State Review Framework Tracker Recommendations Results

Selection criteria: Round 2; NV

Region State Element Round Review Year Status Due Date Completion Date Media Finding Finding Level Recommendation Summary Explanation State Response Agency
9 NV Data Round 2 2011 Overdue 3/31/2015 - CAA Finding 1-1 Area for Improvement See recommendation for Element 8. data accuracy needs improvement No failed stack tests results reported to AFS in FY10, but 1 failed test was found during review of 17 files. DAQEM acknowledged deficiency but didn't consider it HPV. ; since performance test values were questionable; Failed test wasn't reported because a Vapor Recovery test on a small underground tank wasn't considered a typical performance test subject to EPA's national stack testing guidance. It was concluded that the test conducted solely to staisfy a local only requirement does not meet criteria to be entered into AFS. In subsequent converstaions Local
9 NV Data Round 2 2011 Overdue 6/30/2015 - CAA Finding 1-1 Area for Improvement EPA accepts DAQEM's explanation. DAQEM should continue to montior timeliness of data entryies and update EPA on current status on or before April 1, 2015. Data timeliness needs improvement DAQEM entered 34.7% of MDRs within 60 days of designation. Natl. average is 63.1% eac source will be evaluated on its applicability to these EPA regs. MDRs will be updated accordingly in AFS. We anticipate this task will be completed when all source permits have been reissued by 6/30/15.; the dept did not fully identify these regulations nor track these MDRs and place them in AFS. With adoption of new Section 12 regs establishing 5 year permit; Dept was delegated authority to apply and enforce 40 CFR Parts 60/61 on 9/2/2010 and Part 63 on 1/3/2011. Prior Local
9 NV Data Round 2 2011 Overdue 6/30/2015 - CAA Finding 1-1 Area for Improvement EPA accepts DAQEMs rexplanation and anticipated resolution by 6/30/15. DAQEM shall update EPA on progress by 4/1/2015 and again if necessary by 7/1/2015. EPA will monitor entries in data system for confirmation of resoltuion. Minor source universe & identifying federal applicability at minors needs improvement Clark County DAQEM's universe of federally-reportable minors and completeness of air program markers for federal applicability is not current 2015.; and on 1/3/11 authority to enforce Part 63. Prior to this delegation; but the permits did contain the regulation conditions; citing local AQR Section 19 and 16 as basis of authority. Therefore the Dept did not identify these regs in the permit nor drack the MDR and place them in AFS. With adoption of new Section 12 regs; each source will submit an application and be fully evaluated on its applicability to these EPA regs. When source permits are reissued these EPA regs will be referenced and AFS updated to identify MDRs. We anticipate this task will be completed when all source pemits have been reissued by June 30; limitations and requirements; the Dept had not been delegated full authority to enforce these federal EPA regs and issued permits did not reference these federal regs; which establishes 5 year permit; On 9/2/10 Department was delegated for first time the authority to apply and enforce 40CRF Parts 60/61 Local
9 NV Inspections Round 2 2011 - - - CAA Finding 2-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - Reports well organized and detailed. Impressive electronic file system includs permits, inspection reports, Title V compliance certs, mnitoring reports, etc. Well organized and detailed. - Local
9 NV Inspections Round 2 2011 - - - CAA Finding 2-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - Largely meets CMS requirments EPA supports DAQEMS efforts to implement an extensive and assertive PM10 compliance and enforcement program - Local
9 NV Inspections Round 2 2011 - - - CAA Finding 2-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - DAQEM does excellent job of FCE coverage Clark County is commended for achieving 100% coverage of CMS targeted univers for FY10 - Local
9 NV Violations Round 2 2011 Overdue 3/31/2015 - CAA Finding 3-1 Area for Improvement R9 will work w/DAQEM to clarify and improve future HPV reporting by improving tracking, documentation, justification and timeliness, by 3/31/2015. Initially, EPA recommends the implementation of a modified HPV/FRV tracking worksheet, similar to one utilized by CARB, which may provide a solution to these and future reportable HPV/FRVs and help to better document details that led to determinations that cases were not reportalb.e Improvement in this element should bring about improvement in related findings for Elements 2 and 7. There have been no new HPVs reported to AFS since 10/1/200f. File review of 17 files revealed 5 potentially reportable HPVs, though further review revealed 2 of 5 did not qualify as HPV. High staff turnover and a need for training contributed to this finding. included in the full report; DAQEM responded to each cited case Local
9 NV Violations Round 2 2011 - - - CAA Finding 3-1 Area for Attention - DAQEM should report all failed stack tests to AFS and also link in HPV/FRVs as appropriate. 1 failed stack test found during file review of 17 files, but no failed tests reported to AFS DAQEM acknowledged deficiency but did not consider source an HPV. Local
9 NV Enforcement Round 2 2011 - - - CAA Finding 4-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - compliance was achieved in enforcment cases All 3 potential HPVs had returned to compliance at time of NOV issuance - Local
