compliance inspection that took place May 2010, the same month
the facility was sold, indicated the facility had multiple violations and was not in compliance,
although the types of violations indicate corrective actions may have been needed long before the
sale. Inspection checklists were used to document the inspections. No photographs, samples, or
records were collected during the inspection. The facility was given a timeframe to complete
required actions.
NDEQ conducted a discharge investigation on 8/25/2010 after 4 discharges occurred
from June to August. ** Another discharge investigation was made on 6/29/2011. NDEQ then
issued an LOW, as holding ponds were above must pump levels prior to discharge.
An inspection on 12/5/2011 was conducted to follow-up on issues noted in the LOW. Pictures
were taken and the compliance status determined.
Enforcement action date(s): LOW - 8/15/2011
Enforcement action notes: Multiple discharges were addressed with one LOW. This use of
enforcement so late following the earlier discharges was neither timely nor appropriate.
Other notes: The facility has had continued issues with land application of wastewater and
discharges. New ownership took over in 2010. The issue is complicated because the former
owner of the feedlot has control of the application acres. The facility recently acquired its own
acreage for land application.
State Response: Discharge #1 report was 6/18/10 and #2 report was 6/28/10, both
investigated on 7/15/10. Discharge #3 report was 7/26/10 and #4 report was 8/11/01, both
investigated on 8/25/10. First two discharges were among 27 reported in the area following
two rounds of extremely heavy rains. The last two discharges were an ongoing issue
regarding land application under very wet conditions.
Beer Creek Ranch, LLC (NEG011321)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 5/18/2010 (within 45 days)
Inspection notes: NDEQ conducted a post-construction inspection following an expansion from
999 head to 7,000. The inspection had very detailed photos of all of the constructed waste
retention structures. The report had a checklist and the construction was approved. The
checklist was sent to the file. No-follow-up was needed.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Beller Feedlot (NEG010252)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 7/8/2010 (120)
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 203

-------
Inspection notes: NDEQ conducted a discharge investigation following discharge notifications
of 6/21-25/2010, 6/10-17/2010, 6/14/2010, 6/28/2010, 6/6/2008, 6/4/2008, 8/23/2007, and
6/6/2007. Photographs were taken during the inspection and included in the report. The
inspection report does not document if the discharge reached waters of the state or impacted the
receiving stream or if any sampling was conducted. The LOW was sent to the facility, but not
the inspection checklist.
Enforcement action date(s): LOW - 11/8/2010
Enforcement action notes: This use of enforcement was not appropriate. Multiple discharges
from the facility were not addressed by escalated enforcement, as would have been appropriate.
Other notes: The number of discharges reported (2007 - 2010) was not consummated by a
timely onsite investigation following the discharge notifications.
Blue River Pork, Inc. (72219)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 08/14/2008 (34)
Inspection notes: On 6/11/2008, NDEQ conducted a Post Construction inspection for the
Livestock Waste Control Facility (LWCF) following issuance of the Construction Operating
Permit that stated the LWCF was not to be operated until written approval was received from
NDEQ. On 8/14/2008, NDEQ conducted the inspection of the site and determined that swine
were occupying the buildings and animal waste was flowing to the LWCF. The inspection did
not provide a description of NPDES regulated activities pertinent to the inspection. Photographs
were collected during the inspection. The state did not transmit the inspection checklist to the
facility, and there is not enough information in the report to determine the compliance status of
the facility. NDEQ also did not provide a compliance determination at the time of the
inspection. On 8/29/08, NDEQ received Certification of Approval and the As Built Plans from
the facility. NDEQ conducted several exchanges with the facility prior to issuing an NOV and
ultimately making an Enforcement Request. On 7/10/2009, NDEQ issued an Approval to
Operate letter to the facility.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV - 12/10/2008; CD - 2/11/2011
Enforcement action notes: NDEQ had several information requests and exchanges with the
facility prior to issuing the NOV approximately 120 days after the initial inspection. The
Enforcement Request was made on 7/10/2009 and a Consent Decree, for non-NPDES violations,
signed on 2/11/2011. A penalty was assessed that consisted of $1,250 in monetary penalty and a
$1,250 SEP with $5,000 waived; the initial proposed penalty was $12,000.
Other notes: The case closure date was 8/15/2011.
Bowman Farms (NEG011021)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 7/11/2011 (10)
Inspection notes: The compliance inspection was documented with the Compliance Short Form.
The inspection checklist provided an adequate facility description and permit status and the
description of NPDES activities covered by the inspection was adequate. In addition the written
narrative description of the field activities, observations, and description of permit requirements
was also adequate. No photographs were taken during the inspection. Information gathered
during the inspection lead to a Corrective Action Required Letter with no timeframe for
correcting deficiencies. The letter addressed failure to maintain adequate storage levels.
Enforcement action date(s): Corrective Action Required Letter - 7/12/2011
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 204

-------
Enforcement action notes: NDEQ was able to achieve voluntary compliance, even though the
Corrective Action Required Letter did not include timeframes for correcting deficiencies.
Other notes: None
Butler County Dairy (NE0136212)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 5/19/2011 (6)
Inspection notes: A routine compliance inspection served as a follow-up to issues noted during
previous inspections concerning recordkeeping. The inspection was documented using the
Compliance Checklist and determined that the facility was missing annual reports. The checklist
was sent to the facility with a cover letter that required the facility to submit the missing reports.
The reports were received by NDEQ.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: Voluntary compliance was achieved; no other issues were observed concerning
record keeping.
Classic Dairy (71321)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 8/24/2009 (within 45 days)
Inspection notes: The inspection was a discharge investigation, via a complaint, where the
inspector collected photographs, but no samples were taken. The inspection focused primarily
on the areas affected by the discharge and was not a complete inspection. An NOV was issued
based on the findings of the investigation.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV - 10/22/2009; Enforcement Request - April 2010
Enforcement action notes: The use of an NOV and enforcement referral were appropriate. A
penalty was issued to the facility. The initial penalty was similar to the amount sought by EPA
for similar violations; however, final settlement was significantly lower than the initial proposed
amount.
Other notes: Could not find evidence in the file that the penalty had been collected.
COE Cattle Company (NE0044521)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 10/25/2010 (within 45 days); 5/25/2011 (29 days)
Inspection notes: The first inspection checklist contained adequate information, except the
narrative description of the inspection activities was lacking. The second inspection only
observed the areas impacted by the discharge and did not observe the entire facility or review
records to determine if these factors may have been involved in the discharge. Photographs were
taken during the first inspection, while no photographs were taken during the second.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-6/23/2011
Enforcement action notes: The first inspection was followed by a Corrective Action Letter,
while the second inspection was followed less than one month by an NOV requiring repairs to a
berm and other actions by a date certain.
Other notes: Information in the file shows elevated Nitrate, Chlorides, etc. in groundwater
monitoring. The violation was an avoidable discharge resulting from the operator's negligence.
A penalty would have been justified and appropriate. **
State Response: Enforcement action with penalties was requested.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 205

-------
Darr Feedlot (NEG011056)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 4/12/2011 (within 45 days); 8/23/2011 (within 45 days)
Inspection notes: The initial inspection identified deficiencies, and the second inspection was a
follow-up indicating that not all of the compliance issues were addressed. A follow-up informal
Corrective Action letter required the remaining deficiencies to be corrected by 11/15/2011;
however, there is nothing in the file to indicate that the issues were addressed by the timeline
provided. Perhaps the supporting records had not yet been scanned into the electronic records
system. The inspector utilized inspection checklists to document both inspections.
Enforcement action date(s): Corrective Action Required letter - date not recorded by EPA.
Enforcement action notes: The file does not contain records to enable the reviewer to determine
whether the facility had returned to compliance.
Other notes: None
Denker, Inc. (NEG011300)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 5/19/2011 (within 45 days)
Inspection notes: The inspection was documented with the Compliance Short Form checklist.
The checklist did not provide a detailed description of NPDES regulated activities pertinent to
the inspection or regulated areas evaluated during the inspection. ** In addition, the checklist did
not provide a narrative description of field activities conducted or a description of the permitted
activities the inspection evaluated against. Photographs were collected during the inspection.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: The inspection report did not make a clear compliance determination,
and no follow-up letter was sent to the facility.
Other notes: None
State Response: The short form was never intended to cover all regulated NPDES activities.
The current practice is to use the long form at least once during the permit term as agreed to
by EPA.
Dinsdale Brothers Inc. - North (65954)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 2/14/2010 (43)
Inspection notes: A discharge investigation was documented with the Discharge Checklist. The
investigation focused on areas concerned with discharge and did not evaluate the entire facility.
The checklist did not provide a description of permit requirements evaluated or observations
made regarding permit requirements. No samples were collected of the discharge. Photographs
were collected during the inspection and corrective actions were required during the inspection.
An NOV was issued to the facility, but the discharge checklist was not sent to the facility.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV - Sent within 90 days of discharge investigation; Enforcement
Request - 12/30/2009; Administrative Order - 7/15/2010; Consent Decree - 01/19/2011
Enforcement action notes: A penalty was assessed that consisted of a $7,500 monetary penalty
and a $7,500 SEP with $7,500 waived. The initial proposed penalty was $51,300.
Other notes: Case closure date was 9/2/2011. This is a facility with a long history of violations,
involving an NOV issued in 2006 for failure to complete construction of a holding pond for the
South Lot. That violation went unresolved until enforcement action was taken in 2009.
Discharges were reported on 1/4/2009, 1/5/2009, 2/3/2010, and 2/4/2010, where all instances
were during winter months and involved land application errors or malfunctions. Questions were
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 206

