DRINKING WATER ENFORCEMENT
EPA REGION 10
April 1985
-------
DRINKING WATER ENFORCEMENT
EPA REGION 10
April 1985
-------
A NOTE TO OUR READERS:
Wi
Enforcement clearly has come of age In the Drinking Water Program.
th perhaps a few exceptions, program operation and oversight around the
country recognizes the use of compliance and enforcement as necessary tools
for operation of a balanced program.
FY 86/87 EPA Guidance identifies as principal objectives the
elimination of persistent violations of microbiological and turbidity
regulations, and reduction of MCL and monitoring violations to a minimum.
All non-complying systems are to receive compliance schedules, and Regions
will be taking enforcement actions in primacy states if necessary.
While Region 10's compliance rates may appear low as compared to some
other states across the country, solid basic programs are in place in each
state. Good things are beginning to happen in terms of enforcement and
compliance, with improved compliance rates almost sure to follow.
This report of Region 10's Drinking Water Enforcement Programs has been
prepared to present a picture of each state's enforcement capability and the
current status of their program. It will be updated periodically to remain
a useful reference tool for EPA's program managers. Helpful suggestions for
improvement are always welcomed!
't
Dick Thiel, Chief
Drinking Water Programs Branch
April 1985
-------
REGIONAL OVERVIEW
Introduction
The National Drinking Water Program has been in place since June 1977.
As with most major programs, there was a several year start-up period.
During that time, delegation of the program to the states was a major
priority—Region 10 delegated the program to Alaska, Idaho, and Washington.
Also during that time, the states, and EPA in Oregon, placed major
emphasis on achieving voluntary compliance with the drinking water
regulations. This approach clearly achieved the greatest "bang for the
buck" since enforcement is generally far more resource intensive than
dealing with non-compliance in a less formal way.
Sufficient time has elapsed since the effective date of the National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations for almost all water systems to
voluntarily comply with regulations. This has left a relatively small
percentage of water systems against which enforcement is required to achieve
compliance. Nationally, there is strong emphasis on EPA enforcement in all
programs. This emphasis is particularly timely in the drinking water
program. In order to achieve an element of consistency in enforcement, the
Office of Drinking Water has prepared two documents which guide EPA's
enforcement activities. These documents, dated July 29, 1984, and August
24, 1984, are included by reference. Region 10 has prepared a Drinking
Water Enforcement Strategy to guide its activities during FY 85, included as
Attachment 1. More detailed descriptions of individual state enforcement
programs are included in the tab sections.
Compliance Summaries
Each contaminant in the drinking water regulations has a maximum
permissiole limit ("maximum contaminant level" or MCL) and a specified
i-ionitoring frequency. In determining a water system's compliance status,
therefore, compliance must be determined individually by contaminant for
both MCL and monitoring requirements. Because of the historical
significance of bacteriological quality, compliance with bacteriological
monitoring and contaminant level requirements is the single most commonly
used indicator of the "safety" of drinking water, and is most commonly used
in national compliance statistics. Bacteriological sampling is also the
most frequently required test, so the amount of data available is greater
for bacteriological quality than for any other parameter, thus assuring
greater statistical significance to the compliance figures. Attachments 2
and 4 display bacteriological compliance rates for community and
non-community water systems. Attachment 3 displays turbidity compliance for
community water systems.
In reviewing Attachments 2, 3, and 4, two points are extremely
important. First, monitoring must be done in order to determine MCL
compliance, and low monitoring compliance exaggerates MCL compliance. (For
example, Alaska bacteriological MCL compliance is listed at 99%. This high
rate is due solely to the low (40%) monitoring compliance rate and does not
accurately reflect water quality.) The second important point is that
non-compliance with monitoring requirements does not mean the water is
-------
unsafe. Monitoring should be viewed more as an activity indicator
demonstrating a water system's participation in the regulatory program than
as a "first line of defense" in identifying unsafe water systems. It should
also be noted that most recent waterborne outbreaks have occurred in water
systems which were in full compliance with bacteriological monitoring and
MCL requirements. (The causative agent, the Giardia cyst, is not detected
by the bacteriological test.) This is not to detract from the importance of
compliance with the bacteriological monitoring and MCL requirements but
rather to put these requirements into perspective and not overstate their
significance in assessing the safety of a state's water systems.
Finally, a couple of definitions are needed for interpreting
Attachments 2-4; 1) Where compliance is identified by a percentage, the
percentage represents the annual average level of compliance determined for
each compliance period (normally a month) during the fiscal year; 2)
"Persistent violators" are defined as being in non-compliance four or more
months during a twelve month period; and 3) Non-community water system MCL
compliance is displayed in terms of systems in non-compliance one or more
months (rather than persistent) due to the paucity of data available for
determining "persistent violators."
-------
Attachment 1
Drinking Water Enforcement Strategy
A. Probl em
Region 10 has excessively high violation rates. However, over 85% of the
bacteria violations are because of non-compllance with monitoring
requirements; therefore, these violations do not necessarily Indicate
that a health risk 1s present. But because of the great reliance on self
monitoring data, improvements 1n monitoring compliance must occur. It 1s
expected that as monitoring compliance improves, previously undetected
maximum contaminant level violations will be noted.
MCL's have been promulgated for commonly-occurring contaminants 1n
drinking water, and are applicable to water systems serving 25 or more
persons. Consumption of water which meets the MCL's is assumed to have
no adverse health effects but water which exceeds MCL's 1s considered to
pose a risk to human health. Properly constructed, operated and
maintained water systems have little trouble in meeting all MCL's.
Compliance with the MCL's is determined almost exclusively from water
system self-monitoring data. Very little sampling by regulatory agency
personnel occurs. This places a high degree of reliance on the self
monitoring data—the monitoring must be conducted if the regulatory
agencies are to have assurance that the MCL's are being met.
Adequate response to MCL violations is essential if health risks are to
be minimized. The compliance Issue in Region 10 1s complicated by the
large number of extremely small (less than 100 persons served) water
systems. Half of the systems 1n Region 10 are in this category.
Nationally, one third of the water systems are 1n this category. This
disproportionate number of extremely small water systems 1n Region 10 is
one reason why the Region's violation rates are higher than the national
average. The extremely small water systems 1n Region 10 account for 60%
of the bacteriological monitoring violations. Water systems serving
100-500 persons account for over 30% of the violations, leaving systems
serving over 500 persons with less than 10% of the violations.
B. Specific Regional Objectives
1. Assure significant compliance improvements 1n FY85
2. Implement more detailed reporting of enforcement actions by end
of first quarter
3. Negotiate compliance strategies with states by end of second
quarter
4. Conduct detailed program evaluation and identify enforcement
candidates by end of third quarter
5. Initiate EPA enforcement, if necessary during fourth quarter.
-------
-2-
C. Drinking Water Enforcement Action Plan
1. Alaska - ADEC has primacy for the drinking water program.
Violation rates are extremely high. Inadequate self monitoring takes
place and response to MCL violations is only marginally adequate.
During FY84, high priority was placed on improving monitoring
compliance. This has brought about a significant increase in
documented MCL violations. EPA must be assured that adequate
response is taken to the MCL violations and that continued
improvements in monitoring compliance occur. A high level of EPA
oversight will continue to be required for program improvements to
occur.
2. Idaho - The Department of Health and Welfare has primacy for the
drinking water program. Monitoring violation rates are high, but
sufficient monitoring and field activity have occurred to enable the
state to identify MCL violations. While continued improvement in
monitoring compliance is needed, the primary emphasis needs to be on
correcting the causes of MCL violations. The state has a weak
enforcement program. Better enforcement procedures need to be
developed in order to strengthen the enforcement program. Half of
the water systems in violation of the regulations serve fewer than
100 persons. Regulatory responsibility for many of these systems has
been delegated to the local health districts. Enforcement programs
must be improved at the local health district level if these smaller
systems are to be impacted.
3. Washington - The Department of Social and Health Services has
primacy for the drinking water program. The state conducts the most
comprehensive program of the primacy states in Region 10. Violation
rates, while high, are lower than the other primacy states. Further
compliance improvements are possible. Two thirds of the water
systems in violation of the regulations serve fewer than 100
persons. State statutes provide little enforcement authority to
DSHS. DSHS may submit legislation to the 1985 legislature to
strengthen its authorities. Less frequent and intense EPA oversight
is required for this program than in either Alaska or Idaho.
4. Oregon - Since Oregon has not assumed primacy, compliance and
enforcement responsibility resides in EPA. Oregon voluntarily
operates elements of a program, including some compliance
activities: In the absence of primacy, EPA's strategy is one of
continuing fair but firm enforcement. This will be accomplished by
identifying and bringing into compliance the water systems which, on
a priority basis, present the most significant threat to public
health. Oregon has a proliferation of small surface sources, with a
resulting high incidence of reporting and bacteriological
violations. Among the smaller non-community systems a major
administrative effort during FY 84 has raised compliance rates from
30 to 58%. This will be continued during FY85, and development of
referral cases added. The Operations Office will continue to
identify community system enforcement candidates and send draft
referral packages to the Regional Office for processing.
-------
-3-
Drlnking Water Enforcement Action Plan
*Event for Tier 1 Tracking
I. Alaska
Activity
Lead
Responsibility
Completion
Date
a. Identify and discuss enforcement
action reporting requirements and
compliance strategy requirements
with ADEC staff
b. Receive draft compliance strategy
from ADEC
c. Provide comments on draft compliance
strategy
d. Receive first detailed enforcement
report from ADEC
e. Award first increment of FY85 grant
funds
*f. Receive final compliance strategy from
ADEC
g. Receive second detailed enforcement
report from ADEC
*h. Conduct detailed program review
including evaluation of program
conformance with compliance strategy
and timeliness and appropriateness
of state enforcement actions
i. Identify candidate water systems
for potential-EPA enforcement action
Opatz
Kreizenbeck
Opatz
Kreizenbeck
Thiel
Kreizenbeck
Kreizenbeck
Opatz
10/2/84
12/15/84
1/15/85
1/15/85
2/1/85
2/15/85
3/15/85
4/30/85
Thiel/
Kreizenbeck
5/31/85
-------
-4-
II. Idaho
Activity
Lead
Responsibility
Completion
Date
a. Identify and discuss enforcement Opatz
action reporting requirements and
compliance strategy requirements with H & W
staff
b. Identify role of 0.5 FTE assigned to Thiel/
100 for drinking water oversight McKee
c. Receive draft compliance strategy from McFall
H & W
d. Receive first detailed enforcement McFall
report from H & W
e. Provide comments on draft compliance McFall/
strategy Opatz
*f. Receive final compliance strategy McFall
from H & W
*g. Conduct detailed program review McFall/
including evaluation of program conformance Opatz
with compliance strategy and timeliness and
enforcement actions
*h. Identify candidate water systems for Thiel/
potential EPA enforcement action McKee
10/2/84
11/I 5/84
11/15/84
12/1 5/84
12/7/84
01/15/85
3/15/85
5/1/85
III. Washington
a. Identify and discuss enforcement
action reporting requirements and
compliance strategy requirements with
DSHS staff
b. Receive first detailed enforcement
report from DSHS
*c. Receive compliance strategy from
DSHS
Opatz
10/2/84
Opatz
Opatz
12/15/84
01 /I 5/85
-------
-5-
III. Washington cont.
Activity
Lead
Responsibility
Completion
Date
d. Provide testimony or supporting
materials, if requested, for proposed
legislation
e. Receive second detailed enforcement
report from DSHS
*f. Conduct detailed program review
including evaluation of program
conformance with compliance strategy
and timeliness and appropriateness
of state enforcement actions
*g. Identify candidate water systems
for potential EPA enforcement action
Thiel
Opatz
Carroll/
Opatz
Ewing/
Thiel
As requested
3/15/85
4/30/85
5/31/85
IV. Oregon
a. Conduct emergency response (000 field
response only for major spills and OSHD-
confirmed disease outbreaks)
*b. Prepare 4 formal enforcement referrals
(e.g., NOV) for MCL violations
c. Support active enforcement cases
*d. Conduct 4 formal enforcement cases
*e. Obtain 2 court settlements
f. Track existing court settlements
Glen Villa - consent decree
Mitchell - summary judgement
London Water Co-op -
consent decree
Midland Water Associaion
Sunny Acres
000
000
000
ORC
ORC
DWPB
DWPB
DWPB/000
DWPB/000
ORC
Ongoing
1st, 2nd,
3rd & 4th
Qtr. FY85
Ongoing
1/Qtr. FY85
2nd Qtr.
FY85
4th Qtr.
FY85
12/84
Ongoing
12/84
Ongoing
Ongoing
-------
-6-
IV. Oregon cont.
Activity
*g. Achieve compliance for 10 persistent
FY84 MCL violators
h. Respond to all community MCL viols.
*i. Maintain reporting levels for
community water systems
*j. Refer 3 persistent community non-
reporters for formal enforcement
k. Conduct compliance activities for
non-community PWSs
*1. Refer 2 persistent non-community
non-compliance cases
m. Manage grants and contracts
County contracts
EOSC grant
Linn-Benton grant
*n. Conduct 5 sampling surveys
Lead
Responsibility
000
000
DWPB
000
DWPB
DWPB
000
000
000
000
Completion
Date
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Qtrs.2-4
FY85
Ongoing
3rd & 4th
Qtrs. FY85
4th Qtr.
FY85
4th Qtr.
FY85
4th Qtr.
FY85
l-2nd Qtr.
FY85
2-3rd Qtr.
FY85
2-4th Qtr.
FY85
o. Conduct inspections & site visits
(excluding surveys)
000
10/Qtr.
-------
Attachment 2
COMMUNITY HATER SYSTEM BACTERIOLOGICAL COMPLIANCE
t
> TOO persons served
ALASKA 288 systems
bbO IWb
410 J?W _£ioo persons served
150 sw 272 systems
>100 persons served
IDAHO 409 systems
oo3cSW ^10° Persons served
08 b 412 systems
>100 persons served
OREGON 553 systems
706 GW <100 persons served
259 SW 412 systems
>100 persons served
WASHINGTON 1156 systems
2205 GW <100 persons served
120 SW 1159 systems
BACTERIC
FY 83
50%
37%
89%
88%
89%
84%
90%
85%
LOGICAL MONITORINC
FY 84
67%
43%
85%
81%
92%
85%
91%
78%
1 COMPLIANCE
FY 84 Persistent
Violators
117 systems
203 systems
75 systems
1 10 systems
31 systems
74 systems
106 systems
281 systems
BACTE
FY 83
99%
99%
96%
98%
96%
96%
98%
98%
RIOLOGICAL MCL CO*
FY 84
99%
99%
95%
96%
97%
97%
98%
97%
IPLIANCE
FY 84 Persistent
Violators
0 systems
0 systems
t
11 systems
1 3 systems
7 systems
8 systems
12 systems
14 systems
CWS = community water systems GW = ground water SW = surface water
-------
Attachment 3
COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM TURBIDITY COMPLIANCE
(Required of Surface Water Systems Only)
>100 persons served
ALASKA 96 systems
560 CMS
41° ^ <100 persons served
150 bw 54 systems
>100 persons served
IDAHO 70 systems
7H ™ < 100 persons served
BtJ bw .18 systems
>100 persons served
OREGON 220 systems
706 GW < 100 persons served
259 sw 39 systems
>100 persons served
WASHINGTON 94 systems
2i2?n su < 10° Persons served
}f" iw 26 systems
TURBID
FY 83
23%
8%
71%
40%
83%
65%
95%
65%
ITY MONITORING CO*
FY 84
16%
10%
66%
45%
88%
71%
91%
67%
PLIANCE
FY 84 Persistent
Violators
85 systems
50 systems
16 systems
17 systems
12 systems
13 systems
6 systems
10 systems
TUR
FY 83
99%
98%
97%
100%
96%
99%
99%
98%
BIDITY MCL COMPLIA
FY 84
99%
100%
95%
100%
96%
97%
95%
97%
NCE
FY 84 Persistent
Violators
2 systems
0 systems
4 systems
0 systems
10 systems
1 system
4 systems
1 system
-------
Attachment 4
I-COW1ITY yAlER SYSTEM BACTERIOLOGICAL COMPLIANCE
'
ALASKA
1011 NCWS
809 GW
202 SW
IDAHO
1378 NCWS
1284 GW
93 SW
OREGON
1963 NCWS
1758 GW
205 SW
WASHINGTON
2156 NCWS
2047 GW
109 SW
BACTERIOLOGICAL MONITORING COMPLIANCE
FY 83
41%
86%
42%
44%
FY 84
39%
83%
57%
44%
BACTERIOLOGICAL MCL COMPLIANCE
(Systems in non-compliance one
or more
FY 83
57
241
95
191
months)
FY 84
50
234
•
99
-
211
NCWS = non-coimunlty water systems GW = ground water SW = surface water
-------
ALASKA
-------
State of Alaska
Drinking Water
Enforcement Program
-------
State Authority
Title 46, Chapter 03, Section 20 of the Alaska Statutes empowers the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to adopt regulations
for the "protection of public water supplies by establishing minimum
drinking water standards, and standards for the construction, improvement,
and maintenance of public water supply systems." ADEC has adopted
regulations as stringent as the National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations and as a result assumed primacy in 1978.
Alaska Statutes contain the most comprehensive enforcement authorities
of any of the Region 10 states. This is probably because their
environmental statutes are the most "modern" of the states—all of Alaska's
being adopted since statehood whereas many other states' statutes were in
place since the 1940s or earlier when enforcement was not a major part of
any state program.
Despite strong enforcement powers, enforcement has received little
emphasis in the past in the drinking water program. ADEC has attempted to
work cooperatively with water systems, in achieving compliance with state
regulations, but since the state's non-compliance rates are exceedingly
high, EPA has been encouraging the state to place more emphasis on
enforcement. Enforcement activities took an upturn in FY 84 but seem to be
declining (or at least not further increasing) in FY 85. Alaska's
enforcement program is described below.
