STATE REVIEW FRAMEWORK
Rhode Island
Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
Final Report
August 21, 2019
-------
I. Introduction
A. Overview of the State Review Framework
The State Review Framework (SRF) is a key mechanism for EPA oversight, providing a
nationally consistent process for reviewing the performance of state delegated compliance and
enforcement programs under three core federal statutes: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Through SRF, EPA periodically reviews such
programs using a standardized set of metrics to evaluate their performance against performance
standards laid out in federal statute, EPA regulations, policy, and guidance. When states do not
achieve standards, the EPA will work with them to improve performance.
Established in 2004, the review was developed jointly by EPA and Environmental Council of the
States (ECOS) in response to calls both inside and outside the agency for improved, more
consistent oversight of state delegated programs. The goals of the review that were agreed upon
at its formation remain relevant and unchanged today:
1. Ensure delegated and EPA-run programs meet federal policy and baseline performance
standards
2. Promote fair and consistent enforcement necessary to protect human health and the
environment
3. Promote equitable treatment and level interstate playing field for business
4. Provide transparency with publicly available data and reports
B. The Review Process
The review is conducted on a rolling five-year cycle such that all programs are reviewed
approximately once every five years. The EPA evaluates programs on a one-year period of
performance, typically the one-year prior to review, using a standard set of metrics to make
findings on performance in five areas (elements) around which the report is organized: data,
inspections, violations, enforcement, and penalties. Wherever program performance is found to
deviate significantly from federal policy or standards, the EPA will issue recommendations for
corrective action which are monitored by EPA until completed and program performance
improves.
The SRF is currently in its 4th Round (FY2018-2022) of reviews, preceded by Round 3
(FY2012-2017), Round 2 (2008-2011), and Round 1 (FY2004-2007). Additional information
and final reports can be found at the EPA website under State Review Framework.
II. Navigating the Report
The final report contains the results and relevant information from the review including EPA and
program contact information, metric values, performance findings and explanations, program
responses, and EPA recommendations for corrective action where any significant deficiencies in
performance were found.
-------
A. Metrics
There are two general types of metrics used to assess program performance. The first are data
metrics, which reflect verified inspection and enforcement data from the national data systems
of each media, or statute. The second, and generally more significant, are file metrics, which are
derived from the review of individual facility files in order to determine if the program is
performing their compliance and enforcement responsibilities adequately.
Other information considered by EPA to make performance findings in addition to the metrics
includes results from previous SRF reviews, data metrics from the years in-between reviews,
multi-year metric trends.
B. Performance Findings
The EPA makes findings on performance in five program areas:
• Data - completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of data entry into national data systems
• Inspections - meeting inspection and coverage commitments, inspection report quality,
and report timeliness
• Violations - identification of violations, accuracy of compliance determinations, and
determination of significant noncompliance (SNC) or high priority violators (HPV)
• Enforcement - timeliness and appropriateness of enforcement, returning facilities to
compliance
• Penalties - calculation including gravity and economic benefit components, assessment,
and collection
Though performance generally varies across a spectrum, for the purposes of conducting a
standardized review, SRF categorizes performance into three findings levels:
Meets or Exceeds: No issues are found. Base standards of performance are met or exceeded.
Area for Attention: Minor issues are found. One or more metrics indicates performance
issues related to quality, process, or policy. The implementing agency is considered able to
correct the issue without additional EPA oversight.
Area for Improvement: Significant issues are found. One or more metrics indicates routine
and/or widespread performance issues related to quality, process, or policy. A
recommendation for corrective action is issued which contains specific actions and schedule
for completion. The EPA monitors implementation until completion.
-------
C. Recommendations for Corrective Action
Whenever the EPA makes a finding on performance of Area for Improvement, the EPA will
include a recommendation for corrective action, or recommendation, in the report. The purpose
of recommendations is 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
Kickoff Meeting
July 18,2018
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Office, Providence, Rhode Island
Clean Water Act (CWA) Contacts
David Chopy, RIDEM, (401) 222-1360 ext.7400
Joe Haberek, RI DEM, (401) 222-1360 ext. 7715
Sam Kaplan, RI DEM, (401) 222-1360 ext. 7046
Bill Patenaude, RIDEM, (401) 222-1360 ext. 7264
David Turin, EPA Region 1, (617) 918-1598
Solanch Pastrana-Del Valle, EPA Region 1, (617) 918-1746
Clean Air Act (CAA) Contacts
Chris John, RI DEM, (401) 222-2808 ext.7023
David Chopy, RIDEM, (401) 222-1360 ext.7400
Tom McCusker, EPA Region 1, (617) 918-1862
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Contacts
David Chopy, RIDEM, (401) 222-1360 ext.7400
Richard Piligian, EPA Region 1, (617) 918-1757
State Review Framework (SRF) Contacts
David Chopy, RIDEM, (401) 222-1360, ext. 7400
James Chow, EPA Region 1, (617) 918-1394
Lucy Casella, EPA Region 1, (617) 918-1759
-------
Executive Summary
Introduction
EPA Region 1 conducted a State Review Framework (SRF) review of the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) pertaining primarily to enforcement and
compliance activities conducted by RIDEM in 2017. However, in order to review a
representative sampling of HPVs/SNC and enforcement case files, the review also extended into
federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2018. The review entailed analyzing both data
metrics and file metrics in order to evaluate RIDEM's strengths and areas for improvement in
carrying out its responsibilities under EPA's Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA) and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) compliance programs. The report will
provide findings under five major headings as follows: Data; Inspections; Violations;
Enforcement; and Penalties. Under each heading, EPA evaluated whether RIDEM is meeting or
exceeding expectations and, as necessary, will point out areas where EPA will seek improvement
by RIDEM. In some cases, where there is only a minor concern, EPA will identify the issue for
follow up by the State. Where any major issues are found, EPA will provide recommendations
for RIDEM to implement to resolve any issues, and Region 1 will track the resolution of such
recommendations.
Areas of Strong Performance
The following are aspects of the program that, according to the review, are being implemented at
a high level:
Clean Water Act (CWA)
RIDEM is entering 100 percent of its NPDES permit limits and 99.8 percent of its discharge
monitoring reports (DMR) for major and non-major facilities.
The review generally indicated a strong inspection program for major and non-major individual
NPDES permits.
Clean Air Act (CAA)
In most cases, RIDEM inspectors write well-documented and comprehensive inspection reports
with accurate compliance determinations.
RIDEM does an excellent job of documenting violations and making accurate compliance and
HPV determinations.
RIDEM does an excellent job of taking timely and appropriate enforcement. RIDEM also does
an excellent job of providing early warning notice to facilities with violations to expedite their
return to compliance.
-------
RIDEM does an excellent job of calculating the gravity portion and the economic benefit portion
of its penalties according to RIDEM's Rules and Regulations for the Assessment of Penalties.
RIDEM also does an excellent job of documenting that penalties have been collected.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RIDEM does an excellent job of producing timely, accurate inspection reports, and documenting
violations.
RIDEM does an excellent job of making accurate SNC determinations.
RIDEM did an excellent job of accurately determining compliance and documenting compliance
status.
RIDEM does an excellent job of taking timely and appropriate enforcement, and all enforcement
taken (21) was taken by RIDEM was appropriate to the specific case details.
In each penalty action initiated, RIDEM considers and calculates economic benefit if
appropriate.
In expedited settlements and expedited citations RIDEM policy is that the collected payments
must be greater than any economic benefit determined.
Penalty collection documentation is present in each file.
-------
Priority Issues to Address
The following are aspects of the program that, according to the review, are not meeting federal
standards and should be prioritized for management attention:
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Not all penalty calculations adequately consider economic benefits.
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Both the file review metrics and the data metrics indicate that RIDEM has had minor issues
regarding the timely entry of minimum data requirements (MDRs) into ICIS.
A review of the file review metrics and the data metrics (Data Metric Analysis and Data
Verification) indicate that RIDEM had issues regarding the completeness of data entered into
ICIS, especially with regards to the creation of federally-enforceable violator (FRV) case files.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RIDEM has a minor problem with entering all appropriate data in RCRAInfo. This is mainly an
oversight in not entering all formal actions as SNCs. 81.5% of the reviewed facilities had all
required data elements entered into RCRAInfo properly. Four facilities never had the SNY Flag
turned on (SNC). One facility did not have two CSE Inspections entered.
-------
Rl DEM Round 3 Area for Improvement Recommendations
Status in Round 4
Both the file review metrics and the data metrics indicate that RIDEM has had
CAA Data Finding 1-1 some issues regarding the accuracy and completeness of data entered into AFS.
Both the file review metrics and the data metrics indicate that RIDEM has had
CAA Data Finding 1-2 some issues regarding the timely entry of MDRs into AFS.
