U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Water System Supervision Program
Review of the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Drinking Water Program
2016
FINAL REPORT
October 24, 2017
-------
(this page is intentionally blank)
-------
Contents
Executive Summary 1
Major Findings and Recommendations 3
Data Management 4
State Drinking Water Program Resources 5
Compliance Determinations and Drinking Water Program Implementation 5
MDEQ Oversight of City of Flint Public Water System 6
MDEQ's Enforcement Program 7
Conclusion 7
Chapter 1 File Review 9
1.1 Summary 9
1.1.1 Purpose and Scope of Review 9
1.1.2 Data Sources Reviewed 9
1.1.3 Findings 10
1.1.4 Major Recommendations 13
Chapter 2 Review of Michigan's Lead and Copper Rule 16
2.1 Introduction 16
2.2 Review of the Statewide LCR Program 16
2.2.1 Regulatory Review 16
2.2.2 Lead and Copper Program Review 17
2.3 Review of MDEQ Oversight of City of Flint PWS 22
2.3.1 Background 22
2.3.2 Maintenance of Corrosion Control Treatment and Treatment Decisions 23
2.3.3 Measurement of Water Quality Parameters before and after April 2014 25
2.3.4 Lead and Copper Monitoring 26
2.3.5 Invalidated Samples, January to June 2015 28
2.3.6 Late Reporting in 2014 and 2015 29
Chapter 3 Enforcement Verification 30
3.1 Enforcement Verification Summary 30
3.2 Introduction 32
3.2.1 EV Purpose 32
3.2.2 Description of Public Water Systems Reviewed 33
3.2.3 Violations Reviewed 34
3.3 State Enforcement Organization and Enforcement Process 34
-------
3.3.1 State Organization 34
3.3.2 State Enforcement Process 35
3.4 Enforcement Findings 36
3.4.1 Compliance and Enforcement Strategy 37
3.4.2 Standard Operating Procedures 37
3.4.3 Total Coliform Rule 37
3.4.4 Ground Water Rule 43
3.4.5 Nitrate/Nitrite 45
3.4.6 Arsenic 46
3.4.7 Lead and Copper Rule 47
3.4.8 Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproductss Rules 52
3.4.9 Consumer Confidence Report Rule 53
3.4.10 Public Notice for Tier 1 and Tier 2 Violations 53
3.5 Escalated Enforcement and Case Referral 54
3.5.1 Community Program 54
3.5.2 Non-community Program 55
3.6 SDWIS Violation and Enforcement Action Data Quality Review 57
3.6.1 Community Program 57
3.6.2 Non-community Program 57
3.7 Program Strengths 57
3.7.1 Community Program 58
3.7.2 Non-community Program 58
3.8 Program Weaknesses 59
3.8.1 Community Program 59
3.8.2 Non-community Program 59
3.9 Conclusion 60
Appendix 1-A: Detailed File Review Description 62
Introduction 62
Description of Sample 63
Regulations Reviewed 63
Data Management 64
Inventory 66
Sanitary Surveys 68
Consumer Confidence Reports 69
-------
Total Coliform Rule 70
Ground Water Rule 73
Phase II V Rule 74
Inorganic Contaminants 75
Volatile Organic Contaminants 75
Synthetic Organic Contaminants 75
Revised Radionuclides Rule 76
Surface Water Treatment Rules 76
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproductss Rule 77
Lead and Copper Rule 79
Public Notification Rule 81
Appendix 1-B: List of Systems Selected for Review 83
Appendix 1-C: Summary of File Review Discrepancies by Rule 84
Appendix 1-D: Exhibits - Detailed Discrepancies by Rule and System 85
Appendix 1-E: Community Water Supply File Checklist 99
Appendix 1-F: Summary of PWSS Data Management Limitation FY 2013 - 2016 100
Appendix 1-G: Phase II/V Waiver Policies 108
Appendix 1-H: Findings and Recommendations from EPA Discussions with MDEQ 112
Appendix 2-A: Flint PWS 148
Appendix 2-B: History of Detroit Modified Consecutive System Approach 152
Appendix 3-A: Summary of Enforcement Verification Recommendations 154
Appendix 3-B: List of Resources Used during the 2016 MDEQ Enforcement Verification 157
Appendix 3-C: Data Differences Among SDWIS/Fed and State Data Systems and State Paper
Files 159
Appendix 3-D: Summary of Discrepancies Identified by Rule 167
Appendix 3-E: List of Compliance Determination, Data Flow, and Enforcement Verification
Discrepancies by Rule 168
Appendix 3-F: File Review Questions and State Responses 182
Appendix 3-G: Michigan Enforcement Verification Analysis Excel Workbook 193
la - Final 13 CWSs for Review 194
lb - Final 12 NCWSs for Review 196
2a - Jan2016 CWS Viols for Review 198
2b - Jan2016 NCWS Viols for Review 200
3a - Jan 16 CWSFedViols and EnfAct 202
3b - Jan2016 NCWS Viols for Review 208
4a - Tier 1 and 2 PN Summary CWS 212
-------
4b - Tier 1 and 2 PN Summary NCWS 216
5 - JAN 2016 ETT Violations 217
6 - JAN 2016 ETT Scores Tracker 220
7 - SDWIS Fed Codes 222
Enforcement Action Codes and Descriptions 224
-------
List of Acronyms
ACO
Administrative Consent Order
AL
Action Level
ALE
Action Level Exceedance
ARDP
Annual Resource Deployment Plan
BCA
Bilateral Compliance Agreement
BWA
Bottled Water Agreement
CCR
Consumer Confidence Reports
CCT
Corrosion Control Treatment
CD
Compliance determination discrepancy
CDWU
Community Drinking Water Unit
CFE
Combined Filter Effluent
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CMDP
Compliance Monitoring Data Portal
CQ
Calendar Quarter
cws
Community Water System
DBCP
Dibromochloropropane
DBPR
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
DF
Data flow discrepancy
DTMB
Department of Technology, Management, and Budget
DWW
Drinking Water Watch
EDB
Ethylene Dibromide
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERP
Enforcement Response Policy
ETT
Enforcement Targeting Tool
EV
Enforcement Verification
FR
File Review
GWR
Ground Water Rule
HAA5
Haloacetic Acids Five
HQ
Headquarters
IESWTR
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
IFE
Individual Filter Effluent
IOC
Inorganic Contaminants
IT
Information Technology
LCR
Lead and Copper Rule
LHD
Local Health Department
LIMS
Laboratory Information Management System
LRAA
Locational Running Annual Average
LT1ESWTR
Long-Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
LT2ESWTR
Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
MAG
Michigan Attorney General
MCS
Modified Consecutive System
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MDEQ
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
MDHHS
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
-------
MOR
Monthly Operating Report
M/R
Monitoring and Reporting
MRDL
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level
NCWS
Non-Community Water System
NOV
Notice of Violation
NPDWR
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
NTNCWS
Non-Transient Non-Community Water System
OCCT
Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment
ODWMA
Office of Drinking Water & Municipal Assistance
OWQP
Optimal Water Quality Parameters
PE
Public Education (for the LCR)
PN
Public Notification
POE
Point of Entry
POU
Point of Use
PWS
Public Water System
PWSS
Public Water System Supervision
QA
Quality Assurance
RAA
Running Annual Average
RRD
Remediation and Redevelopment Division
RTC'd
Returned to Compliance
RTCR
Revised Total Coliform Rule
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS/Fed
Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System
SDWIS/State
State Safe Drinking Water Information System
soc
Synthetic Organic Contaminants
SOP
Standard Operating Procedure
SQL
Structured Query Language
SW
Surface Water
SWP
Surface Water - Purchased
SWTR
Surface Water Treatment Rule
TCR
Total Coliform Rule
TNCWS
Transient Non-Community Water Systems
TOC
Total Organic Carbon
TSWM
Triggered Source Water Monitoring
TT
Treatment Technique
TTHM
Total Trihalomethanes
VOC
Volatile Organic Contaminants
WSG
EPA's Water Supply Guidance
WSSN
Water Supply Serial Number
WQP
Water Quality Parameters
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Executive Summary
The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) are set out at 40 CFR Part 141. Regulations
for state implementation and enforcement of the NPDWRs are set out at 40 CFR Part 142. Part 142, Subpart
B provides specific requirements for state primary enforcement responsibility (primacy), including: initial
determination of primacy (40 CFR § 142.11); revision of state programs (40 CFR § 142.12); state
recordkeeping and reporting (40 CFR §§ 142.14 and 142.15); and special primacy requirements
(40 CFR § 142.16).
To obtain primacy, states must adopt all NPDWRs. To do so, a state must: 1) promulgate state regulations
that are at least as stringent as the federal regulations; 2) provide an attorney general's statement indicating
that the state rules are duly adopted and enforceable; and 3) indicate how the provisions of 40 CFR Part 142
will be implemented.
To achieve primacy to enforce the NPDWRs, the State of Michigan enacted the Michigan Safe Drinking
Water Act, Michigan Compiled Laws 325.1001 et seq., and promulgated implementing rules set out at
Michigan Administrative Code, Rule 325.10101 et seq. Michigan received initial primacy from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency for the drinking water program in February of 1978 and currently has
primacy for all NPDWRs except the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) (for which the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has interim primacy pending EPA's approval of MDEQ's
application).
In accordance with 40 CFR § 142.14, states and other entities that have primacy for implementing the
NPDWRs must retain certain records pertaining to their public water system supervision (PWSS) programs.
40 CFR § 142.15 requires primacy agencies to submit reports containing the retained information to the
EPA Administrator. The information, comprise new violations of NPDWRs, new enforcement actions taken
by the primacy agencies, and notification of any variances and/or exemptions granted by the primacy
agencies, must be reported quarterly. MDEQ data is managed in the primacy agency-level version of the
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), known as SDWIS/State, and for non-community water
systems (NCWSs) within a Michigan-developed database named WaterTrack.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq., and federal drinking water
regulations, EPA regularly reviews state drinking water programs in those states that have obtained primacy
for the administration and enforcement of primary drinking water regulations and requirements applicable to
public water systems within the state1. By regulation, EPA conducts reviews of state programs annually. In
addition, approximately every six years, EPA conducts in-depth drinking water program reviews in EPA
Region 5 states, a process that includes File Reviews (FRs) and Enforcement Verifications (EVs). The
program review is a systematic process of reviewing state drinking water program implementation,
including the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, that results in recommendations by EPA to
improve the state's drinking water program's effectiveness. Each state has thousands of regulated public
water systems (PWSs), which makes it unfeasible to examine a significant portion of those systems. As a
result, a small number of systems is reviewed as an indicator of overall program implementation. The
purpose of a FR is to detect discrepancies between the PWS data in the primacy agency files or database and
1 Each year EPA and MDEQ develop an annual workplan to prioritize activities directly impacting public health. The workplan is
used to negotiate and track MDEQ commitments including goals for PWS compliance. EPA evaluates MDEQ's end-of-year
progress on the workplan and completes a report with input from MDEQ. EPA regularly discusses issues, priorities and progress
with MDEQ, both formally and informally. Informal mechanisms include a monthly conference call with the EPA Region 5 state
drinking water directors (including the MDEQ director), semi-annual calls with each state, and an annual face-to-face meeting in
Chicago with all EPA Region 5 state drinking water directors.
1
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
the data reported to the federal version of SDWIS, known as SDWIS/Fed; and (2) to ensure that the primacy
agency is determining compliance in accordance with state and federal rules and regulations.
During the week of April 4-8, 2016, EPA conducted an on-site review of the Michigan Drinking Water
Program at the MDEQ Offices in Lansing, Michigan. The purpose of the on-site review was to assess the
State drinking water program's quality and effectiveness, to stimulate program planning and improvement,
and to encourage program development in strategic directions that
continue to reflect the purpose of the SDWA. For the 2016 program
review, EPA selected a total of 25 PWSs from the approximately
10,795 regulated PWSs in Michigan: 13 community water systems
(CWSs), including the City of Flint; six non-transient non-
community water systems (NTNCWSs); and six transient non-
community water systems (TNCWSs)2. EPA selected systems for in-
depth review that appeared likely to reveal critical issues. EPA
focused on PWSs across all MDEQ District Offices and selected
systems that had a record of violations in order to get a picture of
program implementation across the State and review problematic
systems that were likely to reveal implementation challenges.
The Michigan program review is unique from other program reviews
conducted by EPA because it consisted of three separate evaluations.
These evaluations are covered in three separate chapters of this
report, described below. For all three evaluations, MDEQ files
covering the approximate time period of October 1, 2013, to
September 30, 2015 were reviewed.3 Each of the three evaluations
found discrepancies4 and resulted in recommended actions to
improve the State's drinking water program.
Chapter 1: Drinking Water Program File Review (FR)
The Program File Review (FR) used a standard protocol5 developed by EPA. The FRteam, which was
composed of EPA staff from both Region 5 and Headquarters, as well as contractors from The Cadmus
Group, Inc., evaluated whether MDEQ had properly determined compliance in accordance with State and
federal regulations, reviewed PWS records, and verified whether information in MDEQ's database and files
had been correctly reported to the federal database, SDWIS/Fed, for the selected group of PWSs. The FR
team also reviewed MDEQ's compliance determination actions and policies, as compared to what is
2 A PWS provides water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances to at least 15 service
connections or serves an average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days a year. EPA defines three types of PWSs: 1) CWSs
supply water to the same population year-round; 2) NTNCWSs supply water to at least 25 of the same people at least six months
of the year; and 3) TNCWSs provide water in a location where people do not remain for long periods of time, such as a gas
station or campground. Source: https://wcms.epa.gov/dwreaiiifo/information-aboi3t-pi3biic-water-svstenis.
3 The specific time periods of the reviews are identified in each chapter.
4 "Discrepancy" is a term used to describe inaccurate compliance determinations (i.e., compliance determinations that are not in
accordance with Michigan and federal rules and regulations), as well as differences between data in the MDEQ and local health
department files or databases and the data reported to SDWIS/Fed. EV discrepancies also occur when the State fails to follow
standard operating procedures.
5 PROTOCOL FOR CONDUCTING A PWSS PROGRAM DATA FILE REVIEW, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, D.C., August 11, 2014.
2
The FR focused on the following
NPDWRs:
•
Total Coliform Rule
•
Ground Water Rule
•
Lead and Copper Rule
•
Phase II/V Rule (Inorganic,
V olatile Organic, and Synthetic
Organic Contaminants)
•
Radionuclides Rule
•
Stage 1 and Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rules
•
Surface Water Treatment Rules
•
Public Notification Rule
•
Consumer Confidence Report
Rule
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
federally-mandated or approved in MDEQ's primacy regulations. Finally, MDEQ staff were interviewed by
EPA Region 5 regarding program administration and implementation.
Chapter 2: Michigan Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) Review
A detailed review of MDEQ's implementation of the lead regulations under the Michigan Lead and Copper
Rule (LCR), both throughout the State as well as in the City of Flint, Michigan, was conducted by EPA
LCR experts outside of EPA Region 5. The EPA LCR team reviewed the MDEQ's adoption of the federal
LCR and subsequent revisions, and discussed with MDEQ staff implementation practices throughout the
State and specifically in Flint. The LCR team also reviewed a number of P WS files identified in the FR,
including the Flint PWS file, to obtain more detailed information as to how the lead regulations are being
implemented in Michigan.
Chapter 3: Enforcement Verification (EV)
A concurrent EV was conducted by an EPA enforcement team, consisting of EPA Region 5 and EPA
Headquarters staff, for a selected group of PWSs with violations. The EV included an examination of
whether appropriate follow-up was conducted once a violation was determined, and whether MDEQ's
standard operating procedures (SOPs) and compliance and enforcement strategy were followed for
escalating enforcement actions to ensure that systems are returned to compliance in a timely manner. In
addition, the EV included a comparison of the information in the MDEQ enforcement file with the data
reported to MDEQ databases and the federal database to ensure that the enforcement data reported to
MDEQ and federal databases were accurate and complete.
Major Findings and Recommendations
The program review revealed a number of challenges with MDEQ's implementation of its drinking water
program, including inadequate electronic data reporting, inadequate data management capabilities, and a
notable failure to correctly implement the LCR statewide and in Flint. These deficiencies must be corrected
to protect the public health of the citizens of Michigan. This report makes numerous recommendations to
address identified deficiencies and Region 5 will be working closely with MDEQ to identify and track
corrective actions to ensure program improvements are made. It is important to note that this report only
represents a limited percentage of the total number of PWSs in Michigan during the period of review. EPA
recognizes that the State may have implemented changes to its data system and policies after EPA
conducted the on-site joint review in April of 2016 and subsequent analyses through the summer of 2016.
Key deficiencies include the following:
• MDEQ did not fully implement some of the required elements of its drinking water program, as
detailed in Appendix H of Chapter 1, including the NCWS program's inability to report all
violations;
• MDEQ did not implement certain provisions of the LCR, both Statewide and in Flint;
• MDEQ did not issue a number of rule violations and did not report some lead action level
exceedances (ALEs);
• MDEQ did not develop an updated drinking water compliance and enforcement strategy that is
adequate to compel compliance with the State primary drinking water regulations; and
• The public health emergency in Flint resulted in part from MDEQ's failure to properly oversee and
manage: 1) Flint's switch in April of 2014 from using high quality finished water purchased from the
Detroit Water and Sewerage District (Detroit PWS) to using lower quality raw water from the Flint
River, and 2) Flint's start-up and operation of its own drinking water treatment plant. The
3
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
circumstances surrounding the City's switch to a lower quality water source appear to have been
unusual, but MDEQ was unprepared to deal with this situation and failed to recognize how the LCR
should have been applied, resulting in a confused and ineffective implementation of the LCR in
Flint.
The program review was largely a file and record review. Although attention was devoted to the Flint PWS
files and records, the program review was not a comprehensive investigation of the Flint emergency. The
findings and determinations in this report regarding MDEQ's implementation of the LCR Statewide and in
Flint must be read in that context.6
Based on EPA's review, EPA believes that the types of challenges noted above are attributable to a number
of programmatic vulnerabilities. These vulnerable areas are identified below along with the major findings
and recommendations for each.
Data Management
Findings:
1. Many deficiencies in the MDEQ drinking water program stem from MDEQ's inefficient and
antiquated drinking water data management systems, as noted throughout Chapters 1 through 3.
Efforts to improve the data management system have been complicated by the centralization of
Information Technology (IT) staff into a broad agency department without drinking water expertise.
2. Laboratory reporting is very inefficient, as described in the Data Management section of the FR
report (Chapter 1). CWS sample data received electronically from the MDEQ laboratory is not in a
format that automatically uploads to the drinking water database, so the data must be entered
manually into SDWIS/State. The NCWS data management system can accept results electronically
from the MDEQ laboratory, but this data transfer has limitations and does not address electronic
reporting from other laboratories used by PWSs.
Recommendations:
1. MDEQ should enhance and streamline data management practices and transparency for both CWS
and NCWS programs by fully utilizing SDWIS/State and, eventually, SDWIS/Prime (the EPA
information management system that is intended to replace SDWIS/State and SDWIS/Fed in the
near future).
2. MDEQ should hire additional staff or contractors with specific drinking water data management
expertise. MDEQ staff should be cross-trained regarding the program's data systems, data flows,
limitations of data systems, and how to query and use management reports.
3. MDEQ should operationalize electronic reporting from the MDEQ laboratory and private
laboratories to the MDEQ drinking water database. This step is critical to ensuring notification to
MDEQ and the public of potential public health issues, improving timely reporting of monitoring
results, and increasing staff resource efficiencies.
6 There have been a number of published reports which focus specifically on the Flint emergency, including the following:
Flint Water Advisory Task Force Report, which was commissioned by Governor Rick Snyder and issued in March of 2016;
Michigan Auditor General's Report regarding Flint situation, which was issued in December of 2015;
EPA Office of the Inspector General's (OIG) Management Alert, which was issued on October 20, 2016;
U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigation with letter issued by Rep. Jason Chaffetz on December 16, 2016;
and an on-going investigation that is being conducted by EPA's OIG with a report anticipated for release in the latter part of 2017.
4
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
State Drinking Water Program Resources
Findings:
1. As described in Chapter 1, many existing deficiencies in the MDEQ drinking water program stem
from longstanding inadequate resources 7 and the difficulty of managing a program with a
decentralized structure in a consistent manner. It is resource-intensive to ensure staff coordination
and consistent implementation across eight decentralized MDEQ District Offices and 44 local health
departments (LHDs).
2. Staff departures and retirements have caused a significant loss in expertise and technical knowledge,
as described in Appendix 1-H of the FR report. These staff have not been replaced due to a lack of
resources and/or hiring constraints, which presents a threat to the future implementation of an
effective program.
3. MDEQ's drinking water program has not fully implemented certain required activities, such as
public notification of monitoring and reporting (M/R) violations, due to serious resource limitations.
Recommendations:
1. MDEQ must focus on obtaining long-term sources of funding. MDEQ senior management should
evaluate MDEQ's development of an overall drinking water program strategy and possible funding
methods needed to support it.
2. MDEQ can greatly improve the efficient use of its existing staff resources by using electronic
reporting capabilities and working toward upgrading and/or replacing data systems.
3. MDEQ should analyze resource deployment of its existing resources to determine the most effective
organizational structure to meet public health goals and efficiently implement the drinking water
program.
4. MDEQ must better facilitate both external and internal training and outreach for all technical staff.
Internal training should include review of policies and procedures to help ensure consistency.
Compliance Determinations and Drinking Water Program Implementation
Findings:
1. The majority of discrepancies found in the FR (Chapter 1) for the 25 systems reviewed were related
to M/Rs and data system limitations, not violations of health standards.
2. Findings in the detailed LCR Review (Chapter 2) indicate that MDEQ failed to implement
provisions of the Michigan LCR correctly, including setting water quality parameters (WQPs),
issuing violations, requiring corrosion control studies and treatment, documenting files, and
maintaining records.
3. Findings in the EV (Chapter 3) indicate that numerous violations were not reported to SDWIS/Fed.
Improvements in data management and increased resources, including additional staff, will provide
the necessary support to track and report all federally-reportable violations to SDWIS/Fed.
7 The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators recently estimated that at least $625 million per year, or $240 million
more than currently received from all funding sources, is needed nationally by state drinking water programs to fulfill the
minimum required regulatory functions under the SDWA. For more robust, comprehensive programs, the aggregate amount
needed would be $748 million per year.
5
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Recommendations:
1. MDEQ should report all violations noted in the program review to EPA via SDWIS/Fed, and submit
an action plan of steps to be taken to correct the process that led to these violations not being
reported to SDWIS/Fed.
2. MDEQ should set enforceable distribution system WQP ranges for all applicable PWSs, and
establish a form or other method of compiling distribution system WQP ranges to allow water
systems to review and detect trends and excursions.
3. MDEQ must ensure that all samples used for compliance purposes meet requirements for proper
sample collection.
4. MDEQ must revise the State LCR policy to address water sample invalidation procedures and
actions required after a system exceeds an action level - including lead service line replacement
(LSLR) or corrosion control treatment (CCT) - as well as ensure proper training of MDEQ and LHD
staff.
5. MDEQ should ensure that LHDs contact PWSs when LHD staff become aware of positive total
coliform results to remind the systems to conduct required follow-up activities including collection
of repeat samples.
6. MDEQ should ensure that all LHDs are tracking PWS compliance and generating revised
monitoring requirement notifications in the NCWS data system.
MDEQ Oversight of City of Flint Public Water System
Findings:
1. MDEQ neither required a CCT study nor designated optimal CCT (OCCT) for the Flint P WS
treatment plant at the time of plant start-up.
2. MDEQ did not implement key provisions of the Michigan LCR correctly, including setting WQPs,
assigning violations, requiring CCT studies and treatment, documenting files, and maintaining
records.
3. MDEQ did not issue M/R violations to the Flint PWS for failing to timely submit required Lead and
Copper Reports in January of 2015 and July of 2015.
4. The Flint PWS Lead and Copper Report for January to June 2015 contained contradictory
information regarding the tier of each sample location, and MDEQ's files did not include any
documentation of the rationale for invalidated samples or the required management approval of
invalidated samples.
Recommendations:
1. MDEQ must ensure that all required studies are completed and reviewed and all required treatment,
including CCT, is approved and implemented before operation of any new drinking water treatment
plant, change in long-term treatment, or addition of a new source, as required by State statutes, rules,
and policy.
2. MDEQ should revise Section 5.c. of the Michigan LCR Policy to establish, strengthen, and elevate
the review and approval process to address any upcoming change in long-term treatment or addition
of a new source before it is implemented by the PWS.
3. MDEQ, along with the City of Flint and State of Michigan, must comply with EPA's
January 21, 2016 SDWA Section 1431 Emergency Administrative Order and its November 17, 2016
First Amendment to the Order that: 1) requires the Flint PWS to continue to add corrosion inhibitors
6
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
when using Detroit PWS water; and 2) outlines the requirements that must be met if the PWS
transitions to a new water source, before water from the new source can be distributed to consumers.
MDEQ's Enforcement Program
Findings:
1. MDEQ has not developed a compliance and enforcement strategy that includes an enforcement
escalation policy that outlines when MDEQ's focus should shift from technical and compliance
assistance to formal enforcement.
2. EPA found three unreported lead ALEs at two PWSs that were not resolved for many years.
Recommendations:
1. MDEQ should develop a more effective State compliance and enforcement response policy using
EPA's 2009 Drinking Water Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) as a model.
2. MDEQ must consistently document that violation letters are issued to CWSs that include a public
notice template and instructions for the system to return to compliance in a timely manner.
3. MDEQ must focus on timely reporting. For example, MDEQ failed to report Total Trihalomethanes
(TTHM) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) violations in a timely manner for the Flint PWS.
4. MDEQ should escalate enforcement for LCR public education (PE) and other treatment technique
(TT) violations following lead ALEs which are not followed up on in a timely manner.
5. MDEQ must ensure that systems with arsenic MCL violations are following the regulations to
protect public health. NTNCWSs on bottled water agreements (BWAs) should be escalated to formal
enforcement after the BWAs expire.
Conclusion
Based on the on-site review and EPA's other program oversight activities, EPA's overall finding is that
while MDEQ has tried to prioritize its management activities to focus on the protection of public health,
limited resources have prevented MDEQ from fully implementing applicable drinking water regulations.
EPA's review revealed a number of significant challenges that MDEQ faces with regard to implementation
of its drinking water program, including an overall lack of resources (funding and staffing), an inadequate
electronic data reporting and data management capabilities, and a failure to correctly implement, on a
statewide basis, provisions of the Michigan LCR, including provisions relating to setting WQPs, assigning
violations, and requiring CCT studies and treatment.
MDEQ is expected to implement all aspects of the drinking water program. EPA will require the State to
identify and track corrective actions to ensure program improvements are made. While EPA acknowledges
MDEQ's expressed concerns about declining resources, including staffing levels, EPA finds that MDEQ has
not managed the use of its limited resources to better take into account reduced staffing, such as by
upgrading its electronic data systems to reduce extensive manual data entry. The State of Michigan must
take steps to ensure that MDEQ's drinking water program is provided with the resources commensurate
with an effective and fully-functioning program.
EPA Region 5 continues to point out MDEQ's need for better IT support and data management capabilities
and has recommended that MDEQ fully implement SDWIS/State and replace WaterTrack, the archaic data
system still being used for the NCWS program. EPA assistance includes:
7
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
• EPA Region 5 worked with MDEQ in FY 2003 to obtain an Exchange Network grant worth
$297,000;
• EPA Headquarters issued a Multi-Purpose grant to MDEQ in July 2016 worth $173,000 to develop
and implement enhanced data tracking and analysis capabilities for LCR data; and
• EPA Region 5 assisted MDEQ with obtaining access to a national contract for assistance with
migration of data from WaterTrackto SDWIS/State.
EPA will continue its oversight of MDEQ and will require MDEQ to address the challenges identified in
this report.
8
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
This chapter provides an overview of the file review (FR). More information is available in Appendix 1-A —
Detailed File Review Description.
1.1 Summary
1.1.1 Purpose and Scope of Review
During the week of April 4-8, 2016, the "FR team," consisting of representatives of EPA Headquarters,
EPA Region 5, and The Cadmus Group, Inc., conducted a FR of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program8. The
review was conducted in the MDEQ central office in Lansing, Michigan. Organizationally, all MDEQ
drinking water functions are in the Office of Drinking Water & Municipal Assistance (ODWMA), except
for laboratory certification, which is in the Laboratory Services Section, Remediation and Redevelopment
Division. The MDEQ drinking water program is a decentralized program, with compliance responsibilities
delegated to district offices and Local Health Departments (LHDs).
In Michigan, drinking water samples are typically collected by the PWSs or contract operators, with some
LHDs assisting in sample collection for non-community water systems, particularly if there are compliance
concerns. MDEQ's Community Water System District Office staff determine compliance for CWSs, with
oversight by MDEQ staff in Lansing. LHDs determine compliance for NCWSs, with oversight by MDEQ
NCWS staff.
1.1.2 Data Sources Reviewed
The FR team compared MDEQ's data to the most recent data in SDWIS/Fed for a subset of PWSs in the
State, through the quarter ending September 30, 2015. The FR team reviewed both files and electronic
records relating to PWSs, including:
• Correspondence files (for waivers, violation documentation, and sanitary surveys);
• Files containing documentation, certifications, studies, and treatment recommendations for the Lead
and Copper Rule (LCR), and reports for the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
(Stage 2 DBPR);
• Lab results for the NPDWRs; and
• Monthly Operating Reports (MORs) submitted by the water systems, which contain disinfectant
residual and turbidity results, some Total Coliform Rule (TCR) summary data, and elements
required for disinfection byproducts reporting.
The FR team reviewed several data sources to verify system compliance and State oversight, including:
SDWIS/State and WaterTrack; the State's internal copy of Drinking Water Watch, which summarizes
information from SDWIS/State; WaterChem, which is a database used to track entry point chemical
monitoring sample results; and hard copy documentation of updates to inventory and compliance data for
drinking water rules.
8 EPA Region 5 prepared the appendix, Findings and Recommendations from EPA Discussions with MDEQ, based on discussions with MDEQ
drinking water program and laboratory staff in Lansing as part of the FR. This appendix includes more specific information on the history and
background of MDEQ's drinking water program and its organization and administration.
9
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
1.1.3 Findings
This review represents the FR team's findings after file reviews of 25 PWSs and interviews that EPA
conducted with MDEQ staff. The FR examined 13 CWSs, six non-transient non-community water systems
(NTNCWSs) that are schools or daycares, and six transient non-community water systems (TNCWSs).
Appendix 1-B includes a list of the systems that were reviewed. Appendix 1-C contains a table that
summarizes any data discrepancies between State and federal records (referred to as data flow (DF)
discrepancies), and errors in the State's compliance determinations (referred to as CD discrepancies) that
were identified during this review. Appendix 1-D contains a detailed, system-specific list of each
discrepancy identified during this review.
General: Program Resources, Data Management and Organizational Structure
• The major findings from the FR program implementation discussions with MDEQ staff (summarized
in Appendix 1-H) illustrate many longstanding challenges faced by the State in effectively
implementing the drinking water program. Most of these issues appear to stem from inadequate
resources (funding and staff), an inefficient data management system, the decentralized structure of
the State's program, and repetitive organizational restructuring.
• The existing MDEQ data information systems are not sufficient to allow for adequate compliance
tracking in addition to EPA-required reporting needs, and these information system weaknesses also
make the program staff more inefficient. WaterTrack cannot be used to report all violations to
SDWIS/Fed, and LHDs must manually enter data from private labs, which is resource intensive and
inefficient. SDWIS/State is not fully utilized, and some regulatory requirements that should be
tracked or reported within the data system are tracked outside of SDWIS/State, with the result: 1)
that violations of some requirements are not considered when establishing compliance assistance and
enforcement priorities; and 2) such violations may remain uncorrected. The State had planned to
transition to SDWIS/Prime, but EPA's development of the new SDWIS/Prime information system is
behind schedule. The delay in implementing SDWIS/Prime has created further challenges for the
State's data management activities. For instance, the State did not update WaterTrack to manage
some of the newer regulations in anticipation of moving to the new platform by now. The need to
improve information systems is even more critical as the State's drinking water program is losing
experienced staff, and the ability to automate and streamline the compliance determination process
and utilize effective tools for tracking and reporting violations becomes even more essential.
• The FR team found documentation of the many technical assistance activities MDEQ performed to
help public water systems (PWSs) remain or return to compliance with drinking water regulations.
Voluntary activities undertaken by the State to help PWSs included: providing monitoring schedules
via hard copy; requiring samples to be submitted earlier than the regulatory deadline so the State can
track compliance and telephone or send reminder letters when needed to ensure compliance;
specifying the year and date for multi-year monitoring periods to balance lab capability and ensure
the State can track results and help systems that need it; and providing technical assistance when
problems occur. The files document interactions between local offices and PWSs. The FRteam
found copies of correspondence, including emails, reminder and formal notice of violation (NOV)
letters, when problems were identified. Visits to PWSs were documented in the files and data
systems, particularly if problems were detected. However, as further discussed in Chapter 3:
Enforcement Verification (EV), in some instances, this prolonged emphasis on technical assistance
may delay a system's return to compliance. For a few systems in the sample, the FR team found
protracted periods of noncompliance notwithstanding repeated and concerted efforts by MDEQ
compliance staff to address the systems' problems. The compliance assistance approach requires an
10
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
enormous outlay of State resources to chase problem systems and track whether the systems have
complied with State requests.
Sanitary Survey and Inventory
• All sanitary surveys of the systems reviewed were completed on schedule and included review of all
relevant required eight elements.
• The NCWS program staff does not verify some elements of the sanitary survey on-site, but relies on
electronic review of records at the office by LHD or MDEQ staff.
• The State follows EPA's Water Supply Guidance (WSG) 32 (September 1987), which defines the
number of hours that individuals have the potential to regularly consume the water at a given facility
and which results in the classification of systems as either NTNCWSs or TNCWSs.
• An inventory update was late in one case, and the updated activity status for sources was not
reported in three other instances. Facility level activity status for NCWSs is not reported to
SDWIS/Fed because it is not trackable in WaterTrack (other than to remove the monitoring schedule
for a given source).
Consumer Confidence Reports {CCR} Ruie
• For the CWSs reviewed, MDEQ successfully implemented the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)
requirements to ensure that systems produce, deliver, and certify distribution of the report.
• This positive result is the effect of MDEQ's commitment beginning in 2012 to end its temporary
disinvestment in issuing and reporting violations for failure to produce and distribute CCRs.
Total Coiiform Rule (ICR.)
• Discrepancies for TCR MCL violations were noted. In two instances, monthly MCL violations at
NCWSs were not reported in the same month as acute MCL violations because the WaterTrack
system only allows one violation to be issued per month, so only the most egregious violation is
reported.
• Compliance determination discrepancies for monitoring and reporting were identified. No violations
were assigned when they should have been in the following incidences: one system failed to collect
five TCR samples in the month after a positive result; five systems submitted late compliance
samples; and several systems missed routine samples.
• The State's practice to invalidate and replace samples should be reviewed to ensure proper coding of
sample types in the information system.
• In some cases, coding of TCR sample type (e.g., "routine" or "repeat") was not listed properly by
either the sample collector, the lab, or data entry into the State NCWSs data system. The State
responded correctly despite the data management issue, but some non-community systems' records
are not accurate in WaterTrack.
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule {D8PR}
• During the period reviewed, MDEQ temporarily disinvested from tracking and calculating running
annual averages (RAA)/locational RAA (LRAA) for total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic
acids (HAA5) only if all sample results were below the MCL, as well as Total Organic Carbon
(TOC) removal ratios if all sample results were below the Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level
(MRDL). Some districts started tracking MRDLs in the past year, and now RAAs can be calculated
11
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
in SDWIS/State for CWSs. The State does not issue Monitoring and Reporting (M/R) violations
when a system does not have an RAA/LRAA calculated. Discrepancies were assigned to three
systems for this disinvestment. In the FY 2017 PWSS Grant work plan, the CWS and NCWS
programs have committed to calculating the RAA/LRAAs for TTHMs, HAA5s, and TOC removal
ratios during FY 2017.
Ground Water Rule (GWR)
• No discrepancies were found during the FR for implementation of the Ground Water Rule (GWR).
However, as discussed in Chapter 3, the EV conducted concurrently found that during the timeframe
it addressed (which was longer than the FR review period), three PWSs were not assigned violations
when failing to take triggered source water coliform samples within 24 hours.
Inorganic Contaminants (lOCs)
• One PWS failed to monitor for nitrate, and no M/R violation was assigned.
• One PWS did not initiate quarterly monitoring for nitrate after an MCL violation, and no M/R
violation was assigned.
Volatile Organic Contaminants {VOCs}
• No discrepancies were found for implementation of the Phase II/V Rule for Volatile Organic
Contaminants (VOCs).
Synthetic Organic Contaminants (SOCs}
• One PWS did not collect a replacement sample after invalidation of a Synthetic Organic
Contaminants (SOCs) routine sample within the 2011 - 2013 compliance period.
Revised Radionuclides Rule
• No discrepancies were found for implementation of the Revised Radionuclides Rule.
Surface Water Treatment Rules {SWTRs}
• One PWS improperly monitored for Combined Filter Effluent (CFE), and no TT violations were
assigned.
• One PWS failed to submit a sampling plan and perform the initial round of source water monitoring,
as required under the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR). No
violations were assigned.
• One PWS failed to submit MORs on time, and no violations were assigned.
• For NCWSs, WaterTrack only partially supports tracking and reporting of this rule.
Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)
• Lead and copper 90th percentile values were calculated incorrectly at two CWSs. For one system, the
problem was long-standing and was noted in the previous FR.
• One PWS failed to complete all required steps after an ALE and was out of compliance for over five
years. The same system also provided late consumer notice. Violations were not reported to EPA.
• Two NTNCWSs failed to sample in summer months, and no M/R violations were assigned.
12
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Public Notification (PN) Rule
• One TNCWS performed public notice (PN) incorrectly by taking down the posted notice before the
situation was resolved and subsequent illness complaints were received. The State responded on
behalf of the system quickly and thoroughly to post PN properly and identify the source of the
contamination, but no PN M/R violation was assigned.
1.1.4 Major Recommendations
Based upon the findings from the FR, the FR team has the following recommendations:
Program Resources
• MDEQ should work with the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), EPA,
and other stakeholders regarding approaches for identifying: 1) core primacy and other public health
priority work; 2) organizational structure options; and 3) alternative funding/Full-Time Equivalent
(FTE) needs, as described on page 124.
• MDEQ should focus on efficient use of resources by streamlining reporting and eliminating manual
data entry through improved electronic reporting capabilities and upgraded data systems. EPA fully
acknowledges MDEQ's efforts over the past five years in trying to overcome some of its data
management limitations. MDEQ managers recognize that even if MDEQ had funding for new and
improved data systems, the State would still need additional staff with knowledge and experience to
operate these new data systems. For example, as described on page 129, the State has been planning
the transition from WaterTrackto SDWIS/Prime for several years.
• MDEQ should obtain long-term source(s) of funding. MDEQ had been working on an overall water
strategy and the funding needed to support it, and management should re-evaluate this effort.
Although EPA Region 5 acknowledges MDEQ's past attempts to secure additional program funding,
potential increases in funding need to be further explored. EPA Region 5 supports MDEQ's
continued evaluation at the senior management level of whether federal Section 106 grant funds
should be used for ground water protection activities. EPA recognizes the decision to utilize this
funding source is not under the control of the MDEQ drinking water program. State staff mentioned
the administrative costs of managing their current public water supply fee program, where a
significant portion of the fees being collected go to administering the program. Therefore, staff may
consider it advantageous for a third party to administer the program if a different fee program was
enacted, as described on page 129.
Data Management
• The FR team strongly supports MDEQ's efforts to introduce e-Reporting for compliance samples, to
improve data quality, reduce staff workload, and prepare the State to be ready to transition to
SDWIS/Prime when the upgrade to the information management system occurs. Implementation of
the EPA's Compliance Monitoring Data Portal (CMDP) may be a good option.
• The FR team encourages the State to ensure that the State laboratory's new Laboratory Information
Management System (LIMS) is compatible with the CMDP or with other means to report to
SDWIS/Prime, so that the State can capture and report all violations.
Multiple Rules
• The State must assign violations for results reported after the reporting deadline.
13
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Total Coiiform Rule
• LHDs must ensure that all required increased routine samples are collected after a positive sample
result. NCWSs may not collect fewer routine samples in the month after a positive Total Coliform
Rule result, unless a site visit is conducted at the system to verify that the problem has been resolved
and documentation provided in writing.
• Any changes to the monitoring frequency dictated by previous sample results, population changes,
or site visits by LHDs should be communicated in a timely manner to the appropriate MDEQ NCWS
program and LHD staff who track compliance with this regulation.
• Coding of sample type in the data system should be reviewed with all data entry staff.
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
• In the FY 2017 PWSS Grant work plan, the CWS and NCWS programs have committed to ensure
RAA/LRAAs for TTHMs, HAA5s, and TOC removal ratios are calculated during FY 2017. The
State must either require PWSs to report the RAA/LRAA or calculate the RAA/LRAA for systems
in order to determine compliance with the MCL and MRDL.
• An M/R violation should be assigned if the PWS does not collect disinfection residual samples at the
same time and place as samples collected for the Total Coliform Rule in the same compliance
period.
Phase U/V Rule (Volatile Organic, Synthetic Organic¦, and inorganic contaminants)
• When samples are invalidated, replacement samples must be collected in the same compliance
period in which the original samples were collected (or within the window specified by the rule if
the notification of the invalidated sample takes place after the end of the compliance period).
Surface Water Treatment Rules
• PWSs with new sources must be required to complete all steps for source water monitoring under the
LT2ESWTR, including submission of sampling plan and two years of sampling.
• PWSs with a bank of filters must conduct sampling of the Individual Filter Effluent (IFE), and then,
if combined before entry into the distribution system, sample or calculate the Combined Filter
Effluent (CFE) for compliance purposes.
Lead and Copper Rule
• Instructions for calculating lead and copper 90th percentile values should be reviewed with all staff to
ensure that the values are calculated correctly. For example, allowable reasons to invalidate a sample
should be carefully reviewed to ensure that no sample is invalidated incorrectly. MDEQ and LHD
staff also should ensure that all samples submitted are collected at sites in the PWS's targeted
sampling pool, as determined by the PWS's materials survey.
• All PWSs with ALEs should be reviewed to confirm that systems have returned to levels below the
Action Level (AL) or that follow-up steps required to complete OCCT have been completed. The
State should confirm that all systems have certified that they provided consumer notice to all
customers whose homes were sampled for LCR compliance purposes.
• PWSs must collect annual and triennial LCR samples in the summer months, unless an alternate
four-month compliance period is established by the State in writing and routinely used.
14
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Public Notification Rule
• If PN is performed incorrectly, the State must issue a PN violation.
Genera/
• The State should report violations noted in Appendix 1-D to EPA, as well as submit an action plan
of steps taken to correct the processes that led to these problems.
• Please see the complete list of recommendations from the interviews in Appendix 1-H, pages 112-
148.
15
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Chapter 2 Review of Michigan's Lead and Copper Rule
2.1 Introduction
As part of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Drinking Water Program File
Review (FR), EPA created a Lead and Copper Rule review team (LCR team), which included staff from
EPA Regions 3, 8 and 9, and EPA Headquarters. Part 1 of this report reviews the State's adoption of the
federal Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and evaluates MDEQ's implementation of the Michigan Lead and
Copper Rule (Michigan LCR) Statewide. Part 2 evaluates MDEQ's oversight of the City of Flint Public
Water System's (Flint PWS) compliance with the Michigan LCR as the Flint PWS switched sources from
finished water purchased from the Detroit Water and Sewerage District (DWSD or Detroit PWS) to treating
its own raw water from the Flint River in April of 2014.
The LCR team reviewed LCR implementation documents, including the Flint PWS file, and held
conversations with MDEQ staff to understand how MDEQ implements the Michigan LCR for both
community and non-community water systems. The FR, described in Chapter 1, includes information
relating to Michigan LCR implementation through individual PWS file reviews.
Documents reviewed included, but were not limited to, the following:
• Primacy applications, including the Michigan LCR;
• Current implementation policies and procedures, as provided by MDEQ;
• MDEQ's Flint PWS file; and,
• Modified Consecutive System (MCS) approach9 for Detroit PWS and its consecutive public water
systems.
The LCR team conducted two conversations with MDEQ staff and management. The review did not include
conversations with representatives of the Flint PWS or an examination of files in the possession of the Flint
PWS.
2.2 Review of the Statewide LCR Program
This section focuses on selected elements of MDEQ's lead and copper program, and is not intended to be a
comprehensive review of every aspect of the Michigan LCR.
2.2.. 1 Regu la lory Review
The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) are set out at 40 CFR Part 141. The federal
LCR is included in the NPDWRs at 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart I. Regulations for state implementation and
enforcement of the NPDWRs are set out at 40 CFR Part 142. To achieve primacy to enforce the NPDWRs,
the State of Michigan enacted the Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Michigan Compiled Laws
325.1001 et seq., and promulgated implementing rules set out at Michigan Administrative Code, Rule
325.10101 et seq., including the Michigan LCR at Mich Admin Code, R 325.10604f.
The Michigan LCR applies to community water systems (CWS) and non-transient non-community water
systems (NTNCWS). MDEQ is organized to oversee the two types of systems separately, with the non-
community system oversight further delegated by MDEQ to county health departments. The MDEQ Water
9 MDEQ first presented the MCS approach to EPA in September 1991.
16
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Treatment Specialist provides support to both community and non-community programs regarding LCR
issues.
The LCR team reviewed Michigan's adoption of the federal LCR. The review included an examination of
Michigan's regulatory language for implementing the 1991 LCR, the LCR Minor Revisions from 2000, and
the LCR Short-Term Revisions from 2007. The review focused on determining if the State had adopted all
provisions of the federal LCR and if the State rules are as stringent as the federal regulations.
The LCR review did not investigate the Attorney General's statement regarding the State rules or the
timeliness of the State's submission of the primacy packages to EPA. The review also did not look at the
State's compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 40 CFR §§ 142.14 and 15.
Overall, the LCR team identified no significant concerns with the State's adoption of the federal LCR,
including the LCR revisions. The review of the Michigan LCR revealed that the State rules closely mirrored
the federal regulations. Where the language of the State rules differed, it appeared that the rules were at least
as stringent as the federal regulations.
The special primacy requirements at 40 CFR § 142.16(d) {Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFR part
141, subpart I— Control of Lead and Copper) provide that, in addition to adopting the general primacy
requirements, states must submit a description of how they will accomplish certain special program
requirements regarding optimal corrosion control (OCCT), source water treatment, lead service line
replacement (LSLR), and sample collection for reduced monitoring. Rather than referencing any State rules
that had been promulgated to accomplish such program requirements, Michigan's primacy application
included an implementation strategy that spelled out how the State would address the special program
requirements. Following EPA approval of a primacy application, a state could change its approach to
addressing special primacy requirements, without need for EPA approval, under certain circumstances.
Changes must remain consistent with the special primacy condition. In Chapter 1, the FR addresses specific
LCR requirements that the State had not been fully implementing, and references MDEQ's PWSS Grant
work plan for FY 2017, which requires a plan and schedule for full implementation.
In its initial primacy application, the State chose not to designate optimal corrosion control treatment
(OCCT) for new public water systems or large systems that exceed the lead action level (copper was not
mentioned). Instead, the State chose to allow the PWSs to determine OCCT through demonstration studies.
Furthermore, any non-large PWS that exceeds the lead or copper action level is allowed to determine OCCT
through a desktop evaluation. The desktop evaluation will likely be accompanied by the results from a full-
scale corrosion control treatment study. The LCR review does not include within its scope an analysis of the
State's involvement with the completion of demonstration studies or desktop evaluations.
