UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WSG53
Date Signed: May 22, 1990
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revised Definition of Significant Noncomplier
(SNC) and the Model for Escalating Responses to
Violations for the PWSS Program
FROM: Michael B. Cook, Director (signed by Michael B. Cook)
Office of Drinking Water
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I - X
This memorandum transmits the revised definition of significant noncomplier (SNC) and
the Model for Escalating Responses to Violations for the Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS) program. Both of these documents have been developed as part of our FY 1990
Enforcement Initiatives to strengthen the enforcement component of the PWSS program.
The new SNC definition is part of a three-tiered prioritization scheme for all violators of
the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). Tier 1 is composed of the SNCs -
- those violators which present the greatest risk to health and which, therefore, are generally
primary enforcement targets. Tier 2 represents an intermediate set of violators. Some of these
have not been in violation long enough to become SNCs; others are in violation of an MCL, but
the level of the contaminant is sufficiently low that it does not pose an immediate threat to public
health. Tier 3 contains the rest of the violators of the NPDWRs. Attachment 1 to this
memorandum is a summary of the definition of each tier of violations.
The definition and prioritization scheme will be phased in according to the following
schedule:
FY 1991: Community and nontransient noncommunity water systems.
FY 1992: Transient noncommunity systems serving 500 or more persons.
FY 1993: Transient noncommunity systems serving less than 500 persons.
We will use the new SNC definition to set Regional STARS targets for SNC reductions
forFY 1991.
-------
WSG53
The Model for Escalating Responses to Violations is designed to clarify the Office of
Drinking Water's expectations for State and Federal responses to violations. The escalation
model uses the same tiers of violations and recognizes that in general the Tier 1 violators (SNCs)
are the highest priority for enforcement actions. The model suggests that formal actions are
appropriate in certain Tier 2 cases, especially in the case of continued microbiological non-
reporting of MCL violations. However, we recognize that resources may limit the number of
Tier 2 violations which can be addressed through formal actions.
There are several criteria which may be used along with the tiers to prioritize systems for
action. One of these is the population served by the system. The workgroup which developed
the SNC definition discussed the inclusion of population served as a part of the SNC definition;
for example, including in the definition a criterion which would make large systems become
SNCs with a fewer number of violations than smaller systems. The workgroup decided against
this approach on the grounds that individuals served by small systems deserve the same level of
health protection as those served by larger systems. I support this decision; however, I do believe
that population served by a system should be used in prioritizing potential candidates for
enforcement actions. Therefore, I ask that, in reviewing both SNCs and Tier 2 violators for
potential enforcement actions, the Regions consider the population served by the system and, in
general, proceed against systems with larger populations before those with smaller populations.
Another possible criterion for establishing priorities for Tier 2 chemical/radiological
violators is the length of time the system has been in violation. This is especially true since the
Tier 2 violator may eventually become a SNC. Although the workgroup could not agree on this
as part of the SNC definition, the Unreasonable Risk to Health (URTH) Guidance which will be
issued later this year will add a time dimension to the definition of Unreasonable Risk to Health
for non-acute contaminants. A system that exceeds the MCL, but does not present an URTH
initially, will eventually be considered to have an URTH and therefore to be SNC after a certain
number of years.
Several Regions have stated that they believe the escalation model is inconsistent with the
timely and appropriate criteria in that it suggests formal enforcement action at an earlier stage
than the timely and appropriate criteria. I believe that there is no inconsistency. First, the timely
and appropriate criteria are a management tool to help evaluate performance and clarify
expectations on the types of actions which should be taken and the timeframes for those actions;
they were not designed to preclude a formal action at an earlier stage. Secondly, ODW has
always maintained that SNCs and exceptions are not the only targets for State or Federal
enforcement actions. Finally, the use of the model may help us to improve performance against
the timely and appropriate criteria in that if a formal action is started prior to the system
becoming a SNC, the action maybe completed before the timely period expires.