Compliance Strategy Development
ADEC has recently prepared an enforcement/compliance strategy
(Attachment A) which establishes compliance targets, prioritizes types of
violations and identifies enforcement actions to be taken for the various
types of violations.
The compliance targets for FY 85 have been set by ADEC as follows:
Bacteriological Monitoring 90%
Community Water Systems --100 population
Bacteriological Monitoring 40-60%
Non-community Water Systems—Food Service Facilities
Bacteriological Monitoring 90%
Non-community Water Systems—Schools
Bacteriological Monitoring 90%
Non-community Water Systems—Campgrounds
No targets have been established for MCL compliance, but commitments to
specific state follow-up actions have been made. By following the
procedures in"the enforcement/compliance strategy, persistent violations
should be eliminated and timely and appropriate enforcement actions should
be assured.
-------
Current Compliance with National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Alaska had 560 community water systems in FY 84. Of these, 410 were
served by ground water and 150 by surface water. FY 84 bacteriological
monitoring and MCL compliance rates for these systems are shown below.
Bacteriological Bacteriological
Population Monitoring Persistent MCL Persistent
Served Compliance Violators Compliance Violators
100 (272 systems) 43% 203 99% 0
100 (288 systems) 67% 117 99% 0
No turbidity data are presented here. The monitoring compliance rates are
so low that no meaningful quantitative significance can be derived from the
rates. Also, it should be noted that although no persistent bacteriological
MCL violations are shown above, this is due to the little monitoring taking
place, rather than being an accurate reflection of water quality.
Significant Non-compliers and Follow-up Actions
Because there is limited monitoring being conducted, it is difficult to
use the monitoring data to identify significant bacteriological MCL
violators. In order to illustrate state response to significant
non-compliers, sixteen water systems which were in bacteriological monitoring
compliance in the first quarter of FY 84. but were in non-compliance the first
quarter of FY 85 are tabulated in Attachment B.
The information tabulated in Attachment B indicates that fairly timely
informal enforcement actions have taken place. In a few instances, more
timely actions and/or the next level of enforcement action may have been
appropriate; implementation of the enforcement/compliance strategy should
assure more consistent enforcement in the future.
ADEC has two extremely effective enforcement tools available for
compelling compliance with monitoring requirements. These are the "Uniform
Summons" and the "Criminal Complaint." Penalties have been levied in certain
situations as a result of initiating these criminal misdemeanor actions, thus
eliminating any economic savings from a water system's failure to monitor.
Uniform Summons and Criminal Complaints filed to date are shown in
Attachment C.
For MCL violations which cannot be resolved in a matter of a few weeks,
formal Compliance Orders are available as an enforcement tool. The Orders are
established by statute (A.S. 46.03.850) and are directly enforceable by the
Attorney General. ADEC, however, has yet to issue a Compliance Order for
drinking water concerns. At the urging of EPA, ADEC considered a Compliance
Order for the Ketchikan system, site of a recent Giardiasis outbreak. ADEC
has decided, however, to issue a "Consent Agreement", since Ketchikan is
cooperating with the state and the City felt that a Compliance Order would
increase the likelihood of claims against the City as a result of the outbreak.
-------
Summary and Future Direction
Relatively poor compliance rates and lack of appreciable numbers of
enforcement actions characterize ADEC's drinking water program. Compliance
improvements initiated in FY 84 appear to be stalled and compliance may in
fact be declining in FY 85, despite the availability of effective and
relatively easy-to-use enforcement tools.
Compliance/enforcement activities appear to take place largely'in response
to EPA-applied pressure, rather than through consistent program direction by
state management. Implementation of the enforcement/compliance strategy.
which has the support of senior management, should improve the situation.
Performance based grants have their greatest applicability in Alaska; grant
payments will need to continue to be tied specifically to
enforcement/compliance activities.
Full compliance with national drinking water regulations will be
impossible to achieve in many of the small, remote Alaska water systems.
Compliance rates in Alaska will, therefore, continue to lag well behind
national averages. State and EPA enforcement emphasis should continue to be
placed on those non-remote water systems which have no greater institutional,
technical, or economic reasons for their failure to comply than water systems
in any other part of the country. EPA overfiling will probably be initiated
in late FY 85—early FY 86, if the state fails to follow its
compliance/enforcement strategy.
-------
MEMORANDUM
Attachment A
State of Alaska
TO.
FROM-
Environmental Quality Staff
Regional Environmental Supervisors
District Office Managers
Keith Kelton
Di rector
ivision of Environmental Quality
DATE April 10, 1985
FILE NO.
TELEPHONE NO
SUBJECT
465-2640
Drinking Water Enforcement
Compliance Strategy
Document
The attached final version of the Drinking Water Compliance Strategy Document
has been developed with your input to aid in executing enforcement of drinking
water monitoring and MCL violations. As you will note, our highest priority
continues to be non-compliance with bacteriological MCL and monitoring
standards. Adhering to the procedures contained in this document will enable
us to meet the stated goals and our work plan commitments to EPA.
Please implement the procedures outlined in this document immediately. It is
anticipated that only minor changes will be requested after a review by EPA.
It is my desire that FY 85 work plan objectives be met by June 30, 1985 as
you have committed. If you anticipate difficulty meeting these objectives,
please notify Dick Farnell immediately and provide justification for the
deviations expected.
The five-year goals stated in the document are contingent upon receipt of the
resources necessary to perform the required work. If inadequate resources
are available, work will be prioritized in the order presented in the Strategy
document. It is expected that revised annual compliance targets will be
developed based upon budgeted resources.
Your cooperation in implementing the procedures in the attached document will
be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you anticipate problems in
completing the tasks identified or the target levels planned.
KK/DF/bb
Attachment
02-001A(Rev 10/791
-------
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Drinking Water Program
Enforcement Compliance Strategy
FY 1985 - 1990
Introduction - This strategy provides for a uniform framework for directing
actions by field staff responding to occurrences of non-compliance with state
monitoring and contaminant standards for bacteriological, inorganic, and
turbidity parameters. This document is for internal use as-a working guidance
for defining program compliance goals and issuance of enforcement actions.
The areas covered by the strategy include: Page
A) Five-year Statewide Compliance Goals 1
B) Definition of Terms 2
C) Priority of Actions Taken 3
D) Yearly Targets for Monitoring Compliance to 1990 3
E) Actions to be Taken for MCL Violations 10
F) Enforcement Sequence for Monitoring Violations 14
G) Identifying Systems With Serious Deficiencies 23
H) Reporting of Data and Follow-up Actions 24
A) Five-year Statewide Compliance Goals
The goals listed below represent optimim achievements, and cannot be expected
to be met without concomitant resources. As listed, the goals for bacteriolo-
gical monitoring and MCL violations are the Department's highest priority.
Resources will be devoted to obtaining bacteriological goals first if the ability
to proceed with all targeted goals at a uniform rate are not available.
1) Monitoring Goals
a) Bacteriological - Class A - Attain and maintain an overall statewide
monthly monitoring compliance rate of 90% for the Class A systems
with access to a certified lab, taking actions as outlined in this
strategy for targeted systems not in monitoring compliance.
Class B - Attain and maintain an overall statewide monthly monitor-
ing compliance rate of 75% for the Class B systems with access to
a certified lab, taking actions as outlined in the strategy for
targeted systems not in monitoring compliance.
b) Turbidity - Attain and maintain an overall statewide monthly moni-
toring compliance rate of 75% for the Class A systems, taking
actions as outlined in this strategy for targeted systems not in
monitoring compliance.
c) Inorganic chemicals - Attain and maintain an overall statewide
annual compliance rate of 80% for the Class A systems, taking
actions as outlined in this strategy for targeted systems not in
monitoring compliance.
2) MCL Goals (Maximum Contaminant Levels)
a) Bacteriological
1) Reduce to zero the annual percentage of Class A systems that
have a bacteriological MCL violation (defined by regulations)
occurring more than four times in an 18-month period (persistent
violator).
-1-
-------
2) Reduce to 10% the annual percentage of Class B systems that
have an MCL violation (defined by regulations) reoccur more
than four times in an 18-month period (persistent violator).
b) Turbidity
Reduce to 10% the number of Class A surface water systems
which violate the turbidity MCL standard as stated in current
regulations for more than one month per year.
c) Inorganic Chemical
Reduce to 3% the number of Class A and B systems violating the
inorganic MCL standards.
B) Definition of Terms
1) Positive Routine Bacteriological Sample - a bacteriological sample
containing more than one coliform colony per 100 ml, or more than one
positive tube per 5 - 10 ml portions tested.
2) Bacteriological MCL Violation - as defined in Sec. 18 AAC 80.050(c),
i.e. occurs when either of two check samples, taken after a violating
routine sample, are positive.
3) Routine Turbidity MCL Violation - as defined in 18 AAC 80.050(e).
4) Routine Chemical MCL Violation - as defined in 18 AAC 80.050(d).
5) Routine Bacteriological Monitoring Violation - occurs when a system
fails to comply with the provisions of 18 AAC 80.060 (a-c) for any given
month (systems with quarterly sampling waivers have a calendar
quarter designated as their compliance period).
6) Routine Turbidity Monitoring Violation - occurs when a system fails
to comply with the provisions of 18 AAC 80.060(a) for any given month.
7) Routine Inorganic Chemical Monitoring Violation - occurs when a
system fails to comply with the provisions of 18 AAC 80.060(a) for
the appropriate compliance period.
8) Persistent Violators -
a) Monitoring
i) Bacteriological and.Turbidity - any targeted system not
monitoring for four or more months in a 12-month period,
(these do not have to be consecutive months). [Consideration
shouhJ be given for seasonally operating systems whose
persistent non-compliance history extends into a second
12-month period - see Section F.I)]
ii) Inorganic - any targeted system not sampling for inorganic
contaminants [18 AAC 80.060(a)] for a period of four or more
months following the due date of required sampling.
-2-
-------
b) MCL (bacteriological) - Any Class A, B, or C system which produces
more than one MCL violation in an 18-month period, or which produces
more than four positive routine samples in an 18-month period regardless
of the results of check samples.
c) MCL (turbidity) - A Class A system which violates the turbidity MCL
for four or months per year (does not have to be four or more consec-
utive months).
C) Priority of Actions Taken
The priority given by field staff to the various categories of compliance is
stated in general terms in the annual Department work plan. Within this general
framework, if limited resources dictate that the importance of compliance
tasks be ranked, the following priority should be used:
1. Follow-up to persistent bacteriological MCL violations
2. Follow up to routine bacteriological MCL violations and primary
chemical MCL violations
3. Follow up actions associated with systems identified with serious
deficiencies (section G)
4. Follow-up to persistent bacteriological monitoring violations for
targeted systems
5. Follow-up to persistent turbidity MCL violations for targeted
systems
6. Follow-up to persistent inorganic monitoring violations for
targeted systems
7. Follow-up to persistent turbidity monitoring violations for
targeted systems
8. Follow-up to routine bacteriological monitoring violations for targeted
systems [less than 4 months in non-compliance for 12-month period]
9. Follow-up to routine inorganic monitoring violations for targeted
systems [less than 4 months in non-compliance]
10. Follow-up to routine turbidity monitoring violations for targeted
systems [less than 4 months in non-compliance per 12-month period]
D) Yearly Targets for Monitoring Compliance to 1990 (Monitoring Compliance Objectives)
FY 85
BACTERIOLOGICAL
1) Class A systems serving greater Maintain the 90% statewide monthly
than 100 with lab access monitoring compliance rate for the
enti re year
2) Class A systems serving less Region 1 - Juneau Dist. - Have 4 systems
than 100 with lab access in compliance by 6-30-85
Sitka District - Have 4 systems
in compliance by 6/30/85
Ketchikan District - Have 4
systems in compliance by 6/30/85
-3-
-------
3) Class B food service
with lab access
4) Class B schools
with lab access
5) Class B Campgrounds
with lab access
TURBIDITY
Class A systems with filtration
equipment serving greater than 500
Region 2 - Anch/West - Have 17 systems
in compliance by 6/30/85
MatSu - Have 4 systems in
compliance by 6/30/85
Kenai - Have 2 systems in
compliance by 6/30/85
Valdez - Have 2 systems in
compliance by 6/30/85
Region 3 - Have 29 of the 36 systems
in this category in compliance
by 6/30/85
Region 1 - Attain a 60% monthly
compliance rate by
6/30/85
Region 2 - Attain a 40% monthly
compliance rate by
6/30/85
Region 3 - Attain a 40% monthly
compliance rate by
6/30/85
Region 1 - No targets
Region 2 - Attain a 90% monthly
monitoring compliance
rate by 6/30/85
Region 3 - Attain a 100% monthly
monitoring compliance
rate by 6/30/85
Region 1 - No targets
Region 2 - Attain a 90% monthly
monitoring compliance
rate by 6/30/85
Region 3 - Attain a 100% monthly
monitoring compliance
rate by 6/30/85
All regions - all systems in
monitoring compliance by 6/30/85
-4-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS
Class A systems serving greater All regions - 90% of the systems
than 500 in monitoring compliance by
6/30/85
FY 86
BACTERIOLOGICAL - ALL REGIONS
Class A >100 with lab access - Maintain a 90% monthly monitoring compliance
rate
Class A <100 with lab access - Attain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
rate by 6/30/85
Class B food service w/lab - Attain a 50% monthly monitoring compliance
access by 6/30/86
Class B schools with lab - Attain a 90% monthly monitoring compliance
access by 6/30/86
Class B campgrounds with - Attain a 90% monthly monitoring compliance
lab access rate by 6/30/86
TURBIDITY - ALL REGIONS
All Class A with filtration - Attain a 60% monthly monitoring compliance
equipment rate by 6/30/86
Class A without filtration - Attain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
equipment serving >1000 rate by 6/30/86
INORGANIC CHEMICALS - ALL REGIONS
Class A >200 - Attain a 90% annual monitoring compliance
rate as of 6/30/86
PERSISTENT VIOLATORS - ALL - Adhere to enforcement sequence guidelines
REGIONS for persistent violators in all targeted
categories
FY 87
BACTERIOLOGICAL- - ALL REGIONS
All Class A with lab access - Attain a 90% monthly monitoring compliance
rate by 6/30/87
Class B food service with - Attain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
lab access rate by 6/30/87
-5-
-------
Class B schools with lab
access
Class B campgrounds with
lab access
All Remaining Categories of
Class B systems with lab
access
TURBIDITY - ALL REGIONS
All Class A with filtration
equipment
Class A without filtration
equipment >500
Maintain a 90% monthly monitoring compliance
rate
Maintain a 90% monthly monitoring compliance
rate
Attain a 25% monthly monitoring compliance
rate by 6/30/87
Attain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
rate
Attain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
rate by 6/30/87
INORGANIC CHEMICALS
All Class A
PERSISTENT VIOLATORS - ALL REGIONS
- Attain a 90% annual monitoring compliance
rate by 6/30/87
Adhere to enforcement sequence guidelines
for persistent violators in all targeted
categories
FY 88
BACTERIOLOGICAL - ALL REGIONS
All Class A with lab access - Maintain a 90 monthly monitoring compliance
rate
Class B food service,
with lab access
- Maintain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
rate
Class B schools with lab access - Maintain a 90% monthly monitoring compliance
rate
Class B campgrounds with lab - Maintain a 90% monthly monitoring compliance
access rate
All remaining categories of - Attain a 40% monthly monitoring compliance
Class B systems with lab access rate by 6/30/88
TURBIDITY - ALL REGIONS
All Class A with filtration - Maintain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
equipment rate
Class A without filtration - Attain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
equipment >200 rate by 6/30/88
-6-
-------
INORGANIC CHEMICALS - ALL REGIONS
All Class A - Maintain a 90% annual monitoring compliance
rate
PERSISTENT VIOLATORS - ALL REGIONS
- Adhere to enforcement sequence guidelines
for persistent violators in all targeted
categories
FY 89
BACTERIOLOGICAL - ALL REGIONS
All Class A with lab access - Maintain a 90% monthly monitoring compliance
rate
Class B food service with lab - Maintain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
access rate
Class B schools with lab access - Maintain a 90% monthly monitoring compliance
rate
Class B campgrounds with lab - Maintain a 90% monthly monitoring compliance
access rate
All remaining categories of - Attain a 60% monthly monitoring compliance
Class B systems with lab rate
access
TURBIDITY ALL REGIONS
All Class A with, filtration - Maintain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
equipment rate
Class A without filtration - Attain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
equipment serving >100 rate by 6/30/89
INORGANIC CHEMICALS - ALL REGIONS
All Class A - Maintain a 90% annual monitoring compliance
rate
PERSISTENT VIOLATORS - ALL REGIONS
- Adhere to enforcement sequence guidelines
for persistent violators in all targeted
categories
-7-
-------
FY 90
BACTERIOLOGICAL - ALL REGIONS
All Class A with lab access
Class B food service with lab
access
Class B schools with lab access -
Class B campgrounds with lab
access
All remaining categories of
Class B systems with lab access
TURBIDITY - ALL REGIONS
All Class A with filtration
equipment
All Class A without filtration
equipment
Maintain a 90% monthly monitoring compliance
rate
Maintain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
rate
Maintain a 90% monthly monitoring compliance
rate
Maintain a 90% monthly monitoring compliance
rate
Attain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
rate by 6/30/90
Maintain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
rate
Attain a 75% monthly monitoring compliance
rate by 6/30/90
INORGANIC CHEMICALS - ALL
All Class A
- Maintain a 90% annual monitoring compliance
rate
PERSISTENT VIOLATORS - ALL REGIONS
- Adhere to enforcement sequence guidelines
for persistent violators in all targeted
categories
Notes 1) While the above targets serve as annual monitoring compliance goals,
it is recognized that the Department must in some cases rely on court
action to achieve compliance by water systems. Therefore, Department
staff will be obligated to attaining these goals to the extent that
systems within a target group should either be in compliance by the
target date or be actively pursued under the enforcement sequence
described in Section F.