The review indicates that single-event violations (SEV) and non-DMR
significant noncompliance (SNC) are not accurately coded into the ICIS-NPDES
CWA Data Finding 1-3 data system.
The review indicates that single-event violations (SEV) and significant
CWA Violation Finding 3-2 noncompliance (SNC) violations are not accurately identified.
CWA Penalties Finding 5-2 Not all penalty calculations adequately consider economic benefits.
A review of the case files and the DMA indicates that RIDEM did not make an
RCRA Violation Finding 3-2 appropriate SNC determination in 3 of the 20 enforcement cases.
Rl DEM Round 4 Area for Improvement Recommendations
A review of the file review metrics and the data metrics indicate that RIDEM
had issues regarding the completeness of data entered into ICIS, especially
CAA Data Finding 1-3 with regards to the creation of federally-enforceable violator (FRV) case files.
CWA Penalties Finding 5-1 Not all penalty calculations adequately consider economic benefits.
Area for Attention
Area for Attention
Meets or Exceeds
Meets or Exceeds
Recommendation
for Improvement
Meets or Exceeds
Status in Round 3
Area for Attention
Recommendation
for Improvement
-------
Clean Water Act Findings
CWA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
RIDEM is entering 100 percent of its NPDES permit limits and 99.8 percent of its discharge
monitoring reports (DMR) for major and non-major facilities.
Explanation:
RIDEM has exceeded the national goal of entering 95% of the data for Metrics lb5 and lb6. In
addition, RIDEM has continued to maintain its significant improvements to the entry rate of formal
and informal actions into the ICIS-NPDES data system initiated since the Round 2 SRF review.
State Response:
No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
lb5 Completeness of data entry on major and
non-major permit limits. [GOAL]
95%
88.1%
71
71
100%
lb6 Completeness of data entry on major and
non-major discharge monitoring reports. [GOAL]
95%
90.6%
1459
1462
99.79%
-------
CWA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
The file review indicated a relatively high degree of completeness between the data in the ICIS
database and the data in the files reviewed.
Explanation:
For two of the 26 files reviewed, there were relatively few omissions in ECHO of inspection report
conclusions and informal actions. At 92.3 percent completeness, this represents a continuation of
improvements observed during Round 3, where there was an 84 percent completeness observed.
For one of these files, an SEP included in a consent agreement was not entered into ICIS. In the
other facility, an inspection report in the file was not entered into ICIS.
State Response:
No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl Natl
Goal | Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
2b Files reviewed where data are accurately
reflected in the national data system [GOAL]
100% | %
24
26
92.31%
-------
CWA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
The review generally indicated a strong inspection program for major and non-major individual
permits.
Explanation:
RIDEM inspected 100 percent of its individual major permits each year (exceeding the EPA
requirement of 50 percent each year), and 11 of 51 non-major individual permits (22 percent),
consistent with its CMS commitment. While RIDEM did not conduct the 8 inspections for facilities
covered under RIDEM's construction general permit it committed to in its FY17 CMS plan, EPA
notes that RIDEM performed 19 construction permit inspections in FY18, 11 more than its
commitment for FY 18 and more than enough to make up for the deficit in FY 17. EPA noted that
the Data Metrics Analysis Aggregate report (DMA Report) does not reflect desk audits performed
by RIDEM, however, EPA included these inspections in its analysis. EPA determined that
inspection reports were generally timely, with an average of 17 days and many completed in under
1 week. As discussed in finding 2-2, RIDEM uses inspection checklists that include limited amount
of narrative comments. While this may generally provide sufficient detail to determine compliance
at inspected facilities, especially in concert with the inspection summaries that are sent to the
facility, the inspection reports would be improved by providing more narrative details. In addition,
while EPA observes that the reports are signed by the RIDEM inspectors in a timely manner, the
inspection report provides a space for a supervisor's signature and the majority of the reports were
not signed by a supervisor. The inspection summaries sent to the facilities, however, are signed by
a supervisor.
State Response:
No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
-------
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
4al Number of pretreatment compliance
inspections and audits at approved local
pretreatment programs. [GOAL]
100%
%
3
3
100%
4al 1 Number of sludge/biosolids inspections at
each major POTW. [GOAL]
100%
%
40
25
160%
1
4a4 Number of CSO inspections. [GOAL]
100%
%
1
1
100%
4a5 Number of SSO inspections. [GOAL]
100%
%
6
1
600%
4a7 Number of Phase I and IIMS4 audits or
inspections. [GOAL]
100%
% | 10
8
125%
4a8 Number of industrial stormwater inspections.
[GOAL]
%
% [ 18
15
120%
4a9 Number of Phase I and Phase II construction
stormwater inspections. [GOAL]
100%
% | 0
8
0%
5al Inspection coverage of NPDES majors.
[GOAL]
100%
54.2% [ 23
23
100%
5b 1 Inspections coverage of NPDES non-majors
with individual permits [GOAL]
100%
22%
11
51
21.57%
5b2 Inspections coverage of NPDES non-majors
with general permits [GOAL]
%
%
28
31
90.32%
6b Timeliness of inspection report completion
[GOAL]
100%
%
26
28
92.86%
-------
CWA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-2
Area for Attention
Summary:
Additional narrative would improve the completeness of inspection reports based on checklists.
Explanation:
RIDEM uses inspection checklists that include limited narrative comments. While this approach
may generally provide sufficient detail to determine compliance at inspected facilities, especially
evaluated along with the inspection cover letters sent to the facility, it is being raised as an area for
attention because inspection reports would be improved by the incorporation of a little more
narrative detail describing the observations of the inspector.
State Response:
No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl j Natl | State State State
Goal | Avg | N D %
6a Inspection reports complete and sufficient to
determine compliance at the facility. [GOAL]
f I
1 |
100% | % | 27
28
96.43%
-------
CWA Element 3 - Violations
Finding 3-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
Inspection reports reviewed led to accurate compliance determinations.
Explanation:
The file review did not identify inspection reports that made incorrect compliance determinations,
as discussed in finding 2-1. As noted in finding 2-2, however, the reports could be made more
complete by providing additional narrative details and a discussion of inspection conclusions in
the report. This review finds that through its development of an Enforcement Management System
(EMS) and certain protocols, DEM has implemented measures to significantly improve its ability
to identify and track SEVs. In its review of files, EPA found evidence of a single SEV in an
inspection report that was not reflected in ICIS. As the rates of non-compliance in Rhode Island
are consistent with the rates of other New England states, EPA made no finding for state attention
or recommendation for improvement. The SRF guidance explains that the review indicator
metrics, 7kl and 8a3 are used to identify areas for further analysis during the file review, not to
develop EPA's findings. In addition, EPA did not consider data regarding facilities with general
permits in this SRF 4 Review. Rhode Island has turned on a "flag" for general permits in its data
system, well ahead of EPA's deadline to do so, which will be in 2020. Currently, in the ECHO
Data Metrics Analysis, facilities with general permits that are in non-compliance or significant
noncompliance are not tracked in ICIS, resulting in apparent 100% general permit compliance
rates for these states.
State Response:
No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
-------
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
7e Accuracy of compliance determinations
[GOAL]
%
%
28
28
100%
7j 1 Number of major and non-major facilities
with single-event violations reported in the
review year
%
%
8
9
88.89%
7kl Major and non-major facilities in
noncompliance.
%
18.7%
183
407
44.96%
8a3 Percentage of major facilities in SNC and
non-major facilities Category I noncompliance
during the reporting year.
%
7.5
128
405
31.6%
-------
CWA Element 4 - Enforcement
Finding 4-1
Area for Attention
Summary:
RIDEM has not taken timely formal enforcement actions for major facilities in SNC during the
audit year.
Explanation:
RIDEM did not take timely formal enforcement actions for 3 major facilities that had 2 consecutive
quarters of SNC during the audit period. Under EPA's 1989 "Enforcement Management System,
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Clean Water Act)," formal enforcement action
must occur prior to the facility appearing on a consecutive QNCR to be "timely." To meet EPA's
criteria for timely action, RIDEM would be required to initiate formal enforcement shortly after a
facility appears in non-compliance on the QNCR for the initial time. EPA notes, however, that
RIDEM is effectively addressing many violations, including for the 3 facilities cited above,
through informal enforcement actions, which are a component of RIDEM's Enforcement
Management System. According to EPA's EMS, where formal enforcement is not taken, the State
should have a written record that justifies that an alternative action, such as informal enforcement,
is more appropriate. EPA believes that it is appropriate for RIDEM to cite its EMS as a basis for
using informal response, however, RIDEM should be clear to document its decision regarding the
appropriate tools to address violations. EPA is concerned, however, that RIDEM exercise caution
to not attribute limited compliance and legal staffing resources as a basis for not initiating
appropriate formal enforcement actions; in this case, the State should work to ensure that staffing
levels are sufficient to address the need for formal enforcement actions.