2.2.2 Lead and Copper Program Review
MDEQ, LCR Policy
The stated purpose of the MDEQ LCR Policy, MDEQ Water Division Policy and Procedure ODWM A-399-
027, Lead and Copper Rule Implementation (August 4, 2003; Reformatted January 17, 2013) (LCR Policy),
is to provide guidance for implementation of the Michigan LCR by MDEQ and local health department
(LHD) staff regarding sampling site selection, monitoring, improper (invalid) samples, calculation of the
17
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
90th percentile value10, and corrosion control. Among other items, the LCR Policy states that all large water
supplies (serving more than 50,000 people) must complete the steps to demonstrate that CCT is optimized,
regardless of lead and copper levels. The LCR Policy also contains provisions for notification of an
upcoming long-term change in treatment or addition of a new source, and monitoring or other actions to
ensure that CCT is optimized. The LCR Policy addresses consecutive systems by setting general
requirements for consecutive systems and states that the wholesale supplies must comply with the
requirements associated with CCT. The MCS approach as applied to the Flint PWS is discussed in Part 2
below and in Appendix 2-B.
Recommendations:
• The LCR Policy should be expanded and made more comprehensive in the following areas to
provide better tools and to work toward consistent implementation for MDEQ and LHD staff:
o Amend the policy to include relevant and consistent regulatory (or guidance) citations for each
section of the policy, as is currently done in Section 3.f, for example.
o Amend the policy to include or refer to other documents that clearly state what constitutes a
violation for each part of the Michigan LCR.
o Expand the Corrosion Control Section of the policy to include guidance on what constitutes a
long-term change in treatment or a "similar source, " including changes to/from purchased
water, and monitoring after an action level exceedance (ALE). Include appropriate references to
EPA's Corrosion Control Guidance. Ensure there is enough time for systems to consult with the
State prior to the source or treatment change to complete a corrosion control study for systems
that must maintain treatment, and for MDEQ to approve the change in writing prior to
implementation.
o Amend the policy to address required actions after a system exceeds anAL or to refer to the
appropriate sections of the Michigan LCR.
o Amend the policy to include a section on water quality parameter (WQP) monitoring at both the
entry points to the distribution system and within the distribution systems.
o Amend Section 2 of the policy to clearly state that all Tier 1 sites must be exhausted prior to
using Tier 2 sites; and so on. Further, MDEQ could encourage systems to exhaust all lead
service line (LSL) Tier 1 sites) sites prior to using copper-with-lead-solder Tier 1 sites. This
approach is more stringent than the current LCR requirement of 50 percent of each type of Tier
1 site, but would be most protective of public health because it would target the highest risk sites.
In Section 2.c., clarify that sampling sites with faucets that have point of use (POU) or point of
entry (POE) treatment devices that are designed to remove inorganic contaminants must not be
used. This information could be reiterated in Section 3.d. regarding the determination of
improper samples.
o Amend the policy to include a process for staff to review lead and copper tap sampling
documentation during system visits, such as sanitary surveys, since documentation of the tier
designation of LCR sampling sites must be kept on file for inspection by the State.
10 Mich Admin Code, R 325.10604f(l)(c) and 40 CFR § 141.80(c) provide that the lead AL is exceeded if the concentration of
lead in more than 10 percent of tap water samples collected during any monitoring period conducted in accordance with
R 325.10710a and 40 CFR § 141.86, respectively, is greater than 0.015 mg/L (milligrams per liter); i.e., if the "90th percentile"
lead level is greater than 0.015 mg/L. The lead action level is commonly expressed as 15 ppb (parts per billion) which is equal to
15 jug/L (micrograms per liter).
18
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
• MDEQ should create SOPs:
o For LHDs for approving alternate monitoring schedules for NTNCWSs, and for reviewing and
approving invalidation requests;
o For tracking compliance with optimal water quality parameters (OWQPs) at entry points and
within distribution systems, including within aMCS approach; and
o For investigation of potentially improper samples, including necessary documentation.
Lead and Copper Report. Form and Response teller
MDEQ relies on water system-supplied information that identifies sufficient site locations for Tier 1, 2, and
3 sampling sites to collect tap samples under the Michigan LCR. MDEQ provides a Lead and Copper
Report form to PWSs that includes instructions explaining how to identify each site's "sample category."
The "sample category" identifies the tier of the site. Neither a materials inventory nor a sampling plan is
required by either federal or State regulations to be sent to the State, so there is no document in MDEQ
system files that would allow State personnel to confirm that the system collected all samples from
appropriate "sample categories." The Consumer Notice Certification form is a part of the Lead and Copper
Report, and MDEQ encourages systems to submit the Certification with the Report ten days after the end of
the monitoring period. MDEQ calculates the 90th percentile and then sends a response letter that includes the
90th percentile value and the number of samples on which it is based. In addition to the standard letter,
MDEQ sent a letter in March of 2016 to all CWSs requiring each system to review and update its
distribution system inventory.
Strengths:
• MDEQ's Lead and Copper Report form includes the addresses and results of each site so addresses
can be easily compared to previous monitoring rounds. MDEQ calculates the 90th percentile value
for samples by the most accurate method —interpolation. MDEQ's response letter to PWSs clearly
lists the number of samples taken and the 90h percentile value calculated by the State.
Co ins u in e r IN olice P rovisi ons
The Lead and Copper report form includes a Consumer Notice Certification Form for the distribution of
lead and copper sampling results to those locations that participated in the sampling program. The purpose
of the consumer notice is to provide a resident with lead and copper results for that location, along with
health information relating to lead, and suggestions for reducing the risk of exposure. Previously, MDEQ
indicated to EPA that it had not fully implemented and enforced the Consumer Notice provision since 2011.
However, beginning in FY 2014, MDEQ committed to full implementation of the Consumer Notice
requirement at CWSs, and, in the FY 2016 PWSS Grant, MDEQ committed to full implementation of the
Consumer Notice requirement at NTNCWSs.
Discrepancy:
• The Consumer Notice Certification Form was not present in some system files. No violations were
assigned.
Recommendations:
• Fully implement the Consumer Notice provisions of the Michigan LCR.
19
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
• Create standard review procedures for LHD staff, as needed, to ensure that Consumer Notice
Certification is received and violations are assigned as needed for failure to distribute sample
results to customers atNTNCWS.
Sampling Reminder teller
MDEQ issues reminder letters to PWSs in advance of lead and copper monitoring periods. The current
version of the letter includes reminders to select Tier 1 sites, use the same sites as were used for previous
monitoring periods, and report changes to sites. The letter also reviews sampling procedures and emphasizes
that all analyzed samples are used to calculate the 90th percentile.
Strength:
• MDEQ engages in a proactive practice of reminding PWSs to collect samples at appropriate sites
and report the results correctly. After assessment of the tier information for the Flint PWS, MDEQ
sent a letter inMarch of 2016 to all CWSs to review and update each CWS's materials inventory to
ensure accuracy.
Recommendations:
• Revise the letter to remind systems to verify Tier 1 criteria, including presence of a LSL at new
locations.
• Clarify that Tier 1 sites must be used for sampling, prior to using Tier 2 or 3 sites, rather than
referring to the Lead and Copper Report form, which may not be referenced until after sampling has
concluded.
• Revise the letter to include a reminder about the use of appropriate faucets (kitchen/bath; no
POU/POE treatment designed to remove inorganic contaminants) and a reminder about existing
policies regarding aerators, pre-stagnation flushing, and filters so that PWSs can modify sample
collection instructions, as needed.
Norv transient Non Community Program Find and Fix Approach
MDEQ uses a flow chart to articulate the steps for NTNCWSs serving fewer than 3,301 people, including
the steps to be taken after a system exceeds an AL. The flow chart is undated; is unclear on whether it
applies to lead, copper, or both ALs; and does not reflect the current regulatory requirement for a system to
revert to standard monitoring after an ALE. Additionally, MDEQ staff indicated that, after an ALE, the
optional path of sampling all taps and taking corrective measures (i.e., "find and fix") was prioritized over
meeting regulatory requirements and deadlines. Thus, systems undertook a voluntary "find and fix" program
without incurring violations for failing to propose or install CCT or collect WQPs. Since no NTNCWSs
with ALEs were reviewed under the FR, no specific examples of this alternative path were reviewed.
MDEQ staff indicated that, moving forward, NTNCWSs that undertake the voluntary "find and fix" path
must still concurrently comply with the regulatory requirements and deadlines for WQP monitoring and
CCT identification.
Discrepancy:
• MDEQ is not ensuring compliance with the requirements to install CCT or collect WQPs after an
ALE at NTNCWSs.
20
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Recommendations:
• Clarify whether the "find and fix" approach is applicable to both lead and copper ALEs, or just to
lead ALEs.
• Ensure that LHDs implement theLCR regulatory requirements concurrently with voluntary "find
and fix " processes if a system exceeds the lead or copper AL, and assign violations as needed.
• Remind PWSs replacing problematic valves, fittings, and fixtures to replace with those that meet the
new SDWA Lead-Free definition.
Non-TransienL Non-Community Program ILCIR Sampling
During conversations with EPA, MDEQ staff indicated that lead and copper samples collected by
NTNCWSs outside the required June to September monitoring period were routinely accepted and used to
calculate 90th percentile values. Due to resource constraints, prior to FY 2016, MDEQ did not commit to
ensuring that collected samples were taken within the June to September monitoring period. However,
during FY 2016, MDEQ began requiring all NTNCWSs to sample within the June to September monitoring
period.
Discrepancies:
• Violations were not assigned by either LHDs or MDEQ to NTNCWSs for failure to collect samples
within the June to September monitoring period. Further, allowing systems to collect samples
outside of the monitoring period makes taking timely WQP samples highly unlikely.
Recommendations:
• Ensure LHDs document when alternate monitoring periods are established for seasonal NTNCWSs
to better represent the period when the highest lead levels are most likely to occur during their open
season.
• Ensure that MDEQ andLHD staff are assigning Michigan LCR monitoring violations and taking
appropriate enforcement actions.
Water Quality Parameter Program
MDEQ requires that when any chemicals are added as part of the water treatment process, the dosages must
be reported to the State. During conversations with EPA, MDEQ staff indicated that OWQPs, as required by
Mich Admin Code, R 325.10604f(3) and 40 CFR § 141.82(f), are not set for locations in the distribution
system. This practice is based on a guidance that is in the State's records; specifically, a May 28, 1998,
electronic mail message from a State employee providing his interpretation of a one-day workshop
conducted by EPA Region 5 on LCR implementation. This email asserts that state agencies and large
systems do not have to set or maintain minimum values or ranges for WQPs for points in the distribution
system, as called for in the regulation. The email further states that WQPs must be set only for point-of-
entry samples. This email does not correctly interpret the regulatory requirement for distribution system
WQPs.
Discrepancies:
• MDEQ did not set OWQP ranges at distribution system locations for any affected systems — large
systems, consecutive systems, or small/medium systems that continued to exceed anAL after
corrosion control is installed. For systems that conduct monitoring for WQPs at distribution system
locations, MDEQ does not have a value or range for comparison to determine if the system's
corrosion control is optimized.
21
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Recommendations:
• Set enforceable distribution system WQP ranges as required for all systems under a consecutive
systems agreement, including wholesale and consecutive, that have installed CCT.
• Set enforceable distribution system WQP ranges as required for large systems that are not part of a
wholesale/consecutive system and for small/medium systems that continue to exceed anAL and that
currently only have WQP ranges specified at the entry point to the distribution system.
• Establish a form or method of compiling distribution system WQP ranges for water systems to
review and detect trends and excursions.
• Review small and medium system data taken at the plant for compliance with OWQPs which were
set for the plant by MDEQ, as appropriate.
23 Review of MDEQ Oversight: of City of Flint PWS
2.3.1 Background
Prior to April of 2014, the Flint PWS purchased water from the Detroit PWS and, therefore, the Flint PWS
was considered to be a consecutive system. In April of 2014, the Flint PWS ceased purchasing water from
the Detroit PWS and began operating its own water treatment plant that drew water from the Flint River. In
October of 2015, the Flint PWS discontinued operation of its plant and resumed purchasing water from the
Detroit PWS, again making it a consecutive system. Details from the Flint FR are summarized in Appendix
2-A.
In order to address the Detroit PWS and its 115 consecutive systems, including the Flint PWS, MDEQ
developed (and EPA Region 5 approved) a MCS approach to implement the Michigan LCR, which included
a reduced number of sampling sites for the consecutive PWSs. A more detailed description of the MCS
approach is included in Appendix 2-B. The MCS approach did not apply to the Flint PWS during the time
when it operated its own water treatment plant between April of 2014 and October of 2015.
Under the MCS approach for the Detroit consecutive systems, each individual system has a designated
number of lead and copper tap samples and WQP distribution system samples to collect, based on the
individual system's population, with a total of 877 tap samples (100 in Detroit) and 204 WQP samples
distributed throughout the collective distribution system. The 204 WQP samples were taken twice every six
months. While MDEQ set OWQP limits for a PWS's entry point, MDEQ did not set any OWQP limits in
the distribution system for any PWS in the State, including for the Detroit consecutive systems. Therefore,
even though WQP samples were collected, there were no numerical water quality criteria with which to
determine compliance. Under the MCS agreement, each individual system in the Detroit consecutive system
was responsible for meeting the requirements of the Michigan LCR, if it exceeded the AL.
From 1992 until 2008, the Flint PWS was required to collect 33 tap samples during each monitoring period
and 10 WQP samples (eight samples in the distribution system and two samples at the entry points) taken
twice in a six-month period. MDEQ re-evaluated the MCS approach in 2007, and reduced the number of tap
samples required to be collected by the Flint PWS from 33 to 23 in the 2011 sampling period, due to Flint's
decreased population. Following the source change to the Flint River by the Flint PWS in 2014, MDEQ
increased the required number of tap samples to 100, reflecting a standard monitoring requirement, and
again reduced the required number to 60 tap samples in 2015 based on declining city population.
22
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
2.3.2 Maintenance of Corrosion Control Treatment and Treatment Decisions
Maintenance of Corrosion Control
The Michigan LCR at Mich Admin Code, R 325.10604f requires that the supplier of a large water system
(i.e., one that serves more than 50,000 persons) complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in
the Rule unless the supplier is considered to have optimized CCT under the provisions of the Rule.
See 40 CFR §§ 141.81 and 141.82. The Michigan LCR at Mich Admin Code, R 325.10604f(2)(b) and
R 325.10604f(3)(f) requires any large system that has met the optimized CCT requirements through the
installation of CCT to continue operating and maintaining the treatment and to continue meeting the WQP
limits established by the primacy agency. See 40 CFR §§ 141.81(b)(3) and 141.82(g). The measured
parameters established for Flint were pH, temperature, total alkalinity and total phosphorus, based on the
addition of orthophosphate by the Detroit PWS. (The lack of established WQPs in the Flint distribution
system is addressed below.)
Prior to April of 2014, the Flint PWS met the criteria for optimized CCT by utilizing water that the Detroit
PWS had treated with orthophosphate. Accordingly, as a large system with optimized CCT, the Flint PWS
was required to continue demonstrating optimized CCT when it switched sources and began treating and
distributing water from the Flint River in April of 2014. However, when the Flint PWS began treating raw
Flint River water at its own plant full-time, it did not add orthophosphate for CCT. In the files that MDEQ
provided to the LCR review team, there was no documentation to indicate that, prior to the City's starting up
its own treatment plant to treat Flint River water, MDEQ: 1) required the Flint PWS to perform corrosion
control studies to identify OCCT for the system; 2) required the Flint P WS to maintain optimized CCT by
adding orthophosphate in a manner compatible with the new source water; or 3) otherwise formally
approved revised CCT to be implemented by the Flint PWS. MDEQ did require the Flint PWS to increase
tap monitoring for lead and copper and WQP monitoring both at the entry point and within the distribution
system. MDEQ also modified the WQPs being monitored by the City by dropping total phosphorus and
adding conductivity and calcium.
Treatment Decisions
The Flint P W S, as part of the Detroit consecutive system, was on a triennial reduced monitoring schedule
prior to April of 2014 when the Flint PWS switched the source of its water from finished water purchased
from Detroit PWS to raw water from the Flint River and began treating that water at its own treatment plant.
The Michigan LCR at Mich Admin Code, R 325.10710a(4)(d)(vii) states that any system on a reduced
monitoring frequency shall notify MDEQ in writing of any upcoming long-term change in treatment or
addition of a new source, and that MDEQ shall review and approve the addition of a new source or long-
term change in water treatment before it is implemented by the water supply. See
40 CFR § 141.86(d)(4)(vii). The rule further provides that the State may require the system to take
additional measures, such as commencing standard monitoring, increased WQP monitoring, or re-evaluation
of CCT.
There was no documentation in the files that MDEQ provided to the LCR review team to indicate that the
source change from treated Detroit PWS water to raw Flint River water was reviewed and approved by
MDEQ, for OCCT, before the Flint PWS began using the new source. There should have been
documentation addressing the impact within the distribution system of a switch from a source with
orthophosphate treatment for CCT to a new source without such treatment. If OWQPs had been established
in the distribution system, then the documentation should have explained why orthophosphate
measurements (measured as total phosphorus) in the distribution system were not necessary with the new
source. There should also have been documentation indicating what the new CCT process was for the Flint
23
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWS, since the orthophosphate treatment was not being maintained. The key WQPs for the new corrosion
control process should have been specified prior to the source switch to comply with monitoring
requirements under Mich Admin Code, R 325.10710b(5)(c). Required monitoring after the source switch
would have depended on the treatment strategy employed.
After the source change to Flint River water, the WQPs that the Flint PWS was monitoring were pH,
alkalinity, calcium, conductivity, and temperature, indicating that the Flint PWS may have been relying on
pH passivation, rather than orthophosphate treatment, for CCT. However, any such reliance on pH
passivation for CCT was insufficient. The pH values of water leaving the Flint treatment plant were
typically in the mid to upper pH 7 range, which is not an effective range for a pH passivation approach to
control lead leaching from LSLs. An effective range of pH for pH passivation would be above pH 8.5,
depending on alkalinity and other factors. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lead and Copper
Rule Guidance Manual, Volume II: Corrosion Control Treatment. Office of Water. EPA 811-8-92-002
(1992).
If the source/treatment change had been correctly reviewed and approved by MDEQ, then MDEQ should
have set OWQPs and WQP ranges for the entry point to the distribution system once the Flint PWS began
treating Flint River water. MDEQ also should have set OWQP ranges in the distribution system, but did not
do so presumably because of the previously identified program-wide deficiency in setting WQP ranges
within distribution systems. If MDEQ had selected a different OCCT, then after one year of follow-up
monitoring, the State would have needed to review and possibly revise OWQP ranges at the entry point to
the distribution system and at locations in the distribution system to ensure that corrosion control was
optimized. The data collected on the critical WQPs during the year of follow-up monitoring would be used
to revise the OWQP ranges for the treatment process. While OWQP ranges at sites in the City's distribution
system were not set, presumably because of the previously identified program-wide deficiency, MDEQ also
failed to set OWQP ranges at the entry point to Flint's distribution system after the source switch and to
review/revise those ranges as necessary after the one year of follow-up monitoring.
Discrepancies:
• MDEQ did not require a CCT study prior to implementation of the switch to the new source.
• MDEQ did not designate CCT for the Flint PWS at the time ofplant start-up, either by designating
installation of orthophosphate (to continue to maintain the OCCT) or designating installation of a
revised and approved CCT, after MDEQ was notified of the source change.
• MDEQ did not issue a violation to the Flint PWS for failing to maintain CCT after the source
change to Flint River water.
• MDEQ did not designate OCCT and associated WQP ranges at the entry point and in the
distribution system after the source/treatment switch and review/possibly revise OWQPs after the
January to June 2015 monitoring period.
Recommendations:
• Update Section 5. c. of the Michigan LCR Policy to establish a review and approval process to
address and document any upcoming change in long-term treatment or addition of a new source,
including any impact of that treatment or source change on existing CCT, before it is implemented
by the PWS, as required by the Michigan LCR.
• Report violations for failing to maintain CCT to SDWIS.
24
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Note:
• In October of 2015 MDEQ determined OCCTfor the Flint PWS's current source (i.e., when Flint
went back to receiving finished water from Detroit PWS) and established enforceable WQP ranges.
EPA's January 21, 2016 SDWA Section 1431 emergency enforcement order requires the Flint PWS
to continue to add corrosion inhibitors as it uses Detroit PWS water and to complete a corrosion
control study. The emergency order also addresses the Flint PWS's CCT if it decides to transition to
a new water source, including the requirement to complete a corrosion control study and a
performance period to allow for the demonstration of the adequacy of treatment of the new water
source to meet all SDWA andNPDWRs before it can be distributed to consumers.
2.3.3 Measurement of Water Quality Parameters before and after April 201.4
As previously noted in this Report, MDEQ did not set OWQP ranges in the distribution system, as required
by the Michigan LCR. This discrepancy applies to the Flint PWS, both prior to April 2014, when it was part
of the MCS approach with the Detroit PWS, and when it was operating its own treatment plant in 2014 and
2015. When the Flint PWS was purchasing treated water from the Detroit PWS, Detroit was responsible for
meeting the OWQP ranges at the entry point to the distribution system. Under the MCS approach, the Flint
PWS took samples at eight locations in the distribution system and at each entry point to the Flint PWS
twice during each six-month period. The measured parameters were pH, temperature, total alkalinity and
total phosphorus, based on the addition of orthophosphate by the Detroit PWS. However, total phosphorus is
not a good surrogate for orthophosphate as it includes other forms of phosphate. (The correct measurement
of orthophosphate was provided in the WQP monitoring results after the Flint PWS returned to water being
supplied by Detroit in October of 2015.) If an optimal minimum value or range had been set for
orthophosphate/total phosphorus in the Flint distribution system, then either a change in the OWQP ranges
or the addition of orthophosphate would have been required when the Flint P WS switched to the new
source.
Once the Flint PWS switched to the Flint River source and was no longer part of the Detroit MCS, MDEQ
added 15 sites to the original 10 sites for WQP monitoring within the Flint PWS distribution system. MDEQ
changed the WQPs that were monitored at these 25 sites by dropping total phosphorus and adding
conductivity and calcium. There was no documentation in the files that MDEQ provided to the LCR review
team about the reason for the change in the WQPs being monitored in the distribution system. The increase
in the number of WQP sites to 25 is consistent with the number of WQP distribution sites required for
systems serving over 100,000 people on standard monitoring. As noted above, OWQP ranges were not set
in the distribution system following the source change, even though the parameters being monitored did
change. Also, as noted in the Treatment Decisions Section above, OWQP ranges should have been set at the
entry point to the distribution system and then reviewed and possibly revised after one year of follow-up
monitoring. The Flint treatment plant was conducting daily monitoring, which was being submitted on the
MORs to MDEQ, but there were no OWQP ranges set for comparison to evaluate the performance of the
plant.
Discrepancy:
• MDEQ did not set OWQP ranges for entry points to the Flint distribution system or in the
distribution system. Therefore, a compliance determination for distribution system WQP samples
was not possible.
Recommendation:
• See Part 1, item 1, of this chapter for recommendations on setting WQPs Statewide.
25
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
2.3.4 Lead and Copper Monitoring
Tier 1 Sites
In the year preceding the start of sampling for the Michigan LCR in 1992, MDEQ provided information to
water systems during on-site training events, in meetings, and in newsletters about the 50/50 mix of samples
and the requirement to conduct a materials survey. MDEQ relied on all of its PWSs to certify on their LCR
reporting forms that each sampling site contained the actual type of service line reported on the form. (The
federal LCR does not require any state to review or approve sample locations.) MDEQ's limitations were
made clear in a November 12, 1991, letter from MDEQ to EPA Region 5 that states, "The State does not
have sufficient knowledge of service line materials and plumbing materials to second guess the sites
certified by the public water supplies."
The Flint PWS reported in 2014 and 2015 that all Tier 1 sampling sites had LSLs and did not include sites
with copper service lines with lead solder installed between 1983 and 1988. MDEQ's file did not include a
reference document to verify that each such service line was positively identified as a LSL.
Once MDEQ became aware that Flint's information on service line materials, which was originally on index
cards and recently converted to electronic files, did not provide the needed verification, MDEQ sent a letter
on November 9, 2015, requiring the Flint PWS to provide verification for all of the sites it used since 1992
(324 different locations). The letter from MDEQ to Flint's Utility Administrator states, "The DEQ has
obtained a copy of these 10,895 digital records and cross referenced them with the addresses for the City's
324 historic LCR compliance monitoring sites. However, only 46 of the 324 sites were able to be matched at
the current time. Of these 46 sites, only 6 sites contained information confirming the Tier 1 site criteria
based on having lead service line materials. Fourteen sites were listed as having no available information
(n/a), and require additional documentation to justify being designated as a Tier 1 sample site having a lead
service line. The remaining 26 cross referenced sites were listed as having copper service line materials
which conflicts with the City's LCR reports certifying these sites as Tier 1 based on the criteria of having a
lead service line."
Discrepancies:
• The Flint PWS Lead and Copper Report form for January to June 2015 contained contradictory
information regarding the tier of each sample location. On the first summary sheet, the water system
answered "no" to question 9 asking if all samples were from Tier 1 sites. However, on page 2, the
results were all listed as being Tier 1, specifically all sites having LSLs. The file did not contain any
documentation demonstrating that MDEQ noted or addressed this reporting discrepancy. In a letter
dated November 9, 2015, MDEQ asked for verification from the Flint PWS that Tier 1 sites had
LSLs.
Historic Lead 90th Percentile Values
The Flint PWS collected the required number of lead and copper samples pursuant to the MCS approach
(see Table 2-1, below), except for the 2011 monitoring period when two samples were collected outside the
June to September monitoring period required for systems under a reduced monitoring schedule. All historic
lead and copper sampling events were below their respective ALs with the potential exception of 2015,
discussed below. All 90th percentile values were correctly calculated by interpolation.
26
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Table 2-1. Flint PWS historic lead sampling data
Sample period
# LSLs
sampled/required
Lead 90th
Percentile (ppb)
Highest Concentration
of Lead (ppb)
Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1992
33/3311
15.4
25
Jul 1-Dec 31, 1992
33/33
14.4
23
Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1997
33/33
4.5
25
Jul 1-Dec 31, 1997
33/33
5
32
Jul 1-Dec 31, 1998
33/33
7.4
29
Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999
33/33
5
13
Jun 1 - Sep 30, 2000
33/33
7
21
Jun 1-Sep 30, 2001
33/33
4.4
7
Jun 1 - Sep 30, 2002
33/33
4
21
Jun 1 - Sep 30, 2005
33/33
1.4
5
Jun 1 - Sep 30, 2008
33/33
0
0
Jun 1-Sep 30, 2011
23/2312 (two samples late)
0
0
Jul 1-Dec 31, 2014
100/10013
6
37
Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2015
6914/6015
11
(at two sites)
Insufficient Number of Lead and Copper Samples Collected in 2011
The Flint PWS collected 23 lead and copper samples during 2011, but only 21 of 23 required samples were
collected before the end of the June to September monitoring period. MDEQ inquired about the insufficient
number of samples collected prior to the end of the monitoring period, and the Flint PW S responded in a
July 16, 2012, letter explaining that the two samples delivered on September 30th were rejected by the City
of Detroit laboratory due to insufficient stagnation time. The consumers were asked to resample, and the
samples were submitted to the laboratory on October 24, 2011. If those two samples were considered
improper or invalid, the regulations would have required the Flint PWS to collect replacement samples by
October 20, 2011; however, no documentation was found in the file to confirm invalidation by MDEQ.
After the Review, MDEQ reviewed EPA's draft report and provided documentation - the City's
October 24, 2011 signed "Drinking Water Lead & Copper Report & Certificate," which noted that the City
collected the required replacement samples on October 17, 2011 and October 18, 2011.
Discrepancy:
• MDEQ did not issue a M/R violation to the Flint PWS for failing to collect the required number of
samples. After theFR, MDEQ provided documentation in March of 2017, which provided evidence
that the replacement samples were collected prior to October 20, 2011, which would remove this
discrepancy.
11 Number of required samples for Flint PWS from the original 1991 MCS approach with Detroit PWS that was approved by EPA
and MDEQ.
12 Number of required samples for Flint PWS that resulted from the 2007 re-evaluation of the 1991 MCS approach.
13 Number of required samples for Flint PWS for standard monitoring for a system serving more than 100,000 people.
14 Number of samples MDEQ used to calculate 90th percentile values. Invalidations of samples is discussed below.
15 Number of required samples for Flint PWS after the most recent census which showed its population was approximately
99,000.
27
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
2.3.5 Invalidated Samples, January to June 2015
MDEQ's file did not include proper documentation on the decisions and rationale for invalidating samples
collected by the Flint PWS during the January to June 2015 sampling period and excluding them from the
90th percentile calculation. Two samples from the initial list of 71 sample results were excluded from the
final 90th percentile calculation. The 90th percentile of the 71 sample results was above the lead action level,
and both excluded sites were above the lead action level. The documentation for a Grand Traverse Avenue
site indicated that it was not a Tier 1 site because it was a business and therefore did not meet the Tier 1 site
requirement to be a single-family residence. The documentation for the sample collected at a Browning
Avenue site on February 18, 2015, indicated that the site had a whole-house filter. Several additional
samples were taken at the Browning Avenue site during the January to June 2015 monitoring period (on
March 3, 2015; March 18, 2015; and April 2, 2015). These results were submitted to MDEQ, but were also
excluded from the 90th percentile calculation because of documentation noting the whole-house filter.
The sample collected on March 18, 2015, was not a first draw sample, so it could be excluded from the 90th
percentile calculation for that reason. The Michigan LCR sample site location requirements at Mich Admin
Code, R 325.10710a(l)(a) state, "Sampling sites may include faucets that have point-of-use or point-of
entry treatment devices designed to remove inorganic contaminants only if the devices have been approved
by the department for the purpose of optimizing corrosion control. " See 40 CFR § 141.86(a)(1). The
documentation on the whole-house filter at the Browning Avenue site does not specify if it was designed to
remove inorganic contaminants. Therefore, there was insufficient documentation to make a decision about
invalidating a sample from that site based on a filter.
Additionally, a sample at the Browning Avenue site was collected at a basement tap before the filter on
April 2, 2015. There is no documentation on why this sample was not included in the 90th percentile
calculation as it would not be from a faucet with a point-of-entry device designed to remove inorganic
contaminants (assuming that the whole-house filter was designed for that purpose). If the whole-house filter
was not designed to remove inorganic contaminants, then the samples taken on February 18 and
March 3, 2015, should have been included in the 90th percentile calculation, which would have put the
system over the AL. If the April 2, 2015, sample collected from the basement was from a bathroom tap, then
it should have been included in the 90th percentile, even if the whole-house filter was designed to remove
inorganic contaminants. There are four potential scenarios based on the data from this site:
1. All samples were invalid - whole-house filter was designed to remove inorganic contaminants and
basement tap was not a bathroom/kitchen tap;
2. Whole-house filter was designed to remove inorganic contaminants and basement tap was a
bathroom/kitchen tap before the whole-house filter;
3. Whole-house filter was not designed to remove inorganic contaminants and basement tap was not a
bathroom/kitchen tap; and
4. Whole-house filter was not designed to remove inorganic contaminants and basement tap was a
bathroom/kitchen tap.
The 90th percentiles for these scenarios would have been: 1)11 ppb; 2) 13 ppb; 3) 18 ppb; and 4) 20 ppb,
respectively.
Discrepancy:
• MDEQ 'sflle did not include documentation of decision/rationale or management approval to
designate samples taken for the January to June 2015 sampling period as improper and exclude
28
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
them from the 90h percentile calculation. There was no documentation that all samples collected
during the monitoring period were investigated, as directed by the Michigan LCR Policy.
Recommendation:
• Amend LCR policy to establish process to document and approve sample invalidations.
2.3.6 Late Reporting in 2014 and 2015
The Flint PWS submitted its Lead and Copper report for the July to December 2014 monitoring period on
February 27, 2015, and its report for the January to June 2015 monitoring period on July 28, 2015. These
reports were due by January 10, 2015, and July 10, 2015, respectively. MDEQ did not assign violations for
late submission of either of these reports. Since 2011, MDEQ has indicated to EPA that it does not plan to
issue or report violations for late reporting violations, including submittal of the Lead and Copper report
form, because MDEQ believed that there were no negative public health effects from late reporting. The late
reporting by the Flint P WS, however, delayed actions by MDEQ to assess information in the report and may
have resulted in public health protection measures not being implemented. For example, MDEQ staff
invalidated samples for the January - June 2015 monitoring period. If a recalculated 90th percentile value
was over 15 ppb lead (see discussion below), the Flint PWS would have been starting PE, LSLR, and other
required activities later than it would have if the reports had been submitted on time.
Discrepancy:
• MDEQ did not issue M/R violations to the Flint PWS for failing to submit the referenced Lead and
Copper reports by January 10, 2015, and July 10, 2015, respectively.
Recommendations:
• Report violation to SDWIS.
• Ensure that MDEQ and LHD staff issue violations toPWSs that submit Lead and Copper reports
late.
29
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
13 Enforcement Verification
3.1 Enforcement Verification Summary
From April 4 through April 8, 2016, the EPA Region 5 conducted the Fiscal Year 2016 Enforcement
Verification (EV) review of Michigan's Drinking Water Program.
The purpose of the EV was to complete the following:
• Evaluate whether the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) was following the
enforcement processes outlined in available procedures and flow charts;
• Review enforcement documentation in MDEQ's files; and
• Compare MDEQ's files with violation and enforcement information reported to the national Safe
Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/Fed).
The EPA EV review team reviewed the records of 16 systems with 40 known violations that occurred
between October 1, 2013, and September 30, 2015, and found 21 additional violations (18 that were
unreported or reported late to SDWIS/Fed). The review included six community water systems (CWSs),
five non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) that are schools or daycares, and five
transient non-community water systems (TNCWSs).
The 16 systems had maximum contaminant level (MCL), treatment technique (TT), and/or monitoring and
reporting (M/R) violations for one or more of the following rules: Total Coliform Rule (TCR), Ground
Water Rule (GWR), Nitrate/Nitrite, Arsenic, Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), Consumer Confidence Report
(CCR) Rule, and Stage 1 and 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPRs). The EV review
team found a total of 58 discrepancies with 17 discrepancies being unreported violations (identified as
compliance determinations or CD discrepancies), three discrepancies related to data flow (DF
discrepancies), and 38 discrepancies related to MDEQ's failure to follow its standard operating procedures
(SOPs) (identified as enforcement verification or EV discrepancies).
EPA found the following items/processes that MDEQ used to strengthen its implementation of its PWSS
program:
• Comprehensive flowcharts for addressing M/R violations including public notice (PN) requirements
and state administrative fines, total coliform-positive sample follow-up, Phase II/V inorganics and
organics sample results that exceed MCL follow-up, violations of state drinking water standards
including PN, and enforcement.
• A GWR significant deficiency SOP.
• The 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference Manual.
• A fine policy for M/R violations and violations of state drinking water standards.
• The centralized issuance of Administrative Consent Orders (ACOs) to CWSs and non-community
water systems (NCWSs) from staff in the central office, thus improving consistency across the State.
• Follow-up procedures for TCR MCL violations include actions that are more stringent than the
federal rule, such as requiring NCWSs to provide PN for TCR monthly MCL violations within 24-
hours, the same timeframes that CWSs and NCWSs are required to provide PN for TCR acute MCL
30
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
violations, instead of within 30 days. Procedures also include timely site visits conducted by local
health department (LHD) staff after TCR acute and monthly MCL violations.
The EV review team recommends that MDEQ address the following:
• EPA expects MDEQ to ensure that data systems are in place so that the State can report all federally
reportable violations to SDWIS/Fed. It is critical that Michigan allocate program resources to
effectively manage data and fully utilize SDWIS/State, which is the primacy agency-level version of
SDWIS, for all PWSs.
• MDEQ should use EPA's 2009 Drinking Water Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) as a model for
developing its drinking water program compliance and enforcement strategy.
• MDEQ must focus on timely reporting. MDEQ should have reported two TTHM MCL violations for
Flint, for the first and second quarters of 2015. Not reporting these violations affected enforcement
targeting tool (ETT) scoring, preventing Flint from becoming a priority system sooner (on October
2015 ETT).
• MDEQ's community program should issue a violation notice for all violations, once they are
determined, in order to provide the PWS with public notice documentation and return to compliance
information in a timely manner. These notices should be kept in the PWS file and reported to
SDWIS/State and SDWIS/Fed as SIA (state violation notice) enforcement actions.
• MDEQ should ensure that all LHDs are tracking PWS compliance with total coliform routine
monitoring requirements by updating WaterTrack in a timely manner when LHDs instruct systems
to increase routine monitoring to quarterly, so that systems receive quarterly monitoring reminders
and are issued violations when they fail to monitor at the required frequency.
• MDEQ should ensure that all LHDs contact systems that had a total coliform-positive routine sample
in a timely manner to remind them to collect repeat samples within the required 24-hours.
• MDEQ should ensure that all LHDs instruct groundwater PWSs that do not provide at least 4-log
treatment of viruses to collect, within 24 hours of notification of the total coliform positive sample,
at least one groundwater source sample from each groundwater source in use at the time the total
coliform positive sample was collected.
• MDEQ should follow up with systems that fail to conduct GWR-triggered source water monitoring
and report all triggered source water M/R violations at NCWSs after it is able to generate and submit
these violations to SDWIS/Fed.
• MDEQ should initiate formal enforcement action at all PWSs that were previously on bottled water
agreements for exceeding the arsenic MCL when the MCL went from 0.050 mg/L (milligrams per
liter) to 0.010 mg/L and have not yet returned to compliance. MDEQ should require these systems to
monitor for arsenic on a quarterly basis, provide alternative water, and provide public notice until an
alternate source is found or treatment is installed and the systems return to compliance.
Additional Recommendations for NCWSs:
• The EV review team found NTNCWSs with non-transient populations between 50 and 70 people
served that had State lead and copper tap monitoring schedules requiring fewer than five samples.
Site visits are recommended to confirm that there are fewer than five taps used for human
consumption.
31
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
• MDEQ should ensure that LHDs only accept first-draw samples for lead and copper compliance and
that systems on reduced monitoring collect at least their required number of compliance samples
between June and September.
• MDEQ should ensure that all lead and copper action level exceedances (ALEs) are reported to
SDWIS/Fed and that LHDs and/or MDEQ follow up on them in a timely manner.
• LHDs/MDEQ need to escalate enforcement for lead ALEs when systems fail to follow LHD
recommendations for resolving the lead ALEs, including the possible use of the State's emergency
authority under Michigan SDWA Section 15 (Section 325.1015).
EPA is encouraged that MDEQ is working to update its drinking water program compliance and
enforcement strategy, and looks forward to working with MDEQ to address the recommendations in this
report. Most importantly, EPA recognizes the resource constraints that are stressing MDEQ's drinking water
program, especially the lack of effective data systems to support compliance monitoring efforts. Securing
adequate personnel and data resources will be critical as MDEQ moves forward to ensure that its drinking
water program is well implemented to protect public health and provide the people of Michigan with safe
drinking water.
3.2 Introduction
From April 4 through April 8, 2016, EPA Region 5 conducted the Fiscal Year 2016 EV review of
Michigan's Drinking Water Program.
3,2,1 EV Purpose
The purpose of the EV was to complete the following:
• Evaluate whether appropriate enforcement escalation and follow-up activities occur to address
violations in a timely manner, as described in MDEQ's enforcement policies and procedures;
• Review enforcement documentation in MDEQ's files; and
• Compare MDEQ's files with violation and enforcement information reported to State data systems,
SDWIS/State and WaterTrack, as well as SDWIS/Fed, to ensure that the enforcement data in
SDWIS/Fed are accurate and complete.
The EV review period was from October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2015. EPA reviewed two systems
with escalated enforcement actions (Administrative Order, Administrative Penalty, etc.) and two with
bilateral compliance agreements, which involved a review of all violations associated with the enforcement
actions, with some violations occurring before October 1, 2013. EPA did not review any violations prior to
October 1, 2013, for the 12 remaining systems unless the system had a history of lead action level
exceedances.
EPA conducted the review in MDEQ's central office in Lansing, Michigan. MDEQ has primary
responsibility for administering and enforcing the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
and national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs) in Michigan and does so through its Office of
Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance (ODWMA). (Note: After theEV review, MDEQ renamed
ODWMA to the Drinking Water Municipal Assistance Division.) MDEQ fully cooperated with the EV
review team by answering questions throughout the EV process and providing copies of enforcement
documents and supporting information to reviewers as requested.
32
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
3,2„2 Description of Public Water Systems Reviewed
The EV review team reviewed the records of 16 PWSs: six CWSs, five NTNCWSs, and five TNCWSs.
These systems were distributed among MDEQ's field offices. There are eight district field offices for the
Drinking Water Program:
Table 3-1. Number of CWSs in Violation Reviewed, by District Office
CWS District Field Office
Number of PWSs in Violation Reviewed
Cadillac/Gaylord
2
Grand Rapids
1
Jackson
0
Kalamazoo
1
Lansing
1
Saginaw Bay (Bay City)
1
Southeast Michigan (Warren)
0
Upper Peninsula (Marquette)
0
Table 3-2. Number of NCWSs in Violation Reviewed, by District Office
NCWS Field Office
Number of PWSs in Violation Reviewed
Cadillac/Gaylord
1
Grand Rapids
2
Jackson
2
Kalamazoo
1
Lansing (Central Office)
3
Upper Peninsula
1
System selection was based on the following factors:
• PWS type (CWS, NTNCWS, and TNCWS);
• Source water type (ground water, surface water, and purchased surface water);
• Population served (less than or equal to 500 people; 501-3,300; 3,301-10,000; and 10,001-100,000);
• Distribution across district offices;
• Systems with health-based and/or monitoring and reporting violations of the following National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs): Ground Water Rule (GWR), Total Coliform Rule
(TCR), Nitrate/Nitrite, Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), Arsenic, Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)
Rule, Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts (Stage 1 DBPR), and Stage 2 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts (Stage 2 DBPR);
• Enforcement targeting tool (ETT) score with at least one priority system (ETT score of 11 or above);
• Community water systems with lead service lines;
• Systems that are schools or daycares; and
• Systems with escalated enforcement actions that were open during the review period.
33
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
3,2,3 Violations Reviewed
The 16 PWSs reviewed by the EV team had MCL, TT, M/R, and/or other violation types for one or more of
the following rules: TCR, Nitrate, GWR, LCR, Arsenic, Stage 1 DBPR, Stage 2 DBPR, and CCR. For all
systems that had tier 1 or tier 2 violations, the EV team reviewed the associated PN.
The EV review team reviewed enforcement records for the types and number of violations listed below (see
Appendix 3-G for more details):
Table 3-3. Number of Violations reviewed, by Rule and Violation Type
Violation Type
Number of Violations
TCR Acute MCL
4
TCR Monthly MCL
10
GWR TT
1
Nitrate MCL
1
Arsenic MCL
2
LCR TT
4
Stage 2 DBPR MCL
8
TCR Routine M/R
13
TCR Repeat M/R
4
GWR M/R (Triggered Source Water Monitoring)
3
Nitrate M/R
3
LCR M/R
5
Stage 1 DBPR M/R
1
CCR
1
Tier 1 PN
1
Total Number of Violations Reviewed
61
Of the 61 violations reviewed, 30 were health-based violations that required tier 1 or tier 2 PN. The EV
team analyzed available copies of PN and certifications to determine whether PN was provided in a timely
manner (which is within 24 hours of the P W S receiving a notice of violation (NOV) for a tier 1 violation
and within 30 days of receiving an NOV for a tier 2 violation).
3.3 State Enforcement Organization and Enforcement: Process
3.3.1 Stale Organisation
Community Water Systems in Michigan are overseen by eight MDEQ district field offices. The MDEQ
Community Drinking Water Unit (CDWU) of the Field Operations Section provides program support to
district field staff and the regulated community and coordinates federal reporting from the district offices.
The CDWU consists of program specialists, engineers, and technicians at the central office. The
enforcement coordinator in the Environmental Health Section provides support to the CDWU.
About eight non-community water supply staff in the Non-community and Private Drinking Water Supplies
Unit of the Environmental Health Section provide assistance and oversight to the 44 LHDs, under contract
with MDEQ, that implement the non-community program. There are eight field offices across the State with
non-community staff at six of them.
34
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
MDEQ uses SDWIS/State for CWSs and WaterTrack for NCWSs to track compliance with the NPDWRs.
WaterTrack, however, does not support many of the newer regulatory requirements.
3,3,2 State Enforcement Process
The EV review team requested documents related to MDEQ's current compliance and enforcement strategy,
which demonstrate how the State responds to violations and escalates enforcement efforts to return systems
to compliance. The EV team specifically requested the latest version of MDEQ's:
• Enforcement strategy, SOPs, and flow charts for following up on violations;
• Noncommunity Program Staff Reference Manual, which was created on January 2, 2009 and revised
in winter 2014. Specifically, the EV review team examined:
o Chapter 6: Water Quality Standards and Monitoring
o Chapter 7: Public Notice
o Chapter 8: Compliance and Enforcement
o Chapter 9: State and Federal Reporting
o Appendices to each chapter
• Compliance SOPs and flow charts for addressing the following violations linked to enforcement
actions that occurred at the selected systems during the review period:
o TCR M/R and MCL violations
o Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPR M/R and MCL violations
o GWR M/R and TT violations
o Arsenic MCL and M/R violations
o CCR violations
o Nitrate MCL and M/R violations
o LCR TT and M/R violations
• Procedures and flow charts for issuing Administrative Consent Orders (ACOs), MDEQ Orders
(which are unilateral), and referrals to the Michigan Attorney General (MAG) or EPA; and
• An example enforcement notice and ACO. MDEQ's FY 2015 Annual Report on Capacity
Development Program states that the Community Water Supply Program began issuing ACOs after
an NOV and prior to referral to MAG or EPA.
The full list of resources that EPA used during the EV is provided in Appendix 3-B of this report.
During the EV, MDEQ noted that its Drinking Water Program's Compliance and Enforcement Procedures
were not updated when ODWMA was reorganized in 2011. MDEQ provided the EV review team with
MDEQ's agency-wide Policy and Procedure 04-003 Compliance and Enforcement revised October 12,
2015. This policy and procedure requires ODWMA to develop its own compliance and enforcement policy
and procedures and implement each of the five sections of the MDEQ Compliance and Enforcement Policy
and Procedure (i.e., Compliance Evaluations; Compliance and Enforcement Process; Settlement Issues;
Compliance Tracking, Measurement and Coordination; and Coordination and Management of Multimedia
Cases).
MDEQ noted it has developed policies and procedures for compliance evaluations, some pertaining to
compliance and enforcement, and plans to complete a comprehensive ODWMA compliance and
enforcement procedure by the end of 2016, including procedures and flow charts for issuing informal
violation notices (actions with SIA enforcement code in SDWIS), formal NOVs (actions with SFJ
35
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
enforcement code in SDWIS), enforcement notices, ACOs, and referrals to the MAG or EPA. MDEQ said
that although it has not incorporated EPA's 2009 Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) into its procedures,
its general process targets the same systems.
Update:
• After EPA drafted this report, MDEQ submitted to EPA its "Escalated Enforcement Action" policy
for the Drinking Water Program, which became effective on January 25, 2017. EPA has reviewed
the four-page document and it does not implement EPA's 2009 ERP and it also does not appear to
apply to non-community water systems. Given the large number of these systems in Michigan as well
as theLHDs being the lead for the non-community program, it is critical to develop a policy and
procedure for MDEQ and theLHDs to coordinate escalated enforcement efforts to address
significant non-compliers.
All ACOs are developed and sent by an enforcement specialist from the central office in Lansing, thus
improving consistency across the State. Compliance officers in district offices make the compliance
determinations and issue violation notices and/or NOVs. All district supervisors and central office managers
meet monthly with the enforcement specialist to provide updates on ongoing enforcement cases. During the
monthly meetings, district staff also discuss potential new cases for enforcement. Between meetings, the
enforcement specialist receives emails and phone calls from district staff regarding possible systems for
referral. Sometimes a draft ACO is sent with an enforcement notice to see if the PWS will enter into an
ACO. Other times an enforcement notice is sent without an ACO, and the system is offered an opportunity
to meet with the State.