2) The increasing effort needed to cover the increasing scope described
by the annual targets set in this section will require increasing
financial and manpower resources as the years progress. In the event
of static or declining resources from FY 85 funding levels, the
program's ability to address the increasing compliance levels called
for in this section will decrease. Therefore, the monitoring compliance
target levels will be adjusted annually, based on funding available
to the program for that year.
-8-
-------
3) Formula for Calculating Monitoring Compliance Percentage
a) Bacteriological Monitoring Compliance Rate
i) Bacteriological A-C
Monitoring = A X 100 = %
Compliance
Percentage
(calculated for
each of the
first two months
of calendar
quarter)
ii) Bacteriological (A+B)-(C+D)
Compliance = A + B X 100 = %
Percentage
(calculated for
the third month
of calendar quarter)
A = Number of targeted water systems with lab access in operation
during the compliance period that are on a monthly compliance
schedule
B = Number of targeted water systems with lab access in operation
during the compliance period that are on a quarterly compli-
ance schedule
C = Number of targeted water systems with lab access in operation
during the compliance period that are on a monthly compliance
schedule that are in non-compliance with the provisions of 18
AAC 80.060(a) (failure to submit the correct number of viable
samples for testing).
D = Number of targeted water systems with lab access in operal .on
during the compliance period that are on a quarterly compli-
ance schedule that are in non-cornpl iance with the provisions
of 18 AAC 80.060(a) (failure to submit the correct number
of viable samples for testing).
Quantity A should be calculated from the data system's
PWS0210 report, remembering to exclude systems that do not
have lab access, that are non-targeted, that are not in
operation, and that have a quarterly waiver.
Quantity B should be calculated from the data system's
PWS0210 report, remembering to exclude systems that do not
have lab access, that are non-targeted, and that are not in
operation.
Quantity C should be calculated from the data system's
PWS0215 report, remembering to exclude systems that do not
have lab access, that are non-targeted, that are not in
operation, and that have a quarterly waiver.
Quantity D should be calculated from the data system's
PWS0215 report, remembering to exclude systems that do not
have lab access, that are non-targeted, and that are not in
operation.
-9-
-------
Systems with a monthly compliance period with seasonal operation
which end their period of operation on a day other than the end
of the month will have the 31-day minimum sampling frequency
requirement apply; i.e. a system would not be required to submit
samples for a given month unless it was in operation for the
entire calendar month. The same interpretation would apply to
systems with a quarterly compliance period, i.e. they would not
be required to submit a sample in a calendar quarter unless
they were in operation for the entire calendar quarter (except-
ions will be made for systems which operate for only two months
out of the year).
b) Turbidity Monitoring Compliance Rate - obtained monthly by divid-
ing the number of targeted systems in monitoring compliance
(more than 20 days of analysis reported per calendar month) by
the total number of targeted systems in operation, multiplied
by 100, expressed as a percentage.
c) Inorganic Chemical Monitoring Compliance Rate - obtained annually
by dividing the number of targeted systems in monitoring compli-
ance by June 30 of the year in question 'by the total number of
targeted systems [compliance determined by conformance with
provisions of 18 AAC 80.060(a)], multiplied by 100, expressed
.as a percentage.
E) Actions to be Taken for MCL Violations
1) Follow-up to Positive Bacteriological Samples
The actions outlined in Figure 1 will be followed when responding
to positive bacteriological samples; the appropriate path of action
being determined by responses to each sequence of events. All follow-up
actions taken, including enforcement actions, must be well documented
and transmitted to the regional office on a monthly basis (or more
frequently if needed).
Special Note: A positive routine sample followed by two negative check
samples doesn't necessarily mean that no bacteriological threat to the
system exists. The follow-up sequence provides for a mandatory site
visit in cases where such a situation occurs greater than four times
in an 18-month period(persistent violator).
-10-
-------
FIGURE 1
BACTERIOLOGICAL MCL VIOLATION FOLLOW-UP ACTION
[Test Results Exceed Standard in 18 AAC 80.050.(a)(5)J
I
2 Check Samples Requested
Review testing history; verbal inquiry with owner/operator re: system status
Both initial check samples negative
I
Persistent Violator?
I '
No
I
No further action
unless verbal inquiry
determines site visit
or other action neces-
sary. Case closed.
Either of first two check samples positive
(MCL Violation)
I
Persistent Violator?
Yes
j
Site visit mandatory.
If problems noted
If no problems noted,
consider requiring
additional treatment.
Yes
No
Mandatof
_ „ _ _ _ __ _ _. _ _ _ "s
-y site visit
Site visit or
detailed verbal
fol low-up
>
Deficiencies Noted?
Yes
No
Remedial action
requested with suspense date.
incl. addit. bacti testing;
consumers notified of problem
2 addit. chk samples requested
I
Both samples negative
Suspense date met
No
Yes
Case closed
No
Mandatory site visit
(if not already conducted).
Mandatory boil or haul
water. Consider requiring
treatment, with compliance
order.
Yes
Case
closed
Compliance Order Issued
I
C.O. suspense date met
No. Refer to
DA/AG
Yes
Case Closed. (Consider
requiring increased testing).
-11-
-------
2) Follow-up to Persistent Turbidity MCL Violation for Targeted Systems
a) System is identified as a Persistent Turbidity MCL Violator (See
Section B)
i. Within one month following identification: provide technical
assistance; offer the Department's operator training program
resources; inform (in writing) the system owners of the Depart-
ment's desire for remedial action.
ii. MCL violation continues for another 4 months without action
by water system: Issue a Compliance Order; consumers are
notified of problem.
iii. If terms and milestones of Compliance Order are violated, refer
situation to DA/AG.
3) Follow-up to Chemical MCL Violation
The follow-up actions listed in Figure 2 will be taken by Department
staff.
Health risk assessments should use the following criteria:
i. Inorganic chemicals (18 AAC 80.050) -
- primary contaminants: the MCL values listed will be used as
the standard in evaluating health effects, i.e. values
exceeding the MCL should be considered hazardous, and remedial
action initiated.
- secondary contaminants: direction provided by the regulations
[18 AAC 80.050(b)].
-- other inorganic compounds: use data from Drinking Water and
Health references, plus State Epidemiologist.
ii. Organic chemicals
- contaminants listed in 18 AAC 80.050(a)(2): the MCL values
listed will be used as the standard in evaluating health
effects, i.e. values exceeding the MCL should be considered
hazardous, and remedial action initiated.
- other organic contaminants: use existing health effects data
in assessing risk of contaminants; take remedial action to
provide a level of the contaminant in drinking water that
will pose a cancer risk not to exceed 1 in 100,000 population
(contact regional or central office program managers for this
information).
-12-
-------
FIGURE 2
FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS TO CHEMICAL MCL VIOLATIONS
Routine or State-collected Sample Violates Standard
A minimum of two check samples are taken within 60 days of routine
Data from routine and check samples is evaluated;
health risk assessment made
Low or no risk; no
further action
Unacceptable risk present:
implement short term remedial measures
if available; haul water if appropriate;
system notifies consumers of problem;
compliance order issued to provide for
long term solution
Milestone of compliance order
violated
Refer to DA/AG
-13-
-------
F) Enforcement Sequence for Monitoring Violations
1) Bacteriological Monitoring Violations -
Department field staff will follow the enforcement sequence outlined in
Figure 3 to bring targeted systems (see Section 0) into monitoring
compliance. The action shown should be followed when a water system
either fails to provide for any monthly testing as required by 18 AAC
80.060(a-d), or fails to provide for the full number of monthly
bacteriological tests. Note that violators can fall into one of two
categories:
a) The Intermittent Violator, who samples sporadically, usually (but
not necessarily) in response to notification by the Department. This
violator could be judged as having made some attempt to sample in
accordance with regulations, but for one reason or another, fails to
establish a history of consistent monitoring compliance.
b) The Consecutive Violator, who consistently violates monitoring regu-
lations month after month, despite an increase in the number and
severity of warnings from the Department. By assignment of a water
system to this category the Department is recognizing that the
owner/operator is expressing little or no interest for the safety
of the water system as evidenced by their repeated failure to mon-
itor, despite issuance of multiple warnings. When building an
enforcement case for this category of violator, field staff may want
to provide additional objective reasons for pursuing a given course
of enforcement action, such as: owner/operator communicated a direct
refusal to sample; system deficiencies noted by field staff (and
not corrected when requested).
The enforcement sequence generally applies to a sequence of violations
occurring within a 12-month period. However if reoccurrence of viola-
tions persists beyond the 12-month period by systems in year-round
operation despite implementation of the actions shown, the previous
year's sampling history should be considered when choosing appropriate
enforcement action.
By the same token, if the system has been in monitoring compliance for
a 12-month period following previous enforcement action, the enforcement
sequence should be started at step one for new violations occurring 12
months or more after compliance has been re-established.
Unless granted a waiver for quarterly sampling as described below,
all systems required to sample will be judged on the basis of a monthly
compliance period.
Water systems that have been placed on a quarterly compliance period
by the Department in accordance with the provisions of 18 AAC
80.060(a), Tables C and D, shall have their compliance with sampling
requirements judged on the basis of a calendar quarter. Systems placed
on a quarterly compliance period (quarterly waiver) which fail to sample
during the quarter should be placed in the same enforcement sequence
as monthly noncompliers. In this instance, the reference to 'months'
in Figure 3 should be substituted with 'quarter'. In addition, the
-14-
-------
system should have its quarterly sampling privelege rescinded should
it fail to sample during the next quarter following the initial
quarter in violation in the enforcement sequence (if it has responded
to Department reminder action during previous Department attempts to
obtain compliance). If no response (sample taken) to a reminder letter
is obtained during the quarter following the quarter in non-compliance,
the quarterly waiver privilege should be rescinded.
The enforcement sequence in Figure 3 generally refers to actions
concerning systems with year-round operation. It would also apply
to systems with seasonal operations, but consideration should be given
to long periods when a system is temporarily not in operation. An
appropriate response to monitoring non-compliance in a following year
may be to again remind the system of monitoring responsibilities before
initiating legal action steps.
Regarding monitoring non-compliance by Class B food service systems,
Regional and District Supervisors should request that Environmental
Health sanitarians continue the practice of written notification of
non-compliance and annotating monitoring non-compliance in monthly
news articles on rating scores, in accordance with Environmental Health
division memo of February 20, 1985 (Attachment 3). Sanitarians should
also be requested to delete five points from food service ratings for
those establishments with their own public water systems who have had
an initial warning of monitoring non-compliance but which have continued
to violate monitoring regulations, in accordance with Environmental
Health division policy.
There will always be some cases where another course of action may be
deemed more appropriate by field staff in order to attain compliance
by the system. Some of these instances may be:
a) system ownership or operation is new, or has recently changed hands,
anH new owners/operators have just learned of their responsibilities
fc compliance.
b) due to oversight by the owner/operator, a sample was not taken
during a particular month, but was taken within the first few
days of the following month (with further sampling required during
the following month also being accomplished).
c) A water sample was taken, but was received by the lab more than
48 hours after time of collection (and resampling is attempted by
the system).
d) A boil water order was issued to the system by the Department,
and further monitoring during this period would only produce
^information which is already known (i.e. the system is contaminated).
The Department may consider not enforcing bacteriological monitoring
requirements during this period.
These and other extenuating circumstances may be considered by
field staff prior to issuing the appropriate enforcement action
called for in the enforcement strategy. However, any extenuating
circumstances considered when deviating from stated enforcement
strategy should be well documented, so that the basis for the
alternate action can be reviewed by regional or central office
staff.
-15-
-------
It is recognized that some offices may not receive updated monitoring
data in time to complete a monitoring review by the end of the month
following the month being examined, and would have to carry this function
over into the next month.
Due to enforcement manpower constraints in regional or district offices
it may be appropriate to interchange the actions described in Figure 3
for months 2 and 3 for intermittent violators. Thus a phone call during
the second stage of enforcement action may be substituted for a warning
letter. If this substitution is made, a warning letter should then be
sent during the third stage of enforcement action, instead of a phone
call. Note that the enforcement sequence for a consecutive violator
requires that both a warning letter and a phone call be issued during
the second stage in the enforcement sequence.
-16-
-------
FIGURE 3
Enforcement Sequence for Bacteriological Monitoring Violations for Targeted Systems
A) Intermittent Violator (sporadic testing) -
/First /System /
/month in /contacted /
/violation /via written
/ /or verbal /
/ /notice / /
/Second /Warning / / Third / Phone /
/month in / letter/ / / month in / Call/ /
/violation / Phone
/ / Call
(Month
following first
month in violation)
Becomes Persistent
Violator
/ Fourth
(Month
following second
month in violation)
/ /violation /Warning /
/ / / letter /
(Month
following third
month in violation)
/
_
NOV and ~
/
/ month in / News Ad
/violation / /
_
(Month
following fourth
month in violation)
/Fmfi / Legal J
/month in / action /
/violation / /
(Month
following fifth
month in violation)
Further reoccurrence
of the violation in
the 12-month period:
start at the Third
month step.
B) Consecutive Violator (No response to any enforcement action) -
/ First / System /Second /Warning /Third / NOV _
/ month in / contacted /month in /letter /month in / News Ad /
/violation /via written/violation / and /violation / /-
/ /or verbal / / Phone III
I I notice / / Call III
(Month
following first
month in violation)
(Month
following second
month in violation)
(Month
following third
month in violation)
Becomes Persistent
_Violator
/Fourth
/month in
>/violation
/ Legal
/ Action
_
(Month
following fourth
month in violation)
Further reoccurrence of
the violation in the
12-month period: start
at the Third month step.
-17-
-------
c) Definitions
i) Targeted System
A water system belonging to a group of water systems designated by the
Department as one which will receive emphasis for monitoring surveillance,
as set forth in Section D (with constraints as noted for program funding).
ii) Intermittent Violator
A water system which exhibits sporadic monitoring compliance interspersed
with periods of monitoring non-compliance.
iii) Consecutive Violator
A water system which continues to be in monitoring non-compliance month
after month despite reminders and warnings issued by the Department.
iv) Contact via Written or Verbal Notice
A notice given by the Department to a water system owner or operator
informing them of past monitoring violations, and of the requirement to
sample. Such a notice could be (but is not limited to) a phone call,
verbal discussion, notice on inspection form, post card, or reminder
letter.
v) Reminder Letter (Ltr 1)
A letter sent by regular mail to a water system owner describing the failure
of the system to monitor for total coliform for a given period, and the need
for the system to comply with monitoring requirements in the future.
vi) Warning letter (Ltr 2)
A letter sent to a water system owner stating the months during which
the system has failed to monitor for total coliform; the fact that an
earlier letter, written notice, or verbal reminder had been sent stating
the need to monitor; the importance of monitoring; and the future actions
the Department will take if monitoring non-compliance continues (issue
an NOV, publish the name of the system and the nature of the problem in
a newspaper display ad, pursue legal action). Use of Certified Mail,
return receipt requested, is recommended if resources permit.
vii) Phone call - a telephone call to an individual responsible for the management
of the water system, describing the need for continuous monthly monitoring,
and of the Department's intentions if regular monitoring does not occur.
viii) NOV - formal notice of violation (legal document), sent by certified mail,
return receipt requested; can be personally served by DEC or Troopers.
ix) Newspaper display ad - self explanatory. Water system must have been
notified reasonably well in advance of Department intent to publish ad, and
be asked to respond if they have information which indicates they have not
been in violation.
-18-
-------
x) Legal Action - The nature of this action can vary according to the
situation; such factors as public or private ownership, severity of the
offense, second-time offender, etc. would have a bearing on which path of
action, whether criminal or civil, would be pursued. Field staff should
consult with the Department of Law representative who w-ill be representing
the case to determine the most approriate action. The following is
presented as a suggested guideline for actions:
Privately Owned Systems
- Issue a dismissible Uniform Summons for first offenders, dismissing
charges if sampling begins during a specified period.
- a non-dismissible Uniform Summons or Criminal Complaint would be issued
for repeat court-referral cases.
Publically Owned Systems - seek opinion from Department of Law
representative
2) Turbidity Monitoring Violations
Department field staff will follow the enforcement sequence outlined in
Figure 4 to bring targeted systems (see Section D) into monitoring compli-
ance. The categories of intermittent and continuous violators, as well as
the definitions for various enforcement actions and the sequences for the
actions, are the same as described for bacteriological monitoring compliance.
See the bacti-monitoring compliance section for a further description of
considerations.
Note that the final stage in the enforcement sequence for continuous violators
includes an option to issue a compliance order. This was included because
it was perceived that one of the reasons a system mey be in continual
turbidity monitoring non-compliance is because they iave failed to acquire a
turbidimeter. A compliance order may be appropriate action to take in such
a case.
-19-
-------
FIGURE 4
Enforcement Sequence for Turbidity Monitoring Violations for Targeted Systems
A) Intermittent Violator (sporadic testing) -
/First
/System / /Second /Warning / / Third / Phone /
/month in /contacted / /month in / letter/ /
/violation /via written
/ /or verbal /
/ /notice /
(Month
following first
month in violation)
Becomes Persistent
Violator
/^Fourth
/violation / Phone
/ / Call
(Month
following second
month in violation)
/
/
/
_
NOV and ~7
/
I month in / News Ad
/violation / /
_
(Month
following fourth
month in violation)
/Fifth / Legal /
/month in / Action /
/violation / /
_
(Month
following fifth
month in violation)
/ month in / Call/ /
/violation / Warning /
t I letter /
/ , /
(Month
following thi rd
month in violation)
Further reoccurrence
of the violation in
the 12-month period:
start at the Third
month step.