9 NV Enforcement Round 2 2011 - - - CAA Finding 4-1 Area for Attention - Action timely based on milnimal data Based on file review, at least two of five possible HPVs were resolved within 270 days, which indicates DAQEM would exceed national average of 36.4% - Local
9 NV Penalties Round 2 2011 - - - CAA Finding 5-1 Area for Attention - Penalty documentation should be improved two files containing penalty documentation didn't contain gravity or economic benefit caluclations. At time of the file review, DAQEMs penalty matrix was undergoing revision. - Local
9 NV Penalties Round 2 2011 - - - CAA Finding 5-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - penalty payment documentation adequate There were no files where Hearing Officer or Board assessed a different penalty than recommended. The Two files containing penalty documentation did contain documentation of payment in full. - Local
9 NV Data Round 2 2010 - - - CWA Finding 1-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - NDEP routinely enters required data into EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database. During the FFY 2010 review period, the NDEP maintained a complete and accurate inventory of its NPDES permits and DMRs. - EPA
9 NV Data Round 2 2010 - - - CWA Finding 1-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - NDEP’s inspections and enforcement actions are accurately reported to EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database. NDEP’s inspections and enforcement actions are accurately reported to EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database, as required. - EPA
9 NV Data Round 2 2010 - - - CWA Finding 1-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - The NDEP routinely enters data into EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database in a timely manner. The NDEP routinely enters data into EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database in a timely manner, as required. - EPA
9 NV Inspections Round 2 2010 - - - CWA Finding 2-1 Area for Attention - NDEP’s inspection reports properly document and accurately describe inspection observations. The EPA evaluated NDEP’s reports from 38 inspections conducted at 22 different facilities in FFY and FY 2010. Most of the inspection reports included a completed EPA Form 3560-3, and properly and accurately documented the following: § NPDES/ID number, facility name, address, and description, inspection participants; § inspection date, type and purpose, regulated activities pertinent to the inspection, regulated areas evaluated; § inspector observations, deficiencies, findings, documentary support (photos, statements, records, etc.), compliance conclusions, corrective actions taken by facilities; § inspector signature and date. Even though most reports included these categories, not all information was consistently included in each report. Several reports omitted inspection time. A few reports did not identify the areas subject to inspection and did not clarify if the regulated areas were inspected. While most reports mentioned the “permit” or other requirements, some did not cite the requirements, and did not relate the observations back to cited requirements. NDEP does not use inspection checklists, but is considering EPA’s inspection checklist form as a model for revisions to its standard report formats. Despite the omission of certain elements from EPA’s report guidance, a majority of NDEP’s reports sufficiently documented observations to make a compliance determination. - EPA
9 NV Inspections Round 2 2010 - - - CWA Finding 2-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - NDEP completed their inspections in accordance with their Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) inspection plan. NDEP completed their inspections in accordance with their Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) inspection plan. - EPA
9 NV Inspections Round 2 2010 - - - CWA Finding 2-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - NDEP met and exceeded EPA’s national inspection goals and averages for all categories of inspections. NDEP met and exceeded EPA’s national inspection goals and averages for all categories of inspections: majors, minors, and general permitted facilities. - EPA
9 NV Violations Round 2 2010 - - - CWA Finding 3-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - NDEP accurately and timely identifies facility effluent limit violations by tracking major DMR results in EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database. NDEP enters all major NPDES facility DMRs into EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database, providing NDEP with accurate information on violations at major facilities. One of Nevada’s 14 major facilities (7.1%) had one or more effluent violations in FFY 2010, lower than the national average violation rate of 52.8 percent. - EPA
9 NV Violations Round 2 2010 - - - CWA Finding 3-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - During FFY 2010, none of Nevada’s major individual facilities were in significant noncompliance (SNC), better than the national average SNC rate of 24.6%. NDEP prepares Quarterly Noncompliance Reports (QNCRs), which identify major individual facility violations that meet EPA’s criteria for SNC. In FFY 2010, there were no Nevada major facilities in SNC for effluent limit violations or for failure to submit required DMRs. - EPA