Under MDEQ's policy for CWSs, the first step may be compliance communications (e.g., phone call, email,
letter, but not an official notice) to the PWS. When violations occur more than once, districts may refer
systems to the enforcement specialist in Lansing. However, a referral can be made at any point when
deemed necessary. Templates are in the draft MDEQ-wide Compliance and Enforcement Policy and
Procedure.
During the EV, MDEQ said it was going to work on a separate policy for non-community enforcement,
specifying at what point the LHDs should refer a system to MDEQ. EPA supports this effort and looks
forward to reviewing the LHD enforcement escalation policy.
3.4 Enforcement Findings
It is important to note that this report only represents a limited percentage of the total number of PWSs in
Michigan during the period of review. EPA recognizes that the State may have implemented changes to its
data system and policies after EPA conducted the on-site joint review in April of 2016 and subsequent
analyses through the summer of 2016.
Further details on the discrepancies summarized below are provided in Appendix 3-C, Appendix 3-D, and
Appendix 3-E. Appendix 3-C provides details on the differences between data reported to SDWIS/Fed,
SDWIS/State, WaterTrack, and the State files. Appendix 3-D provides a count of the different types of
discrepancies while Appendix 3-E includes explanations of each of the discrepancies. State responses to
questions posed by the EV review team, including questions about these discrepancies, are included in
Appendix 3-F. Further details on the data collected while conducting the EV are provided in Appendix 3-G,
which is the Enforcement Verification Analysis Excel Workbook.
36
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
3.4.1 Compliance and Enforcement Strategy
MDEQ did not provide a comprehensive compliance or enforcement strategy for the drinking water
program.
Recommendation:
• EPA requests that ODWMA use EPA's 2009 Drinking Water ERP as a model for developing its
drinking water program compliance and enforcement strategy.
3.4.2 Standard Operating Procedures
One of the purposes of the EV was to evaluate whether MDEQ was following the enforcement processes
outlined in its procedures and flow charts. The community program provided compliance and enforcement
follow-up procedures for TCR M/R and MCL violations; failure to address significant deficiencies under the
GWR; LCR M/R and TT violations; and CCR violations. However, compliance and enforcement follow-up
procedures, including procedures for PN requirements, were not provided for Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPR
M/R and MCL violations. EPA strongly recommends MDEQ develop these SOPs. A list of the SOP
documents reviewed by EPA is provided in Appendix 3-B.
Recommendation:
• MDEQ should expand compliance and enforcement follow-up procedures to include procedures for
PN requirements as well as Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPR M/R and MCL violations.
3.4.3 Iota! Coliform Rule
Community Program
EPA reviewed the records for 12 TCR violations (two acute MCL, nine monthly MCL, and one M/R) that
occurred among four CWSs.
Three PWSs had TCR MCL violations. MDEQ promptly followed up on the two acute MCL violations at
two systems (City of Flint and Butterfield Woods Subdivision) by ensuring that boil water notices were
issued within the 24-hour requirement.
For the third system with TCR MCL violations, Washburn Lake Village MHP, MDEQ used escalated
enforcement to address the six TCR monthly MCL violations from July through December 2013. However,
all six TCR monthly MCL violations were linked to just one violation notice (SDWIS enforcement code
SIA) which was dated October 30, 2013. A separate violation notice should have been issued once each of
these violations was determined in order to notify the P W S of the violation, provide public notice
documentation, and return to compliance in a timely manner. The PWS returned to compliance (RTC'd) on
December 3, 2013, based on total coliform negative sample results.
MDEQ was proactive in protecting public health by requiring the P WS to issue a precautionary boil water
public notice and to keep it in effect until the TCR monthly MCL was returned to compliance. However, a
written certification from the system stating that it fully complied with the PN regulations, along with a
representative copy of each type of notice distributed, posted, and made available to persons served by the
system were not in the State file. Additionally, evidence that the boil water PN was continuously posted was
not found. In follow-up to EP A's review, MDEQ stated that the PWS indicated by phone that the boil water
PN was issued in July 2013, after the first TCR monthly MCL occurred. Furthermore, MDEQ received a
call from a resident in response to the PN, further confirming the PN was issued as required. The only
37
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
evidence of PN for the TCR monthly MCL violations was a PN received on November 26, 2013, and a
Facility Surveillance Report indicating that MDEQ was on-site on November 20, 2013.
The October 30, 2013 violation notice that MDEQ issued the system for failure to correct significant
deficiencies (i.e. to install many required well appurtenances) also states that the system had a TCR MCL
violation which has not been resolved due to lack of these appurtenances and that the boil water notice must
be reissued, since it has been over 90 days from the date the first notice was issued. Compliance
communications, including phone calls, emails, and in-person interactions with the PWS, were not
documented in the State file, as required by MDEQ's agency-wide Compliance and Enforcement SOP.
After the review, MDEQ confirmed that violation notices were not generated each month due to the ongoing
nature of the event and the continuous compliance communications throughout that time period.
Recommendation:
• MDEQ should issue a violation notice for all violations, once they are determined, in order to
provide the PWS with public notice documentation and return to compliance information in a timely
manner. These notices should be kept in the PWS file and reported to SDWIS/State and SDWIS/Fed
as SIA enforcement actions.
The remaining three TCR monthly MCL violations, which occurred in Flint and Butterfield Woods
Subdivision, were addressed quickly (two were reported with the TCR acute MCL violations discussed
above) and the one M/R violation reviewed at Spring Lake Club Condominiums was quickly resolved when
the PWS collected its routine samples within 15 days of receiving the violation notice.
Nan-community Program
EPA reviewed the records for 19 TCR violations (two acute MCL, one monthly MCL, 12 routine M/R,
andfour repeat M/R) that occurred among six NCWSs (five TNCWSs and one NTNCWS).
TCR MCL Violations
Two PWSs had TCR MCL violations. For the first of two consecutive acute MCL violations at KOA Bath
House, the EV Team could not find information confirming that the LHD contacted KOA Bath House
within 24 hours or by the end of the next business day of the system's June 9, 2015 positive E. coli result as
required by the 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference Manual. However, after the EV, the LHD
provided documentation that it received the result for the June 9, 2015 routine sample on June 11, 2015,
contacted the KOA Bath House system the next day with this result and results for the two repeat samples
the system collected on June 11, 2015 which were also E. coli positive. The June 12, 2015, violation notice
letter that the LHD issued for this violation required the system to complete the following:
1. Post PN as long as the system remains in noncompliance; and
2. Take precautionary measures:
a. In lieu of closure, provide bottled water from an approved source;
b. Not to use the system's water for consumption and/or bathing and use special precautions for
hand washing;
c. Have the water supply evaluated to determine what corrective measures must be taken,
complete any needed repairs, and then have the well chlorinated by a registered well-drilling
contractor; and
38
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
d. Collect a minimum of two repeat samples at least 24-hours apart and the month after two
satisfactory samples have been collected, collect five additional routine total coliform
samples.
The LHD returned the system to compliance after the system's water was chlorinated and the system
obtained two satisfactory water samples.
The LHD should have issued the system a TCR minor repeat M/R violation for only collecting two of the
four required repeat samples. The State file documents the LHD should have issued the system a PN
violation.
The second acute TCR MCL violation at KOA Bath House was addressed with escalated enforcement. The
LHD took timely follow-up actions and coordinated effectively with MDEQ, including site visits,
compliance conferences, a bilateral compliance agreement (BCA), a joint LHD/MDEQ inspection, a down-
hole camera inspection of the well that resulted in the issuance of a well abandonment order, and approval
of a new water supply. The July 14, 2015 violation notice that the LHD issued for this violation had the
same requirements as the violation notice for the previous TCR acute MCL violation, with the additional
requirements that all showers must remain closed and locked, and every camper must be notified not to
consume the water.
If the LHD had adopted ODWMA policy and procedures (399-012 Administrative Fines - Violations of
State Drinking Water Standards), it could have issued the system a $1,000 per day negligent category
administrative fine, for a total amount of $2,000, for the system's failure to provide PN for the June 2015
TCR acute MCL violation as required by the LHD's June 12, 2015 violation notice.
For the July 2014 TCR monthly MCL violation at Hour Kidz, the same LHD should have escalated
enforcement when the PWS failed to comply with the requirements of the LHD's July 31, 2014 violation
notice. Hour Kidz and Advance Urgent Care (Suppliers), another business served by the PWS, and the LHD
eventually signed a trilateral compliance agreement on April 24, 2015. The LHD could have issued Hour
Kidz a $200 civil fine for failing to collect the second of two consecutive (at least 24 hours apart)
satisfactory coliform bacteria water samples after making necessary repairs to the distribution system as
required by the NOV. The system complied with the terms of the agreement, and the LHD returned the
system to compliance on June 11, 2015. However, the trilateral compliance agreement did not include the
requirements of the violation notice to have the well chlorinated by a registered well-drilling contractor after
necessary repairs were completed.
In addition, if the LHD had adopted ODWMA policy and procedures (399-012 Administrative Fines -
Violations of State Drinking Water Standards), it could have issued the system a $400 per day negligent
category administrative fine, for a total amount of $800 for failing to have its water system evaluated to
determine what corrective measure must be taken to resolve its July 2014 TCR MCL violation as required
by the LHD's July 31, 2014 violation notice.
Recommendation:
• AllLHDs should adopt ODWMA policy and procedures for administrative fines for M/R violations
as well as violations of State Drinking Water Standards.
39
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
TCR Major Repeat M/R Violations
The LHD completed timely follow up to Sandy Point Beach House's June 1, 2014 TC-positive, routine
sample, issuing an "Initial Positive Bacteria Response" letter, referencing a phone conversation the same
day that outlined repeat sampling locations, including one from the same tap as the initial positive and one
from the raw water tap. The conversation record also advised, if all four repeat samples come back non-
detect, five additional routine coliform samples must be taken the following month. The letter, which was
not issued until June 13, 2014, explains that the system's laboratory told the LHD it will not send or forward
results to the LHD, and the LHD reminded the system that it is the system's responsibility to send sample
results as soon as they are received.
There are notes in the file regarding an LHD telephone call to the system's laboratory to discuss its policy,
which confirmed the laboratory has no policy about contacting customers when there is a positive result.
The laboratory sends out emails to customers 36-48 hours after results are obtained and will not email or
share results with the LHD. The LHD sent the system another follow-up letter on June 23, 2014,
acknowledging receipt of results for four non-detect repeat samples, and instructing the system to collect
five routine samples in the first week of July 2014. The LHD issued the system a violation notice on
July 10, 2014, for the system's June 2014 TCR Major Repeat M/R violation, for not submitting results for
four repeat coliform samples within 24 hours of the initial positive result. The violation notice advises that
to be in compliance with the SDWA in the future, "please ensure that the laboratory used is capable of
notification of positive results the same day."
However, the July 10, 2014 violation notice should not have waived posting PN for the violation ("The four
repeat samples were taken on June 17, 2014, and as such, public postings are not necessary at this time."),
and, per MDEQ's fine policy, should have warned the system that it will be issued a $200 civil fine if it has
another TCR M/R violation in the next 12 months.
There was no documentation that the LHD provided timely written or verbal reminders to Knollview Golf
outlining the sampling locations and protocol for the collection of the four repeat samples required to be
taken within 24 hours of notification of the positive December 2, 2013 routine sample result, or that the
system was directed to implement precautionary measures until four non-detect repeat samples were
collected per the 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference Manual. On January 30, 2014, the LHD
issued the system a violation notice for collecting the four repeat samples late on January 14, 2014. The
violation notice required the system to post PN. The violation notice explained how forthcoming sample
results would determine future sampling requirements, but it should have included a warning that the system
would be assessed a $200 fine if it had another TCR M/R violation within 12 months of the previous
violation.
On the same day, the LHD also issued the system a monitoring violation notice form letter that instructs the
system, "If you have not collected the above mentioned sample(s), please send in the sample(s)
immediately." This violation notice form letter has the same PN instructions as the January 30, 2014 NOV
and warns that the LHD can assess a civil fine of $200 for each failure to sample and report results. The
LHD should not have issued the monitoring NOV form letter to the system because the LHD had already
received the system's repeat sample results.
The LHD was late in contacting Battle Creek Baptist Temple regarding TCR repeat sample monitoring
requirements. Repeat monitoring reminder letters were sent on January 14, 2014, and January 30, 2014,
instructing the system to collect four repeat samples within 24 hours of being notified of the
40
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
December 17, 2013 routine positive sample result and outlining sampling locations, including one from the
same tap as the initial positive.
The LHD issued Battle Creek Baptist Temple a violation notice very late, on December 3, 2014, almost a
year after the violation, following an MDEQ review of the LHD program for FY 2014. The LHD issued the
violation notice for an (assumed) MCL violation based on the system's continued failure to collect repeat
samples following the December 17, 2013 TC-positive annual routine sample. The violation notice required
the system to: take the well out of service; provide bottled water until corrections are made; have the well
chlorinated by a licensed well-drilling contractor; collect two samples eight hours apart after continuous
pumping of the well with verification that no chlorine residual is present; post the enclosed PN while the
well is out of service; send back a signed copy of the PN; and collect five additional routine bacteriological
samples in January of 2015. There was no documentation in the system file that the system complied with
any of the above requirements of the violation notice.
Since EPA found a copy of the PN certification without a signature, title, or distributed date in the Battle
Creek Baptist Temple case file, EPA asked MDEQ if the PN was ever distributed. MDEQ replied that the
LHD delivered the PN in person and left a copy of the PN at the church door. There is no documentation in
the file that the system posted the PN or provided bottled water and bagged ice.
Recommendation:
• Per MDEQ's 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference Manual, MDEQ should ensure that all
LHDs contact systems that had a total coliform-positive routine sample in a timely manner to remind
them to collect repeat samples and to issue a timely violation notice to systems that fail to comply.
TCR Routine M/R Violations
The EV review team reviewed the records for five TCR Major Routine M/R violations that occurred at three
systems, and checked if the LHD issued a violation notice with enclosed PN and issued administrative fine
warnings and fines for M/R violations. The EV team also reviewed seven TCR Major Routine M/R
violations that were either reported late to SDWIS/Fed (two violations) or not reported to SDWIS/Fed (five
violations).
On January 14, 2014, the LHD issued Sandy Point Beach House a violation notice for its failure to collect a
TCR and nitrate samples by December 1, 2013. The violation notice warns the system to sample by
January 24, 2014, to avoid further monitoring violations and potential monetary fines. It also notifies the
system that its new frequency for monitoring coliform bacteria is quarterly with samples due at the
beginning of each quarter effective for January-March 2014. The violation notice also instructs the system
to post an enclosed PN and return a signed copy to the LHD. Per the ODWMA policy and procedures for
administrative fines for M/R violations, the LHD should have issued Sandy Point Beach House an annual
total coliform reminder notice 30-90 days before the due date that warns of a $200 civil fine if it fails to
sample by the due date. There was also no documentation of phone calls reminding the system to collect
total coliform samples.
The LHD could have included a $200 civil fine with the February 5, 2015 violation notice that it issued
Sandy Point Beach House for its 2014 fourth calendar quarter (CQ4) TCR Major Routine M/R violation
because it was the system's second TCR M/R violation within 12 months. The violation notice warns of a
$100 civil fine for each failure to sample and report results which is less stringent than ODWMA's
administrative fines policy for M/R violations that specifies a $200 fine warning after the first violation of a
sampling event, a $200 civil fine for a second missed TCR sampling event within 12 months of the previous
41
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
violation, and a $400 civil fine for each additional missed TCR sampling event within 12 months of the
previous violation.
Battle Creek Baptist Temple's 2014 TCR annual routine M/R violation was not in SDWIS/Fed as of the
January 2016 data freeze. There is an undated LHD monitoring violation notice form letter for an annual
2014 TCR Routine M/R violation and an annual 2014 nitrate M/R violation in the Battle Creek Baptist
Temple file that references Battle Creek's water supply serial number (WSSN) but does not include the
PWS name. However, it does not appear that an NOV was issued. After the EV, MDEQ said this violation
was generated very late in WaterTrack on December 30, 2015, and was not submitted to SDWIS/Fed until
February 2016. The violation is in the July 2016 data freeze with January 5, 2015 SIA (State violation
notice) and SIE (State PN requested) enforcement action codes. There is also a December 3, 2014 NOV
form letter the LHD issued the system that includes failure to collect any quarterly bacteriological samples
during 2013, but the monitoring schedule in WaterTrack lists that annual sampling is required for
January 1, 1997, through October 1, 2015.
After the EV, in response to EPA's question about the system's TCR monitoring frequency, MDEQ advised
that the PWS was placed on quarterly monitoring following a LHD program review for FY 2015. The
December 3, 2014 monitoring violation notice form letter says quarterly, but WaterTrack was not updated
and the system did not receive quarterly monitoring reminders or violations. This violation notice and the
LHD's January 5, 2016 violation notice for the system's 2015 annual nitrate M/R violation, and
October 2, 2014 and October 21, 2015 monitoring reminder letters warned Battle Creek Baptist Temple that
failure to sample may result in further enforcement including civil fines. However, per the LHD's December
1, 2015 email to MDEQ, the LHD has no fine policy in place.
Recommendations:
• MDEQ should ensure that all LHDs are tracking PWS compliance with monitoring requirements,
generating RTCR M/R violations for the correct compliance period, and updating WaterTrack when
they instruct systems to increase to quarterly RTCR monitoring so systems receive quarterly
monitoring reminders and violations.
• All LHDs should adopt ODWMA policy and procedures for administrative fines for M/R violations
as well as violations of State Drinking Water Standards.
The LHD could have included a $200 civil fine with the March 20, 2014 NOV it issued to Knollview Golf
for its February 2014 TCR Major Routine M/R violation because it was the system's second TCR M/R
violation in a 12-month running period.
On November 22, 2013, the LHD issued the second of the two violation notices to Manistique Ice for TCR
Major Routine M/R violations for CQ3 of 2013 for failing to sample prior to November 15, 2013, which is
the date the October 22, 2013 violation notice instructed the system to "collect sample/submit result prior to
December 15, 2013, to avoid further fines and/or other legal action." Both NOVs assessed $200 civil fines.
The November 22, 2013 violation notice and $200 civil fine were not reported to SDWIS/Fed. Per
ODWMA policy and procedures for administrative fines for M/R violations, violation notices for quarterly
M/R violations should not set a new sample due date. Per ODWMA policy and procedures, violation notices
for quarterly M/R violations should remind systems to sample by the end of the current calendar quarter and
warn of a $200 fine for a second missed quarterly sampling event in a 12-month period and $400 fine for
each additional missed sampling event within 12 months of the previous violation.
42
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Per MDEQ's fine policy, the July 14, 2014 violation notice that the LHD issued for Manistique Ice for its
CQ2 of 2014 TCR Major Routine M/R violation with a $200 civil fine should have warned that each
additional missed TCR sampling event within 12 months of the previous violation results in a $400 fine. On
March 16, 2016, the LHD issued Manistique Ice another violation notice for its CQ3 of 2015 TCR Major
Routine M/R violation, which was reported late to SDWIS for the April 2016 data freeze, and a "2/29/16
Annual 2016 nitrate requested collection date" violation, with a combined $600 civil fine - $400 for the
TCR M/R violation and $200 for the nitrate M/R violation. Neither of these violation notices nor the LHD's
April 9, 2015 violation notice for Manistique Ice's CQ1 of 2015 TCR Major Routine M/R violation instruct
the system to send back a signed copy of the PN it posted.
The April 21, 2011, and April 6, 2016 sanitary surveys for Manistique Ice required the system to collect one
routine coliform bacteria sample within the first 15 days of each quarter the facility is open. EPA is
concerned that requiring systems to collect routine coliform bacteria samples during the first 15 days of the
quarter, issuing violation notices that set a new sampling date of two to four weeks before the end of the
quarter, and issuing another violation notice and $200 fine for missing the new date (instead of reminding
the system to sample by the end of the quarter to avoid another fine) is confusing to both the system and to
LHD staff. This confusion is apparent in the March 24, 2016 violation notice for the system's CQ3 of 2015
TCR M/R violation which states, " [a]t the time the February 4, 2016, letter was sent the above bacteria
violation was not identified. I apologize for the over sight. A bacteria sample was taken on
January 22, 2016, indicating non-detect, thus putting the facility back to routine quarterly sampling." The
LHD erroneously issued the March 24, 2016, violation notice for the fourth instead of the third calendar
quarter, but has correctly listed the due date as September 30, 2015. The February 4, 2016, letter referenced
in the March 24, 2016 violation notice is the violation notice for the system's CQ4 of 2015 TCR M/R
violation, which incorrectly listed the violation as occurring during the first quarter instead of the fourth
quarter, but included the correct due date and civil fine of December 31, 2015, and $400, respectively.
Recommendation:
• LHDs should maintain the use of standard compliance periods for quarterly total coliform
compliance monitoring rather than setting new due dates for monitoring.
3.4.4 Ground Water Rule
Community Program
EPA reviewed the records for one CWS with a GWR treatment technique violation for failure to correct a
significant deficiency at Washburn Lake Village MHP.
MDEQ correctly followed SOP ODWMA-399-019, dated December 28, 2012, which covers significant
deficiencies, when it issued a significant deficiency violation notice to Washburn on June 27, 2013, as a
follow-up to MDEQ's site visit on June 12, 2013. The SOP requires that the violation notice be sent within
30 days of the site visit. The system failed to address the significant deficiency within 120 days and received
a violation notice for this failure on October 30, 2013.
MDEQ followed up with an administrative consent order (ACO) dated January 22, 2014. Washburn
returned to compliance with the GWR on January 22, 2014.
43
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Non-community Program
EPA reviewed the records for three NCWSs with a total of three TCR Major Repeat M/R violations, and
two NCWSs with a total of three TCR MCL violations (two TCR acute MCL violations at one system and
one TCR monthly MCL at another system) for the collection of GWR-triggered source water samples
within 24 hours of notification of the total coliform positive sample as required by Mich Admin Code,
R 325.10739 and 40 CFR § 141.402.
For the three systems with a TCR Major Repeat M/R violation, the EV review team found that all three
should have also been issued a GWR-triggered source water M/R violation. There was a "DEQ Reporting
Form Groundwater Rule Violations" in the file for two of these systems. The form explains that WaterTrack
has not been upgraded to allow the generation and submittal of violations of the GWR. The form includes
the TCR monitoring frequency and monitoring period begin and end dates and occurrence date of the
positive total coliform sample(s). These violations must be entered into SDWIS with a time period starting
on the violation date with no end date. There was no "DEQ Reporting Form Groundwater Rule Violations"
in the file for Sandy Point Beach House's failure to collect a GWR-triggered source water sample within 24
hours of being notified of the June 2, 2014 routine total coliform-positive sample result. The LHD sent the
system a June 13, 2014 "Initial Positive Bacteria Response" letter. The letter referenced a phone
conversation that same day and outlined repeat sampling locations, including the raw water tap at the
pressure tank. On June 17, 2014, the system collected the triggered source water sample along with the TCR
repeat samples.
There was no documentation that the LHD provided written or verbal reminders to Knollview Golf to
collect four TCR repeat samples, including a GWR-triggered source water sample, within 24 hours of
notification of the December 2, 2013 positive result. Knollview Golf collected the TCR repeat samples on
January 14, 2014, but did not collect a GWR-triggered source water sample. Therefore, the system was
issued a GWR M/R violation for this failure. It appears that the system does not have a raw water tap, based
on the system's Bacteriological Sample Siting Plan in WaterTrack.
The January 14, 2014, and January 30, 2014 repeat-reminder letters the LHD sent Battle Creek Baptist
Temple did not include the requirement that one of the repeat samples be taken at the tap closest to the well,
as per the 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference Manual.
For the two systems with MCL violations, the EV review team found that the systems collected GWR-
triggered source water samples within 24 hours of notification of the TCR routine positive sample result for
the two TCR acute MCL violations at one system and the one TCR monthly MCL at the other system.
Recommendations:
• MDEQ should ensure that all LHDs instruct groundwater PWSs that do not provide at least 4-log
treatment of viruses to collect, within 24 hours of notification of the total coliform positive sample, at
least one groundwater source sample from each groundwater source in use at the time the total
coliform positive sample was collected.
• MDEQ should follow up with systems that fail to conduct GWR-triggered source water monitoring;
and report all triggered source-water M/R violations at NCWSs after it is able to generate and
submit these violations to SDWIS/Fed.
44
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
3.4.5 Nitrate/Nitrite
EPA reviewed the records for two nitrate violations (one MCL and one MZR) that occurred at two
NCWSs. EPA also reviewed two oth er systems th at reported nitrate M/R violations late to SD WIS/Fed.
The EV review team reviewed the records for one NCWS, The Hop Childcare Center, with a nitrate MCL
violation. There is no documentation that the LHD followed up with the system after the PWS failed to
provide PN within 24 hours following the 11.2 mg/L (milligrams per liter) routine nitrate sample collected
on February 13, 2014, 12.4 mg/L confirmation sample collected on February 17, 2014, and the 10.9 mg/L
sample collected on February 18, 2014, until it made a March 6, 2014 site visit and "observed alternate
water (bottled) being used; informal postings at kitchen sink and restroom; discussed new well" per the
comment the LHD entered into WaterTrack for the site visit. Under Mich Admin Code R 325.10402 and
40 CFR § 141.202, systems must provide PN for a nitrate MCL violation as soon as practical and no later
than 24 hours after the system learns of the violation. The system is also required to initiate consultation
with the primacy agency within the same time frame to determine additional PN requirements. There is no
documentation in the file that the system contacted the LHD after it collected the February 17, 2014
confirmation sample, or that the LHD instructed the system to post PN and provide bottled water until the
LHD's March 6, 2014 site visit. The LHD issued a violation notice on March 10, 2014, that instructed the
system to post PN and take precautionary measures including providing bottled water.
In addition, the LHD should have notified the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
(MDHHS), the licensing agency responsible for overseeing the system, about the MCL violation as outlined
by best practices in the 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference Manual.
The July 8, 2015 LHD letter reducing the Well 001 system's nitrate monitoring frequency from quarterly to
annual should have instructed the system to sample during CQ1 of 2016 because that is the quarter the
system had its highest nitrate result when it sampled for four calendar quarters after its February 20, 2010
sample was greater than 50% ofthe MCL (9.3 mg/L). The system collected its 2012, 2013, and 2014 annual
samples during CQ1 and exceeded the nitrate MCL during CQ1 of 2014.
Recommendations:
• LHDs should contact NCWSs that have a nitrate routine sample that exceeds 10 mg/L to remind
them to collect a confirmation sample within 24 hours of the system's receipt of the sample results,
and, if the system is unable to comply with the 24-hour sampling requirement, to instruct it to
immediately provide PN to persons served by the water system in accordance with Tier 1 PN
requirements.
• MDEQ should require LHD staff to conduct an immediate field inspection following nitrate MCL
violations at childcare facilities serving infants to ensure thatPN is posted and bottled water is
being used.
• The LHD should have notified MDHHS, the licensing agency responsible for overseeing the system,
about the nitrate MCL violation as required by the 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference
Manual.
• EPA recommends that the LHD place The Hop Childcare Center PWS back on quarterly nitrate
monitoring as long as it continues to use Well 001 because the infant/toddler program was moved
from the building served by Well 002 to the building served by Well 001 (per aMarch 10, 2015 fax
from the system to the LHD) and Well 001 's history of periodic nitrate levels over or near the MCL.
45
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
The LHD's January 14, 2014 violation notice for Sandy Point Beach House's 2013 nitrate and TCR M/R
violations gave the system until January 24, 2014, to send the results to avoid further monitoring violations
and potential monetary fines. The violation notice also instructed the system to post the PN and return a
signed copy to the LHD. Per the ODWM A policy and procedures for administrative fines for M/R
violations, the LHD should have issued the system a written annual nitrate reminder notice 30-90 days
before the sampling due date that warned the system of a $200 civil fine if it fails to sample by the due date.
There was no documentation of any nitrate sampling reminders to the system.
Battle Creek Baptist Temple's 2014 nitrate annual M/R violation was not in SDWIS/Fed as of the
January 2016 data freeze. After the EV, MDEQ said this violation was generated very late in WaterTrack on
January 7, 2016, and was not submitted to SDWIS/Fed until February 2016. The violation is in the July
2016 data freeze with no enforcement actions linked to it. There is an LHD monitoring violation notice for a
2014 annual TCR and a nitrate M/R violation that references the system's WSSN in the file. However, it
appears that it was not issued because it is undated and does not include the system's name or the name of
an LHD staff person, as the other violation notices issued to the system do. After the EV, in response to
EPA's question about the system's TCR monitoring frequency, MDEQ advised that following their LHD
program review of FY 2015, the LHD placed the system on quarterly nitrate monitoring beginning
January 1, 2016.
3.4.6 Arsenic
EPA reviewed the records for one NTNCWS, Michigan Community Services, Inc., with two arsenic MCL
violations.
The system signed a bottled water agreement (BWA) with MDEQ on January 29, 2008, for the
January 1, 2008 arsenic MCL violation. This violation was open-ended until EPA asked MDEQ to stop
entering open-ended violations for arsenic MCL violations and to close off open-ended arsenic MCL
violations with a September 30, 2014 end date to meet the requirements of EPA's Water Supply Guidance
192 dated February 20, 2014, and entitled "Reporting Chemical/ Radiological Maximum Contaminant Level
Violations to SDWIS/Fed with Appropriate Compliance Period End Dates." The BWA requires that the
PWS still conduct arsenic monitoring. The BWA expired in 2011, three years after it was issued in 2008.
After the EV, MDEQ stated that all of the facilities that signed BWAs were on three-year arsenic
monitoring until 2015 when MDEQ and EPA agreed to put them on quarterly arsenic monitoring. The
systems were switched to quarterly monitoring on July 1, 2015.
After the EV, EPA asked MDEQ why escalated enforcement had not been initiated to place PWSs on an
enforceable schedule, and what assurances are there that public health is being protected per the agreement
requirements. MDEQ responded that all of the BWAs expired and they chose not to renew them because
MDEQ agreed with EPA to move all of these systems toward installing treatment, if an alternate source was
still not an option. Public health is protected because bottled water from an approved source is still being
provided to the public. MDEQ is contacting and addressing those facilities on BWAs for arsenic to get them
on treatment. MDEQ linked both a November 24, 2014, and a February 18, 2015 State unresolved
enforcement action (S07 code in SDWIS/Fed) to the January 1, 2008, through September 30, 2014 arsenic
MCL violation to update each system's compliance status.
The CQ3 of 2015 arsenic MCL violation was not in the State file and neither was the PN, but after the EV,
MDEQ stated that it entered that violation into WaterTrack. The LHD did not. Therefore, a violation notice
was not sent to the PWS. The value MDEQ entered for this violation (0.0305 mg/L) is the same value as the
2008-2014 arsenic MCL violation. MDEQ is assuming there is a violation until the system collects four
46
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
quarterly samples, and the results are averaged to see if the system's running annual average exceeds the
MCL.
Recommendation:
• AllPWSs that were previously on bottled water agreements and are not yet returned to compliance
should be escalated to formal enforcement until an alternate source is found or treatment is
installed, in order to ensure that the system monitors for arsenic on a quarterly basis, provides
alternate water, and provides public notice.
3,4,7 Lead and Copper Rule
Community Program
EPA reviewed the records for five LCR violations (two TTs and three M/Rs) that occurred at one CWS -
Spring Lake Club Condominiums.
All five LCR violations from Spring Lake Club Condominiums were linked to the same violation notice
dated May 28, 2014. There was no official copy of this violation notice in the file but it was referenced in
email correspondence, and there was good documentation of the May 28, 2014 actions in SDWIS/State.
While records indicate that PE was late, MDEQ confirmed that PE was provided to residents on time but
was reported late to MDEQ leading to a violation notice.
MDEQ notified Spring Lake Club that it had a lead ALE in a letter dated October 4, 2013, with a 90th
percentile value of 18 ppb (parts per billion). (Note that EPA's lead action level is 15 ppb). This was while
the system was on reduced monitoring with a compliance period of 2011-2013.
The system was placed on two six-month rounds of LCR compliance monitoring for 2014 and was required
to provide PE and lead consumer notices, conduct source water and water quality parameter monitoring, and
develop a corrosion control proposal. PE materials for the 2013 lead ALE were emailed to the residents on
November 12, 2013, but the State was not notified until March 20, 2014, resulting in the TT violation for
failure to provide PE. The State waived the Tier 2 PN requirement for the TT violation for failure to provide
PE, since the PE was provided on time and just reported to the State late. Lead consumer notice
requirements were also met with the PE, since all residents were informed of the sample results.
On May 30, 2014, MDEQ sent the system a follow-up letter (the date for the letter was reported to
SDWIS/Fed and SDWIS/State as May 28, 2014). EPA could not locate a copy of this letter in the State file
but it was referenced in an email exchange between MDEQ and the system. This violation notice is linked
to all five LCR violations in SDWIS/Fed and SDWIS/State. In lieu of a corrosion control proposal that was
due by September 30, 2014, the system submitted an Action Plan on December 8, 2014, that stated the
system would continue to issue PE once a year, including sending notices to all residents about the lead
problem and requesting that they replace fixtures. Residents are required to replace all fixtures at homes
with lead results greater than 10 ppb. The Action Plan will be re-evaluated each year.
The two six-month LCR monitoring rounds in 2014 yielded lead ALEs with values of 42 ppb and 31 ppb.
The system was below the lead ALE for the first half of 2015. MDEQ has directed the system to continue
monitoring every six months in 2016. No other lead ALEs have been reported for this system. MDEQ kept
the system on six-month monitoring since corrosion control treatment had not been installed to ensure that
there were no further lead ALEs.
47
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Recommendations:
• MDEQ should maintain complete State files with written documentation of exchanges with the PWS
and track the progress of the systems in returning to compliance including appropriate follow-up
after a lead ALE. There was little evidence in the file that appropriate follow-up was conducted for
the three lead ALEs that occurred during the review period.
• An administrative fine for failure to submit a corrosion control proposal, and two administrative
fines for LCRM/R violations could have been issued per ODWMA's policy and procedures for
administrative fines (see Appendix 3-E).
Non commumly Program
EPA reviewed the records for two LCR M/R violations, two LCR TT violations, and two lead action level
exceedances that occurred at two NTNCWSs.
The January 15, 2013 violation notice for Vlahakis Management Company's January 1, 2013 LCR M/R
violation for the July-December 2012 compliance period states that the LHD's records show the system did
not submit lead and copper water samples prior to the required date (1 of 2 samples not collected). The
violation notice directs the system to post an enclosed PN until these sample results are received or for
seven days, whichever is greater; sign and date one of the enclosed monitoring violation PNs; and send a
copy of the PN and certification back to the LHD.
The PWS should have been required to collect five lead and copper samples. The EV team noted that LHDs
are requiring two other NTNCWS daycare centers included in the EV (Hour Kidz and The Hop Childcare
Center) to collect only one L/C sample per compliance period, and a NTNCWS school (Michigan
Community Services Inc.) included in the EV is required to collect only three L/C samples. However, it
appears that these systems should be required to collect five L/C samples. (Information on drinking water
taps at these systems from WaterTrack and Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS)
licensing study reports are included in Appendix 3-F - File Review Questions and State Responses in the
"U.S. EPA Questions/Comments" column.)
Recommendation:
• NTNCWSs that serve 25-100 people should be required to collect five lead and copper samples
unless they have fewer than five drinking water taps that can be used for human consumption, in
which case, they should be required to sample all the taps that can be used for human consumption.
TheEV review team found NTNCWSs with non-transient populations between 50 and 70 people
served that had State lead and copper tap monitoring schedules requiring fewer than five samples.
Site visits are recommended to confirm that there are fewer than five taps used for human
consumption. Prior to these site visits, MDEQ should check the system's "Storage-Distribution" and
"Bacteriological Sample Siting Plan " screens and lead and copper sample results in WaterTrack to
identify any additional drinking water taps that can be used for human consumption that should be
added to the system's lead and copper Sample Siting Plan screen. MDEQ should also consult with
the MDHHS prior to these site visits to daycare centers and/or make joint site visits with MDHHS to
identify taps that are likely to be used for human consumption.
(NOTE: After the EV, MDEQ notified EPA that LHD staff visited two of these systems to verify the
number of taps used for human consumption.)
48
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
The January 15, 2013 violation notice should have warned that the system will be issued a $200 civil fine if
it has another LCR M/R violation in the next 12 months per the ODWMA policy and procedures for
administrative fines for M/R violations.
An undated LHD "Public Notice for Monitoring Violations" memorandum to NCWSs with M/R violations
in the Fife Lake Elementary School file states the LHD's records indicate that the system failed to collect
the required water sample(s) from the sampling period. This memo directs the system to sign and post the
enclosed PN until the appropriate samples are collected and sign and return the white copy of the PN. It also
reminds the system that collecting the samples early in the monitoring period will help prevent any
unnecessary monitoring violations. The LHD's violation notice should have required the system to post the
PN for at least seven days and until the system receives satisfactory results. A signed and dated PN from the
system was not in the file. The enclosed PN for failure to sample for lead and copper during the 2012-2014
monitoring period incorrectly states that previous sampling has demonstrated that water quality met State
and Federal drinking water standards, that the water is safe for drinking, and there is no need to seek an
alternative water source. This PN language should not have been used because the system had an ongoing
unresolved and unreported lead ALE.
Lead Action Level Exceedances
EPA reviewed the records of one reported Lead Action Level Exceedance (lead ALE) that should have
had two LCR TT violations associated with it as well as an earlier unreported LCR ALE at the same
system (Vlahakis Management Company). There were two unreported ALEs at another system (Fife Lake
Elementary School).
The LHD required Vlahakis Management Company to collect only two lead and copper samples for the
January- June 2012 monitoring period. The sample collected from the kitchen tap on June 12, 2012, had
concentrations of 0.105 mg/L for lead (action level is 0.015 mg/L) and 3.3 mg/L for copper (action level is
1.3 mg/L), and the sample collected at the daycare drinking water fountain on the same day had 0.002 mg/L
for lead and 1.74 mg/L of copper. Using these two samples to calculate system compliance yields 90th
percentile values for both lead and copper that are well above the action levels. In response to these results,
the LHD should have notified the system of the ALEs, required the system to deliver PE, collect a source
water lead and copper sample, and submit a corrosion control study. In addition, these lead and copper
ALEs for the January-June 2012 monitoring period should have been reported to SDWIS/Fed. Further
details about this compliance determination discrepancy may be found in Appendix 3-E.
The LHD's March 18, 2013 letter for Vlahakis Management Company's January-June lead ALE notified the
system that it".. .exceeded the 0.015 mg/L action level for lead at 0.032 mg/L at the daycare drinking
fountain." The letter required the system to provide PE information at all facilities where the lead AL had
been exceeded. However, the letter was worded in this manner: "at facilities where the lead AL has been
exceeded and posted at drinking water fixture(s)." This wording may have contributed to the system initially
delivering PE information only to the daycare center and not to the other businesses served by the system.
The LHD's March 18, 2013 letter also required the system to do the following:
• Within 60 days, provide the enclosed PE information to all users of the water system at facilities
where the lead AL has been exceeded and post it at drinking water fixtures, and submit a signed and
dated copy to the LHD when the PE information has been distributed and posted; and
• Submit a proposal for one of the following forms of corrective action by June 1, 2013:
49
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
o Replace fixtures with NSF lead-free fixtures/joints and sample replaced fixtures for two
consecutive six-month monitoring periods with the results below the AL;
o Propose a flushing program monitored by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and the EPA;
o Use some form of corrosion control treatment, such as an NSF-approved under the counter
Reverse Osmosis unit with a D-5 certified operator and sample for two consecutive six-month
periods with results below the AL; or
o Connect facility to a municipal water supply.
This is more stringent than the LCR which requires: 1) delivery of PE materials within 60 days of the end of
the monitoring period in which the ALE occurred, i.e., the January-June 2013 monitoring period, would
require delivery of PE by August 29, 2013, and 2) submittal of an OCCT study within six months of the end
of the monitoring period in which the ALE occurred, which is by December 31, 2013. However, the LHD
should have also required the system to collect a source water lead and copper sample by
December 31, 2013.
The LHD's October 10, 2013 letter to the system's certified operator acknowledged receipt of additional
satisfactory lead and copper samples and the letter the daycare center sent parents, notifying them of the
lead ALE. The LHD's letter notes the four lead and copper samples collected on August 15, 2013 all appear
to be taken at the appropriate sampling locations and are below the ALs for lead/copper.
In addition, the LHD did not send a written recommendation to the system to provide an approved alternate
source of water for potable consumption until its July 22, 2014 letter providing notice of an informal hearing
on July 30, 2014.
Recommendations:
• The LHD should have followed up with the system on the June 12, 2012 lead and copper ALEs as
soon as it received the sample results.
• The LHD's above referenced October 10, 2013 letter to the system's certified operator should have
questioned if the samples, which were all taken between 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a non-holiday
weekday, were first draw samples after the water had stagnated for at least six hours as required.
• The LHD should have also taken issue with the wording of the letter the daycare center sent parents
that says the March 2, 2013 lead and copper sample from the drinking fountain "reported slightly
higher levels of lead in the drinking fountain" and "All other testing samples performed prior to this
most recent test were normal" because it mischaracterizes the 0.032 mg/L lead result at the drinking
fountain and the 0.105 mg/L lead result at the kitchen sink on June 12, 2012.
• MDEQ should emphasize in certified operator and non-community program staff training that lead
and copper samples must be first draw after the water has stagnated for at least 6 hours, as required
by the LCR. LHDs and MDEQ should require systems that collect a non-first draw lead and copper
sample(s) to collect another lead and copper sample(s) that is first-draw.
• The LHD/MDEQ should have issued the January 21, 2014 NOV sooner for the PE TT violation
since the NOV indicated that the violation began on June 1, 2013.
• LHD/MDEQ should have entered the system's June 1, 2013 open-ended PE TT violation into SDWIS
instead of linking the March 18, 2013 SFG enforcement action code (State Notification Issued) to the
system's January 1, 2013 LCRM/R violation for the July-December 2012 compliance period.
50
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
• TheLHD's and MDEQ's first priorities after the initial lead ALE in June 2012 should have been to
use every available means to prevent use of the drinking water taps in the daycare center. TheLHD
and MDEQ should have made sure employees and customers of the four businesses served by the
system and parents of children in the daycare were notified of the lead ALE and lead sample results,
the health effects of lead, and steps to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water, so they could make
informed decisions regarding using the water.
• While not required per the Federal LCR or MDEQ SOPs, the letters issued by LHDs for leadALEs
to childcare centers and schools that serve children, especially those under six years of age, should
quickly address the ALE by having the system shut off the tap(s) with high levels, replace the fixtures
at those taps or provide bottled water until the lead ALE is resolved.
• LHDs/MDEQ should escalate enforcement for LCR TT violations following leadALEs, including
consideration of using MDEQ's emergency order authority.
The LHD's August 19, 2014 "Lead/Copper Compliance Issues and Informal Hearing Follow Up" letter
gives Vlahakis Management Company until August 31, 2014, to submit a corrective action proposal. The
letter warns the system that failure to comply will result in additional fines and referral to MDEQ for
escalated enforcement.
The LHD should have entered an open-ended February 19, 2015 LCR OCCT Study Recommendation (Type
57) TT violation into SDWIS/Fed after the system failed to meet the extended February 17, 2015 deadline in
MDEQ's January 16, 2015 letter to system.
For Fife Lake Elementary School, the LHD should have escalated enforcement immediately after the system
failed to collect the lead and copper samples requested in its March 6, 2009 letter to the system after it had a
lead ALE for the 2006-2008 compliance period (0.019 mg/L lead) based on one of the five samples it
collected on February 4, 2008, (0.026 mg/L lead at kitchen sink), and a repeat sample collected from the
kitchen sink on February 26, 2008 (0.015 mg/L lead). This lead ALE was not reported to SDWIS/Fed.
The March 6, 2009 letter required the system to collect the lead and copper samples from all the drinking
fountains in each classroom, the hallway, and the kitchen sink tap "that previously had a lead level
exceedance" by March 30, 2009, and again in July 2009. The letter states "Additional sampling, corrective
measures, or treatment, if required, will be determined after the second round of Lead/Copper samples are
reviewed by the Department." The system did not collect any lead and copper samples during the required
timeframe, but eventually collected a single lead and copper sample from the kitchen sink tap on
December 6, 2010 (0.029 mg/L lead), and February 21, 2011 (0.008 mg/L lead).
The March 6, 2009 letter also recommended replacement of the kitchen sink tap with a new, NSF-approved
faucet and the removal of the old water lines and solder underneath the sink. However, even though a
March 23, 2009 handwritten note on this letter states: "Talked to" system contact who "is removing faucet
and will sample in summer for lead/copper again," neither the faucet removal nor the sampling were done.
Per the LHD's November 2, 2015 email to MDEQ, the system did not replace the sink tap until after the
December 6, 2010 lead and copper sample from the tap had 0.029 mg/L lead. A January 13, 2016 LHD note
to the file states that the system's certified operator said the sink was removed in December 2010, and the
new sink tap was sampled on February 21, 2011, with a result of 0.008 mg/L lead and on October 21, 2015,
with a result of 0.013 mg/L lead.
51
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
The system has still not replaced the old water lines serving the sink. Per the LHD's January 13, 2016 note
to the file, the system's certified operator said the school would be removing all old plumbing from the
kitchen. The LHD requested another set of lead and copper samples after the kitchen renovation, and the
certified operator said he would contact LHD for testing in June 2016. However, there are no results in
WaterTrack for any lead and copper samples that have been taken since the above referenced samples
collected on October 21, 2015. After the EV, MDEQ notified R5 that the system was supposed to be placed
on six-month lead and copper monitoring, but the LHD did not make the change in WaterTrack so the
system stayed on triennial monitoring.
The system also had a lead ALE for the 2009-2011 compliance period (0.024 mg/L) based on one of the ten
samples it collected on June 11, 2010, (0.026 mg/L lead at kitchen sink tap), and a repeat sample collected
from the kitchen sink tap on December 6, 2010 (0.029 mg/L lead). Another follow-up sample at the high
kitchen tap was collected on February 21, 2011 (0.008 mg/L lead). All 12 samples collected during this
reduced LCR compliance monitoring period should have been used to calculate the system's 90th percentile
value. This lead ALE was also not reported to SDWIS/Fed.
The July 29, 2015 sanitary survey kept the system on lead and copper triennial monitoring, but required lead
and copper sampling by September 30, 2015. The system sampled on October 21, 2015.
Recommendations:
• TheLHDs and MDEQ should report all lead and copper ALEs to SDWIS/Fed in a timely manner.
• LHDs/MDEQ need to escalate enforcement for lead ALEs when systems fail to follow LHD
recommendations for resolving the lead ALEs, including the possible use of the State's emergency
authority under Michigan SDWA Section 15 (Section 325.1015).
3,4.8 Stage 1 end Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rules
EPA reviewed the records for nine violations of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBF Rules (eight MCL and one
M/R) that occurred among three CWSs.
The one M/R violation was quickly RTC'd before the violation notice was even issued. There was sufficient
documentation of the violation and MDEQ's follow-up in SDWIS/State.
The eight MCL violations presented a few issues. First, two of the Stage 2 DBPR MCL violations were not
reported to SDWIS/State or SDWIS/Fed, even though they happened within the review period. These were
the total trihalomethanes (TTHM) MCL violations in the City of Flint during the first and second quarters of
2015. The State files did have a copy of the March 5, 2015 violation notice for the CQ1 TTHM MCL
violation and the June 9,2015 violation notice for the CQ2 TTHM MCL violation. Not reporting these two
MCL violations to SDWIS/Fed led to Flint not receiving priority status sooner on the quarterly ETT, since
ten more points would have been on the October 2015 ETT giving Flint a score of 15 rather than the score
of five based on the violations that were reported to SDWIS/Fed (fourth quarter 2014 TTHM MCL
violation). Further review by EPA found that these two violations were reported to SDWIS/Fed for the
April 2016 data freeze.