-------
not asked why the facility was pumping during winter with snow on the ground. **An NOV was
issued to the facility within 90 days, but the checklist was not sent to the facility.
State Response: There is no general prohibition on applying during the winter or on snow.
Henry Hass & Sons, Inc. (81546)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 8/24/2011 (within 45 days)
Inspection notes: A compliance inspection was conducted at a medium-sized CAFO facility.
The inspection was documented using the Compliance Short Form. The checklist does not allow
for an accurate description of the operation, specifically whether the facility is a Medium CAFO
or consideration of conveyances. The permit status was not documented in the report. The
inspector did include a few photographs with the report. From the file it was unclear whether the
inspection report was sent to the facility, and the report did not provide a clear compliance
determination. An NOV was issued to the facility, but it did not include sufficient information to
support enforcement.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-9/28/2011
Enforcement action notes: The NOV did not contain a timeline for correcting issues. The NOV
told the facility to provide a schedule for completion. The reviewer was unable to determine
from information in the file whether the facility had returned to compliance.
Other notes: The reviewer could not conduct a full review of the file. It appears that there are
several records not provided for the facility. It also appears that this is an unpermitted facility
that has been operating for years and that NDEQ started an effort to require a permit, but there is
a large information gap in the file to fully document the facility's actual efforts.
Herd Co. (NE0136361)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 1/25/2011 (within 45 days); 6/7/2011 (within 45 days)
Inspection notes: The first inspection contained minimal information and focused on the area of
the discharge. The inspections were documented on one page checklists with minimal
information describing the facility and inspection activities, and they did not include
photographs, sampling, or supporting information. The inspections did not address why the
facility was applying liquid waste to frozen ground. **
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: The first inspection report notes that liquids were pumped from a ditch but frozen
portions would have to wait until spring. No follow-up information was in the file. The file
shows that significant controls were added to the facility in 2011.
State Response: There is no general prohibition for applying on frozen soil.
HJR Dose (NEG011223)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 4/11/2011 (within 45 days); 7/7/2011 (within 45 days)
Inspection notes: The first inspection was a routine inspection documented with the checklist.
The completed checklist did not provide a very thorough narrative of the activities conducted. A
few photographs were taken from the road, but no samples were collected. The inspector did not
determine whether discharge entered waters of the state but made statements about the flatness of
the terrain.
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 207

-------
The second inspection was a discharge investigation documented with the discharge
checklist. The checklist did not provide a thorough description of the facility, permit status,
activities covered during the inspection, or the permit requirements that were evaluated against
during the inspection. The inspector did collect photographs during the inspection. It was
unclear whether the state transmitted the inspection report to the facility. From the information
provided in the inspection report, it was unclear what NDEQ determined to be the compliance
status.
Enforcement action date(s): Corrective Action Required letter - date not recorded by EPA.
Enforcement action notes: NDEQ appeared satisfied that the discharge was a one-time event that
did not require follow-up.
Other notes: The second inspection report alludes to the fact that the facility was below the must
pump level before the discharge but above it at the time of the discharge.
Imperial Beef (NEG011089)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 6/13/11 (internal memo); 7/7/11 (internal checklist)
Inspection notes: The 6/13/11 discharge investigation was documented with a discharge
checklist and memo to the file. The memo identified problems with reading holding pond levels
and land application issues. NDEQ's observations state that the wastewater did not reach waters
of the state. Photographs were taken, copies of pump records, and maps were included in the
file. The report noted Corrective Actions taken during the inspection. The checklist or the
memo was not transmitted to the facility. There was not sufficient information in the file to
determine what the compliance status of the facility was.
The 7/7/11 compliance inspection was documented with the inspection checklist
following a request for an inspection on 7/7/11. The request was for expansion from 4,200 head
to 52,500 head. The checklist provided a narrative description of the activities conducted and
observations made regarding permit requirements. Photographs were collected during the
inspection. From the inspection report there was not sufficient information for the reviewer to
determine the compliance status of the facility; however approval was granted for the expansion
of the operation.
Enforcement action date(s): No enforcement taken.
Enforcement action notes: Enforcement was not appropriate - No LOW or other informal
enforcement actions issued for permit violations prior to the discharge occurring.
Other notes: NDEQ did not observe the site until 9 days after receiving verbal notification of the
discharge. The amount of wastewater pumped to the pasture was approximately 7.9 million
gallons and caused a pool that covered 15 acres. Expansion was allowed 1 month after
discharging 7.9 million gallons.
JD Cattle Company (66560)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 6/11/2008 (70), 6/29/2010 (31)
Inspection notes: The first inspection was a discharge investigation documented on the
Discharge Investigation Checklist. The checklist did not provide a detailed facility description,
permit status, description of the NPDES activity pertinent to the inspection, nor did the checklist
cover regulated areas or activities evaluated during the inspection or make it clear what was and
was not inspected. In addition, the inspector's observations did not provide a clear description of
the permit requirements that the inspection would be evaluating against. The inspector collected
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 208

-------
samples and took photographs to document findings. The inspection report documented a fish
kill in waters of the state.
The second inspection was also a discharge investigation documented with the discharge
checklist. The same issues with lack of information from the checklist are noted. The inspector
collected photographs only during the investigation.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV - 9/23/2008 and 12/2/2010; Complaint and compliance order
- 1/4/2011; Consent Decree - 3/16/2012
Enforcement action notes: Complaint/Order was issued 1/4/2011 for illegal discharges and
failure to notify NDEQ. The enforcement referral to the state AG resulted in a consent decree
with penalty.
Other notes: None
Keller Cattle Co. (NEG011036)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 10/12/2010(8); 11/23/2011 (15)
Inspection notes: Both inspections were documented using NDEQ checklists. Neither checklist
provided a detailed narrative description of field activities conducted or a description of permit
requirements evaluated. The inspection reports did include a narrative of what observations were
made during the inspections but did not provide sufficient information to support a clear
compliance determination.
Enforcement action date(s): Corrective Action Required letters - 10/20/2010 & 12/9/2011
Enforcement action notes: Corrective Actions Required letters were issued following the
inspections to address violations of failure to meet pump down levels, to conduct nutrient
analysis, and to remove sludge, with initial compliance due on 5/15/2012.
Other notes: None
Kroenke Farms (NE0136123)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 7/1/2010 (within 45 days)
Inspection notes: The compliance inspection report contained a very brief description of the
areas covered during the inspection. The number of head at the facility was unable to be
determined from the inspection checklist. No photographs, maps, or facility records were
collected by the inspector. The inspection checklist did make a compliance determination and an
LOW was issued.
Enforcement action date(s): LOW - date not recorded by EPA.
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: The July 2010 inspection was the last inspection for the facility found in the file
and/or computer.
Linder Stock Farm (NEG011181)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 6/20/2011 (9)
Inspection notes: The inspection was a discharge investigation, documented on the Discharge
Investigation Checklist. The checklist did not provide a detailed facility description, permit
status, description of the NPDES activity pertinent to the inspection, or description of regulated
areas or activities evaluated during the inspection to make it clear what was and was not
inspected. In addition, the Inspectors Observations section did not provide a clear description of
the permit requirements that the inspection would be evaluating against. The inspector collected
copies of records that were reviewed and took photographs to document findings. The
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 209

-------
inspection report does not adequately document where the water from the discharge was going or
whether the water reached waters of the state. **
Enforcement action date(s): LOW-7/9/2011
Enforcement action notes: Because the inspector did not explain in the report whether the
discharge reached waters of the state, the reviewer was unable to determine if an LOW was an
appropriate enforcement response.
Other notes: The discharge occurred on 6/20/2011, and an investigation was conducted the same
day.
State Response: The 21-page 6/29/11 memo that accompanied the discharge investigation
outlines the source of the discharge and where the discharge flowed.
Livingston Enterprises (70926)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 3/23/2011 (1), 3/26/2011 (1)
Inspection notes: A discharge investigation was followed by a re-inspection needed for
expansion. Both inspections were documented with checklists. The discharge investigation
consisted of an evaluation of the area where the discharge occurred, while the re-inspection
viewed the area involved in the facility expansion. It was unclear if the entire facility was
observed and if all other areas of the facility, including records, were inspected. The initial
discharge inspection should have required corrective actions. The inspector did not observe a
discharge to waters of the state and observed that the discharge had pooled in a pasture. No
report was sent to the facility following the discharge investigation or the proposed expansion
inspection. Neither inspection report leads to a compliance determination.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: Voluntary compliance was used to correct deficiencies noted during
the inspection, even though no report was sent to the facility. An LOW could have been issued
for discharges from the facility. Some type of enforcement would have been appropriate.
Other notes: The discharge was reported to NDEQ and the inspector conducted the investigation
5 days after receiving the discharge notification. The inspector noted in the discharge
investigation report that the discharge did not reach waters of the state.
Mayes General Partnership - East (NEG011223)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 5/23/2011 (20)
Inspection notes: The inspection was a discharge investigation documented with the discharge
checklist. The checklist did not provide a thorough description of permit requirements that were
evaluated against during the inspection. The inspector did collect photographs during the
inspection. The state did not transmit the inspection report to the facility. From the information
provided in the report, it was unclear what NDEQ determined to be the compliance status. The
inspector did not determine whether discharge entered waters of the state.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: There was a documented discharge with no violations identified and no formal
action taken.
Mayes General Partnership - West (NEG011229)
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 210

-------
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 8/1/2007 (27), 6/16/2010 (within 45 days), 6/21/2010
(within 45 days), 5/6/2011 (not clear)
Inspection notes: The first inspection, a discharge investigation, was documented with a memo
to the file. The memo did not include a facility description or provide a permit status. A
description of permit requirements that were evaluated against during the inspection was also
lacking. Photographs were taken during the inspection
The second and third inspections were also discharge investigations, documented with
memos to the file. The memos contained limited facility and permit related information and
were not sent to the facility. The investigations were prompted by multiple discharges.
The final inspection was documented with the inspection checklist, which lacked a
narrative description of field activities conducted and did not provide a clear description of the
permit requirements that were evaluated against. Photographs were collected during the
inspection. From the inspection report there was not sufficient information for the reviewer to
determine the compliance status of the facility.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV-9/18/2007; AG Complaint - 11/12/10.
Enforcement action notes: A letter from the AG notes that the facility returned to compliance.
Other notes: Multiple discharges occurred during 2010.
Mid Plains Cattle Company (NEG011263)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 8/4/2010 (57); 12/15/2011 (4)
Inspection notes: The first inspection was a discharge and complaint investigation following the
receipt of a complaint on 7/28/2010. The inspection report also states that the same complainant
had contacted NDEQ "about a month prior also." The inspector observed the site and completed
a discharge checklist. No photographs or samples were collected by the inspector, but the
inspector did include rainfall records and holding pond level records. The inspector noted that
run-on from the adjacent road ditch overtopped the berm and entered the holding pond. The
inspector allowed the facility to pump the holding pond to a field and drainage ditch but did not
document whether impacts were occurring in the receiving stream.
NDEQ conducted the second inspection as a follow-up to the first inspection. The
inspector observed holding ponds and reviewed records and the facility's Nutrient Management
Plan. NDEQ determined that the facility had returned to compliance.
Enforcement action date(s): LOW - Late 2010.
Enforcement action notes: An LOW was issued for two separate discharge events in June and
July 2010. Additional enforcement beyond informal tools would have been appropriate.
Other notes: EPA has concerns with the amount of time that elapsed from the first to the second
complaint, and then after the second complaint was received, before NDEQ conducted an
investigation at the site. In addition, the LOW contradicts what the Discharge Review Checklist
states. The LOW states that the facility was over the Start Pump Level when the two discharge
events began, whereas the Discharge Review Checklist states that the discharge was caused by
excessive rain. No design recommendations were given, nor an engineering evaluation required,
in order to prevent a future recurrence of such discharges.
Nebraska Feeders - McClymont (NEG011210)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 3/31/2011 (not sure); 5/26/2011 (30)
Inspection notes: The first compliance inspection was documented with the short form checklist.
The checklist did not provide a thorough description of NPDES activities pertinent to the
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 211