B) Consecutive Violator (No response to any enforcement action) -
/First /Reminder /Second /Warning /Third / NQV and /
/month in /letter /month in /letter /month in / News Ad /
/violation / w/tech /violation / and /violation / /--
/ /literature/ / Phone III
I /and forms / / Call / / /
(Month
following first
month in violation)
(Month
following second
month in violation)
(Month
following third
month in violation)
Becpmes Persistent
Violator
/Fourth /Legal /
/month in / Action; /
->/violation /Compliance/
/ / Order /
(Month
following fourth
month in violation)
Further reoccurrence of
the violation in the
12-month period: start
at the Third month step.
-20-
-------
3) Inorganic Monitoring Violations
Department field staff will follow the enforcement sequence outlined in
Figure 5 to bring targeted systems (see Section D) into monitoring compliance.
Note that there is no intermittent violator category for inorganic monitoring.
The definitions of various enforcement actions are the same as described
for bacteriological monitoring compliance.
-21-
-------
FIGURE 5
Enforcement Sequence for Inorganic Chemical Monitoring Violations for Targeted Systems
Consecutive Violator (No response to any enforcement action) -
/First /System /Second /Warning /Third / NOV and /
/month in /contacted /month in /letter /month in / News Ad /
/violation /via /violation / and /violation / /—
/past anni-/written or/ /phone call/ / /
/ versary /verbal I I I I I
I date /notice I I I I I
(Month
following first
month in violation)
(Month
following second
month in violation)
(Month
following third
month in violation)
Becomes Persistent
Violator
/Fourth / Legal
/month in / Action
->/violation / /
(Month
following fourth
month in violation)
Further reoccurrence of
the violation in the
12-month period: start
at the Third month step.
-22-
-------
G) Identifying Systems With Serious Deficiencies
To ensure that a reasonable assurance of safe drinking water is being
provided to all public water systems, while recognizing that insufficient
staff exists to provide for the desired inspection frequency (including
follow-up), a special effort to identify systems with serious deficiencies
is being made part of the regular drinking water program functions. The
objective of this task is to accelerate the Department's surveillance
activity of water system conditions so that systems which have the highest
potential for serving bacteriologically or chemically contaminated water
can be identified and tracked to ensure that timely corrections are made.
It is anticipated that that not more than 10 or 15 systems statewide would
be identified annually for increased scrutiny and possible enforcement
action. The criteria to be used for ranking candidate systems is presented
in Attachment 1. Water systems with the highest scores will be targeted for
action. As a general guide, it is suggested that the Southeast Region
select 3 or 4 systems annually, Southcentral 6 or 8 systems annually, and
Northern 3 or 4 annually. Each regional office, after receiving input
from district office staff, will develop a list of target systems. A copy
of this list should be forwarded to the Central Office as soon as it has
been completed.
Information accompanying each system selected should include: Name and
PWSID of system, short description of the nature of the problem, approx-
imately how long the condition has persisted, system class, population
served, description of the water source, possible solutions to the problem,
and a proposed compliance schedule that has as a goal the rectification of
the problem noted.
Development of this list should take place prior to workplan development
for the upcoming year, and should be included in the upcoming year's
workplan. Enforcement actions taken to correct deficiencies noted may be
time consuming, and work plans should be developed to reflect this allocation.
This is a priority task, and other committments shall be reduced in order to
provide staff time to complete actions in this area.
District, regional, and central offices should maintain a separate file
on all such systems selected. The files should include site visit
reports and compliance agreements to facilitate tracking on progress
towards target dates. For FY 86 the list of candidate systems and associated
information should be provided to the Central Office by June 1, 1985.
-23-
-------
H) Reporting of Data and Follow-up Actions
The automated Revelation PWS data system accomplishes most reporting
functions. However, additional reporting required that may or may not
be part of the Revelation PWS system includes:
a) Monthly reporting to the regional office of all hot sample follow
up actions and all enforcement actions taken by the district offices.
Due date to the regional office is the 15th of the month following
the reporting month. [See Attachment 2 (Farnell memo to R.O's on EPA
reporting) for elements required to be reported.]
b) Continued maintenance of the district drinking water inventory is also
required to provide for an accurate data base of water systems statewide;
updates to the inventory are due to the regional office by the 15th of
each month.
c) Regional offices will provide all reporting information required by
Attachment 2 to the Central office by the 22nd of the month following
the reporting month.
d) The Central Office will report all required information to EPA (see
Attachment 2) on a calendar quarterly basis within 45 days following the
end of the calendar quarter reporting period. In addition, the Central
Office will provide an inventory update to EPA with each quarterly
report.
-24-
-------
Attachment 1
Ranking Procedure for Systems With Serious Deficiencies
A. As a starting point, systems within the region/district which have a history
of persistent bacteriological MCL violations should be used to compile an
initial list . A review of these and remaining systems should be conducted
in order to address the other factors in paragraph B,- and total point scores
for each system determined. A comprehensive review for each water system
in the inventory may not be necessary. Field staff knowledge of individual
systems may be used to pinpoint systems with deficient conditions. Systems
with the highest scores should then be targeted for action during the next
fiscal year, as outlined in Section G) of this document.
B. Ranking Factors
Points Factors
300 1) System persistently experiences a documented or suspected
waterborne disease outbreak (state epidemiologist's
office); system has a high potential for contamination
[examp. shallow well(s) in the vicinity of wastewater
disposal leach fields].
25
2) System has a history of complaints concerning water
quality or quantity within the last 5 years.
40 3) System has been a persistent bacteriological MCI
^ violator (see Definitions, Section B, p.3, of main
document); system is currently in MCL violation for
inorganic, organic, or radiological contaminants
(routine confirmed with at least two check samples);
system serves water containing other chemical contaminants
in sufficient quantity to produce a cancer risk of
greater than 1 per 100,000 population.
30 4) System has significant uncorrected deficiencies noted
during past sanitary surveys [items marked with (*)
on survey report], or noted through field staff
knowledge.
5) For systems with surface water sources - choos.e a
single response from either a) or b):
a) Disinfectant concentration-contact time (CT
values) at peak flow rates is inadequate to
kill Giardia cysts:
-25-
-------
65 i) systems with unfiltered surface sources
45 ii) systems with filtered surface sources
without year-round pretreatment (coagulation)
25 iii) systems with filtered surface sources
with year-round pretreatment (coagulation)
100 b) System utilizes unfiltered surface water without
disinfection
6) System is a:
100 a) Class A
50 b) Class B
20 c) Class C
-26-
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
10 Regional OrinKing water Program rtanagers January 11,
FILE NO:
J.ul.UuZ
TELEPHONE NO:
FROM . _ , , . . SUBJECT:
ulck Farnell, coordinator LPA Reporting Kequlrements
bringing Water Program information
For your Information and mine 1 generated a summary of all the data iteeis
that we report to LPA, along wltn their sources.
A) Monthly enforcement Keport (customarily provided to tPA a »aontn later
than the period covering the report, as some tiuie is needed for aata
entry and transmission)
1) tie need to report tne nuuioer of enforcement actions taken oy the
Department in the drinking water category, oeginniny witn written
correspondence (induces warning on sanitary survey or food Inspection
reports, out does not include phone calls or verbal warnings). Me
report the total number of enforcement actions during the month by
category of enforcement type (letter, wuv, suasions, etc). Activities
covered by these enforcement actions would be violations of any of
the state drinKing water regulations liaonltoriny, hLL, plan review,
etc.), as well as correspondence relating to action oeing taken to
upgrade a water system due to systan deficiencies.
I will be using Keport No. PwS U^4i enforcement Tracking, from the
data 5 stem on a u«Dntnly oasis to provide tnis infonaation to LFA.
we ne«.J to isaKe sure tnat tne uionthly updates sent to Central would
have current enforcement information for the previous month, in
addition, 1 will review copies of the monthly news articles on food
inspection scores sent to Kit oallentine to count the numoers of
systems mentioned as not performing water testing (see attacned
examples).
ii) Sanitary surveys completed - This information will be retrieved from
Report ho. Hwi 0^40, Sanitary Surveys, and will count the surveys
completed during the previous Month.
b) Quarterly Keport to tPA
i) bacteriological Monitoring Mo n-Uorapl lance - we neea to report the
month of non-compliance and tne P>&lu number. Ihis will ae provided
through Keport Mo. Pb'S UZlD - monthly roni Coring Non-uowpl iance
Suiaaary.
2) Turbidity Monitoring hon-Compl iance - we need to report the wonth
of non-contpl iance and the Philu Hiuiuaer. This will be provided
through an ad-noc report created by marshal on the data system called
TURulUiTY.CUMPLiANCc.Kc^oKT (should be available to all water
data stations on the new program update). (see attachment)
02-001A(Rev. 10/79)
-------
o) Bacteriological rlLL Violations - For the report, tPA requires the
month of the violation anu the PWi>lU number. At a later date they
will review the adequacy of the Department's follow-up action.
I have requested that a list of follow-up actions be provided at the
time of the report so that the actions can be reviewed by regional
and central office program staff for adequacy of follow-up. The
definition of ttacti nCL violation useu for tfiis report is tne sawe
as in our regulations Lid KAC bU.uSuic)J. i.e. if eitner of the two
check samples following a positive routine sample contains bacteria,
the original routine sample represents an HuL violation.
I will be getting this information from three separate sources, then
re-writiny it to provide tne nCL information to LPA. Region 1 -
provided by typewritten summary of hot oactis; Region II - retrievea
fraa a combination of reports of "open" hot Dacti cases and "closed"
hot oacti cases LP«i» U^Zt> and (PHb u^^b - coining soonjj, Region ill -
provided by a typewritten summary of hot bactis. In all cases, the
information provioea needs to include the following: dates, results,
nethod, PKilU. and class, of all hot samples or saoples associatea
with original not samples; a narrative of follow-up action taicen which.
describes specific actions taken Dy tlte Deparuuent and the water
system, as well as recommendations made by the Department; and an
indication of wnether or not the episode represents an MCL violation.
4) Turoidity MU. Violations - neeu the roontn of violation and the PwSlu.
I get this information from tne ad-iioc TuRbluiTY.LU'iPLlANUt..KcPOKl,
so as long as tne turbidity file is kept current, no additional effort
is required for this report.
b) Enforcement Actions - need tne same Information provided in the
oonthly report, DI •„ witn each enforcement action liniteu to a specific
PHSID and oontn oi violation, rte need to report all drinking water-
related enforcauent actions taken, as outlined in the Monthly
Lnforcewent Action section.
I will obtain tnis information from Report HO. Pwi U24t>, tnforceaient
Tracking, and tne news clippings of sanitation inspection scores.
C) Annual Report to EPA
This report is the satae as the quarterly report for that period, with the
addition of momtoriny and noL violation information for inorganic and
radiological parameters. Our storage and tracking of inorganic and
radiological data in tne past has ueen made ineffectual Dy the
neutralization of the data by Igor Uiainfrdue program), i request that
each regional office contact ia» with the current status ot the complete
inorganic and radiological monitoring history of water systetws in tne
region. We need to oe aule to determine tne monitoring compliance status
for all of our Llass A 4 ti systews for these parameters. Tne lengtn of
testing history avallaole to us will tilcatate our ability to matce this
determination.
D) Inventory - LPA usually requests an updated inventory with each quarterly
report, tie will be suoiJitting this on floppy uisc, us tney have developed
the capaoility to read data in tnis tonuat.
-------
-J-
t) Other Related Information - A comprehensive description of the driniciny
water program accompli staieius tor the annual grant application by necessity
would include reference to uie numoer of technical assists we uo and the
number of plans we review. :;e still need to collect this Inforuiation.
It Is currently ueiny included 1n the Uepartuent's monthly report, and
should be included in any reporting mechanism tnat replaces tne aontnly
report.
Attachments
cc: Roy barren
Karen Paullck
Jerry Opatz -
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
T0 Jin Allr-?, Sanitaria''* ^-ii'^rvisor DAJE February 20,
Cathy G1tl:ov, Sanitarian Supervisor
Nancy ^a poll 111, Sanitarian Supprvisor F|LE NQ.
TELEPHONE NO:
FROM K^ Rallentine SUBJECT. PDW Monitoring
Envi rorr*e-)tal Conservation Supervisor
Dick Farriell has requested that sanitarians assist in nonitoring
of public water supplies serving public facilities under inspection.
i'ost of thrse will be Class 5 Public Water supplies o\mpH and/or operated
by the person in charge of the public facility. Specifically Hick
has requested that we continue to identify PDt! systens which are
not in c'^pl iance with nonitoring re^uiregents by the two nethods
currently in practice:
1. Identifying non-complying systems in monthly newspaper publications.
2. Co ;.letion of the written Notice provided on the Envirom^ental
Sanitation Inspection Continuation forn (supply enclosed.)
In order to ^aintain a record of these activities, Dick has requested
that copies of score publication articles and written notices
be fon>.--rded to nipt. I would also recor-mend that you forward a
copy to t!~.e regional PnW prngra~»
cc: Pick Farnell
;: A i R e v. i o/ 7 9)
-------
ATTACHMENT B
SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIERS (BACTERIOLOGICAL MONITORING) FIRST QUARTER FY 85
System Name
Action and Date of Action
Second Quarter Compliance Status
Taku Apts.
East Anchorage Mobile H.P.
Glacier Terrace
Vienna Woods
Wasilla West Sub.
Tyonek
Seldovia
Ninilchlk
Napaklak
Napasklak
U. S. Navy—Adak
Kwethluk
KotHk
Tununak
McGrath
Kenny Lake
No record of action taken
Will receive NOV 1n April
Will receive NOV 1n April
Warning Ltr.(Feb) NOV in April
Warning letter (December)
Warning letter (Dec. and Feb.)
No record of action taken
Warning letter (December)
No record of action taken
Warning letter (Oct. and March)
NOV issued 1n March
Coordination with PHS
Warning letter (February)
Coordination with PHS
Warning letter (Feb. and March)
Warning letter (Oct. and Feb.)
Full compliance
Non-compl1ance--March
Non-compliance--January and March
Non-compliance full quarter
Full compliance
Compliance in March
Compliance in January and February
Full compliance
Full compliance
Non-compliance full quarter
Full compliance (reporting problem)
Full compliance
Full compliance
Full compliance
Non-compliance full quarter
Non-compliance full quarter
-------
Attachment C
Formal Enforcement Actions Taken by ME - Thru February 1385
(All actions taken for bacteriological monitoring non-compliance)
System Name
Action
Town & Country Trailer Court
Lord Baronoff Castle Inn
The Vallata
Water Services
Frontier Lodge
Moose Creek Lodge
Thunder Mtn. Trailer Park
Tryphs Bar & Restaurant
Larry's Apartments
Elf's Den
Angel Creek Trading Post
Starrigavin Trailer Court
Frontier Lodge
Fox Roadhouse
McKinley Vi1lage
Kake Logging
McKinley Vi1lage
Eagle River Mobile Homes
Angel Creek Trading Post
Uniform Summons
Uniform Summons
Uniform Summons
Uniform Summons
Uniform Summons
Uniform Summons
Uniform Summons
Uniform Summons
Uniform Summons
Uniform Summons
Uniform Summons
Uniform Summons
Uniform Summons
Uniform Summons
Uniform summons
Uniform Summons
Criminal Complaint
Uniform Summons
Criminal Complaint
Date of Action
December 1982
May 1983
July 1983
July 1983
July 1983
August 1983
September 1983
October 1983
October 1983
October 1983
November 1983
February 1984
April 1984
May 1984
June 1984
September 1984
September 1984
October 1984
February 1985
Penalty Assessed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$500 ($400 suspended)
$1,000
0
0
0
pending
$680
pending
-------
IDAHO
-------
State of Idaho
Drinking Water
Enforcement Program
-------
State Authority
Section 37-2102, Idaho Code and the Idaho Environmental Protection and
Health Act of 1972 (Sections 39-101 through 39-119, Idaho Code) authorize
the Board of Health and Welfare to adopt and enforce regulations as
stringent as the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Since 1977, when Idaho assumed primacy for the drinking water program,
the State's philosophy has been to work cooperatively with the drinking
water systems to bring them into compliance with the State rules and
regulations. Within the past year, it has become apparent that State
enforcement activity will be required to bring into compliance those
numerous water systems which routinely violate the rules and regulations.
Enforcement actions have recently begun to increase as a result of increased
emphasis by the State and urging by EPA. Idaho's enforcement program, as
carried out by the Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environment
(DOE) is described below.
Compliance Strategy Development
DOE has recently drafted a water supply compliance strategy
(Attachment A) which prioritizes State enforcement actions, establishes
procedures for implementing enforcement actions, and describes the
enforcement mechanisms available to the State.
The bacti and turbidity monitoring compliance targets for FY 85
(community water systems) have been set by DOE as follows:
Population Size and Water Source
500+ , Surface Water
1000+, Ground Water
100 to 500, Surface
100 to 1000, Ground
Less than 100,
Less than 100,
Water
Water
Surface Water
Ground Water
Bacti
1007,.
1007.
95%
95%
90%
90%
Turbidi ty
100%
not required
75%
not required
60%
not required
These goals, if met, will essentially eliminate all persistent violators
for water systems serving over 100 persons.
Compliance with National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Idaho had 821 community water systems in FY 84. Of these, 733 were
served by ground water while only 88 utilized surface water.
Bacteriological and turbidity monitoring and MCL compliance rates for these
systems are shown below.
Population
Served
<100 (412 systems)
>100 (409 systems)
Bacteriological
Monitoring
Compl iance
81%
85%
Persistent
Violators
110
75
Bacteriological
MCL
Compl iance
96%
95%
Persistent
Violators
13
-------
Turbidity Turbidity
Population Monitoring Persistent MCL Persistent
Served Compliance Violators Compliance Violators
<100 (18 systems) 45% 17 100% 0
>100 (70 systems) 66% 16 95% 4
Significant Non-Compliers and Follow-up Actions
Twenty-four community water systems were identified as bacteriological
MCL persistent violators (violations for four or more months) during FY 84.
