State Review Framework Nebraska Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2019

STATE REVIEW FRAMEWORK

Nebraska

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2019

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 7

Final Report
January 27, 2022

-------
Executive Summary

Areas of Strong Performance

The following are aspects of the program that, according to the review, are being implemented at
a high level:

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

• NDEE met the national goal for the two-year inspection coverage of operating TSDFs.

• Inspections are thorough in identifying violations. Inspection reports are clear and convey
sufficient information to determine compliance.

• NDEE did an excellent job of accurately determining compliance and documenting
compliance status.

• NDEE met the SRF expectations for the criteria for appropriate enforcement actions that
return violators to compliance.

• Penalty calculations adequately considered gravity components and economic benefit.
Priority Issues to Address

The following are aspects of the program that, according to the review, are not meeting federal
standards and should be prioritized for management attention:

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

~ Mandatory data for inspection and enforcement activities are not complete and accurately
reflected in RCRAInfo. This is a repeat finding from the previous Round 3 SRF review.

~ NDEE inspected less than 20% of the biennial report system (BRS) LQG universe. This
is a repeat finding from the previous Round 3 SRF review.

~ RCRAInfo identifies 16 long-standing secondary violators which have not returned to
compliance by Day 240 and should had been designated as a significant non-complier
(SNC). NDEE reported no SNCs in FFY19.

Page 2 of 22

-------
~ No documentation of the rationale between initial penalty calculation and final penalty
are in NDEE's files. This is a repeat finding/long standing finding from the previous
Round 2 and 3 SRF reviews.

Page 3 of 22

-------
I. Introduction

A.	Overview of the State Review Framework

The State Review Framework (SRF) is a key mechanism for EPA oversight, providing a
nationally consistent process for reviewing the performance of state delegated compliance and
enforcement programs under three core federal statutes: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Through SRF, EPA periodically reviews such
programs using a standardized set of metrics to evaluate their performance against performance
standards laid out in federal statute, EPA regulations, policy, and guidance. When states do not
achieve standards, the EPA will work with them to improve performance.

Established in 2004, the review was developed jointly by EPA and Environmental Council of the
States (ECOS) in response to calls both inside and outside the agency for improved, more
consistent oversight of state delegated programs. The goals of the review that were agreed upon
at its formation remain relevant and unchanged today:

1.	Ensure delegated and EPA-run programs meet federal policy and baseline performance
standards

2.	Promote fair and consistent enforcement necessary to protect human health and the
environment

3.	Promote equitable treatment and level interstate playing field for business

4.	Provide transparency with publicly available data and reports

B.	The Review Process

The review is conducted on a rolling five-year cycle such that all programs are reviewed
approximately once every five years. The EPA evaluates programs on a one-year period of
performance, typically the one-year prior to review, using a standard set of metrics to make
findings on performance in five areas (elements) around which the report is organized: data,
inspections, violations, enforcement, and penalties. Wherever program performance is found to
deviate significantly from federal policy or standards, the EPA will issue recommendations for
corrective action which are monitored by EPA until completed and program performance
improves.

The SRF is currently in its 4th Round (FY2018-2022) of reviews, preceded by Round 3
(FY2012-2017), Round 2 (2008-2011), and Round 1 (FY2004-2007). Additional information
and final reports can be found at the EPA website under State Review Framework.

II. Navigating the Report

Page 4 of 22

-------
The final report contains the results and relevant information from the review including EPA and
program contact information, metric values, performance findings and explanations, program
responses, and EPA recommendations for corrective action where any significant deficiencies in
performance were found.

A. Metrics

There are two general types of metrics used to assess program performance. The first are data
metrics, which reflect verified inspection and enforcement data from the national data systems
of each media, or statute. The second, and generally more significant, are file metrics, which are
derived from the review of individual facility files in order to determine if the program is
performing their compliance and enforcement responsibilities adequately.

Other information considered by EPA to make performance findings in addition to the metrics
includes results from previous SRF reviews, data metrics from the years in-between reviews,
multi-year metric trends.