State Response:
No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State | State
D | %
lOal Percentage of major NPDES facilities with
formal enforcement action taken in a timely manner
in response to SNC violations
%
15.6%
0
3 | 0%
-------
CWA Element 4 - Enforcement
Finding 4-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
Based on files reviewed, in most cases, RIDEM has taken appropriate enforcement actions to
return facilities in violation back into compliance.
Explanation:
Based on files reviewed, in 18 of 21 enforcement responses, actions by RIDEM will return the
facility to compliance. In 19 of 21 cases, RIDEM's response addressed the violations in an
appropriate manner. In at least one file reviewed, EPA believed that a formal response and penalty
was warranted, even though the facility was brought back into compliance through an informal
action. As discussed in finding 4-1, RIDEM should follow its Enforcement Management System
with regard to violations that warrant a referral for formal actions and penalties, as appropriate.
RIDEM should develop protocols to document in its files its decision regarding the appropriate
tools to address violations.
State Response:
No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl j Natl | State
Goal | Avg | N
State
D
State
%
10b Enforcement responses reviewed that address
violations in an appropriate manner [GOAL]
i
1 |
100% | % | 19
21
90.48%
9a Percentage of enforcement responses that
returned, or will return, a source in violation to
compliance [GOAL]
| j
100% I % I 18
21
85.71%
-------
CWA Element 5 - Penalties
Finding 5-1
Area for Improvement
Summary:
Not all penalty calculations adequately consider economic benefits.
Explanation:
In the files reviewed, penalty calculations were determined in accordance with DEM penalty
matrix worksheets, which are appended to the formal action notices. In 2 of the 5 penalty cases
reviewed, economic benefits were included in the penalty calculations. In the remaining 3 cases,
there is a note in a comment field on the penalty matrix worksheet indicating that there was "no
economic benefit or economic benefit cannot be quantified." This represents an improvement over
the finding in the Round 3 SRF review, in that the calculation of economic benefits, when it was
assessed was more thoroughly documented in the files. For example, in 1 case, though RIDEM
ultimately removed an economic benefit assessed during negotiations of the consent agreement, it
documented its decision in a memo to the file. In accordance with the recommendations of Round
3, EPA and RIDEM have had a number of discussions regarding RIDEM's effort to calculating
economic benefit. RIDEM asserts that in many cases, it doesn't have reliable cost information to
calculate economic benefit and discussions of how EPA calculates economic benefit have failed
to persuade RIDEM to adopt a similar approach. Nonetheless, RIDEM expresses a willingness to
continue to discuss with EPA methods and tools that it can adopt to calculate economic benefit.
State Response:
No response necessary.
Recommendation:
Rec
#
Due Date I Recommendation
1
09/30/2019 1 RIDEM ar|d EPA should begin higher-level talks regarding RIDEM's
| effort to adopt methods and tools to calculate economic benefit.
|
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description 1 1
| Goal | Avg
State
N
State | State
D | %
1 la Penalty calculations reviewed that document and | jqo0/ 1 °/
include gravity and economic benefit [GOAL] | j
2
|
5 J 40%
-------
CWA Element 5 - Penalties
Finding 5-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
All 4 files reviewed with administrative penalty orders contained documentation of final penalty
amounts and that the penalty was collected.
Explanation:
RIDEM provided an acceptable rationale for differences between initial penalty calculation and
final penalty and documentation that all penalties were collected in files reviewed. However, in
one of the files reviewed, RIDEM provided SEP credit in lieu of a cash penalty, a practice that is
not acceptable under EPA's SEP policy. In another file reviewed, EPA did not find documentation
of the initial penalty calculation.
State Response:
RIDEM: The file reviewed by EPA that did not document a penalty calculation was an Expedited
Citation Notice (ECN). As the name implies, the intent is to issue the notice quickly for
noncompliance issues that can be easily resolved. An ECN does not afford the party cited an
opportunity to appeal; however, in accordance with the statute the ECN expires after 60 days.
There is no penalty calculation included in the ECN or in the file. The ECN simply states the
penalty assessed. A guidance document is used to assist staff in calculating the penalty. EPA
Region 1 Response. EPA was not aware that this was an ECN. This explanation is acceptable.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
12a Documentation of rationale for difference
between initial penalty calculation and final penalty
[GOAL]
100%
%
4
4
100%
12b Penalties collected [GOAL]
100%
%
4
4
100%
-------
Clean Air Act Findings
CAA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-1
Area for Attention
Summary:
Both the file review metrics and the data metrics indicate that RIDEM has had minor issues
regarding the timely entry of minimum data requirements (MDRs) into ICIS.
Explanation:
A review of Metric 3a2 of the Data Metric Analysis (DMA) indicates that RIDEM had no newly
identified HPVs in FFY 2017. To review a representative sampling of HPVs, 3 HPV case files
from other years were reviewed (FFYs 2013, 2015, and 2018). Based on this review, 1 out of 2
HPVs (50%) were entered into ICIS in an untimely manner (after 60 days of being identified as an
HPV). The remaining HPV from 2013 would have been EPA's responsibility to report in
ICIS/AFS, but was reported to EPA as an HPV in a timely manner. The 1 untimely HPV was
entered as an HPV into ICIS three years late. A review of Metric 3b 1 of the DMA indicates that 3
compliance monitoring activities out of 58 were entered into ICIS in an untimely manner (after 60
days of the activity). According to RIDEM, this is accurate. A review of Metric 3b2 of the DMA
indicates that 26 out of 26 stack tests were reported in a timely manner. A review of Metric 3b3 of
the DMA indicates that 1 enforcement-related MDR out of 10 were entered into ICIS more than
60 days after the enforcement action. The untimely enforcement-related MDR was entered 99 days
after the action was taken. RIDEM reported that due to unresolved compliance issues with the
facility they decided to hold off entering the MDR until all compliance issues were resolved. A
review of Metric 5e of the DMA (Reviews of Title V Annual Compliance Certifications
Completed) indicates that RIDEM conducted reviews at 22 out of 28 sources where Title V annual
compliance certifications were due in FFY 2017. Information in RIDEM's files and ICIS indicate
that Title V annual compliance certification reviews were done at all 28 sources required to be
reviewed in FFY 2017. RIDEM reports that the data was entered into ICIS in a timely manner for
5 out of the 6 missing sources. These entries were entered into ICIS on the days the reviews were
completed in FFY 2017. RIDEM documented the timely entries of these 5 reviews with their
respective ICIS compliance monitoring identifiers (CMIs). Upon further review of the ICIS data,
RIDEM correctly entered the 6 missing certifications were received, but did not populate other
required data fields. ICIS-Air minimum data requirements (MDRs) for Title V annual compliance
certification reviews require that proper entries include the name of the reviewing agency, the
receipt date, the review date, and if the source reported any deviations. Because the review dates
and any reported deviations were not entered into ICIS, these certifications were considered
incomplete, and therefore, not counted as reviewed in the DMA. RIDEM reports that 1 out of the
6 missing certifications, although reviewed in FFY 2017, was entered late into ICIS (more than 60
days after the review date). This review was entered into ICIS 95 days after the review date, but
still in FFY 2017. RIDEM shared the CMI number for this activity with EPA too to document that
the action was entered into ICIS in FFY 2017. Two of these sources did have name changes. The
file review revealed that there were some timeliness issues as well. Specifically, 1 letter of
-------
noncompliance and 2 penalty actions were not entered into ICIS. RIDEM explained that because
one supervisory staff person was on extended leave, prior to retiring, the paperwork for entry of
these actions sat on his desk. The position could not be filled until this person was officially retired
so no one had responsibility for the position. The file review revealed that the 3 HPVs were timely
identified as HPVs.
State Response:
Specific statistical compliance SOPs have been revised to assist in ensuring ICIS entered data is
timely, complete and accurate. Internal spreadsheets have been developed to track inspections
and document reviews and the resulting data reporting requirements.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
3a2 Timely reporting of HPV determinations
[GOAL]
%
%
1
2
50%
3b 1 Timely reporting of compliance monitoring
MDRs [GOAL]
%
%
55
58
94.83%
3b2 Timely reporting of stack test dates and
results [GOAL]
100%
67.1%
26
26
100%
3b3 Timely reporting of enforcement MDRs
[GOAL]
100%
77.6%
9
10
90%
-------
CAA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-2
Area for Attention
Summary:
Both the file review metrics and the data verification metrics indicate that RIDEM has had issues
regarding the completeness of data entered into ICIS.