Recommendation:
• MDEQ should have reported two TTHM MCL violations for Flint, for the first and second quarters
of 2015 on time. Not reporting these violations on time affected ETT scoring, preventing Flint from
becoming a priority system sooner (on October 2015 ETT).
52
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Beaver Township PWS had five of the TTHM MCL violations reviewed. Two of the violations (CQ1 of
2015 and CQ3 of 2015) did not have documentation in the State paper file. MDEQ staff indicated that there
were no written violation notices, since the first violation was discussed with the PWS over the phone, and
the other was discussed with the operator in person. DEQ SOP 04-003 "Compliance and Enforcement"
requires compliance communications to be documented in writing in State files and signed and dated by the
DEQ staff member who provided the communication.
Recommendation:
• MDEQ should have included written documentation in the system file that MDEQ had notified the
Beaver Township PWS that it had TTHM MCL violations for CQ1 of 2015 and CQ3 of 2015 and
required the system to provide PN for these violations.
Beaver Township became a priority system for enforcement in July of 2015 with an ETT score of 15.
Beaver Township's ETT score rose to 21 in October of 2015, which reflects SDWIS data reported by
MDEQ through June 30, 2015, and rose again to 26 in January 2016, which reflects SDWIS data reported
by MDEQ through September 30, 2015. MDEQ did not follow the ERP, in that Beaver Township was a
priority system for more than six months.
Recommendation:
• MDEQ should have escalated the enforcement of Beaver Township as part of MDEQ's commitment
to EPA's 2009 ERP to address or return to compliance PWSs with ETT scores of 11 or more within
six months of a system becoming a priority.
3.4.9 Consumer Confidence Report Rule
EPA reviewed one Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) violation for failure of the Village of Bear Lake
to submit its 2013 CCR by July 1, 2014.
MDEQ was successful in sending reminders to the PWS prior to the deadline. Unfortunately, the PWS was
not notified of its failure to submit a CCR until a violation notice dated January 16, 2015. The PWS returned
to compliance on June 25, 2015, by placing its 2013 CCR data into its 2014 CCR.
3.4.10 Public Notice for Tier 1 and Tier 2 Violations
EPA reviewed the records for 28 violations that required Tier 1 or Tier 2 PN: 22 violations at CJVSs and
six violations at NCWSs.
Community Program
Two violations required Tier 1 PN—both were TCR acute MCL violations, and both systems posted timely
boil water notices within 24 hours of receiving notice of the positive sample results.
Of the 20 violations at CWSs that required Tier 2 PN, 15 violations had timely PN, which was provided by
the PWS to consumers within 30 days of being notified by the State of the violation. For the remaining five
Tier 2 PN violations, three did not have records in the State files to indicate that timely PN was provided,
and two were late. These five violations occurred at two systems. Without a record that PN was received,
these PWSs should have been issued violations for failure to provide timely PN.
Non-community Program
Three violations required Tier 1 PN - one nitrate MCL and two TCR acute MCL violations - and the
systems posted timely public notice within 24 hours of receiving the positive sample results for the nitrate
53
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
MCL violation and for one of the TCR acute MCL violations. The other system should have been issued a
PN violation for the June 2015 TCR acute MCL violation for not cooperating with the LHD's effort to
provide the PN and for taking down the PN after a State site visit, instead of continuous posting.
Of the three violations that required Tier 2 PN, two violations had timely PN, which was provided by the
PWS to consumers within 30 days of being notified by the State of the violation. MDEQ requires NCWSs to
provide PN for TCR monthly MCL violations within the same timeframe that it requires CWS and NCWSs
to provide PN for TCR acute MCL violations, i.e., as soon as practical but not later than 24 hours after the
system learns of the violation. This requirement is more stringent than the federal rule, which requires PWSs
to provide PN for TCR monthly MCL violations within 30 days of being notified by the State of the
violation.
The other Tier 2 PN violations did not have a record in the State files to indicate that timely PN was
provided. Without a record that PN was received, this PWS should have been issued a violation for failure
to provide timely PN.
The violation notices the LHD issued for KOA Bath House's two TCR acute MCL violations and Hour
Kidz' TCR monthly MCL violation should have required posting a PN in conspicuous locations throughout
the area served by the water system rather than just "a conspicuous location." The violation notice requires
Hour Kidz to post the PN as soon as practical but within 24 hours after the supply learns of the violation,
which is more stringent than the federal rule.
Appendix 3-G, which is the detailed EV Analysis Excel Workbook, contains further details on all 28 Tier 1
and 2 public notices. EPA reviewed each PN to capture the dates that the PN was posted and certified by the
PWS and the date that the PN was received by the State.
Recommendation:
• EPA urges that MDEQ maintain more complete records ofPNs received and issue violations to
PWSs that fail to provide Tier 1 or Tier 2 PNs.
Chapter 6.8, Arsenic Monitoring, of the 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference Manual incorrectly
states, "However, in the process of developing a compliance consent agreement, it must be made very clear
that the MCL violation requires public notice within 60 days of the violation and re-issuance every quarter
until the violation is resolved."
Recommendation:
• Chapter 6.8 Arsenic Monitoring of the 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference Manual should
be corrected on page 6-28 to state that public notice for the MCL violation is required within 30
days of the violation instead of within 60 days of the violation.
3.5 Escalated Enforcement and Case Referral
3.5.1 Community Program
EPA reviewed one escalated enforcement case for the community program, which was Washburn Lake
Village Mobile Home Park (Washburn). Washburn is a CWS serving a population of approximately 108
people. The PWS was out of compliance with the TCR monthly MCL from July through December 2013.
The PWS also failed to address significant deficiencies identified by MDEQ under the Ground Water Rule
from October 2013 through January 2014.
54
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Washburn became a priority system for enforcement in January of 2014 with an ETT score of 15. Its ETT
score rose to 35 in April of 2014, which reflects SDWIS data reported by MDEQ through
December 31, 2013. Washburn's ETT score went down to 0 in the July 2014 ETT since all violations were
linked to the January 22, 2014 State administrative consent order (ACO). MDEQ followed the ERP by
ensuring that Washburn was not a priority system for more than six months. Prior to the termination notice,
the owner/operator was required to submit a request consisting of a written certification that the system has
fully complied with the ACO and paid all fines. There was no record that this certification was received in
either the State file or SDWIS/State.
The ACO references a June 27, 2013 significant deficiency violation notice, as well as an October 30, 2013
violation notice which outlines Washburn's failure to address the significant deficiencies within 120 days.
The October violation notice includes a description of the ongoing TCR monthly MCL violations. EPA
recommends listing the specific violations in the ACO in addition to attaching the violation notices as
exhibits. There were no other written violation notices associated with this case. MDEQ indicated that all
violation communications with the PWS for the TCR Monthly MCL violations were conducted by phone, in
person, and by email.
3.5.. 2 N o n-co m m u n ii Ly P irog re r r ^
Formal Enforcement
Reported to SDWIS/Fed
EPA reviewed one escalated enforcement case for the non-community program. However, the July 14, 2014
document issued to Manistique Ice for its CQ2 of 2014 TCR Major Routine M/R violation should have been
entered into SDWIS/Fed with a State Administrative Penalty Assessed (SFM) enforcement code and not a
State Administrative Order with penalty (SFO) enforcement code.
EPA did find, however, that escalated enforcement was taken against KOA Bath House after the system had
a second consecutive TCR acute MCL violation for July of 2015 with two July 13, 2015, positive E. coli
samples. This escalated enforcement action was not reported to SDWIS/Fed. On July 13, 2015, the LHD
issued the system a Notice of Compliance Conference to discuss PN requirements, seasonal startup
procedures, and water sampling requirements for the facility on July 16, 2015. On July 16, 2015, a joint
inspection with MDEQ and the LHD was conducted at the campground. After the inspection and review of
water sample results taken directly from the well casing, it was determined that a down-hole camera should
be used to evaluate the interior of the well casing.
On July 17, 2015, a well-drilling contractor was hired to video the well. MDEQ, the LHD, the drilling
contractor, and the campground operator were all present for the down-hole camera evaluation. By using the
camera, it was determined that the well casing was compromised.
The system and the LHD signed a Bilateral Compliance Agreement (BCA) on July 17, 2015, whereby the
system agreed to:
• Appoint an individual who is responsible for following all requirements as described within Act 399
(Michigan's SDWA);
• Keep all Tier 1 PNs posted where the public can view them until the MCL violation is resolved and
the LHD approves removal of the PNs;
• Resolve the MCL violation by continuing to investigate probable causes of contamination and
obtaining quotes for abandonment of the well and construction of a new well; and
55
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
• Assure the protection of public health by preventing campers from consuming or bathing in the
contaminated water.
The July 17, 2015 State BCA (SDWIS enforcement code SFK) was not entered into SDWIS/Fed. On
July 24, 2015, the LHD issued the system an Administrative Order to abandon the well at KOA
Campground, Bath House. This State Order (SDWIS enforcement code SFL) was not entered into SDWIS.
The bath house was closed down, and final approval of the new water supply was given on October 19,
2015, when the old, compromised well was abandoned (LHD and MDEQ were present for the
abandonment).
Not Reported to SDWIS/Fed
The July 30, 2015 document issued to the Vlahakis Management Company daycare center was entered into
SDWIS/Fed with the SDWIS enforcement action code of SFK for a BCA, which was linked to the system's
January, 1, 2013 open-ended LCR initial tap sampling violation, when it was actually an ACO (SDWIS
enforcement code SFL). MDEQ should have initiated formal enforcement after the system failed to submit a
corrective action proposal by the August 31, 2014 extended deadline in the LHD's August 19, 2014
Lead/Copper Compliance Issues and Informal Hearing Follow Up letter, which was issued after a lead ALE
in June 2012. The letter warns the system that failure to comply will result in additional fines and referral to
MDEQ for escalated enforcement.
However, MDEQ did not issue the system a Notice of Informal Meeting on Administrative Proceedings
against Vlahakis Management Company letter until April 24, 2015. An ACO was signed by the system on
July 30, 2015. MDEQ or the LHD should have exercised its emergency authority under Michigan SDWA
Section 15 (Section 325.1015) to implement emergency public health measures if a public water system
posed "an imminent hazard to public health" to provide bottled water for the daycare center and the other
businesses served by water system. The LHD did not send a written recommendation to provide bottled
water until July 22, 2014, two years after the original unreported lead ALE in June 2012. Also, the LHD
should have notified the MDHHS, the licensing agency responsible for overseeing the Vlahakis
Management Company daycare center system, about the system's June 1, 2013 PE violation as required by
the 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference Manual.
Bilateral Compliance Agreements
In addition to the BCA for Vlahakis, EPA also reviewed two systems with BCAs (Michigan Community
Services and Hour Kidz), which involved a review of all violations associated with the enforcement actions
with some violations incurred before October 1, 2013.
First, Michigan Community Services signed a BWA with MDEQ on January 29, 2008, for its 2008 arsenic
MCL violation which is discussed in detail in Section 4.f. above.
Second, Hour Kidz signed a BCA that was not reported to SDWIS/Fed. The LHD issued this system a
July 31, 2014 violation notice for its July 2014 TCR monthly MCL violation that requires it to: post the
enclosed PN; provide bottled water; have the water supply evaluated; complete any needed repairs; have the
well chlorinated by a registered well-drilling contractor; and then collect a minimum of two repeat samples
at least 24 hours apart. The LHD should have escalated enforcement sooner following the July 2014 MCL
violation and the December 9, 2014 total coliform positive sample.
Escalated enforcement was not initiated until the LHD issued Hour Kidz a Notice of Compliance
Conference letter on March 11, 2015 for a compliance conference scheduled for March 27, 2015, for the
56
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
purpose of ensuring that all parties involved with this water system understand the violation, requirements
of public notice and the methods of correction, and to discuss future sampling requirements. The
compliance conference was later rescheduled for April 24, 2015. The LHD collected five TCR "repeat"
samples on March 30, 2015, and the kitchen sink sample was total coliform positive. A trilateral compliance
agreement was signed by the LHD, Hour Kidz, and Advance Urgent Care on April 24, 2015, whereby the
suppliers agreed to hire an S-5 level certified operator and resolve the total coliform MCL violation by
making necessary repairs to the distribution system and submitting two consecutive (at least 24 hours apart)
satisfactory coliform bacteria water sample results to the LHD.
The LHD should have notified the MDHHS, the licensing agency responsible for overseeing Hour Kidz,
about the MCL violation as required by the 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference Manual. Also,
MDEQ may have been able to exercise its emergency authority under Michigan SDWA Section 15 (Section
325.1015) to implement emergency public health measures if a public water system posed "an imminent
hazard to public health."
Recommendation:
• EPA urges MDEQ to develop a written compliance and enforcement strategy for the Office of
Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance, as well as an SOP for escalated enforcement action that
highlights the need for documentation of compliance assistance communications and PWS follow-up
in State enforcement files.
3.6 SDW15 Violation and Enforcement Action Data Quality Review
This section summarizes Appendix 3-C - Data Differences Among SD WIS/Fed and State Data Systems
and State Paper Files.
3.6.1 Community Program
Of the six CWSs reviewed, there were four instances where information in SDWIS/Fed was different from
the information in SDWIS/State. There were two violations that were not reported to SDWIS/Fed on time at
one PWS and two violations did not have appropriate enforcement actions linked to them in SDWIS/Fed.
There were 17 instances where information in the State paper files was missing or contained different
information than what was reported to SDWIS/Fed and/or SDWIS/State.
3.6.2 Non-comniunity Pirogram
Of the 10 NCWSs reviewed, there were five instances where information in SDWIS/Fed was different from
the information in WaterTrack. There were two violations that were not reported to SDWIS/Fed on time for
one PWS and three violations did not have appropriate enforcement actions linked to them in SDWIS/Fed.
There were 34 instances where information in the State paper files was missing or contained different
information than what was reported to SDWIS/Fed and/or WaterTrack.
3.7 Program Strengths
ODWMA uses policies and procedures for issuing boil water advisories; addressing GWR significant
deficiencies; and flowcharts for the following: M/R violations, total coliform-positive follow-up, violations
of State drinking water standards, and enforcement; and fine policies for M/R violations and State drinking
water standard violations.
57
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
MDEQ handles issuance of ACOs to CWSs and NCWSs in the central office, thus improving consistency
across the State. The number of ACOs and referrals to the Michigan Attorney General appears to have
increased, based on example ACOs provided during the EV and MDEQ compliance updates for priority
systems on the quarterly ETT list.
3.7.1 Community Program
The EV review team found the following effective elements in MDEQ's PWSS program implementation:
• Follow-up for the two TCR acute MCL violations by ensuring boil water notices were issued within
the 24-hour requirement.
• The one TCR M/R violation reviewed had the PWS collecting its routine samples within 15 days of
receiving the violation notice.
• The use of the GWR significant deficiency SOP for Washburn Lake Village MHP.
• Keeping Spring Lake Club Condominiums on six-month LCR compliance monitoring since CCT
had not been installed to ensure that there are no further lead ALEs and that the fixture replacement
strategy is helping to address the issue.
• The one DBPR M/R violation was quickly RTC'd before the violation notice was even issued. There
was sufficient documentation of the violation and MDEQ's follow-up in SDWIS/State.
• Sending Village of Bear Lake reminders to submit its 2013 CCR by July 1, 2014.
3.7.. 2 N o n-co m m u n ii Ly P irog ira r r i
The EV review team found the following effective elements in MDEQ's PWSS program implementation:
• The 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference Manual.
• The fine policy for M/R violations and violations of State drinking water standards.
• Handling issuance of ACOs to CWSs and NCWSs in the central office, thus improving consistency
across the State. The number of ACOs and referrals to the MAG appears to have increased, based on
example ACOs provided during the EV and MDEQ compliance updates for priority systems on the
quarterly ETT list.
• The procedures for TCR MCL violations in the 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference
Manual requiring the LHD to make a site visit within five days to verify the PN and bottled water
are in place and that acceptable actions are underway to identify and correct the MCL violation.
• For an E. co/z-positive sample, the LHD is required to contact the system within 24 hours of
notification to confirm the requirement to collect repeat samples and to conduct a site visit within 72
hours of notification to evaluate the water system's potential for contamination.
• MDEQ requires NCWSs to provide PN for TCR monthly MCL violations and acute MCL violations
within the same timeframe that it requires CWSs, i.e., as soon as practical but not later than 24 hours
after the system learns of the violation, which is more stringent than the federal rule that requires
PWSs to provide PN for TCR monthly MCL violations within 30 days of being notified by the State
of the violation.
58
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
3,8 Program Weaknesses
3.8.1 Community Program
The EV review team recommends that MDEQ address the following:
• Lack of documentation of violations in the system files. For example, there was no official copy of
violation notices for five LCR violations (two TTs and three M/Rs) that occurred at Spring Lake
Club Condominiums. (However, it was referenced in email correspondence.)
• MDEQ should maintain more complete State files with written documentation of exchanges with the
PWS and progress of the system in returning to compliance, including appropriate follow-up after a
lead ALE. There was little evidence in the file that appropriate follow-up was conducted for each of
the three lead ALEs that occurred during the review period.
• Per ODWMA policies and procedures for violations of State drinking water standards and M/R
violations, MDEQ should have issued Spring Lake Club Condominiums a contributory category
administrative fine of $400 for failure to submit a corrosion control proposal by April 1, 2014, and
$200 and $400 administrative fines for its LCR initial water quality parameter M/R violation and
source water M/R violation, respectively.
• Two TTHM MCL violations were not reported to SDWIS/Fed on time for Flint, which affected ETT
scoring, preventing it from becoming a priority system sooner (on October 2015 ETT).
• Lack of documentation in the State file that MDEQ notified the Beaver Township PWS of and
requested PN for two of the system's five TTHM MCL violations.
• MDEQ does not have an SOP for implementing the Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPRs.
• Three violations that required Tier 2 PN at two PWSs did not have records in the State files to
indicate that timely PN was provided, and two were late. Without a record that PN was received,
these PWSs should have been issued violations for failure to provide timely PN.
3.8.2 Non-community Pirograrn
The EV review team recommends that MDEQ address the following:
• Some system files demonstrate a lack of LHD contact with PWSs following TCR routine M/R
violations, TCR repeat M/R violations, and Nitrate M/R violations, or very late contact, in one case,
two years after the violation.
• One LHD failed to follow MDEQ's fine policy and frequently contacted a system to issue multiple
civil fines for failure to sample within the same quarterly compliance period.
• Some LHDs failed to track PWS compliance with total coliform routine monitoring requirements by
updating WaterTrack in a timely manner when LHDs instruct systems to increase routine monitoring
to quarterly, so that systems receive quarterly monitoring reminders and are issued violations when
they fail to monitor at the required frequency.
• A couple of LHDs did not contact systems that had a total coliform-positive routine sample in a
timely manner to remind them to collect repeat samples. Another system that failed to collect repeat
samples was not issued a violation notice until almost a year later, and the system had still not
complied more than a year after the violation notice was issued. One system only collected two of
the four required samples, but the LHD did not issue it a minor repeat M/R violation. However, the
LHD made a site visit several days later and collected five TCR samples that were all E. coli-
positive.
59
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
• MDEQ should escalate enforcement sooner when LHD efforts are not effective or are lacking.
• WaterTrack is unable to report GWR triggered source water M/R violations to SDWIS/Fed.
• The EV review team did not find documentation of LHD follow-up with systems for conducting
GWR-triggered source water monitoring.
• All PWSs that were previously on bottled water agreements because of high arsenic concentrations
and are not yet returned to compliance should be escalated to formal enforcement until an alternate
source is found or treatment is installed, in order to ensure that the system monitors for arsenic on a
quarterly basis, provides alternate water, and provides public notice until the system is returned to
compliance with the arsenic MCL.
• NTNCWSs that serve 25-100 people should be required to collect five lead and copper samples
unless they have fewer than five drinking water taps that can be used for human consumption, in
which case, they should be required to sample all the taps that can be used for human consumption.
The EV review team found NTNCWSs with non-transient populations between 50 and 70 people
served that had State lead and copper tap monitoring schedules requiring fewer than five samples.
Site visits are recommended to confirm that there are fewer than five taps used for human
consumption. Prior to these site visits, MDEQ should check the system's "Storage-Distribution" and
"Bacteriological Sample Siting Plan" screens and lead and copper sample results in WaterTrack to
identify any additional drinking water taps that can be used for human consumption that should be
added to the system's lead and copper Sample Siting Plan screen. MDEQ should also consult with
MDHHS prior to these site visits to daycare centers and/or make joint site visits with MDHHS to
identify taps that are likely to be used for human consumption.
(NOTE: After the EV, MDEQ notified EPA that LHD staff visited two of these systems to verify the
number of taps used for human consumption.)
• It appeared that some LHDs accepted non-first-draw samples for lead and copper compliance (based
on sample collection time) and that systems on reduced monitoring did not collect the required
number of compliance samples between June and September as required.
• LHDs should ensure the following in addressing lead ALEs at NTNCWSs:
o Report lead and copper ALEs and follow up on them in a timely manner.
o Require childcare centers and schools serving children, especially those under six years of
age, that have a lead ALE to quickly shut off the tap(s) with high levels, replace the fixtures
at those taps or provide bottled water until the lead ALE is resolved. (NOTE: These actions
are recommended and not required by the Federal LCR or MDEQ SOPs).
o Notify the licensing agency about MCL violations and lead and copper ALE follow-up
violations per the 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference Manual.
o Escalate enforcement, where needed, in a timely manner, including using MDEQ's
emergency order authority.
3.9 Conclusion
In conclusion, EPA is encouraged that MDEQ is working to update its drinking water program compliance
and enforcement strategy. Additionally, MDEQ's fine policies provide a useful tool to prevent repeat
violations.
60
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Following lead ALEs at daycare centers, MDEQ should prioritize using every available means to prevent
use of the drinking water taps in the daycare center with high lead results until corrective action is
completed. The employees and customers served by the system and parents of children in the daycare need
to be notified of the lead ALE and lead sample results, the health effects of lead, and steps to reduce
exposure to lead in drinking water so they can make informed decisions regarding using the water.
EPA looks forward to working with MDEQ to address the recommendations in this report. EPA recognize
the resource constraints that are stressing the program, especially the lack of effective data systems to
support compliance monitoring efforts. Securing adequate personnel and data resources will be critical, as
MDEQ moves forward to ensure that its PWSS program is well implemented to protect public health and
provide the people of Michigan with safe drinking water.
61
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Appendix 1-A: Detailed File Review Description
Introduction
In accordance with 40 CFR § 142.14, states and other entities that have primacy for implementing the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) must retain certain records pertaining to their
public water system supervision (PWSS) programs. 40 CFR § 142.15 requires primacy agencies to submit
reports containing the retained information to the EPA Administrator. The information, comprised of new
violations of NPDWRs, new enforcement actions taken by the primacy agencies, and notification of any
variances and/or exemptions granted by the primacy agencies, must be reported quarterly. MDEQ data is
managed in the primacy agency-level version of Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), known
as SDWIS/State, and for non-community water systems (NCWSs) within a Michigan-developed database
named WaterTrack.
For the EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) and EPA regions to make informed
decisions, the data in SDWIS/Fed must be accurate and complete. To verify the reliability of the data in a
manner that is consistent nationwide and to identify opportunities for primacy agency implementation
improvements, EPA conducts periodic Program File Reviews (FRs). The purpose of a FR is two-fold: (1) to
detect discrepancies between the public water system (PWS) data in the primacy agency files or database
and the data reported to Safe Drinking Water Information System-Federal Version (SDWIS/Fed); and (2) to
ensure that the primacy agency is determining compliance in accordance with state and federal rules and
regulations.
During the week of April 4-8, 2016, the "FR team," consisting of representatives of EPA Headquarters,
EPA Region 5, and The Cadmus Group, Inc., conducted a FR of the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality's (MDEQ) Drinking Water Program. The review was conducted in the central office
in Lansing, Michigan.
The MDEQ drinking water program is a decentralized program, with compliance responsibilities delegated
to district offices and Local Health Departments (LHDs). Decentralization may be a factor regarding
consistency of compliance decisions and review, although the FR team noted the extensive Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) and examples of communication between the central and district offices found
in the files. Some discrepancies in Appendix 1-D of this report document some data flow problems. For
example, the State issued a violation or conducted a sanitary survey and the information was not recorded in
SDWIS/Fed. Similarly, some violations and inventory updates were submitted after the reporting deadline.
See Appendix 1-H, "Program Organization and Administration" for additional details on organizational
structure.
To meet the purpose of the project, the FR team compared MDEQ's data to the most recently frozen data in
SDWIS/Fed for the quarter ending September 30, 2015. The FR team reviewed both hard copy files and
electronic records.
The Program FR included both file review and interviews. To assist with the FR team's review, MDEQ's
district offices sent water system files to the central office, and questions about the files were directed to
district staff either in person or by email. EPA Region 5 separately conducted interviews with State
personnel. Observations and recommendations from the Region's interviews are attached as Appendix 1-H,
"Findings and Recommendations from EPA Discussions with MDEQ."
62
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Description of Sample
The period of review for each of the regulations is shown in Table 1-1. Appendix 1-C contains a table that
summarizes any data discrepancies between State and federal records and errors in compliance
determinations that were identified during this review. Appendix 1-D contains a detailed, system-specific
list of each discrepancy identified during this review.
The FR team reviewed a selected sample of PWSs to verify system compliance and State oversight. The FR
team reviewed 25 PWSs, including 13 community water systems (CWSs), six non-transient non-community
eater systems (NTNCWSs) that are schools or daycares, and six transient non-community water systems
(TNCWSs). Appendix 1-B includes a list of the systems that were reviewed.
Regulations Reviewed
The FR team reviewed MDEQ's data systems:
SDWIS/State; the State's internal copy of Drinking Water
Watch, which summarizes information from SDWIS/State;
WaterChem, which is a database used to track entry point
chemical monitoring; and WaterTrack. The FR team also
reviewed hard copy documentation for updates to inventory
and compliance data for the rules listed in Table 1-1.
CWS files are organized by MDEQ using a color-coded
folder system. A copy of the Community Water Supply
File Checklist that must be completed for each CWS is
included in Appendix 1-E. The folders and key subjects
reviewed by the FR team are listed here: correspondence
(including public notification (PN)); chemical monitoring
results; annual reports (including consumer confidence
reports (CCRs)); construction permits; basic data
(including sanitary surveys); and lead and copper. Monthly
Operating Reports (MORs), microbial, turbidity, and
disinfection monitoring results are maintained in the district offices, but were sent to Lansing for the FR
team to review.
The FR team reviewed the PWS records against the federal standards and any primacy agreements. EPA
Region 5 has been formally made aware of activities in which MDEQ temporarily disinvested in light of
limited resources. The annual update of the State's activities clearly identifies the implementation activities
the State does not perform, and its goals to address any of these limitations, if possible. The 2010 FR report
had this recommendation, "MDEQ should reconsider the disinvestment activities. MDEQ's actions and
policies should be as stringent as federally mandated rules and policies. All instances where the federal
rules were not correctly implemented were treated as discrepancies. " The FR team applied the same
approach in this FR and reemphasizes the same recommendation. Appendix 1-D records instances where
discrepancies were noted.
Table 1-1: Periods of Review
Category
Date
Inventory
Most recent
CCR
Year 2014, due 2015
Sanitary Survey
2 most recent surveys
T otal Coliform Rule
Oct. 1,2014-Sept. 30,
2015
Lead & Copper Rule
2 most recent samples
Phase II/V (except
nitrate)
2011 -2013
Nitrate
2013, 2014
Stage 1 & 2 DBPR
Oct. 1,2014-Sept. 30,
2015
Revised
Radionuclides
Most recent samples
SWTR, IE SWT R,
LT1 &2ESWTR
Oct. 1,2014-Sept. 30,
2015
GWR
Oct. 1,2014-Sept. 30,
2015
Public Notice
Per related violation
63
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
EPA Region 5 and MDEQ discussed this 2010 recommendation. Recognizing that some of the same issues
remain today, the Region provided this response: "Many state PWSSprograms do not have access to
enough resources to implement all of the provisions of drinking water regulations, and other primacy
program requirements. Therefore, EPA Region 5's Annual Resource Deployment Plan (ARDP) allows for
the State and Region to plan for circumstances where resources are inadequate to implement the entire
drinking water protection program. EPA Region 5 andMDEQ have an obligation to ensure that Michigan's
limited resources are deployed in a way that ensures maximum health protection benefit, since the purpose
of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is to protect public health. Some activities have been identified as
not directly related to public health protection, and the State temporarily disinvested in these activities,
which has been acknowledged by EPA Region 5. As noted over the past 4 years, the State has been
gradually reinvesting in these temporarily disinvested activities, thus decreasing the number of disinvested
activities. The Region and MDEQ collectively keep track of what is and is not being done and strive for full
implementation of the SDWA. " Beginning in FY 2017, MDEQ's grant work plan includes the following:
"The State has primacy for implementing the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, and is
expected to fully implement all aspects of its safe drinking water statutes and rules on which primacy is
based. If the State is unable to implement any portion of such a statute or rule, or otherwise comply with the
federal implementation regulations, the State must submit a plan describing the steps the State will take to
achieve full implementation and a schedule for doing so. This plan and schedule must be submitted within
90 days of the award of this grant. " (In FY 2018, EPA will investigate adding specific grant conditions
related to full implementation.)
During the FR review period, the State temporarily disinvested from tracking the timeliness of receipt of
monitoring results, and did not issue monitoring and reporting (M/R) violations if monitoring was
conducted during the required timeframe but the results were received after the required reporting date. The
State also temporarily disinvested from tracking, calculating and issuing RAAs/LRAAs for TTHMs,
HAA5s, and TOC removal ratios if all sample results were below the MCL or MRDL. Some districts started
tracking MRDLs in the past year, and now RAAs/LRAAs can be calculated in SDWIS/State for CWSs. The
State does not issue M/R violations when a PWS does not have an RAA/LRAA calculated.
Data Management
MDEQ uses SDWIS/State for CWSs and WaterTrack for NCWSs to track compliance with the NPDWRs.
Most program requirements can be tracked and reported using these two information systems, but some data
management challenges remain and some key program functions must be tracked manually. Appendix 1-F
summarizes the MDEQ PWSS data management limitations for Fiscal Years 2013-2016. There are
significant shortcomings relevant to the file review from MDEQ's data limitation summary. These issues,
and approaches, to resolve them are outlined below.
• Only the NCWS program has electronic reporting of sample results from the State laboratory (for the
subset of NCWSs using the State laboratory); most other reporting is largely manual, including
chemical monitoring sample results. During the exit interview, MDEQ indicated that the lab
certification program may, in the future, require e-Reporting. Greater efficiency and high data
quality are expected from MDEQ's ongoing project to add e-Reporting. No project timeline
for e-Reporting was discussed. EPA Region 5 will request a schedule for completion as part of the
annual grant work plan.
• Schedules for distribution system monitoring (such as TCR and DBPR) are in SDWIS/State for
CWSs and State staff send the monitoring schedules to all CWSs. For NCWSs, LHD staff notifies
systems of sampling requirements and compares actual monitoring against the monitoring schedules.
64
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
MDEQ uses a separate MS Access database to track entry point chemical monitoring schedules for
inorganic contaminants (IOCs), volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), synthetic organic chemicals
(SOCs), and radionuclides for CWSs. The State specifies the year in which the PWS must sample
and requires sampling before the end of the compliance period to allow time for the State to remind
the PWS if samples are missing. SDWIS/State does not have this capability. MDEQ plans to
transition to managing this function in SDWIS/State as it prepares for future transition to
SDWIS/Prime. However, tracking of the more stringent State schedule requirements must continue
to be done manually.
• WaterTrack does not support all of the newer regulatory requirements, as noted in Appendix 1-F.
How this affects individual rule implementation is noted below, where shortcomings affect the file
review outcome. MDEQ plans to deploy a second instance of SDWIS/State to eventually flow data
to SDWIS/Prime, while maintaining both databases (SDWIS/State and WaterTrack). Limited staff
will use this second instance at the state level, and LHD staff will continue to use WaterTrack.
The State laboratory has an older Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). The State
laboratory began development of a new LIMS in fall 2016.
Laboratory reporting is very inefficient. CWSs receive data in PDFs from the State laboratory, but it is not
an electronic file and it does not automatically upload to the CWS drinking water database, so the data must
be entered manually into SDWIS/State. However, the State laboratory does report chemical results
electronically to WaterChem; and WaterTrack pulls chemical data from WaterChem for any NCWS that
uses the State laboratory. CWS chemical data from WaterChem must be entered manually to SDWIS/State.
The CWS program and LHDs also obtain hard copy data via U.S. Postal Service, emailed results, and
occasional fax results from private laboratories, at a rate of up to 5,000 separate submittals per month, which
also must be entered manually into SDWIS/State. Both State and private labs are used to analyze samples.
MDEQ is concerned that more Quality Assurance (QA) is needed for data entry.
Under State and federal regulations, PWSs are not required to use standardized forms to report sample
results or for MORs. However, the variability among the forms used by the PWSs in Michigan adds
complexity to compliance review, making it more difficult for State staff to ensure the correct information is
submitted.
State staff make handwritten edits and corrections to hard copies of forms, calculations, and sample results,
after confirming problems. In some cases, the PWS continues to make the same mathematical error, and the
problem is not resolved. In one case, a calculation problem was identified and not corrected on the form so
that each month the information was inaccurate.
MDEQ started to convert its data systems to work together, but when SDWIS/State was upgraded the data
systems were no longer compatible. The State has intended to move to SDWIS/Prime, but raised concerns
about the timing for the release of SDWIS/Prime. If EPA released it in 2017, MDEQ would not upgrade its
current data systems, but if it takes longer, the State may need to upgrade existing data systems. The need is
even more critical as the program is losing staff with tremendous experience and expertise, so the ability to
automate and streamline, have automatic compliance determinations, and better tools for tracking and
reporting violations is essential. See Appendix 1-H with more detailed discussion of resources and data
management concerns.
65
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
The MDEQ drinking water program shares staff in the Department of Technology, Management and Budget
(DTMB) with other State programs, and limited resources for both the PWSS program and information
technology (IT) are an ongoing obstacle. This limitation strongly affects MDEQ's ability to address data
limitations. Drinking water IT is not DTMB's highest priority. Please see Appendix 1-H for additional data
management recommendations.
Recommendations:
• The FR team strongly supports MDEQ's project to require electronic reporting through its lab
certification program and sees this effort as a high priority. This capability will eliminate redundant
manual data entry, improve timeliness, and streamline compliance determination and reporting.
E-reporting also reduces the opportunity for data quality errors and preserves the chain of custody,
and enables MDEQ to share information across offices more easily. TheFR team recommends that
the State establish a fast-track schedule for this project in order to take advantage of the new
CMDP16. The CMDP was launched in October 2016. This capability will allow laboratories to be
prepared to use the CMDP when/if the State transitions to SDWIS/Prime.
• The State laboratory also should ensure its new LIMS is compatible with the CMDP, to simplify
e-Reporting to SDWIS/Prime.
• Corrections or edits to forms and sample results submitted for compliance must be accurately
documented, and where applicable, justified, to preserve chain of custody. The State should ensure
thatPWSs are aware of issues with sample result submittals to prevent recurrence of the need for
corrections by the State. Ideally, any changes would be noted in a data system in a comment field.
EPA Region 5 would be glad to further discuss best practices with the State.
• Standardized reporting forms will improve both speed and accuracy of State staff review of
materials submitted byPWSs.
• Given the public health link to the drinking water program, resources and priority must be given to
provide the tools needed to manage the program, one example of which is a NCWS database that is
capable of tracking and reporting all violations.
Inventory
For each PWS, the FR team reviewed SDWIS/State (for CWSs) or WaterTrack (for NCWSs) to confirm the
Public Water System Identification Number (PWSID), system name, address, type, population served,
service connections, source, season of operation, and activity status. The information also was verified
against the most recent sanitary survey, to confirm that the PWS met the definition for each category.
As detailed in Appendix 1-H for "Sanitary Surveys" and "Data Systems and Compliance Determinations,"
the CWS program maintains inventory in SDWIS/State, and the NCWS program maintains inventory in
WaterTrack. The LHD would typically update NCWS changes in inventory, including changes which result
in a system status change, such as inactive, change in source, or a different PWS classification. MDEQ has
policies in place to account for temporary fluctuations in population, whereby the system classifications
would not change unless populations were permanently changed. WaterTrack has built-in features to track
completeness of sanitary survey elements for NCWS, and the sanitary survey is not labeled as complete
16 EPA's new CMDP allows water laboratories and public drinking water systems to electronically share drinking water data with their
states. Use of the portal should lead to more timely and higher-quality monitoring data. By reducing the hours previously spent manually
entering data, identifying data-entry errors, and issuing data resubmittal requests, states will now be able to free up more time to
focus on preventing and responding to public health issues in their communities.
66
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
until six required elements are entered. Two other required survey elements, Monitoring/Reporting and
Management/Operation, are evaluated outside of WaterTrack during quarterly data processing.
The State strictly adheres to the criteria outlined in EPA's Water Supply Guidance (WSG) 32 in its
determination of whether a system should be a NTNCWS or TNCWS.
Discrepancies:
• Service connections were not updated in a timely fashion for onePWS. The State did submit the
change to SDWIS/Fed, but only after the data pull for this review. EPA Region 5 expects inventory
updates to SDWIS/Fed within 60 days after the quarter in which they are changed.
• Three PWSs had inactivated or seasonal sources in SDWIS/State or historical versions of
WaterTrack but not in SDWIS/Fed. Facility level activity status is not reported to SDWIS/Fed
because it is not trackable in WaterTrack (other than to remove the monitoring schedule for a given
source).
Recommendations:
• The State should follow an SOP to update inventory and review the data on a regular schedule and
before monitorins schedules are established, as population or activity status updates may affect
monitoring schedules or facility upgrades may involve permit review staff or engineers. In one
instance, theFR team observed that MDEQ changed established monitoring requirements for the
City of Flint after thePWS submitted its sample results. The Flint PWS had submitted fewer samples
than the number required by the monitoring schedule, citing an intervening decrease in the city's
population. After reviewing census records, MDEQ changed the monitoring schedule and accepted
the smaller number of samples. Documentation provided by MDEQ onMarch 22, 2017, indicated
that MDEQ determined on April 1, 2015 that Flint's population had decreased below 100,000;
however, the change in population in SDWIS/State was not made until July 9, 2015. With the
population change, MDEQ did not issue a monitoring violation since the required number of
samples went from 100 to 60. The FR team did not issue a discrepancy for this action for the
January— June of 2015 timeframe because the inventory was changed in time to meet EPA reporting
requirements. The process to upgrade inventory should include instructions for how to communicate
changes to the proper person and QA checks to ensure changes are completed in a timely manner.
• MDEQ should reconsider the determination that certain schools and child care facilities are
classified as TNCWSs. OnePWS regularly serves children 3.5 hours per day, or almost as many as
the 4 hours established in the WSG 32 as the maximum for a TNCWS. More importantly, WSG 32
cautions against becoming mired in hours served, without consideration of other critical factors
such as sensitive subpopulations. MDEQ's decision comports with the terms of WSG 32, and,
therefore, theFR team did not issue a discrepancy. Nonetheless, EPA recommends MDEQ consider
these PWSs as NTNCWSs so that additional contaminants are monitored.
• One consecutive water system, City of Saginaw, has its primary source in SDWIS/Fed and
SDWIS/State listed as Surface Water — Purchased (SWP), but listed as Surface Water (SW) in other
State records. The FR team agrees it is a SW source. The water system purchases raw water, treats
it, and distributes the treated water to its customers. In 2007, MDEQ raised a question to EPA and
the contractors who developed SDWIS/State about how to report this in SDWIS/Fed.
Correspondence with EPA was shared with theFR team, which showed that there are limitations in
SDWIS/Fed that prevent association of a raw, purchased source as a SW source in SDWIS/Fed. It
appears that this may be a limitation ofSDWIS. Note that MDEQ is treating the water system as a
surface water system that must comply with all Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) requirements.
61
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
This is a SDWIS/Fed issue and theFR team recommends that the question be raised to EPA
Headquarters in light ofpreparation to transition to SDWIS/Prime. EPA Region 5 and EPA
Headquarters will try to resolve this issue in SDWIS/Prime.
• MDEQ should ensure all source inactivation records are flowed to SDWIS/Fed.
• MDEQ should ensure changes to service connection records are flowed to SDWIS/Fed.
Sanitary Surveys
The FR team reviewed the surveys to confirm that the State reviews all eight required elements of a sanitary
survey as defined in the Ground Water Rule (GWR) and the Interim Enhanced SWTR (IESWTR). The FR
team also verified that the surveys were conducted on the schedule required by the governing regulation.
Compliance with the sanitary survey requirements is tracked in SDWIS/State and WaterTrack and partially
automated. Hard copies of sanitary surveys are maintained in the files in the field offices. MDEQ conducts a
few partial sanitary surveys for its larger, surface water systems. The SOP instructs staff to only code "full"
once all eight elements are completed, but the MDEQ central office staff noted occasions when the field was
incorrectly coded "full" after a partial sanitary survey, and they asked field staff to correct the coding.
Corrective actions for CWS significant deficiencies are starting to be tracked in SDWIS/State. The MDEQ
central office is training field staff to associate enforcement actions with a violation when a schedule for
significant deficiencies should be entered into SDWIS/State.
The CW S sanitary survey report was recently changed; MDEQ added a table to the front of the report that
shows the eight elements and whether or not MDEQ found any issues associated with each individual
element.
For NCWSs, completeness of sanitary surveys is assured and evaluated, largely through the use of
WaterTrack. A standard report, Sanitary Surveys Not Completed, lists water systems for which survey data
entry has been initiated, but not completed. On the Sanitary Survey data entry screens, the SAVE function
requires staff to populate 5 fields (source, pump, treatment, storage, and distribution) and select a
corresponding approval status for each survey element, in order for the sanitary survey record to be saved as
a complete record. In WaterTrack, the sanitarian records Significant Deficiencies under the GWR by
selecting "High Risk" in the approval field of the sanitary survey element in question, and placing details in
the associated comment field. Guidance for what to call a significant deficiency is provided in written
materials designed for sanitarians. Three elements are not reviewed during the sanitary survey or field visits.
Operator compliance is verified on the WaterTrack address maintenance screen, which displays current
operator certification status and expiration date from the Operator Training and Certification Program's
database of record. This element is not reviewed when there is no certified operator required. The final two
required elements, Monitoring/Reporting status (based on the most recent Enforcement Targeting Tool
(ETT)) and Management/Operation, are evaluated at the time of quarterly data processing for submittal to
SDWIS/Fed.
The NCWS form sometimes contains comments near the relevant section where the sanitarian had to
determine whether each element was "approved." The form also indicates a ranking, either "in compliance,"
"low risk," "moderate risk," or "high risk." Significant deficiencies are always deemed "high risk" and
noted in the cover letter sent with the sanitary survey to the system owner.
68
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
The CWS sanitary survey reports are very detailed and technical. The State uses a cover letter and summary
sheet to convey highlights of the report to the PWS. As noted in Appendix 1-H, it may be helpful to MDEQ
if common deficiencies are listed on the sanitary survey form, which would be checked if present.
The 2010 FR report had the following two recommendations, the current status of which is provided:
• "MDEQ should continue to work to improve sanitary survey frequency. "
Current status: Ground water and surface water Sanitary Surveys are discussed in Section 4.0
(Sanitary Surveys) of the FY 2017 ARDP. Progress in completing sanitary surveys is also noted
under this section, and will be discussed in the FY 2015/FY 2016 End-of-Year Evaluation.
Improvement has been noted over the past years.
• "MDEQ should assign and report violations for failure to have a sanitary survey according to the
federal schedule."
Current status: The current federal regulations for surface water sanitary surveys at 40 CFR § 142.16
and ground water sanitary surveys at 40 CFR § 141.401 make the state the responsible party for
completing the sanitary surveys on time. Since it is currently not the PWS's responsibility to have a
sanitary survey within the proper timeframe, there is no basis for MDEQ to issue a sanitary survey
violation to the system. Current reporting requirements only require a sanitary survey violation to be
reported if the system fails to cooperate with the sanitary survey process.
Discrepancies
• None; MDEQ successfully completed all sanitary surveys on schedule.
Recommendations
• Two required sanitary survey elements, Monitoring/Reporting status and Management/Operation,
cannot be reviewed for NCWSs solely through evaluation of information in the State database. No
discrepancies were issued, because the State met the requirement. But, these topics also should be
discussed during the sanitary survey site visit and documentation of the discussion should be
included in the field notes and sanitary survey report. The EPA October of2008 Sanitary Survey
Guidance Manual for Ground Water Systems outlines the data and procedures that should be
reviewed with the operator during the site visit.17
• A similar table as the one found in the front of the CWS sanitary survey report could be useful for
the NCWS sanitary survey reports to make it easier to determine whether the eight elements were
completed and any concerns identified.
Consumer Confidence Reports
CCRs are tracked by the CWS program district offices, with dates entered into an Access database by
district office staff. Hard copies are stored in the system files in the district offices. MDEQ follows the EPA
protocol for electronic delivery of CCRs (EPA memo CCR Delivery Options 2013-01-03). MDEQ's website
provides information and links to CCR delivery options, including electronic delivery (see "CCR Delivery
Options Include e-Delivery" on MDEQ's Consumer Confidence Report Rule web page,
http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313 3675 3691-9673—.00-html'). Some PWSs in Michigan
are utilizing the electronic delivery option allowed by EPA policy, and as specified in Appendix 1-H,
17 .EPA Sanitary Survey Guidance Manual for Ground Water Systems, October of 2008, pages 4-74.
69
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Primacy Status and Rule Implementation, MDEQ checked links to web pages when electronic delivery was
first permitted.
CCRs are not tracked in SDWIS/State, but in a separate MS Access database. The tracker notes date
received, date certified, and degree of review (although the MDEQ noted that less content review has
occurred as resources were diverted to other, higher priorities). The lead consumer notice language is
confirmed to be present on the hard copies that are submitted.
Discrepancies
• No discrepancies were assigned for CCRs. CCRs were sent and certified on time.
Recommendations
• None. MDEQ successfully implemented the CCR requirements at the PWSs reviewed. This strong
result is the effect of MDEQ's commitment since 2012 to end its temporary disinvestment in issuing
and reporting violations for failure to produce and distribute a CCR.
Iota! Coliform Rule
The FR team reviewed TCR in WaterTrack for NCWSs and in the State's internal copy of Drinking Water
Watch for CWSs. TCR sample results for CWSs are received electronically, sometimes in summary form,
and individual results are only included in SDWIS/State if a positive sample occurs. As specified in
Appendix 1-H, NCWS TCR samples are either reported from the State lab which flows into WaterTrack, or
are hand entered by LHDs when private labs analyze the samples. MDEQ does not allow CWSs to monitor
less frequently than monthly.
The 2010 FR report had the following four recommendations, the current status of which is provided:
• "The LHDs should receive more training on determining compliance with TCR MCLs. "
Current Status of Recommendation 1: MDEQ regularly hosts training for LHDs. The FR team found
correct compliance determinations for MCL violations, but limitations of the data systems prevented
staff from assigning and reporting monthly MCL violations if an acute MCL violation occurred in
the same month. Only one violation may be issued each month in WaterTrack, and the system
generates a violation for the most egregious violation.
• "At least one round of repeat sampling should always be conducted following a total coliform
positive sample, even if a monthly MCL violation has been assigned, so that compliance with the
acute MCL can be determined. "
Current Status of Recommendation 2: The FR team found repeat samples were collected in all
instances of a positive routine sample.
• "To maintain data quality and prevent errors and confusion, TCR samples should be retained as
individual sample results and not as sample summaries. "
Current Status of Recommendation 3: Currently, MDEQ enters sample summaries for the Revised
Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) routine negative samples. MDEQ enters positive samples, repeat
samples and triggered source samples as individual sample results.