9 NV Violations Round 2 2010 Overdue 12/31/2014 - CWA Finding 3-2 Area for Improvement EPA consult w/NDEP about options and procedures for entering SEVs into ICIS-NPDES so that NDEP will begin entering SEVs by 12/31/2014. NDEP does not enter single event violations (SEVs) into EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database. However, NDEP uses its state database to track stormwater general permit SEVs observed during inspections. This is a data management issue and does not hinder NDEP’s ability to identify and track violations. EPA’s data management policy requires that states enter SEVs in the ICIS-NPDES database for major facilities only. NDEP does not enter SEVs into EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database for majors or any other NPDES regulated facilities. SEVs are violations discovered by means other than DMR-reported effluent limit violations. Examples of SEVs include spills or violations observed during an inspection. Entering major facility SEVs in ICIS-NPDES would give EPA and the public access to a more complete listing of violations at Nevada NPDES facilities. Although NDEP does not enter SEVs in ICIS-NPDES, they use their state database to identify and track stormwater general permit SEVs. This has been an efficient and effective tool for NDEP to track SEVs at the large number of storm water permittees. - EPA
9 NV Violations Round 2 2010 Overdue 10/1/2012 12/8/2011 CWA Finding 3-2 Area for Improvement EPA is now consulting with NDEP about options and procedures for entering SEVs into ICIS-NPDES so that NDEP will begin entering SEVs by October 1, 2012. NDEP does not enter single event violations (SEVs) into EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database. However, NDEP uses its state database to track stormwater general permit SEVs observed during inspections. This is a data management issue and does not hinder NDEP’s ability to identify and track violations. EPA’s data management policy requires that states enter SEVs in the ICIS-NPDES database for major facilities only. NDEP does not enter SEVs into EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database for majors or any other NPDES regulated facilities. SEVs are violations discovered by means other than DMR-reported effluent limit violations. Examples of SEVs include spills or violations observed during an inspection. Entering major facility SEVs in ICIS-NPDES would give EPA and the public access to a more complete listing of violations at Nevada NPDES facilities. Although NDEP does not enter SEVs in ICIS-NPDES, they use their state database to identify and track stormwater general permit SEVs. This has been an efficient and effective tool for NDEP to track SEVs at the large number of storm water permittees. - EPA
9 NV Enforcement Round 2 2010 - - - CWA Finding 4-1 Area for Attention - NDEP effectively and timely manages its noncompliant facilities with appropriate enforcement responses. NDEP effectively and timely manages its noncompliant facilities with a variety of enforcement responses. During the FFY 2010 review period, NDEP issued 98 enforcement actions, including 88 Notices of Noncompliance (NONCs), five Warning Letters, two Findings of Alleged Violation and Orders (FAVOs-formal); and one Notice of Intent to Seek Penalty. NDEP did not have any SNC facilities during FFY 2010. For the files reviewed, it appears that NDEP addressed violations with the appropriate type of enforcement response. EPA notes, however, that for the overall FY10 enforcement numbers, a high proportion of violations were resolved through informal actions (i.e. 93 NONCs or Warning Letters) rather than formal action (2 FAVO and 1 penalty). EPA believes a strong enforcement program utilizes the full range of available enforcement tools, and should include an appropriately robust use of formal enforcement actions. - EPA
9 NV Enforcement Round 2 2010 - - - CWA Finding 4-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - NDEP’s enforcement actions include required corrective actions and have been effective at returning facilities to compliance. Of the 14 enforcement actions reviewed, all of the facilities returned to compliance or remain open with enforceable deadlines. During the FFY 2010 review period, NDEP issued 96 enforcement actions, including 88 Notices of Noncompliance (NONCs), five Warning Letters, two Findings of Alleged Violation and Orders (FAVOs-formal); and one Notice of Intent to Seek Penalty. There were no violations classified as SNC during FFY 2010. NDEP’s NONCs are informal enforcement actions used at general permitted stormwater facilities that identify violations and may or may not include deadlines for a return to compliance or for corrective actions. NDEP’s warning letters are informal enforcement actions that identify violations and may or may not include deadlines for a return to compliance or for corrective actions. NDEP’s FAVOs are formal enforcement actions that cite the alleged violations, establish enforceable deadlines for a return to compliance, and require a meeting to show cause why NDEP should not seek a civil penalty for the cited violations. Failure to comply with an FAVO can result in judicial action. One hundred percent of the FAVOs reviewed by EPA required corrective action within a specified timeframe and the subject facilities have returned to compliance. When NDEP has determined that a facility has complied with warning letters and FAVOs, NDEP notifies the facility in writing and closes the case. When NDEP has determined that a facility has complied with a NONC, NDEP verbally notifies the facility, and enters the status in its database. - EPA