Of the twenty-one systems for which we have information, nine systems have
received technical assistance, two systems are under investigation,
pre-enforcement meetings were held with two systems and are planned for two
additional systems, a Board Order will be issued to one system and the
problems have been resolved as a result of construction activities by five
systems. A table listing the twenty-four persistent violators and action
taken is provided in Attachment B.
DOE utilizes a variety of enforcement actions depending upon the
specific nature and frequency of the violation. These actions include
letters, telephone calls, pre-enforcement conferences, Board of Health and
Welfare Orders, and referrals to the A.G.
When the State identifies a system as a persistent violator, a
pre-enforcement conference with the system owner is requested. The purpose
of this conference is to review the violations and to discuss the required
remedies to the problems The system owner will be required to correct the
problems and give DOE assurance in writing that the needed steps will be
taken to insure continuing compliance. If agreement cannot be reached at
the pre-enforcement conference or if the system owner fails to carry out the
provisions of the agreement, formal enforcement action will be initiated. A
request for formal enforcement action may be submitted by either a DOE field
office or a District Health Department.
Tracking of pre-enforcement conferences began in June 1984. Eighteen
pre-enforcement conferences were held between June and September 1984.
Since the beginning of FY 85, twenty-seven pre-enforcement conferences have
been held.
In November and December 1984. training on the preparation of Board
Orders (and related documents) was provided to the Health and Welfare and
District Health Department staff by the Attorney General's Office. The
training has resulted in the preparation of better referral packages and two
orders were issued in February 1985. Only one Board Order was issued during
FY 84, at least in part due to the referral packages being incomplete when
submitted to the Attorney General's Office. Three more orders will be
issued in May (see Attachment C) and nine additional orders may be issued
before the end of FY 85.
Once a Board Order is in place, subsequent violations are subject to
penalties and/or relief. The maximum civil penalty is $1,000 per day of
violation. Injunctive relief may also be sought in the case of an emergency
creating an immediate danger to public health.
-------
Summary and Future Direction
Department of Health and Nelfare statutes provide limited enforcement
authorities. Board Orders are the primary enforcement tools, but they are
resource intensive to issue and therefore will not be widely used.
Extrastatutory enforcement actions, such as pre-enforcement conferences,
will play an important role in the overall enforcement program.
Significant increases in enforcement actions have taken place in FY 85.
These actions have not yet produced significant improvements in compliance
rates, but compliance should noticeably improve in FY 85. The recently
developed compliance strategy will aid in this effort.
The role of EPA enforcement in Idaho is uncertain at this time. If
state enforcement actions continue and compliance improves, no EPA
enforcement actions (unless at the invitation of the state) appear to be
appropriate at this time Continued special financial assistance to the
state and frequent program contact should assure that momentum in the
enforcement program grows.
-------
}J
Attachment A
WATER SUPPLY COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
INTRODUCTION
Since 1977 when the State assumed primacy from EPA for the Drinking
Water Program, the philosophy has been to work cooperatively with the
drinking water systems to bring them Into compliance with the state rules
and regulations. While these efforts were successful In many cases there
are numerous systems which continue to violate the rules and regulations
routinely.
In order to insure compliance and a safe drinking water supply for those
people on systems still in violation, the Division will be utilizing the
methods contained In this strategy to gain compliance. Sufficient time
has passed so that all of the water systems could have voluntarily
complied with the requirements; those still remaining In violation must be
subjected to a more forceful approach.
The following system priority will be used in establishing workload
priorities in this strategy:
Surface water systems serving greater than 500 people.
Groundwater systems serving greater than 1,000 people.
Surface water systems serving between 100 and 500 people.
Groundwater systems serving between 100 and 1,000 people.
Surface water systems serving less than 100 people. r"
Groundwater systems serving less than 100 people. [fT
: I985
-------
DRAFT
February 1, 1985
fDMPI lANfF TRAfKING
In order to Identify those systems which persistently violate the Drinking
Water Rules and Regulations the Division has developed a computer
tracking system. Through the production of monthly compliance reports,
the Division will Identify those community systems which fail to monitor
or exceed a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). Once a system Is Identified
as being in violation, the water purveyor will be notified by the Division
as follows:
Failure to Monitor The Division will review the history of the
system and for the 1st violation send them a printed notification
of their failure to monitor.
If the system has failed to monitor two consecutive months, a
letter will be sent notifying them of the failure to monitor on a
consistent basis and if the sampling record demonstrates a
persistent violation (a persistent violator is one who violates a
MCL sampling or reporting requirement three or more times In a
twelve month period), a pre-enforcement conference with the
system will be requested.
MH violation (Bacterial): When a system is identified as being In
violation of a MCL, the Division will review the monitoring
history of the system to determine what action will be taken. If
this is the 1st violation for the system the Division will notify
the purveyor by telephone and follow-up this contact with written
-------
DRAFT
February 1, 1985
notification of the violation and request public notification and
check samples. If the bacterial violation exceeds 5 colonies per
100 ml. Immediate public notification will be required.
If this is the 2nd violation for the system, the system will be
contacted by phone and a follow-up letter sent requiring check
samples and public notification.
If the violation Is the 3rd, the operator will be contacted and a
certified letter follow-up sent requiring public notlfIcatllon,
check samples, and setting up a pre-enforcement conference.
PRF-FNFQRCFMFNT CONFFRFNIfF
The purpose of the pre-enforcement conference is to resolve the violations
and is the final step by the Division prior to instituting formal
enforcement action. The time and date for the pre-enforcement
conference will be established by the Division of Environment Field Office
and transmitted to the owner of the water system by certified mail. The
conference will review all of the violations of the system. The owner
will be required to correct the problems and to give the Division
assurances in writing that the needed steps will be taken to insure
continuing compliance.
If agreement cannot be reached or construction is needed that exceeds 90
days, the Field Office will initiate formal action by notifing the owner in
-------
DRAFT
February I. 1985
writing of the disapproval of the system and will submit an enforcement
checklist (see Attachment 1 ) to the Chief of the Water Quality Bureau. If
an agreement Is reached but the owner falls to carry out the provisions of
the agreement, the Field Office will immediately notify the owner In
writing of the disapproval of the system and request formal action be
approved by the Chief of the Water Quality Bureau.
No formal enforcement action will be initiated until the water
system has been formally dissapproved and the owner so
notified.
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Formal enforcement begins with the submission of an enforcement
checklist (see Attachment 1), a draft complaint and proposed order to the
Chief of the Water Quality Bureau. Request for enforcement actions from
District Health Departments will be submitted to the Source Control Field
Officer and upon his/her review and approval submitted to the Bureau
Chief. Once the Bureau Chief has determined that the checklist is
complete, the case is assigned a number and forwarded to the Attorney
General's office for action.
Based on past experience, the most frequent request will be for
preparation of a Board of Health and Welfare Order. While the remainder of
this strategy will deal with this formal procedure, Attachment 2 contains
an outline of the legal remedies available to the Division.
-------
DRAFT
February I, 1985
The Attorney General (AG) will finalize the draft order and complaint,
obtain the approval of the Bureau Chief and the Division Administrator, and
forward it to the Director of the Department of Health and Welfare for
signature. The signed complaint will be forwarded to the owner of the
water system. At this time the owner is given the opportunity to sign a
stipulation and voluntarily enter Into a Consent Decree. If the owner
refuses to voluntarily accept the order, a hearing will be scheduled and a
contested case proceeding Instituted. If the owner enters Into a consent
decree the case will be scheduled for the next Board of Health and Welfare
meeting where it will be submitted for approval.
In a contested case, the Administrative Procedure Section of the
Department of Health and Welfare will appoint a hearing officer and
schedule a hearing. The Division will present Its case at the hearing and
the hearing officer will also hear the arguments of the purveyor. The
hearing officer will weigh the facts of the case and make a written
recommendation to the Board of Health and Welfare. The Board will make a
final determination based on the hearing officer's record and the
recommendations received. The Board will approve the order as prepared
by the Department and modified by the hearing officer, or amended by the
Board.
The Division will propose that all orders contain stipulated penalties.
These penalties will be tailored to the individual case but will generally
follow the format and basis of the penalty matrix contained in Attachment
3.
-------
DRAFT
February 1, 1985
FOI I OW-I IP DN BOARD DF HFAI TH AMR WFI FARF
As part of the monthly report, each Field Office will report the status of
each oraer ana any violations that may nave occurred. Requests for
collection of penalties should be forwarded to the Division utilizing the
checklist when they occur The same approval procedure as utilized for
the Board Order will be followed In approving these requests. Requests
should only be reported as part of the monthly report.
The owner of a water system subject to a Board Order will be
immedately notified nf an viniattons whether or not penalties
are requested.
The Division will request that penalties be paid by notifying the owner in
writing by certified letter. If the owner falls to pay the fine, the
Department will request the Attorney General to file an action In District
Court to collect the fine.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
CONFIDENTIAL
Case *
(Assigned by Bureau)
ENFORCEMENT CASE REFERRAL CHECKLIST
DRINKING WATER
FIELD OFFICE: DATE SUBMITTED:.
SYSTFM DESCRIPTION
1. Proper name and address of system (Respondent):
2. List other names the system may be known by:
3. Type of System (e.g. community, non-community, source(s) of water,
storage capacity, approval status or date disapproved, number of
households served, type of treatment provided, etc.).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
4. On Attachment A list chronology of correspondence which attempted
to resolve problem(s):
-------
CONFIDENTIAL
5. Describe pertinent history (other than information listed on Attach-
ment A).
6. Indicate if there is an immediate threat to public health? If yes,
describe the threat and how it can be demonstrated.
NATURE OF VIQLATION(S)
7. Complete Attachment B.
DOCUMENT AT I ON OF VIOLATION
8. List in Attachment C the information requested for each sample
taken.
9. List other pertinent information to document violation(s) where
appropriate.
-------
CONFIDENTIAL
ENFORCEMENT ACTION REQUESTED
10. Requested action:
a. Have administrative complaint signed by director and filed
with Administrative Procedures Section to have hearing scheduled.
b. Have administrative complaint signed by director, do not file
with Administrative Procedures Section for hearing scheduling, instead
complete consent decree discussion with respondent.
c. Seek injunctive relief for imminent hazard to public health.
d. Seek criminal action.
e. Seek civil penalties for violation of order.
f. Seek civil action based on violations of board order.
g. Other (specify):
SUPPORTING CASE INFORMATION
11. Identify the contact person for the system (respondent), including their
address and phone number. Include the attorney contact here, if
applicable.
12. Identify agency contact person (include phone number).
13. Attach all other pertinent documents listed in Attachment D.
-------
CONFIDENTIAL
14. List other information which may affect the strength or weakness of
the case ( e.g. aggravating or mitigating factors, likely issues).
15. List all persons with factual knowledge of the case. Show their
affiliation and where they can be reached (phone number and/or
address).
16. List other state, local or federal agencies involved (include contact
person and telephone number).
Date:
Prepared By:
Date:
Reviewed By:
Date:
Source Control Field Officer
Date:
Bureau Chief
Action Date
(Completed by Bureau Chief)
-------
ATTACHMENT A CONFIDENTIAI
ACTIONS TAKEN TO RESOLVE VIOLATION(S)
DATE
TYPE OF ACTION
(letter, NOV. conference, reinjpection,
informal communication)
RESULTS OF ACTION
COPIES
ATTACHED
Y«s No
i
-------
ATTACHMENT B
NATURE OF VIOLATION(S)
CONFIDENTIAL
Regulation No. and Language
or Order Provision
Dale of
Violation
How
Violated
Time frame of Action
Requested, i.e., monitoring
instruction, etc.
-------
CONFIDENTIAL
ATTACHMENT C
WATER QUALITY SAMPLE INFORMATION
SAMPLE
DATE
NAME OF
SAMPLER
SAMPLE
RESULTS
STANDARD
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
PROCEDURES USED
Yes i No
-------
CONFIDENTIAL
ATTACHMENT D
ADDITIONAL PERTINENT CASE INFORMATION
maps
diagrams
plans and specifications
correspondence
previous orders
sample results
ohotoo/aohs
chain of custody documentation
otner
8
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ALTERNATIVES
There are several enforcement mechanisms available through the
Environmental Protection and Health Act of 1972. These options include:
I) Administrative Action, 2) Civil Action, and 3) Criminal Action. The
appropriateness of each action will vary according to the case
circumstances and exhaustion of necessary precursor actions.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Administrative enforcement action is almost always the method of choice.
The only clear exception to this is in circumstances of emergency where a
public health threat exists in which case an injunction would be sought.
This type of enforcement is a two step process involving: first, informal
action; and second, if necessary, formal action.
Informal Action
Informal action constitutes all measures taken from the time a violation
is verified to the point where cooperative resolution of the violation is
determined unlikely. This determination will obviously be a judgement
call made by the investigator and his or her immediate supervisor.
What constitutes an informal action, in general, is: 1) issuance of a notice
of violation, 2) discussion and explanation of the violation and the
consequences with the violator, 3) announced reinspection, 4) review of
the situation of violation with the violator, and 5) conduct of a
pre-enforcement conference with the definitive action to be taken
established. The circumstances surrounding each situation of violation
will determine the number of notices issued, reinspections made and
conferences held. The decision when to go forward with formal
administrative action will again be a judgement call. The procedures for
conducting informal enforcement actions are more fully described in
Chapter 2, Notice of Violation.
Formal Action
The first step in a formal administrative enforcement action is the
development and submittal of a case referral package. The contents of
referrals and protocol for submittal are detailed in the succeeding
chapter. Once complete, referral packages are reviewed by the appropriate
-------
Bureau Chief and the decision to proceed with filing a formal
administrative complaint or negotiating a compliance schedule order
(39-116) is made.1
In most cases a formal complaint is filed by the Attorney General's Office
which includes a proposed Board Order. This automatically triggers the
Administrative Procedures Act process. The one remaining opportunity for
a negotiated settlement is through a consent decree. If the violator
agrees, the administrative hearing process will be avoided. If no
agreement is reached, a hearing is held, the Board renders a decision and a
final order is issued. Consent decrees and board orders have the same
effect and are both enforceable. Provisions for appealing a final
determination by the Board consist of petitioning for judicial review
within 30 days of the final decision.
Once a board order or consent decree is in place subsequent violations are
subject to penalties and/or relief. The Board can attempt to recover
penalties; that failing, relief (injunctive or mandamus) and/or penalties
can be sought in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Although lengthy and expensive the administrative process can be an
advantage to the Division. The record established through the hearing
process is considered in its entirety in the event of subsequent judicial
review. Restrictions on testimony and evidence for an administrative
hearing are less fastidious than a judicial hearing. Consequently, the
record may contain information that might otherwise be inadmissible.
This advantage to the administrative enforcement process can likely
outweigh the costs and duration in view of the potential of ending up in
court.
1 A ruling by Judge Daniel C.Hurlbutt of Twin Falls on June 19, 1984
basically rendered compliance schedule orders (39-116) unenforceable.
This decision makes such orders useless to the Division as an enforcement
mechanism which restricts us to use of board orders (39-108) for such
purposes. Compliance schedule orders (39-n6) will therefore seldom be
used until the statutes are revised to lend enforceablllty. *
-------
CIVIL ACTION
In most instances the administrative enforcement process is prerequisite
to civil action. Once an order or decree is in place subsequent violation of
any provision can lead to civil action. The maximum civil penalty is
$ 1,000.00 per day of violation. Injunctive or mandamus relief to prevent
further violation can also be obtained following adeequate notice and
hearing.
The only instance where administrative action does not preclude civil
action is in circumstances of emergency creating immediate danger to
public health. Under these circumstances an immediate injunction to stop
violating activities may be sought in district court by the prosecuting
attorney or the attorney general. Injunctive relief for severe,
environmentally damaging activities, however, is only available after the
administrative enforcement process has been exhausted.
CRIMINAL ACTION
Criminal action is independent of the administrative enforcement process.
Criminal charges may be filed for any willful or negligent violation of
environmental laws; rules or regulations; or the terms of any lawful
notice, order or permit pursuant thereto. Charges can be filed in the
district court of the county where the violation occurred by either the
prosecuting attorney or the Attorney General. The maximum fine, upon
conviction, is $300.00 per day of violation.
Criminal action is seldom taken for two reasons. The first lies in the
difficulty of "proving" willfulness or negligence, given the nature of the
evidence needed to do so. The second reason is the reluctance of local
prosecutors to accept environmental cases. These cases have to compete
for priority against life threatening situations such as murder, rape and
robbery. It is therefore understandable that environmental violations are
not pursued vigorously.
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
WATER QUALITY PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
No. W5 - 8
SUBJECT
Penalty Matrix for Board of Health and Welfare Orders
PURPOSE
To establish uniform guidelines within the Public Drinking Water Supply
Program for stipulated penalties for violation of a Board of Health and
Welfare Order.
DISCUSSION
Section 39-108(6) of the Idaho Code authorizes the Department to recover
penalties of $ 1,000 per day for violation of a Board of Health and Welfare
Order. Not all items contained in a Board Order necessarily warrant this
amount of penalty. The purpose of this guidance is to establish a method
to determine fines based on the seriousness of the violation and
deterrence effect on the purveyor.
The attached Tables form a basis for negotiation of fine levels. The
Tables must be tailored to each individual Order through the adjudication
process.
The rationale used to develop the Tables is attached.
POLICY
(1) All future Board of Health and Welfare Orders should contain
stipulated penalties that are negotiated individually for each Order
unless the attached Tables are incorporated.
(2) In those cases where stipulated penalties are not contained in the
Order, a statement to the effect that a penalty of $1,000 per day
may be assessed by the Department for violation of the Order should
be included.