• "MDEQ should review site-sampling plans on a regular basis. "
70
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Current Status of Recommendation 4: TCR/RTCR site sampling plans are reviewed during the
sanitary survey conducted every three years for CWSs, and every five years for NCWSs.
During the 2016 FR, the front page of a PWS's MOR report included a summary of the number of routine
samples collected. The figure incorrectly included both routine and repeat samples, which did not
correspond to the number of routine samples listed on page 9 of the MOR report. The PWS properly
calculated the percentage and properly characterized the samples on page 9 of the MOR. MDEQ staff
properly tracked the results in SDWIS with the correct routine/repeat designation.
SDWIS/State contains sample summary results, with the number of samples with no detects. If a sample is
positive, more information is entered in the TCR Coliform Sample Results screen. Note that WaterTrack
cannot accommodate most tracking and reporting under the RTCR. MDEQ plans to use a second instance of
SDWIS/State for MDEQ NCWS staff to use for as much federal reporting as possible, which will allow
more violation types to be reported, and allow for an easier transition to SDWIS/Prime. No date was
provided for setting up this second instance of SDWIS/State. EPA Region 5 will require a schedule for
completion as part of the annual grant work plan.
Miscoding of NCWS TCR samples as "routine" or "repeat" accounted for some confusion. Variation among
the laboratory reporting forms may have accounted for the errors, as numerous samples were incorrectly
characterized by either the sample collector or the laboratory, usually due to confusion over whether the
sample was for routine or repeat monitoring. One TNCWS mislabeled samples in numerous months, so the
results were miscoded in WaterTrack. The system was using an alternate source and was only sampling for
precautionary measures, but the samples were labeled "repeat."
Consecutive systems are able to enter into consecutive system monitoring agreement(s) with their sellers
that establishes a combined monitoring schedule for the seller and all purchasers as a "system-wide"
schedule for the TCR, LCR, and Stage 1 and 2 DBPRs. The reduced monitoring approach is permitted under
Mich Admin Code, R 325.10733 and 40 CFR § 141.29, and specifically allowed for DBPR under the
federal Stage 2 DBPR Special Primacy Requirement at 40 CFR § 142.16(m). These State and federal
regulations allow the State to consider interconnected systems as one system for monitoring purposes. After
each census, the State re-evaluates the population served by each PWS included in the agreement to
determine whether the agreement requires the appropriate number of samples. For example, after the recent
census, the population of some systems in the file review sample dropped, decreasing the number of
samples that were required.
EPA Region 5 approved MDEQ's schedules for reduced monitoring in the Detroit consecutive system for
the LCR in 1992 and the TCR in 2004. MDEQ also has a reduced monitoring schedule under the DBPR,
which did not require EPA Region 5 approval.
In addition to the regular consecutive system approach discussed above, MDEQ also utilizes a sampling
protocol, which it calls a MCS approach, that allows each individual PWS in the consecutive system to
collect fewer samples than would be required under a regular monitoring schedule for the system, but
requires each PWS to take more samples than would be required if the entire consecutive system was treated
as a single system for monitoring purposes. Compliance under the MCS approach is determined on an
individual system basis, rather than as a single system. A more detailed discussion of the Detroit MCS
approach for LCR is located in Appendix 2-B at the end of Chapter 2.
71
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
The requirement to collect five routine samples in the month after a positive TCR result was properly
waived in a few instances, because the State conducted a site visit and determined the cause of the problem.
One TNCWS that accounted for discrepancies described below deserves more description. The PWS had
TCR acute MCL violations in June and July. The PWS was closely overseen and carefully monitored by the
LHD and MDEQ for follow-up sampling, although the system didn't collect enough samples in all rounds.
Teleconferences and several site visits were conducted. Frequent consultation occurred between the LHD,
MDEQ, and the well driller hired to assist the P W S with assessment and correction of the problem. After a
determination that the problem was not temporary, the LHD pursued emergency actions. MDEQ and LHD
staff met with the P W S repeatedly, visited the site regularly to confirm PN (because the P W S removed PN
before the problem was resolved - see the PN section), pursued public complaints and reported the health
issues to an E-Health data system, took enforcement actions, forced the PWS to abandon the problematic
well, and oversaw permitting and drilling of a new well by October.
• Four TCR acute MCL violations were issued and reported to EPA correctly (two for a CWS and two
for a TNCWS). The State correctly issued two M/R violations to TNCWSs and reported them to
SDWIS/Fed. The FR team questioned the consistency in the sites being used for compliance
sampling and the documentation in the sample siting plan. One CWS was inconsistently rotating
between two or three sites, and the sampling plan had two sites. If the water system collects more
than the required number of samples, the State does not object. No discrepancies were issued for this
issue.
Discrepancies
• Two monthly MCL violations for the same TNCWS were not reported to EPA, due to WaterTrack
database limitations so the State reports the most serious TCR violation for a given monitoring
period.
• One TNCWS failed to collect five routine samples in the month after a positive result. The new
schedule was not updated in WaterTrack after the field visit, so it was missed.
• FivePWSs were not assigned M/R violations for failure to complete routine sampling (one CWS and
four TNCWSs). One of the TNCWSs was placed on quarterly sampling after an internal routine
program review of the LHD. The letter was sent to the PWS, but WaterTrack was not updated, and
the system did not receive quarterly monitoring reminders or violations. A violation was generated
when it was detected and submitted to SDWIS/Fed after the data pull for this audit.
• Fourteen samples were sent after the reporting deadline for four CWSs; enforcement of late
reporting is an acknowledged disinvestment by MDEQ.
• The FR team questioned how invalidated samples are tracked by the State in one situation. A CWS
was required to collect one TCR sample, but typically collects two. Both June of 2015 samples were
correctly invalidated and the water system was required to take a replacement sample. However,
due to the timing at the end of the month, the CWS was notified of the invalidation on July 1, after
the end of the compliance period. MDEQ agreed to count one of the two routine samples collected
for July compliance as the re-sample for June and the other routine sample as the July compliance
sample, which is allowed. (Alternatively, MDEQ could have allowed the CWS to collect replacement
samples within 20 days of the invalidation.) The results were not coded properly in the State's data
system; both samples were recorded as July routine samples, no sample was recorded for June, and
no M/R was issued for June.
72
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
• Coding ofTCR sample type (e.g., "routine" or "repeat") was not listed properly by either the
sample collector, the lab, or data entry into the NCWS's State data system in some cases. The
correct response from the State occurred regardless, despite the data management issue, but some
NCWSs' records are not accurate in WaterTrack. For instance, during a period when a daycare was
not serving water to the public but sampling for precautionary reasons, WaterTrack coded the
precautionary samples as "repeat. "A TNCWS conducted special sampling of its well during
construction and repair, while an alternate source was used, and the samples also were coded
"repeat" in WaterTrack.
Recommendations
• All violations ofMCLs should be assigned and reported to EPA.
• PWSs should be tracked to ensure that all required increased routine samples are collected after a
positive sample result, and anM/R violation should be assigned and reported for failure to meet
these requirements.
• MDEQ proposed that a better word might be "compliance " samples on the front of theMOR report
rather than "number of routine samples collected, " since both routine and repeat samples are used
in calculating the 5% to determine whether anMCL violation occurred. The front page of theMOR
report includes a summary of the number of routine samples collected. The FR team was confused in
one case where the sum included both routine and repeat samples, but this did not correspond to the
number of routine samples listed on page 9 of theMOR report. The system properly calculated the
percentage and properly characterized the samples on page 9 of theMOR. MDEQ staffproperly
tracked the results in SDWIS with the correct routine/repeat designation. TheFR team agrees the
proposed wording change would be clearer. Failure to monitor and late reporting violations must be
reported to EPA.
• The State should confirm that PWSs consistently follow their TCR monitoring schedule and, if the
schedule is adjusted (i.e., from seasonal to year-round monitoring), appropriate staff should be
notified to ensure the different monitoring regimen is followed.
• QA measures should be followed to ensure correct coding of samples in data systems. Use of a
standardized form, training every laboratory and sample collector to complete it, and refining form
instructions to ensure understanding may make the coding more efficient and improve accuracy.
• Mich Admin Code, R 325.10704c(3)(b)(ii)(9) provides that invalidated samples must be replaced
within 24 hours of invalidation. (See 40 CFR § 141.21(c) for TCR, and 40 CFR § 141.853(c)(1) for
RTCR.) The samples also should be properly entered and validated in the State's data system so
MDEQ will count them for compliance. Failure to meet these requirements should lead to anM/R
violation.
• MDEQ should work with EPA Region 5 to establish another instance of SD WIS/State to ensure
reporting in FY 2017 includes all required reporting elements.
Ground Water Rule
No PWSs in the selected sample of PWSs for this FR were required to conduct routine compliance
monitoring for the GWR. Therefore, the FR team reviewed all sample results and corrective actions required
when a PWS must conduct triggered source water monitoring after a positive TCR result. Information is
tracked electronically, and correspondence files contained information about corrective actions. Note that
WaterTrack only partially supports tracking and reporting with this rule. For NCWSs, LHD staff are
generally notified directly by the State lab or private labs of an E. coli positive result.
73
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Under the TCR, the State permits, as allowed by federal regulation, a ground water system serving 1,000 or
fewer people to use a repeat sample collected from a ground water source to meet both the requirements for
repeat TCR and triggered source water monitoring if the State approves the use of E. coli as a source water
monitoring fecal indicator. Note that under the new RTCR, the use of dual purpose RTCR-GWR sampling
continues to be allowed under certain conditions in the federal rule, and with State approval. Specifically,
the State may allow dual purpose (RTCR and GWR) sampling for PWSs with only one well, and that serve
1,000 or fewer people, as described at 40 CFR § 141.853(a)(5)(ii). However, MDEQ did not adopt the
equivalent provision in the State RTCR rules, stating that the federal rule infers that a system with more
than one well cannot use a triggered source sample as the upstream repeat location. The State therefore does
not allow PWSs to use dual purpose samples.
Discrepancies
• No discrepancies were detected, ([he Enforcement Verification (EV), which reviewed a timeframe
prior to that reviewed during the FR, does note for three PWSs that samples were not collected
within 24 hours of notification, as required.)
Recommendations
• None. MDEQ successfully implemented the GWR requirements at the PWSs reviewed. Please refer
to the EV report in Chapter 3 for additional recommendations.
Phase II/V Rule
The Phase II/V Rule includes monitoring for Inorganics, Volatile Organics, and Synthetic Organics. MDEQ
offers many of the standard monitoring reductions and waivers allowed by regulation, and the program
remains unchanged from that described in the 2010 report. From the 2010 FR report: "MDEQ has
maintained a waiver program developed in 1993. EPA Region 5 approved this policy and provided written
approval. Michigan does not use variances or exemptions, but does have Statewide waivers for asbestos,
dioxin, benzo(a)pyrene, di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. In addition, MDEQ has
partial SOC waivers, primarily based on system vulnerability, for dalapon, diquat, endothall, glyphosate,
ethylene dibromide (EDB) and 1,2 dibromo-3-chloropropane (.DBCP). "
For CWSs, MDEQ reduces VOC monitoring from quarterly to annual for surface water systems and
triennial for ground water systems, if there are no detections. NTNCWSs may apply for a waiver of up to
six years, if there are no detects. See Mich Admin Code, R 325.101716(9); 40 CFR § 141.24(f)(7). IOCs can
be reduced to once every nine years. SOC waivers are granted if appropriate to systems that are not
vulnerable to these contaminants, which is in line with MDEQ's philosophy of offering as many monitoring
waivers as necessary to reduce monitoring costs to systems, because monitoring for these contaminants
would not serve a public health benefit in these circumstances. See Mich Admin Code, R 325.101717(8); 40
CFR § 141.24(h)(5). A PWS must reapply for a waiver every three years. The FR team noted that the
contaminants waived, both Statewide and through the partial waiver program based on vulnerability, are
commonly waived in states across the country.
In response to the 2010 report, MDEQ and EPA Region 5 discussed various components of the waiver
program over the past five to six years, and MDEQ revised the waiver program, as needed. For example, in
a memo from the Region to MDEQ dated July 30, 2013, the Region rescinded the State's ability to issue
waivers for cyanide, based on the PWS's ability to maintain a detectable chlorine residual within the
distribution system. This item continues to be listed as a recommendation in the FY 2017 ARDP to
74
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
encourage the State to continue to make revisions to its waiver program as needed. See Section 12.0 of the
FY 2017 ARDP.
MDEQ conducted monitoring of SOC waived contaminants in 2005 and confirmed that the waiver program
was still valid. However, the FR team did not find many examples that MDEQ staff reviewed whether
waivers should be renewed. Usually, the monitoring schedule was used to deduce that the waiver was still
valid.
Copies of the entry point monitoring schedules and the cyanide waiver rescission letter are included in
Appendix 1-G.
Inorganic Contaminants
Most PWSs monitored for nitrite on an annual schedule when they sampled for nitrate, although the
Michigan regulation only requires triennial monitoring for nitrite. As is true in nearly all states, most
systems are issued IOC waivers, as allowed under the State's EPA-approved waiver program.
One MCL violation for nitrate for a NTNCWS and two M/R violations for nitrate for a TNCWS were
correctly reported to SDWIS/Fed.
Discrepancies
• A NTNCWS failed to complete quarterly monitoring after a nitrate result greater than the MCL
resulted in a violation, and no M/R violations were assigned.
• No M/R violation was assigned after a TNCWS failed to sample for nitrate.
• The EV report also includes discrepancies for failure to conduct quarterly Arsenic monitoring after
an MCL violation, for a system that was providing bottled water.
Recommendations
• PWSs should be tracked after routine samples trigger quarterly increased sampling. AnM/R
violation should be assigned and reported for failure to meet this requirement.
• Failure to monitor must be reported to EPA.
Volatile Organic Contaminants
Many systems were granted reduced frequency of monitoring for VOCs, as allowed under the State's EPA-
approved State waiver program.
Discrepancies
• No discrepancies for VOCs were identified.
Recommendations
• None. MDEQ successfully implemented the VOC requirements at the PWSs reviewed.
Synthetic Organic Contaminants
All PWSs using ground water, and all (except for a small group of PWSs using surface water, that are
vulnerable to SOCs) have been granted partial waivers (described above under Phase II/V Rule section).
75
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Discrepancies
• A NTNCWS failed to resample during the compliance period after a routine sample was invalidated,
and noM/R violation was assigned.
Recommendations
• PWSs should replace invalidated samples within the same compliance period. AnM/R violation
should be assigned and reported for failure to meet this requirement.
• EPA additional recommendation: MDEQ must consistently consider vulnerability, which includes
changes such as development that may introduce potential contamination, when evaluating whether
to renew an SOC vulnerability waiver every three years. See Mich Admin Code, R 325.10717(9) for
complete requirements.
Revised Radionuclides Rule
All sources at CWSs were required to be monitored for radionuclides.
The following was a finding of the 2010 FR report:
• "MDEQ should ensure that PWSs monitor for all sources under the Revised Radionuclides Rule. "
Current status: This recommendation was included in the FY 2012 ARDP. MDEQ committed to
ensure that PWSs monitor for all sources under the Revised Radionuclides Rule.
Discrepancies
• No discrepancies for the Revised Radionuclides rule were identified.
Recommendations
• None. MDEQ successfully implemented the Revised Radionuclides rule requirements at the PWSs
reviewed.
Surface Water Treatment Rules
Four systems in the FR sample must comply with the requirements at 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart H
(.Filtration and Disinfection), including two systems with surface water sources and two systems that
purchase raw surface water and treat it. (Note that one of the systems, City of Flint, began using surface
water as a source in April of 2014, but then inactivated its surface water source and purchases surface water
as of October of 2015.)
The LT2ESWTR at 40 CFR Part 141, subpart W (.Enhanced Treatment for Cryptosporidium) provides that
Subpart H systems that are PWSs supplied by surface water sources or groundwater sources under the direct
influence of surface water must monitor, determine and implement treatment for Cryptosporidium.
Discrepancies
• One CWS, the Flint PWS, was not monitoring the combined filter effluent (CFE) consistent with
State and federal regulations. The plant has two separate filter treatment trains or banks of filters
consisting of individual filters, on opposite sides of the plant, and an individual filter effluent (IFE)
sample is collected for each filter. A sample is collected at each of two different points that the
operator/MDEQ considers CFEs; one sample at the end of each bank of filters. While this is a good
diagnostic practice, it does not meet CFE compliance requirements. Therefore, the system was out of
compliance with the CFE monitoring requirement. To meet the CFE requirements, turbidity samples
16
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
representative of the system's filtered water prior to disinfection must be taken. While there are
options for how the CFE can be determined, in all cases either ONE value must be calculated, or
ONE sampling location used. In addition, the IFE turbidity monitoring requirements of the IESWTR
andLTIESWTR require all SubpartH systems to continuously monitor (i.e., every 15 minutes) at
each filter. The only time a system is allowed to substitute continuous CFE monitoring for the
required IFE monitoring is when the system has two or fewer total filters. Each filter has to have a
turbidimeter that monitors continuously and each filter has to meet the IFE performance
requirements.
• One CWS in the FR sample, the Flint PWS, did not conduct source water monitoring for a new
source as required under the LT2ESWTR. 40 CFR § 141.710(f) requires a SubpartHPWS serving
10,000 or more people that begins using a new source of surface water to monitor for
Cryptosporidium and subsequently meet the "bin classification" and applicable treatment
requirements. 40 CFR § 141.702 requires the system to create a sampling plan that is approved by
the state before the sampling begins, and then monitor monthly for two years before making a bin
classification and treatment implementation, pursuant to applicable provisions of the LT2ESWTR.
The Flint PWS should have initiated first round monitoring when it opened the surface water
treatment plant in April of 2014 and began using the new source. (A letter in the MDEQ file
incorrectly noted that the Flint PWS must complete a second round of source water monitoring
under the LT2ESWTR. Under the LT2ESWTR, the second round of sampling is conducted six years
after the first round of sampling, to confirm the proper bin classification. EPA Region 5 had
responsibility for overseeing the first round of source water monitoring under the LT2ESWTR when
the Flint PWS was part of the Detroit consecutive system. LT2ESWTR implementation was
transitioned to the State in 2010 and primacy was awarded in 2013. Regardless, the Flint PWS was
responsible for first round LT2ESWTR monitoring when it switched to a new source in April of
2014.) The Flint PWS should have been issued a monitoring and reporting (M/R) violation for
failing to submit a sampling plan, as required by 40 CFR §§ 141.701(f) and 702. Under
40 CFR §141.702(a)(5), sampling and monitoring by the PWS is required even if the state is silent
regarding approval of the schedule. The PWS should have been issued additional M/R violations for
failing to conduct required monthly sampling, per 40 CFR § 141.701(g).
Recommendations
• Systems with a bank of filters must monitor for turbidity to meet the CFE turbidity requirements. To
meet the CFE requirements, turbidity samples representative of the system's filtered water must be
taken at one point prior to disinfection or calculated as one value. EPA Region 5 would be glad to
discuss system-specific options for calculating CFEs which meet the regulations.
• Any large system that has not completed its first round ofLT2ESWTR monitoring should be issued
M/R violations for failing to monitor for E. coli and Cryptosporidium.
• An M/R violation should be assigned to any system that fails to submit itsMOR on time.
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
The FR team reviewed compliance with requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 DPBRs. The FR team
reviewed all systems providing disinfection for compliance with standards for total trihalomethanes
(TTHM) and haloacetic acids (HAA5), chlorine residual in the distribution system, and bromate (where
relevant). The monthly and quarterly results were reviewed, and quarterly and running annual averages
(RAAs) or locational RAAs (LRAAs) were confirmed where required.
77
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
The final 2010 FR report includes the following recommendation:
• "MDEQ should prioritize determining how to improve chlorine residual compliance. Chlorine
residual results for compliance with Stage 1 DBPR should be kept separate from other chlorine
samples, RAAs should be calculated and compliance determined according to the federal rule. "
Current status: This recommendation was included in ARDPs subsequent to the 2010 FR report.
MDEQ committed to work to improve compliance with chlorine residual monitoring requirements
through staff training and more rigorous data tracking. The State does not issue M/R violations when
a system does not have an RAA/LRAA calculated. The CWS and NCWS programs have committed
to calculating the RAA/LRAAs for TTHMs, HAA5s, and TOC removal ratios during FY 2017, in
the FY 2017 PWSS grant workplan. Most districts started tracking MRDLs for NCWSs in the past
several years and all districts were doing so beginning in FY 2016. In addition, now RAAs can be
calculated in SDWIS/State for CWSs. Beginning in FY 2017, MDEQ's grant work plan includes the
following: "The State has primacy for implementing the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, and is expected to fully implement all aspects of its safe drinking water statutes and
rules on which primacy is based. If the State is unable to implement any portion of such a statute or
rule, or otherwise comply with the federal implementation regulations, the State must submit a plan
describing the steps the State will take to achieve full implementation and a schedule for doing so.
This plan and schedule must be submitted within 90 days of the award of this grant. (In FY 2018,
EPA will investigate adding specific grant conditions related to full implementation.)
All aspects of the DBPR can be managed in SDWIS/State for CWSs. Since the last review in 2009, the State
has added tracking of RAAs and LRAAs in SDWIS/State, which began with implementation of the Stage 2
DBPR for CWSs.
For NCWSs, WaterTrack only partially supports tracking and reporting with this rule. MCL violations for
bromate, TTHM, and H AA5 can be tracked, and violations for these contaminants can be generated and
reported from the database. MRDL violations cannot be tracked in the database, and manual compliance
determination and reporting for this requirement is not being considered at this point.
During the FR review period, the State disinvested from manually calculating RAAs/LRAAs. The CWS
program was transitioning to using the calculation function in SDWIS/State. As of FY 2017, the calculation
function is now being utilized for all applicable CWSs.
The State correctly assigned and reported to EPA four TTHM MCL violations for a CWS and one M/R
violation for a NTNCWS.
Discrepancies
• One CWS failed to submit source water alkalinity values for the entire period of review. NoM/R
violations were assigned for this issue.
• Two CWSs did not have aRAA in SDWIS/State, and no M/R violations were assigned.
• In addition, according to the EV, one CWS did not have TTHM MCL violations reported to EPA on
time for a time period outside of theFR period.
Recommendations
• M/R and MCL violations must be reported to EPA.
78
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Lead and Copper Rule
The FR team reviewed the two most recent rounds of sampling conducted for compliance with the LCR.
Where an Action Level Exceedance (ALE) had occurred before the period of review, and requirements
associated with that ALE affected the requirements for the system, the FR team took the earlier exceedance
into consideration. For example, PE requirements vary if a system has not optimized corrosion control from
an earlier ALE.
The 2010 FR report included the following recommendations:
• "All 9(Jh percentiles must be calculated according to federal regulations. "
Current status: This primacy activity has been included in all ARDPs following the 2010 FR,
including the FY 2016 ARDP. MDEQ has committed to ensuring all 90th percentiles are entered into
SDWIS as required, although resources and data management limitations have challenged the
NCWS program in accomplishing this task.
• "Milestones should be reported to SDWIS/Fed, according to federal regulations. "
Current status: This primacy activity has been included in all ARDPs following the 2010 FR,
including the FY 2016 ARDP. Although a majority of required milestone data are in SDWIS, some
data gaps remain. MDEQ did not commit to 100% reporting due to resource constraints, beginning
in the FY 2011 PWSS grant. MDEQ has improved LCR milestone data reporting each year since the
2010 FR was conducted.
"All systems on annual or triennial monitoring should sample in the summer months of June
through September, or an alternate designated four-month timeframe. "
Current status: MDEQ has always required that lead sampling at CWSs on reduced monitoring be
conducted within the June through September timeframe, and it has enforced this requirement.
However, EPA Region 5 acknowledged that NTNCWSs on reduced monitoring were allowed to
sample outside of this timeframe because, at the time, EPA Region 5 did not consider this to be a
public health risk. In FY 2014, the Region began pushing the State to require NTNCWSs to sample
within the summer months. In order to ease transition to this requirement, EPA Region 5
acknowledged that the LHDs could collect samples in an additional month, in October, in 2014 and
2015, if samples had not already been taken during the June through September timeframe. In
FY 2016, MDEQ fully implemented this requirement at all NTNCWSs, where all NTNCWSs were
required to sample between June - September. EPA Region 5 is currently working with MDEQ to
follow-up on FY 2015 violators, and will work with MDEQ in 2017 to follow-up with FY 2016
violators.
The following LCR activities were not included in the 2010 File Review Report, but were items that EPA
Region 5 had historically acknowledged could not be fully implemented by the State. Current Status is
provided.
• LCR reporting form: MDEQ committed to issuing violations for failure to conduct the required lead
and copper monitoring beginning in the FY 2011 PWSS grant, and it required CWSs to submit the
LCR reporting form to the State; however, MDEQ temporarily disinvested in tracking the receipt of
the LCR reporting form, and temporarily disinvested in issuing violations for failure to submit the
LCR reporting form.
79
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Current status: During discussions in spring 2015, MDEQ stated that almost all CWSs have been
submitting the LCR reporting form as required by the State. This is evidenced by the Flint PWS's
submission of the LCR reporting form during the second six-month sampling period, January
through June of 2015 (EPA Region 5 received a copy of the LCR reporting form and the lab results
from the State upon request in August of 2015.) MDEQ fully implemented this provision at CWSs in
FY 2016, and is fully implementing the provision for NTNCWSs in FY 2017.
• Lead Consumer Notification of lead results: This was not included in the 2010 FR report because
implementation of this requirement was not applicable during the review period. However, it has
been a focus of EPA Region 5's Ground Water and Drinking Water Branch since 2012 to ensure the
State (and all EPA Region 5 states) implement this requirement. EPA Region 5 has been work-
sharing with MDEQ by sending mass mailings to NTNCWSs to notify NTNCWSs of this
requirement.
Current status: Since the Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term Revisions were promulgated by the
State in 2009, MDEQ initially had not been able to fully implement the requirement to conduct lead
consumer notification of tap results. Beginning in 2010, the State agreed to enforce lead consumer
notification requirements for CWSs where one or more individual lead and/or copper sample result
was above the lead action level. The State began full implementation of this requirement, including
enforcement for CWSs that did not comply, in October of 2012. Since 2012, MDEQ has an
overnight process that automatically triggers an auto-notice once LCR sample results are entered.
The reminder notifies State staff that the notice is due in 90 days. In FY 2016, the MDEQ committed
to full implementation of the lead consumer notification of tap results requirement for NTNCWSs.
• Minimum number of LCR samples: A specific recommendation was not included in the 2010 FR
report regarding the minimum number of LCR samples. The original LCR required NTNCWSs to
take a minimum of five lead and copper samples. However, MDEQ interpreted the rule differently,
which was verified by the Michigan Attorney General. EPA eventually changed the minimum
sample requirement in its 2007 Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term Revisions to allow NTNCWSs to
collect fewer than five samples when there are fewer than five interior cold-water taps typically used
for human consumption available. The discrepancies identified in the 2010 report were for sampling
conducted prior to 2007.
Current status: As permitted by rule, a NTNCWS is allowed to take fewer than five samples when
there are fewer than five interior cold-water taps typically used for human consumption available,
and the State must document in the file how the NTNCWS has met the criteria to sample fewer than
five taps for lead. Otherwise, the NTNCWS must take the number of lead samples as required in the
LCR, which is a minimum of five samples.
SDWIS/State contains sample summaries for the past two rounds for CWSs as well as all lead and copper
action level exceedances since the rule became effective. All historical sample results can be reviewed in
WaterTrack. The State uses interpolation to calculate 90th percentile values.
The State implemented processes to track lead consumer notice for CWSs in 2013; and for addressing the
same tracking for NTNCWS schools and daycares in FY 2013 and all remaining in FY 2016.
The FR team determined that one elementary school had a round with one sample above the action level in
2010. The State requested additional testing in 2011 to confirm the problem and determine whether a fixture
should be removed. The testing did not occur and that was not discovered until the 2015 sanitary survey.
The LHD had frequent follow-up meetings and discussions to identify next steps; the PWS tried removing
80
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
some fixtures, but subsequent sampling remained above the action level at that one site (the system did not
have an ALE). The system planned to renovate and remove all older plumbing in July of 2016 to address the
problem.
As noted in Chapter 2, Review of Michigan 's Lead and Copper Rule, the FR team determined that the 90th
percentile was not calculated correctly for a CWS, and reviewed the State's decision to remove two samples
from the sampling round. See Chapter 2, "4. Invalidated samples January — June 2015" for additional
details related to the 90th percentile calculation.
The NCWS database, WaterTrack, does not support all recent requirements of the revised rule. For example,
the 90th percentile value for NTNCWSs can only be calculated when at least one sample result from a group
of samples collected for the water system exceeds the action level. Otherwise, the data system cannot
calculate or store the record in preparation for federal reporting. In addition, tracking and reporting for lead
consumer notice is not possible. MDEQ committed to fully tracking the lead consumer notice requirement
for all NTNCWSs manually in FY 2016.
The State reported a lead ALE for a CWS and all lead 90th percentile values (12 instances) to EPA for
CWSs and NTNCWSs with greater than 3,300 population served. The State also correctly reported to EPA
an M/R violation for lead and copper tap sampling for a NTNCWS and an M/R violation for source water
monitoring for a CWS.
Discrepancies
• LCR samples were collected outside of the summer months of June through September for two
NTNCWSs. All systems in theFR sample were marked as open year-round, although one is a
school. Files documented that the LHDs discussed with the water systems the need to sample in
the June through September or other State-designated timeframe.
• A CWS did not provide lead consumer notice and no M/R violation was assigned.
• Calculations of the 90th percentile value were incorrect for two CWSs. For one system, the
problem had occurred in a previous round that was outside the period of review. MDEQ should
ensure that processes are in place to avoid typographical or calculation errors.
Recommendations
• All M/R violations should be assigned and reported for failure to provide lead consumer notice.
• The State should ensure annual and triennial sampling occurs between June and September,
designate an alternate monitoring period that is appropriate for that system, or assign an M/R
violation.
• The State should institute QA to ensure correct calculation of 9Cfh percentile values.
Public Notification Rule
MDEQ has an external query that checks when PN is needed and confirms whether it has been entered as
received by SDWIS/State. If the record that PN has been received is not found, then staff must manually
enter a violation.
The LHD issues a letter telling the water system to issue the required PN. The NCWS program requires PN
for all tiers of violations, and provides templates for PN. As indicated in Appendix 1-H, under the heading
"Primacy and Rule Implementation, " the NCW S Program tracks whether Tier 1 and 2 PN is completed, but
81
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
does not track compliance with Tier 3 PN. The LHDs often will conduct PN for the system if the system
fails to complete Tier 1 or Tier 2 PN.
Neither the MDEQ nor LHDs routinely assign M/R violations for NCWSs for PN for Tier 1, 2, or 3
violations because PN violations for NCWS cannot be reported by WaterTrackto SDWIS/Fed. The State
supports a technical assistance approach, and in most of the cases reviewed, the FR team confirmed that the
LHDs did ensure proper PN was eventually completed. PN violations would be enforced only if there was
escalated enforcement conducted by the State (not LHD) against a NCWS for contaminant violations (such
as MCL and TT violations). PN violations cannot be reported to SDWIS/Fed by WaterTrack.
Discrepancies
• A TNCWS returned proof ofPN to the State, but public complaints of illness led to a site visit. Public
notification was removed by thePWS after posting by the LHD during that site visit. A second
complaint was filed, and a second site inspection confirmed PN was removed before the
microbiological contamination problem was resolved. Subsequently, the county closely monitored
the situation, and the issue was addressed in a Bilateral Compliance Agreement. No PN M/R
violation was reported to EPA.
Recommendations
• All M/R violations for failure to perform PN must be reported to EPA. Failure to properly notify the
public could lead to public health consequences, such as increased or extended exposures to
contaminant(s).
82
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Appendix 1-B: List of Systems Selected for Review
PWSID
PWS Name
County
Served
cws
District
Number
CWS District
Office
NCWS Office
Population
Served
Population Served
Category
PWS
Type
Primary
Source
School/
Daycare
M10000470
BAY CITY, CITY OF
Bay
21
Saginaw Bay
(Bay City)
Lansing
34,932
10,001-100,000
CWS
SWP
N
MI0000510
BEAR LAKE, VILLAGE
OF
Manistee
71
Cadillac
Lansing
318
<=500
cws
GW
N
MI0000518
BEAVERTOWNSHIP
Bay
21
Saginaw Bay
(Bay City)
Lansing
1,109
501-3,300
CWS
SWP
N
M10000710
BIG RAPIDS
Mecosta
61
Grand Rapids
Lansing
10,894
10,001-100,000
CWS
GW
N
M10001018
BUTTERFIELD WOODS
SUBDIVISION
Muskegon
61
Grand Rapids
Grand Rapids
65
<=500
CWS
GW
N
MI0002310
FLINT, CITY OF
Genesee
11
Lansing
Lansing
99,763
10,001-100,000
CWS
SW
N
M10003420
IRONWOOD
Gogebic
81
Upper
Peninsula
(Marauettel
Upper
Peninsula
6,525
3,301-10,000
CWS
GW
N
M10005290
PETERSBURG
Monroe
31
Jackson
Jackson
1,278
501-3,300
CWS
SWP
N
M10005400
PLYMOUTH
Wayne
41
Southeast
Michigan
(Warrenl
Lansing
9,132
3,301-10,000
CWS
SWP
N
M10005850
SAGINAW, CITY OF
Saginaw
21
Saginaw Bay
(Bay City)
Lansing
51,508
10,001-100,000
CWS
SWP
N
M10006232
SPRING LAKE CLUB
CONDOMINIUMS
Emmet
72
Cadillac
Gaylord
87
<=500
CWS
GW
N
M10006640
TRAVERSE CITY, CITY
OF
Grand
Traverse
72/73
Cadillac
Gaylord
14,674
10,001-100,000
CWS
SW
N
M10040477
WASHBURN LAKE
VILLAGE MHP
St. Joseph
54
Kalamazoo
Kalamazoo
108
<=500
CWS
GW
N
M12820036
FIFE LAKE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Grand
Traverse
72/73
Cadillac
Gaylord
166
<=500
NTNCWS
GW
Y
MI6321444
HOUR KIDZ
Oakland
43 East
/44 West
Southeast
Michigan
(Warrenl
Jackson
100
<=500
NTNCWS
GW
Y
MI2120212
Hyde Properties
Delta
83
Upper
Peninsula
(Marauette)
Upper
Peninsula
100
<=500
NTNCWS
GW
Y
M12520415
MICHIGAN
COMMUNITY SVCS.
INC.
Genesee
11
Lansing
Lansing
70
<=500
NTNCWS
GW
Y
M16120441
The Hop Childcare
Ce nter
Muskegon
61
Grand Rapids
Grand Rapids
60
<=500
NTNCWS
GW
Y
M13320169
Vlahakis Management
Company
Ingham
12
Lansing
Lansing
100
<=500
NTNCWS
GW
Y
M11320157
Battle Creek Baptist
Temple
Calhoun
51
Kalamazoo
Kalamazoo
100
<=500
TNCWS
GW
N
M10620435
Knollview Golf
Arenac
21
Saginaw Bay
(Bay City)
Lansing
25
<=500
TNCWS
GW
N
M16322569
KOA BATHHOUSE
Oakland
43 East
/44 West
Southeast
Michigan
(Warrenl
Jackson
100
<=500
TNCWS
GW
N
M17720376
MANISTIQUE ICE
Schoolcraft
83
Upper
Peninsula
(Marauettel
Upper
Peninsula
25
<=500
TNCWS
GW
N
M17020186
SANDY POINT BEACH
HOUSE
Ottawa
63
Grand Rapids
Grand Rapids
200
<=500
TNCWS
GW
N
M13520208
TAWAS HEADSTART
Iosco
21
Saginaw Bay
(Bay City)
Gaylord
40
<=500
TNCWS
GW
Y
83
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Appendix 1-C; Summary of File Review Discrepancies by Rule
FR Discrepancy Counts by Rule
Rule
System
Type
CD
DF
M/R
MCL
TT
M/R
MCL
INV
cws
1
1
NTNCWS
1
TNCWS
1
DBP1
CWS
3
TCR
CWS
15
TNCWS
6
2
2
LT2R
CWS
25
SWTR
CWS
24
PBCU
CWS
3
1
NTNCWS
4
SOC
NTNCWS
1
NIT
TNCWS
1
NTNCWS
2
PNR
TNCWS
1
84
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Appendix 1-D; Exhibits - Detailed Discrepancies by Rule and System
PWSII)
System Name
System
Type
Rule
Date
FR Question
Supporting Details
MI Response
FR Resolution
MI0000470
Bay City, City Of
cws
DBP1
7/1/2015
System failed to
sample for
source and
finished water
TOC during
compliance
period. State
couldn't calculate
TOC removal
ratios or RAA.
Why wasn't a
violation
assigned?
For September of
2015.
Calculation of RAA is a
temporary disinvestment and
District confirmed results were
not submitted.
Not a Discrepancy. The
Bay City Treatment plant
was decommissioned
and a new regional Bay
Area Water System was
active as of August 31,
2015. Therefore, an
MOR from September of
2015 was not required
from the Bay City plant
since it was
decommissioned.
MI0000470
Bay City, City Of
cws
DBP1
10/1/2014,
1/1/2015,
4/1/2015
System failed to
submit source
water alkalinity
results, so State
could not
calculate
quarterly TOC
removal ratio or
RAA for each
quarterly
compliance
period. Why
wasn't a violation
assigned?
For 3 quarters from
10/1/14-6/30/15.
Due to resource limitations,
MDEQ must prioritize activities.
During the period reviewed,
MDEQ temporarily disinvested
in tracking MRDL RAAs if all
results were below the standard.
Tracking in SDWIS was phased-
in over time, so many of the
districts were tracking in SDWIS
for the period reviewed.
Beginning Oct 2015, all CWS
districts are tracking MRDLs &
their RAAs in SDWIS. District
confirmed source water
alkalinity was not submitted.
Discrepancy stands.
85
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
System Name
System
Type
Rule
Date
FR Question
Supporting Details
MI Response
FR Resolution
MI0000470
Bay City, City Of
CWS
DBP1
7/1/2015
System failed to
sample for
bromate during
quarterly
compliance
period. Why
wasn't a violation
assigned?
System did not submit
sample results or
calculate the RAA.
District confirmed results were
not submitted.
Not a Discrepancy. The
Bay City Treatment plant
was decommissioned
and a new regional Bay
Area Water System was
active as of August 31,2.
Therefore, sampling and
calculation of an RAA
for the period of Oct 1,
2014-Sept 30, 2015 was
not required from the
Bay City plant since it
was decommissioned.
MI0000470
Bay City, City Of
cws
DBP1
9/1/2015
System failed to
sample for
chlorine residual
at same time as
TCR during
compliance
period. Why
wasn't a violation
assigned?
District staff confirmed that
September of 2015 MOR was
not in files and no violation was
assigned for missing samples.
Same number of chlorine
residual samples and TCR
samples are listed in Water
Track.
Not a Discrepancy. The
Bay City Treatment plant
was decommissioned
and a new regional Bay
Area Water System was
active as of August 31,
2015. Therefore, an
MOR from September of
2015 was not required
from the Bay City plant
since it was
decommissioned.
MI0000470
Bay City, City Of
CWS
DBP1
10/1/2014 -
9/30/2015
System failed to
submit RAA for
MRDL and State
didn't calculate it
during
compliance
period. Why
wasn't a violation
assigned?
District staff confirmed that
needed RAAs for 4 quarters
from 10/1/14-9/30/15, but
September of 2015 MOR was
not in files. No violation was
assigned.
Not a Discrepancy. The
Bay City Treatment plant
was decommissioned
and a new regional Bay
Area Water System was
active as of August 31,
2015. Therefore,
submittal of an MOR for
September of 2015, and
sampling and calculation
of an RAA for the period
of Oct 1, 2014-Sept 30,
2015 was not required
from the Bay City plant
since it was
decommissioned.
86
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
System Name
System
Type
Rule
Date
FR Question
Supporting Details
MI Response
FR Resolution
MI0000518
Beaver Township
cws
DBP1
10/1/2014,
1/1/2015,
4/1/2015,
7/1/2015
Can you please
provide RAA for
MRDL for this
system? It was
not on the list
supplied on-site.
Needed RAAs for 4
quarters from
10/1/2014-9/30/2015.
Due to resource limitations,
MDEQ must prioritize activities.
During the period reviewed,
MDEQ temporarily disinvested
in tracking MRDL RAAs if all
results were below the standard.
Tracking in SDWIS was phased-
in over time, so many of the
districts were tracking in SDWIS
for the period reviewed.
However, this district did not
begin tracking MRDLs in
SDWIS until Oct 2015 (after
period reviewed). Beginning Oct
2015, all CWS districts are
tracking MRDLs & their RAAs
m SDWIS.
Discrepancy stands.
MI0005400
Plymouth
cws
DBP1
10/1/14,
1/1/5, 4/4/15,
7/1/15
System failed to
submit RAA for
MRDL and State
didn't calculate it
during
compliance
period. Why
wasn't a violation
assigned?
Needed RAAs for 4
quarters from 10/1/14 -
9/30/15.
Due to resource limitations,
MDEQ must prioritize activities.
During the period reviewed,
MDEQ. temporarily disinvested
in tracking MRDL RAAs if all
results were below the standard.
Tracking in SDWIS was phased-
in over time, so many of the
districts were tracking in SDWIS
for the period reviewed.
However, this district did not
begin tracking MRDLs in
SDWIS until Oct 2015 (after
period reviewed). Beginning Oct
2015, all CWS districts are
tracking MRDLs & their RAAs
in SDWIS.
Discrepancy stands.
District has started to
calculate this value, as
committed to inFY2016
data limitations plan.
87
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
System Name
System
Type
Rule
Date
FR Question
Supporting Details
MI Response
FR Resolution
MI0000470
Bay City, City Of
cws
ESWT
9/1/2015
System failed to
sample for
turbidity during
compliance
period. Why
wasn't a violation
assigned?
For September of
2015.NoMOR
submitted.
District confirmed results were
not submitted.
Not a Discrepancy. The
Bay City Treatment plant
was decommissioned
and a new regional Bay
Area Water System was
active as of August 31,
2015. Therefore,
sampling and submittal
of an MOR for
September of 2015 was
not required from the
Bay City plant since it
was decommissioned.
MI0000510
Bear Lake, Village
Of
cws
INV
Current
Is TP103 active?
SDWIS/Fed reports
there are 2 wells and 2
TPs, Drinking Water
Watch (DWW)
indicates that TP102 is
active and TP103 is
inactive.
State confirms that DWW is
correct.
Discrepancy stands.
MI0006640
Traverse City, City
Of
cws
INV
Current
Why are number
of service
connections
different between
SDWIS/Fed and
State records?
2014 Sanitary Survey
and DWW show 7,738
and SDWIS/Fed
shows 6,787.
SDWIS was updated, but after
the frozen dataset used in this
DV.
Discrepancy stands for
not submitting inventory
updates in a timely
manner.
MI6120441
The Hop Childcare
Center
NTNCW
S
INV
1/1/2009
Why was
inactivation of
Well 002 not
submitted in an
inventory
update?
An email dated
3/28/16 from the PWS
to MDEQ, which
supplied information
needed for the audit,
reminded the State that
Well 002 was not
being used as the
building does not have
anyone in it.
Facility level activity status is
not reported to SDWIS/Fed,
because it is not trackable in
WaterTrack (other than to
remove the monitoring schedule
for a given source).
Discrepancy stands.
Shortcoming of data
system prevents State
from meeting reporting
requirement.
88
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
System Name
System
Type
Rule
Date
FR Question
Supporting Details
MI Response
FR Resolution
MI6322569
KOA Bathhouse
TNCWS
INV
10/1/2014,
1/1/2015
System failed to
sample during
compliance
period. Why
wasn't a M/R
violation
assigned?
System is listed as
open year-round in
WaterTrack, with
schedule for quarterly
sampling, but no
sample in 4th quarter
2014 or first quarter
2015. Letters provided
suggest camp is
seasonal. Is this a TCR
or inventory/season
discrepancy?
LHD changed system from
seasonal to year round sometime
Nov-Dec 2015
WaterTrack does not capture
historical operational periods.
The system was seasonal until
Nov-Dec 2015. No quarterly
samples were required while
closed in Oct-Dec 2014 and Jan-
Mar 2015.
Not a discrepancy. This
was added to the final
report as a discrepancy in
inventory (instead of a
T CR discrepancy) due to
state database
limitations. TCR
monitoring was
performed as required,
when the system was
open, but the FR team
previously could not
confirm exactly when the
facility was operating.
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
CWS
IESWT
R
10/1/2014 -
9/30/2015
How many
samples were
taken to
determine
compliance with
requirement to
meet 0.3 NTU in
95% of samples
of finished water
(CFE) each
month? How was
compliance with
the 0.3 NTU
CFE determined?
The PWS has two
confluence points in
the TP which we
interpret to be IFEs,
and the # of samples
collected for each IFE
are recorded. The
Point of Entry Plant
Tap NTU column we
interpret to be the CFE
result, but nothing
indicates the # of
samples collected for
that column.
The City indicates both points
are CFEs. The plant has 2
separate banks of filters, each
with a CFE. The number of
samples collected for each CFE
is recorded on the MOR. An
example page is provided
(MI0002310_Flint_MORExampl
e).
Discrepancy stands. The
system is out of
compliance with the CFE
monitoring requirement.
To meet the CFE
requirements, turbidity
samples representative of
the system's filtered
water prior to
disinfection must be
taken. While there are
options for how the CFE
can be determined, in all
cases either ONE value
must be calculated, or
ONE sampling location
used.
89
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
System Name
System
Type
Rule
Date
FR Question
Supporting Details
MI Response
FR Resolution
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
CWS
LT2R
12/1/2013
Why was no
violation issued
for failure to
submit a
sampling
schedule for
initial source
water monitoring
when the water
system changed
their source
water?
Schedule for when
monitoring was to take
place must be
approved by primacy
agency, sampling
schedule was due 3
months prior to system
collecting their first
samples.
Ask EPA Region 5. The region,
not MDEQ, directly
implemented the first round of
LT2ESWTR monitoring.
Discrepancy stands. EPA
Region 5 had
responsibility for
LT2ESWTR for the first
round of monitoring for
larger systems, and in
2010 transitioned
LT2ESWTR
implementation to the
State (which is before
this system was required
to complete initial source
water monitoring).
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
cws
LT2R
10/1/2014 -
9/30/2015
Why did the
system not
conduct initial
source water
monitoring for
LT2ESWTR?
There is a letter in
2015 stating they must
conduct 2nd round
source water
monitoring, but we
could not find any plan
for the initial round.
As a new source the
monitoring was
required on a State
approved schedule.
Ask EPA Region 5. The region,
not MDEQ, directly
implemented the first round of
LT2ESWTR monitoring.
Discrepancy stands. EPA
Region 5 had
responsibility for
LT2ESWTR for the first
round of monitoring for
larger systems, and in
2010 transitioned
LT2ESWTR
implementation to the
State (which is before
this system was required
to complete initial source
water monitoring).
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
CWS
LT2R
10/1/2014 -
9/30/2015
Why was no MR
violation issued
for failure to
conduct E. coli
sampling
according to the
sampling plan?
Sampling required for
2 years and should
have been on schedule
to be conducted from
3/1/2014-2/28/2016,
based on plant online
3/1/2014.
Ask EPA Region 5. The region,
not MDEQ, directly
implemented the first round of
LT2ESWTR monitoring.
Discrepancy stands. EPA
Region 5 had
responsibility for
LT2ESWTR for the first
round of monitoring for
larger systems, and in
2010 transitioned
LT2ESWTR
implementation to the
State (which is before
this system was required
to complete initial source
water monitoring).
90
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
System Name
System
Type
Rule
Date
FR Question
Supporting Details
MI Response
FR Resolution
MI1320157
Battle Creek
Baptist Temple
TNCWS
NIT
1/1/2014
Sampling results
were not found.
