Home > News > Environment > NDEP issues response to Las Vegas Review-Journal article, “Documents: NV Energy falsified pollution reports”

NDEP issues response to Las Vegas Review-Journal article, “Documents: NV Energy falsified pollution reports”

By ThisIsReno

ndep-webNDEP NEWS

Response to March 20, 2013 Las Vegas Review-Journal article, “Documents: NV Energy falsified pollution reports”

1. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection has no evidence that Nevada Energy submitted “faked” or “falsified” data on Reid Gardner Generating Station for 2006‐2010 reporting period or failed to comply with any air quality standards or requirements.

a. During the 5‐year review of data collected from meteorological and ambient air quality monitoring (2006‐2010), problems with PM10 data collected and recorded by a third party contractor for NVE were discovered and corrected. This data is not required to demonstrate compliance with environmental standards. This data is used by NDEP for regional airshed modeling for resource management purposes.

b. Air quality compliance at the facility is based on stack emissions monitoring of all four units at Reid Gardner Generating Station. Stack emissions monitoring was conducted as required on a continuous basis on all four units between 2006 and 2010. Based on this direct and continuous measurement of emissions and process parameters, as required in the Air Quality permit, the facility is in compliance with all state and federal air quality standards and permit limitations and conditions.

2. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection has no evidence that Nevada Energy has violations of its permitted heat input limitations at the Reid Gardner Generating Station. 

a. Based on the information and data provided, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection has no evidence to support that any violations of the heat input limitations established in the facility’s permit have occurred. However, the Division is investigating new allegations that may have arisen through the tribe’s apparent misinterpretation of data.