-------
inspection or the regulated areas evaluated during the inspection. **The checklist also did not
provide a narrative description of field activities conducted or a description of the permit
requirements that were evaluated against. Photographs were taken during the inspection. The
reviewer was unable to determine the compliance status of the facility. The inspector did collect
photographs during the inspection. It was unclear whether the state transmitted the inspection
report to the facility. From the information provided in the inspection report, it was unclear what
NDEQ determined to be the compliance status of the facility.
The memo documenting the second inspection, which was a discharge investigation,
contained limited facility and permit related information and was not sent to the facility. It also
did not provide a clear compliance determination.
Enforcement action date(s): Corrective Action Required letter - 4/27/2011
Enforcement action notes: The Corrective Action required letter accompanied the March 2011
inspection letter issued the same day on 4/27/2011.
Other notes: None
State Response: The discharge investigation is done to determine compliance with a certain
discharge and not an evaluation of the entire operation.
Nebraska ILS Feeders (8147)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 01/13/2011 (within 45 days)
Inspection notes: The report for this compliance inspection utilized the Compliance Short Form
inspection checklist. The checklist contained rudimentary information about the facility and did
not mention the proposed expansion of the facility. **The inspector collected photographs
during the inspection and observed that nitrate levels were elevated in groundwater monitoring.
The checklist did not contain sufficient information to make a compliance determination and did
not require any actions by the facility.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
State Response: The short form was never intended to cover all regulated NPDES activities.
The current practice is to use the long form at least once during the permit term as agreed to
by EPA.
Niewohner Grandchildren East (89575)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 10/21/2012 (within 45 days); 10/31/2011 (within 45
days)
Inspection notes: Two discharge investigations were conducted and documented on the
Discharge Investigation Checklists. The checklists did not provide a detailed facility description,
permit status, description of the NPDES activity pertinent to the inspection, or make it clear what
was and was not inspected. In addition, the Inspectors Observations section did not provide a
clear description of the permit requirements that the inspection would be evaluating against. The
inspector did not collect samples but did take photographs. The inspection reports did not
provide sufficient information to determine the compliance status of the facility. Also, the files
were not clear whether the state transmitted the inspection reports to the facility.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV- 10/27/2011
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 212

-------
Enforcement action notes: The NOV was issued to address discharge to a road ditch, even
though the discharge did not reach waters of the state.
Other notes: In both instances, if samples would have been collected, they would have put the
issue to rest following citizen complaints, as the complainants disagreed with NDEQ's findings.
Novak Pork (87024)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 6/9/2011 (10); 10/25/2011 (20)
Inspection notes: The first inspection was conducted following a letter from NDEQ to the
facility dated 7/17/2009. That letter was sent to address recordkeeping violations, and an LOW
for the same violations was sent 11/17/2009. A Compliance Assistance visit was also conducted
on 7/20/2010, and NDEQ found issues with recordkeeping that resulted in the 6/9/2011
inspection and subsequent NOV. The inspection report documented ongoing permit violations.
The inspection checklist did not mention or have a space for whether the permit is active or
expired. "Records were reviewed to determine compliance. No photographs were taken during
the inspection. The Inspection report makes note of trees in the holding pond and that the staff
gauge needed repair; No pictures were taken or included in the report to document the non-
compliance. A copy of the inspection checklist was sent to the facility with the NOV.
A follow-up inspection was documented with a memo to the file. The memo contains
very limited information about activities at the facility or facility history. The purpose of the
inspection was to respond to a Request for Inspection due to facility expansion. The memo to
file addresses issues noted from the 6/9/2011 inspection but does not state whether the facility
returned to compliance. The reviewer might assume from presence of the enforcement request
that the facility was not in compliance.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV - 6/17/2011; Enforcement Request - 10/25/2011
Enforcement action notes: At the time of this review, no formal enforcement actions have been
taken following the enforcement request.
Other notes: No compliance determination was made in the follow-up inspection.
State Response: This is a non-NPDES permitted operation but rather operating under a state
permit, which does not expire.
Oshkosh Feedyard (NEG011037)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 9/28/2011 (70)
Inspection notes: A routine compliance inspection was conducted as a follow-up to a Post
Construction Inspection made of the silage area in order to determine if violations found in the
Post Construction Inspection had been addressed. Photographs were taken during the inspection
and demonstrate that remaining issues were addressed prior to the inspection. The facility was
determined to be operating in compliance with the permit. A copy of the inspection checklist
was sent to the facility.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
Ortmeier Feedyard (NE0104264)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 6/10/2010 (180); *8/24/10* (50)
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 213

-------
Inspection notes: The first inspection was a discharge investigation following discharge
notifications on 6/10/2010 and 8/2/2010. The discharge investigation checklist was used to
document the inspection. No samples of the discharge were collected. **The report gave no
explanation of whether the discharge reached waters of the state. There were no photos
documenting the investigation. **The inspection documented a medium CAFO facility with a
discharge to a manmade conveyance. Corrective actions were required during the inspection.
No clear compliance determination was made, but a Letter for Corrective Actions was issued
along with an LOW.
The second inspection was a follow-up inspection documented using the Short
Compliance inspection checklist. Photographs were taken during the investigation. Issues noted
in the earlier Corrective Actions Letter were found to have been addressed. A follow-up
inspection letter was sent to the facility 50 days following the inspection.
Enforcement action date(s): LOW - date not recorded by EPA.
Enforcement action notes: Enforcement was not taken but would have been appropriate, given
that multiple discharges from the facility were documented.
Other notes: The NPDES permit was terminated on 12/21/2010.
State Response: Discharge was a flash flood that was done at the time of investigation.
There was nothing to photograph except a grassed waterway in a field.
PC West - Tarnov (67079)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 9/27/2010 (55); 6/28/2011 (Internal Memo, date
uncertain)
Inspection notes: The first inspection was a discharge investigation and utilized the Discharge
Investigation Checklist. There was not a space on the checklist to note whether the facility has a
NPDES permit or if the permit is active or expired. The inspection report notes that the
discharge did not reach waters of the state. No photographs or samples were collected during the
inspection. NDEQ issued an NOV but did not send a copy of the checklist to the facility. The
facility had a similar discharge in 2005, after which an NOV was issued; however, the inspection
reports did not provide a compliance history of the facility.
The second inspection was a follow-up inspection documented with an internal memo.
There were no photographs taken. The inspection did not specifically address previous non-
compliance or provide a compliance history. Because NDEQ wrote only an internal memo and
no inspection report, the facility did not receive any correspondence indicating its compliance
status.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV- 11/20/2010
Enforcement action notes: The NOV required a Discharge Notification Report (after the fact), a
revised O&M Plan, and an updated Site Map to be redrawn. The NOV did not require a NPDES
Permit for the discharge, and the facility was allowed to keep the State permit. Further
enforcement was not taken but would have been appropriate given the history of multiple
discharges.
Other notes: The facility had a similar discharge in 2005, after which an NOV was also issued.
PPK, LLC (73298) / Lagoon Pumping & Dredging (custom applicator)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 10/5/2010 (29)
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 214

-------
Inspection notes: The inspection was in response to a discharge from a custom applicator during
land application. Animal waste left the land application area and entered a nearby waterway,
which was dammed, and the waste was pumped from the waterway to the adjacent crop ground.
The inspection included photographs taken and a map depicting the area where the discharge
originated; however, no samples were collected from the waterway. An LOW was issued. The
inspection checklist states that the closest stream was evaluated and makes note that animal
waste did not reach the stream, because the dammed waterway prevented the waste from
reaching the perennial stream. The LOW does not mention using future BMPs or other measures
to prevent a recurrence of the discharge.
Enforcement action date(s): LOW - 11/3/2010
Enforcement action notes: The LOW was issued for discharge into waters of the state. It
required a written report to be submitted. NDEQ received a written report and the facility had
returned to compliance, making this action for a first-time discharge appropriate.
Other notes: None
Prairie Land Dairy (73762)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 2/23/2011 (84); 5/2/2011 (29)
Inspection notes: The earlier inspection was a Drive-by reconnaissance of uncontrolled Feed
Stock Storage and uncontrolled pens, and it was documented by a Memo to the File with an
LOW being sent to the facility. Each inspection included photographs of the problem areas. The
second inspection was a Post Construction Inspection to address corrective actions taken and was
documented by a checklist. Both inspections included memos to the file; however, only the
LOW was sent to the facility.
Enforcement action date(s): LOW - 3/24/2011
Enforcement action notes: The LOW required voluntary compliance with NPDES requirements.
Following the LOW response, NDEQ sent two additional letters requesting additional
information as a follow-up to the inspections.
Other notes: On 10/18/2011, NDEQ issued an Approval to Operate LWCF after receiving all
requested information.
R Benjamin Inc. Livestock (NEG011147)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 4/7/2010 (within 45 days); 9/29/2011 (within 45 days)
Inspection notes: Two compliance inspections were documented with the Compliance Short
Form. ** The inspection checklists provided an adequate facility description and permit status;
however, the description of NPDES activities covered by the inspection was limited. In addition,
the written narrative description of field activities, observations, and permit requirements
evaluated was lacking with both checklists. Photographs were taken during the second
inspection. While the first inspection report was sent to the facility, the file is unclear whether
the second report was sent or not. The reviewer was able to determine from the reports, with
difficulty, what the compliance status was following the inspection.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: The information gathered from both inspections on the checklists
would not be sufficient to support an enforcement case.
Other notes: None
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 215