B. Performance Findings

The EPA makes findings on performance in five program areas:

• Data - completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of data entry into national data systems

• Inspections - meeting inspection and coverage commitments, inspection report quality,
and report timeliness

• Violations - identification of violations, accuracy of compliance determinations, and
determination of significant noncompliance (SNC) or high priority violators (HPV)

• Enforcement - timeliness and appropriateness of enforcement, returning facilities to
compliance

• Penalties - calculation including gravity and economic benefit components, assessment,
and collection

Though performance generally varies across a spectrum, for the purposes of conducting a
standardized review, SRF categorizes performance into three findings levels:

Meets or Exceeds: No issues are found. Base standards of performance are met or exceeded.

Area for Attention: Minor issues are found. One or more metrics indicates performance
issues related to quality, process, or policy. The implementing agency is considered able to
correct the issue without additional EPA oversight.

Area for Improvement: Significant issues are found. One or more metrics indicates routine
and/or widespread performance issues related to quality, process, or policy. A
recommendation for corrective action is issued which contains specific actions and schedule
for completion. The EPA monitors implementation until completion.

C. Recommendations for Corrective Action

Page 5 of22

-------
Whenever the EPA makes a finding on performance of Area for Improvement, the EPA will
include a recommendation for corrective action, or recommendation, in the report. The purpose
of recommendations are to address significant performance issues and bring program
performance back in line with federal policy and standards. All recommendations should include
specific actions and a schedule for completion, and their implementation is monitored by the
EPA until completion.

III. Review Process Information

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

Review period: FFY2019
Key dates:

•	SRF kickoff letter mailed to NDEE: May 18, 2021

•	File selection list sent to NDEE: May 18, 2021

•	Data metric analysis sent to NDEE: May 18, 2021

•	Entrance interview conducted: June 7, 2021

•	File review conducted: June 7, 2021 - July 9, 2021

•	Exit interview conducted: July 20, 2021

•	Draft report sent to NDEE: October 28, 2021

•	Final report issued: January 27, 2022

State and EPA key contacts for review:

•	Brad Pracheil, NDEE, Inspection and Compliance Division, Administrator

•	Jeffery Edwards, NDEE, Waste/RCRA Compliance Section, Supervisor

•	Annette Kovar, NDEE, Legal Counsel

•	Kara Valentine, NDEE, Deputy Director

•	Amber Whisnant, EPA Region 7, RCRA Section Chief

•	Mike Martin, EPA Region 7, RCRA Coordinator

•	March Matthews, EPA Region 7, File Reviewer

•	Kevin Barthol, EPA Region 7, SRF Coordinator

Page 6 of 22

-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Findings

RCRA Element 1 - Data

Finding 1-1

Area for Improvement

Recurring Issue:

Recurring from Round 3

Summary:

Mandatory data for inspection and enforcement activities are not complete and accurately
reflected in RCRAInfo. This is a repeat finding from the previous Round 3 SRF review. Previous
recommendations had been implemented correcting the issue, but it resurfaced.

Explanation:

Of the 37 facility files reviewed, 25 had missing or inaccurate data when comparing file
information to RCRAInfo data. Data was missing for three formal actions, one informal action,
two penalty payments, one significant non-complier, one no longer a significant non-complier,
and return to compliance dates for 13 long-standing secondary violators. NDEE promptly
entered missing RTC dates for 12 of 13 long-standing secondary violators. Data entry was
inaccurate for two informal actions (notice of violation date and notice of violation entered as an
inspection) and one set of SNY/SNN flags entered with the same date. The discrepancies appear
to be incidents of input error or direct omission.

Relevant metrics:

,, _ . ... .. . , Natl : Natl State State State

Metric ID Number and Description „ , .. _ „ ,

1 Goal Avg N D Total

| 2b Accurate entry of mandatory data [GOAL] I 100% I | 19 j 37 J 51.4% j

State Response:

The Waste Compliance Section 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 in RCRAinfo, some items were
from a time frame going back several years, so it took time to get the detailed records reviewed
to get the right information to enter into RCRAinfo. The Waste Compliance Section has
reviewed its ongoing data entry practices and instituted backups to review the data on a quarterly
basis to make sure data is entered and confirmed to be correct in accordance with the NDEE
RCRA inspection SOP and Annual Workplan. Staff, where necessary, who provide the data
(Environmental Specialist II's) and those who are entering the data (Two Environmental
Specialist II's and Waste Compliance Section Supervisor) have retrained on the data entry and

Page 7 of22

-------
data quality processes. Additional discussions between Waste Compliance Section 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
NDEE/EPA Performance Partnership Agreement.