Attachment 2 contains the complete explanation of the escalation model. Attachment 3 is
a chart which summarizes both the tiers of violations and the suggested enforcement responses
for that tier.
-------
WSG53
I request that each of you review your State-EPA Enforcement Agreements and State
Compliance Strategies and develop plans for strengthening these to include the new SNC
definition and the escalation model. The summary and recommendations from last year's
enforcement reviews should also be referenced.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all who were involved in the SNC
redefinition and the development of the escalation model for their helpful comments and insights.
Special thanks goes to Oscar Cabra, Chief of the Water Supply Branch in Region VI for his
service as the SNC Redefinition Workgroup Chairman and to the members of his workgroup:
Jerry Healey, Jon Capacasa, Joe Harrison, Pat Crotty, Steve Pardieck, Bill Davis, and Chet Pauls.
I count on the cooperation and continued support of you and your staff as we implement the new
SNC definition and the escalation model.
Attachments
cc: Drinking Water/Groundwater Protection Branch Chiefs
Drinking Water Section Chiefs
PWSS Enforcement Coordinators
Kathy Summerlee, OECM
-------
WSG53
Attachment 1
Page 1 of4
SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIER (SNC) DEFINITION - SUMMARY
(TIER 1 VIOLATIONS)
An SNC is a public water system which meets any of the following criteria:
1. Microbiological/Turbidity:
(a) Systems on monthly monitoring:
4 or more violations of the microbiological or turbidity MCL during any
12 consecutive months.
6 or more combined "major"* violations of the microbiological or
turbidity monitoring/reporting requirements and/or violations of the
microbiological or turbidity MCL during any 12 consecutive months.
10 ore more combined microbiological or turbidity monitoring/reporting
("major" or "minor"**) and/or MCL violations during any 12 consecutive
months.
(b) Systems on quarterly monitoring:
two or more violations of the microbiological MCL during any four
consecutive quarters.
three or more combined "major" violations of the microbiological
monitoring/reporting requirements and/or MCLs during any four
consecutive quarters.
(c) Systems on annual monitoring:
two or more combined "major" violations of the microbiological
monitoring/reporting requirements and/or MCLs during any two
consecutive one-year periods.
2. Chemical/Radiological:
(a) Exceeds the unreasonable risk to health level identified for that
contaminant. (Unreasonable risk to health guidance/criteria will be
distributed under separate cover.)
Attachment 1, (cont'd.)
-------
WSG53
SNC Definition
(Tier 1 of Violators)
Page 2 of4
Note: The interim URTH guidance for nitrate specified two URTH levels —10
mg/1 for infants under 6 months of age and 20 mg/1 for the remainder of
the population. For the purposes of determining SNCs, we will use 10
mg/1 as discussed at the Branch Chiefs' meeting. If the nitrate
concentration in a PWS is between 10 and 20 mg/1 and the conditions in
the February 26, 1990 memorandum on "Interim URTH Values for
Nitrate/Nitrite and Fluoride" are met, the PWS may be eligible for an
exemption.
(b) Fails to monitor for or report the results of any of the currently
regulated contaminants for two consecutive compliance periods.
3. Surface Water Treatment Rule:
- ** To be clarified this spring. **
4. Public Notification:
Fails to provide notice to the consumers of the violations which result in
the system becoming an SNC.
* A "major" monitoring/reporting violation is one where no samples were taken or
results reported during a compliance period.
** A "minor" monitoring/reporting violation is one where an insufficient number of
samples were taken or results reported during a compliance period.
-------
WSG53
Attachment 1, (cont'd.)
SNC Definition
Page 3 of4
TIER 2 VIOLATORS - SUMMARY
A Tier 2 violator is a public water system which meets any of the following criteria:
1. Microbiological/Turbidity
(a) Systems on monthly monitoring:
two or more violations of the microbiological or turbidity MCL during any
12 consecutive months.
three or more combined "major" violations of the microbiological or
turbidity monitoring/reporting requirements and/or violations of the
microbiological or turbidity MCLs during any 12 consecutive months.
five or more combined violations ("major" or "minor") of the
microbiological or turbidity monitoring/reporting requirements and/or
violations of the MCLs during any 12 consecutive months.