-------
State Response: The short form was never intended to cover all regulated NPDES activities.
The current practice is to use the long form at least once during the permit term as agreed to
by EPA.
RDO Inc. Feedlot (NEG011048)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 6/11/2010 (55); 5/26/2011 (18)
Inspection notes: The first inspection was a complaint and discharge investigation documented
on the Discharge Investigation Checklist. The checklist did not provide a detailed facility
description or a description of the NPDES activity pertinent to the inspection, nor did it cover
regulated areas or activities evaluated during the inspection or make it clear what was and was
not inspected. In addition, the Inspectors Observations section did not provide a clear
description of the permit requirements that the inspection would be evaluating against.
The second inspection was also a discharge investigation documented with the discharge
checklist. The same issues were noted with the lack of information from the checklist, as listed
above.
Enforcement action date(s): LOW - 11/18/2010; NOV-7/5/2011
Enforcement action notes: The LOW was issued to address illegal discharge and failure to
report. No records could be found in the file for either LOW or NOV to indicate whether the
facility had returned to compliance.
Other notes: The LOW and NOV were issued for multiple discharges to wetlands, and no formal
enforcement action was taken or penalty assessed.
S&A Feedlots (NE0097110)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 1/7/2011 (within 45 days); 7/14/2010 (within 45 days);
8/31/2011 (within 45 days)
Inspection notes: The first and third inspections were discharge investigations documented with
the discharge checklists. The checklists did not provide a thorough description of facility
activities, permit status, activities covered during the inspection, or the permit requirements that
were evaluated against during the inspection. ** The inspector did not collect photographs or
samples during the investigations. From information provided in the inspection reports, it was
unclear what NDEQ determined to be the compliance status.
The January 2011 inspection was a routine compliance inspection documented with the
routine inspection checklist. The checklist provided adequate information except for not
providing a thorough narrative of field activities conducted. One photograph was taken during
the inspection. Sufficient information led to a compliance determination.
Enforcement action date(s): Three LOWs - dates not recorded by EPA.
Enforcement action notes: Three LOWs were issued to attempt to bring the facility back to
compliance. No formal enforcement action was taken but would have been warranted given the
nature of discharge violations and lagoon management.
Other notes: Elevated nitrate levels were observed in groundwater monitoring.
State Response: The discharge investigation is done to determine compliance with a certain
discharge and not an evaluation of the entire operation.
Sioux County Feeders (72523)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 5/12/2011 (within 45 days); 5/24/2011 (within 45 days)
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 216

-------
Inspection notes: The first inspection was a discharge investigation documented with the
discharge checklist. The inspector collected photographs of the discharge that showed
significant flow to a field owned by the operator, but the inspection report does not directly state
whether flow entered waters of the state. The inspection report does not state whether discharge
was authorized. However, the inspection report made a clear compliance determination that
resulted in an NOV being issued.
The second inspection was a compliance inspection documented using the Compliance
Short Form. The inspection report made a clear compliance determination that resulted in an
NOV being issued to the facility. It is unclear from the file if either of the reports were sent to
the facility.
Enforcement action date(s): NOV - date not recorded by EPA.
Enforcement action notes: The NOV was issued for two discharges in the same month. No
referral or formal enforcement action was initiated. Enforcement would have been appropriate.
Other notes: The state file appears to have a 2009-2011 information gap. The discharge
identified in 2009 appears to have prompted an effort to require the 6,000-head operation near
Scott's Bluff to obtain a NPDES Permit.
St. George Ranch (69825)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 11/30/2011 (within 45 days)
Inspection notes: The inspection was documented on the Compliance Inspection Short Form
checklist. Photographs were collected by the inspector during the inspection. The short form did
not cover the facility description or compliance history in sufficient detail. For the extent of
noncompliance, the short form does not adequately describe the situation. The inspection report
was completed timely, but there is no clear compliance determination made in the inspection
checklist.
Enforcement action date(s): LOW - 3/28/2011; Corrective Action Required letter following
inspection.
Enforcement action notes: A Corrective Action Required letter cited no NPDES permit and lack
of runoff controls. The operation was allowed time to submit documentation, an application, and
to go through the permitting process for nearly a decade. Extensions of time were requested and
granted for construction completion. For example, an April 2010 letter to the facility stated that
a NPDES permit application was required from the facility by 2/1/2011. The lack of formal
enforcement by the time of the November 2011 inspection was not appropriate.
The LOW cited failure to certify completion of controls by an old deadline of 8/15/2001.
Other notes: According to a public notice on 7/21/2011, still no construction had been
completed. The facility operated for years, but no formal enforcement action was considered.
Sunderman West (NEG011126)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 7/8-14/2010 (within 45 days); *6/22/10 *(within 45
days)
Inspection notes: The first discharge investigation was documented with the discharge checklist.
The inspection only focused on the discharge and did not include complete facility information,
description of permit requirements, or observations made regarding permit requirements. ** No
consideration was given to permit compliance prior to the discharge.
The second discharge investigation was documented on the Discharge Investigation
Checklist. The checklist did not provide a detailed narrative description of field activities
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 217

-------
conducted. Photographs were taken by the inspector. The inspection led to a compliance
determination.
Enforcement action date(s): Corrective Action Required letter and LOW - dates not recorded by
EPA.
Enforcement action notes: The Corrective Action Required letter was sent to the facility
following the first investigation, with a response time schedule of "as soon as possible." The
LOW was issued following the second inspection. A 2012 document in the file demonstrated
that complying actions had been taken.
Other notes: It was unclear whether the discharge was due to chronic rainfall. No sample
analysis was conducted to determine compliance or impact. The facility utilized the discharge as
an opportunity to lower the holding pond levels below levels necessary to protect structures.
Even liquids from other basins with adequate storage available were transferred to the full lagoon
to allow pumping to the creek.
State Response: The discharge investigation is done to determine compliance with a certain
discharge and not an evaluation of the entire operation.
Timmerman Feeding Corporation (NEG011269)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 4/15/2009 (30); 5/26/2010 (Uncertain); 7/8/2010 (57);
4/27/2011 (7); 10/5/2011 (16)
Inspection notes: The 2009 and May 2010 compliance inspections were documented with the
compliance checklist. The checklist provided adequate general facility information. The
inspections did not provide an accurate permit status or cover what regulated areas were
evaluated during the inspection. The checklist did not provide sufficient information in order to
determine the compliance status of the facility.
In July 2010, a discharge investigation was documented with the discharge checklist.
The discharge checklist did not provide a facility description; a description of NPDES regulated
activities pertinent to the inspection, or the regulated areas/activities evaluated during the
inspection. The inspector's observations did not provide a narrative description of field activities
conducted or a description of permit requirements evaluated against. Photographs were taken
during the investigation. There was not enough information in the report for the reader to
determine the compliance status of the facility. It was unclear if the report was sent to the
facility. This investigation was followed with the 10/4/2010 LOW.
A July 2011 complaint investigation was documented with a checklist. The checklist did
not provide a facility description, a permit status, a description of NPDES regulated activities
pertinent to the inspection, or the regulated areas/activities evaluated during the inspection. The
inspector's observations did not provide a narrative description of field activities conducted or a
description of permit requirements evaluated against. Photographs were not taken during the
inspection. The inspection report was not transmitted to the facility. The checklist did not lead
to a compliance determination.
The final inspection in October 2011 was documented with the short form checklist. The
inspection did not provide a description of NPDES regulated activities pertinent to the inspection
or the regulated activities evaluated. The checklist did not provide a narrative description of
field activities conducted or provide a description of permit requirements that were evaluated
against. Photographs were not taken during the inspection.
Enforcement action date(s): LOW - 10/4/2010; Corrective Action Required letter - 10/21/2011
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 218

-------
Enforcement action notes: The LOW was issued to address discharges, and the corrective action
letter was issued following the last inspection. The sequence of five inspections with multiple
discharges and permit violations, but no escalation to formal enforcement, was not an
appropriate use of enforcement tools.
Other notes: Discharges from the facility occurred on 6/21/2010 and 7/15-17/2010.
Weltzenkamp Farms (NE0100625)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 7/1/2011 (24)
Inspection notes: A compliance inspection and discharge investigation were combined during
the same inspection, in part as a response to verbal notification of a discharge received by NDEQ
on 6/20/11. Two checklists were completed during the inspection. Photographs, pump logs, and
holding pond levels were collected and recorded; however no sampling of the discharge was
performed. The inspector documented that the discharge reached waters of the state. NDEQ
required corrective actions at the time of the investigation. The Compliance checklist was sent to
the facility, but the Discharge Investigation checklist was not. No clear compliance
determination was made in the cover letter to the facility or the checklist.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: No LOW or NOV was issued for a discharge reaching waters of the
state. At a minimum, informal enforcement would have been appropriate. The inspector
documented that the facility was not operating below the start pump level.
Other notes: None
Willow Island Land & Cattle (NEG011284)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 2/10/2011 (within 45 days)
Inspection notes: The compliance inspection was documented with the Compliance Short Form.
The inspection checklist provided an adequate facility description and permit status, and the
description of NPDES activities covered by the inspection was adequate. However, the narrative
description of field activities, areas observed during the inspection, and description of permit
requirements lacked sufficient detail. Photographs were taken during the inspection.
Information gathered during the inspection led to a Corrective Action Required letter with no
timeframes for correction of deficiencies.
Enforcement action date(s): Corrective Action Required letter - date not recorded by EPA.
Enforcement action notes: NDEQ was able to achieve compliance informally, even though the
Corrective Action Required Letter did not include timeframes for correcting deficiencies.
Other notes: A 2012 follow-up inspection identified different permit-related violations.
Wolfden Dairy (74449)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 6/8/2011
Inspection notes: A routine Animal Feeding Operation inspection was documented using the
inspection checklist. The inspection checklist captured the inspector's observations but did not
provide a clear description of the permit status for the facility. The checklist also did not provide
a thorough narrative description of field activities conducted.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 219

-------
Zutavern Ranch Livestock (NEG011160)
Inspection date(s) and # days to report: 8/2/2011 (7)
Inspection notes: A routine compliance inspection was documented using the compliance
checklist. From the inspection checklist, the reviewer was unable to determine the current permit
status of the facility or whether the facility was permitted with an operating permit or a NPDES
permit. The inspector did not include supporting information such as photographs with the
inspection checklist. There was not a clear compliance determination given in the inspection
checklist.
Enforcement action date(s): None
Enforcement action notes: None
Other notes: None
SRF-PQR Report | Nebraska | Page 220

-------
State Review Framework
Nebraska
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2015
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7, Kansas City
Final Report
April 19,2017