Recommendation:

Due Dale

Recommendation

Within 60 days of completion of the SRF report, NDEE should develop
and submit a plan to address RCRAinfo data deficiencies. EPA will
randomly pull data for 10 facilities in the 2nd quarter of FFY23 in order to
review FFY22 data. If this random sampling indicates that data entry
processes and accuracy has sufficiently improved (85% or greater), this
recommendation will be considered complete.

RCRA Element 2 - Inspections

Finding 2-1

Meets or Exceeds Expectations

Recurring Issue:

Summary:

NDEE met the national goal for the two-year inspection coverage of operating TSDFs.

Explanation:

The RCRA statute allows the combined efforts of the State and Region to accomplish the
biennial inspection frequency for non-government TSDFs. NDEE and Region 7 together
provided the required inspection coverage for the TSDF universe of three [3], NDEE inspected
two TSDFs (66.7% of TSDF universe) and Region 7 inspected one TSDF (33.3% of TSDF
universe). Although the State has primary responsibility for the TSDF inspection coverage
obligation, NDEE and Region 7 together provided 100% coverage of the TSDF universe of three
[3] and meet the national goal.

Page 8 of 22

-------
Relevant metrics:

i. j rw • „•	Natl Natl	State State State

Metric ID Number and Description	„ ,	.. _ , ,

1	Goal Avg	N D Total

TC^i^]PeCti0nC0Vera8e0f0Pera'in8	| 100% j 89 9% [ 3 J 3 [100.0%

State Response:

The NDEE Waste Compliance Section appreciates the acknowledgement that the Nebraska
RCRA Program meets this element.

RCRA Element 2 - Inspections

Finding 2-2

Area for Improvement

Recurring Issue:

Recurring from Round 3

Summary:

NDEE inspected less than 20% of the biennial report system (BRS) LQG universe. This is a
repeat finding from the previous Round 3 SRF review.

Explanation:

Per the negotiated FFY19 workplan, NDEE would inspect at least nine LQGs and alternative
non-LQG facilities at a ratio of two SQGs to one LQG. This approach consisted of inspecting at
least 10% of the BRS LQG universe and directing freed resources to inspect non-LQG facilities.
NDEE had been operating under an alternative compliance monitoring strategy (CMS) for
LQGs, but had not submitted the alternative plan (Alternative 3 - Straight Trade-Off Approach)
per the CMS for the RCRA Subtitle C Program [September 2015], NDEE had no agreement in
place to collect identified outcomes and perform a year end analysis of the benefits/outcomes
from implementing the alternative approach. NDEE did not submit expected outcomes or year-
end analysis from implementing the alternative approach in the FFY19 workplan nor completion
report. An approved alternative CMS for LQGs had not been incorporated in the FFY19
workplan.

Page 9 of 22

-------
Relevant metrics:

Metric ID Number and Description

Natl Goal

Natl

Avg

State

N

State
D

State
Total

5b Annual inspection of LQGs using BR
universe [GOAL]

20%

14.70%

10

81

12.30% |

5d One-year count of SQGs with
inspections

100% of
commitments



11



i

11 1

5e5 One-year count of VSQGs with
inspections

100% of
commitment



6



6 I

5e7 Number of other sites inspected

100% of
commitment

| 2



2 I

State Response:

The Waste Compliance Section (RCRA Program) has reviewed the State/EPA Performance
Partnership Agreement to confirm that the inspections conducted of LQGs, SQGs, CESQGs and
TSDFs meet the minimum inspection expectation levels. The NDEE's Waste Compliance
Section has continued to follow the combining state inspections with those of EPA which had
been the procedure up until 2022 and will now follow the recently approved Compliance
Monitoring Strategy. NDEE has established this Compliance Monitoring Strategy (based on
LQGs in the Biennial Reporting System) that will in the future document better the numbers of
necessary inspections. Previous reviews of the inspections and previous allowances under the
State Review Framework combined a larger number of EPA inspections which has now been
revised. We have already completed the suggested recommendation listed below.