(b) Systems on quarterly monitoring:
one or more violation of the microbiological MCL.
two or more combined "major" violations of the monitoring/reporting
requirements and/or violations of the MCL in four consecutive quarters.
2. Chemical/Radiological:
All violations of the chemical/radiological MCLs where the concentration
of the contaminant does not exceed the unreasonable risk to health level.
Any monitoring/reporting violation.
3. Public Notice:
All public notification violations not covered by the SNC definition.
4. SWTR:
- ** to be clarified in the spring. **
-------
WSG53
Attachment 1, (cont'd.)
SNC Definition
Page 4 of4
TIER 3 VIOLATIONS - SUMMARY
A Tier 3 violator is a public water system which meets any of the following criteria:
1. Microbiological/Turbidity
(a) Monthly monitoring:
one violation of the microbiological or turbidity MCL in 12 months.
one or two combined "major" violations of the microbiological or turbidity
monitoring/reporting requirements and/or violations of the microbiological
or turbidity MCLs in 12 consecutive months.
one to four combined violations ("major" or "minor") of the
microbiological or turbidity monitoring/reporting requirements and/or
violations of the microbiological or turbidity MCLs in 12 consecutive
months.
(b) Quarterly monitoring:
Not applicable. All violations of microbiological MCLs or monitoring and
reporting requirements begin as Tier 2 violations.
2. Chemical/Radiological
Not applicable. All violations of chemical/radiological MCLs and/or
monitoring and reporting requirements begin as Tier 2 violations.
3. Public Notice
Not applicable. All violations begin as Tier 2.
4. SWTR
- ** To be expanded/clarified. **
-------
WSG53
A MODEL FOR ESCALATING RESPONSES TO VIOLATIONS
The Office of Drinking Water (ODW) has developed a model for escalating responses to
violations. This model clarifies the Office's expectations for State and federal responses to
violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWRs). It is expected that this model will be used by States to develop or
strengthen their compliance strategies. EPA Regional Offices are expected to rely on the model
in developing their State - EPA enforcement agreements and overseeing State enforcement
programs, especially in the review of State compliance strategies and of State responses to
violations. The Regions are also expected to rely on the model to help determine when federal
enforcement actions should generally occur.
ODW recognizes that the States often have regulations or operating requirements for
public water systems which are different from the federal requirements and that the States
enforce these. ODW also recognizes that States have many different types of enforcement
authorities. These guidelines are not intended to alter the State enforcement of its own
regulations nor to preclude use of State authorities not specifically mentioned in this model.
We hope that this model will assist in the development of strong and effective
enforcement programs nationwide.
The model for escalating responses to violations incorporates the following concepts:
1. Violations of the national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs) should
receive a response from the primacy agency.
2. Responses to violations should escalate in formality as the violation continues or
recurs.
3. Some violations are very serious and pose an immediate risk to public health. In
these circumstances, it is appropriate to proceed directly to a formal action, such
as an emergency administrative order, an injunction or a temporary restraining
order (TRO), or an emergency civil referral.
4. States have primary enforcement responsibility. Therefore, the first response to a
violation should generally be by the State and federal action is generally reserved
for continuing violations where the State has not acted appropriately or where the
State requests assistance. However, in cases where the Region is directly
implementing the program (either because the State does not have primacy, the
State has not adopted one of EPA's new regulations, or on Indian lands) "State"
-------
WSG53
should be read to include the Regional office. In addition, these guidelines should
not be interpreted to preclude federal action at any point in the process if the
situation warrants it.
5. Generally, the majority of enforcement actions are administrative in nature.
However, judicial cases are important enforcement tools and should be used.
6. This model is intended to be consistent with ODW's new definition of significant
noncompliance (SNC), including the categorization of all violations into three
tiers. The model suggests responses based on type and level (tier) of the violation.