Explanation:
A comparison of Metric lhl of the Data Verification Metrics (Total Amount of Assessed
Penalties) with the RIDEM information for this metric indicates that for FFY 2017 the total amount
of assessed penalties in ICIS does not correspond with the actual amount of penalties assessed by
RIDEM. Some of the penalty amount not reported in ICIS was for violations at true minor facilities
that are not federally-reportable; however, 1 penalty for a SM-80 source and one penalty for a
major source was not entered into ICIS. A total of 4 out of 6 reportable penalties were entered
correctly. RIDEM has since entered the missing penalty information into ICIS. RIDEM reports
that this information was not entered in a timely manner because the supervisory staff person
responsible for ensuring these actions get entered into ICIS was on extended leave, prior to retiring,
and the paperwork sat on his desk. This position could not be filled until the person officially
retired. Now that the position in question has been filled, EPA believes this issue has been resolved
and no recommendation is required. A comparison of Metric 5b of the Data Metric Analysis
(DMA) (FCE Coverage at SM-80s) with the RIDEM information for this metric indicates that the
number of SM-80 sources required to have an FCE in FFY 2017 should have been 19 and not 21.
The DMA reports that FCEs were conducted at 19 out of 21 facilities. A closer look at this
information reveals that the 2 SM-80 sources that did not have FCEs, as required in FFY 2017,
had been permanently shutdown since at least FFY 2014. RIDEM reports that the CMS flag for
both of these facilities was removed on 10/19/14 and each has an operating status code of "CLS"
(closed). Taking the above into account, RIDEM conducted FCEs at 19 out of 19 SM-80 sources
in FFY 2017 that were required to be inspected (100% coverage). A review of Metric 8a of the
DMA (Discovery Rate of HPVs at Major Sources) indicates that for FFY 2017 RIDEM did not
identify HPVs at any of its 36 major sources. EPA's review of 15 Title V major source files did
not identify any HPVs either indicating that this was not an issue. The HPV Policy has been revised
such that identification of HPVs has been reduced in recent years. The file review revealed that 1
informal enforcement action, Letter of Noncompliance, was not entered into ICIS.
State Response:
No response is necessary as the issues regarding the completeness of specific ICIS entry
elements was due to inattention related to the extended leave of a now retired employee and has
since been rectified.
-------
CAA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-3
Area for Improvement
Summary:
A review of the file review metrics and the data metrics indicate that RIDEM had issues regarding
the completeness of data entered into ICIS, especially with regards to the creation of federally-
enforceable violator (FRY) case files.
Explanation:
A review of Metric 7al (FRV Discovery Rate Based on Evaluations of Active CMS Sources)
indicates that for FFY 2017 RIDEM did not find any federally-reportable violators (FRVs) for any
of the 110 sources found in their CMS Plan. The file review portion of the SRF indicated that
RIDEM was not creating FRV case files for many non-HPV violating sources. Case files were
created for all 3 HPV case files reviewed. The file review indicated that FRV case files were
created for 1 out of 8 (12.5%) of the non-HPV FRVs where formal enforcement action was taken
(7 cases) or where formal enforcement is planned to be taken (1 case). Because the supervisory
staff person responsible for ensuring that case files are created, as appropriate, was on extended
leave, prior to retiring, no one was handling this responsibility. When this was brought to RIDEM's
attention, the data-entry clerk immediately revised the "Standard Operating Procedures" for data
entry into ICIS to include an additional line item to ensure FRV case files are created when
appropriate. EPA will coordinate with RIDEM on at least a quarterly basis, for four quarters, to
ensure FRV case files are being created when required.
State Response:
DEM acknowledges the oversight and has taken steps to ensure federally enforceable violator
(FRV) case files are properly created.
Recommendation:
Rec
#
Due Date j Recommendation
1
j
| EPA will coordinate with RIDEM on at least a quarterly basis, for four
03/31/2020 ^ cluarters't0 ensure FRV case files are being created when required. If
| after four quarters there appear to be no further issues, this issue will be
| considered resolved.
-------
Relevant metrics:
, . ttw tvt u j tw • .. Natl Natl State
Metric ID Number and Description „ , i . ...
F Goal | Avg j N
State
D
State
%
2b Files reviewed where data are accurately 100°/ I °/ 1 i
reflected in the national data system [GOAL] 0 [ 0 |
8
12.5%
CAA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
RIDEM met its CMS Plan FCE commitments for Title V major sources and SM-80 sources, with
the exception of 1 missed FCE at a Title V major source. The 1 missed FCE was due to scheduling
of the inspection for the last week of FFY 2017 and postponement of the FCE until the first week
of FFY 2018, due to inspector illness.
Explanation:
A review of Metric 5a of the Data Metric Analysis (DMA) (FCE Coverage at Majors and Mega-
Sites) indicates that RIDEM conducted FCEs at 16 out of 17 Title V major sources required to be
inspected with an FCE in FFY 2017. This is accurate. RIDEM reports that the one Title V major
source that was not inspected in FFY 2017 was scheduled to be inspected during the last week of
FFY 2017 (September 2017), but due to an illness, the inspector assigned to conduct the FCE at
this facility postponed the inspection until the first week in FFY 2018 (October 2017). A review
of Metric 5b of the DMA (FCE Coverage at SM-80s) indicates that RIDEM conducted required
FCEs at 19 out of 21 SM-80 sources required to be inspected with an FCE in FFY 2017. A closer
review of the two SM-80 sources that were not inspected as required, indicates that both sources
have been permanently shut down since at least FFY 2014. RIDEM reports that the CMS flags
were removed from these two sources on October 19, 2014 and that each has an accurate operating
status of closed ("CLS") in ICIS. Based on this information, RIDEM conducted FCEs at 19 out of
19 SM-80 sources required to be inspected with an FCE in FFY 2017. (100% inspection coverage
at SM-80s). A review of Metric 5e of the DMA (Reviews of Title V Annual Compliance
Certifications Completed) indicates that RIDEM conducted reviews at 22 out of 28 sources where
Title V annual compliance certifications were due in FFY 2017. Information in RIDEM's files and
ICIS indicate that Title V annual compliance certification reviews were done at all 28 sources
required to be reviewed in FFY 2017. As described in Finding 1-1, there were a few data entry
issues for 6 of the annual compliance certifications, based on the data in ICIS. RIDEM did review
100 percent of the required certifications for FFY 2017.
-------
State Response:
As previously discussed in Finding 1-1, ICIS related data issues have been rectified.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
5a FCE coverage: majors and mega-sites
[GOAL]
100%
88.7%
16
17
94.12%
5b FCE coverage: SM-80s [GOAL]
100%
93.7%
19
19
100%
1
5e Reviews of Title V annual compliance
certifications completed [GOAL]
100%
76.7%
28
28
100%
6b Compliance monitoring reports (CMRs) or
facility files reviewed that provide sufficient
documentation to determine compliance of the
facility [GOAL]
%
%
24
30
80%
-------
CAA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
In most cases, RIDEM inspectors write well-documented and comprehensive inspection reports
with accurate compliance determinations.
Explanation:
Of the 30 files reviewed, 26 contained compliance monitoring reports (CMRs). In 4 instances, files
contained informal and/or formal enforcement actions that were based on self- disclosures or test
results where there was no associated CMR. In all 26 of the CMRs, RIDEM generally documented
the elements listed in Chapter IX of the CMS (with the exception that some CMR reports for SM-
80 sources did not provide an inventory of emission units leaving the file reviewer wondering if
all emission units were described). For those reports where a full compliance evaluation (FCE)
was done at a Title V major source with a Title V permit issued (11 out of the 26 sources) and for
9 out of the remaining 15 sources that contained CMR reports for review (a total of 20 out of 26
CMR reports), the inspection file included a completed checklist that lists each condition of a Title
V permit or other permit(s) (including an inventory of emission units), the method used to
determine compliance, and the compliance status of each permit condition. This has been
considered a Good Practice in past SRFs and RIDEM should be commended for taking the
initiative to develop and continue to use this checklist and for initiating expansion of this checklist
template for other than Title V major sources (currently underway and ongoing). For 6 CMR
reports for other than Title V major sources, the reports were still comprehensive and accurate
compliance determinations were being made; however, in some instances there was no mention of
the inventory of equipment (the inspector would describe what he or she saw, but from reading the
report there was no indication that the equipment that was observed was the only equipment
needing to be evaluated). No recommendation is needed here since the more expansive inspection
checklist is now being used for all sources within RIDEM's CMS Plan. EPA has a general policy
that inspection reports should be completed within 60 days of conducting an FCE or PCE (partial
compliance evaluation), but in no case later than 90 days. EPA Region I's Air Technical Unit has
had a 30-day policy in effect for several years. With the exception of one inspection report, all
reports were completed in a timely manner.
State Response: Efforts to improve inspection reports were underway at the time of the
SRF. Since the review, Title V and SM80 inspection reports are now fully inclusive of
inspection observations addressing any and all concerns the EPA had regarding past inspection
reports.