9 NV Penalties Round 2 2010 - - - CWA Finding 5-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - EPA reviewed three penalty actions taken by NDEP, and found that NDEP collected all penalties as assessed. The penalty information and status are properly documented in NDEP’s files. For the three penalty actions reviewed by EPA, NDEP assessed a total amount of $94,000 and collected $94,000. Each penalty was collected as a cash payment with no supplemental environmental project as an offset. - EPA
9 NV Penalties Round 2 2010 - - - CWA Finding 5-1 Area for Attention - EPA reviewed three penalty actions taken by NDEP, and found that the NDEP assessed appropriate penalties that considered both gravity and economic benefit in two of the three penalties Two of the penalty actions reviewed appear to be consistent with NDEP’s Enforcement Manual, and appropriately considered both gravity and economic benefit. The calculated penalties were appropriate for the types and length of the violations. For the third penalty action reviewed, NDEP’s penalty calculation properly accounted for the gravity of the violations. NDEP did not add an economic benefit component to its penalty calculation despite correspondence from the discharger detailing its expenditures to comply with NDEP’s FAVO. - EPA
9 NV Data Round 2 2010 - - - RCRA Finding 1-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - All SNCs entered into RCRAInfo within 60 days of the first day of inspection None - EPA
9 NV Data Round 2 2010 - - - RCRA Finding 1-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - NDEP has entered MDR's into RCRA for regulated universes, compliance monitoring, and enforcement. No data entry issues with NDEP delegated program. - EPA
9 NV Data Round 2 2010 - - - RCRA Finding 1-1 Area for Attention - Generally data reported in RCRAInfo is entered accurately and maintained. 27 of 30 reviewed files ad accurate data reported in RCRAInfo. 2 files didn't have Return to Compliance entries when files indicated otherwise.1 file indicated an observed violation with no corresponding action identified in RCRAInfo. These data inaccuracies do not constitue a serious pattern of missing info. However, this is an area for state attention. - EPA
9 NV Inspections Round 2 2010 - - - RCRA Finding 2-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - NV exceeds 0ne-year inspection coverage for TSDs and LQFs. NV met 2-year coverage for TSDs but didnt meet the 5 year inspection coverage goal for LQGs. None - EPA
9 NV Inspections Round 2 2010 - - - RCRA Finding 2-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - Fr FY2010 NV met or exceeded all enforcement commitments in their RCRA grant workplan. None - EPA
9 NV Inspections Round 2 2010 - - - RCRA Finding 2-1 Area for Attention - Overall, inspection reports were good quality, with adequate supporting documentation and completed in a timely manner. Reports prepared by Washoe County and SNHD are missing limited report elements. 44 inspection reports reviewed (40 BWM, 2 SNHD, 2 Washoe Cty). 31 inspection/enforcement files were reviewed (27 BWM, 2 SNHD, 2 Washoe). One inspection report did not include sufficient facility description to determine if the inspector had investigated all processes that may generate wastes. Also, SNHD checklist form doesn't list specific regs violated, and Washoe report form doesnt include space for facility/process description. - EPA
9 NV Violations Round 2 2010 - - - RCRA Finding 3-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - In files reviewed, NV correctly identified SNC and/or SV violations. None - EPA
9 NV Violations Round 2 2010 - - - RCRA Finding 3-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - NV's inspection reports included correct compliance determinations and inspection findings were promptly reported into RCRAInfo. None - EPA
9 NV Enforcement Round 2 2010 - - - RCRA Finding 4-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - In files reviewed, all enforcement responses included required actions that would bring the facility into compliance within a defined schedule. None - EPA
9 NV Enforcement Round 2 2010 - - - RCRA Finding 4-1 Area for Attention - NDEP effectively and timely manages its noncompliant facilities with appropriate enforcement responses. NDEP appears to have appropriately addressed violations with enforcement responses. EPA notes, however, that for the overall FY10 enforcement numbers, a high proportion of violations were resolved through informal actions rather than formal actions. EPA believes a strong enforcement program utilizes the full range of available enforcement tools, and should include an appropriately robust use of formal enforcement actions. - EPA
9 NV Penalties Round 2 2010 - - - RCRA Finding 5-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations - NV's initial and final assessed penalties do not typically vary. All files with penalties contained documentation the penalties were collected. None. - EPA
9 NV Penalties Round 2 2010 - - - RCRA Finding 5-1 Area for Attention - NV includes gravity-based penalty and economic benefit calculations in their penalty calculation procedures. However, economic benefit of non-compliance assessment is not being pursued. For 2 penalty cases reviewed, gravity-based calculations were included and economic benefit of non-compliance was considered though not well documented. In one case reviewed, penalty was not calculated following written procedures but was negotiated directly with Office of Attorney General (because this was a multi-media case). This case did not consider econic benefit of non-compliance. - EPA

Top of Page