Why wasn't an
M/R violation
assigned?
No nitrate sample was
found for 2014, or
included as of the
January of 2016 data
freeze.
Violation was generated very
late inWaterTrack on 1/7/2016
and not submitted to SDWIS
until February of 2016.
Discrepancy stands.
MI6120441
The Hop Childcare
Center
NTNCW
S
NIT
4/1/2013,
7/1/2013
System failed to
complete
quarterly
monitoring after
a result greater
than 1/2 the
MCL. Why
weren't
violations
assigned?
1/14/2013 nitrate
sample result for Well
002 was 7.4 mg/L.
Expected 3 additional
quarters before system
could be reduced to
annual monitoring
again. (System
sampled in fourth
quarter 2013 and first
three quarters of
2014.)
No reason is available for
LHD/DEQ failure to require
quarterly monitoring April -
Sept. of 2013.
Discrepancy stands.
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
CWS
PBCU
1/1/2015-
6/30/2015
Why was
2/18/2015
sample number
LLF54945 from
site with whole
house filter
excluded from
calculation of
90th percentile?
Site address was
Browning Avenue. For
further details, see
Chapter 2 of this
report titled Review of
Michigan's Lead and
Copper Rule, which
discusses scenarios for
calculating the 90th
percentile value based
on data that may have
been incorrectly
excluded from the 90th
percentile lead
calculation.
Question was not sent to State
but discussed with EPA lead
audit FR team.
Discrepancy stands.
Samples from sites with
whole house filter
(unless the filter was
designed to remove
inorganics) should be
included in 90th
percentile calculations.
Please see Chapter 2 of
this report, Review of
Michigan's Lead and
Copper Rule,
"Invalidated samples,
January to June of 2015"
for additional details.
MI0005400
Plymouth
CWS
PBCU
July 2011
Can you explain
the difference
between the
copper 90th
percentile value
in the files and in
SDWIS/State for
samples
collected in July
of 2011?
In 2011 copper result
is recorded in the
paper files as 0.097
mg/L, but
SDWIS/State shows
0.057 mg/L.
This was a data entry error/typo
in SDWIS (typed a 5 instead of a
9). All documents in file are
correct (0.097 mg/L) and
correspondence back to the
supply was correct (see doc titled
"MI0005400_Plymouth_2011_P
bCu Letter").
Discrepancy stands.
Also, a separate
discrepancy was not
issued, but the team
noted a calculation error
in 2008, which is outside
period of review. Value
will be corrected in
SDWIS/Fed.
91
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
System Name
System
Type
Rule
Date
FR Question
Supporting Details
MI Response
FR Resolution
MI0006232
Spring Lake Club
Condominiums
cws
PBCU
10/1/2014,
4/1/15
System failed to
submit consumer
notice for
samples
collected during
compliance
period. Why
wasn't a violation
assigned?
For sampling
conducted July -
December of 2014 and
January - June of 2015
See docs titled "MI0006232_Jul-
Dec2014 LC ConsumerNotice"
and "MI0006232_Jan-
Jun2015 LC ConsumerNotice."
Discrepancy stands. Both
documents were received
in November of 2015,
but due in December of
2014 (for July-December
of 2014) and September
of 2015 (for January-
June of 2015).
MI6120441
The Hop Childcare
Center
NTNCW
S
PBCU
1/1/2011,
1/1/2014
LCR samples
were collected
outside of the
summer months
of June through
September. Why
wasn't a violation
assigned?
System is on triennial
schedule. From 2010
to 2013, sampled
annually in December,
January, February, or
March and sometimes
more than once per
year. (Assumed
violations for 2008-
2010 and 2011-2013).
During the period reviewed
(2010-2013), MDEQ temporarily
disinvested in ensuring
NTNCWSs sampled for lead and
copper during the June - Sept
timeframe. Beginning in FY
2014, MDEQ began ensuring
NTNCWSs sampled for lead and
copper during required 4-month
timeframe.
Discrepancy stands. R5
comment
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
NTNCW
S
PBCU
10/1/2010,
10/1/2013
LCR samples
were collected
outside of the
summer months
of June through
September. Why
wasn't a violation
assigned? Also,
only one
sampling point
was sampled (as
required.) Can
you explain why
only one tap is
sampled?
In 2010, samples
collected in October.
In 2010, samples
collected in December.
During the period reviewed
(2010-2013), MDEQ.
temporarily disinvested in
ensuring NTNCWSs sampled for
lead and copper during the June
- Sept timeframe. Beginning in
FY 2014, MDEQ began ensuring
NTNCWSs sampled for lead and
copper during required 4-month
timeframe. Picture of result
provided: only one drinking
water outlet.
Discrepancy stands - late
sample collection in both
years
92
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
System Name
System
Type
Rule
Date
FR Question
Supporting Details
MI Response
FR Resolution
MI6322569
KOA Bathhouse
TNCWS
PNR
6/13/2015,
7/15/15
Proof of public
notification was
removed by PWS
after posting
during two
separate site
inspections
(6/29/15 and
7/14/2015). Why
wasn't a violation
assigned?
Notified of violation
6/12/2015 &
7/14/2015. County
Health Department
confirmed that the PN
which had been posted
was removed before
RTC. Public
complaints led to two
separate site visits,
plus county was
closely monitoring
situation and
confirmed PN was
removed. Issue was
addressed in
subsequent BCA in
July.
PN violation was not issued.
Partly, this is due to database
limitations on reporting.
Discrepancy stands.
MI6120441
The Hop Childcare
Center
NTNCW
S
SOC
1/1/2013
System failed to
resample during
compliance
period after
sample was
invalidated. Why
wasn't a violation
assigned?
2013 lab results have
note "might not be
able to be used for
compliance purposes
because sample pH did
not meet method
requirements". Hand-
written note (pg 9),
confirms cannot use
SOC results for well
002.
No reason is available for
LHD/DEQ failure to require
resample in the next quarter.
The commented or flagged SOC
sample for which a replacement
might have been requested was
not needed anyway. The source
(002) and building were not in
use, and since have been sold.
There may have been a delay in
updating the monitoring
schedule to reflect this. SOC
sampling at the other building
was completed successfully.
Discrepancy stands.
Requirement is to
resample in the
compliance period after
the sample was
invalidated, and well 02
appears to have been
active at that time.
93
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
System Name
System
Type
Rule
Date
FR Question
Supporting Details
MI Response
FR Resolution
MI0000470
Bay City, City Of
CWS
SWTR
9/1/2015
System failed to
sample for entry
point disinfectant
residual during
compliance
period. Why
wasn't a M/R
violation
assigned?
For September of
2015. No MOR
submitted.
District confirmed results were
not submitted.
Not a Discrepancy. The
Bay City Treatment plant
was decommissioned
and a new regional Bay
Area Water System was
active as of August 31,2.
Therefore, sampling and
submittal of an MOR for
September of 2015 was
not required from the
Bay City plant since it
was decommissioned.
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
cws
SWTR
10/1/2014 -
9/30/2015
Why was no
M/R violation
issued for failing
to submit the
monthly
operating report
(MOR) by the
10th day of the
following
month?
The "date received"
stamp on the MOR for
each month in the
review period was past
the 10th date of the
following month,
which is the deadline
for report submission.
Due to resource limitations, the
DEQ must prioritize program
activities. During the period
reviewed, MDEQ. temporarily
disinvested in reporting a M/R
violation if the supply monitored
as required, but reported late
(after the due date), thus there
may be no further action taken.
Discrepancy stands for
late reporting.
MI0000470
Bay City, City Of
CWS
TCR
9/1/2015
System failed to
sample during
compliance
period. Why
wasn't a M/R
violation
assigned?
District staff confirmed that
MOR with TCR summary was
not in files and no samples were
submitted.
Not a Discrepancy. The
Bay City Treatment plant
was decommissioned
and a new regional Bay
Area Water System was
active as of August 31,2.
Therefore, sampling and
in September of 2015
was not required from
the Bay City plant since
it was decommissioned.
MI0000470
Bay City, City Of
cws
TCR
3/1/2015
No indication of
when March of
2015 sampling
results were
received. Can
you please
provide
documentation?
District staff confirmed they
cannot determine date received.
Discrepancy stands. M/R
violation should have
been assigned.
94
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
System Name
System
Type
Rule
Date
FR Question
Supporting Details
MI Response
FR Resolution
MI0000510
Bear Lake, Village
Of
cws
TCR
8/1/2015
T CR sampling
results were
received late.
Why wasn't a
M/R violation
assigned?
August results arrived
9/11/2015. (No
response required - we
know this is a
temporary
disinvestment.)
Due to resource limitations,
DEQ must prioritize program
activities. During the period
reviewed, MDEQ. temporarily
disinvested in reporting a M/R
violation if the supply monitored
as required, but reported late
(after the due date.), thus there
may be no further action taken.
Sampling was conducted as
required, but results were
received 1 day late. No further
action was taken.
Discrepancy stands.
MI0000518
Beaver Township
cws
TCR
3/1/2015,
9/1/2015
No indication of
when T CR
sampling results
were received.
Can you please
provide
documentation?
For March and
September of 2015
compliance periods
TCR results are reported on
seller's MORs. March of 2015
MOR is from Bay City and
includes email w/ date received
(last page of file titled
"MI0000518_BeaverTwpTCR-
BayCityMOR Mar2015 date
receipt"). Sept 2015 MOR is
from Bay Area Water and
includes email w/ date received
(last page of file titled
"MI0000518_BeaverTwpTCR-
BayAreaMOR Sep2015 date
receipt").
Not a discrepancy for
March of 2015 but M/R
violation stands for
September of 2015 as
report was submitted
late, on October 13,
2015.
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
cws
TCR
10/1/2014 -
9/30/2015
No indication of
when sampling
results were
received. Can
you please
provide
documentation?
Although not a
required reporting
field, the date
summary received
column is blank in
DWW.
Date stamp is on MOR. Due to
resource limitations, the DEQ
must prioritize program
activities. During the period
reviewed, MDEQ. temporarily
disinvested in reporting a M/R
violation if the supply monitored
as required, but reported late
(after the due date), thus there
may be no further action taken.
Discrepancy stands. M/R
should have been
assigned for late
reporting.
95
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
System Name
System
Type
Rule
Date
FR Question
Supporting Details
MI Response
FR Resolution
MI1320157
Battle Creek
Baptist Temple
TNCWS
TCR
10/1/2014,
1/1/2015,
4/1/2015,
7/1/2015
System is on
annual sampling
schedule
(according to
WaterTrack) and
quarterly
(according to
letter in file) and
sampling results
were not found
for 2014 or 2015.
Why wasn't an
M/R violation
assigned?
System last sampled
on 12/17/2013 and had
a positive total
coliform. System did
not sample again until
January of 2016, and
did not collect 5
routine samples as
required in the month
following a positive.
PWS was placed on quarterly
after FY15 LHD program
review. The 12/3/2014 letter says
quarterly: WaterTrack was not
updated and system did not
receive quarterly monitoring
reminders or violations. Violation
was generated very late in
WaterTrack on 1/7/2016 and not
submitted to SDWIS until
February of 2016.
Discrepancies remain.
The EV report also notes
that GWR triggered
source water samples
were not taken within 24
hours in December of
2013, and a violation
was not issued (this is
outside of the FR review
period.)
MI6322569
KOA Bathhouse
TNCWS
TCR
10/1/2014,
1/1/2015
System failed to
sample during
compliance
period. Why
wasn't a M/R
violation
assigned?
System is listed as
open year-round in
WaterTrack, with
schedule for quarterly
sampling, but no
sample in 4th quarter
2014 or first quarter
2015. Letters provided
suggest camp is
seasonal. Is this a TCR
or inventory/season
discrepancy?
LHD changed system from
seasonal to year-round sometime
Nov-Dec 2015.
This is an inventory issue, not a
TCR issue. WaterTrack does not
capture historical operational
periods. The system was
seasonal until Nov-Dec 2015. No
quarterly samples were required
while closed in Oct-Dec 2014
and Jan-Mar 2015.
Not a discrepancy for
TCR, but is a
discrepancy for
inventory due to
database limitations (see
listing above).
MI6322569
KOA Bathhouse
TNCWS
TCR
6/1/2015,
7/1/2015
Pattern of total
coliform
positives
indicates a
monthly MCL
occurred - why
wasn't one
assigned?
Only an acute MCL
was reported for June,
when a monthly MCL
also occurred. No
MCL was reported for
July when both acute
and monthly MCLs
occurred.
Separate Acute MCL violations
were reported for June and July
of 2015, although the latter may
not have been available at the
time of review. WaterTrack is
not capable of generating more
than one MCL violation per
month, and what gets generated
is the most egregious of
violations per period.
Discrepancy stands. Both
monthly and acute MCLs
should have been
reported for each month,
instead of just acute
violations. In addition,
the EV in Chapter 3
noted that the LHD
should have issued the
system a TCR minor
repeat M/R Type 26
violation for only
collecting 2 of the 4
required repeat samples
in 6/2015.
96
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
System Name
System
Type
Rule
Date
FR Question
Supporting Details
MI Response
FR Resolution
MI6322569
KOA Bathhouse
TNCWS
TCR
7/1/2015
Acute MCL
violation was
assigned, but was
not reported to
SDWIS/Fed -
why not?
For July of 2015.
June and July MCL violations
are in SDWIS/Fed.
Both violations were generated
the day after they occurred, and
were submitted to SDWIS
during the ensuing routine,
quarterly update. For the June
violation, the ensuing quarterly
submittal was 8/27/2015, while
for the July violation, the
ensuing submittal was
11/25/2015.
Not a discrepancy. The
end of the quarter for the
June violation was June
30, with EPA Region 5
expecting data by August
30, 2015; the end of the
quarter for the July
violation is September
30, 2015; and EPA
Region 5 expected the
submittal to SDWIS-
FED by November 30,
2015, which was met.
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TNCWS
TCR
7/1/2015-
9/30/2015
No indication of
when sampling
results were
received. Can
you please
provide
documentation?
For quarter 7/1/2015-
9/30/2015.
There is no sample for the July -
Sept. 2015 time frame, but this
violation can be closed out with
the 1/22/16 sample (City of
Manistique), with a date stamp
showing "RECEIVED Jan. 26
2016 LMAS" and sanitarian's
initials and internal review date
Major M/R stands for
7/1/2015-9/30/2015, as it
was not reported to EPA.
(System was RTC in
January of 2016.)
MI7020186
Sandy Point Beach
House
TNCWS
TCR
10/1/2014
Violation for
major routine
M/R was
assigned, but
why was
violation not
reported to
SDWIS/Fed?
For fourth quarter
2014.
There was one assigned by the
LHD for December of 2014.
However, the notification for
December of 2014 was not sent
until 2/5/2015.
Discrepancy stands for
late reporting of
violation. The EV report
also notes that GWR
triggered source water
samples were not taken
within 24 hours in June
of 2014, and a violation
was not issued (this was
outside of the review
period of the FR.)
97
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
System Name
System
Type
Rule
Date
FR Question
Supporting Details
MI Response
FR Resolution
MI7020186
Sandy Point Beach
House
TNCWS
TCR
1/1/2015,
4/1/2015
System failed to
sample during
compliance
periods. Why
wasn't a routine
M/R violation
assigned?
For first and second
quarters 2015. (Note
State already
responded to EV
question that no M/R
violation was assigned
for March of 2015. So
DV only has question
for second quarter
2015.)
LHD agreed violations should
have been issued. Two staffing
changes in this window led to
overlooked violations. When
second person reviewed history,
violation was noted, and visit
occurred on 8/10/2015. Also
rescinded permission for reduced
monitoring - permitted in
January of 2016 - and placed
back on quarterly monitoring in
April of 2016.
Discrepancies stand.
98
-------
rv.
~o
•o
• •>
U c;
n
c
S
r
i* %<
r. •
V>*
*r
s
V
y
S
ft
A '~
ft*
SI
*?
s
}
5'
3»"
«>•
\
o
Vi
3.
Ji
4<
•.»
s
V
5
£
o
X
X?
z s J
,5 3?
* 2 '«
» 5 £ a
i S g U
'S ~> —
•• v» '•
rr-4>2
- m".
-J
o
! in nn
~~~~
QCIDG
yi
s
~3
" ~ f, 5*
15 S Sj "
. £, S. ^
¦ ~ V 2
|?2'
¦s
s
MiS
r. —
<•« —
S.|5 -
_. K
&r,« 3
*2 ? r>
^ V* \? s '
= Si I
'f? S £
* »
3'5
II
is
i* ^
a.
n ;r i
s
OK
A
r"
9f
A
>
-1
S
s
i
c
si
r-
O
3
•?
V
Ce»
c
f^
••
s
<1
A
All
/Q
w
1 +
rt
~•v
c
—
il
V?
i_
s
CL
~y
•3
n
S
5"
d.
•->
v*
•j
¦-J
-
•v»
v .
Six
r
5 3
V ~
fr
5 "3
li c
«• —
2®
n' ~.
c
^is
X
3
3
—i A
ru "•
* I
2 o.
S
nnnnnnnnri
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~
p£
||S
'*"2
r? > = e a 3
s* « ~" 2
II
«- ,= a H9 £ y
« fi S
£7 2
2 w/ >*4
•3
€
•3
a
•
-9
Mj
i...
<
t
>#*
•I'
J5
Vr
A
«*r
^•y
n
&
%
r$
V
i-i
fj
•»i
nJ
o
>CI
~~r
"'T
r, .A
*7*
S a
£§"
ft S. ... S
n u
i o
»> 2
S £.
•? s
>-. *•
^ li/
^ —
¦3
35
2.
tc
3:?,*-
?G3
•< * 2
-* a.
r» .—
n. "<
5*
o
s'S
3
& 5
3 a
S£a
r*
**
l~l a>
:t
«5
— y-
— CJ
3
<»' ;is
a "
u ^
— »
— «
3' 5
a o*
is
=• S«»
E s "
u *
& i0
3 5,
a •<
<~1 s
c ¦••
— K
H
w
-o
£
-) T»
O '1
fl 2
3 ^
3 -J
* 5
it
" /55
4'f
^ 3
v. n
N
irfr
I 1 I.
¦3-^S
;r — 2 6 ¦ '« T y 1
*" ' ~
K .
- ?
3 —
^ •—
*< ?
« ."J G.
Si s = §
»» d -
~ 2 '-* a'
U S :. 5r
- ^ n
it
s T
£ O
5 52
fl
a cj
7, 6U
« o
S- C
it> f
r.o
n -
I
c-S"
S' h. 5
?2f.
g?s
C3 2 ^
2 S ? a
s
v>
»
sc
1
a
•*5
c
«v«
o>
t
¦n
a'
ro.
ru
j> ^ —
>15
— ST
i'lcinnnnnnnnnnnnon
~~r.ix]r:oDGrxioa(:xo
cxjo:xjrjc:imDCiaac:oa
o
§
a*
r*
I
'£
I
5 a o
'• s a.
i^i
o
i —
?i o
** —
>
5
E
2
c
1
d5
3
S
•3
i
o
i.
•m
o
•tz
r~,
0
>)
= *a
2 a
- i
> 5?
» c
r» -?
a 3
r-.
?3
8
sa
n ~~ ~~
ci gd on
CI Gp UP
9
n
M
3
n
&»
tA
O
S
•»
35
5
5*
f
s
5J
'$
si
~
~
n
o
?i
S a.
c. n
'¦» 3
r>
s*
s:S?
-I
rv ®
' "*l
s a
^ a.
1.1?
s*r »
n> s
a a
»j
» tj
~G
GD
o
ULJ5
<
V,
I w
|ie
;!>
D
Zi
o
rv i<
9
r*^
- o
? 3
•i
71
•3
*3
fNj"
^ ft)
9
VI
• X2
~C:
rt*
(-V
ft
x-
•»*
A'
V)
V*
fD
n
ii"
V w*
n
/v"
'/;
V-
7T
fo
o
9<
PD
S
D
m
O
D
s
cro
&
-o
->
o
©
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Appendix 1-F: Summary of PWSS Data Management Limitation FY 2013 - 2016
FY20 ] 3 FINAL GENERAL ARDP
Summary of Public Water Supply Supervision Program (PWSS)
Data Management Limitations for Fiscal Year 2013
Michigan's PWSS program utilizes several data management tools for tracking and reporting
program activities. SDWIS/State is the primary database for the Community Water Supply
(CWS) program and WaterTrack is the primary database for the Noncommunity Water Supply
(NCWS) program. While these databases provide adequate tracking and reporting capabilities
for most program requirements, a few data management challenges remain. Both the CWS and
NCWS programs recognize the need to address these limitations and are working towards
solutions. Below is a summary of the program's current data management limitations.
OVERALL PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM
Electronic Reporting
MDEQ does not currently have adequate electronic reporting capabilities. While the NCWS
program does have electronic reporting of samples run by the state lab, most other reporting
remains a largely manual process. MDEQ has been developing an electronic reporting system
for several years, but competing priorities and resource limitations have delayed the project.
MDEQ continues to work towards this goal.
IT Support
Adequate IT support is a continuing challenge. Financial and staff limitations within the PWSS
program and the Department of Technology, Management and Budget are an ongoing obstacle.
The extent to which MDEQ can address the data management limitations described in this
document is strongly impacted by this issue.
COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM
Entry Point Chemical Monitoring (Inorganics, VOC, SOC, Rad)
The CWS program does not track entry point chemical monitoring in SDWIS/State at this time.
This is primarily because SDWIS/State does not handle schedules the same way the MDEQ
does and because electronic reporting is still unavailable. As a result, data entry and
compliance determination for this monitoring is not fully automated. However, SDWIS/State is
used to track and report violations.
Ground Water Rule Sanitary Survey Tracking & Reporting
The CWS program has not yet reported GWR sanitary surveys to SDWIS/Fed. Now that
SDWIS/State 3.1 is installed, the program will transition sanitary survey tracking from an add-on
database to SDWIS/State in early FY13.
NONCOMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM
Lead and Copper Rule:
WaterTrack does not support all recent requirements of the revised rule.
90th percentile calculations
WaterTrack only allows the calculation of a 90th percentile where, within a group of samples
collected at a water system, at least one of the sample results exceeds the action level.
57
100
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
FY2013 FINAL GENERAL ARDP
Otherwise, there is no opportunity for the user to calculate a 90th percentile and store the result
as a record to be included in Federal reporting.
LCR Consumer Notification
The current database does not support tracking and reporting compliance with this rule
requirement. During FY13, this requirement will be tracked only for schools and daycares, and
tracking will take place outside WaterTrack.
Ground Water Rule:
WaterTrack only partially supports tracking and reporting compliance with this rule.
Inventory
Sanitary surveys: Most of the required elements are being captured in the database and
reported to SDWIS. Deficiency corrective actions are captured in comment fields, but are not
capable of being reported to SDWIS.
Violations
Health-based violations can be tracked in the database, although not conveniently; one cannot
generate a violation record from within the database. External, manual handling and reporting
of violation records is beginning to be implemented.
M/R violations can be tracked in the database, but one cannot generate a violation record from
within the database. External, manual handling and reporting of violation records is beginning
to be implemented.
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule:
WaterTrack only partially supports tracking and reporting compliance with this rule.
Violations
MCL violations for bromate, TTHM, and HAA5 can be tracked in the database; violation records
will soon be generated and reported from within the database.
M/R violations for bromate, TTHM, and HAA5 can be tracked in the database; violation records
will soon be generated and reported from within the database.
MRDL violations cannot be tracked in the database. External, manual handling and reporting of
MRDLs is not even being considered at this point.
58
101
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Summary of Public Water Supply Supervision Program (PWSS)
Data Management Limitations for Fiscal Year 2014
Michigan's PWSS program utilizes several data management tools for tracking and reporting
program activities, SDWIS/State is the primary database for the Community Water Supply
(CWS} program and WaterTrack is the primary database for the Noncommunity Water Supply
(NCWS) program. While these databases provide adequate tracking and reporting capabilities
for most program requirements, a few data management challenges remain. Both.the CWS and
NCWS programs recognize the need to address these limitations and are working towards
solutions. Below is a summary of the program's current data management limitations,
OVERALL PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM
Electronic Reporting of Sample Data
MDEQ does not currently have adequate electronic sample data reporting capabilities. While
the NCWS program does have electronic reporting of samples run by the state lab, most other
reporting remains a largely manual process. MDEQ has been developing an electronic
reporting system for several years, but competing priorities and resource limitations have
delayed the project, MDEQ continues to work towards this goal.
IT Support
Adequate IT support is a continuing challenge. Financial and staff limitations within the PWSS
program and the Department of Technology, Management and Budget are an ongoing obstacle.
The extent to which MDEQ can address the data management limitations described in this
document is strongly impacted by this issue.
COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM
Entry Point Chemical Monitoring (Inorganics. VOC, SOC. Rad)
The CWS program does not track entry point chemical monitoring in SDWIS/State at this time.
This is primarily because SDWIS/State does not handle schedules the same way the MDEQ
does and because electronic reporting is still unavailable. As a result, data entry and
compliance determination for this monitoring is not fully automated. However, SDWIS/State is
used to track and report violations for all rules.
NONCOMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM
Overall NCWS Program Compliance Determination and Violation Reporting Limitations
Below are the Rules for which the Program's electronic tracking and reporting capabilities are
limited. In the first part of Fiscal Year 2014, the Program will continue devising a means to
accomplish, on an interim basis, much of what is listed as a limitation.
Lead and Copper Rule:
WaterTrack does not support all recent requirements of the revised rule.
90th percentile calculations
WaterTrack only allows the calculation of a 90th percentile where, within a group of samples
collected at a water system, at least one of the sample results exceeds the action level.
Otherwise, there is no opportunity for the user to calculate a 90th percentile and store the result
as a record to be included in Federal reporting.
102
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
LCR Consumer Notification
The current database does not support tracking and reporting compliance with this rule
requirement. During FY14, this requirement will be tracked only for schools and daycares, and
tracking wili take place outside WaterTrack.
Ground Water Rule:
-WaterTrack only partially supports tracking-and reporting compliance with this:.ruie.
Inventory
Sanitary surveys: Most of the required elements are being captured in the database and
reported to SDWIS. Deficiency corrective actions are captured in comment fields, but are not
capable of being reported to SDWIS.
Violations
Health-based violations can be tracked in the database, although not conveniently; one cannot
generate a violation record from within the database. Externa!, manual handling and reporting
of violation records is being implemented.
M/R violations can be tracked in the database, but one cannot generate a violation record from
within the database. External, manual handling and reporting of violation records is being
implemented.
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule:
WaterTrack only partially supports tracking and reporting compliance with this rule.
Violations
MCL violations for bromate, TTHM, and HAA5 can be tracked in the database; violation records
can be generated and reported from within the database.
M/R violations for bromate, TTHM, and HAA5 can be tracked in the database; violation records
can be generated and reported from within the database.
MRDL violations cannot be tracked in the database. External, manual handling and reporting of
MRDLs is not even being considered at this point.
103
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
FY201.5 GENERAL ARDP
Summary of Public Water Supply Supervision Program (PWSS)
Data Management Limitations for Fiscal Year 2015
Michigan's PWSS program utilizes several data management tools for tracking and reporting
program activities. SDWIS/State is the primary database for the Community Water Supply
(CWS) program and WaterTrack is the primary database for the Noncommunity Water Supply
(NCWS) program. While these databases provide adequate tracking and reporting capabilities
for most- program requirements, a few-data management-ehaUenges-remain., Boththe6WS and.
NCWS programs recognize the need to address these limitations and are working towards
solutions. Below is a summary of the program's current data management limitations.
OVERALL PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM
Electronic Reporting of Sample Data
MDEQ does not currently have adequate electronic sample data reporting capabilities. While
the NCWS program does have electronic reporting of samples run by the state lab, most other
reporting remains a largely manual process. MDEQ has been developing an electronic
reporting system for several years, but competing priorities and resource limitations have
delayed the project MDEQ continues to work towards this goal.
IT Support
Adequate IT support is a continuing challenge. Financial and staff limitations within the PWSS
program and the Department of Technology, Management and Budget are an ongoing obstacle.
The extent to which MDEQ can address the data management limitations described in this
document is strongly impacted by this issue.
COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM
Entry Point Chemical Monitoring (Inorganics. VOC, SOC, Rad)
The CWS program does not track entry point chemical monitoring in SDWIS/State at this time.
This is primarily because SDWIS/State does not handle schedules the same way the MDEQ
does and because electronic reporting is still unavailable. As a result, data entry and
compliance determination for this monitoring is not fully automated. However, in an effort to
consolidate data tracking and prepare for future transition to SDWIS/Prime, the CWS program
will re-evaluate this issue and expects to transition entry point tracking to SDWIS/State.
NONCOMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM
Overall NCWS Program Compliance Determination and Violation Reporting Limitations
Below are the Rules for which the Program's electronic tracking and reporting capabilities are
limited. In the first part of Fiscal Year 2015, the Program will work with DTMB on devising a
means to accomplish, on an interim basis, much of what is listed as a limitation. The proposal
that DTMB is evaluating is to set up a flow of data from WaterTrack into SDWIS-State, and to
maintain both databases, using the latter to cover much of what cannot be accomplished in
WaterTrack.
December 29. 2015 62
104
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
FY2015 GENERAL ARDP
Lead and Copper Rule:
WaterTrack does not support all recent requirements of the revised rule.
90th percentile calculations
WaterTrack only allows the calculation of a 90th percentile where, within a group of samples
collected at a water system, at least one of the sample results exceeds the action level.
Otherwise, there is no opportunity for the user to calculate a 90th percentile and store the result
as.a.recordio-b^jncludedAn-Jiedecal reporting. .... ....... . ,
LCR Consumer Notification
The current database does not support tracking and reporting compliance with this rule
requirement. During FY15, this requirement will be tracked only for schools and daycares, and
tracking will take place outside WaterTrack.
Ground Water Rule:
WaterTrack only partially supports tracking and reporting compliance with this rule.
Inventory
Sanitary surveys: Most of the required elements are being captured in the database and
reported to SDWIS. Deficiency corrective actions are captured in comment fields, but are not
capable of being reported to SDWIS.
Violations
Health-based violations can be tracked in the database, although not conveniently; one cannot
generate a violation record from within the database. External, manual handling and reporting
of violation records is being implemented.
M/R violations can be tracked in the database, but one cannot generate a violation record from
within the database. External, manual handling and reporting of violation records is being
implemented.
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule:
WaterTrack only partially supports tracking and reporting compliance with this rule.
Violations
MCL violations for bromate, TTHM, and HAA5 can be tracked in the database; violation records
can be generated and reported from within the database.
M/R violations for bromate, TTHM, and HAA5 can be tracked in the database; violation records
can be generated and reported from within the database.
MRDL violations cannot be tracked in the database. External, manual handling and reporting of
MRDLs is not being considered at this point.
December 29, 2015
105
63
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
FY2016 GENERAL ARDP
Summary of Public Water Supply Supervision Program (PWSS)
Data Management Limitations for Fiscal Year 2016
Michigan's PWSS program utilizes several data management tools for tracking and reporting
program activities. SDWIS/State is the primary database for the Community Water Supply
(CWS) program and WaterTrack is the primary database for the Noncommunity Water Supply
(NCWS) program. While these databases provide adequate tracking and reporting capabilities
¦ foremost program requirements, a few data management challenges remainwBotWhe CWS and -.—
NCWS programs recognize the need to address these limitations and are working towards
solutions. Below is a summary of the program's current data management [imitations.
OVERALL PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM
Electronic Reporting of Sample Data
MDEQ does not currently have adequate electronic sample data reporting capabilities. While
the NCWS program does have electronic reporting of samples run by the state lab, most other
reporting remains a largely manual process. MDEQ has been developing an electronic
reporting system for several years, but competing priorities and resource limitations have
delayed the project. MDEQ continues to work towards this goal.
IT Support
Adequate IT support is a continuing challenge. Financial and staff limitations within the PWSS
program and the Department of Technology, Management and Budget are an ongoing obstacle.
The extent to which MDEQ can address the data management limitations described in this
document is strongly impacted by this issue.
COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM
Entry Point Chemical Monitoring (inorganics, VOC, SOC. Rad)
The CWS program does not track entry point chemical monitoring in SDWIS/State at this time.
This is primarily because SDWIS/State does not handle schedules the same way the MDEQ
does and because electronic reporting is still unavailable. As a result, data entry and
compliance determination for this monitoring is not fully automated. However, in an effort to
consolidate data tracking and prepare for future transition to SDWIS/Prime, the CWS program
plans to transition entry point tracking to SDWIS/State.
NONCOMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM
Overall NCWS Program Compliance Determination and Violation Reporting Limitations
Below are rules for which the NCWS Program's electronic tracking and reporting capabilities are
limited. In the first part of Fiscal Year 2016, the program will work with DTMB, EPA-HQ, and
SAIC on establishing a means to accomplish, on an interim basis, much of what is listed as a
limitation. A second instance of SDWIS/State (SDWIS/State-NC) will be deployed allowing flow
of data from WaterTrack to SDWIS/State. The plan is to maintain both databases, using the
latter to submit the program's quarterly data to SDWIS/ODS, and to include many of the'
violation types that cannot be reported by WaterT rack. There will be limited SDWIS/State-NC
users at the State level, while all local health department (LHD) staff will continue using only
WaterT rack.
November 2015 63
106
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking W ater Program
FY2016 GENERAL ARDP
Lead and Copper Rule:
WaterTrack does not support all recent requirements of the revised rule.
90th percentile calculations
WaterTrack only allows the calculation of a 90th percentile where, within a group of samples
collected at a water system, at least one of the sample results exceeds the action level.
Otherwise, there is- ^opportunity ior_the user,-to.- calculate a 90th;-percentile and store the result,^...
as a record to be included in Federal reporting.
LCR Consumer Notification
The current database does not support tracking and reporting compliance with this rule
requirement. During FY16, this requirement will be tracked for nontransient supplies, but
tracking will take place outside WaterTrack.
Ground Water Rule:
WaterTrack only partially supports tracking arid reporting compliance with this rule.
Inventory
Sanitary surveys: Most of the required elements are being captured in the database and
reported to SDWIS. Deficiency corrective actions are captured in comment fields, but are not
capable of being reported to SDWIS.
Violations
Health-based violations can be tracked in the database, although not conveniently, but one
cannot generate a violation record from within the database. External, manual handling and
reporting of violation records is being implemented.
M/R violations can be tracked in the database, but one cannot generate a violation record from
within the database. External, manual handling and reporting of violation records is being
implemented.
Disinfectants and DSsinfection Byproducts Rule:
WaterTrack only partially supports tracking and reporting compliance with this rule.
Violations
MCL violations for bromate, TTHM, and HAA5 can be tracked in the database; violation records
can be generated and reported from within the database.
M/R violations for bromate, TTHM, and HAA5 can be tracked in the database; violation records
can be generated and reported from within the database.
MRDL violations cannot be tracked in the database. External, manual handling and reporting of
MRDLs is not being considered at this point.
Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR):
WaterTrack will not be able to accommodate most tracking and reporting under the RTCR.
MDEQ plans to provide guidance and templates, where possible, for LHDs to use for tracking
and reporting to the extent resources allow. During FY16, the NCWS Program plans to
establish a separate, noncommunity version of SDWIS/State for DEQ staff to use for as much
federal reporting as possible.
November 2015 64
107
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Appendix 1-G: Phase ll/V Waiver Policies
January 2014
Distribution Monitoring
GW Sources
SW Sources (including GWUDI)
bacteriological
RoQuired " / month
Required «/ month
Lead 1 Copper
Initial
Required a of sdes / 6 month! for 1 year
Required » of sites/ 6 months for 1 year
Routlno
Roqu'iod roducod ft of eitos / 1, 3, or 9 yoorc'
Required roducod tt of ertoe /1, 3. v O voarc1
Water Quality
Parameters"
Initial
WQP of Rule 7i0b{4Xa): 2 I # of sites 16 mnihs
WQP of Rule 7lOD(4Xa); 2 / # of sites / 6 mntns
Reduced
WQPs of Rule 7i0b<5)(a): 2' reduced " of
sites/ 6 months. 1 year, or 3 vears
WQPs of Rule 7l0b(5Ma>. 2/reduced# of
sites / 6 months. 1 year, or 3 years
Chlorlnoor
Chloram nes
Residual
Same time 8 placo fs
bacteriological samplhg
Same timo & piaco as
Dactenoiogicai sampling1
TTHM & HAA5 (if
adding ct-emcal
dta-nfectait;
Routine
Required tt of sites 1 quarter or 1 year
Required # of sites / quarter or 1 year
Reduced'
Required reduced 0 of s'tos 1 quarter.
1 year, or 3 years
Required reduced « of sites / quartet or 1 year
Chlorite
(if adding CIO,)
Routine
1 set of 3 samplesn 1 month > plant and
1 set of 3 samples" on day follovwg a dally sample
> MCL at EPTDS
i set of 3 sampies;' month 1 plant and
I set of 3 samples! on day following a daty sample
» MCL at EPTDS
Reduced"
^ set of 3 samples 11 quarter / plant
1 set of 3 samples * / quarter / plant
Chlorine
Dioxldo
(f adding CIO,)
If chlorine dioxide at the entry pant »MRDL,
then monitor according to footnote 10.
If chlorine dioxide at tno entry poini >MRDL,
then monitor according to footnote 10.
ootnotes:
Sample* must be collected during June. Ju':y. August or September
Reauire] tor all systems > 50.00C Requited (or all systems i 50 000 during any monitoring period the lead and/or copper
action level is exceeded
System .vith a neurotrophic plate count s 500 /mL is considered o have a detectable disinfectant residual.
Collect annual samples during month of warmest water temperature
Collect samples at a locations representing maximum residence ime
Collect 25% o! samples at locations representing maximum residence time and 75% at locations representing at least
average residence time.
May not reouce TTHM & HAAS if source water IOC > 4.0 mg'i.
Collect * sample near first customer 1 at location representing average residence time and 1 at location representing
maximum residence time
Applies if all samples of the 3-sample set <1.0 mg/l (MCL) for 1 year and supply is not required to monitor due to an
exceedaoce at the EPTDS. Resume routine if 1 c more chlorite samples from 3-sample set >MCL or EPTOS sample >fi/CL
D if chlorne dioxide at the entry point >MRDL. then monitor accorc ng to the following tahle:
If mainta ning a residual In the distribution system using ...
chlorine dioxide or chloramioes
chlorine, and one or more disinfection addition po«nts after the EPTDS aro not
present.
chlorine, and one or more disinfection addition points after the EPTDS are
present..
Then sample for chlorine dioxide at the
following aistrlDmion locations:
3 as close to the firs I customer as possble at
intervals o! at least 6 hours
1 sample near the first customer, 1 each at
locations representing average and maximum
resident time
Nolo: Some contaminants {asbestos. d«oxtn etc,) are waived In part or in full per 1992/93 monttonng waiver program.
103
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
January 2Q14
Entry Point Monitoring
GW Sources
SW Sources (including GWUDl)
Partial Chemistry'
Initial
1 / year
Quarterly for i year
Routine
1 /year
Metals1
Initial
1 / 3 years (3 sets)
1/ year (3 sets)
Routine
1/9 years
1 i 9 years
Volatllo Organic
Initial
Quarterly for 1 year"
Quarterly for 1 year"
Compounds'
Routine
1/3 years
1 I year
Synthetic Organic
Compounds
ICXPT CXMB. CXI P>
Initial
Quarterly for 1 year"
Quarterly for i year"
Routine
With WHPP'/Tntlum*- Waived
Without W HPPTritium: 1 ' 3 years
Least Vulnerable9: 113 years
Moderately Vulnerable" 21 3 years"
Uglily VulnoraWo9 Quarterly"
Expanded SOC
|6t)B. DBCP. EflQ0W8l,
Dquat. Glynhosate it
unchlorinaioO. Dnopon)
Vulnerable aquifers {karst,
graveVcobbte): 1 / 3 years
All others Waived
Least Vulnerable and a maiority
of Moderately Vulnerable". Waived
Select Moderately Vulnerable" 113 years"
Highly Vulnerable': 1 / year'3
Cyanide
Initial
t 1 3 years (3 sets)
1 / year <3 sets)
Roul>ne
1 / 9 years
1 / 9 years
Initial
Quarteny for 1 yearr'
Quarterly for 1 year'5
Radionuclides"
< Dotoctlon Limit 1 / 9 yoors
< Detection Limit: 1 9 yoars
Routme
i Detection Limit but s 1/2 MCL: 1 / 6 years
2 Detection Limit but S 1/2 MCL: 1 / 6 years
> 1/2 MCL but 4 MCL: 1 13 years
> MCL: Quarterly
> 1/2 MCL but £ MCL: 1 / 3 years
> MCL: Ouarterty
Water Quality
Initial
WQPs of Rule 710b(4)(b): 2 16 months
vVQPs of Rule 710b(4>(b): 2 / 6 months
Parameters"
OCCT
WQPs of Rule 710b(5)(b): 1 / 2 weeks
WQPs of Rule 71Gb(5)(b): 1 / 2 weeks
Bromate
Initial
* / month / p!ant that uses ozone
11 month 1 plant that uses ozone
?eCuced
1/ quarter / plant if RAA S 0.0025 mg/L
1/ quarter 1 plant if RAA £ 0.0025 mg/L
Chlorite
1 / day / plant if disinfecting with CIO?
1 / day / plant if disinfecting with CIO;
;iilorlno Dioxide
1 / day / p'anl if disinfecting wifh CIO?
1 ' day l plant if disinfecting with CIO;
Initial
NA
t set source alkalinity source TOC. & treated TOC
roc & Alkalinity
/ month ' conventional filtration plant
Reduced
NA
t set 1 quaner if average treated TOC < 2 0 mg/L
for 2 cons years. or <1.0 mgfl. for t year
Footnotes:
Partial Chemistp/ scan (al MDEQ laboratory only) includes contaminants with varying monitoring frequences as follows
GW Sources
SW Sources (including GWUDl)
Nitrate
Initial
Routine
1 / year
1/year if <50% MCL
Quarterly f any sample >50% MCLS
Quarterly for 1 year
1 / year If all quarters <50% K'CL
Quarterly if any sampto >50% MCL4
Nitrite
initial
Routine
1 / 3 years
1 / 3 years rf <50% MCL
Crtrlv for l vr if any 1 sa"^e >5C-.- MCL1
1 / 3 years
1 3 years if <50% MCL
Qrtrly for 1 yr if any 1 sample >50% MCL®
Fluoride
1 ' 3 years
1/year
Sodium
1 / 3 years
1 / year
J For dctallod arsenic monitoring ¦"formation, see Wator DiV'Ston policy WD-03-020 dated October 20. 2C03.
If ail samples from 4 consecutive quarters \ consecutive quarters <50% of the MCL, return to 1/year ana monitor durnvg quarter that r»ad nigfies: result
! If VOCs are confirmed detected, monitor quarterly for VOCs and monitor once for EDB and DBCP
If no delects In first quartor, waive remaining qua'terly monltonng and go dlructfy to routine monitoring.
A Contaminant Source Inventory must bo completed, with no indication of vulnerability, to be 9'igible for this waiver
Tritium in lieu of WHPP. Waiver reauires initiaVconfirmation tnirum samples <1.0 and sampling 11 3 years thereafter.
Least Vulnerable: SW systems and GWUDl systems that are not moderately or highly vulnerable
Moderately Vulnerable Bay City. Lake St Clair. S1 Cla» & Detroit Rrvsis. Monroe, Frenchtown, St Joseph. B9n1on Harbor. Alpena
H-ghly Vulnerable: All inland river supplies.
" Collect one sample in the 2nd quarter AND one sample In the 3rd quarter of every 3rd ca-'endar yeai
With sufficient Historical data, may reduce frequency ot non-detect contaminants to I' yoar. to bo taken during 2nd OR 3rd quaror.
" Select moderately vulnerable systems include: Alpena, Bay City, Monroe. Mt Clemens. St Joseph. Wyandotte
!3 Collect sample durirg the 2nd OR 3rd quarter of year due.
'* Gross Alpha may be substituted for radium 226 and/or uranium if results S 5 pCUl or£ 15 pCl'L respectively
,a If first 2 quarters are below the detection limit, waive remaining quarterly monitoring and go directty to routine monltoiing
1,1 Required for systems > 50.000 Required for systems < 50.000 during any monitaing period the Pb and/or Cu AL is exceeded.
109
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
^eDS%
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590
DEQ
AUG 1 2 2013
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
JUL 3 0 2013
REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF:
WG-15J
Liane Shekter Smith, Chief
Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 30241
Lansing, Michigan 48909-7741
RE: Cyanide Waivers under the State's Approved Phase 2/5 Waiver Program
Dear Ms. Smith:
During a review of waivers given for various inorganic contaminants, it came to our attention
that several Region 5 States, including Michigan, are granting waivers for the monitoring of
cyanide based on continuous chlorination. Upon closer review, we found a May 5,1993 letter
from Region 5 that stated that the Region would respect the States' approval of susceptibility
waivers for cyanide, based on the Public Water System's ability to maintain a detectable chlorine
residual within the distribution system.
However, we received research information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
which alerted us to a potential public health concern that could result when a public water supply
used chlorination to oxidize cyanide. The danger of chlorinating water with cyanide comes
when cyanide is at or above the maximum contaminant level. Complete oxidation of cyanide by
chlorine occurs at pH of 8.5+; called alkaline chlorination. Incomplete oxidation of cyanide at
lower plls will form a toxic gas, cyanogen chloride. EPA followed up with the Water Supply
guidance document 79 (enclosed), and amended the rule under 40 CFR§ 141.62(c) to state that
the Best Available Technology for cyanide is alkaline chlorination.
We discussed this again in 2003, but changes to Federal rules had not yet been made at that time,
so we could only recommend that waivers for cyanide not be granted based on the system's
ability to maintain a detectable chlorine residual.
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)
110
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
At this time, we must rescind our approval of the State's practice of granting waivers for cyanide
monitoring based upon the system using continuous chlorination. We request that the State
revise its waiver program, so that a waiver for cyanide monitoring is not based upon continuous
chlorination. We also ask that the State review the levels of cyanide at its public water supplies
which were granted waivers, to determine if cyanide monitoring is warranted in Fiscal Year
If you have questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to call me. 1 hank you for your
prompt attention to this matter.
2014.
Sincerely,
Thomas Poy, Chief
Ground Water and Drinking Water Branch
Enclosure
cc: Richard Benzie, MDEQ
Carrie Monosmith, MDEQ
111
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Appendix 1-Hr Findings and Recommendations from EPA Discussions with MDEQ
Appendix written by EPA Region 5
Table of Contents for Michigan's Implementation of the Drinking Water Program: Findings and
Recommendations from EPA Discussions with Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) Managers and Staff, April 4-8, 2016
Introduction
Summary
I. Public water system regulation in Michigan: History and background
II. Program organization and administration
A. CWS
B. NCWS
III. Program resources
A. Current revenue sources for salaries
B. Factors contributing to resource deficiencies
C. Shortfalls in work performed due to resources
IV. Policies and State initiatives
V. Primacy status and rule implementation
A. Primacy status
B. Rule implementation
VI. Data systems and compliance determinations
A. CWS data management
B. NCWS data management
C. CWS and NCWS data management practices for specific situations
D. Compliance determinations
VII. Laboratory operations, and sample analysis
A. Laboratory operations
B. Sample analysis
VIII. Sanitary surveys
IX. Capacity development operator certification and plan review
A. Capacity development
B. Operator certification
C. Plan review
Introduction: EPA conducted an in-depth review of Michigan's implementation of the drinking water
program on April 4-8, 2016, which included a Program File Review (FR), Enforcement Verification, and
Lead Rule implementation and Flint review. The FR included meetings with staff and managers to discuss
112
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
administration and implementation practices in the drinking water program. This attachment includes
findings and recommendations from those discussions. However, this is not a comprehensive list of all
recommendations that EPA has made to the State through its program oversight; for example, other
documents such as EPA Region 5's annual review of the operator certification and capacity development
programs, the Public Water System Supervision grant and End of Year evaluation for the grant, State lab
and lab certification audit reports, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Performance Evaluation Reviews,
and previous data and enforcement verifications, also include specific recommendations.