-------
Executive Summary
Introduction
EPA Region 7 enforcement staff conducted a State Review Framework (SRF) enforcement
program oversight review of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Waste
Management Section.
EPA bases SRF findings on data and file review metrics, and conversations with program
management and staff. EPA will track recommended actions from the review in the SRF Tracker
and publish reports and recommendations on EPA's ECHO web site.
Areas of Strong Performance
•	Finding 2-2: NDEQ's inspection reports are complete and sufficient to determine
compliance.
•	Finding 3-1: Violations noted in the inspection report and/or its attachments (checklists)
resulted in accurate and appropriate determination and enforcement follow-up.
•	Finding 3-2: NDEQ exceeds the national average at identifying violations at inspections.
•	Finding 4-1: NDEQ's enforcement response to violations is timely and appropriate. It is
effective at returning the facility to compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Most Significant RCRA Subtitle C Program Issues1
•	Finding 1-1: NDEQ needs to ensure that all mandatory data for inspection and
enforcement activities are entered into RCRAInfo.
• Finding 2-1: NDEQ should ensure that inspection coverage of Large Quantity
Generators, Small Quantity Generators and operating Treatment Storage Disposal
Facilities meet the minimum expectation levels.
1 EPA's "National Strategy for Improving Oversight of State Enforcement Performance" identifies the following as
significant recurrent issues: "Widespread and persistent data inaccuracy and incompleteness, which make it hard to
identify when serious problems exist or to track state actions; routine failure of states to identify and report
significant noncompliance; routine failure of states to take timely or appropriate enforcement actions to return
violating facilities to compliance, potentially allowing pollution to continue unabated; failure of states to take
appropriate penalty actions, which results in ineffective deterrence for noncompliance and an unlevel playing field
for companies that do comply; use of enforcement orders to circumvent standards or to extend permits without
appropriate notice and comment; and failure to inspect and enforce in some regulated sectors."
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Executive Summary | Page 1

-------
•	Finding 5-1: The documentation for developing penalty calculations, including gravity
and economic benefit, and demonstrating penalties collected could not be found in
NDEQ's files.
•	Finding 5-2: No documentation of rationale for difference between initial penalty
calculation and final penalty could be located in the files reviewed.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Executive Summary | Page 2

-------
Table of Contents
I.	Background on the State Review Framework	1
II.	SRF Review Process	2
III.	SRF Findings	3
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Findings	4
Appendix	15
NDEQ Response	15

-------
I. Background on the State Review Framework
The State Review Framework (SRF) is designed to ensure that EPA conducts nationally
consistent oversight. It reviews the following local, state, and EPA compliance and enforcement
programs:
•	Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
•	Clean Air Act Stationary Sources (Title V)
•	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C
Reviews cover:
•	Data — completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of data entry into national data systems
•	Inspections — meeting inspection and coverage commitments, inspection report quality,
and report timeliness
•	Violations — identification of violations, determination of significant noncompliance
(SNC) for the CWA and RCRA programs and high priority violators (HPV) for the CAA
program, and accuracy of compliance determinations
•	Enforcement — timeliness and appropriateness, returning facilities to compliance
•	Penalties — calculation including gravity and economic benefit components, assessment,
and collection
EPA conducts SRF reviews in three phases:
•	Analyzing information from the national data systems in the form of data metrics
•	Reviewing facility files and compiling file metrics
•	Development of findings and recommendations
EPA builds consultation into the SRF to ensure that EPA and the state understand the causes of
issues and agree, to the degree possible, on actions needed to address them. SRF reports capture
the agreements developed during the review process in order to facilitate program improvements.
EPA also uses the information in the reports to develop a better understanding of enforcement
and compliance nationwide, and to identify issues that require a national response.
Reports provide factual information. They do not include determinations of overall program
adequacy, nor are they used to compare or rank state programs.
Each state's programs are reviewed once every five years. The first round of SRF reviews began
in FY 2004. The third round of reviews began in FY 2013 and will continue through FY 2017.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 1

-------
II. SRF Review Process
Review period: Federal Fiscal Year 2015
Key dates:
•	SRF Kickoff letter mailed to NDEQ: June 16, 2016
•	Data metric analysis and file selection list sent to NDEQ: June 14, 2016
•	E-File review conducted: July 18, 20-21, 25-28 and August 1-2, 2016
•	On-site visit and Exit interview occurred: August 3, 2016
•	Draft report sent to headquarters: September 30, 2016
•	Draft report sent to NDEQ: January 17, 2017
•	Final report issued: April 19, 2017
State and EPA key contacts for review:
•	EPA Region 7 SRF Coordinator: Kevin Barthol
•	EPA Region 7 Nebraska RCRA Coordinator: Marc Matthews
•	EPA Region 7 Reviewer: Rebecca Wenner
•	NDEQ Waste Management Section Chief: Bill Gidley
•	NDEQ Compliance Unit Supervisor: Jeffery Edwards
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 2

-------
III. SRF Findings
Findings represent EPA's conclusions regarding state performance and are based on findings
made during the data and/or file reviews and may also be informed by:
•	Annual data metric reviews conducted since the state's last SRF review
•	Follow-up conversations with state agency personnel
•	Review of previous SRF reports, Memoranda of Agreement, or other data sources
•	Additional information collected to determine an issue's severity and root causes
There are three categories of findings:
Meets or Exceeds Expectations: The SRF was established to define a base level or floor for
enforcement program performance. This rating describes a situation where the base level is met
and no performance deficiency is identified, or a state performs above national program
expectations.
Area for State Attention: An activity, process, or policy that one or more SRF metrics show as
a minor problem. Where appropriate, the state should correct the issue without additional EPA
oversight. EPA may make recommendations to improve performance, but it will not monitor
these recommendations for completion between SRF reviews. These areas are not highlighted as
significant in an executive summary.
Area for State Improvement: An activity, process, or policy that one or more SRF metrics
show as a significant problem that the agency is required to address. Recommendations should
address root causes. These recommendations must have well-defined timelines and milestones
for completion, and EPA will monitor them for completion between SRF reviews in the SRF
Tracker.
Whenever a metric indicates a major performance issue, EPA will write up a finding of Area for
State Improvement, regardless of other metric values pertaining to a particular element.
The relevant SRF metrics are listed within each finding. The following information is provided
for each metric:
•	Metric ID Number and Description: The metric's SRF identification number and a
description of what the metric measures.
•	Natl Goal: The national goal, if applicable, of the metric, or the CMS commitment that
the state has made.
•	Natl Avg: The national average across all states, territories, and the District of Columbia.
•	State N: For metrics expressed as percentages, the numerator.
•	State D: The denominator.
•	State % or #: The percentage, or if the metric is expressed as a whole number, the count.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 3

-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Findings
RCRA Element 1
— Data
Finding 1-1
Area for State Improvement
Summary
NDEQ needs to ensure that all mandatory data for inspection and
enforcement activities are entered into RCRAinfo.
Explanation
Of the 25 facility files reviewed, 11 were noted as having some data
missing when comparing the file information to RCRAinfo data. None
of the facilities were missing SNC determinations, and appropriate
enforcement was taken in all cases. Penalty information was missing
from the file for one formal enforcement action, but return to compliance
data was properly entered for all facilities.
NDEQ stated that six of the files containing deficiencies were due to
typographical errors due to personnel transitions whereas five were
missing data elements for inspection and enforcement activities. This
was identified as an area for state improvement in the Round 2 program
review.


Relevant metrics
. Irv.. . _ . . Natl Natl State State State
Metric ID Number and Description _ , . „ __ .
Goal Avg N D % or #

2b Complete and accurate entry of mandatory
, , 100 /o lo ly 62.1/o
data

2a Long-standing secondary violators 7
State response The Waste Management Division has reviewed and corrected the list of
data metrics that was noted as missing or was input in error that was
provided at the time of the program review. After completing the updates
the data was again checked for accuracy prior to it being frozen in
RCRAinfo for 2015. The Waste Management Division has reviewed its
ongoing data entry practices. Staff, where necessary, who provide the
data (inspectors) and those who are entering the data (Administrative
Staff and Waste Compliance Unit Supervisor) have been retrained.
Additional discussions between Waste Management Division staff and
Region 7 staff have been held so that those who enter data can improve
accuracy when data is entered the first time into RCRAinfo, and that it is
entered timely in accordance with the NDEQ/EPA Performance
Partnership Agreement.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 4

-------
Recommendation EPA discussed this issue with NDEQ during the review and NDEQ staff
indicated that they would take appropriate action to ensure proper data
entry.
EPA recommends NDEQ evaluate current data entry procedures and
facility file management with the goal of improving accuracy. NDEQ
should provide EPA with a draft of the NDEQ's and AG's data entry and
file management process improvements for review within 60 days of
completion of this SRF Report. EPA will randomly pull ten facilities in
the 1st quarter of FY 2018 in order to review the NDEQ data for FY
2017. If this random sampling indicates that data entry processes and
accuracy has sufficiently improved (90% or greater) the recommendation
will be deemed complete.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 5

-------
RCRA Element 2 — Inspections
Finding 2-1	Area for State Improvement
Summary	NDEQ should ensure that inspection coverage of Large Quantity
Generators, Small Quantity Generators and operating Treatment Storage
Disposal Facilities meet the minimum expectation levels.
Explanation	The state coordinated its inspection coverage with EPA R7 within its
negotiated PPA work plan in order to maximize inspection resources.
NDEQ's FY2015 work plan included commitments for inspection of
LQGs, SQGs, and operating TSDFs; as well as commitments for timely
and appropriate enforcement response.
NDEQ inspected less than the expected number of operating TSDFs in
the two-year inspection cycle, however EPA conducted one of the three
expected inspections. The other was completed on December 10, 2015.
The LQG inspection coverage over the five-year inspection coverage
cycle is slightly less than expected along with the annual inspection
coverage.
The RCRA statute mandates a minimum biennial inspection frequency
for non-government TSDFs, which can be accomplished by the
combined efforts of the EPA and NDEQ. Inspection frequency of other
categories of RCRA facilities are set by the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance in the: "Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C Program"
[September 2015], This guidance provides states with flexibility to plan
and implement an alternative approach to RCRA program inspection
coverage by developing a written plan describing it's proposed
alternative. NDEQ should consider developing an alternative plan to
address the RCRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy for non-TSDF
RCRA facilities.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #
5a Two-year inspection coverage of operating
TSDFs '
100% 90.60%
1
3
33.30%
5b Annual inspection coverage of LQGs
20%
18.30%
11
70
15.70%
5c Five-year inspection coverage of LQGs
100%
52.50%
40
70
57.10%
5d Five-year inspection coverage of active
SQGs