-------
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
| Natl | Natl
| Goal | Avg
State
N
State
D
State I
%
6a Documentation ofFCE elements [GOAL]
j————|
| % | %
25
26
96.15% I
|
1
CAA Element 3 - Violations
Finding 3-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
RIDEM does an excellent job of documenting violations and making accurate compliance and
HPV determinations.
Explanation:
In 19 out of the 30 files reviewed, there were some violations noted. In all 19 files with violations,
RIDEM made accurate compliance and HPV determinations, based on inspections, stack test
report reviews, and various other types of report reviews. RIDEM continues to face resource
challenges that prevent it from providing inspector coverage to observe emissions testing.
However, RIDEM's inspectors continue to invest time to review test protocols and test reports
associated with facilities in its CMS Plan. HPV determinations are a collaborative effort between
RIDEM and EPA. On an ongoing basis, at a minimum once per quarter, RIDEM and EPA discuss
every enforcement action (informal and formal) taken by RIDEM to determine whether any of the
violations meet the HPV criteria. The ultimate HPV determination is mutually agreed by both
RIDEM and EPA. In the 11 files reviewed without violations, the compliance determinations
appeared accurate based on the CMR reports, where applicable, or other information found in the
file.
State Response:
No response necessary.
-------
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl | State
Avg | N
State
D
State
%
13 Timeliness of HPV Identification [GOAL]
100%
%
3
3
100%
7a Accurate compliance determinations [GOAL]
100%
%
30
30
100%
7al FRV "discovery rate" based on inspections at
active CMS sources
%
6.2%
7
110
6.36%
8a HPV discovery rate at majors
%
2.3%
0
35
0%
8c Accuracy of HPV determinations [GOAL]
100%
%
11
11
100%
CAA Element 4 - Enforcement
Finding 4-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
RIDEM does an excellent job of taking timely and appropriate enforcement. RIDEM also does an
excellent job of providing early warning notice to facilities with violations to expedite their return
to compliance.
Explanation:
RIDEM took informal and/or formal enforcement actions against 19 out of the 30 facilities in the
files reviewed. One of the facilities had 2 separate violations with 2 separate enforcement
responses. A total of 16 informal and 10 formal enforcement actions were taken against these 19
facilities. For the 19 facilities with violations, 14 of the 19 violations included corrective actions
to be taken in the informal enforcement stage and 5 included corrective actions to be taken in the
formal enforcement stage. In 14 out of the 19 violations reviewed, the violating facility had
returned to compliance prior to formal enforcement being taken. RIDEM should be commended
for its continued use of an early warning notice to violators to help expedite the return to
compliance. This has been considered a Good Practice in earlier SRFs. For the 3 HPV case files
reviewed, RIDEM addressed each case prior to the need for a case management plan. One HPV
was addressed in 100 days of "Day Zero". One HPV was addressed in 137 days of "Day Zero".
One HPV was addressed in 198 days of "Day Zero". If an HPV is not addressed with 180 days,
the HPV Policy dictates that a case management plan be developed by Day 225. Since the last
HPV was addressed in 198 days of "Day Zero", no formal case management plan was yet required
to be submitted to EPA. A total of 3 out of 3 HPV cases (100%) were addressed in a timely manner,
-------
prior to the need of a case management plan. None of the 3 HPVs were identified in FFY 2017.
One HPV was identified in FFY 2013. One HPV was identified in FFY 2015. One HPV was
identified in FFY 2018. The 3 HPVs identified outside of FFY 2017 were reviewed so that a
representative number of HPV case files could be reviewed for this SRF. Due to changes in the
HPV Policy, the number of violations meeting the HPV criteria has decreased. Currently, RIDEM
has streamlined the enforcement process by issuing Closure Letters in lieu of Consent Agreements
in simple penalty cases requiring no injunctive relief.
State Response:
No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
10a Timeliness of addressing HPVs or
alternatively having a case development and
resolution timeline in place
100%
%
3
3
100%
lOal Rate of Addressing HPVs within 180 days
%
63.7%
2
3
66.67%
10b Percent of HPVs that have been have been
addressed or removed consistent with the HPV
Policy [GOAL]
100%
%
3
3
100%
lObl Rate of managing HPVs without formal
enforcement action
%
12.9%
0
3
0%
14 HPV case development and resolution
timeline in place when required that contains
required policy elements [GOAL]
100%
%
0
0
0
9a Formal enforcement responses that include
required corrective action that will return the
facility to compliance in a specified time frame
or the facility fixed the problem without a
compliance schedule [GOAL]
100%
%
10
10
100%
-------
CAA Element 5 - Penalties
Finding 5-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
RIDEM does an excellent job of calculating the gravity portion and the economic benefit portion
of its penalties according to RIDEM's Rules and Regulations for the Assessment of Penalties.
RIDEM also does an excellent job of documenting that penalties have been collected.
Explanation:
A total of 9 out of the 30 files reviewed included penalties. One file with penalties included 2
separate penalties for 2 separate violations. Therefore, a total of 10 penalties were reviewed as part
of the SRF file review. All 10 penalty cases reviewed were resolved using Closure Letters. In all
10 penalty cases, RIDEM calculated the gravity component of the penalty and determined whether
there was an economic benefit component. For one penalty case, an economic benefit penalty
component was assessed and collected, along with the gravity penalty component. For the
remaining 9 penalty cases, RIDEM determined that the economic benefit penalty component was
insignificant and collected the calculated gravity penalty component. EPA agreed with these
determinations. In all 10 penalty cases, the initial proposed penalty was the final assessed penalty.
Therefore, in no cases was the initial penalty reduced. For all 10 penalty cases, documentation was
found in the files that the penalties were paid.
State Response:
No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
1 la Penalty calculations reviewed that document
gravity and economic benefit [GOAL]
100%
%
10
10
100%
12a Documentation of rationale for difference
between initial penalty calculation and final penalty
[GOAL]
100%
%
0
0
0
12b Penalties collected [GOAL]
100%
%
10
10
100%
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Findings
RCRA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-1
Area for Attention
Summary:
81.5% of the reviewed facilities had all required data elements entered into RCRAInfo properly.
Four facilities never had the SNY Flag turned on (SNC). One facility did not have two CSE
Inspections entered.
Explanation:
In FY17 the data entry staff person at RIDEM retired. The new data entry person was not aware
that certain enforcement actions taken required the activation of the SNY Flag. In the case of the
missing entry of CSEs, this was brought about by inspectors being directed to carry out
assignments by different people. As a result, the data entry person was unaware of the field work
conducted. As a result of these findings RIDEM has already made changes to procedures. The data
entry staff person is now aware of the need for the SNY in all situations and notification procedures
for inspectors are in place to instruct data entry for all field work and to review data to ensure all
is present.
State Response:
The explanation regarding the failure to activate the SNY code in four cases involving the
issuance of an Expedited Citation Notice (ECN) is correct. RIDEM developed the ECN in 2014
to address cases with significant noncompliance involving a limited number of minor violations.
The ECN is used in lieu of a full formal action (210) and requires the party cited to take actions
to return to compliance in a short time period (typically 30 days) and pay a reduced
administrative penalty. Initially, EPA developed a new code (122) in RCRA Info to record
ECNs in the database. RIDEM used the code (122) to enter ECNs in 2015 and interpreted it to
represent an informal action. After a few ECN cases were entered into RCRA Info, EPA
determined that the ECN should be recorded as a formal enforcement action in the database. In
2016, EPA created a new code (201) for ECNs and RIDEM's data entry person began recording
the ECNs as formals. As noted above, RIDEM's data entry person retired and the duties were
assumed by a manager. The four ECNs were recorded in RCRA Info under the new code (201),
but the SNY evaluation was not entered at that time. RIDEM has updated the subject records by
entering the SNY evaluation.
-------
Relevant metrics:
, . ttw tvt u j tw • .. Natl Natl State
Metric ID Number and Description „ , i . ...
F Goal | Avg j N
State
D
State
%
2b Accurate entry of mandatory data [GOAL] j 100% | % | 22
27
81.48%
RCRA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
RIDEM met expectations for the number of inspections conducted in FY17.
Explanation:
There are differences in numbers from ECHO and actual numbers and commitments from RIDEM.
RIDEM met the two-year goal for TSDF inspections. DEM had a flex plan in place for FY17. That
plan required 20% of non-pharmaceutical LQGs and 5% of LQG pharmacies to be inspected. At
the start of 2017 there were 88 non-pharma LQGs in Rhode Island and DEM inspected 18 of those
(20.5%). There were 83 pharmacies at that time and DEM inspected 5 of those (6%). SNC data in
the system was missing (see Data issue above). However, DEM accurately determined SNC status
and nine formal actions covered by this report were reviewed.