Recommendation:

Due Dale

Recommendation

Within 120 days of completion of the SRF report, NDEE should submit a
written plan for an alternative CMS for LQGs. The plan should include,
but not limited to, the type and the number of facilities to be inspected, the
expected outcomes of the alternative approach, and a measurement plan.
Upon approval of the alternative CMS, this recommendation will be
considered complete.

Page 10 of 22

-------
RCRA Element 2 - Inspections

Finding 2-3

Meets or Exceeds Expectations

Recurring Issue:

No

Summary:

Inspections are thorough in identifying violations. Inspection reports are clear and convey
sufficient information to determine compliance.

Explanation:

All 35 inspection reports reviewed were complete, provided excellent documentation (e.g.,
photos, descriptive narrative of observations, consistency in report formats) and sufficient to
determine compliance.

Relevant metrics:

. ,n , , _ .	Natl Natl State State State

Metric ID Number and Description	„ , . VI A ,

1	Goal Avg N D Total

6a Inspection reports complete and sufficient to	,A„0/ ; „ „ . nn0.

determine compliance [GOAL]	i 100/o | | j5 i j5 I 100/o

State Response:

The NDEE Waste Compliance Section appreciates the acknowledgement that the Nebraska
RCRA Program meets this element.

RCRA Element 2 - Inspections

Finding 2-4

Area for Attention

Recurring Issue:

No

Page 11 of 22

-------
Summary:

Completion percentage of timely inspection reports are inconsistently meeting NDEE's 45-day
timeframe.

Explanation:

The timeliness of inspection report completion was calculated based upon the date that the report
was signed by the inspector. The 71.4% timeliness rate is based upon a 45-day standard
determined by NDEE. Ten of 35 inspection reports were not completed in a timely manner. On
average, NDEE staff completed inspection reports within 41 days of the inspection.

EPA suggests NDEE provide refresher training to inspection staff on the importance of report
timeframes.

Relevant metrics:

Metric ID Number and Description

6b Timeliness of inspection report completion
[GOAL]

Natl : Natl State State State
Goal Avg N D Total

100%

71.4%

State Response:

The NDEE Waste Compliance Section for the review year (2019) was internally operating on a
goal of completion of reports and compliance letters within a 4 to 6-week time frame. There
were inspections completed during that time frame that didn't meet the goal. The Waste
Compliance Section worked on retraining and improvements to shorten the timeframe for
completion of the reports. NDEE has implemented a goal for each inspector and the supervisors
of working to complete inspection follow up (letter and report) to be sent to the facility or site of
15 days on average. This included retraining on RCRAinfo data entry expectations and review of
why reports were not being completed in the goal timeframes. The Section continually seeks to
improve on this metric and believes it has noted the areas where the program needed to take
steps to improve. These are discussed during individual meetings with staff inspectors and on
monthly meetings of the section.

RCRA Element 3 - Violations

Finding 3-1

Area for Improvement

Page 12 of 22

-------
Recurring Issue:

Summary:

RCRAInfo identifies 16 long-standing secondary violators (SV) which have not returned to
compliance (RTC) by Day 240 and should had been designated as a SNC. NDEE reported no
SNCs in FFY19.

Explanation:

Program files for 13 of 16 long-standing SVs were reviewed. Based on file review, EPA
considered the SVs to be in compliance and RTC dates within 240 days. NDEE had not entered
the RTC dates in RCRAinfo. This discrepancy appears to be incidents of direct omission. During
the file review, NDEE promptly entered missing RTC dates for 12 of 13 SVs. Out of 56 CEIs,
NDEE did not identify any SNCs. This may be due to long-standing SVs not being timely
reclassified as SNCs or the majority of violations were determined to be low priority (no
likelihood of substantial exposure to hazardous waste and no substantial deviation from RCRA)
and therefore a non-affirmative SNC determination.