In addition, the model is intended to be consistent with and complement existing
timely and appropriate enforcement response guidance and the PWSS Compliance
and Implementation Strategy of April 1987.
7. In some circumstances, continuing an enforcement action maybe so resource
intensive that the costs involved clearly outweigh the benefits to be derived. In
such a case, the Region (or State) may decide not to continue with a formal
enforcement action and may look for other means for returning the system to
compliance. Such a decision must be clearly documented in the case files and is
subject to careful review.
MODEL RESPONSES TO VIOLATIONS
This Model for Escalating Responses to Violations suggests responses based on the
category of the violation; that is, the tier into which it has been placed. Generally, responses to
Tier 3 violations are informal; while responses to Tier 1 violations (SNCs) must satisfy the
timely and appropriate enforcement response guidelines. The responses to Tier 2 violations are
generally more formal than Tier 3. A chart summarizing the definitions of each tier of violations
and the suggested enforcement responses to these violations is attached.
RESPONSES TO TIER 3 VIOLATIONS
Tier 3 violations are first-time microbiological and turbidity monitoring/reporting (M/R)
violations, the first-time Surface Water Treatment Rule violations, and first-time
microbiological/turbidity MCL violations. Responses here are generally informal; e.g., reminder
letters and telephone calls and escalate to stronger letters.
-------
WSG53
(a) Monitoring/Reporting and Combinations of Monitoring/Reporting
and MCL Violations
This applies to microbiological and turbidity violations only. Chemical and radiological
M/R violations begin as Tier 2 violations.
First violation: Reminder letter or telephone call (if properly documented in
files). This should inform the system of its violation, explain the
monitoring/reporting requirements, and offer assistance if needed.
Letter/telephone call should also remind system that public notification of its
failure to comply with the monitoring requirements is required. This applies to
both major and minor M/R violations in systems on both monthly and quarterly
monitoring.
Second violation: Stronger letter to the system again explaining the
monitoring/reporting requirements, noting that the system has not returned to
compliance even after the first notice that they were in violation. Primacy agency
may inquire at this time if there is a particular problem with the system which is
preventing it from complying with the monitoring/reporting requirements and if
technical assistance is needed. This applies to both major and minor M/R
violations for systems on monthly monitoring and to minor M/R violations only
for systems on quarterly monitoring. If the system's first violation was an M/R
violation and the second violation is an MCL violation, use the responses in (b)
below.
Third violation: Minor M/R violations for systems on monthly monitoring only.
All others have moved to Tier 2. At this point, the system has ignored two
communications from the primacy agency and so stronger action is needed.
Suggest agency contact the owner/operator directly and discuss the situation,
warning the system that if it does not comply, more formal action will be
forthcoming. Agency should consider formal action if a fourth violation occurs or
if any results show an MCL violation. Region may wish to consider federal NO V
if State has not acted by this point.
(b) MCL Violations
This applies to systems on monthly monitoring with microbiological and turbidity MCL
violations only. Chemical/radiological violations begin at Tier 2. Only one MCL violation in a
twelve month period is allowed before moving to Tier 2. Suggested response to the MCL
violation is a letter to the system noting that it is in violation; explaining the health impacts of the
violation; reminding it of any required check-samples; informing it of the requirement to perform
public notification. Such a letter should offer technical assistance in correcting the problem and
10
-------
WSG53
provide a contact in the State or local office. The letter should also state that another violation of
the microbiological or turbidity MCL may subject the system to enforcement action. If system
does not respond to this communication within five days, additional action is recommended. In
these cases, the State should contact the system directly and/or consider a more formal action.
(c) Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) Violations
This will be clarified as the categorization of SWTR violations is clarified. Generally,
however, the response to the first violation or month of violation will be informal, for example, a
letter or telephone call to the system noting that it is in violation and offering technical assistance
if needed.