State Response:
No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
5a Two-year inspection coverage of operating
TSDFs [GOAL]
100%
88.1%
2
2
100%
5b 1 Annual inspection coverage of LQGs using
RCRAinfo universe [GOAL]
20%
10.7%
18
88
20.45%
-------
RCRA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
Inspection reports complete and sufficient to determine compliance
Explanation:
All 41 inspection reports reviewed were complete and sufficient to determine compliance. The
average inspection report was completed in 17 days. Two reports were outside the range of the rest
and were not timely. The report for Cotes Auto Body Supplemental inspection took 95 days to
complete and the report for Pease and Curren which took 203 days.
State Response: No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl j Natl | State
Goal | Avg | N
State
D
State
%
6a Inspection reports complete and sufficient to
determine compliance [GOAL]
i
1 |
100% | % | 41
41
100%
6b Timeliness of inspection report completion
[GOAL]
| j
100% | % I 39
41
95.12%
-------
RCRA Element 3 - Violations
Finding 3-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
RIDEM did an excellent job of accurately determining compliance and documenting compliance
status.
Explanation:
For every inspection completed by DEM, there was an accurate record of the violations determined
at each facility. A review of these records showed that DEM made correct determinations of
violator status and if the facility was an SNC.
State Response:
No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State State
D %
{
7a Accurate compliance determinations [GOAL]
100%
%
41
41 100%
1
8c Appropriate SNC determinations [GOAL]
100%
%
36
36 | 100%
-------
RCRA Element 3 - Violations
Finding 3-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
After each inspection report is completed a summary sheet is completed with a recommendation
for the type of follow-up needed. The average time for report completion is 17 days. The SNC
decision is done on average less than 30 days from inspection.
Explanation:
Three formal actions were triggered as an escalation in enforcement response to address
noncompliance with an informal action.
State Response:
No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State j State State
N | D %
8b Timeliness of SNC determinations [GOAL]
100%
%
| |
36 | 36 100%
-------
RCRA Element 4 - Enforcement
Finding 4-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
All enforcement taken (21) was taken by RIDEM was appropriate to the specific case details.
Explanation:
State Response:
No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
10a Timely enforcement taken to address SNC
[GOAL]
100%
%
8
9
88.89%
10b Appropriate enforcement taken to address
violations [GOAL]
100%
%
21
21
100%
9a Enforcement that returns sites to compliance
[GOAL]
100%
%
21
21
100%
-------
RCRA Element 5 - Penalties
Finding 5-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
In each penalty action initiated, RIDEM considers and calculates economic benefit if appropriate.
In expedited settlements and expedited citations RIDEM policy is that the collected payments must
be greater than any economic benefit determined. Penalty collection documentation is present in
each file.
Explanation:
State Response:
No response necessary.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
11a Gravity and economic benefit [GOAL]
100%
%
9
9
100%
12a Documentation of rationale for difference
between initial penalty calculation and final penalty
[GOAL]
100%
%
2
2
100%
12b Penalty collection [GOAL]
100%
%
9
9
100%
-------
Appendix A
Background Information on Rhode Island State Program and
Review Process
NOTE: The background information provided below was provided by the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management. EPA included this information in this report
without any programmatic edits.
A. General Program Overview
Agency Structure
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) is charged with
ensuring residents have equal access to environmental benefits and to prevent any segment of the
State's population from bearing a disproportionate share of environmental risks and pollution. It
ensures all residents and visitors will have the opportunity to enjoy a diverse mix of well-
maintained, scenic, and accessible facilities and outdoor recreation opportunities and that the
state's natural habitats are managed to maintain species biodiversity. RIDEM ensures air, water,
and land resources are restored and maintained to protect public health and ecological integrity
and educates residents and corporate entities to practice an environmental ethic based upon an
understanding of their environment, and how their interactions affect it, including preventing
pollution and minimizing waste at the source. RIDEM promotes economic opportunity that
preserves Rhode Island's resources and maintains its high quality of life for a sound economy.
One of the top cross-cutting priorities of RIDEM is improving customer service. This includes
training for all staff and development of improved systems and feedback. A critical component
of this effort is RIDEM's LEAN government initiative, which is aimed at reducing waste,
standardizing processes, and producing clear, predictable, and reliable regulations.
-------
Organizational Chart
The organizational structure of RIDEM is shown in the chart below.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Director
Department of Environmental
Management
Office of I he Director
Executive & Operational
Intergovernmental
Legislative Unison
Executive Staff
Office of Administrative
Adjudication
Office of Legal Services
Financial Management
Office of
Management Service
Office of
Boating & Licensing
Natural Resources
¦
Division of Agriculture
1
Resuurcc Marketing
Office of
Air Resources
Office of
Compliance & Inspection
Office of
Customer & Technical
Assistance
Office of
Emergency Response
Name
Waste Management
Office of
Water Resources
Page 1 - August 2018
Division of
Coastal Resources
Division of
Fish & Wildlife
Division of
Forest Environment
Division of
Law Enforcement
Division of
Marine Resources
Division of
Parks & Recreation
Division of
Planning & Development
Mission
The mission of RIDEM, working through its Bureaus and Offices is to:
• Protect, restore, manage and promote the State's natural resources while maintaining its
citizens' health and safety
• Motivate citizens to practice an environmental ethic based upon an understanding of their
environment, their own dependence on it, and the ways in which their actions affect it
• Practice careful stewardship of Rhode Island's finite water, air, land, agriculture, forest
resources
• Ensure that Rhode Island's rich aquatic resources are maintained for the future
• Take necessary actions to preserve and enhance resources of the Narragansett Bay and
coastal environments.
-------
Budget
The FY 2017 Final Enacted budget for RIDEM was $102.6 million, including $38.3 million in
general revenue, $34.2 million in federal funds, $17.2 million in restricted receipts, $9.0 million
in Rhode Island Capital Improvement Plan Funds, and $4.0 million in other funds. This
represents a total decrease of $105,899 from the initial FY 2017 Enacted Budget. The final
enacted FTE position count for FY 2017 is 400.0 FTE positions.
The FY 2018 Final Enacted Budget for RIDEM was $102.2 million, including $40.3 million in
general revenue, $34.5 million in federal funds, $17.7 million in restricted receipts, $6.4 million
in Rhode Island Capital Improvement Plan Funds, and $3.3 million in other funds. This
represents a total decrease of $1.8 million from the initial FY 2018 Enacted Budget. The final
enacted FTE position count for FY 2018 is 400.0 FTE positions.
Compliance/Enforcement Program Structure
Civil regulatory activities are handled by the Bureau of Environmental Protection, which consists
of the Office of Air Resources, the Office of Water Resources, the Office of Waste Management,
the Office of Compliance and Inspection, the Office of Technical and Customer Assistance, and
the Office of Emergency Response. The management team for the Bureau of Environmental
Protection consists of the Deputy Director; Assistant Director; Administrator, Surface Water
Protection; Administrator, Groundwater and Wetland Protection; Administrator, Air Resources;
Administrator, Waste Management; Administrator, Office of Technical and Customer Assistance;
Administrator, Office of Compliance and Inspection; and Chief, Office of Emergency Response.
Roles and Responsibilities
Enforcement of environmental laws and regulations is carried out by all the Offices within the
Bureau of Environmental Protection. The response to noncompliance discovered through
complaint inspections, compliance monitoring, or other channels can take several forms, but, for
the most part, can be described as either informal or formal enforcement. Informal
enforcement includes those actions that do not result in an enforceable order or assessment of a
penalty. For the most part, these actions include correspondence such as letters of deficiency,
warning letters, letters of noncompliance, and notices of intent to enforce. All these actions are
taken to allow violators to resolve noncompliance voluntarily and as quickly as possible,
including repairing any environmental damage that may have resulted due to noncompliance. If
compliance through informal enforcement is not met, or RIDEM determines that the violations
represent significant noncompliance, the case may proceed to formal enforcement.
-------
Formal enforcement typically involves the issuance of a Notice of Violation (NOV) or
Expedited Citation Notice (ECN). A NOV advises the respondent of the alleged facts
surrounding the case, the statutes and regulations that are basis of the alleged violations, the
requirements to meet compliance and usually includes an administrative penalty. The
requirements to return to compliance are set forth in the order portion of the NOV. The assessed
penalty is developed in accordance with the Rhode Island Code of Regulations titled Rules and
Regulations for Assessment of Administrative Penalties {250-RICR-l30-00-1), and the NOV
includes worksheets providing information on how the penalty was determined. The maximum
penalty for violations is derived from the legislative statute providing RIDEM with the authority
to assess and collect a penalty for civil (non-criminal) violations of laws or regulations. Since
formal enforcement actions contain enforceable orders and assessments of penalties, such actions
are subject to appeal with RIDEM's Administrative Adjudication Division (AAD). The
respondent has 20 days to appeal the NOV to the AAD. Prior to or even after a hearing
commences, the parties may finalize a settlement of the NOV. Upon completion of a hearing, a
final decision is issued by the AAD hearing officer. The respondent or RIDEM may file an
appeal to contest the AAD decision to Superior Court. If an administrative hearing is not
requested, the NOV becomes a final order of the Director and is enforceable in Superior Court.
