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.) ------- |