RESPONSES TO TIER 2 VIOLATIONS
Tier 2 violations consist of those violations of the microbiological or turbidity MCL or
M/R requirements (or a combination of MCL and M/R violations) or of the SWTR requirements
which have continued for a certain length of time. For these types of violations, the response by
the primacy agency should be stronger and more formal than the response to the Tier 3
violations. Federal action (NOV or PAO) should be initiated if the State has not acted in response
to the violation, if the system has not responded to the State action, or if the State requests it.
In addition, Tier 2 includes chemical and radiological MCL violations below the SNC
level, any violation of the chemical/radiological M/R requirements which does not meet the
criteria for a SNC, and violation of the public notification requirements by systems not yet SNCs.
Since this is the first time these violations have appeared, the responses begin by being less
formal (e.g., telephone calls, reminder letters) and escalate if the system does not respond.
(a) Microbiological/Turbidity/M/R violations and Combinations of M/R
and MCL violations.
This is the third major M/R violation for systems on monthly monitoring and the second
major M/R violation for systems on quarterly monitoring. For these, primacy agency should
begin with a site visit or other means of contacting the owner/operator directly if this has not
already been done. State officials should confirm that public notification has been performed.
The primacy agency may wish to take samples itself to determine the microbiological quality of
the water. The visit/conversation should be followed up with a strongly worded warning letter
stating that the system must comply or that an enforcement action is forthcoming. If another
violation (major or minor) occurs or if any monitoring results demonstrate an MCL violation,
formal enforcement actions (State or Federal) should begin.
This is the sixth minor M/R violation for systems on monthly monitoring. Formal notice
11
-------
WSG53
of violation (State or Federal) or other formal action should begin (if it hasn't already). This is
especially true if there is any indication of an MCL violation.
(b) Microbiological/Turbidity MCL Violations
This is again a situation of continuing MCL violations even after the system has been
contacted by the State. In these cases, State should schedule a site visit to determine the nature of
the problem (if State officials do not already know from earlier visits). Any visit should be
followed-up with a letter or a report specifying remedial actions to be taken and a schedule for
those. The report should also explain the health effects of the violations. The State should insure
that public notification has been performed and that the system is taking adequate measures to
protect the public health. If the system is not and there is an "acute" risk, the State should
consider use of any emergency or other authorities to compel the system to take necessary
measures to protect the public. Federal enforcement actions should begin if the State has not
acted to deal with the situation.
(c) Chemical/Radiological M/R Violations
This is the first time a chemical/radiological M/R violation appears. For the first
violation, then, a letter (or phone call if properly documented in the files) reminding the system
of the M/R requirements, and offering assistance if needed is appropriate. System should be
given a date for the submission of M/R results and warned that another M/R violation will put
them into the category of significant noncomplier and a formal enforcement action will be
forthcoming. If a system does not respond to the letter and/or does not submit the results as
required, formal enforcement action should be initiated.
(d) Chemical/Radiological MCL Violations below the SNC level
This is the first time a chemical/radiological MCL violation appears. Suggested response
is a letter to the system noting that it is in violation, reminding it of any required check samples,
informing it of the requirement to perform public notification of the violations. The letter should
also discuss the health effects of the MCL violation, specify any interim measures necessary to
protect public health, offer technical assistance in correcting the problem and provide a contact
person in the State office.
If there is no response to this first letter within 30 days (less if there is an acute risk to the
health of the general public or a sensitive group), the State should schedule a site visit to
determine the exact nature of the problem (if not already known). State should send a strongly
worded letter to the system notifying it of its continuing violation and reminding it of the
requirement to perform public notification. This letter should restate the health effects
information and the necessary interim measures. State letter should specify the necessary
12
-------
WSG53
remedial actions and provide a timetable.
If there is still no response from the system within 30 days (less if there is an acute health
risk as noted above) or the system fails to perform remedial actions on the suggested timetable,
the State should issue a warning letter saying that formal enforcement is forthcoming or proceed
directly to formal enforcement actions. Federal action should be initiated here if the State has not
acted or if the system is unresponsive to the State's actions.