(3) Any staff person requesting an Order shall recommend the fine
levels that should be in the Order. A rationale for the fine levels
should accompany the request.
-------
IMPI FMFNTATIQN
This policy shall become effective immediately and shall be used in
preparation of water supply enforcement cases.
flAAvq
Larry L Kdenig, Manager
Source Control Section
Al E. Murrey, Chief
Water Quality Bureau
EFFECTIVE DATE:
-------
TABLE 1
MONITORING VIOLATION PENALTIES
POPULATION
PENALTY PER
VIOLATION
1st
VIOLATION
2nd
VIOLATION
3rd
VIOLATION
4th
VIOLATION
5th
VIOLATION
Less than 100
$500
Penalty (Paid)
Deferred
$0.00
$50
$100
$500 plus
Deferred =
$1850
$500
$450
$400
$1000
100 to 500
$650
Penalty (Paid)
Deferred
$0.00
$100
$200
$650 plus
Deferred =
$2300
$650
$550
$450
$1000
500 to 1000
$750
Penalty (Paid)
Deferred
$0.00
$150
$300
$750 plus
Deferred -
$2550
$750
$600
$450
$1000
> 1000
$1000
Penalty (Paid)
Deferred
$0.00
$200
$400
$1000 plus
Deferred =
$3400
$1000
$800
$600
$1000
-------
TABLE 2
MCL VIOLATION PENALTIES
POPULATION
PENALTY PER
VIOLATION
1st
VIOLATION
2nd
VIOLATION
3rd
VIOLATION
4th
VIOLATION
Less than 100
$650
Penalty (Paid)
Deferred
$0.00<
$100
$300
$650 + Deferred* S22QQ
$650
$550
$350
100 to 500
$750
Penalty (Paid)
Deferred
$0.00<
$150
$450
$750 + Deferred= $2400
$750
$600
$300
500 to 1000
$850
Penalty (Paid)
Deferred
$0.00*
$200
$600
$850 * Deferred* $2600
$850
$650
$250
> 1000
$1000
Penalty (Paid)
Deferred
$0.00*
$250
$750
$!000 * Deferred- $5000
$1000
$750
$250
*No penalty will be requested providing that the proper monitoring has been
conducted, the violation does not exceed 5 colonies per 100 ml., no illness is
is caused, and the facility is properly operated and maintained. If any
illness is caused by contamination, maximum penalties should be sought.
Beginning with the 5th. violation, the penalty shall be $1,000 per violation.
Persistent violations may require that the Department seek additional
remedies.
-------
PENALTY MATRICES RATIONALE
INTRODUCTION
According to EPA, the State of Idaho ranks in the top ten states for
non-compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. To
the state this means that many of its citizens may not be receiving water
that is safe to drink, thus the health of these citizens may be threatened.
The Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environment, the agency
responsible for this program, has Identified a need to increase the
compliance rate In order to protect the public health of our citizens. The
use of administrative actions utilizing Board of Health and Welfare Orders
is one mechanism to accomplish compliance. The use of this mechanism
requires that a logical approach to penalties be developed and implemented
in the orders.
The Division will utilize a progressive compliance approach. The matrices
that will be discussed in this paper are one phase of this approach. It will
apply to those systems that have failed to comply voluntarily causing the
Division to insist on compliance through the Board Order mechanism.
The following matrices were constructed with compliance in mind. Our
goal is to provide safe drinking water for the citizens of Idaho. The
mechanisms contained in the matrices are designed to encourage
compliance through use of a progressive penalty system. The concept is
based on the premise that recurrent violations equate to increased health
risk which should result in higher penalties.
When reviewing the penalty matrices it must be kept in mind that the
penalties only apply to violation of a provision of a Board of Health and
Welfare Order. The penalty contained in the matrices cannot be imposed on
a water system not subject to a Health and Welfare Order. The
development of an Order requires that negotiations take place between the
Division and the entity and/or that a public hearing is held prior to
presentation of the Order to the Board for action. This insures that the
entity will be aware of the contents and have an opportunity to impact the
requirements of the Order.
-------
PENALTY MATRIX
Tables 1 and 2 are based on two familiar concepts: population and deferral
penalties. Table 2 carries higher penalties per violation because of the
attendant health risk Involved.
Penalties Raged nn Popular Inn
The concept of penalties based on size goes hand In hand with a philosophy
emphasizing compliance with the regulations rather than collection of
fines. A fine of $500 is as much of a hardship on a community of 100
people as a penalty of $1000 Is on a community of 10,000 people. In point
of fact, It is greater Thus a small penalty may have as great a deterrent
Impact on a small community as large penalties have on a large
community.
Because a small Idaho community has limited resources available to It, the
Division believes that a lesser fine is generally warranted. The tax base
is small, the technical help Is less available, and the entity's ability to
generate the needed resources is limited.
The case could be made that the fine levels should be increased because
the samples are tested by the state at no cost to the entity. However, it Is
the Division's opinion that large fines may be more punitive than necessary
to gain compliance. The Division would prefer in many instances that the
purveyor's monies be used to comply with the Order and the regulations
rather than be paid to the state in the form of fines.
Deferred Penalties
The deferred penalty concept is another mechanism to encourage
compliance by escalating the fine for continued violation of an Order.
Tables 1 and 2 are based on this concept and the concept of progressive
penalties for continued violation. The best way to explain the mechanisms
involved is by illustration.
-------
Illustration: A municipality serving less than 100 people has
consistently failed to monitor for bacteria. They
are placed under a Board of Health and Welfare
Order that requires them to conduct the needed
sampling in accordance with the Public Drinking
Water Rules and Regulations.
The municipality fails to do the required
monitoring. The Division notifies the entity by
letter of the violation and assesses a penalty of
$500. The letter informs the municipality that the
Division is deferring the penalty and is not
requiring that a fine be paid at this time, but that
the penalty is being deferred and that it may be
collected in the future if violations continue. The
letter also states that the entire penalty will be
forgiven if, during the next twelve months, the
municipality remains In compliance. In other
words, after twelve months of compliance they
start again with a clean slate.
For the purpose of this illustration let us assume
that a second violation occurs; the municipality
again fails to monitor as required by the Order.
The Division notifies the municipality by
letter that a second violation has occurred and
that a penalty of S500 has been levied. The letter
states that $50 of the $500 penalty must be paid
but the remainder has been deferred and may be
collected if further violations occur. This
brings the total penalty deferred by the Division
to $950 of a potential penalty of $ 1000. This
means that the municipality has paid only $50 of
the potential $1000 penalty. The municipality is
informed that the penalty will be forgiven and the
slate wiped clean if no further violations occur
within twelve months from the violation.
-------
This process of notification continues until the
4th violation In a twelve month period occurs at
which time the Division will request that the full
$500 fine plus the deferred penalties be paid by
the municipality. The fine requested at that time
for this example would be $1850. All violations
following the 4th shall be penalized up to the
maximum of $ 1000 for each violation.
The deferred penalty system combined with a progressive penalty payment
fs attractive because it can demonstrate the seriousness of the
Department through collection of small penalties while deferring the bulk
of the penalty. The larger penalty will only be sought where the entity
falls to comply with the provisions of the Order and then only If four
violations occur within a twelve month period. In other words, the entity
is given repeated chances to comply but If It falls to respond further, more
drastic, measures must be taken to insure that the health of the consumer
is protected.
The same procedure would be followed for bacterial violations but, as
previously mentioned, the fine level collected and deferred would be
greater because of the attendant health risk involved. The same
philosophy and rationale is contained In Table 2 as in Table l.
-------
Attachment
Persistent Violators-Bacteriological 1C.
Mink Creek Water System
Preston Eastside Water Works
Riverdale Water System
City of Weston
Whitney-Nashville Water Works
Gene & Scott's Trailer Court
Clearwater Water Assn.
Walters, Madelaine Rentals
Hai1ey Water & Sewer
Marion Pipeline Co.
Gridley Island Water Users
Ruby Springs Water Co.
Upper Salmon Power PT-IP Co.
City of Kimberly
Avery Water Supply (East End)
Clarkia North
Murray, Ci ty of
Arimo Water Dept.
Smith Rd. Subdivision-Pocatel
City of Bloomington
Paris Water Dept.
City of Bancroft
Utah Power & Light*
Whiskey Creek Water Users*
Population
Served
120
30
25
420
340
35
100
25
2200
100
25
30
27
2300
100
125
90
300
80
300
691
500
30
60
lo
Pre-enforcement
Meeting Planned
Pre-enforcement
__ Meeting Held
Technical
Assi stance
Under
Investigation
Problems
Resolved
Board
To Be
Order
Issued
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*Status of State follow-up actions not available.
-------
Attachment C
Board Orders
System Name
Fernwood
Shady Rest Campground
Mink Creek
Jug Handle Estates
Big Little Ranches
Date Issued or To Be Issued
2/85
2/85
5/85
5/85
5/85
Cause
turbidity monitoring violations
bacti MCL violations
bacti monitoring violations
construction problems
bacti MCL violations
bacti MCL violations
turbidity monitoring violations
construction problems
-------
OREGON
-------
EPA
Drinking Water
Enforcement in Oregon
-------
EPA has primary enforcement responsibility for the Safe Drinking Uater Act
(SDUA) in Oregon. EPA's program focuses almost exclusively on compliance and
enforcement of the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
CNIPDWR) promulgated under the SDWA. In carrying out its SDWA
responsibilities EPA advises all public water systems (SDWA definition) of the
requirements of the NIPDUR and receives all data submitted by public water
systems in complying with the MIPDWR. Based on data received, EPA determines
what violations have occurred and their severity. Violations of both Maximum
Contaminant Levels (Id's) and monitoring and reporting requirements are
determined on a monthly basis.
Once violations are determined and the relative priority established,
follow-up action is undertaken by EPA or the Sates in accordance with the
Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and the Oregon State Health Division
(OSHD). Statistics on OSHD follow-up actions have already been presented.
Because EPA enforcement activities are limited to voluntary compliance or U.S.
District Court action (no administrative order available), the enforcement
process tends to be slow and requires a lengthy, carefully documented paper
trail. Fiscal year 34 statistics for EPA actions are as follows:
Site visits 84
NOVs 4
Compliance Agreements 9
DOJ Referrals 2
EPA also conducts unannounced spot check sampling surveys at various areas
throughout the state. Four surveys were conducted during FY 84. Several
water systems that had not previously reported violations were found to be in
violation of the NIPDWR during these surveys. News releases are prepared
after each survey and distributed to the media on a statewide basis to
disclose to the public those systems which had violations as well as those
which were clean. If fecal coliforms are found at a system during the survey,
a boil water advisory is issued. Follow-up actions are initiated for any
violations detected using the same procedures that are used when violations
are oased on data reported by the systems themselves.
EPA also uses news releases to encourage compliance by water systems that
fail to monitor and report. Once or twice per year a news release is prepared
which names all systems considered to be persistent non-reporters (having
missed four or more reports during the year). This technique, in conjunction
with letters to the systems reminding them of the requirements and the
consequences of non-compliance, has been relatively effective in Oregon.
In summary, all persistent violators receive follow-up attention in the
form of an escalating series of enforcement oriented steps which may
ultimately lead to Department of Justice referral and Court action.
A history of enforcement activities in Oregon during the time EPA has
operated the program is included in the attachment. The first list, entitled
"Current Oregon Drinking Water Program Enforcement Cases," is a list of those
actions that have been initiated but have not yet resulted in the desired
improvement in physical facilities and drinking water quality. When a system
has begun monitoring and reporting or completed facility improvements,
-------
performance, in terms of reporting and water quality will be monitored for six
months to one year before the case is closed out.
The second list, entitled "Oregon Drinking Water Program Notices of
Violation," lists all the NOVs issued with date of issuance and close out
dates.
The third list, entitled "Oregon Drinking Water Compliance Agreements,"
lists all of the C.A.s that have been developed with date of signature and
close-out dates where appropriate. Compliance Agreements are voluntary,
mutual agreements between EPA and the water systems defining corrective and
health protective steps to be taken in accordance with an included schedule.
C.A.s are signed by both EPA and the appropriate water system representative.
The fourth list, entitled "Closed Out Enforcement Cases," shows all the
water systems which have completed improvements and are now in compliance.
The last list, entitled "Oregon Drinking Water Program Judicial
Referrals," identifies all of the cases that have been referred to the
Department of Justice and briefly describes the resolution of those cases.
-------
February 1985
Current Oregon Prinking Water Program Enforcement Cases
Name
Notices of Violation
1. Gates, City of
2. Camp 12
3. NW Newberg WA
4. Osborne Park WA
5. Neahkahnie W.D
6. Memory Lane MHP
7. Hopewell Water Co.
Date Effective
02/01/83
11 /18/83
05/10/84
08/24/84
09/28/84
11/13/84
11/16/84
Formal Compliance Agreements
1. Clatskanie, City of
2. Alder Creek
3. Westfir, City of
4. Warrenton, City of
5. Oregon City (High Mt.)
6. Cottage Grove, City of
7. Carl ton, City of
8. Pendleton, City of
9. LaGrande, City of
07/30/82
08/18/82
11/02/82
04/1 3/83
11/29/83
03/21/84
04/18/84
07/11/84
12/12/84
Informal Compliance Agreements
1. Dayville, City of
2. Gates, City of
3. Monroe Acres
4. Scappoose, City of
5. Mitchell, City of
6. Neahkahnie
7. Birkenfeld WA
Consent Decrees
1. London Water Coop
2. Midland Water Association
3. Sunny Acres W.D.
01/27/84
02/21/84
03/07/84
06/21/84
10/26/84
12/14/84
01/21/85
03/22/84
05/04/84
-------
February 1985
Page 1 of 2
Oregon Drinking Water Program Notices of Violation
System Name
1. Neskowin
2. White Oaks MHP
3. London Water Coop
4. Susan Creek Village
5. Cooper Mt. W.D.
6. Mt. View Motel & T.C.
7. Petes Mt. W.C.
8. Ryans Outpost
9. Watseco Barview
10. Hoodview Mobile Estates
11. Glen Villa MHP
12. Helix, City of
13. Alder Creek
14. Cove W.C.
15. Northwood W.D.
16. Detroit, City of
17. Foley Lakes
18. Westgate MHP
19. Lady Creek W.S.
20. Rhododendron Summer Homes
21. Midland W.A.
22. Scappoose
23. Gates
24. Westgate
Date Effective
04/20/78
06/19/78
12/19/78
12/19/78
03/15/79
03/15/79
03/15/79
03/15/79
03/23/79
04/16/79
05/21/79
05/21/79
07/31/79
09/28/79
10/15/79
02/22/80
06/19/80
10/10/80
10/17/80
10/17/80
09/1 6/82
01/25/83
02/01/83
02/01 /83
Date Closed Out
(System Improvements Completed)
09/30/80
05/06/80
01/25/83 (filed w/court)
07/26/83
06/18/82
11/12/82 (filed w/court)
06/04/84
10/07/80
09/16/80
06/19/80
11/12/82 (filed w/court)
10/07/80
C.A. 08/18/82
08/11/83
11/30/80
10/07/80
01/28/81
N.O.V.#2 02/01/83
09/17/82
09/17/82
01/07/83 (filed w/court)
06/21/84
05/09/83 (filed w/court)
-------
Page 2 of 2
Oregon Drinking Mater Program Notices of Violation (continued)
Date Closed Out
System Name Date Effective (System Improvements Completed)
25. Dover Homesites 07/19/83 01/30/85
26. Camp 12 11/18/83
27. NW Newberg WA 05/10/84
28. Osborne Park 08/24/84
29. Neahkahnle W.D. 09/28/84
30. Dammasch State Hosp. 10/10/84 12/19/84
31. Memory Lane MHP 11/13/84
32. Hopewell Water Co. 11/16/84
-------
Oregon Drinking Water Compliance Agreements
February 1985
Page 1 of 2
Date Closed Out
System
1. Sumpter
2. Echo
3. Aldridge Ditch
4. Long Creek
. Gov't Camp
6. Milo Academy
7. Monroe
8. La Grande
9. Monmouth
10. Gold Hill
11. Cottage Grove
12. Cooks Motel & TC
13. PP&L Toketee
14. Langlois
15. Union
16. La Grande
17. Boes Commun. WS
18. Summit View
19. Wickiup
20. Clatskanie
21. Latourell Falls
22. Alder Creek
Date System
System Name Type* Effective Improvements Completed)
C.A.
C.A.
I. C.A.
C.A.
I. C.A.
C.A.
I. C.A.
I. C.A.
I. C.A.
I. C.A.
C.A.
I. C.A.
I. C.A.
C.A.
I. C.A.
C.A.
I. C.A.
I. C.A.
I. C.A.
C.A.
I. C.A.
C.A.
01/20/78
08/01/78
02/14/79
04/27/79
02/01/80
07/15/80
10/29/80
12/08/80
02/06/81
03/30/81
06/16/81
06/17/81
07/20/81
08/04/81
02/05/82
06/07/82
06/12/82
06/29/82
revised 2/25/83)
07/26/82
07/30/82
07/30/82
08/18/82
12/18/79
04/06/81
06/30/81
05/15/80
12/17/80
09/14/82
10/02/81
C.A. (06/07/82)
07/14/81
08/26/81
expired 02/09/83
03/05/82
04/1 3/82
01/21/83
09/1 5/83
C.A. rewritten
10/04/84
09/12/83
07/27/83
08/23/83
-------
Page 2 of 2
;s (continued)
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
•30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
System Name
Lincoln City
Klaskanine Fish
Hatchery
Westfir
Leafwood
Cloverdale
Warrenton
Lafayette
Amity, City of
Oregon City (High Mt. )
Dayville, City of
Gates, City of
Monroe Acres
Cottage Grove
Carl ton, City of
Lower Coos River
Water Corp.
Scappoose, City of
Pendleton, City of
Mitchell, -City of
La Grande
Neahkahnie
Birkenfeld W.A.