Summary: Based on this review, MDEQ faces many challenges in effectively implementing the drinking
water program, most of which appear to stem from inadequate resources, an inefficient data management
system, the State's decentralized structure, and repetitive organization restructuring policies. Specific State
recommendations for each of the program areas examined are included below, as well as in the text of the
FR report.
Program Organization and Administration Recommendations:
1. Work with the ASDWA, EPA, and stakeholders regarding approaches for identifying core primacy
and other public health priority work, organizational structure options, and alternative funding/ full
time equivalent (FTE) needs and sources. It appears that much work has been done by the State
already in terms of identifying possible new program functions, organizations of work, the need for
more timely action on lapsed functions (work that needs to be done that is not assigned), and options
for funding; however, as of April of 2016 none of these initiatives have come to fruition. EPA
encourages, as part of this process, that MDEQ look to the future and embrace data management
technologies which will streamline data management transaction, improve staff efficiencies, and
further enhance transparency and public access to compliance data. MDEQ should try to overcome
public health vulnerabilities, involve all stakeholders, carefully consider options for how resources
are deployed (for example, by working with ASDWA or other organizations), and weigh whether
increased public health protection will result from any changes.
2. Continue to offer and expand training to LHDs, other partners, and laboratories, as needed, on new
regulatory requirements. Consider staff suggestions:
a. Certain review courses are scheduled and offered on an ongoing recurring basis, and;
b. A training coordinator position is established to facilitate training and outreach. For any new
rules, MDEQ may want to consider that the training on RTCR be used as a model, as a
resource analysis was performed, and the trainings appeared to result in laboratories and
PWSs becoming aware of regulatory requirements, and they were ultimately better prepared
to implement the RTCR, effective April 1, 2016.
3. Consider the recommendations made by the review FR teams for the program file review,
enforcement verification, and lead rule implementation and Flint review for suggestions on
modifications needed to existing policies and procedures.
4. Provide cross-training so staff can better interface, for example between the program and data staff
(as discussed in the Data Management Section of this Appendix). It may be helpful to have a QA/QC
staff person to assist with program administration; for example, to ensure follow-up on audit
findings, to identify inconsistencies in data (such as unusual violation types and missing return to
compliance dates in database), and to ensure that policies are being consistently implemented.
113
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
5. Conduct a resource needs and "staff time study" for any new initiatives or legislation, similar to
what was done to estimate resource needs and staff time for the RTCR.
6. Consider suggesting CWSs use both the reported units and the CCR units in their consumer
confidence reports (ju.g/L and mg/L) for lead and copper, so the public is aware of the equivalency of
the data, and can easily understand and compare numbers that they may be receiving from other
sources, such as other State and federal agencies.
Program Resources Recommendations:
1. Focus on efficient use of resources, for example by streamlining reporting and eliminating manual
data entry, such as by improving electronic reporting capabilities and working toward upgrading or
replacing data systems. EPA fully acknowledges MDEQ's efforts over the past five years in trying to
overcome some of its data management limitations. Managers recognize that even if MDEQ had
funding for new and improved data systems, the State would still need additional staff with the
knowledge and experience, to be dedicated to operating these new data systems. For example, the
State has been planning the transition from WaterTrack to SDWIS/Prime for several years. The State
needs sufficient dedicated staff or contractors with specific expertise in this area, which it does not
have. On the NCWS side, EPA and the State thought that SDWIS/Prime would be available by now,
but release has been delayed. MDEQ has also had issues with SDWIS 3.3 working in their
Structured Query Language (SQL) environment for CWS data management.
2. Determine more precisely how staff currently allocate their time, and make adjustments as needed.
The ASDWA resources tool may also be helpful in assisting with identifying resource needs for
running the core primacy program.
3. Obtain long-term source(s) of funding. MDEQ had been working on an overall water strategy and
the funding needed to support it, and management should evaluate this effort. Potential increases in
funding needs to be further explored; EPA Region 5 acknowledges MDEQ's past attempts to secure
additional program funding. EPA Region 5 supports MDEQ, at the Department level, continuing to
evaluate whether federal Section 106 grant funds should be used for ground water protection
activities, as we recognize that the decision to utilize this funding source is not under the control of
the drinking water program. State staff mentioned the administrative costs of managing their current
public water supply fee program, where a significant portion of the fees being collected go to
administering the program; therefore, staff may consider it advantageous for a third party to
administer the program if a different fee program was enacted.
4. Continue to reduce the level of Unliquidated Obligations (ULO) for the DWSRF set-asides by
ensuring timely draws of set-aside funds, as described in the recommendations in the DWSRF
Program Evaluation Report dated July of 2016.
5. Consider implementing a plan to increase cross-training of staff, such as dual enrollment (hiring
trainee before retirements for purposes of training). If state laws are changed to allow such practices,
phased retirements that include a mentoring component (e.g., a phased retirement program that
allows full-time employees to work part-time schedules while beginning to draw retirement
benefits).
Policies and State Initiatives Recommendations
1. Ensure that all policies related to drinking water are consistently publicly available for the P WSs
(only three policies were accessible in mid-April of 2016 due to problems with the State's website),
so that PWSs understand how rules are being implemented by the State.
114
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
2. Continue to consider public health protection prioritization for State-only rules and policies.
Consider re-evaluating existing policies for their burden on the State and PWSs relative to public
health risk and benefits.
3. Continue to work with EPA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department of
Health and Human Services, and LHDs regarding any potential future requirements related to
Legionella control.
Primacy Status and Rule Implementation Recommendations:
1. Continue to work with EPA related to best practices for the LCR which are outside of the current
regulations.
2. Continue to re-invest in review of content of Consumer Confidence Reports.
3. Re-invest in reporting PN violations for Tier 1 and 2 violations (at a minimum, in the short-term) at
NCWSs. By ensuring that PN is issued and enforced for Tier 1 and Tier 2 violations, public health
is better protected. In addition, prepare a schedule/plan for implementing Tier 3 PN as well. All
M/R violations for PN must be reported to EPA. Failure to properly notify could lead to public
health consequences, such as increased or extended exposures (for example, when monitoring is not
completed on time so the quality of the water is unknown).
Data Management and Compliance Determination Recommendations:
1. Move the NCWS data management to SDWIS/Prime as soon as possible, once EPA makes it
available. The NCWS program should move to SDWIS/State to ease the transition to SDWIS/Prime,
and to take advantage of the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal (CMDP).
2. Plan for the CWS Program to fully utilize SDWIS/Prime in order to have one place to store official
compliance schedules and data. Dedicated State or contract IT staff are needed to do this planning.
3. Cross-train staff so that more than one staff person has a working knowledge and understands how
data flows, understands limitations of data systems, and how to query and use management reports.
In addition, staff should QA data and examine it for outliers, anomalies, and trends to ensure data
quality.
4. Review policies of the State's Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB) (which
is located in a different department) to determine how to allow for increased use of web services and
to assess the current DTMB structure which limits the ability of the drinking water program to obtain
prompt necessary assistance.
5. Examine best practices nationally for CWS and NCWS data management, such as electronic
reporting from the laboratory to the State drinking water database. The State should consider a State
regulation or laboratory certification requirement to require electronic reporting from all
laboratories, including private laboratories, to the State. EPA released the CMDP in October 2016 to
ensure that data is transferred from the laboratory to the State database in a complete and efficient
manner. EPA encourages the State and labs to implement the CMDP, as well as carefully follow the
development of SDWIS/Prime.
6. Prepare a written SOP to outline how source treated flag and facility flow data should be entered into
SDWIS/State so staff can complete this task as new source water system facilities are added to
SDWIS/State.
7. Work with the labs conducting drinking water compliance analyses to ensure that all data is being
given appropriate QA flags and qualifiers are clearly defined, so that situations are clear as to when
flagged data may not be appropriate for including in a compliance determination.
115
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
8. Ensure that PN is being posted with appropriate messages for TNCWSs utilizing the alternate nitrate
MCL of 20 mg/L.
9. Work with EPA regarding whether certain data should be excluded from compliance calculations
due to QA concerns. The program did not appear to have a set procedure for handling all QA flagged
data as part of their compliance determination process for CWSs or NCWSs. It is also unclear if the
lab is reporting all QA flags to the drinking water program or if this is a deficiency with WaterTrack.
For example, for NCWSs, WaterTrack didn't include any samples flagged for not being received at
the proper temperature, and it is unclear if this is because no such samples exist, if the State lab is
not capturing this information, or if it is not being transmitted to the drinking water program. For the
CWS program, data qualifiers are not typically entered into SDWIS/State, since it is entered as
summary data. The qualifiers may appear on hard copy forms.
10. Seek cross-training for staff on the process of moving data from SDWIS/State to SDWIS/Fed, why
timeliness of data submittals by water systems is important, and the use and limitations of SDWIS
data on the web for the public so that staff have a broader understanding of the uses of compliance
data. (The State experienced some unnecessary work with federal reporting services data available
for the public because EPA allowed the public to pull data that was out of date and that did not
reflect corrections that had been made by the State.)
11. Weigh State-specific public health priorities, including those which may extend beyond the federal
requirements in deciding which initiatives, such as monitoring requirements for stand-by wells, are
implementable and able to be funded/staffed and have the highest priority to protect public health.
Laboratory and Sample Analysis Recommendations:
1. Consider making it a laboratory certification requirement for all laboratories to report electronically
directly to the State in a manner that will directly feed the State drinking water database; the
efficiencies achieved with this process are immense in that 50 labs will report to the State, instead of
thousands of individual systems reporting independently. Staff noted that requiring electronic
reporting via the lab certification program, which is not currently required, could alleviate the
lengthy State rule development process related to electronic reporting by individual water systems,
and could allow for a phase-in of lab e-Reporting implementation.
2. Work closely with the State laboratory LIMS data management staff to ensure electronic reporting
begins as soon as possible.
3. Devise ways for the drinking water program and laboratory staff to examine data for QA issues or
potential fraud, when considering electronic reporting (fraud was mentioned by State staff as a
concern with moving from hard copy to electronic reporting). This may take several years to
accomplish; consider it a long term goal.
4. Ensure coordination between drinking water lab staff and drinking water data staff to ensure
compatibility of any new LIMS with EPA's CMDP, SDWIS/State, and SDWIS/Prime. (EPA
released the CMDP in October 2016 to ensure that data is transferred from the laboratory to the State
database.)
5. Participate in national discussions related to the use of qualified data for drinking water compliance
purposes, if possible, to understand expectations of laboratory and drinking water program staff.
Sanitary Surveys Recommendations:
1. Include an explicit checklist of common deficiencies as an enhancement to the sanitary survey form,
so that the inspector can easily recall them and quickly indicate if they exist.
116
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
2. Evaluate the frequency of sanitary survey visits as it pertains to the specific types of compliance
assistance provided during the visits, as part of an overall resource evaluation. Also evaluate whether
the current sanitary survey frequency is providing the optimal value to the systems, and to what
extent, if at all, the decentralized structure creates issues with quality and timeliness of sanitary
surveys.
3. Consider follow-through on State plans to have fewer staff perform large system sanitary surveys,
instead of spreading out this work among many staff as part of their responsibilities. This plan may
be beneficial in ensuring a greater level of consistency and quality control.
Capacity Development Recommendations:
1. Ensure that training of staff on existing policies and regulations is conducted regularly to ensure all
staff are aware of procedures and requirements to promote consistent implementation. In addition,
submit to EPA Region 5 any changes/revisions made to policies and procedures which are
referenced as part of your EPA-approved capacity development strategy. This information could be
submitted as part of or as an attachment to your annual Capacity Development Report.
2. Pursue training on both the ETT and ETT Scores Tracker for use in prioritizing work, working
proactively with systems, and identifying necessary training by PWSs.
3. Continue to move toward sharing with PWSs electronically, for example by posting annual
monitoring schedules to the web or using a publicly accessible version of Drinking Water Watch.
Certain forms, such as the NCWSs capacity analysis, are already available as an electronically
fillable document on the MDEQ website. Enhancing PWSs access to their monitoring schedules on
the web may save staff time, and would be readily accessible to LHD staff in the field.
4. Consider dedicating a position for a training/outreach coordinator. This position would be helpful in
planning training for PWSs and LHDs, as well as for State staff. The coordinator in this position
could help ensure that trainings are occurring regularly on a set schedule, verify that content such as
short YouTube videos is accessible to the appropriate audience, write articles for newsletters,
conduct PE programs, and update operator certification training for new rules, etc. The area of
expanding training needs is an emerging issue, with turnover of staff.
5. Continue follow-up on recommendations included in EPA's capacity development approval letter
for the 2015 annual capacity development report. In the approval letter, EPA discusses providing
extra technical, financial and managerial assistance to existing systems which have new sources, and
recommends MDEQ continue including systems which change classification from a TNCWS to a
NTNCWS on the list of new systems for which capacity is tracked in the annual reports. EPA
recommends that, in most cases, the system could be treated like a new system and the State should
put it through the same capacity evaluation as it does with the brand new systems. Michigan requires
approval of a financial plan and an operations plan that address financial and managerial capacity
before a new system, except transient systems, can start operation. An updated financial and
operational plan from a system with a new source may prevent future noncompliance problems.
Operator Certification Recommendations:
1. Consider funding options for the operator certification program. The use of DWSRF set-asides are
allowable to support the operator certification program, but the operator certification program could
be self-sustaining if it were fully funded by fees. That would allow for more focus on program
improvements and operator training, and leave more resources for other critical drinking water
program needs.
2. Consider any adverse impacts of offering certification exams only twice per year. By restricting the
number of times per year to take the exam, the State is restricting the number of operators that are
117
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
available to be hired each year, as well as the timeliness of operators gaining certification at the
appropriate level if the system is reclassified to a higher level. As part of this effort, MDEQ should
carefully evaluate the extent (in terms of how many months, as well as how many systems) to which
systems are not operating with operators at the appropriate certification level.
3. Provide resources to follow-up on lapsed operator certifications and carry out a stakeholder process
to examine possible program inefficiencies and process improvements.
4. Plan for potential operator shortages in the future, for example by considering innovative approaches
or possibly new classifications such as operator-in-training, which are being used successfully in
other states in order to get more interest in the field.
Plan Review Recommendation:
1. Fill the vacant treatment engineer positions, and take into consideration specialized technical
expertise needs to effectively implement the drinking water program when hiring staff.
I. Public water system regulation in Michigan: History and background
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is the primacy agency for the Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS) program responsible for overseeing the State's public water systems (PWSs).
Michigan has 1,386 community water systems (CWSs) serving a population of 7,389,527, and 9,394 non-
community water systems (NCWSs) serving a population of 1,367,200, according to the April of 2016 Safe
Drinking Water Information System-Federal version (SDWIS/Fed) database.
Michigan began regulating public water systems in 1913 under the Waterworks and Sewerage Systems Act
98, which placed responsibility for construction and inspection of publicly owned drinking water systems on
the State health department. Amendments to Act 98 in 1931 required permitting, and in 1941 allowed the
State to classify systems and establish operator certification requirements. One of the world's first cities to
fluoridate drinking water was Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1945.
In 1974, the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted, and implementing regulations that went
well beyond the previous federal Public Health Service codes were issued. Michigan subsequently adopted
equivalent safe drinking rules under the State Safe Drinking Water statute. Michigan received initial
primacy from the EPA for the drinking water program in February of 1978, and is currently up to date with
all drinking water primacy rules, except the Revised Total Coliform rule (RTCR), for which Michigan is
fully implementing under an extension agreement and submitted a final application to EPA Region 5 for
approval on April 18, 2016.
Considerable organizational change in Michigan's drinking water program has occurred in the past 20 years:
1996:
In January of 1996, the drinking water program was moved from the Department of Public
Health to the MDEQ. At that time, some of the policies that were in place (which had a more
stringent interpretation of the regulations) were rescinded, which was part of a larger effort
by MDEQ to ensure that the drinking water program was regulated by rules, and not by
policy.
When the 1996 Michigan program organizational change was made, the existing
decentralized structure of the MDEQ for the new drinking water program was retained. This
was a change for the drinking water program, from the existing central office structure
located in Lansing. MDEQ staff indicated that at the time of this move, some staff were left
118
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
with the choice of having to move to a different location in the State or possibly lose their
positions. To this date, the structure of the drinking water program is decentralized with
district offices directly implementing the community program and overseeing
implementation of the non-community program which is conducted by LHDs. MDEQ
managers noted advantages and disadvantages to a decentralized structure with the primary
advantage being the ability to quickly respond to specific issues at PWSs, and the primary
disadvantages being more inconsistency in implementation and difficulties with mentoring
and training staff that require more experienced oversight. MDEQ managers noted that there
have been some suggestions that are currently being discussed at the State to try to improve
consistency of CWS implementation, for example by: 1) decreasing the number of staff
doing surface water system sanitary surveys, so that there are not a large number of different
staff doing sanitary surveys at surface water PWSs; and 2) centralizing lead rule compliance
so this focused activity is performed by a smaller group of staff.
2002-2004:
In 2002, the drinking water program moved to a new building. In 2004, due to funding
considerations, there was no longer a distinct PWSS program chain of command due to the
drinking water program merging with other MDEQ water programs.
2010-2011:
In January of 2010, the governor consolidated State government by combining the
Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Quality into one
agency called the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, and the two parent
departments were abolished. The drinking water program was taken out of the Division with
water-related programs. The drinking water staff were located in an organization that
included industrial waste oversight and the landfills program, which merged supervisors from
these programs with the drinking water program. MDEQ staff said that major organizational
changes that occurred in 2010-2011, combined with a considerable number of retirements
and not replacing staff after departures, has greatly decreased staff and been very disruptive
to the drinking water program.
2011-2015:
In spring 2011, the MDEQ was re-created, and the environmental and drinking water
regulation and oversight programs were moved back to MDEQ. The natural resources
programs were moved to the re-created Michigan Department of Natural Resources. As a
result of a re-organization in 2012-2013, the direct chain of command for the PWSS program
was re-aligned under the new structure; however, resource issues were not addressed. Due to
downsizing, FTE position limits, retirements, and significantly reduced funding, resources
became increasingly tight. Again, several more stringent State requirements were rescinded
under regulatory reinvention efforts. During this timeframe, a water strategy was developed
to provide a comprehensive picture of water resource needs. Although a valuable step, work
on the strategy may have delayed progress on other efforts to obtain a comprehensive
funding mechanism. MDEQ managers believed that the chances of legislature approval of a
fee program were small with upcoming elections in 2014. Thus, a fee proposal was drafted
but not put forward to the Legislature.
The drinking water program, which encompasses the federal safe drinking water program (with the
exception of the Underground Injection Control program, for which MDEQ does not have, and apparently is
119
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
not currently interested in acquiring, primacy) has had relatively few permanent Michigan directors
overseeing the program. Past administrators of Michigan's drinking water program under the SDWA were
as follows: William Kelley, 1975-1988; James Cleland, 1988-2010; mid Liane Shekter Smith, 2010-2015.
Jim Sygo, Deputy Director of MDEQ, acted as Interim Chief of the Office of Drinking Water & Municipal
Assistance (ODWM A) from October of 2015 to January of 2016 when Mary Ann Dolehanty became the
Interim Drinking Water Program Chief. Ms. Dolehanty was the Interim Chief at the time of this review, and
remained in that position until July 31, 2016. Bryce Feighner was permanently assigned to this position
from August 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 when he retired. Eric Oswald has held this position since June
of 2017.
Major shifts in staff work occurred during the first half of 2016 partly to staff departures and increased
departmental emphasis on Flint; for example, the previous Field Operations Supervisor and Lab Director are
both focusing exclusively on efforts related to Flint. New appointments were made to cover Field
Operations oversight, an acting manager is performing the Lansing District Supervisor duties, and a new
manager is temporarily assuming supervisory responsibility for the Jackson district office.
II. Program Organization and Administration
All drinking water functions are housed in the Office of Drinking Water & Municipal Assistance
(ODWMA), except laboratory certification which is in the Remediation and Redevelopment Division
(RRD). MDEQ's ODWMA technical support and data staff are housed in Lansing. The CWS Program is
managed through five District Supervisors for the following districts:
1. Upper Peninsula district office,
2. Bay City and Cadillac offices,
3. South East Michigan district office,
4. Lansing and Jackson district offices, and
5. Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids district offices.
Please see Figure 1, for an organizational chart. On a temporary basis, the South East Michigan District
Office Supervisor is currently supervising the Jackson district Office.
120
-------
2016 Fiview of the MDEQ Drctitirg Waer Program
. • •
Figure 1. MDEQ Office of Dnnking Water & Municipal Assistance Organization chart, as of March, 2016
Key
SOitA Sana ececunsemaMganetessuiiL SAN Sou AJmrnytmne Manpr
EQA BiPTnam atal QuaJty MatyB. SPL SpecuLrt
The non-commumtyprogram is al» decentralized, with State staff in the Non-community and Pnvate
Dnriking Water Supplies Unit in Lansing and in distnct offices that oversee the 44LHDs About eight non-
community State staff provide assistance andoveraght to the 44 LHDs that implement the non-community
pro gram unde r co ntrac t with MDEQ One non-co mmuruty S tate staff perso n is loc ated in each o f the
following distnct offices Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, Bay City, and Jackson The Upper Peninsula distnct
office has two State staff working in the non-community program
Oversight activities by MDEQ of LHDs includes the following
1 Annual c ontracts with the LHDs de tail pe rformanc e e xp? ctatio ns,
2 Quarterly repc rts o f LH D ac Qvities,
121
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
3. Annual on-site evaluations of LHD performance which includes a file review 18; and
4. Direct technical assistance to LHDs, including identifying problems, clarifying regulations,
addressing compliance issues, and conducting training and outreach.
Program administration best practices noted by MDEQ staff include establishing committees for engineers
and analysts; standardized forms/templates for certain activities to ensure consistency; sending systems an
annual letter early in the calendar year that details monitoring required for the year; establishing a close
relationship with the well construction program; having an on-site wastewater program; working with other
licensing agencies; and establishing joint funding with the Michigan section of the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) to train operators, with MDEQ oversight (allows a certain number of MDEQ staff to
attend at no charge, and then the attendees teach the material to others, including operators).
One of the benefits expressed by MDEQ of having a central office structure (with the exception of the
Upper Peninsula, where geographical distance may necessitate a district office) includes backfilling of staff
functions, for example when staff are on leave. In addition, a central office structure would allow for more
consistent, efficient and flexible resource deployment. In the District office structure, there may be
insufficient or no back-up staff available.
Although there are potentially more concerns about ensuring consistent implementation in a decentralized
structure, as well as providing opportunities for mentoring and cross training, the advantage of a
decentralized structure is that staff are geographically accessible to PWSs that may be experiencing issues.
Of note is that the Upper Peninsula was decentralized (it is in its own district office) even when the drinking
water program resided in the health department and was centrally located in Lansing.
Legislative initiatives mentioned by MDEQ staff that could potentially have significant impacts on program
administration and resources include a State-specific Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), attempts to prevent the
implementation of cross-connection control programs, attempts to move the drinking water program to the
licensing department or elsewhere, and possible new supplemental "secondary" treatment requirements
(which could result in potentially 1000 newly regulated entities). (Related to this effort, the State requested
EPA input on defining treatment, and what can be excluded from treatment. There is an outdated agreement
with at least one facility saying that sodium silicate would not be considered treatment, which needs to be
revisited. However, MDEQ would not consider softening as treatment). Additional legislative initiatives
include several draft bills responding to the Flint situation, and $9 million dedicated to school sampling.
MDEQ staff stated that AWWA, ASDWA, large utilities, LHDs, and other stakeholders could provide
credible insight and are all appropriate stakeholders to include in any State-specific initiatives.
The biggest challenges noted by staff in implementing the PWSS program are:
1. Resources. The regulations have expanded and the scope of what the State has to track have
continued to expand over the years. Consequently, there is a need for increased staff and more
advanced technology to manage the additional work. Currently, staff say that there is a loss of
general funds, long-term dependence on unsustainable funding sources, variability of funds received
from public water supply fees, and the federal PWSS grant has not increased. Despite all of these
changes, the work required to implement the drinking water regulations has increased dramatically;
18 As of April 2016, aNCWS treatment engineer is helping to perform annual on-site evaluations at LHDs. MDEQ is hoping to hire a person to
do LHD evaluations, so that the engineer's time can be fully dedicated to providing treatment assistance to non-community public water
systems.
122
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
2. Organizational structure which is de-centralized and therefore more difficult to maintain consistency
and oversee;
3. Lack of readily available access to IT services:
4. Ever-expanding regulations (with lots of extra layers of reporting deadlines, for example 30 days, 60
days, and 120 days are used throughout a single regulation), and minor requirements that cause
unnecessary extra staff work. (For example, some MDEQ staff believe that the CCR content is dense
and not user friendly, and following the federal requirement to have CWSs convert the lead units to
CCR units, but not the copper units, adds to the confusion. The CCR should be limited in scope and
kept simple so it is understandable by the public.)
As discussed elsewhere in this report, activities given a lower priority, for which MDEQ had a temporary
disinvestment acknowledgement in 2016 with EPA, included: Tier 3 PN, late reporting, thorough CCR
content reviews, and calculating Running Annual Averages (RAA) for systems with no detects (although
SDWIS/State will do this calculation automatically, so CWSs should have this calculated value). MDEQ
states that the temporary disinvestment acknowledgement is a form of transparency, and an attempt to
prioritize the ODWMA's work; even without a disinvestment acknowledgement for these activities, some
State staff believe that they still would not be able to conduct these activities. The program does not want to
sacrifice on-site visits, which are the first line of public health protection, for administrative items with low,
if any, public health gain. As discussed previously, the EPA Region 5 is including a requirement in the 2017
PWSS grant work plan to submit to EPA a plan and schedule for fully implementing all of the regulations.
Implementation is prioritized for new rules, emerging issues, current issues (such as the Lead and Copper
Rule), and health related rules. As an example, if a CCR certification form is received late, it has a lower
priority for staff follow-up than the aforementioned items.
The State staff discussed that more training would be helpful, both in terms of training provided to systems,
and training for State staff. A highlight of MDEQ's program is the extensive training plan that they have for
new resource analysts and engineers. State staff participate in EPA sanitary surveys and other training,
webinars, conferences, and meetings throughout the year.
A. CWS Program:
The state uses a multitude of approaches to manage the CWS program. For example, the State uses
surveillance reports for oversight, and makes extensive use of SOPs in managing the program. There are
standing committees, such as the District Analyst committee and the Water Treatment committee to help
guide the need for new or revised policies. A specific workgroup of one engineer from each district office
meets as needed to review 10-States' Standards that are in need of revision (every state gets a specific
portion to review).
MDEQ also maintains a document, "Suggested Practices for Water Works " which details the intent behind
the drinking water rules. Over the years, this document has been pared down so that it does not duplicate the
material in 10-States' Standards. Also, instead of repeating policies, they are incorporated by reference.
The Field Operations Supervisor oversees and evaluates the performance of the district supervisors.
Employee performance standards include specific metrics, for example, one metric considers the number of
sanitary surveys and site visits performed.
123
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
The State uses a variety of tools to ensure capability of PWSs. For systems with financial capacity issues, a
successful State program has been established to develop a system-specific Financial Action Plan (FAP),
which is administered by State DWSRF staff in the Lansing office. The FAP helps systems examine their
finances, solve issues, and look at rates/ordinances, etc. for long-term resolution. The program also does
financial assessments of new CWSs.
The DWSRF program coordinates with district offices in to score project submittals for potential DWSRF
funding. The District Engineers issues the construction permits.
B. NCWS Program:
As stated previously, the MDEQ contracts with LHDs to implement the drinking water program at NCWSs.
MDEQ staff interpret current State regulations, and LHDs must conduct all related drinking water program
activities. There is concern by LHDs of the increased burden with the new RTCR rule. Some, but not all,
counties charge additional fees for sanitary surveys. With nearly 9,500 NCWSs overseen by 44 LHDs, there
are some consistency issues.
There has been some internal discussion at MDEQ as to whether the LHDs should continue to lead
implementation oversight of the NTNCWS; similarly, a recommendation of the 2010 FR conducted by EPA
was to consider moving the NTNCWSs program to the CWS program. As of 2016, the State is again
discussing directly overseeing the NTNCWSs. However, to accomplish this, MDEQ managers believe that
significantly more staff would be needed to manage the program. The non-community program met to
discuss the additional workload involved with the RTCR based on a staff time study conducted by the State,
to see what could potentially be given a lower priority. In the end, the NCWS program did not find any
activities that could be temporarily disinvested.
MDEQ makes extensive use of policies and procedures in the CWS and NCWS programs to help ensure
consistent implementation. The State's non-community program manual was just updated with new SOPs,
and is again being revised to incorporate the RTCR, which became effective on April 1, 2016. MDEQ has
developed many fact sheets and training materials for the RTCR. SOPs are referenced in the 2015
Noncommunity Program Staff Reference Manual, and applicable new policies are provided in trainings for
LHDs. However, although policies are supposed to be revisited every five years, this deadline is not always
met. The NCWS program tracks training provided to LHDs, as well as NCWS staff attendance. The NCWS
staff provide considerable one-on-one training, especially on how to track new rules. In addition, the State
uses approximately $9,000 per year from set-aside funds to sponsor LHD training.
Program Organization and Administration Recommendations:
1. Work with the ASDWA, EPA, and stakeholders regarding approaches for identifying core
primacy and other public health priority work, organizational structure options, and alternative
funding/FTE needs and sources. It appears that much work has been done by the State already in
terms of identifying possible new program functions, organizations of work, the need for more
timely action on lapsed functions (work that needs to be done that is not assigned), and options
for funding; however, as of April of 2016 none of these initiatives have come to fruition. EPA
encourages, as part of this process, that MDEQ look to the future and embrace data management
technologies which will streamline data management transaction, improve staff efficiencies, and
further enhance transparency and public access to compliance data. MDEQ should try to
overcome public health vulnerabilities, involve all stakeholders, carefully consider options for
how resources are deployed (for example, by working with ASDWA or other organizations), and
weigh whether increased public health protection will result from any changes.
124
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
2. Continue to offer and expand training to LHDs, other partners, and laboratories, as needed, on
new regulatory requirements. Consider staff suggestions:
a. Certain review courses are scheduled and offered on an ongoing recurring basis, and;
b. A training coordinator position is established to facilitate training and outreach. For any new
rules, MDEQ may want to consider that the training on RTCR be used as a model, as a
resource analysis was performed, and the trainings appeared to result in laboratories and
PWSs becoming aware of regulatory requirements, and they were ultimately better prepared
to implement the RTCR, effective April 1, 2016.
3. Consider the recommendations made by the review FR teams for the program file review,
enforcement verification, and lead rule implementation and Flint review for suggestions on
modifications needed to existing policies and procedures.
4. Provide cross-training so staff can better interface, for example between the program and data
staff (as discussed in the Data Management Section of this Appendix). It may be helpful to have
a QA/QC staff person to assist with program administration; for example, to ensure follow-up on
audit findings, to identify inconsistencies in data (such as unusual violation types and missing
return to compliance dates in database), and to ensure that policies are being consistently
implemented.
5. Conduct a resource needs and "staff time study" for any new initiatives or legislation, similar to
what was done to estimate resource needs and staff time for the RTCR.
6. Consider suggesting CWSs use both the reported units and the "CCR units" in their CCRs (ju.g/L
and mg/L) for lead and copper, so the public is aware of the equivalency of the data, and can
easily understand and compare numbers that they may be receiving from other sources, such as
other State and federal agencies.
III. Program Resources
Funding sources for the ODWMA include Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) set-asides,
which provide considerable funding for the CWS program, with some general funds and fee revenue.
Federal Section 106 funds are used for ground water protection work done by drinking water program staff.
Specifically, the drinking water program salaries (85 FTE, in Grant Year 2016) are funded by:
125
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Table 1-2. Sources of Funding for MDEQ Drinking Water Program staffing
% Bv
Source
% Bv
Source
Type
FTEs
General Funds
8%
8%
10
Federal Funds
Public Water Supply Supervision Grant
Drinking Water Revolving Fund Set Asides
63%
27%
36%
25
33
lees 29%
Public Water Supply Fees 28% 16
Operator Training and Certification Fees 1% 1
Full Time Equivalent Positions
85*
*MDEQ contracts with LHDs to implement the drinking water program at NCWS which is funded by State fees, so FTE related
to LHD implementation of the non-community program is not included in the numbers above. LHDs get a certain % of the Public
Water Supply Fees, and they get some federal funding 1) when anew NTNCWS is added to the inventory (which is rare), 2) for
systems that have treatment, and 3) for NTNCWS Source Water Assessments.
A. Current revenue sources for salaries
1. General funds. There has been some uncertainty in the budget process as to whether the State will
have the general funds to match the DWSRF grant set-aside funding. About 99% of the general
funds received by the program are used as match for federal funding. General funds are adjusted
annually.
2. PWSS grant. The federal PWSS grant has not increased significantly in the past 10 years, despite
increased program requirements. The State is only providing the minimum State match allowed by
law for the PWSS grant. At the time of the review, MDEQ did not have the final FY16 PWSS grant
amount from EPA yet, due to EPA's budget not being final. However, final State grant allotments
were released on April 19, 2016. Historically, the PWSS program was a part of a Performance
Partnership Grant (PPG) (when the drinking water and surface water programs were combined and
could share funding), but in 2011, the PWSS program pulled out of the PPG as part of the MDEQ
reorganization. The PWSS program received its full allotment when under a PPG, and continues to
receive its full allotment as a stand-alone grant.
3. Drinking Water Revolving Fund set-asides. MDEQ's drinking water program staff funding trends
show an increase in taking set-aside funds in the last 5-10 years as the program has lost general
funds that supported FTEs. MDEQ has a very heavy reliance on this revenue source; the DWSRF
set-asides currently support 33 FTE. Many states are concerned that this is not a guaranteed source
of ongoing funding, and EPA cautions on over-reliance for state salaries.
An accountability system to ensure financial integrity of grants was developed in 1994, called the
Michigan Administration Information System (MAIN). This is used to validate match for drinking
water program grants.
The drinking water program does not do financial draws for the DWSRF set-asides; draws are
completed by a different program. Set-aside financial draws are recorded in MAIN, which includes
126
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
accounting codes to identify funding sources; expenses are also verified through MAIN reports.
MAIN is in the process of being replaced by a SIGMA system in October of 2017.
EPA conducted its annual Performance Evaluation Review of MDEQ's DWSRF program in late
May of 2016, with a follow-up call with the State to specifically discuss set-aside expenditures.
Additional findings from that review are referenced in a separate report dated July 27, 2016,
prepared by EPA Region 5's State and Tribal Programs Branch, which administers the DWSRF
program.
MDEQ mentioned that the State has changed practices related to a previous concern of EPA Region
5 as to the number of years a DWSRF grant is open. The State is following EPA's guidance by
having no more than two years of grant funds open; the FY 13 grant will be closed out by the end of
2016.
Under the program DWSRF set-asides, MDEQ is streamlining by only taking the PWSS set-aside,
but conducting activities previously conducted under the Source Water Protection, Operator
Certification, and Capacity Development set-asides. MDEQ will also take Wellhead Protection
(WHP), Administration, and the Small Systems Technical Assistance set-asides in FY17. For the
past several years, the State has been flagged by EPA HQ and EPA Region 5 for having a relatively
high level of Unliquidated Obligations under DWSRF set-asides. The primary issue is that although
the drinking water program is spending the funds, the MDEQ Executive Division has been slow to
take the draws. The Executive Division used to take draws quarterly, but they are now drawing funds
monthly, so EPA expects to see improvement in this area.
4. Public water supply annual fees for CWSs and NCWSs. This source of funding averages about $4
million/year with the exact amount not entirely predictable. A recent State audit corroborates the
conclusion that the drinking water program is underfunded; one reason is that not enough fees are
collected.
5. Operator certification fees. The State operator certification fees are required by State statute and total
about $200,000 per year.
B. Factors contributing to resource deficiencies
In 2010-11, there were a significant number of retirements and a reorganization. Replacements of staff who
left were at a rate of 1 to 4. During that time, the program lost a large number of PWS staff.
Each year, there is uncertainty as to whether the required match for the federal grants will be approved. The
State struggles every year to ensure the entire match is provided, so the grant can be awarded to the State.
An additional factor that has affected drinking water staffing at MDEQ is the FTE cap that has been in place
on and off throughout the 2000's, which has made it difficult to hire even when funding was available.
MDEQ has recently discussed the need to hire an additional 20 staff, which includes field engineers and
resource analysts for compliance tracking.
There have been recent discussions on the need for additional resources, which State staff commented were
highlighted in the Auditor General's recent report (December of 2015). The State is not aware of major
changes to revenue sources, though. Flint might obtain additional funding for various work, including
conducting school monitoring.
127
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
While both the EPA and State continue to promote Clean Water Act (CWA)-SDWA integration, funding of
some programs was questioned by MDEQ staff. For example, funding of certain other programs using
DWSRF set-asides was originally intended to be a stop gap measure, such as the on-site wastewater
treatment program, septage programs (ground application), and campgrounds programs. Staff would like to
pursue other long-term funding mechanisms for these programs, including fees. While there is a drinking
water protection component to these programs, the same could be said for many other waste programs,
which are not funded via set-asides. Some managers support continued use of set-aside funds for the
campground program, but less so for on-site and other waste programs. Since funding of these waste
programs is an allowable cost under source water protection, EPA does not have a specific recommendation
for the State regarding funding sources for these programs which contribute to protection of ground water
sources of drinking water, other than to repeat the caution that DWSRF set-asides are not a guaranteed
source of long-term funding for any activity.
C. Shortfalls in work performed due to resources
There are many examples of work throughout this report that the staff is behind on, or for which there is
limited staff expertise on, or that staff and managers would like to do to improve the program but cannot be
done due to resource shortfalls. A few examples:
1. Challenges to the program include fewer resources for operator certification and source water
protection. The State has not put resources into source water protection because of the need to do
regular core primacy work and source water protection is voluntary in Michigan. However, the State
plans to take the full allowable amount for the WHP set-aside in Grant year 2016. MDEQ managers
have said that the program has asked for additional funding in order to update source water
assessments. There has been some recent planning by the State to re-institute a source water
protection unit in the future, which would provide more focus on source water protection activities.
This unit would cover well construction, contamination investigations, and source water protection.
2. Consolidation of managerial positions has resulted in staff being spread thin with fewer managers to
oversee work and a potential for quality issues. Managers, in some cases, are filling in for staff work,
particularly for new rules.
3. It is difficult to learn new regulations and adequately train LHDs due in part to the complexity and
implementability of regulations, decentralization of staff, different expertise levels, time
commitment involved in training.
4. EPA has been promulgating many new regulations over the past 10-15 years, so the program was not
able to fully implement in areas that had lower public health risk. MDEQ was transparent with EPA
about non-public health activities that were termed "temporary disinvestments". For example, since
it takes time to get violation notices out for certain non-public health related activities, the State
decided it needed to focus on higher priority public health issues. MDEQ also temporarily
disinvested in Tier 3 PN enforcement.
5. The drinking water program has not been able to fund or focus on electronic reporting and
improving data systems.
6. LHDs lack sufficient funding. LHDs are concerned about implementation of the RTCR, such as the
increase to monthly sampling. Certain counties have very high non-compliance rates as compared to
the others. The State does not have more resources to offer the LHDs.
7. The State has had to send individual spreadsheets to LHDs to complete information about RTCR
implementation, such as level 1 and level 2 assessments. The LHDs will submit 44 spreadsheets to
the State, and the State doesn't have a designated staff person to review and consolidate the
information. While this was a necessary step, due to lack of a central data system that could manage
128
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
this process, it is not an efficient way to do business in the long-term. The program has asked for
additional funding for implementation of the RTCR.
8. There has been a large increase in work and staff involved with Flint work. Also, some staff have
been re-assigned to work on Flint. Thus, fewer staff are available to work on public health protection
activities at other PWSs in the State.
Program Resources Recommendations:
1. Focus on efficient use of resources, for example by streamlining reporting and eliminating manual
data entry, such as by improving electronic reporting capabilities and working toward upgrading or
replacing data systems. EPA fully acknowledges MDEQ's efforts over the past five years in trying to
overcome some of its data management limitations. Managers recognize that even if MDEQ had
funding for new and improved data systems, the State would still need additional staff with the
knowledge and experience, to be dedicated to operating these new data systems. For example, the
State has been planning the transition from WaterTrack to SDWIS/Prime for several years. The State
needs sufficient dedicated staff or contractors with specific expertise in this area, which it does not
have. On the NCWS side, EPA and the State thought that SDWIS/Prime would be available by now,
but release has been delayed. MDEQ has also had issues with SDWIS 3.3 working in their
Structured Query Language (SQL) environment for CWS data management.
2. Determine more precisely how staff currently allocate their time, and make adjustments as needed.
The ASDWA resources tool may also be helpful in assisting with identifying resource needs for
running the core primacy program.
3. Obtain long-term source(s) of funding. MDEQ had been working on an overall water strategy and
the funding needed to support it, and management should evaluate this effort. Potential increases in
funding needs to be further explored; EPA Region 5 acknowledges MDEQ's past attempts to secure
additional program funding. EPA Region 5 supports MDEQ, at the Department level, continuing to
evaluate whether federal Section 106 grant funds should be used for ground water protection
activities, as we recognize that the decision to utilize this funding source is not under the control of
the drinking water program. State staff mentioned the administrative costs of managing their current
public water supply fee program, where a significant portion of the fees being collected go to
administering the program; therefore, staff may consider it advantageous for a third party to
administer the program if a different fee program was enacted.
4. Continue to reduce the level of Unliquidated Obligations (ULO) for the DWSRF set-asides by
ensuring timely draws of set-aside funds, as described in the recommendations in the DWSRF
Program Evaluation Report dated July of 2016.
5. Consider implementing a plan to increase cross-training of staff, such as dual enrollment (hiring
trainee before retirements for purposes of training). If state laws are changed to allow such practices,
phased retirements that include a mentoring component (e.g., a phased retirement program that
allows full-time employees to work part-time schedules while beginning to draw retirement
benefits).
IV. Policies and State initiatives
MDEQ has about two dozen formal policies related to the State's oversight of PWSs; however, in April of
2016 only three policies were accessible to the public because the State was having problems with their
website. Both the State and EPA recognize that there are many emerging potential drinking water issues not
currently mandated with a health-based standard by primacy under the federal program.
129
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
MDEQ is currently developing a policy regarding facilities, such as hospitals, which provide secondary
treatment (with the exception of softening or iron removal treatment). Hospitals are beginning to install
additional disinfection treatment due to concerns about Legionella, and the State wants to ensure proper
installation, maintenance and operation that is protective of public health. MDEQ is interested in EPA's
approach to regulating these systems. EPA notes that existing PWSs that provide treatment would be
regulated and required to monitor to demonstrate compliance under existing federal and state regulations.
EPA released "Technologies for Legionella Control in Premise Plumbing Systems: Scientific Literature
Review" in September 2016.
Legislative updates that could impact implementation of the drinking water program include the asset
management and capability improvement program, and the cross-connection control program. The recent
asset management rules will help strengthen the financial capability of systems. There have been some
attempts to weaken the cross-connection control program in the State, with concerns about requiring
backflow devices on home sprinkler systems—this is of concern to EPA Region 5, as many reported
bacteria outbreaks have been linked to cross-connection control issues. Also, the program has challenges
with unregulated monitoring for Pharmaceuticals & Personal Care Products (PPCPs), 1-4-dioxane, and
PFCs, such as different messaging for the public from different federal, State and local agencies. Some of
the specific items being discussed for the new Michigan Lead and Copper Rule include mandating an
advisory committee for every PWS (it is uncertain how the State would provide oversight of these
committees, and whether it would be a violation for not having an advisory committee). While this rule is
still in the draft stage, the final product could likely be resource intensive for the ODWMA.
MDEQ has regulations in addition to federal rules that pertain to well construction, new surface water
source requirements, requirements for ground water supplies, requirements for distribution systems and
pumping stations, reliability studies, system demands in comparison to capacity, cross connection rules,
master plans and planning documents to build asset management, capacity improvement plans, operator
training and certification, emergency response plans (some of which pre-date federal requirements), water
haulers, bottled water, and the WHP grant program.
A more stringent State requirement pertains to the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), which requires a
primary coagulant for direct filtration and conventional plants and does not allow surface water systems to
avoid filtration. Also, a federal requirement that is in abeyance for the three aldicarb Synthetic Organic
Contaminants was not removed from the Michigan regulations. New ground water sources are required to
have analytical results for a suite of contaminant monitoring, including radionuclides.
MDEQ program staff said that resources are the primary hindrance which impedes the State's ability to go
beyond the federal requirements in policy, practices, guidance, or law. However, it appears that there are
also government-wide regulatory reinvention or downsizing efforts which also impact the State's ability to
go beyond the federal requirements. For example, ODWMA had a more stringent State regulation that
required schools and daycares that are PWSs to issue an annual water quality report. However, this
requirement was removed from the State regulations under a regulatory reinvention exercise to reduce more
stringent State efforts about 5 years ago.
When the federal Arsenic Rule was promulgated in 2004, a state was allowed to issue a waiver to a small
system if it had low levels of arsenic historically, that would reduce a system's monitoring frequency for
arsenic. Michigan never adopted small system waivers for arsenic. Also, the State has a more stringent
deadline for monitoring for Phase II/V contaminants, which requires monitoring by September 30 of the
year, instead of December 31. The system is fined if it misses the deadline two times or more. These State-
130
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
only violations are not reported to SDWIS/Fed. MDEQ holds some monitoring violations until the end of
the 3-year monitoring period. EPA Region 5 verified that this is appropriate for compliance samples that
only require monitoring once every 3 years; SDWIS/Fed will not accept this monitoring violation data until
the end of the 3-year monitoring compliance period.
The State has a draft policy regarding CWSs continuing to regularly monitor stand-by wells (defined as
wells that are not needed but still physically connected). The NCWS program does not have specific written
guidance related to stand-by wells at NCWS. The NC WS program and LHDs try to ensure that water wells
that no longer serve as their primary potable source(s) are properly plugged or separated from the potable
supply. If there was a NCWS that was interested in maintaining a stand-by well for potable use, the NCWS
program would reference the CWS draft stand by well policy. The State will need to determine whether this
is a program area that requires formal policy or rules, when prioritizing work, because although other States
have found this to be of concern, federal regulations do not yet require stand-by or back-up wells to be
regularly monitored.
Policies and State Initiatives Recommendations:
1. Ensure that all policies related to drinking water are consistently publicly available for the P WSs
(only three policies were accessible in mid-April of 2016 due to problems with the State's website),
so that PWSs understand how rules are being implemented by the State.
2. Continue to consider public health protection prioritization for State-only rules and policies.
Consider re-evaluating existing policies for their burden on the State and PWSs relative to public
health risk and benefits.
3. Continue to work with EPA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department of
Health and Human Services, and LHDs regarding any potential future requirements related to
Legionella control.
V. Primacy Status and Rule implementation
A. Primacy Status
MDEQ is commended for being up-to-date with all primacy rules. MDEQ is currently operating under an
extension agreement for the RTCR. At the time of this review, MDEQ staff were checking on the status of
the RTCR primacy application, and when it will be submitted to EPA Region 5, since the State's rule
adoption staff position was recently vacated. EPA Region 5 subsequently received MDEQ's RTCR primacy
application on April 18, 2016. MDEQ's RTCR preparations for PWSs, which were thorough and used
innovative methods such as a YouTube video for training purposes, were led by a manager; however, it is
unclear if staff-level technical contact leads for the RTCR have been designated.
The 2017 MDEQ grant work plan includes the following: "A State with primacy is expected to fully
implement all aspects of the regulations. State actions and policies must be at least as stringent as the federal
regulations. For any portion of a regulation that the State can't implement, the State must submit a plan with
schedule describing the steps the State will take to fully implement the provision. This plan must be
submitted within 90 days of the award of this grant."