(e) Public Notification
Violation of the public notification requirements should be dealt with at the same time
other violations are being addressed; that is, when the primacy agency sends letters/notifications
to the system informing it of violations, any violation of the public notification requirements
should be included with these.
(f) SWTR violations
This will be clarified as the definitions of the tiers of SWTR violations are clarified.
Generally, however, the Tier 2 violations represent continuing violations of the rule, where the
system has already received notification of its violation from the primacy agency. At this point,
the primacy agency may wish to schedule a site visit or discuss the situation with the
owner/operator of the water system. This should be followed up with a strongly worded letter
with corrective actions and a timetable.
If the system continues its violations and does not take remedial/corrective actions,
primacy agency should proceed to formal enforcement. Federal enforcement should be initiated
here if the State has not acted or if the system has been unresponsive to the State's actions.
RESPONSES TO TIER 1 VIOLATIONS (SNCs)
Tier 1 violations are the significant noncompliers (SNCs). By the time the public water
system becomes a SNC, the opportunity to deal with the system's violations through informal
measures has passed. The system should be dealt with in accord with the PWSS "timely and
appropriate" guidance. "Appropriate" responses are the following:
• Bilateral compliance agreement (signed by both parties; containing interim
milestones);
• State or Federal administrative order;
• State or Federal civil referral; and
• State or Federal criminal case
13
-------
WSG53
In order for these actions to be considered "timely" they must be taken within six months
of the discovery of the SNC.
Note — Nitrate only: As noted in the SNC definition, two unreasonable risk to health
values have been specified for nitrate, 10 mg/1 for infants up to 6 months of age
and 20 mg/1 for the remainder of the population. As was discussed at the Seattle
Branch Chiefs' meeting, 10 mg/1 will be used to determine SNCs. If, however, the
PWS has nitrate levels between 10 and 20 mg/1, and the system meets the
conditions in the February 26 memorandum on "Interim URTH Values for
Nitrate/Nitrite and Fluoride", the system may be eligible for an exemption.
RESPONSES TO "IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL ENDANGERMENT"
SITUATIONS
If a situation occurs such that there is an "imminent and substantial endangerment to
human health", informal responses should be skipped or greatly accelerated. The State (or EPA)
should use whatever powers it has to order measures to protect the public health.
CRITERIA FOR A CIVIL REFERRAL
One of the principles of this model is that civil judicial referrals are important
enforcement tools. The office recognizes, however, that the resources involved in pursuing a
judicial case at either the State or Federal level are often very great. Yet there are some
circumstances where an administrative action will not yield a sufficient remedy. In these
situations, a civil referral should be pursued. Examples of some such situations are listed below:
• Continued noncompliance in the face of outstanding administrative orders;
• A determination that a higher penalty than can be obtained in an administrative
action is appropriate;
• A desire to have, as part of the settlement, an enforceable consent decree, with a
schedule and stipulated penalties for noncompliance, in order to insure that the
system remains on a compliance schedule.
• The case has Regional or national significance due to its unique facts.
MONITORING SYSTEMS' PROGRESS TOWARDS COMPLIANCE
Once an action has been taken and a system is on a schedule to come into compliance, the
State or EPA should monitor the system's progress. Violations of schedules should be
14
-------
WSG53
documented as well as the State or Federal response to the violations. If a milestone or a
requirement of a schedule, order, or consent decree is missed, the appropriate authorities should
investigate the situation to determine why the requirement was missed. The results of this
investigation should be documented in the file and used as a basis for determining the response to
the violation. Certain violations will be so blatant (e.g., refusing to install equipment after it has
been delivered) as to demand an additional formal response, such as a complaint for penalty, an
action for contempt, and/or seeking stipulated penalties. Others (e.g., a required report being
submitted a few days late) may not require an additional formal action, but may be addressed
through a reminder telephone call or letter. Such a determination is best left to the agency
responsible for enforcing the decree or schedule; however, the decision and justification should,
in all circumstances, be adequately documented in the case file.