Relevant metrics:

Metric ID Number and Description

Natl
Goal

Natl

Avg

State

State
D

State
Total

2a Long-standing secondary violators

8a SNC identification rate at sites with CEI and FCI

1.60%

8b Timeliness of SNC determinations [GOAL]

100%

84.20%

State Response:

The NDEE Waste Compliance Section, when apprised of the missing data information on return
to compliance dates not showing up in RCRAinfo immediately took an effort to review data and
facility files to identify why the information was not entered in RCRAinfo. It was noted that data
for returning facilities to compliance within standard timeframes was in the file, however the
data had not been updated in RCRAinfo. The Waste Compliance Section has new staff that are
accomplishing data entry for RCRAinfo related to inspections, findings, and return to
compliance activities for generators and we have a goal of entering RCRAinfo data for
inspections within the 15-day time frame of sending out the final letter and report as part of our
internal SOP. We have trained two staff and reminded others who have data to be entered into
RCRAinfo that the EPA expectations are to update any new RCRAinfo data within thirty days of
it being completed related to any RCRAinfo data it updates. We will be performing quarterly
reviews of the facilities that are being inspected in the FFY that is being operated under.

Page 13 of 22

-------
Recommendation:

Uec

#

Due Dale

Recommendation

Within 90 days of completion of the SRF report, NDEE should provide
staff training on SNC classification set forth in the current EPA
Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy. EPA will monitor
improvements to SNC identification on bi-monthly coordination calls. If
by end of the FFY22 grant performance evaluation (12/18/2022) increase
in SNC identification is observed, this recommendation will be considered
complete.

RCRA Element 3 - Violations

Finding 3-2

Meets or Exceeds Expectations

Recurring Issue:

No

Summary:

NDEE did an excellent job of accurately determining compliance and documenting compliance
status.

Explanation:

For inspections completed by NDEE, there was an accurate record of the violations determined
at each facility. A review of these records showed that NDEE made accurate determinations of
violator status and if the facility was identified as an SNC. NDEE's violation rate is significantly
higher than the national average. NDEE followed its guidance and policies and appropriately
used informal enforcement to return the violating facility to compliance.

Page 14 of 22

-------
Relevant metrics:

Metric ID Number and Description

Natl Natl State State State
Goal Avg N D Total

7a Accurate compliance determinations [GOAL]

100%



36 | 36 | 100%

7b Violations found during CEI and FCI
inspections



38.90%

|

24 | 29

82.80%

8c Appropriate SNC determinations [GOAL]

100%



|

33 | 34

97.1%

State Response:

The NDEE Waste Compliance Section appreciates the acknowledgement that the Nebraska
RCRA Program meets this element.

RCRA Element 4 - Enforcement

Finding 4-1

Meets or Exceeds Expectations

Recurring Issue:

No

Summary:

NDEE met the SRF expectations for the criteria for appropriate enforcement actions that return
violators to compliance.

Explanation:

Enforcement actions taken by NDEE were appropriate to the specific case details. The NDEE
closely follows its policies regarding enforcement and follows up on all inspections to assure
facilities return to compliance. NDEE followed its guidance and policies and appropriately used
informal enforcement to return the violating facility to compliance.

Page 15 of 22

-------
Relevant metrics:

Metric ID Number and Description

Natl : Natl State State State
Goal Avg N D Total

10b Appropriate enforcement taken to address
violations [GOAL]

| 100% |

1 33

1

34 | 97.1% |

9a Enforcement that returns sites to compliance
[GOAL]

I 100% 1

1 34

|

|

i

34 100%

State Response:

The NDEE Waste Compliance Section appreciates the acknowledgement that the Nebraska
RCRA Program meets this element.

RCRA Element 4 - Enforcement

Finding 4-2

Area for Improvement

Recurring Issue:

No

Summary:

No SNCs were reported in FFY19.