In 2013, legislation was enacted to allow RIDEM to issue an ECN. An ECN is similar to an
NOV in that it advises the party/parties of the alleged facts that support the violation and the
statutes and regulations that are alleged to have been violated. It can include requirements to
meet compliance, but it cannot order corrective action. It always includes an administrative
penalty, which is developed in accordance with the Rhode Island Code of Regulations titled
Rules and Regulations for the Assessment of Administrative Penalties (250-RICR-l30-00-1).
Unlike an NOV, the party/parties do not have a right of appeal; however, the ECN cannot be
recorded on the title for the property and the ECN expires after 60 days. After that time, if the
party/parties have not complied with the ECN, RIDEM can issue an NOV.
In 2017, the law was amended to allow RIDEM to issue an ECN with penalties up to $5,000.
Office of Air Resources
The Office of Air Resources (OAR) is responsible for the preservation, protection and
improvement of air quality in Rhode Island. This is accomplished, in partnership with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, by regulating the emission of air pollutants from stationary
and mobile emission sources. Planning, permitting, air pollutant emission inventory, air quality
monitoring and inspecting emission sources are among the major activities of OAR.
Air pollutants fall into two broad categories - criteria pollutants and air toxics. National Ambient
Air Quality Standards have been set for criteria pollutants. In general, criteria pollutants are
irritants or have other minor and/or acute health or environmental effects. Examples are ground
level ozone and carbon monoxide. Air toxics are pollutants that, for example, are carcinogens, or
have other major and/or chronic health effects. Examples are benzene and trichloroethylene.
Rhode Island and most of the Northeast United States do not meet the health-based air quality
standards for ozone. Much of the work of the OAR is related to assuring that Rhode Island
improves its air quality to attain the standards on the schedule required by the federal Clean Air
-------
Act. A number of toxic air pollutants are present in Rhode Island's air that are above acceptable
levels. The OAR works to reduce emissions of air pollutants in Rhode Island and works with
other states to secure emission reductions that will help Rhode Island solve its air quality
problems. Compliance with environmental laws, rules, regulations, permits and licenses is
enforced through informal enforcement and referrals to OC&I for formal enforcement.
Office of Water Resources
The Office of Water Resources (OWR) is responsible for ensuring that rivers, lakes, and coastal
waters will support healthy communities of fish, plants, and other aquatic life, and will support
uses such as fishing, swimming, and drinking water quality. OWR also ensures that groundwater
will be uncontaminated, freshwater wetlands will be protected and rehabilitated to provide
wildlife habitat, reduce floods, and to improve water quality and public health will be protected
from the adverse impacts of water pollution. This is accomplished, in partnership with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, by regulating the discharge of water pollutants from point
sources. Planning, permitting, developing Total Maximum Daily Loads, water quality
monitoring and inspecting sources are among the major activities of OWR. Compliance with
environmental laws, rules, regulations, permits and licenses is enforced through informal
enforcement and referrals to OC&I for formal enforcement.
Office of Waste Management
The Office of Waste Management (OWM) has two primary functions:
• To oversee the investigation and remediation of contaminated sites and releases from
leaking underground storage tanks.
• To regulate and permit facilities that accept or transport solid, medical or hazardous
waste or that store petroleum products in underground tanks.
These functions are divided into four programs as listed below:
• Underground Storage Tank Management Program - This program oversees the
registration of Underground Storage Tanks (UST program) as well as the cleanup of
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST program).
• Waste Facilities Management Program - This program regulates facilities that receive
Solid, Hazardous and Medical Waste and transporters of hazardous, medical and septage
waste. It also oversees the closure of active landfills.
• Site Remediation Program - This program oversees the investigation and remediation of
sites contaminated with hazardous materials and petroleum. This includes the
redevelopment and reuse of sites commonly known as Brownfields.
• Superfund and Department of Defense Program - This program oversees the cleanup of
NPL Sites (commonly referred to as Superfund Sites) and sites used or formerly used by
the U.S. Department of Defense. This program also oversees the evaluation of sites on
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's CERCLIS List for consideration of action
under the Superfund Program.
-------
Compliance with environmental laws, rules, regulations, permits and licenses is enforced through
informal enforcement and referrals to OC&I for formal enforcement.
Office of Compliance and Inspection
The Office of Compliance and Inspection (OC&I) is responsible for the regulatory enforcement
activities related to air, waste, and water. OC&I investigates complaints and suspected violations
of environmental laws and regulations relating to air pollution, dam safety, freshwater wetlands,
hazardous waste management, unpermitted releases of hazardous materials and/or petroleum,
onsite wastewater treatment systems (i.e., septic systems), solid and medical waste, underground
and leaking underground storage tanks, and water pollution. In addition to complaint response,
OC&I carries out compliance monitoring of regulated activities involving hazardous waste
generators, underground storage tanks, and exterior lead paint removal activities. OC&I also
inspects dams to monitor safety conditions and to advise dam owners of unsafe conditions.
Significant noncompliance that is identified by any of the Offices within the Bureau of
Environmental Protection that requires formal enforcement is referred to OC&I for issuance of
a Notice of Violation or Expedited Citation Notice and management of the case. Not all OC&I
programs focus on compliance and enforcement activities in the same way. For example, one
program may spend considerable time on citizen complaint response while another may spend
most of its time on compliance monitoring. In fact, much of OC&I's compliance and
enforcement effort is a team approach, either internally in the office or externally with other
RIDEM Divisions and Offices. In many cases, OC&I's activities are coordinated with the
Offices of Air Resources, Emergency Response, Water Resources, Waste Management and
Legal Services. Under some circumstances, OC&I supports the Office of Criminal Investigation
and assists them with sampling, regulatory interpretation, and expert witness testimony. In many
cases, OC&I is in close communication with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since
RIDEM has specific authority delegated under federal regulations regarding air, water,
underground and leaking underground storage tanks and hazardous waste. OC&I also works
with attorneys in the Office of Attorney General in prosecuting civil and criminal cases.
Compliance with environmental laws, rules, regulations, permits and licenses is enforced through
both informal and formal enforcement.
Office of Technical and Customer Assistance
The Office of Technical and Customer Assistance (OTCA) assists the public, state and local
governments, and the business community concerning compliance with rules, regulations,
environmental standards, and the permitting process. One aspect of this service is to coordinate
pre-application assistance to companies and to individuals seeking permits. Prospective
applicants for environmental permits will be able to have a single point of contact who will
provide information on permits required, including permits for large facilities where more than
one type of environmental permit is required. Another service is to coordinate the application
review process for projects that require more than one environmental permit such as the
permitting of large facilities that involve air emissions as well as construction that involves more
than five acres (which requires a stormwater permit). Part of this coordination function is to track
projects that the Economic Development Corporation's Board has determined to be of Critical
Economic Concern. OTCA also serves as an information repository for RIDEM's regulations
-------
and policies so that the public can easily access these regulations and policies. RIDEM's web site
is coordinated and maintained by OTCA. In addition, OTCA maintains user-friendly descriptions
of the regulations so that the public can easily determine the requirements associated with the
regulations. To improve compliance among several business and industry sectors, OCTA also
manages several industry-wide Environmental Results Program (ERP) initiatives. ERP is a
comprehensive, "evidence-based" industry compliance certification program using guidebooks
and checklists. Facilities certify to RIDEM that they are complying with environmental
protection requirements every three years. ERP is currently used as a compliance improvement
tool in the automotive refinishing, auto yard recycling, underground storage tank, green
hospitality, golf course and MS4 sectors.
Office of Emergency Response
The Office of Emergency Response (OER) is Rhode Island's first line of defense in protecting
public health, safety, and welfare in an environmental emergency. Like police and fire fighters,
OER's highly trained emergency responders are prepared to handle incidents of great variety -
from a spill of a few gallons to a whole tanker-full of petroleum, from a single abandoned drum
to biological, radiological and chemical weapons - and are on-call 24-hours a day, 7 days a
week. The responders spend the bulk of their time remediating mishaps that could otherwise
pose a significant danger. Nearly every day of every year, despite preventive measures, hundreds
of incidents threaten the public and environment. The responders are prepared to limit the risks
from oil and chemical spills, failed tanks or pipes, fires or fumes, overturned trucks, sunken
vessels, litter, weapons of mass destruction, abandoned drums, and the like. In some cases, OER
coordinates with the Offices of Air Resources, Compliance & Inspection, Water Resources,
Waste Management and Legal Services and supports the Office of Criminal Investigation and
assists them with sampling and provides expert witness testimony. State agencies that OER
works with include the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency, State Fire Marshal's
Office, Department of Health, Department of Transportation and State Police. Many large
responses require working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast
Guard when incidents impact their area of responsibility. OER works with other federal agencies
that include the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Civil Support Team (National Guard). OER is responsible for regulatory enforcement of
aboveground storage tanks that are greater than 500 gallons and ensures that the tanks are
compliant with the Rhode Island Code of Regulations titled Oil Pollution Control Regulations
(250-RICR-140-25-2). In 2015, OER took over the Tier II Reporting Requirement from the
Department of Labor and Training. The requirement ensures that responding agencies have the
needed emergency information for facilities that store chemicals of concern and that they comply
with the Federal Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act Reporting Requirements.