Final note: The tracking of a system's progress is primarily the responsibility of the
agency which issued the schedule or order. The Regions should oversee the States' actions in this
regard as part of their routine oversight of State enforcement programs. The Regions need to
track systems' compliance with any Federal consent decrees in accord with the "Judicial Consent
Decree Tracking and Follow-up Directive" (January 1990) issued by the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring. Tracking of compliance with Federal administrative orders should
be performed in accord with guidance the Office of Drinking Water will issue in the summer of
1990.
15
-------
WSG53
Attachment 3
Page 1 of6
SUMMARY - A MODEL FOR ESCALATING RESPONSES TO VIOLATIONS
Tier3
Description of
Violations:
Response:
Micro/Turb
MR
Monthly Monitoring:
- 1 or 2 "maj or" M/R or
MCL violations in 12
consecutive months
- 1 to 4 "major" or
"minor" M/R or MCL
violations in 12
consecutive months
Quarterly reporting:
Not applicable; 1st
violation is Tier 2
Monthly Monitoring:
Major: 1st violation:
Reminder letter or
telephone call
2nd violation: Stronger
letter (if 2nd violation is
MCL, use responses for
MCL violations)
(cont'd)
Micro/Turb
MCL
Monthly Monitoring:
- 1 MCL violation in
12 months
Quarterly Monitoring:
Not applicable. All
MCL violations begin
as Tier 2
Monthly Monitoring:
1 st violation: Letter to
(or direct contact with)
system. If system does
not response within 5
days (or less), contact
system directly and/or
proceed to more formal
action
(cont'd)
Chem/Rad M/R
Not applicable; all
chem/rad M/R
violations begin as Tier
2
Not applicable; all
chem/rad M/R
violations begin as Tier
2 violations
(cont'd)
Chem/Rad MCL
Not applicable; all
chem/rad MCL
violations begin as
Tier 2
Not applicable; all
chem/rad MCL
violations begin as
Tier 2 violations
PN
Not applicable
Although technically
there is no Tier 3 PN
violation, PN should
be confirmed in
discussions/letters on
violations
(cont'd)
SWTR
To be clarified in the
spring
To be clarified,
although generally the
response to the first
violation will be
informal, e.g., a letter
or telephone call
16
-------
WSG53
Attachment 3
Page 2 of6
Tier 3 (cont'd.)
Description of
Violations:
Response:
Micro/Turb
M/R
Micro/Turb
MCL
Chem/Rad M/R
Chem/Rad MCL
PN
SWTR
(SEE PREVIOUS PAGE)
Minor: 1st violation:
Reminder letter or
telephone call
2nd violation: Stronger
letter
3rd violation: Contact
owner/operator; warning
letter
4th violation: Formal
action. Consider federal
NOV if State has not
acted by this time or if
MCL violation appears
Quarterly Monitoring:
Major: 1st violation:
Reminder letter or
telephone call
Minor: 1st violation:
Reminder letter
2nd violation: Stronger
letter
Quarterly Monitoring:
Not applicable; 1st
violation is Tier 2
PN violations
should be followed
up on at same time
as other violations
17
-------
WSG53
Attachment 3
Page 3 of 6
Tier!
Description of
Violations:
Response:
Micro/Turb
MR
Monthly Monitoring:
- 3 or more "major"
M/R or MCL violations
in 12 consecutive
months
- 5 or more "major" or
"minor" M/R or MCL
violations in 12
consecutive months
Quarterly Monitoring:
(Microbiological only)
- 2 or more "major"
M/R or MCL violations
Monthly Monitoring:
Major: 3rd violation:
site visit or other direct
contact with PWS;
warning letter
(cont'd)
Micro/Turb
MCL
Monthly Monitoring:
- 2 or more MCL
violations in 12
consecutive months
Quarterly Monitoring:
- 1 or more
microbiological MCL
violation
Monthly and Quarterly
Monitoring:
2nd MCL violation for
monthly monitoring; 1 st
violation for
(cont'd)
Chem/Rad MR
Any chemical or
radiological monitoring
and reporting violation
for one compliance
period
1 st violation: Reminder
letter or telephone call;
provide date for
submission of M/R
results. If no response
or if system
(cont'd)
Chem/Rad MCL
Any violation of the
chemical or radiological
MCLs below the URTH
level
1 st violation: Reminder
letter Specify remedial
actions and schedule If
no response or system
fails to take remedial
actions, site
(cont'd)
PN
Currently Tier 2
violations will be all
those not covered by
the SNC definition
Violation of PN
requirements should
be dealt with at the
same time as other
violations
(cont'd)
SWTR
Definition of SWTR
Tier 2 violations will
be expanded
Although the definition
needs to be expanded
continuing violations
should
(cont'd)
18
-------
WSG53
Attachment 3
Page 4 of 6
Tier 2, (cont'd.)