Explanation:

NDEE did not report any SNCs in FFY19. This may be due to long-standing SVs not being timely
reclassified as SNCs or the majority of violations were determined to be low priority (no likelihood
of substantial exposure to hazardous waste, no chronic or recalcitrant violators; or no substantial
deviation from RCRA) and therefore a non-affirmative SNC determination.

Relevant metrics:

Metric ID Number and Description

10a Timely enforcement taken to address SNC
[GOAL]

Natl Natl State State State
Goal Avg N D Total

80% I 78.60% I 0 0 0

Page 16 of 22

-------
State Response:

The NDEE Waste Compliance Section Staff have been retrained on the expectations related to
SNC's when there is a need to identify in RCRAinfo and how the process proceeds. The Waste
Compliance Section will review the enforcement process as a routine item on monthly
inspections and as part of the quarterly review that is being undertaken in FFY22 and FFY23.

Recommendation:

Uec

#

Due Dale

12/18/2022

Recommendation

Within 90 days of completion of the SRF report, NDEE should provide
staff training on SNC classification set forth in the current EPA
Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy. EPA will monitor
improvements on bi-monthly coordination calls. If by end of the FFY22
grant performance evaluation (12/18/2022) increase in SNCs
identification is observed, this recommendation will be considered
complete.

RCRA Element 5 - Penalties

Finding 5-1

Meets or Exceeds Expectations

Recurring Issue:

No

Summary:

Penalty calculations adequately considered gravity components and economic benefit. Penalty
collection documentation is present.

Explanation:

Based on the two penalties, in FFY19 the only two that rose to SNC status. NDEE's files
demonstrate the documentation of the consideration of gravity and economic benefit in penalty
calculations. Proof of penalty payment is documented thru Satisfaction of Judgement files. A
Satisfaction of Judgement is not filed until the payment of the penalty is made.

Page 17 of 22

-------
Relevant metrics:

Metric ID Number and Description

11a Gravity and economic benefit [GOAL]

Natl

Natl

State

State

State

Goal

Avg

N

D

Total

100%



1 2

| 2

| 100%

100%



i 2

2

| 100%

12b Penalty collection [GOAL]

State Response:

The NDEE appreciates the acknowledgement that the Nebraska RCRA Program meets this
element.

RCRA Element 5 - Penalties

Finding 5-2

Area for Improvement

Recurring Issue:

Recurring from Rounds 2 and 3

Summary:

No documentation of rationale for difference between initial penalty calculation and final
penalty. This is a repeat finding/long standing finding from the previous Round 2 and 3 SRF
reviews.

Explanation:

In the review of enforcement files with two penalties, there was no documentation of the
rationale for difference between initial penalty calculation and final penalty. NDEE sends their
case referral (penalty calculation evaluation with gravity and economic benefit) to the Attorney
General's Office (AG's Office). The AG's Office determines a penalty calculation evaluation
independently of the penalty evaluation provided in the case referral from NDEE and historically
has not discussed its independent penalty calculation evaluations and final determinations on
settlement with NDEE.

Page 18 of 22

-------
Relevant metrics:

... , . Ir. .. . . rv -x-	Natl Natl State	State State

Metric ID Number and Description	„ , ¦ . ...	_	„ ,

1	Goal Avg N	D Total

12a Documentation of rationale for difference between	j ,nn0/ (	1 n	I 9 1 n°/

initial penalty calculation and final penalty [GOAL]	I °	1	°

State Response:

NDEE has discussed EPA's issue with the Attorney General's office. As we have noted in the
past, the Attorney General and Department of Justice represent the department and enforce the
state's environmental laws in court but have independent prosecutorial and settlement authority.
Communications between NDEE and the Attorney General's office regarding enforcement
matters including any penalty are strictly confidential and subject to attorney-client privilege
under state law. NDEE's attorneys will continue to work with the Attorney General's office to
obtain appropriate penalties and NDEE's attorneys will share confidential documentation of the
rationale for penalty amounts when possible.

Recommendation:

Ucc

#

Due Dale	Recommendation

| EPA recommends that the NDEE have better coordination with the AG's
[ Office and meaningful participation on penalty calculation evaluations.
1 ?/i 8/?n?? I will monitor improvements on bi-monthly coordination calls. At the
| end of the FFY22 grant performance evaluation (12/18/2022), EPA will
| document any coordination improvements and/or determine the next steps
1 of elevation.