10.20%
45
368
12.20%
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 6

-------
5el Five-year inspection coverage of active
conditionally exempt SQGs
5e2 Five-year inspection coverage of active
transporters
5e3 Five-year inspection coverage of active
non-notifiers
5e4 Five-year inspection coverage of active
sites not covered by metrics 2c through 2f3
State response The Waste Management Division has reviewed the State/EPA
Performance Partnership Agreement to confirm that the inspections of
LQGs, SQG's, CESQG's and TSDF's meet the minimum inspection
expectation levels. Based on the Department's understanding of the
counts of inspections conducted and coupled with the inspections EPA
conducts in the State of Nebraska we believe the metric percentages
calculated by EPA didn't accurately reflect the combined percentages of
the EPA inspections with the Department's, nor for the fact that
if a TSDF didn't have violations it need not be inspected (Only true for
the Safety Kleen facilities of which there are two in Nebraska).
Recommendation EPA recommends an increase in the level of inspection coordination
between EPA and NDEQ during the planning phase for the FY 2018
PPA cycle/submission, including a review of the inspection status of the
operating TSDF and LQG facilities in the State, to evaluate which of
these facilities should be included in any given inspection schedule.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 7

-------
RCRA Element 2 — Inspections
Finding 2-2	Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary	NDEQ's inspection reports are complete and sufficient to determine
compliance.
Explanation	For the 24 facilities reviewed, all of the inspection reports had sufficient
detail and documentation to determine compliance status of the facility.
In only one instance did an inspection report take an inordinate amount
of time to complete which has been addressed by NDEQ management.
All of the inspection reports reviewed appeared to have all the
information necessary to determine compliance status. This information
included a description of the facility's overall operations and waste
management activities, verification of the generator status of the facility,
citing specific violations noted on the attached checklists, and
photographic documentation of the violations cited where applicable.
The inspection reports are signed by the inspector and dated upon
completion. The timeliness of report completion was calculated based
upon the date that the report was signed by the inspector. On average,
the NDEQ inspectors completed the reports within 30 days of the
inspection.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #
6a Inspection reports complete and sufficient to
determine compliance
100%

24
24
100%
6b Timeliness of inspection report completion
100%

23
24
95.8%
State response The Waste Management Division appreciates the finding that the
inspection reports are complete and sufficient to determine compliance,
and that the timeliness just short of the goal at 95.8%. The Department
has and continues to strive to meet the completion of the report prior to
or within 30 days of the inspection.
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 8

-------
RCRA Element 3
— Violations
Finding 3-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary	Violations noted in the inspection report and/or its attachments
(checklists) resulted in accurate and appropriate determination and
enforcement follow-up.
Explanation	In reviewing the inspection reports, violations noted on checklists
attached to the inspection reports or within the narrative of the reports
were brought forward for accurate and appropriate determination and
enforcement follow-up (notice of violation, letter of warning), or
otherwise made known to the facility.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #
7a Accurate compliance determinations
100%

29
29
100%
8c Appropriate SNC determinations
100%

29
29
100%
8a SNC identification rate

2.20%
0
32
0.0%
State response The Waste Management Division appreciates the acknowledgement that
the program meets and/or exceeds these elements.
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 9

-------
RCRA Element 3
Violations
Finding 3-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary
NDEQ exceeds the national average at identifying violations at
inspections.
Explanation	NDEQ identifies a violation(s) during an inspection 59.4% of the time.
For the review period, no SNC's were identified.
EPA identified a facility from a previous year (FY 2012) to determine if
NDEQ's SNC determinations and policy interpretation meet timeliness.
NDEQ interpreted the policy correctly in the past.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #
7b Violations found during inspections

36.5%
19
32
59.4%
8b Timeliness of SNC determinations
100%
79%
0
0
0.0%
State response
The Waste Management Division appreciates the acknowledgement that
the program meets and/or exceeds these elements.
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 10

-------
RCRA Element 4 — Enforcement
Finding 4-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary
NDEQ's enforcement response to violations is timely and appropriate. It
is effective at returning the facility to compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Explanation	In all instances reviewed where enforcement actions were taken, the
actions taken were adequate to return the facility to compliance. NDEQ
exceeds the National Goal with regard to timely enforcement at
significant non-compliers.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #
9a Enforcement that returns violators to
100%

24
24
100%
compliance

10a Timely enforcement taken to address SNC
80.0%
81.4%
1
1
100%
10b Appropriate enforcement taken to address
violations
100%

24
24
100%
State response
The Waste Management Division appreciates the acknowledgement that
the program meets and/or exceeds these elements.
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 11

-------
RCRA Element 5 — Penalties
Finding 5-1	Area for State Improvement
Summary	The documentation for developing penalty calculations, including
gravity and economic benefit, and demonstrating penalties collected
could not be found in NDEQ's files.
Explanation	There was no file documentation to review, as the files were not present
in the NDEQ file structure so the documentation for developing penalty
calculations including gravity and economic benefit were not available
for review. However, while reviewing the Becton, Dickinson and
Company file, reporting forms indicate that $23,000 was to be paid
within 15 days of the consent decree and $15,000 was waived if the
facility remains in compliance for 180 days. The May 2014 inspection
includes 5 violations, but no indication that the waived $15,000 was
collected. Additionally, two $7,500 Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEP's) were included in the consent decree, but there is no
information on the scope of or nexus for the SEP's nor information
concerning the penalty reduction or the implementation for the SEP's.
During discussion with EPA Region 7's Senior Regional Counsel and
the Bureau Chief of the Natural Resources Section in the Attorney
General's Office (AG's office), it was discovered that the AG's office
determines a penalty calculation independently of the penalty calculation
provided in the case referral from NDEQ and historically has not
discussed its independent calculation with NDEQ. Although a group
from the AG's office periodically meets with NDEQ legal staff to
discuss cases, the AG's office does not generally consult with NDEQ in
making the final determination on the settlement.
This was identified as an area for improvement in both Round 1 and
Round 2 SRF reviews.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State %
or#
11a Penalty calculations include gravity and
economic benefit
100%

0
1
0.0%
12b Penalties collected
100%

0
1
0.0%
State response NDEQ will continue to communicate and coordinate with the Nebraska
Attorney General's office on agency cases. To the extent the Attorney
General is willing to share information regarding penalties with the
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 12

-------
agency; we will include documentation in the agency legal case file.
NDEQ would like to note for the record, however, that the agency does,
(and did in referenced Becton Dickinson), develop an initial penalty
calculation worksheet which the agency includes when it refers an
enforcement case to the Attorney General. A copy of this litigation
package and penalty calculation worksheet is filed in the designated
legal case file for a given facility. NDEQ can only conclude that EPA
did not review the NDEQ legal case file which contains the initial
NDEQ-generated penalty calculation worksheet. It is the NDEQ's
understanding - as was EPA's - that the Attorney General independently
develops a proposed penalty calculation based on the NDEQ referral
information. It is our understanding that the Attorney General considers
factors similar to the NDEQ calculation, but the Attorney General has
never shared their penalty calculation documentation with the agency.
On occasion, the Attorney General may share the proposed penalty range
it is considering. In the future - as in the past - NDEQ will discuss
EPA's recommendation with the Attorney General and if his office will
provide their rationale for any difference between NDEQ's initial
penalty calculation and the final penalty imposed, NDEQ will include
documentation in the agency legal case file.
Recommendation EPA recommends that NDEQ and the AG's Office work together to
develop better coordination, participation, and communication between
the two offices for penalty calculations that include gravity and
economic benefit and for justification when penalties are waived when a
company maintains compliance status. For the total penalty calculation,
including gravity and economic benefit, NDEQ should ensure the
referral to the AG's Office is included in the NDEQ facility files.
EPA will monitor this on the joint EPA - NDEQ bi-monthly conference
calls to access progress and oversight. After 1 year, EPA will document
any process improvement and/or concerns to determine the next steps.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 13

-------
RCRA Element 5 — Penalties
Finding 5-2	Area for State Improvement
Summary	No documentation of rationale for difference between initial penalty
calculation and final penalty could be located in the files reviewed.
Explanation	There was no file documentation to review, as the files were not present
in the NDEQ file structure so the initial penalty was not available for
comparison. However, while reviewing the Becton, Dickinson and
Company file, reporting forms indicate that $23,000 was to be paid
within 15 days of the consent decree and $15,000 was waived if the
facility remains in compliance for 180 days. The May 2014 inspection
includes 5 violations, but no indication that the waived $15,000 was
collected.
Additionally, the Attorney General's Office (AG's office) determines a
penalty calculation independently of the penalty calculation provided in
the case referral from NDEQ and historically has not discussed its
independent calculation with NDEQ. Although a group from the AG's
office periodically meets with NDEQ legal staff to discuss cases, the
AG's office does not generally consult with NDEQ in making the final
determination on the settlement.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #

12a Documentation on difference between
100%

0 1
0.0%

initial and final penalty

State response See State Response to Element 5-1 above.
Recommendation EPA recommends that NDEQ and the AG's Office work together to
develop better coordination, participation, and communication between
the two offices in order to clearly document the differences between the
initial penalty calculations presented by NDEQ and the final penalty
negotiated by the AG's Office.
EPA will monitor this on the joint EPA - NDEQ bi-monthly conference
calls to access progress and oversight. After 1 year, EPA will document
any process improvement and/or concerns to determine the next steps.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 14

-------
Appendix
NDEQ Response
NEBRASKA
Good Life. Great Environment.
DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MAR 3 0 201?
Department Response
U.S. EPA Region 7
Becky Weber, Director
Air and Waste Management Division
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
RE: Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality response to U.S EPA Region 7 draft
State Review Framework Nebraska RCRA Subtitle C Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year
2015
Dear Ms. Weber:
This letter is submitted in response to the EPA Region 7*s draft State Review Framework (SRF)
Nebraska RCRA Subtitle C Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2015 program review report. The
Department's Waste Management Division has reviewed the draft report and is providing comments
related to the report below and has included a general statement in the State Response comment box in
the report, except for Element 5 where the Department's Legal Services Division has reviewed the draft
report and has included its comments in that section addressing enforcement.
The Waste Management Division will first cover genera) concerns that it wishes EPA Region 7 to
update, change or modify, and second will be the Department responses to each Element of the RCFLA
SRF draft final report.
RCRA Element 1 — Data
1, The Waste Management Division has reviewed and corrected the list of data metrics that was
noted as missing or was input in error that was provided at the time of the program review.
After completing the updates the data was again checked for accuracy prior to it being frozen
in RCRAinfo for 2015, The Waste Management Division has reviewed its ongoing data
entry practices. Staff, where necessary, who provide the data (inspectors) and those who are
entering the data (Administrative Staff and Waste Compliance Unit Supervisor) have been
retrained. Additional discussions between Waste Management Division staff and Region 7
staff have been held so that those who enter data can improve accuracy when data is entered
the first time into RCRAinfo, and that it is. entered timely in accordance with the NDEQ'EPA
Performance Partnership Agreemen t.
Macy, £>r«cto*
Oflpartmwut at Enuvonmaratail Quality
oracr
dtiq.ne.gov
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 15