Description of
Violations:
Response:
Micro/Turb
MR
Micro/Turb
MCL
Chem/Rad M/R
Chem/Rad MCL
PN
SWTR
(SEE PREVIOUS PAGE)
Next violation (major or
minor) or if any
indication of MCL
violations: Begin
formal enforcement
Minor: 6th violation:
Formal action should
begin
Quarterly Monitoring:
2nd major or 3rd minor
violation: Site visit or
other direct contact with
PWS; follow up with
warning letter
Next violation (major or
minor) or if any results
indicate MCL violation,
begin formal
enforcement
quarterly monitoring;
Site visit; follow up with
letter/order specifying
remedial actions and
schedule
If no response from
system or if system is
uncooperative, begin
formal enforcement
actions
Federal NO V if State
hasn't acted at this point
does not submit data
as required, initiate
formal action
visit, followed up with
strongly worded
warning letter repeating
remedial actions and
schedule
If no response within 30
days, formal action
that is, in the letters in
the formal actions
probably be dealt with
by scheduling a site
visit or other direct
contact with PWS;
follow up with specific
corrective actions and
schedule
If violation continues
and corrective action is
not taken, initiate
formal action
19
-------
WSG53
Attachment 3
Page 5 of 6
Tier 1
(SNCs)
Micro/Turb
M/R
Micro/Turb
MCL
Chem/Rad M/R
Chem/Rad MCL
PN
SWTR
[Description of
Violations:!
Monthly Monitoring:
- 6 or more "major"
M/R or MCL violations
in 12 consecutive
months
- 10 or more "major" or
"minor" M/R or MCL
violations in 12
consecutive months
Quarterly Monitoring:
- 3 or more "major"
violations of the
microbiological M/R
requirements or MCLs
in 4 consecutive
quarters
Annual Monitoring:
- 2 or more "major"
violations of the
microbiological M/R
requirements or MCLs
in 2 consecutive one-
year periods
Monthly Monitoring:
- 4 or more violations
of the MCLs during any
12 consecutive months
Quarterly Monitoring:
- 2 or more
microbiological MCL
violations in any 4
consecutive quarters
Fails to monitor for or
report the results of any
of the currently
regulated contaminants
for 2 consecutive
compliance periods
Exceeds the
unreasonable risk to
health level identified
for that contaminant
Fails to provide notice
to consumers of the
violations which result
in the system becoming
aSNC
Definition of SNC for
SWTR to be clarified
this spring
20
-------
WSG53
Attachment 3
Page 6 of 6
Tier 1
(SNCs)
(cont'd.)
Micro/Turb
MR
Micro/Turb
MCL
Chem/Rad M/R
Chem/Rad MCL
PN
SWTR
Response:
Enforcement Responses to SNCs should follow the timely and appropriate guidance. A final action must be taken with six months of the
discovery of the SNC to be considered timely. The following are the appropriate actions:
Bilateral compliance agreement (signed by both parties and containing interim milestones);
State or Federal administrative order;
State or Federal civil referral; and
The filing of a State or Federal criminal case.
"Imminent and Substantial" Endangerment Cases: Skip escalation model. Proceed directly to formal action as necessary to protect public
health.
21
------- |