Page 19 of 22

-------
Appendix 1

Nebraska Department of Energy and Environment Response Letter

NEBRASKA

Good Life. Great Resources,

DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT AMD ENERGY JAN 16 1122

U.S. EPA Region 7

Diane Huffman, Acting Director

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division

11201 Renner Boulevard

Lenexa, Kansas 66219

RE; Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy response to U.S EPA Region 7 draft

State Review Framework Nebraska RCRA Subtitle C Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2019

Dear Ms. Huffman:

This letter is submitted in response to the EPA Region 7*s draft State Review Framework (SRF) Nebraska
RCEA Subtitle C Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2019 program review report. The Department's
Waste Section of the Inspection and Compliance Division has reviewed the draft report and is providing
comments related to the report below and lias included a general statement in the State Response comment
box in the report.

Here are the responses NDEE provides to the items found as needing improvement.

RCRA Element 1 - Data

1, The Waste Compliance Section 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 in RCRAinfo, some items were
from a time frame going back several years so it took time to get the detailed records reviewed to
get the right information to enter into RCRAinfo. The Waste Compliance Section has reviewed its
ongoing data entry practices and instituted backups to review the data on a quarterly basis to make
sure data is entered and confirmed to be correct in accordance with the NDEE RCRA inspection
SOP and Annual Workplan. Staff, where necessary, who provide the data (Environmental
Specialist IPs) and those who are entering the data (Two Environmental Specialist IPs and Waste
Compliance Section Supervisor) have retrained on the data entry and data quality processes.
Additional discussions between Waste Compliance Section staff and Region 7 staff have been held
so that those who enter data can improve accuracy when data is entered the iirst time into
RCRAinfo, and that it is entered timely in accordance with the NDEE.'EPA Performance
Partnership Agreement.

Page 20 of 22

-------
BCRA Element fl - Finding 2-2 Inspections

2. The Waste Compliance Section (RCRA Program) has reviewed the State / EPA Performance
Partnership Agreement to confirm that the inspections conducted of LQG's, SQG's, CESQG's and
TSDF's meet the minimum inspection expectation levels. The NDEE's Waste Compliance Section
has continued to follow the combining state inspections with those of EPA which had been the
procedure up until 2022 and will now follow the recently approved Compliance Monitoring
Strategy. NDEE has established this Compliance Monitoring Strategy (based on LQG's in the
Biennial Reporting System) that will in the future document better the numbers of necessary
inspections. Previous reviews of the inspections and previous allowances under the State Review
Framework combined a larger number of EPA inspections which has now been revised. We have
already completed the suggested recommendation listed below.

RCRA Element il - Finding 2-4 Inspections

3. The NDEE Waste Compliance Section for the review year (2019) was internally operating on a
goal of completion of reports and compliance letters within a 4 to 6-week time frame. There were
inspections completed during that time frame that didn't meet the goal. The Waste Compliance
Section worked on retraining and improvements to shorten the timeframe for completion of the
reports. NDEE has implemented a goal for each inspector and the supervisors of working to
complete inspection follow up (letter and report) to be sent to the facility or site of 15 days on
average. This included retraining on RCRAinfo data entry expectations and review of why reports
were not being completed in the goal timeframes. The Section continually seeks to improve on this
metric and believes it has noted the areas where the program needed to take steps to improve.

These are discussed during individual meetings with staff inspectors and on monthly meetings of
the section.

RCRA Element III - Finding3-1 Ywlatimis

4. The NDEE Waste Compliance Section, when apprised of the missing data information on return to
compliance dates not showing up in RCRAinfo immediately took an effort to review data and
facility files to identify why the information was not entered in RCRAinfo. It was noted that data
for returning facilities to compliance within standard timeframes was in the file, however the data
had not been updated in RCRAinfo. The Waste Compliance Section has new staff that arc
accomplishing data entry for RCRAinfo related to inspections, findings, and return to compliance
activities for generators and we have a goal of entering RCRAinfo data for inspections within the
15 day time frame of sending out the final letter and report as part of our internal SOP. We have
trained two staff and reminded others who have data to be entered into RCRAinfo that the EPA
expectations are to update any new RCRAinfo data within thirty days of it being completed related
to any RCRAinfo data it updates. We will be performing quarterly reviews of the facilities that are
being inspected in the FFY that is being operated under.