Type*
C.A.
I.C. A.
C.A.
C.A.
C.A.
C.A.
I. C.A.
I. C.A.
C.A.
I. C.A.
I. C.A.
I. C.A.
C.A. # 2
C.A
I. C.A
I. C.A.
C.A.
I. C.A.
C.A. #2
I. C.A.
I. C.A.
Date
Effective
09/08/82
10/18/82
11/02/82
01/03/83
01/10/83
04/13/83
06/1 5/83
09/16/83
11/29/83
01/27/84
02/21/84
03/07/84
03/21/84
04/18/84
04/20/84
06/21 /84
07/11/84
10/26/84
12/12/84
12/14/84
01/21/85
Date Closed Out
(System
Improvements Completed)
12/16/83
07/26/83
03/22/84
01/05/84
05/25/84
08/01/84
09/28/84
* C.A. - Formal Compliance Agreement
I.C.A. - Informal Compliance Agreement
-------
February 1985
Page 1 of 2
I.D. Number
Formal Compliance Agreements
4100845
4100490
4100270
4100250
4100466
4100483
41 00886
4100993
CLOSED OUT ENFORCEMENT CASES
Name
Sumpter, City of
Long Creek, City
Echo, City of
Milo Academy
Langlois
Lincoln City
Cloverdale
Leafwood
of
Date Closed
12/18/79
05/15/80
04/06/81
09/14/82
01/21/83
12/16/83
01 /05/84
03/22/84
Informal Compliance Agreements
4100336
4101013
4100537
4100333
4100540
4101183
4101 01 2
4190099
4100063
41 01 21 7
41 00584
4100915
4100452
4100041
4100207
4100177
Notices of Violation
4100808
4100391
4100970
4100407
4100368
4100257
4100871
4101173
4100885
4100082
4100700
4100132
4101029
Government Camp 12/17/80
Aldridge Ditch 06/30/81
Monmouth 07/14/81
Gold Hill 08/26/81
Monroe 10/02/81
Cook's Motel & T.P. 03/05/82
PP&L Toketee 04/13/82
Klaskanine Fish Hatchery 07/26/83
Wickiup 07/27/83
Latourell Falls 08/23/83
Summit View Water Coop 09/12/83
Union, City of 09/15/83
Lafayette, City of 05/25/84
Amity, City of 08/01/84
Lower Coos River Water Corp. 09/28/84
Boes Community W.S. 12/04/84
White Oaks MHP 05/06/80
Hoodview Mobile Estates 06/19/80
Neskowin 09/30/80
Ryans Outpost 10/07/80
Helix, City of 10/07/80
Detroit, City of 10/07/80
Foley Lakes 01/28/81
Watseco Barview 09/16/81
Northwood W.D. 11/30/81
Cooper Mt. W.D. 06/18/82
Lady Creek 09/17/82
Rhododendron 09/17/82
Mt. View MTP 11/12/82
filed w/court
-------
Page 2 of 2
Notices of Violation
4100322
4101139
4100239
4101030
4100397
4100242
4100161
4100792
4100955
4100263
CLOSED OUT ENFORCEMENT CASES CONT'D
Glen Villa MHP
Midland WA
London Water Coop
Westgate MHP
Susan Creek Village
Cove Water Enterprises
Pete's Mt. Water Co.
Scappoose, City of
Dammasch State Hosp.
Dover Homesites
11/12/82 filed w/court
01/07/83 filed w/court
01/25/83 filed w/court
05/09/83 filed w/court
07/26/83
08/11/83
06/04/84
06/21/84
12/19/84
01/30/85
Consent Decrees
4101003
Tivoli MHP
06/01 /84
-------
Oregon Drinking Water Program Judicial Referrals
February 1985
Page 1 of 2
System Name
1. Neskowin
Date to HQ
or Justice
09/18/78
Date Filed Court Action Date
04/04/79 Summary Judgment 05/21/80
Civil Penalties $26,400
Contempt of Court $5,327
Comments
2. Alder Creek Water Co. 05/18/79
09/19/79
Receivership 07/27/82
Summary Judgement ($6,200) 04/23/84
Compliance Agreement
W/ACWA
3. London Water Coop.
07/20/82
01/25/83
4. Mitchell Water Assn. 07/21/82
11/12/82
5. Mt. View MTP
07/21/82
11/12/82
6. Tivoli Mobile Home Park 07/21/82
11/12/82
Consent Decree
($100) Paid
Summary Judgment
($3,350)
Default Judgment
($6,800)
Consent Decree
($2,000) Paid
03/22/84 Agreement being
monitored closely
until termination
12/04/84. Motion
for Extension of C.D.
sent to court 11/28/84.
Court granted extension
of C.D. to 6/1/85 to
allow time for technical
assistance to operator.
11/22/83 System being sold,
reporting improving
under new owner.
Judgement payment
not received.
05/24/83 System reclassified
NC. Administrative
enforcement file
closed. No payment,
no reporting.
08/05/83 Consent Decree
closed out in 06/84
in full compliance.
-------
Oregon Drinking Water Program Judicial Referrals Cont'd
Page 2 of 2
7. Midland Water Assn.
09/17/82
01/07/83
Consent Decree (signed) 03/21/84
($3,000) (effective) 05/04/84
Payment in process
(Judge accidently
signed CD early)
Agreement being
monitored closely
until termination
6/1/85 or when payment
finished, whichever
later.
8. Glen Villa Trailer Park 09/24/82
11/12/82
Consent Decree
($2,500) Paid
11/22/83 Fine for vilolations
of C.D. paid 6/84
($600). C.D. closed
out 12/84 in full
compliance.
9. Westgate MHP
10. Partney MHP
02/09/83
09/30/83
05/09/83
11/07/83
Default Judgment
($35,000)
Consent Decree
($1,500) Paid
10/11/83 System sold. Adminstr.
enforcement file
closed.
Payment not received.
07/03/84 Payment rec'd, system
sold. File closed 7/84.
11. Sunny Acres
02/28/84
04/11/84
C.D. lodged w/court -
45 day comment period
almost up. Should be
entered by mid-Feb.
12. Hopewell WS
03/28/84 04/24/84 None
(to HQ) (to U.S.
Attorney)
Criminal cases go
directly HQ to US
Attorney in Portland,
then to Grand Jury (no
Justice Department.)
U.S. Attorney
(Charles Turner)
declined to take
action 8/30/84.
-------
DRINKING HATER
ENFORCEMENT
-------
Oregon Statute and Regulations
The Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act, passed by the State Legislature in
1981, established a basis for a comprehensive program to regulate public water
systems.
The Oregon Revised Statues, Section 115-290, provide for adoption of
public drinking water quality standards, prescription of construction and
operation standards for water systems, review and approval of construction
plans for new and improved water systems, variances from standards and permits
for the operation of noncomplying water systems under certain conditions,
technical assistance and training for water system personnel, and enforcement
measures when rules and provisions are violated.
Responsibility for implementing the Act is vested with the Oregon State
Health Division which is headquartered in Portland and also has staff located
in regional offices in Portland, Eugene, Roseburg, and Pendleton.
The Oregon Revised Statues were modified slightly in 1983 to allow the
Health Division to mail notices of intent to interested parties, describing
when and where the Health Division intends to grant variances or permits,
rather than holding public hearings as previously required.
Past Enforcement Actions
Section 448.135-290 of the Oregon Revised Statutes empowers the
Administrator of the Health Division to take enforcement action against
owners/operators of public water systems in order to protect public health.
Compliance authority includes: (1) Notice of Violation, which is always
coupled with a remedial order; (2) permit, which is always accompanied by a
compliance schedule; (3) order to cease operation; and (4) assessment of civil
penal ties.
The number of NOVs issued through FY 84 is as follows:
TABLE 1
State-issued NOVs and Solutions, 1983-1984
Country Club - new source
Hamrich's Corner - drilled new well
Sandelie Golf Club - fines threatened
Fireside Tavern - installed treatment facility
Goble
Long Prairie
Five Acres MHP - upgrade plans submitted to state
-------
The number of state-issued permits for FY 84 is as follows:
TABLE 2
State-issued Permits (1984-1985)
Lady Creek—boil water advisory; engineering plan due FY 85
Wai Iowa Lakes—5 systems; boil water; plan due FY 85
Westwood—in violation of schedule; state considering
enforcement action
Oregon Administrative Rules
The State Health Division adopted rules in 1983 for implementing the
Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act. Construction standards, plan review and
approval requirements, water quality standards, sampling and reporting, record
keeping and other responsibilities of water suppliers are clearly defined.
Specifically, the Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 333, provide for
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for inorganic chemicals, turbidity, coliform
bacteria, radioactive substance and secondary contaminants, as well as
requirements for sampling, analytical procedures, reporting, public
notification and record keeping. Penalties for violation of any section of
the rules are also provided.
Oregon/EPA Memorandum of Understanding
In 1982 and again in 1983, the State and EPA negotiated a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) which delineates the responsibilities and activities of
each agency toward ensuring safe drinking water in Oregon. The MOU is
intended to minimize duplication and set the framework for more efficient use
of al1 resources.
The MOU clearly assigns lead responsibility for particular activities to
either the EPA or the State and indicates where shared or coordinated
activities exist. The MOU stipulates the following operating provisions:
EPA lead responsibilities
1 Data management: All monitoring data from the public water systems
are sent to EPA, Seattle, except data required by the State only
(i.e., 4-14 service connection systems and inorganic contaminants for
non-community systems). EPA screens the data for violations. In
addition, the inventory of water systems is maintained by EPA.
2. Enforcement: EPA retains lead enforcement responsibility for those
water systems which have a record of noncompliance and for which EPA
has already initiated some enforcement action.
-------
3. Laboratory Certification: EPA conducts routine certification of all
laboratories which analyze drinking water samples sent to them by
water suppliers in Oregon.
State lead responsibilities
1. Surveillance and Technical Assistance: The State has lead
responsibility for conducting sanitary surveys, providing technical
assistance, and conducting cross-connection control activities.
2. Plan Review: The State has sole responsibility of plan review
(including delegation to county health departments) and setting
specifications for new and modified water supply systems.
3. Training and Certification: The State has the responsibility for
providing and coordinating operator training. The certification
program is operated under a grant from EPA to the AWWA but has State
overview and is to become self supporting at the end of the grant
period.
4. Enforcement: The State has responsibility for the enforcement
follow-up of low-priority violations as designated by the EPA and for
all enforcement/compliance actions against water systems with less
than 15 service connections. No persistent violators have been
assigned to the State in the past; currently the State is pursuing
compliance actions toward two FY 84 persistent violators, Imnaha and
Midland Hills Nater Company.
5. Emergency Response and Disease Surveillance: The DEQ has the primary
spill response role where toxic materials could contaminate a
drinking water source. The State Health Division, in cooperation
with individual counties, has primary responsibility for other
emergency response and disease surveillance activities.
Field Work Summary
During FY 83 and the first half of FY 84, a considerable number of field
activities were carried out by the State and delegate county staff. This
represents the first major effort by the Division to provide technical
assistance directly in the field to public water systems statewide.
A summary of the field work conducted is presented in Table 3. Sanitary
survey inspections of 828 water systems were carried out. More than 300
individual violations of water quality standards were investigated.
-------
TABLE 3
Field Nork Summary (January 1. 1983 - June 30, 1984)
Agency
DSHD (by region)
Portland
Eugene
Pendl eton
Roseburg
SUBTOTAL
Delegate Counties
Benton
Crook
Deschutes
Douglas
Hood River
Jackson
Josephi ne
Klamath
Lane
Li ncoln
Li nn
Malheur
Mul tnomah
Till amook
Wasco/Sherman (1 year
Washi ngton
Yamhil 1
SUBTOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
Sanitary
Surveys
60
28
—
—
88
67
14
30
45
7
85
94
51
25
47
80
12
64
35
) 4
50
20
740
828
Field
Assi stance
49
14
—
—
63
88
5
10
16
2
77
61
40
5
2
306
369
Compl ai nts/
Di sease
Reports
18
4
—
—
22
84
3
9
21
3
6
3
21
7
20
55
28
1
0
0
0
261
283
MCL
Violations*
61
5
—
—
66
35
1
3
49
2
20
35
16
34
21
7
20
12
0
9
0
265
331
'Both EPA and state-regulated systems.
Current Enforcement Actions
In FY 85, thirty-one systems with potential or confirmed quarterly MCL
violations have been referred by EPA to the State for followup compliance
activity. During the February compliance update meeting, the State reported
that PNs were-issued for seven systems, two systems were on compliance
schedules, twelve systems received letters and/or site visits, five systems
did not have quarterly violations, and action was pending on the balance of
the systems.
-------
WASHINGTON
-------
State of Washington
Drinking Water
Enforcement Program
-------
State Authority
Chapter 43.20 RCW, adopted in 1967, empowers the Washington State Board of
Health to adopt rules and regulations for the protection of water supplies for
domestic use and such other uses as may affect the public health; and to adopt
standards and procedures governing the design, construction and operation of
water supply, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities, as well as the
quality of water delivered to the ultimate consumer. The statute also
provides that the Director of Public Health has the authority to strictly
enforce all laws for the protection of public health and provides authority to
sue in courts of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened or continuing
violation of the State primary drinking water regulations.
While statutory authority exists for the State to carry out an active
enforcement program, little emphasis has been placed on formal enforcement in
the past. Enforcement actions, however, have increased substantially within
the past year as a result of increased emphasis by the State and urging by
EPA. Washington's enforcement program, as carried out by the Department of
Social and Health Services (DSHS), is described below.
Compliance Strategy Development'
The DSHS Water Supply and Waste Section has recently prepared a compliance
monitoring and enforcement plan which sets compliance targets, prioritizes
violation categories for follow-up actions, establishes procedures for
implementing enforcement actions, and describes EPA's oversight role.
The compliance targets for FY 85 (community water systems) have been set
by DSHS as follows:
Bacteriological MCL and monitoring 92 percent
Inorganic Chemical MCL 95 percent
Inorganic Chemical Monitoring 90 percent
Turbidity Monitoring 75 percent
Turbidity MCL 90 percent
In all instances of persistent violation, the compliance goal has been set
at 100 percent.
DSHS has devised a general flow process for enforcement activities for
both monitoring and water quality violations. (See Attachment A.) By
following these procedures, DSHS should be able to attain uniform, timely and
appropriate responses for all types of non-compliance incidents.
Current Compliance with National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Washington had 2,325 community water systems in FY 84. Of these, 2,205
were served by ground water while only 120 utilized surface water. FY 84
bacteriological and turbidity monitoring and MCL compliance rates for these
systems are shown below.
-------
Population
Served
<100 (1169 systems)
>100 (1156 systems)
Bacteriological
Monitoring
Compliance
78%
917.
Persi stent
Violators
281
106
Bacteriological
MCL
Compliance
97%
987.
Persi stent
Violators
14
12
Population
Served
Si 00
>100
(26
(94
systems)
systems)
Turbidity
Monitoring
Compliance
677.
917.
Persi stent
Violators
10
6
Turbidity
MCL
Compliance
977.
957.
Persistent
Violators
1
4
Significant Non-CompViers and Follow-up Actions
Twenty-six community water systems were identified as bacteriological MCL
persistent violators (violations for four or more months) during FY 84. Of
the twenty-five systems for which we have information, twenty-three sent out
public notices regarding their system's violation. DSHS sent violation
notices to eleven of these systems, requested that one system issue public
notice, and issued departmental orders to two systems. A table listing these
twenty-six systems and actions taken by DSHS and/or the system is provided in
Attachment B.
DSHS utilizes a variety of enforcement actions depending upon the specific
violation, the knowledge the staff may have regarding the
water system, and the public health impact which may result if
not addressed. These actions include letters, phone calls,
orders, connection moratoria and referrals to the
nature of the
non-compli ant
the violation is
site visits, departmental
A.G.
There are currently three types of administrative orders issued in
Washington: hook-up moratoria which are initiated by DSHS; building or septic
tank permit denials, issued by the county on their initiative or at the
request of DSHS; and departmental orders, issued by DSHS, which direct water
systems to comply with drinking water regulations.
The number
follows:
of administrative orders issued from FY 84 to date are as
Hook-up moratoria and/or
permit denials
Departmental Orders
FY 84
11
3
FY 85 thru
March 1985
8
15
-------
Prior to FY 84 hook-up moratoria and permit denials were utilized in the
State, but were not separately reported to EPA. Departmental orders were
first established by regulation in August 1983.
(See Attachment C for additional information on administrative orders issued
during FY 84.)
Departmental orders have been issued to eighteen water systems since
December 1983. (See Attachment D.) Of the four systems issued orders prior
to this February, the problems with the Milan and Lake Samish Mobile Terrace
systems have been resolved, the McGhee system has been served notice that DSHS
is preparing to file a lawsuit in superior court, and the Silver Firs system
has not reported any further problems since the issuance of the order. (DSHS
is working with Cowlitz County to establish a ULID for the Silver Firs system
users. It is proposed that they hook up to a nearby regional water system
which should be operational in March.)
Because no penalties are authorized for violation of departmental orders
at this time, the orders may not always be effective. To provide for this
penalty authority, Representative Paul Zellinsky recently introduced HB 869
which describes the issuance and content of a departmental order and proposes
a penalty in the form of a fine in an amount not to exceed $1000 for each
violation of an order.
In correspondence with Rep. Zellinsky, prior to the reintroduction of the
bill this session, DSHS stated that they, as well as the State Water Supply
Advisory Committee, recommend that a bill not be introduced until a study by
the A.G.'s office is completed this spring and it is clear just what
enforcement procedures are needed and how they would be used. The Drinking
Nater Programs Branch, however, has indicated its support of this legislation
in a letter to DSHS, as it is felt that the bill would be appropriate
regardless of the outcome of the A.G.'s review.
