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.)

-------