-------
2,	The Waste Management Division has reviewed the Stale/EPA Performance Partnership
Agreement to confirm thai the infectious oi J-1-	Kj'§, SQG's, CESQG'e anil TSDFt meet the
minimum inspection expectation levels. Basal on the Department's understanding of l!»e
counts of inspections conducted and coupled with flic inspections EPA conducts in the Stale
of Nebraska we believe the metric percentages calculated by EPA clMrft accurately reflect
the combined percentages of the EPA inspections with tine Department's, nor for the fact that
if aTSDF didn't have violations it need not be inspected {Only true for the Safety Kieen
facilities of which there are two in Nebraska.).
RCRA Element II —
3,	The Waste Management Division appreciates the finding that fie inspection reports are
complete and sufficient to determine compliance, and that file timeliness just short of the goal
at 95.8%. The Department has and continues to strive to meet the completion of the repent
prior to of within 30 days of the inspection.
It II \J kjm-M jm.pifim. n.?;|tjv
4,	The Waste Management Division appreciates the acknowledgement fiat the program onsets
and/or exceeds these elements.
5. The Legal Services Division response to Element 5 is inducted in the SRF Report on the
State response line.
The Department's Waste Management Division thanks BP A Region 7 for the ability to review the draft
report ant! comment on the accuracy and is committed to working with EPA to work through any of the
parts of the Program Review where toe is an. ability to discuss lie findings.
Should yon wish to go over these comments theNDEQ's Waste Management Division would be willing
to help facilitate those discussions. If you have any oilier questions job can contact Bill OidJey or
Jefftry Edwards of my staff at (402) 471 -4210,
David B. HaJdcntait, Ac
Land Management Divi

-------
State Review Framework
Nebraska
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2015
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7, Kansas City
Draft Report
January 12,2017

-------
Executive Summary
Introduction
EPA Region 7 enforcement staff conducted a State Review Framework (SRF) enforcement
program oversight review of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Waste
Management Section.
EPA bases SRF findings on data and file review metrics, and conversations with program
management and staff. EPA will track recommended actions from the review in the SRF Tracker
and publish reports and recommendations on EPA's ECHO web site.
Areas of Strong Performance
•	Finding 2-2: NDEQ's inspection reports are complete and sufficient to determine
compliance.
•	Finding 3-1: Violations noted in the inspection report and/or its attachments (checklists)
resulted in accurate and appropriate determination and enforcement follow-up.
•	Finding 3-2: NDEQ exceeds the national average at identifying violations at inspections.
•	Finding 4-1: NDEQ's enforcement response to violations is timely and appropriate. It is
effective at returning the facility to compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Most Significant RCRA Subtitle C Program Issues2
•	Finding 1-1: NDEQ needs to ensure that all mandatory data for inspection and
enforcement activities are entered into RCRAInfo.
• Finding 2-1: NDEQ should ensure that inspection coverage of Large Quantity
Generators, Small Quantity Generators and operating Treatment Storage Disposal
Facilities meet the minimum expectation levels.
2 EPA's "National Strategy for Improving Oversight of State Enforcement Performance" identifies the following as
significant recurrent issues: "Widespread and persistent data inaccuracy and incompleteness, which make it hard to
identify when serious problems exist or to track state actions; routine failure of states to identify and report
significant noncompliance; routine failure of states to take timely or appropriate enforcement actions to return
violating facilities to compliance, potentially allowing pollution to continue unabated; failure of states to take
appropriate penalty actions, which results in ineffective deterrence for noncompliance and an unlevel playing field
for companies that do comply; use of enforcement orders to circumvent standards or to extend permits without
appropriate notice and comment; and failure to inspect and enforce in some regulated sectors."
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Executive Summary | Page 1

-------
•	Finding 5-1: The documentation for developing penalty calculations, including gravity
and economic benefit, and demonstrating penalties collected could not be found in
NDEQ's files.
•	Finding 5-2: No documentation of rationale for difference between initial penalty
calculation and final penalty could be located in the files reviewed.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Executive Summary | Page 2

-------
Table of Contents
I.	Background on the State Review Framework	1
II.	SRF Review Process	2
III.	SRF Findings	3
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Findings	4
Appendix	14
NDEQ Response	14

-------
I. Background on the State Review Framework
The State Review Framework (SRF) is designed to ensure that EPA conducts nationally
consistent oversight. It reviews the following local, state, and EPA compliance and enforcement
programs:
•	Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
•	Clean Air Act Stationary Sources (Title V)
•	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C
Reviews cover:
•	Data — completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of data entry into national data systems
•	Inspections — meeting inspection and coverage commitments, inspection report quality,
and report timeliness
•	Violations — identification of violations, determination of significant noncompliance
(SNC) for the CWA and RCRA programs and high priority violators (HPV) for the CAA
program, and accuracy of compliance determinations
•	Enforcement — timeliness and appropriateness, returning facilities to compliance
•	Penalties — calculation including gravity and economic benefit components, assessment,
and collection
EPA conducts SRF reviews in three phases:
•	Analyzing information from the national data systems in the form of data metrics
•	Reviewing facility files and compiling file metrics
•	Development of findings and recommendations
EPA builds consultation into the SRF to ensure that EPA and the state understand the causes of
issues and agree, to the degree possible, on actions needed to address them. SRF reports capture
the agreements developed during the review process in order to facilitate program improvements.
EPA also uses the information in the reports to develop a better understanding of enforcement
and compliance nationwide, and to identify issues that require a national response.
Reports provide factual information. They do not include determinations of overall program
adequacy, nor are they used to compare or rank state programs.
Each state's programs are reviewed once every five years. The first round of SRF reviews began
in FY 2004. The third round of reviews began in FY 2013 and will continue through FY 2017.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 1

-------
II. SRF Review Process
Review period: Federal Fiscal Year 2015
Key dates:
•	SRF Kickoff letter mailed to NDEQ: June 16, 2016
•	Data metric analysis and file selection list sent to NDEQ: June 14, 2016
•	E-File review conducted: July 18, 20-21, 25-28 and August 1-2, 2016
•	On-site visit and Exit interview occurred: August 3, 2016
•	Draft report sent to headquarters: September 30, 2016
•	Draft report sent to NDEQ: January 17, 2017
•	Final report issued: Month Day, 2016
State and EPA key contacts for review:
•	EPA Region 7 SRF Coordinator: Kevin Barthol
•	EPA Region 7 Nebraska RCRA Coordinator: Marc Matthews
•	EPA Region 7 Reviewer: Rebecca Wenner
•	NDEQ Waste Management Section Chief: Bill Gidley
•	NDEQ Compliance Unit Supervisor: Jeffery Edwards
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 2

-------
III. SRF Findings
Findings represent EPA's conclusions regarding state performance and are based on findings
made during the data and/or file reviews and may also be informed by:
•	Annual data metric reviews conducted since the state's last SRF review
•	Follow-up conversations with state agency personnel
•	Review of previous SRF reports, Memoranda of Agreement, or other data sources
•	Additional information collected to determine an issue's severity and root causes
There are three categories of findings:
Meets or Exceeds Expectations: The SRF was established to define a base level or floor for
enforcement program performance. This rating describes a situation where the base level is met
and no performance deficiency is identified, or a state performs above national program
expectations.
Area for State Attention: An activity, process, or policy that one or more SRF metrics show as
a minor problem. Where appropriate, the state should correct the issue without additional EPA
oversight. EPA may make recommendations to improve performance, but it will not monitor
these recommendations for completion between SRF reviews. These areas are not highlighted as
significant in an executive summary.
Area for State Improvement: An activity, process, or policy that one or more SRF metrics
show as a significant problem that the agency is required to address. Recommendations should
address root causes. These recommendations must have well-defined timelines and milestones
for completion, and EPA will monitor them for completion between SRF reviews in the SRF
Tracker.
Whenever a metric indicates a major performance issue, EPA will write up a finding of Area for
State Improvement, regardless of other metric values pertaining to a particular element.
The relevant SRF metrics are listed within each finding. The following information is provided
for each metric:
•	Metric ID Number and Description: The metric's SRF identification number and a
description of what the metric measures.
•	Natl Goal: The national goal, if applicable, of the metric, or the CMS commitment that
the state has made.
•	Natl Avg: The national average across all states, territories, and the District of Columbia.
•	State N: For metrics expressed as percentages, the numerator.
•	State D: The denominator.
•	State % or #: The percentage, or if the metric is expressed as a whole number, the count.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 3

-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Findings
RCRA Element 1 — Data
Finding 1-1	Area for State Improvement
Summary	NDEQ needs to ensure that all mandatory data for inspection and
enforcement activities are entered into RCRAInfo.
Explanation	Of the 25 facility files reviewed, 11 were noted as having some data
missing when comparing the file information to RCRAInfo data. None
of the facilities were missing SNC determinations, and appropriate
enforcement was taken in all cases. Penalty information was missing
from the file for one formal enforcement action, but return to compliance
data was properly entered for all facilities.
NDEQ stated that six of the files containing deficiencies were due to
typographical errors due to personnel transitions whereas five were
missing data elements for inspection and enforcement activities. This
was identified as an area for state improvement in the Round 2 program
review.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State State
N D % or #
2b Complete and accurate entry of mandatory
data
100%

18 29 62.1%
2a Long-standing secondary violators


7
State response See Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) response
letter.
Recommendation EPA discussed this issue with NDEQ during the review and NDEQ staff
indicated that they would take appropriate action to ensure proper data
entry.
EPA recommends NDEQ evaluate current data entry procedures and
facility file management with the goal of improving accuracy. NDEQ
should provide EPA with a draft of the NDEQ's and AG's data entry and
file management process improvements for review within 60 days of
completion of this SRF Report. EPA will randomly pull ten facilities in
the 1st quarter of FY 2018 in order to review the NDEQ data for FY
2017. If this random sampling indicates that data entry processes and
accuracy has sufficiently improved (90% or greater) the recommendation
will be deemed complete.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 4