The State Climatologist also resides in OER and provides weather information to the Governor's
Office, multi-State agencies and emergency responders. The Climatologist tracks weather and
other environmental related data for the National Weather Service, the Rhode Island Executive
Climate Change Coordinating Council and the public.
Compliance with environmental laws, rules, and regulations is enforced through informal
enforcement and referrals to OC&I for formal enforcement.
-------
Resources/Staffing/Training/Data Reporting Systems
Office of Water Resources
Resources
OWR has 13.0 FTEs to implement the Clean Water Act NPDES Enforcement Program (which
includes Permitting, Pretreatment, O & M, and Sludge Management programs). 2.0 of the FTEs
are supervisors/program managers. The FTEs work on both permitting and compliance
monitoring and enforcement. There have not been resource constraints in OWR that present
major obstacles to implementing compliance monitoring and enforcement with the NPDES
Enforcement Program (see additional clarification under Staffing/Tracking). It is important to
note that a substantial amount of compliance monitoring and enforcement is undertaken by OWR
in other federal and state programs that were not subject to the EPA State review. These
programs include Freshwater Wetlands, On Site Wastewater Treatment Systems, Underground
Injection Control, and Water Quality Certification. The FTEs assigned to these programs have
not been included in this summary.
Staffing/Training
Compliance monitoring and enforcement has not been impacted by vacancies. However,
compliance tracking and enforcement of RIPDES MS4 General Permit requirements remains a
challenge. There is no specific state program for hiring and maintaining qualified staff. When
vacancies occur, managers determine whether the position is critical and, if so, prepare a critical
need form that is forwarded to RIDEM's Director and the Department of Administration for
approval. Depending on availability of funds, managers may authorize staff to attend training
programs or technical conferences to refresh their knowledge or gain new knowledge.
Data Reporting Systems
OWR is a direct user of the EPA ICIS national data system. OWR's efforts with assistance from
EPA to require that permittees input data through the EPA NetDMR system have been highly
successful. As of December 2018, 100% of major and minor individual permittees are submitting
DMRs using NetDMR and 75% of general permittees (combination of Multisector and Non-
Contact Cooling Water general permits) have created NetDMR accounts.
-------
Office of Air Resources
Resources
OAR currently has 4.5 FTEs to implement the Clean Air Act Stationary Source Enforcement
Program. The FTEs work on compliance monitoring and enforcement of both major air
pollution sources, synthetic minor air pollution sources (those with emission caps) and other
source types. 3.5 FTEs are staff that conduct inspections and 1.0 FTEs are supervisors/program
managers. There are resource constraints in OAR that present major obstacles to implementing
compliance monitoring and enforcement with the Stationary Source Enforcement Program.
Staffing/Training
Compliance monitoring and enforcement has not been impacted by vacancies. There is no
specific state program for hiring and maintaining qualified staff. When vacancies occur,
managers determine whether the position is critical and, if so, prepare a critical need form that is
forwarded to RIDEM's Director and the Department of Administration for approval. Depending
on availability of funds, managers may authorize staff to attend training programs or technical
conferences to refresh their knowledge or gain new knowledge.
Data Reporting Systems
OAR inputs all required data directly into the EPA national data system.
Office of Waste Management
Resources
OWM currently has 1.5-1.75 FTEs to implement the RCRA Subtitle C Enforcement Program
(which includes the TDSF, Program Authorization, Transporter, and Biennial Reporting/Data
Management programs). The FTEs work on permitting, authorization and compliance
monitoring and enforcement. About 0.25 FTEs do inspections and 1.25-1.5 FTEs do
authorization/supervision/permitting, transporters, and data entry. There are resource
constraints in OWM that present major obstacles to implementing compliance monitoring and
enforcement with the RCRA Subtitle C Enforcement Program. It is important to note that a
substantial amount of compliance monitoring and enforcement is undertaken by OWM in other
federal and state programs that were not subject to the EPA State review. These programs
include medical waste management, solid waste, and landfill closure. The FTEs assigned to
these programs have not been included in this summary.
Staffing/Training
Compliance monitoring and enforcement has been impacted by vacancies and OWM foresees
impacts soon. There is no specific state program for hiring and maintaining qualified staff.
When vacancies occur, managers determine whether the position is critical and, if so, prepare a
critical need form that is forwarded to RIDEM's Director and the Department of Administration
for approval. Depending on availability of funds, managers may authorize staff to attend training
programs or technical conferences to refresh their knowledge or gain new knowledge.
-------
Data Reporting Systems
OWM does not input all data directly into the EPA national data system, although it may in the
future.
Office of Compliance and Inspection
Resources
OC&I currently has 3.1 FTEs assigned to the Water Enforcement Program. The FTEs work on
compliance monitoring and enforcement. 2.0 FTEs are inspectors and 1.1 FTEs are
supervisors/program managers. There are no resource constraints in OC&I that present major
obstacles to implementing compliance monitoring and enforcement with the NPDES
Enforcement Program. It is important to note that a substantial amount of enforcement is
undertaken by OC&I through its citizen complaint response program that was not subject to the
EPA State review. The FTEs assigned to this program are included in this summary.
OC&I currently has 2.1 FTEs assigned to the Air Enforcement Program. The FTEs work on
compliance monitoring and enforcement. 1.0 FTE is an inspector and 1.1 FTEs are
supervisors/program managers. There are no resource constraints in OC&I that present major
obstacles to implementing compliance monitoring and enforcement with the Clean Air Act
Stationary Source Enforcement Program. It is important to note that a substantial amount of
compliance monitoring and enforcement is undertaken by OC&I through its citizen complaint
response program that was not subject to the EPA State review. The FTEs assigned to this
program are included in this summary.
OC&I currently has 4.4 FTEs to implement the RCRA Enforcement Program. The FTEs work
on compliance monitoring and enforcement. 3.0 FTEs are inspectors (although .4 FTEs are used
for database entry and management) and 1.4 FTEs are supervisors/program managers (although
.2 FTEs are used for database entry and management). There are no resource constraints in
OC&I that present major obstacles to implementing compliance monitoring and enforcement
with the RCRA Enforcement Program.
Staffing/Training
For the Water, Air and RCRA Enforcement Programs, compliance monitoring and enforcement
have been impacted by vacancies; however, OC&I does not foresee further impacts soon. There
is no specific state program for hiring and maintaining qualified staff. When vacancies occur,
managers determine whether the position is critical and, if so, prepare a critical need form that is
forwarded to RIDEM's Director and the Department of Administration for approval. Depending
on availability of funds, managers may authorize staff to attend training programs or technical
conferences to refresh their knowledge or gain new knowledge.
Data Reporting Systems
OC&I inputs all data for the RCRA Enforcement Program directly into the EPA national data
system.
-------
Office of Legal Services
The Office of Legal Services (OLS) has 5.0 FTEs to manage all the legal work within the
RIDEM. No FTEs are specifically assigned to any one office or program. Compliance
monitoring and enforcement has been significantly impacted by vacancies within the OLS and
there are resource constraints that present major obstacles to implementing compliance
monitoring and enforcement.
Administrative Adjudication Division
The Administrative Adjudication Division has 2.0 FTEs to manage all the administrative appeals
within the RIDEM. No FTEs are specifically assigned to any one office or program. There are
no resource constraints that present major obstacles to implementing compliance monitoring and
enforcement.
B. Major State Priorities and Accomplishments
Priorities
The Offices of Waste Management, Water Resources, Air Resources, and Compliance and
Inspection have all undergone significant hiring of new employees in 2018 to replace employees
who retired because of an early retirement incentive program offered to State employees. It is a
priority for the offices to continue and complete the training of these new employees.
In addition, we have a continuing priority of maintaining compliance and enforcement activities
in the core programs and implementing LEAN techniques to be more effective and productive in
performing these activities. This is an ongoing effort and involves employees throughout
RIDEM as specific processes are identified for improvement.
Accomplishments
RIDEM's major accomplishments over the last 1-2 years have been to maintain compliance and
enforcement activities in the core programs and hire (and train) new employees within these
programs.
------- |