Page 21 of 22

-------
RCRA Element III - Finding 4-2 Enforcement

5,	The NDEE Waste Compliance Section Staff have been retrained on the expectations related to
SNC's when there is a need to identify in RCRAinfo and how the process proceeds. The Waste
Compliance Section will review the enforcement process as a routine item on monthly inspections
and as part of the quarterly review that is being undertaken in FFY22 and FFY23,

RC'KA Element V - Finding 5-2 Penalties

6,	NDEE has discussed EPA's issue with the Attorney General's office. As we have noted in the past,
the Attorney General and Department of Justice represent the department and enforce the state's
environmental laws in court but have independent prosecutorial and settlement authority.
Communications between NDEE and the Attorney General's office regarding enforcement matters
including any penalty are strictly confidential and subject to attorney-client privilege under state
law. NDEE's attorneys will continue to work with the Attorney General's office to obtain
appropriate penalties and NDEK attorneys will share confidential documentation of the rationale for
penalty amounts when possible.

The Department's Waste Compliance Section thanks EPA Region 7 for the ability to review the draft
report and comment on the accuracy and is committed to working with EPA to work through any of the
parts of the Program Rev iew where there is an ability to discuss the findings.

If you have any other questions you can contact me or Jefiery Edwards of my staff at (402) 471-4210.

Sincerely,

Brad PracheiL Administrator
Inspection and Compliance Division

CC: Mike Martin, RCRA Coordinator, Region VII US EPA

Amber Whisnant, RCRA Section Chief, Region VII US EPA

Page 22 of 22

-------
STATE REVIEW FRAMEWORK

Nebraska

Clean Water Act
Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2017

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 7

Final Report
July 30, 2019

-------
I. Introduction

A.	Overview of the State Review Framework

The State Review Framework (SRF) is a key mechanism for EPA oversight, providing a
nationally consistent process for reviewing the performance of state delegated compliance and
enforcement programs under three core federal statutes: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Through SRF, EPA periodically reviews such
programs using a standardized set of metrics to evaluate their performance against performance
standards laid out in federal statute, EPA regulations, policy, and guidance. When states do not
achieve standards, the EPA will work with them to improve performance.

Established in 2004, the review was developed jointly by EPA and Environmental Council of the
States (ECOS) in response to calls both inside and outside the agency for improved, more
consistent oversight of state delegated programs. The goals of the review that were agreed upon
at its formation remain relevant and unchanged today:

1.	Ensure delegated and EPA-run programs meet federal policy and baseline performance
standards

2.	Promote fair and consistent enforcement necessary to protect human health and the
environment

3.	Promote equitable treatment and level interstate playing field for business

4.	Provide transparency with publicly available data and reports

B.	The Review Process

The review is conducted on a rolling five-year cycle such that all programs are reviewed
approximately once every five years. The EPA evaluates programs on a one-year period of
performance, typically the one-year prior to review, using a standard set of metrics to make
findings on performance in five areas (elements) around which the report is organized: data,
inspections, violations, enforcement, and penalties. Wherever program performance is found to
deviate significantly from federal policy or standards, the EPA will issue recommendations for
corrective action which are monitored by EPA until completed and program performance
improves.

The SRF is currently in its 4th Round (FY2018-2022) of reviews, preceded by Round 3
(FY2012-2017), Round 2 (2008-2011), and Round 1 (FY2004-2007). Additional information
and final reports can be found at the EPA website under State Review Framework.

II. Navigating the Report

The final report contains the results and relevant information from the review including EPA and
program contact information, metric values, performance findings and explanations, program
responses, and EPA recommendations for corrective action where any significant deficiencies in
performance were found.

-------
A. Metrics