-------
RCRA Element 2 — Inspections
Finding 2-1	Area for State Improvement
Summary	NDEQ should ensure that inspection coverage of Large Quantity
Generators, Small Quantity Generators and operating Treatment Storage
Disposal Facilities meet the minimum expectation levels.
Explanation	The state coordinated its inspection coverage with EPA R7 within its
negotiated PPA work plan in order to maximize inspection resources.
NDEQ's FY2015 work plan included commitments for inspection of
LQGs, SQGs, and operating TSDFs; as well as commitments for timely
and appropriate enforcement response.
NDEQ inspected less than the expected number of operating TSDFs in
the two-year inspection cycle, however EPA conducted one of the three
expected inspections. The other was completed on December 10, 2015.
The LQG inspection coverage over the five-year inspection coverage
cycle is slightly less than expected along with the annual inspection
coverage.
The RCRA statute mandates a minimum biennial inspection frequency
for non-government TSDFs, which can be accomplished by the
combined efforts of the EPA and NDEQ. Inspection frequency of other
categories of RCRA facilities are set by the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance in the: "Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C Program"
[September 2015], This guidance provides states with flexibility to plan
and implement an alternative approach to RCRA program inspection
coverage by developing a written plan describing its proposed
alternative. NDEQ should consider developing an alternative plan to
address the RCRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy for non-TSDF
RCRA facilities.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl Natl
Goal Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #
5a Two-year inspection coverage of operating
TSDFs '
100% 90.60%
1
3
33.30%
5b Annual inspection coverage of LQGs
20% 18.30%
11
70
15.70%
5c Five-year inspection coverage of LQGs
100% 52.50%
40
70
57.10%
5d Five-year inspection coverage of active
SQGs
10.20%
45
368
12.20%
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 5

-------
5el Five-year inspection coverage of active
conditionally exempt SQGs
5e2 Five-year inspection coverage of active
transporters
5e3 Five-year inspection coverage of active
non-notifiers
5e4 Five-year inspection coverage of active
sites not covered by metrics 2c through 2f3
State response See Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) response
letter.
Recommendation EPA recommends an increase in the level of inspection coordination
between EPA and NDEQ during the planning phase for the FY 2018
PPA cycle/submission, including a review of the inspection status of the
operating TSDF and LQG facilities in the State, to evaluate which of
these facilities should be included in any given inspection schedule.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 6

-------
RCRA Element 2 — Inspections
Finding 2-2	Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary	NDEQ's inspection reports are complete and sufficient to determine
compliance.
Explanation	For the 24 facilities reviewed, all of the inspection reports had sufficient
detail and documentation to determine compliance status of the facility.
In only one instance did an inspection report take an inordinate amount
of time to complete which has been addressed by NDEQ management.
All of the inspection reports reviewed appeared to have all the
information necessary to determine compliance status. This information
included a description of the facility's overall operations and waste
management activities, verification of the generator status of the facility,
citing specific violations noted on the attached checklists, and
photographic documentation of the violations cited where applicable.
The inspection reports are signed by the inspector and dated upon
completion. The timeliness of report completion was calculated based
upon the date that the report was signed by the inspector. On average,
the NDEQ inspectors completed the reports within 30 days of the
inspection.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #
6a Inspection reports complete and sufficient to
determine compliance
100%

24
24
100%
6b Timeliness of inspection report completion
100%

23
24
95.8%
State response See Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) response
letter.
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 7

-------
RCRA Element 3
Violations
Finding 3-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary
Violations noted in the inspection report and/or its attachments
(checklists) resulted in accurate and appropriate determination and
enforcement follow-up.
Explanation	In reviewing the inspection reports, violations noted on checklists
attached to the inspection reports or within the narrative of the reports
were brought forward for accurate and appropriate determination and
enforcement follow-up (notice of violation, letter of warning), or
otherwise made known to the facility.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #
7a Accurate compliance determinations
100%

29
29
100%
8c Appropriate SNC determinations
100%

29
29
100%
8a SNC identification rate

2.20%
0
32
0.0%
State response
See Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) response
letter.
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 8

-------
RCRA Element 3
Violations
Finding 3-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary
NDEQ exceeds the national average at identifying violations at
inspections.
Explanation	NDEQ identifies a violation(s) during an inspection 59.4% of the time.
For the review period, no SNC's were identified.
EPA identified a facility from a previous year (FY 2012) to determine if
NDEQ's SNC determinations and policy interpretation meet timeliness.
NDEQ interpreted the policy correctly in the past.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #
7b Violations found during inspections

36.5%
19
32
59.4%
8b Timeliness of SNC determinations
100%
79%
0
0
0.0%
State response
See Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) response
letter.
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 9

-------
RCRA Element 4 — Enforcement
Finding 4-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary
NDEQ's enforcement response to violations is timely and appropriate. It
is effective at returning the facility to compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Explanation	In all instances reviewed where enforcement actions were taken, the
actions taken were adequate to return the facility to compliance. NDEQ
exceeds the National Goal with regard to timely enforcement at
significant non-compliers.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #
9a Enforcement that returns violators to
100%

24
24
100%
compliance

10a Timely enforcement taken to address SNC
80.0%
81.4%
1
1
100%
10b Appropriate enforcement taken to address
violations
100%

24
24
100%
State response
See Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) response
letter.
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 10

-------
RCRA Element 5 — Penalties
Finding 5-1	Area for State Improvement
Summary	The documentation for developing penalty calculations, including
gravity and economic benefit, and demonstrating penalties collected
could not be found in NDEQ's files.
Explanation	There was no file documentation to review, as the files were not present
in the NDEQ file structure so the documentation for developing penalty
calculations including gravity and economic benefit were not available
for review. However, while reviewing the Becton, Dickinson and
Company file, reporting forms indicate that $23,000 was to be paid
within 15 days of the consent decree and $15,000 was waived if the
facility remains in compliance for 180 days. The May 2014 inspection
includes 5 violations, but no indication that the waived $15,000 was
collected. Additionally, two $7,500 Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEP's) were included in the consent decree, but there is no
information on the scope of or nexus for the SEP's nor information
concerning the penalty reduction or the implementation for the SEP's.
During discussion with EPA Region 7's Senior Regional Counsel and
the Bureau Chief of the Natural Resources Section in the Attorney
General's Office (AG's office), it was discovered that the AG's office
determines a penalty calculation independently of the penalty calculation
provided in the case referral from NDEQ and historically has not
discussed its independent calculation with NDEQ. Although a group
from the AG's office periodically meets with NDEQ legal staff to
discuss cases, the AG's office does not generally consult with NDEQ in
making the final determination on the settlement.
This was identified as an area for improvement in both Round 1 and
Round 2 SRF reviews.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State %
or#
11a Penalty calculations include gravity and
economic benefit
100%

0
1
0.0%
12b Penalties collected
100%

0
1
0.0%
State response NDEQ will continue to communicate and coordinate with the Nebraska
Attorney General's office on agency cases. To the extent the Attorney
General is willing to share information regarding penalties with the
agency; we will include documentation in the agency legal case file.
NDEQ would like to note for the record, however, that the agency does,
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 11

-------
(and did in referenced Becton Dickinson case), develop an initial penalty
calculation worksheet which the agency includes when it refers an
enforcement case to the Attorney General. A copy of this litigation
package and penalty calculation worksheet is filed in the designated
legal case file for a given facility. NDEQ can only conclude that EPA
did not review the NDEQ legal case file which contains the initial
NDEQ-generated penalty calculation worksheet. It is the NDEQ's
understanding—as was EPA's—that the Attorney General independently
develops a proposed penalty calculation based on the NDEQ referral
information. It is our understanding that the Attorney General considers
factors similar to the NDEQ calculation, but the Attorney General has
never shared their penalty calculation documentation with the agency.
On occasion, the Attorney General may share the proposed penalty range
it is considering. In the future—as in the past—NDEQ will discuss
EPA's recommendation with the Attorney General and if his office will
provide their rationale for any difference between NDEQ's initial
penalty calculation and the final penalty imposed, NDEQ will include
documentation in the agency legal case file.
Recommendation EPA recommends that NDEQ and the AG's Office work together to
develop better coordination, participation, and communication between
the two offices for penalty calculations that include gravity and
economic benefit and for justification when penalties are waived when a
company maintains compliance status. For the total penalty calculation,
including gravity and economic benefit, NDEQ should ensure the
referral to the AG's Office is included in the NDEQ facility files.
EPA will monitor this on the joint EPA - NDEQ bi-monthly conference
calls to access progress and oversight. After 1 year, EPA will document
any process improvement and/or concerns to determine the next steps.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 12

-------
RCRA Element 5 — Penalties
Finding 5-2	Area for State Improvement
Summary	No documentation of rationale for difference between initial penalty
calculation and final penalty could be located in the files reviewed.
Explanation	There was no file documentation to review, as the files were not present
in the NDEQ file structure so the initial penalty was not available for
comparison. However, while reviewing the Becton, Dickinson and
Company file, reporting forms indicate that $23,000 was to be paid
within 15 days of the consent decree and $15,000 was waived if the
facility remains in compliance for 180 days. The May 2014 inspection
includes 5 violations, but no indication that the waived $15,000 was
collected.
Additionally, the Attorney General's Office (AG's office) determines a
penalty calculation independently of the penalty calculation provided in
the case referral from NDEQ and historically has not discussed its
independent calculation with NDEQ. Although a group from the AG's
office periodically meets with NDEQ legal staff to discuss cases, the
AG's office does not generally consult with NDEQ in making the final
determination on the settlement.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #

12a Documentation on difference between
100%

0 1
0.0%

initial and final penalty

State response See State Response to Element 5-1 above.
Recommendation EPA recommends that NDEQ and the AG's Office work together to
develop better coordination, participation, and communication between
the two offices in order to clearly document the differences between the
initial penalty calculations presented by NDEQ and the final penalty
negotiated by the AG's Office.
EPA will monitor this on the joint EPA - NDEQ bi-monthly conference
calls to access progress and oversight. After 1 year, EPA will document
any process improvement and/or concerns to determine the next steps.
State Review Framework Report | Nebraska | Page 13

-------
Appendix
NDEQ Response will be attached here.

-------