The final legal remedy available to DSHS is court action. As might be
expected, the number of court cases filed by DSHS is very limited. Since the
beginning of FY 83, three cases have been filed with the courts. These are
listed in Attachment E. It is anticipated that the A.G. study mentioned above
may result in better legal procedures which will provide wider use of court
actions.
Summary and Future Direction
DSHS statutes and regulations are not particularly "enforcement oriented".
Yet despite the limited enforcement tools available to DSHS, significant
enforcement activity has recently taken place. Departmental Orders are the
cornerstone of the enforcement program. It remains to be seen, however, if
the orders turn out to be extremely effective in the absence of penalties for
violation of the orders.
-------
Enforcement actions are being directed against significant violators which
have shown little interest in pursuing voluntary compliance. DSHS has
committed to pursuing these actions through the courts, if necessary, to bring
them to ultimate resolution.
The DSHS enforcement program is gaining momentum and it is expected to
grow. EPA should continue to encourage enforcement as a means to improving
compliance, but no more active EPA role will probably by needed in order to
assure that a proper balance is struck between enforcement and all the other
basic elements of a drinking water program.
-------
Attachment A
DSHS - WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE SECTION
- DRINKING WATER PROGRAM COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PLAN -
The thrust of this document is to present a plan and implementation process
for the state of Washington's monitoring/reporting activities regarding drink-
ing water quality requirements and compatible information transfer to the over-
sight agency, EPA Region X. The elements of the program which will be addressed
to achieve target compliance levels are:
1. Identification of and priorities for non-compliant systems.
2. Enforcement strategy.
3. Accurate and reliable monitoring information.
4. Implementation activities to achieve high compliance in a timely and appro-
priate manner.
5. Reporting.
6. Program audit/evaluation.
I. Priority of Action
Although non-compliance for any of the water quality parameters currently
used in public water systems regulation is viewed essentially of equal
importance with regard to public health protection, an ordering of priorities
can be established for FY 85 to allow a better directed use of limited regu-
latory resources, ^or the state of Washington, a focus of attention will be
placed on the following violations in order of listing:
A. Persistent bacteriological MCL
B. Primary inorganic MCL
C. Turbidity MCL
D. Persistent bacteriological monitoring
E. Radionuclide MCL
F. Persistent inorganic monitoring
G. Persistent turbidity monitoring
H. Routine bacteriological monitoring
I. Routine inorganic monitoring
J. Routine turbidity monitoring
K. Secondary inorganic MCL
L. Intermittent bacteriological monitoring
-------
-2-
Shifting of these priorities may occur throughout the year in consulta-
tion with the EPA as compliance results are obtained and evaluated in
joint review.
The compliance targets for FY 85 (community water systems) have been set
as follows:
Bacteriological MCL and Monitoring 92 percent
Inorganic Chemical MCL 95 percent
Inorganic Chemical Monitoring 90 percent
Turbidity Monitoring 75 percent
Turbidity MCL 90 percent
In all instances of persistent violation, the compliance goal shall be
100 percent. It is probably not reasonable to expect this level of suc-
cess, but it is intended that this level of attention will be paid to vio-
lations which are persistent.
Identification of routine non-compliant systems will be accomplished through
the current data processing system. Persistent violators will be identified
on a quarterly basis by EPA record review. The Region X data summaries
showing persistent non-compliance will be provided to the state until the
state adjusts its enforcement action data printouts to reflect persistent
violations on a monthly basis. It is expected that the state will have such
capability before the half of FY 85.
•
II. Enforcement Strategy
The state, in order to establish credibility and maintain uniformity of
action for enforcement, will strive to attain timely and appropriate enforce-
ment responses for all types of water quality non-compliance incidents.
For doing this, flow processes for enforcement activities have been devised
for both monitoring and water quality violations. Figure 1 shows the action
sequence for both bacteriological and primary inorganic MCL enforcement
actions. Figure 2 presents the similar situation for turbidity MCL response,
These enforcement activities are those to be taken in a generic sense. The
field office personnel will be involved in setting more precise enforcement
steps for which particular reporting activities will be required.
-------
Violation Noted and Verified
I (30 days)
(30 days)
(30 days)
. 1 .
PN Required
(30 days) | (30 davs)
Satisfactory No PN — *- 0
PN
130 days) j (30 days)
If Persistent If Intermittent
\ 1
Remedial Action f If Per
Compliance Schedule PhonlT
Visit i
Connection Mo
Advise of Remed
and Set Complia
1
Letter/Phone Call/Site Visit " ' "^ ' roper «ction Taken
Notification of Follow-up (30 days)
Requirements
t Confirmed MCL
Require" Samples
(30 days) Taken to Negate MCL PN Required
epartmental PH No PN Required
(30 days)
1
i ' Ho PN by
' • Satisfactory PN
slstent If Intermittent.
(14 days) 1 (30 days)
Compliance f f
Meeting If Persistent If Intermittent Departme
1(14 days) i (30 days)
Letter
nee Schedule I
(variable) If Persistent • If Inter
(30 days)
System
(14 days)
ntal PN
(10 days)
•mlttent
Departmental Order
I
(variable)
Letter
Litigation
Connection
Moratorium
Advise of Remedial
Action and Set
Compliance Schedule
-------
Monthly Report Showing
Violation
(30 days)
Compliance Attained
(30 days)
I
Satisfactory PN
No. PN
Departmental PN
Letter/Phone Call/Site Visit
Notification of Follow-up
Requirements
(3Q days)
(14-60. days)
I
Implementation Accomplished
(30 days)
T
i
Satisfactory PN
(30 days)
No PN
(30 days)
Departmental PN
No Compliance
I (30 days)
Investigation of MCL/
Solution/Remedial Action
(14-60 days)
No Action by System
(30 days)
i
Departmental PN
Departmental Order
Establish Compliance Meeting
(10 days)
Set Compliance Schedule
(variable) i (variable)
I
i
Non-Compllance
(30 days)
Compliance
Litigation
-------
-3-
The enforcement procedures for monitoring violations, both bacteriological
and turbidity, have been prescribed in a different manner due to the variate
forms of non-compliance which may occur relative to the historical record
of the system. The specific processes have been outlined using terminology
and acronyms suitable for regional office interpretation. Appendix A con-
tains the processes to be used by all regional offices.
III. Insurance of Accurate, Reliable Compliance Data
The state has an on-going program of laboratory certification which assures
the quality of laboratory data. The more critical aspect of data transfer
within the information processing portion will be evaluated periodically
or whenever discrepancies become apparent. The state and EPA will, through
quarterly analysis of enforcement action information, mutually evaluate the
quality of the data/information and make adjustments if determined to be
necessary. Currently, the state and EPA data transferral mechanism is
working well. As enforcement activities increase, the volume of information
transfer will increase and closer attention to maintenance of high quality
data will be expected. Quarterly, mid-year, and annual oversight reviews
will include examination of the status of this issue.
IV. Implementation and Reporting
•ttt-o^rr.-^
The implementation of an equitable and sound enforcement posture will require
cooperative efforts of both the state and EPA. Although not envisioned as a
routine action, the EPA may upon request enter into the enforcement action
sequence to assist in resolution of particularly recalcitrant compliance
problems. Just what scenario could arise which could provide for this is
now only conjecture. The working relationship between the state and EPA will
be close enough that mutual recognition of and support for addressing the
most problematic violators will come cooperatively and essentially simultan-
eously.
All field offices in the state will be guided by the enforcement strategy
previously presented. Each office will then be able to address non-compliant
systems in a consistent manner. Inasmuch as possible the enforcement actions
which have codified by the EPA will be used by all involved staff. In
Instances where a specific action is not explicit to the venacular of EPA,
the equivalent action will be defined as used in the state. Staff will employ,
where and when appropriate, that action and report it to EPA in terms mutually
agreed upon.
-------
-4-
Reports of all state enforcement actions will be provided to EPA Region X
on a quarterly basis. The EPA Region X office will provide a quarterly sum-
mary to the state of all systems in non-compliance for bacteriological and
turbidity water quality and monitoring violations. This listing will be
checked against the state enforcement action listings for verification of
data and correction, if needed. All non-compliant systems which are per-
ststent violators will receive priority attention. The enforcement activities
for those systems which have occurred through state involvement will be
reported to EPA using the codification recommendations given in Appendix B,
wherever applicable. The report will be provided to EPA within 30 days
of receipt of the quarterly summary.
V. Program Audit/Evaluation
To insure a better directed program for meeting national and state compliance
goals, an on-going process of program evaluation and performance auditing
is necessary. The state and EPA will meet quarterly, following transmittal
of the enforcement activity accounting report to EPA, to review compliance
status and collectively determine future direction. An accounting of the
number of persistent violators and the enforcement actions undertaken in
this regard will be a focal point for review. Other aspects of the program
will also be evaluated with a gradually increasing emphasis on non-community
systems which evidence persistent non-compliance. The quarterly reviews
will be more or less informal and topic specific in scope, and will be
initiated by March 1985. The mid-year and annual reviews will be more
exhaustive in scope to cover all aspects of the enforcement activities as
well as to provide input on longer range expectations and needs of the program.
-------
APPENDIX A
SUBJECT: Enforcement actions for water systems in non-compliance with bacterio
logical monitoring requirements.
PURPOSE: To maintain high compliance averages for Class 1 and 2 -water systems
which do not monitor for bacteriological water quality as required,
a procedure prescribing enforcement options which can be uniformly
applied by all Regional Offices is desirable. Such procedure must
allow for identification of non-compliant systems which merit regula-
tory attention, stipulate the degree of attention which should be
given, and present the process by which all offices will react to
non-compliant systems.
PROCEDURE
Enforcement Elements which are available:
Regional Office Letter (variable tone and content)
Form letter No. 1 (plea for responsible action)
Form letter No. 2 (threat to use AG action, require P.N., regular mail)
Form letter No. 2 (threat to use AG action, require P.N.,use certified mail)
Departmental Order (must sample)
Phone call
Site Visit
Connection Moratorium
Public Notification by the Department
Referral to A.G.
DO)
PC
1.
The above enforcement elements constitute those actions which may be taken,
either singly or in some sequence, whenever a monitoring violation has been
documented. The actions which should be taken are dependent upon the
specific nature of the violation, what knowledge the staff may have regarding
the non-compliant water system and the public health impact which may result
if the violation is not addressed.
-------
APPENDIX A (cont.)
Page 2
Six possible types of non-compliance can be projected which may require a
different initial action and follow-up enforcement procedure. Three of
these can be referred to as long-term problems which relate to a system's
historical performance,and three pertain to the continuing short-term non-
compliance situations which we routinely handle. Below are listed the non-
compliance characteristics with which we may be involved and accompanying
each is a recommended procedural process for dealing with them. (The enforce-
ment elements are identified as given above.)
LONG-TERM/PERSISTENT VIOLATIONS
(a) Class 1 or 2 systems which have not sampled for the previous consecutive
12 months or more.
30 days,
(AG) , MOF
(b) Class 1 or 2 systems which have not sampled for five through 11 consecutive
months out of the previous 12-month period.
30 days^ (DO) 30 days^
(c) Class 1 or 2 systems have previous 12-month history of periodic monitoring
violations (intermittent violator) wherein monitoring was not performed for
four or more months (not necessarily consecutively).
or
30 days
or
30 days
30 days
SHORT-TERM/ROUTINE VIOLATIONS
(d) Class 1 or 2 systems required to take less than five samples per month
appears on enforcement action listing and is scheduled to receive form
letter No. 1.
*~^ ,^~\.
30 days
30 days
30 days
(e) Class 1 or 2 systems required to take five or more samples per month is
out of compliance but has submitted 80 percent or more of the required samples,
,(PC), or(v) 30 days,
30 days,
30 days
.30 days
-------
APPENDIX A (cont.)
Page 3
(f) Class 1 or 2 systems required to take five or more samples per month
has submitted less than 80 percent of the required samples and is sche-
duled to receive form letter No. 1.
30 days.
30 days,
30 days.
-------
APPENDIX B
DEFINITIONS OF ENFORCEMENT FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
FRDS
Code Type of Action
A Violation notice
B Compliance meeting
C Technical assistance visit or meeting
D Site visit for enforcement purposes
E Public notification requested for system
F Public notification received from system
G State-issued public notification
H Boil water order
J Notice of violation
K Compliance agreement
L Administrative order/compliance order
M Administrative penalty
N Show-cause hearing
P Case under development*
Q Civil case filed*
R Consent decree or consent judgment*
S Default judgment*
T Injunction*
U Temporary Restraining order/preliminary injunction*
V Criminal case filed+
W Criminal case resolved*
X Compliance achieved
Y Variance/Exemption issued
Z Turbidity waiver issued
3 Case appealed*
4 Case dropped*
5 Hook-up/Extension ban
6 Intentional no action
7 Unresolved, but action continued
8 Other
* Civil Actions
+ Criminal Action
Other actions are considered to be administrative actions.
NOTE: This replaces Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS) Table B-12 and the
Model State Information System Legal Status Code (catalog no. 449)
effective October 1, 1984.
-------
Attachment B
Persistent Violators-Bacteriological MCI
System Name
Brown Road Water Users
Cape George Colony Club
Carbonado Nater Department
Hi 1 lard Water System
Fishermans Cove Association
Gace Apartments
Gooseberry Point Water
Granada
Granite Glenn
Hangman Valley Addition
Kapowsin Water Corp.
Kittitas Co. Water District
Lund, J.R. Addition Water
McGhee Water Works
Meadowland Water Service
Milan Water
Poeschel & Schultz #5
Mt. Baker Water Association
Neil ton Cooperative Water
Morris Supply
Terrawood Water
Timberline Water Users
Wai lace River Park
Watervilie, Town of
Weona Beach
Whitlam Water
Population
Served
30
614
425
20
80
56
318
186
49
363
70
250
72
78
160
30
48
345
120
30
114
35
132
903
20
42
Violation
Notice
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Public Notice
Requested
Public Notice
Received
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Departmenta1
Order
Other
-------
Attachment C
State of Washington
Hook-up Moratorium and/or (BuHding or
Septic Tank) Permit Denials'
FY '84
PWS ID »
WA5326627
WA5319069
WA5388387
WA53205H
WA5374000
WAS308250
WA5318851
WA5301986
WA5394830
WA5357400
WA5370980
Month
of Issuance
August
August
July
June
October
January
March
May
July
August
August
Reason
Too many hookups;
Outages; complaints
Water shortages
Needs well
Improvements
elevated Iron and
manganese
water quality
problems
water quality prob-
lems
lack of responsible
owner/operator
Non-monitoring; no
follow-up for
fluoride violation
Sub-standard system
System sub-standard
Departmental Orders
WA5354623
WA5352400
WA5344540
December
April
May
boll water order
order to boll water;
chlorinate
order to notify
customers of health
hazard; major system
facility deficiencies
-------
Attachment D
Departmental Orders
System .Name
Mi Ian Water System
McGhee Water System
Lake Samish Mobile Terrace
Silver Firs Estates
Desert Water Company
River Terrace Water System
Old Chiefs Mobile Home Park
River Front Park
Lebam Water District #2
Clark & Owens Water System
El Canto Rio Trailer Court
Gold Hills Community Club
Sereno Verde Estates Water
Bliss Beach Water
Eld Inlet Community Water Assn.
Kinwood Mobile Home Park
Knight, Ben Water System
Broyles Well
County
Spokane
Pierce
Whatcom
Cowlitz
Ben ton
Snohomi sh
Clallam
Grays Harbor
Pacific
Pierce
Pierce
Pierce
Pierce
Thurston
Thurston
Thurston
Whatcom
Yak i ma
Date Issued
12/83
4/84
5/84
11/84
2/85
2/85
3/85
3/85
3/85
3/85
3/85
3/85
3/85
3/85
3/85
3/85
3/85
3/85
Cause
Quality and pressure problems
Quality and pressure problems
Quality and reliability problems
Reliabi1ity problems
Reliabi1i ty problems
Quality problems
Bacteriological monitoring
Bacteriological monitoring
Bacteriological monitoring
Bacteriological monitoring
Bacteriological monitoring
Bacteriological monitoring
Bacteriological monitoring
Bacteriological monitoring
Bacteriological monitoring
Bacteriological monitoring
Bacteriological monitoring
Bacteriological monitoring
-------
Attachment E
OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Inter-office Correspondence
TO: Bill Liechty, LD-11
Fror^fORobert Todd Gay, AAG, PY-13
Subject: Litigation Status Report
Date; February 21, 1985
1. State v. Hughes
San Juan County No. 4419
Inadequate quality and quantity
Salt water intrusion
Owner deceased
Users Association, state and
department working together
to find new source
Case filed November 5, 1982
State v. Mentor/Eldorado
Hills, Thurston County
No. 83-2-00914-3
Negligent operations
Inadequate facilities
PUD takeover anticipated
Case filed July 20, 1983
State v- Whatcom County
Water District No. 17
Whatcom County No.
33-2-00125-7
Suit to recover loan payment from
water district after it
voted to disincorporate.
Most of loan recovered
Full repayment expected
Case filed February 2, 1983
4. State v- McGhee
Low pressure, outages,
contamination
Case served January 25, 1985
Ft9
-------
Inter-office Correspondence
Bill Liechty Page 2 February 21, 1985
5. Timberlane Homes v- Notice of Appearance for State
Water District No. 105, served and filed 2/20/85
et al., King County
No. 35-2-02164-9 State served with lawsuit 2/15/85*
RTG:cs
cc: Jim Hudson, Water Supply & Waste
*Homeowners Association suing because they believe Water District, County,
and State approved substandard distribution line (2" PVC). There have
been no reports of quantity, quality or pressure problems. DSHS
believes the Homeowners are suing because their insurance rates are
higher. (2" pipe insufficient for fire flow. Normally 6" - 8" ductile
pipe is required.)
------- |