B. Rule implementation
The top rules for violations for the non-community water system program, based on violation counts only
(as opposed to systems in violation), are Total Coliform Rule (TCR) (9% of all violations), Inorganics,
Volatile Organics (VOCs) and Synthetic Organics (SOCs) (Phase II/V rule) (4.1%), and Lead and Copper
131
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Rule (LCR) (2.3% of violations). Based on violation counts only, the top health-based (monitoring
violations are not included) rules in violation for CWSs (using the January of 2016 SDWIS/Fed data set)
were TCR, Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts (Stage 2 DBPR), and the Arsenic Rule. Some
MDEQ staff believe that the complexity of the monitoring site requirements of the DBP rule led to the
significant number of monitoring violations. The CWS program had some increasing trends in DBP
monitoring violations due to systems sampling anytime during the year, instead of sampling in a specific
month as required by the rule. The rule also expanded the regulated systems to include consecutive systems
which had never conducted sampling in the past. The CWS program also had issues with chlorine residuals
not always being monitored as required at the same time and location as repeat total coliform samples.
The State anticipates that monitoring violations, as well as reporting violations, may increase with
implementation of the RTCR which began April 1, 2016. The State believes that having separate RTCR
reporting and monitoring violations, although more burdensome, is helpful to the public in understanding
when monitoring was or was not performed. For example, the public may see that the State has 50
"monitoring and reporting (M/R)" violations and assume that monitoring was not performed for 50 systems,
when in reality, the majority of these just did not report on-time, and thus they had a reporting violation.
The responsibility for all National Primary Drinking Water Regulations rule implementation is with
Michigan; the region has no responsibility to partially implement rules. However, the region has assisted
with providing compliance assistance by notifying NTNCWS schools and daycares of lead consumer
notification requirements and following up to ensure compliance. The region is also planning to follow-up
with systems in the State that have not monitored in the summer months of June through September, as
required by the LCR.
Items that the State thought EPA should be aware of related to drinking water rules, include: needing
SDWIS/Prime to go on-line in a timely manner; providing technical tools, such as data entry instructions
and guidance quickly for new rules; ensuring rules do not become overly burdensome with many different
reporting deadlines; and emphasizing the importance of public health protection.
The State mentioned several compliance determination scenarios with which the State experiences
difficulties:
1. Resources for on-site verification of data provided on various forms from the PWSs. For example,
the State said that going into homes to verify LSLs is not practical for the State to do for all CWSs
the State has to rely on systems to verify this information.
2. The State still occasionally has discussions related to whether certain violations should be classified
as significant deficiencies. Some are case-by-case evaluations and qualitative decisions.
3. Federal and State rules were written with municipalities in mind, not non-community systems.
Sampling sites for non-community systems for the LCR are not clear. The State has assisted small
systems that exceed the lead action level at certain taps, and is also conducting investigative lead
sampling at Flint schools. (MDEQ developed its own school lead sampling protocol in March/April
of 2016.)
4. The State still has questions about public messaging related to investigative LCR samples. For
example, if a system is designated to do LCR compliance sampling in 2017, but the system takes 5
samples in 2016 that come back extremely high, the State mentioned that it seems as though
consumer notification and PE might still be expected, even if they can't be used as compliance
samples.
132
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Public Right-to-know Rule Implementation: Consumer Confidence Report Rule (CCR)
The non-community program had previously required schools and daycares to prepare annual water quality
reports, which notify the public (families with children at the school or daycare) of drinking water quality
results. However, the State did not have the time or resources to enforce this. In addition, about five years
ago, under State regulatory reinvention efforts, the program was asked for ways to reduce regulatory burden,
so this provision was removed from the rules—it had been more stringent than federal rules.
Currently, the State determines whether or not the CCR was completed by CWSs, but does not enforce the
deadline to submit the certification, which is a temporarily disinvested activity for FY 2016. As discussed
previously, EPA Region 5 is including a requirement in the 2017 PWSS grant work plan to submit to EPA a
plan and schedule for fully implementing all of the regulations. The State does a limited review of draft
CCRs, as requested by CWSs. The State has had to limit time spent on this activity because every year,
much of the month of June each year was spent reviewing CCRs that are due by July 1 annually. The State
has had to make review of CCRs and enforcement of content requirements a lower priority. However, the
State does plan to spot check CCRs for correct 90th percentile levels in summer 2016. The City of Lansing,
Michigan was part of the national pilot effort in 2012 related to EPA's policy to allow electronic delivery of
CCRs. When e-delivery of CCRs first started, the State checked links in the submitted CCRs to make sure
that they directed customers to the web page directly, and that the links worked. The State did have some
systems re-issue postcards with revised links if the wrong link was used or if it did not bring the customer
directly to the system's CCR. The State database does not currently track systems that are electronically
delivering CCRs.
Public Right-to-know Rule Implementation: Public Notification (PN)
As discussed in the Data Systems and Compliance Determinations Section of this report (in Appendix H),
the State temporarily disinvested in issuing violations and enforcing for failure to perform PN for Tier 3
violations (M/R violations) due to WaterTrack database limitations. As discussed previously, EPA Region 5
is including a requirement in the 2017 PWSS grant work plan to submit to EPA a plan and schedule for fully
implementing all of the regulations. The non-community program does not track Tier 3 PN but does track
Tier 1 and 2 PN violations; the CWS program tracks all tiers of PN violations. The CWS program has
issued, and continues to issue, fines for failure to do PN. The NC program requires PN, and provides
templates, but neither the MDEQ nor LHDs are enforcing whether PN for Tier 1, 2, or 3 violations are
issued. If there was escalated enforcement conducted by the State (not LHD) against a non-community
water system for contaminant violations, PN violations would be included. PN violations cannot be reported
to SDWIS/Fed by WaterTrack.
Primacy Status and Rule Implementation Recommendations:
1. Continue to work with EPA related to best practices for the LCR which are outside of the current
regulations.
2. Continue to re-invest in review of content of Consumer Confidence Reports.
3. Re-invest in reporting PN violations for Tier 1 and 2 violations (at a minimum, in the short-term) at
NCWSs. By ensuring that PN is issued and enforced for Tier 1 and Tier 2 violations, public health is
better protected. In addition, prepare a schedule/plan for implementing Tier 3 PN as well. All M/R
violations for PN must be reported to EPA. Failure to properly notify could lead to public health
consequences, such as increased or extended exposures (for example, when monitoring is not
completed on time so the quality of the water is unknown).
133
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
VI. Data Systems and Compliance Determinations
A. CWS Data management
MDEQ's CWS program currently uses SDWIS/State, version 3.22, for much of their data management
needs. For CWS data management, there is not an electronic or automatic data flow from the State lab's
WaterChem database or from private labs into SDWIS/State. Data is re-entered as summary data, and
hardcopies are retained. The lack of a "bridge" from WaterChem to SDWIS/State for CWS data, which
would alleviate the need for manual data entry, is a significant data management deficiency. MDEQ had
started building an electronic reporting tool to serve as the "bridge". However, new releases of SDWIS/State
changed how the "bridge" works, and the State lacked resources to keep up with the continuing updates to
SDWIS/State versions. In addition, during the file review the FR team noted that some CWS information
was found in numerous places, including separate electronic documents and hard copy documents. This
arrangement resulted in some data flow errors in the FR report, and does not encourage a holistic review of
the PWS data and operations.
The CWS program can utilize SDWIS/State to report to SDWIS/Fed for all rules, although some violations
are manually entered into SDWIS/State. The State is using the SDWIS/State Compliance Decision System
(CDS), except for contaminants that require monitoring at the entry point to the distribution system. Part of
the reason that CDS is not used for entry point monitoring is due to the State's more stringent deadline
(September 30 instead of December 31) for monitoring. This timeframe allows for laboratory hold times and
also helps the State to develop schedules for missed monitoring early in the next calendar year. The State
would eventually like to have the entry point monitoring moved to CDS, as data management is improved.
The CWS program has not taken timely action in getting complete and accurate source treated flag and
facility flow information into SDWIS/State for about 50 of the State's 3,600 wells. This issue has been
identified in the State's quarterly inventory Operational Data System error reports since October of 2005.
Periodic corrections to clean up the source treated flags and facility flow data have been done.
However, the underlying issue of entering the required facility flow information and corrected source
treated flags on a regular basis still remains a concern.
B. NCWS Data management
MDEQ's NCWS program has been using a separate drinking water data management system, WaterTrack,
since 2004. The outdated LIMS data system, which is used by the MDEQ Laboratory, uses Labworks to link
to WaterChem, which stores all chemical contaminant data analyzed by the MDEQ laboratory. WaterTrack
reads from WaterChem nightly, and determines violations, but the WaterTrack system does not allow the
system administrator or other users to independently add violations. The LHDs perform manual data entry
to WaterTrack. Due to the 30 hour hold time, there are only certain LHDs that are geographically close to
Lansing that use the MDEQ laboratory for coliform analyses, thus these LHDs do not need to manually
enter the data into WaterTrack. For the NCWS analytical data, MDEQ and LHDs would be very interested
in having data flow directly from private labs into a State drinking water database.
MDEQ recognized the limitations of WaterTrack as early as 2011, as the system cannot be used to report all
federally required violations to SDWIS/Fed, and began taking steps to move toward SDWIS/State.
Reporting deficiencies for the NCWS Program include:
NCWS Program Non-reported Violation Types That Are Enforced
1. Type 58, LCR treatment installation/ demonstration
2. Type 27, DBP M/R
134
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
3. Type 25, Failure to collect repeat TCR samples
NCWS Program Non-reported Violation Types That Are Not Enforced
1. Type 11, Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level
2. Type 12, Failure to have a Certified Operator at a system that chlorinates (tracked)
3. Type 34, Triggered source water M/R (tracked)
4. Type 56, LCR source water M/R
5. Type 66, Lead consumer notice M/R (tracked)
6. Type 75, PN violations (Tier 1 and 2 PN verifications are carried out in the field by the LHDs).
Generally, PN is verified with a required site visit within five days (within three days fori?, coli) of
becoming aware of the violation. Receipt of signed PN is tracked (SDWIS code SIF) in WaterTrack. PN
violations are not generally issued by LHDs, relying instead on verification with a site visit and, if
necessary, LHD issuance of PN (SDWIS code SFG). The NCWS program provides templates for PN to
systems with Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 violations. However, WaterTrack is unable to generate and report to
SDWIS/Fed a PN violation record and associated follow-up actions.)
The NCWS program is currently becoming familiar with SDWIS/State, in order to more easily transition to
SDWIS/Prime; and, so that the program can get up to-date on reporting deficiencies. However, resources are
extremely limited as only one person currently manages the database and is able to pull reports from
WaterTrack.
However, with EPA's planned imminent release of SDWIS/Prime, the MDEQ drinking water program
decided to wait until SDWIS/Prime was on-line before converting. Unfortunately, EPA has not yet released
SDWIS/Prime, and the actual release may still be several years in the future. EPA hopes to release
SDWIS/Prime in the fall of 2017. The State and LHDs spend a lot of time re-entering data and do not have
the financial resources to upgrade their data systems, nor do they believe that it makes sense to continue to
independently run their own systems.
Nonetheless, MDEQ can take several interim steps toward the eventual move to SDWIS/Prime, such as
converting to SDWIS/State for the non-community program, which will make for a relatively easier
transition to SDWIS/Prime. There is HQ support to aid the transition from SDWIS/State to SDWIS/Prime.
C. CWS and NCWS Data Management Practices for Specific Situations
1. Reporting of Tier 3 Public Notification violations. The State temporarily disinvested in reporting
Tier 3 violations for NCWSs, and not fully enforcing compliance with Tier 3 PN for CWS. The State
noted that it may undermine public confidence if the public does not hear about a violation until one
year after it happened, as is required by Tier 3 PN violations. EPA R5 acknowledged that issues
have been raised regarding the federal Tier 3 PN requirements. As discussed previously, the EPA
Region 5 is including a requirement in the 2017 PWSS grant work plan to submit to EPA a plan and
schedule for fully implementing all of the regulations.
2. Monitoring requirements for "found" systems. For newly "found" systems (systems which existed,
but were not previously regulated as PWSs), the State is following the capacity development
policy/process. The State or LHD works with the system on a plan to ensure the new water supply
meets requirements.
135
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
3. Changes to population or service connections. When population changes for a CWS or NCWS, and
the water system drops below the PWS definition of 15 service connections or 25 people, the State
inactivates the system, and gives oversight responsibility to the LHD (the LHD still regulates
construction at these systems, known as State Type III systems, which are not a federally-regulated
PWSs). However, the NCWS program would not inactivate a system until there is a significant drop
below the 15 service connections or 25 people, because there can be some fluctuation in population
served due to the economy. In addition, the State considers capacity when determining whether a
facility is a regulated PWS. For example, if a facility currently has 30 beds, even if only 17 are
currently filled, the State would keep the system on the inventory since there is a potential to go
above 25 persons. Also, the State can designate systems as "proposed" even if the PWS drops below
serving 25 people or 15 service connections so that the State and county can continue to monitor the
systems.
4. Changes which result in a system status change (active, inactive, or a different PWS classification,
change in source). The non-community program uses an inactivation form for changes in system
status, which is provided to the database manager to make updates in WaterTrack. The CWS
program sends a letter to the system if it is inactivated, which would typically involve coordination
with the District Engineer. If a source is permanently taken out of service, the State would require a
source abandonment log. For non-community systems, if the well is not being plugged, it could be
used as a backup source. If it is intended to be used, it has to be maintained but not monitored.
Startup procedures would need to be followed if it were used. For CWSs and NCWSs, the State
would expect full sampling before a new source of drinking water is served to the public.
D. Compliance Determinations
The State regulations generally follow the federal National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; the
only more stringent State MCLs are for the three aldicarbs: aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and aldicarb
sulfone, which were stayed (with the effect of not requiring a state rule) at the federal level.
However, the State is not requiring NTNCWSs to monitor for these three compounds. The CWS and
NCWS programs do not report State-only (not in federal regulations) violations to SDWIS/Fed (for
example, violations of the State's more stringent deadline of September 30 for triennial monitoring
would not be reported to SDWIS/Fed). Both NCWS and CWS programs report violations by system,
not entry point.
• Operator Certification: The CWS program reports Type 12 violations, for failure to have a
certified operator at systems that chlorinate.
• Nitrate: The non-community program has about 8-10 systems using the alternate MCL of 20 mg/L
for nitrate which are TNCWS, but none are schools, churches or daycares.
• Coliform: The State does not allow CWSs to monitor for coliform less frequently than monthly. The
CWS and NCWS programs require total coliform samples to have a less than 30 hour hold time prior
to analyses, which is appropriate. The State indicated that the Auditor General's recent report
examined the holding time issue, and found the State procedures were appropriate. MDEQ's policy
number 09-004 includes assuring samples meet EPA's recommended hold times.
• Inorganics, Volatile Organics, and Synthetic Organics: Under the State's Phase II/V waiver
program for VOC monitoring, a system can go directly to reduced monitoring if the system has a
non-detect; thus the system does not have to do four quarterly samples. The CWSs will sample
before a new well is approved. There has been no change to prior implementation of waivers, except
that the State, at the region's request to all applicable R5 states, revoked waivers for cyanide
136
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
monitoring where systems previously received the waivers on the basis of continuous chlorination.
In addition, the State conducted waived SOC monitoring in 2005 to ensure that a subset of systems
that received waivers did not have contamination problems.
The drinking water program did not appear to have a set procedure for handling all QA-flagged data
as part of their compliance determination process. It is also unclear if the lab is reporting all QA
flags to the drinking water program. For example, WaterTrack didn't include any samples flagged
for not being received at the proper temperature, and it is unclear if this is because no such samples
exist, if the State laboratory is not capturing this information, or if it is not being transmitted to the
drinking water program. The NCWS program stated that while the State laboratory provides a
comment on the analysis report when the sample is received at room temperature, the particular
comment field where it is stored in the laboratory's database is not included in the nightly download
of sample data to WaterChem. Therefore, the comment is not seen in WaterTrack. The only
opportunity LHDs would have to see this comment is if they are looking carefully at the PDF reports
that are emailed to them from the State laboratory. MDEQ did not know whether all certified private
laboratories are including a comment when samples arrive at room temperature.
• State-only violations: The State has a few State-only violation codes, for example for failure to
submit cross-connection control forms, which would not be federally reported.
Data Management and Compliance Determination Recommendations:
1. Move the NCWS data management to SDWIS/Prime as soon as possible, once EPA makes it
available. The NCWS program should move to SDWIS/State to ease the transition to SDWIS/Prime,
and to take advantage of the CMDP. This will allow for more complete violation reporting for the
NCWS program.
2. Plan for the CWS Program to fully utilize SDWIS/Prime so as to have one place to store official
compliance schedules and data. Dedicated State or contract IT staff are needed to do this planning.
3. Cross-train staff so that more than one staff person has a working knowledge and understands how
data flows, understands limitations of data systems, and how to query and use management reports.
In addition, staff should QA data and examine it for outliers, anomalies, and trends to ensure data
quality.
4. Review policies of the State's Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB) (which
is located in a different department) to determine how to allow for increased use of web services and
to assess the current DTMB structure which limits the ability of the drinking water program to obtain
prompt necessary assistance.
5. Examine best practices nationally for CWS and NCWS data management, such as electronic
reporting from the laboratory to the State drinking water database. The State should consider a State
regulation or laboratory certification requirement to require electronic reporting from all
laboratories, including private laboratories, to the State. EPA released the CMDP in October 2016, to
ensure that data is transferred from the laboratory to the State database in a complete and efficient
manner. EPA encourages the State and labs to implement the CMDP and to carefully follow the
development of SDWIS/Prime.
6. Prepare a written SOP to outline how source treated flag and facility flow data should be entered into
SDWIS/State so staff can complete this task as new source water system facilities are added to
SDWIS/State.
137
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
7. Work with the labs conducting drinking water compliance analyses to ensure that all data is being
given appropriate QA flags and qualifiers are clearly defined, so that situations are clear as to when
flagged data may not be appropriate for including in a compliance determination.
8. Ensure that PN is being posted with appropriate messages for TNCWSs utilizing the alternate nitrate
MCL of 20 mg/L.
9. Work with EPA regarding whether certain data should be excluded from compliance calculations
due to QA concerns. The program did not appear to have a set procedure for handling all QA flagged
data as part of their compliance determination process for CWSs or NCWSs. It is also unclear if the
lab is reporting all QA flags to the drinking water program or if this is a deficiency with WaterTrack.
For example, for NCWSs, WaterTrack didn't include any samples flagged for not being received at
the proper temperature, and it is unclear if this is because no such samples exist, if the State lab is
not capturing this information, or if it is not being transmitted to the drinking water program. For the
CWS program, data qualifiers are not typically entered into SDWIS/State, since it is entered as
summary data. The qualifiers may appear on hard copy forms.
10. Seek cross-training for staff on the process of moving data from SDWIS/State to SDWIS/Fed, why
timeliness of data submittals by water systems is important, and the use and limitations of SDWIS
data on the web for the public so that staff have a broader understanding of the uses of compliance
data. (The State experienced some unnecessary work with federal reporting services data available
for the public because EPA allowed the public to pull data that was out of date and that did not
reflect corrections that had been made by the State.)
11. Weigh State-specific public health priorities, including those which may extend beyond the federal
requirements in deciding which initiatives, such as monitoring requirements for stand-by wells, are
implementable and able to be funded/staffed and have the highest priority to protect public health.
VII. Laboratory Operations and Sample Analysis
A. Laboratory Operations
The lab certification function is not under direct control of ODWMA. Although the State laboratory
analyzes both environmental and drinking water samples, there are dedicated staff and equipment for each
program. The laboratory certification officer is expected to have hands-on experience with the laboratory
equipment and issues at laboratories, which is best gained by being physically located at the laboratory. The
State laboratory currently holds interim certification, since the region was delayed in visiting the laboratory
for full certification prior to December 31, 2015, when the full certification expired. EPA Region 5 visited
the laboratory for certification in May of 2016. The laboratory has planned to ensure adequate capacity for
new rules, such as the RTCR. The laboratory staff has had to be well organized in planning schedules to
ensure that the approximately 170 audits of private labs over a 3-year period are completed on-time, at a rate
of about 60 audits/year.
A previous challenge for the State laboratory was gearing up for lead sample analysis for Flint, but
according to laboratory staff, this has successfully been achieved. However, this sampling effort is diverting
resources and requiring overtime work. The laboratory has six open positions that it is approved to fill.
One challenge that the laboratory staff indicated they are facing is the slow, archaic LIMS data management
system. It is time consuming to put data in and get data out of it.
The laboratory staff follow-up on complaints, and work closely with the drinking water program in
interpreting analytical results. A concern of laboratory staff is that all QA requirements need to be in the
138
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Federal Register, not in guidance or the laboratory certification manual. Lab staff said that currently some
EPA guidance documents have inconsistent QA requirements. Any inconsistent QA requirements should be
addressed with the EPA Region 5 Lab Certification Program Manager.
The State drinking water program sends monitoring schedules early in the year to systems to notify them of
their monitoring responsibilities. The State/LHD do not collect compliance samples, except in rare
situations (for example, if sampling is grossly overdue, to ensure safety, or if there is a special
investigation). For CWSs, operators, contractors, or owners collect samples, and for NCWSs, resident
owners or operators collect all samples, including lead and copper samples.
The State laboratory gives detailed instructions to PWSs on how to collect samples. State staff in district
offices or data staff in Lansing provide systems with technical guidance on monitoring, and such assistance
is most often requested by small systems. Questions from NCWSs are usually responded to by the LHD,
who will call the State if they have any questions regarding sampling and monitoring.
B. Sample Analysis
Samples are analyzed for CWSs and NCWSs by MDEQ's State laboratory and private laboratories; the
MDEQ State laboratory is generally used by supplies that are geographically closer to Lansing. All
radionuclide analyses are done be other certified laboratories, since the MDEQ laboratory is not certified for
radionuclide analyses. For total coliform analyses, the NCWS program estimates roughly 60% of all
samples are analyzed by a private lab, and 40% of all samples are analyzed by the MDEQ State laboratory.
About half of the NC nitrate samples are analyzed by the State laboratory, and 90% of other contaminants
(such as VOC, SOC, IOC) are analyzed by the State laboratory for NTNCWSs. About half of the CWSs use
the MDEQ laboratory for all required analyses (but this may not equate to half of all of the samples, since
some of the large PWSs, which are required to take more samples than the smaller systems, have their own
laboratory and do not use the MDEQ laboratory).
Sampling is not typically required beyond the federal requirements, but no reduction options are available
for CWSs total coliform monitoring, which is a more protective practice since more sampling is required.
Staff may ask for raw source water samples if the sample results detect a contaminant, even if entry point
results are below the health standard or non-detect. The staff put wells on "watch" if a known contaminant
plume is in the area, and the wells can be put on quarterly monitoring. The State has some TNCWS
conducting VOC monitoring because its source is near a plume, but sample results are not reported to EPA,
since VOC monitoring at TNCWS is not a federal requirement.
Laboratory reporting is very inefficient. CWSs receive data in PDFs from the State laboratory, but it is not
an electronic file and it does not automatically upload to the CWS drinking water database, so the data must
be entered manually into SDWIS/State. However, the State laboratory does report chemical results
electronically to WaterChem; and WaterTrack pulls chemical data from WaterChem for any NCWS that
uses the State laboratory. CWS chemical data from WaterChem must be entered manually to SDWIS/State.
The CWS program and Local Health Departments (LHD) also obtain hard copy data via U.S. Postal
Service, emailed results, and occasional fax results from private laboratories, at a rate of up to 5,000
separate submittals per month, which also must be entered manually into SDWIS/State.
In addition to the LHDs getting data in PDFs from the State laboratory, there is a daily transfer of the State-
generated data from the State laboratory to WaterChem and WaterTrack. However, this efficiency of having
data transferred is not currently available from the private laboratories.
139
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
The CWS and NCWS managers indicated that they are appropriately requiring no more than the 30-hour
hold time for total coliform samples. In terms of checking hold times, WaterTrack requires the input of the
date and time fields from the chain of custody form. It was thought by the MDEQ staff, and verified by EPA
Region 5, that SDWIS/State did not require inclusion of the sample collection time as a required field, so the
CWS process for ensuring whether hold times were not exceeded was unclear. The sample collection date is
a required field in SDWIS/State.
The drinking water program did not appear to have a set procedure for handling all QA flagged data, such as
if a sample arrives at the laboratory that is not at the required chilled temperature. MDEQ provided a
Quality Assurance Program Plan to EPA in April of 2016, which includes the following lab procedure:
"5.3 Sample Receipt Protocols
Upon receipt, the condition of the sample is recorded in the comment area of
LIMS or on the chain of custody (COC) if there are any abnormalities or
departures from standard conditions. All samples which require thermal
preservation are considered acceptable if they arrive with ice, cold blue icepacks,
or the arrival temperature is either within ± 2°C of the required temperature or the
method specified range. For samples with a specified temperature of 4°C, samples
with a temperature ranging from just above freezing temperature of water to 6°C
are considered acceptable. Samples that are hand delivered to the laboratory
immediately after collection may not meet these criteria. In these cases, the
samples will be considered acceptable if there is evidence that the chilling process
has begun, such as arrival on ice."
This is a topic that may require further investigation as to how flagged data is reflected in WaterTrack and
SDWIS/State, and under what circumstances the program will consider a result unsuitable for compliance
purposes. This issue will require further national discussion.
Laboratory and Sample Analysis Recommendations:
1. Consider making it a laboratory certification requirement for all laboratories to report electronically
directly to the State in a manner that will directly feed the State drinking water database; the
efficiencies achieved with this process are immense in that 50 labs will report to the State, instead of
thousands of individual systems reporting independently. Staff noted that requiring electronic
reporting via the lab certification program, which is not currently required, could alleviate the
lengthy State rule development process related to electronic reporting by individual water systems,
and could allow for a phase-in of lab e-Reporting implementation.
2. Work closely with the State laboratory LIMS data management staff to ensure electronic reporting
begins as soon as possible.
3. Devise ways for the drinking water program and laboratory staff to examine data for QA issues or
potential fraud, when considering electronic reporting (fraud was mentioned by State staff as a
concern with moving from hard copy to electronic reporting). This may take several years to
accomplish; consider it a long-term goal.
4. Ensure coordination between drinking water lab staff and drinking water data staff to ensure
compatibility of any new LIMS with EPA's CMDP, SDWIS/State, and SDWIS/Prime.
5. Participate in national discussions related to the use of qualified data for drinking water compliance
purposes, if possible, to understand expectations of laboratory and drinking water program staff.
140
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
VIII. Sanitary Surveys
Based on calendar year 2013-2015 data, MDEQ had performed sanitary surveys on time for 93.3% of
community water systems utilizing surface or ground water.
Sanitary surveys were performed at the required frequency by system type as follows:
• 92.9% (276/297) of CWS surface water systems,
• 100% (11/11) of TNCWS surface water systems,
• 93.4% of CWS ground water systems (999/1070),
• 98.1% (1206/1229) of NTNCWS ground water systems, and
• 98.3% (7531/7661) of TNCWS ground water systems.
These completion rates are very similar to those reported by MDEQ for the 2012-2014 timeframe,
and meet the national targets.
MDEQ district staff perform CWS sanitary surveys, and LHDs conduct NCWS sanitary surveys. There are
no specific State requirements for sanitary surveys, but the federally-required elements are addressed. The
CWS and NCWS forms used for sanitary surveys do not explicitly list common deficiencies. The CWS
program includes a summary form which identifies all eight elements of a sanitary survey. This form (hard
copy) includes sub-categories to assess, from which deficiencies may be derived. The non-community form
includes the federally-required elements, but also does not list common deficiencies. The State does not use
the outstanding performers designation to allow a decreased frequency of sanitary surveys, and the State
questions the appropriateness of the label name of this designation since systems could still have issues even
if they meet the "outstanding performer" criteria, and likewise, systems that don't meet the criteria may still
have very strong programs.
For NCWSs, completeness of sanitary surveys is assured and evaluated largely through the use of
WaterTrack. A WaterTrack report, 'Sanitary Surveys Not Completed', lists water systems for which survey
data entry has been initiated, but not completed. On the Sanitary Survey data entry screens, the SAVE
function requires that fields for source, pump, treatment, storage, and distribution are populated, and a
corresponding approval status for each survey element is selected, in order for the sanitary survey record to
be saved as a complete record. The sanitarian records significant deficiencies under the GWR by selecting
"High Risk" in the approval field of the survey element in question and placing details in the associated
comment field. Guidance for what to call a significant deficiency is provided in written materials designed
for the sanitarian.
The non-community program has noted a pattern of concerns at certain LHDs in terms of performing quality
and timely sanitary surveys, due to lack of staffing. MDEQ staff has found that these resource-deficient
LHDs will begin catching up with sanitary surveys, and then staff will be reassigned and they will fall
behind schedule again. LHD resources are not spread evenly among LHDs, and LHDs sometimes have
problems getting qualified applicants. The decentralized organizational structure of MDEQ district offices
makes it difficult geographically to fill-in or redistribute resources on a long-term basis.
The CWS program has noted that designating deficiencies during sanitary surveys has resulted in resolution
of several source capacity (not enough water) issues. The State believes that this new program under the
GWR was worth the investment of time for long-term public health protection.
141
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Staff do not specifically consider ETT scores when deciding on schedules for conducting sanitary surveys,
but systems with identified issues may be scheduled for a sanitary survey sooner because of problems. For
example, a NCWS with a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) violation, that needs a Level 2 assessment,
or has an Action Level Exceedance (ALE) could increase the priority of a sanitary survey conducted at that
system.
Also, the State prioritizes surveillance visits for CWSs with problems. The State tries to visit each CWS at
least once a year, and tries to visit water systems with complete treatment plants four times per year (limited
treatment plants are twice a year).
Sanitary Surveys Recommendations'.
1. Include an explicit checklist of common deficiencies as an enhancement to the sanitary survey form,
so that the inspector can easily recall them and quickly indicate if they exist.
2. Evaluate the frequency of sanitary survey visits as it pertains to the specific types of compliance
assistance provided during the visits, as part of an overall resource evaluation. Also evaluate whether
the current sanitary survey frequency providing the optimal value to the systems, and to what extent,
if at all, the decentralized structure creating issues with quality and timeliness of sanitary surveys.
3. Consider follow through on State plans to have fewer staff perform large system sanitary surveys,
instead of spreading out this work among many staff as part of their responsibilities, if it may be
beneficial in ensuring a greater level of consistency and quality control.
IX. Capacity Development, Operator Certification, and Plan Review
A. Capacity Development
Capacity Development refers to the technical, managerial and financial capacity to operate a PWS. A new
NTNCWS must follow the capacity process indicated in the 2014 Noncommunity Program Staff Reference
Manual and Policy ODWMA-399-014, "New Systems Capacity Assessment for Non-Transient Non-
Community Public Water Systems," http://www,michi gan.gov/documents/deq/deq-odwma-ehs-ncws-
capdeveuide 402837 7.pdf.
CWSs must follow the State capacity strategy which was approved by EPA Region 5. The State capacity
strategy includes a checklist for new CWS and NTNCWS supplies. The State capacity development strategy
has not been updated recently, but the policies and procedures have been updated.
If a CWS is found to have a financial capacity issue, the system will be referred to the DWSRF Section of
the ODWMA that can assist with this issue. LHDs provide financial management guidance for NTNCWS.
State staff must keep up-to-date with requirements and best practices in order to assist systems with capacity
development. Capacity development is interwoven into many staff and manager responsibilities in the
ODWMA. MDEQ staff use the Capacity Development 101 training, and many other trainings are taken by
staff to help keep up to date with PWS best practices and regulatory requirements. MDEQ suggests that
EPA offer a continuing cycle of rule refresher training, as older rules tend to get pushed off when a new rule
is promulgated. Knowledge is being lost due to staff turnover and retirements. (Also, State staff may not be
able to keep up with rule-specific water supply guidance or if EPA changes implementation guidance or
expectations over time.) Non-community program managers would like to offer more training to LHDs on a
set schedule, so the LHDs can plan ahead. For example, LHDs could count on a basics course to be held
every November, or a sanitary survey training to happen every January. In addition, the non-community
142
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
program suggests the need to conduct training for LHDs regarding the content of the annual reports that
LHDs prepare for the State to help ensure consistency and ensure that public health is protected.
Many trainings are available to PWSs: EPA webinars, Operator Certification Program offerings, Rural
Community Assistance Program courses, Rural Water Association courses, and other privately offered
training. The State operator certification program approves specific courses for continuing education
requirements for operators. AWWA is one of the largest providers of training in Michigan, sometimes in
conjunction with local universities. LHDs provide some training. MDEQ is currently providing two RTCR
webinars on YouTube, which have been well-received. As resources become available, MDEQ would like
to develop 15-minute refresher training videos on sampling, completing forms, and other topics via
YouTube that would be helpful in ensuring system capacity and are easily accessible to the operators.
MDEQ conducts some training directly to water suppliers, such as on the Stage 2 DBPR, where consecutive
systems were not previously subject to the rule. The State also did some training on the Michigan Ground
Water Management Tool for source water assessments. Over a two-year period, MDEQ did mailings for
RTCR, and also gave presentations at regional AWWA meetings (four meetings are held every spring and
every fall). MDEQ staff and managers are often on the agenda for other organizations' meetings, and the
AWWA Michigan Section publishes the Water Works Newsletter, to which the State provides content. The
State has not had the resources to specifically track whether the trainings have improved compliance for
specific water systems; however, evaluations of meetings have confirmed an increased understanding of
requirements by PWS personnel.
MDEQ staff have used the ETT tracker as a tool to determine when a water system no longer has the
priority points to be listed as a "priority" system on the ETT list. If ODWMA had more resources, the
program would use the ETT more proactively to work with water systems on an ongoing basis. The program
would like to better understand what is causing compliance issues to reoccur so that training could be better
targeted. The program needs resources to work on better use of the ETT in order to prioritize work and
needed training.
If the State observes a system with increasing non-compliance, that is an indicator of capacity issues. The
State does not use an ongoing capacity checklist, but does ask questions as part of the sanitary survey. The
program uses significant deficiencies, failure to correct a significant deficiency in a timely fashion, and
financial management metrics to assess the capacity of systems. The State is commended for having new
rules in place for CWS asset management, and capital improvement planning for all PWSs. These rules
were promulgated in October of 2015 requiring Capital Improvement Plans for publicly-owned water
supplies by 2016, and requiring asset management for CWSs serving greater than 1,000 people by 2018.
MDEQ has begun providing guidance on asset management requirements for CWSs with a population of
more than 1,000. All asset management plans will be in place by January 1, 2018.
MDEQ has a significant investment in compliance assistance. MDEQ's ODWMA has most of their policies
on-line, which is helpful to PWSs. As previously discussed, MDEQ should ensure that consistent access to
all of the policies is available via the State's website. An estimated 25-50% of staff time is dedicated to
compliance assistance activities for CWSs, and about 20 FTEs at LHDs are devoted to providing
compliance assistance.
Under the RTCR, the State required systems to submit new sample site plans. State engineers send out the
monitoring schedules to all CWSs. For NCWSs, LHD staff maintain the database, setting the monitoring
schedule for the systems. LHD staff notifies NCWSs of sampling requirements and compares the actual
monitoring against the monitoring schedule. The State would eventually like to send these annual
143
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
monitoring schedules electronically if the State invests in a publicly accessible version of Drinking Water
Watch, and be able to resolve in SDWIS/State the previously described issue of being able to reflect the
State compliance period end date of September 30 instead of the federal December 31, for certain
monitoring. The CWS program sends out reminders of required submittals (i.e., reports, analyses) that are
due. LHDs do similar reminders via phone calls and email reminders to non-community systems. Other
compliance assistance activities include webinars, LHDs visits to the system if a total coliform positive is
reported, and on-site visits for CWSs. Site visits are typically conducted if E. coli is detected, significant
deficiencies or MCL violations exist, if treatment is being installed, to verify if PN is posted at NCs, when
an alternate source of water is being used, or a system has conducted a Level 1 assessment under RTCR.
Capacity Development Recommendations:
1. Ensure that training of staff on existing policies and regulations is conducted regularly to ensure all
staff are aware of procedures and requirements to promote consistent implementation. In addition,
please submit to the region any changes/revisions made to policies and procedures which are
referenced as part of your EPA-approved capacity development strategy. This information could be
submitted as part of or as an attachment to your annual Capacity Development Report.
2. Pursue training on both the ETT and ETT Scores Tracker for use in prioritizing work, working
proactively with systems, and identifying necessary training by PWSs.
3. Continue to move toward sharing with PWSs electronically, for example by posting annual
monitoring schedules to the web or using a publicly accessible version of Drinking Water Watch.
Certain forms, such as the NCWSs capacity analysis, are already available as an electronically
fillable document on the MDEQ website. Enhancing PWSs access to their monitoring schedules on
the web may save staff time, and would be readily accessible to LHD staff in the field.
4. Consider dedicating a position for a training/outreach coordinator. This position would be helpful in
planning not only trainings for PWSs and LHDs, but also for State staff. This position could help
ensure that trainings are occurring regularly on a set schedule, verify that content such as short
YouTube videos is accessible to the appropriate audience, write articles for newsletters, conduct PE
programs, and update operator certification training for new rules, etc. The area of expanding
training needs is an emerging issue, with staff turnover.
5. Continue follow-up on recommendations included in EPA's capacity development approval letter
for the 2015 annual capacity development report. In the approval letter, EPA discusses providing
extra technical, financial and managerial assistance to existing systems which have new sources, and
recommends MDEQ continue including systems which change classification from a TNCWS to a
NTNCWS on the list of new systems for which capacity is tracked in the annual reports. EPA
recommends that, in most cases, the system could be treated like a new system and the State should
put it through the same capacity evaluation as it does with the brand new systems. Michigan requires
approval of a financial plan and an operations plan that address financial and managerial capacity
before a new system, except a transient system, can start operation. An updated financial and
operational plan from a system with a new source may prevent future noncompliance problems.
144
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
B. Operator Certification
Annually, MDEQ prepares a report on the status of its operator certification program, and the program is
reviewed by EPA Region 5 annually. Although not required to maintain primacy, a State is subject to 20%
withholding of DWSRF if an adequate operator certification program is not maintained. MDEQ also
prepares an annual report to the governor on the numbers of operator training courses offered, the number of
exams given, the number of certifications made, and the number of renewals made. During EPA Region 5's
review of the state's September of 2015 submittal of its Annual Operator Certification Report, the Region
questioned whether recent renewal rates with recent new operator certifications will be sufficient to meet
future staffing and compliance needs at Michigan water systems.
The drinking water operator training and certification program is funded by a combination of operator
certification fees and federal drinking water state revolving fund set-aside funds. Due to resources and
recent staff turnover, it has been a challenge for the State to keep up with demand to process the operator
applications for certifications. In FY 2014, MDEQ administered about 1,380 exams and processed about
1,240 renewals for drinking water operators.
The State administers the operator certification exams in Michigan; the State previously contracted out this
service, but wanted the exams to be more specific to Michigan. The State uses a committee to determine
questions, and an external advising board oversees the process. Questions are reviewed during every exam
cycle; for example, the questions were just reviewed to take out the TCR-specific questions because this
rule was superseded by the RTCR as of April 1, 2016. Proposed new exam questions with the regulatory
citation are sent in to the Subject Matter Expert Committees as new regulations emerge. In addition, the
State updates operator certification training on an ongoing basis, and especially after new rules are
promulgated. MDEQ has recently provided specific training on DBP and LCR rules. Updating operator
certification training has been difficult to accomplish with tight resources.
The operator certification program does not use non-compliance information to determine operator
qualifications. Staff in the field (district office or LHD) enforce the requirement of a CWS and NTNCWS
having a certified operator, if a system needs an operator. If an operator's certification needs to be revoked,
the Advisory Board of Examiners would provide a recommendation to MDEQ. By policy titled
"Community and Non-community Water Supply Systems—Required Operations Oversight", MDEQ has
established requirements for a minimum number of hours an operator needs to be on-site for different
classifications of PWSs. However, it appears that this policy has only the effect of guidance, rather than
being enforceable, because it is not in State rules.
According to a data pull conducted from WaterTrack in early April of 2016, 14% of NTNCWSs have no
operator or an expired operator. As of the end of FY 2014, the State reported non-compliance rates of 3.4%
for NTNCWSs and 4.8% for TNCWSs. According to this data, the non-compliance rate has grown between
December of 2014 and April of 2016. The MDEQ FY 2014 Operator Certification Report indicated that
LHDs require action by the PWS within 30 days of notice, then if there is no satisfactory response, the
State/LHD pursues an informal hearing / Bilateral Compliance Agreement. However, this process does not
appear to be happening in a timely manner due to delays in the notification of LHDs of lapsed operators. A
resource issue identified is that the State used to have staff keeping up with certified operators by running
queries of the database and sending lists of expired operators to the LHDs requesting follow-up. This task is
behind schedule due to other more pressing priorities.
In the NCWS program, operator compliance is verified on the WaterTrack address maintenance screen,
which displays current operator certification status and expiration date from the Operator Training and
145
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Certification Program's database of record. The final two required elements, Monitoring/Reporting status
(based on the most recent ETT) and Management/Operation, are evaluated at the time of quarterly data
processing just prior to submittal to SDWIS/Fed.
The State has recently changed practices for NCWSs from offering an exam three times per year to two
times per year; EPA is interested if MDEQ has found an adverse impact on the program due to this
reduction. When a system changes classification, MDEQ rules at R 325.11904 allow a system to be without
an operator of the appropriate level until six months after the next exam. So, under the State rules,
theoretically a system that changes classification could be without an operator of the appropriate level for
almost a year, with the current practice of offering exams only twice per year.
EPA appreciates the work that the State is doing tracking operator certification status for all systems, not
just the systems that filter and chlorinate which are federal requirements. (The only required federally-
reportable violation is for systems that chlorinate without operators, and MDEQ is reporting these violations
to the federal database.) The State uses a State-only violation code for systems that do not filter and
chlorinate, and it is not reported to SDWIS/Fed. The State would consider reporting State-only violations to
SDWIS if there was a way to easily distinguish between State and federal violations.
Lack of resources is hindering the State's ability to pursue simplification of the operator certification
application and other options such as allowing reciprocity with other states. The current application takes
considerable time for the operator to complete and the State to review. Some managers at MDEQ would like
to pursue the idea of different licenses for specific different types of plants, such as conventional treatment,
lime softening and microfiltration. The current exams for operator certification requires the operator to
know about all of these types of treatment systems on the exam, and there have been some complaints from
operators about this not being directly applicable to their day-to-day work. MDEQ plans to start a
stakeholder process to get more feedback on this issue. In addition, current MDEQ regulations require
operators to have experience and two years of college education or equivalent for certain classifications, as
detailed at http://www.mjchigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-ess-otu-dw-partl9 252853 7.pdf.
State operator certification rules and policies indicate that when a system's treatment change occurs, the
operator has six months after the date of the next applicable exam to come into compliance with the higher
level of certification. Both the CWS and NC programs would consider it a significant deficiency if a PWS is
taking no action to hire or train an operator to the proper level of certification, as there is a risk to public
health, but this is not a preventative approach.
The State does not currently impose a maximum number of systems that a single operator can operate as a
contract operator. However, the State does not allow a single operator to be in charge of more than two
filtration plants. The maximum number of water systems that a single operator is currently in charge of is
about 100 systems, but this individual has staff help in managing the workload. This may be an area that the
State needs to consider in the future.
146
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Operator Certification Recommendations'.
1. Consider funding options for the operator certification program. The use of DWSRF set-asides are
allowable to support the operator certification program, but the operator certification program could
be self-sustaining if it were fully funded by fees. That would allow for more focus on program
improvements and operator training, and leave more resources for other critical drinking water
program needs.
2. Consider any adverse impacts of offering certification exams only twice per year. By restricting the
number of times per year to take the exam, the State is restricting the number of operators that are
available to be hired each year, as well as the timeliness of operators gaining certification at the
appropriate level if the system is reclassified to a higher level. As part of this effort, MDEQ should
carefully evaluate the extent (in terms of how many months, as well as how many systems) to which
systems are not operating with operators at the appropriate certification level.
3. Provide resources to follow up on lapsed operator certifications and carry out a stakeholder process
to examine possible program inefficiencies and process improvements.
4. Plan for potential operator shortages in the future, for example by considering innovative approaches
or possibly new classifications such as operator-in-training, which are being used successfully in
other states in order to get more interest in the field.
C. Plan Review
Construction permits are regulatory requirements for any addition of treatment, construction, water mains,
and new sources. The State has revised the permit application form and designed a new review checklist. In
Michigan, permits are reviewed and stamped by Professional Engineers.
The LHDs work with an engineer in the Lansing office regarding treatment and design/construction permit
review. The LHDs do their own well permitting.
MDEQ does assist the LHDs with reviews for systems with treatment installations or that utilize surface
water sources, but the LHDs issue approvals after working with MDEQ (some LHDs charge a fee for this
work).
As part of the plan review process, engineers assess the capability of the water system to comply with
standards. MDEQ indicated that their central treatment engineer position is currently vacant, but it will be
backfilled. MDEQ will also try to hire a corrosion control specialist.
Plan Review Recommendation:
1. Fill the vacant treatment engineer positions, and take into consideration specialized technical
expertise needs to effectively implement the drinking water program when hiring staff.
147
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
File Review for Lead and Copper Rule
For the Michigan File Review, Cadmus reviewed the two most recent rounds of samples, using a cutoff date
of September 2015. This cutoff date was determined by the date the data were pulled from SDWIS. The data
were pulled from SDWIS in 1st quarter 2016 and included information reported through
September 30, 2015. For the file review, Cadmus reviewed monitoring data for July to December 2014 and
January to June 2015.
After the Flint PWS began using the Flint River source, it was required to conduct LCR monitoring on a
standard monitoring schedule. The first monitoring period was July to December 2014.
July to December 2014 Monitoring Period
• 100 samples were taken from the end of November to the end of December.
• Number of samples taken = 100.
• Number of required samples = 100.
• The cover sheet to the Lead and Copper Reporting form did not indicate the PWS's population at
that time.
• The documentation sent to MDEQ stated that all samples were not Tier 1 samples.
• No samples were invalidated.
• The File Review confirmed that all samples used in the State's 90th percentile calculation were
marked as routine monitoring.
• Lead 90th percentile: 6 |^g/L.
• Copper 90th percentile: 110 jag/L.
January to June 2015 Monitoring Period
MDEQ provided two sets of lead and copper results for this time period. One set of sample results was
stamped as "draft."
Draft Summary Results
• 71 samples were taken from February 10 to June 30, 2015.
• Number of samples taken = 71, changed by hand to 69.
• Number of required samples = 100, changed by hand to 60.
• PWS Population = 99,763. Based on this population the LCR would require 60 samples, but it was
unclear when the PWS's population changed.
NOTE: Documentation provided by MDEQ onMarch 22, 2017 indicates that the change in
population served by the City of Flint's PWS was documented in an email between MDEQ staff
dated April 1, 2015, which was during the compliance period. This documentation should have been
in the System file. The population for Flint was not changed in SDWIS-State until July 9, 2015.
• The documentation sent to MDEQ indicated that all samples were not Tier 1 samples.
148
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Invalidated Sample
• The lxxx Washington Ave sample was invalidated (see Table 2-2). It appears that this site was
resampled on March 19, 2015, and the results for Lead (6 ju.g/L) and copper (170 jug/L) were
included in their respective 90th percentile calculations (e.g., 1 of the 71 or 1 of the 69 samples).
Table 2-2. InvalidatedSamples-lxxx Washington Ave
Sample Number
LF57732
Sample collected
3/9/2015
8:00
Date Received
3/24/2015
11:05
Address:
lxxx Washington Ave, Flint
Collector:
(private citizen)
Handwritten Note:
Past 14 day hold time for
Preservative
Lead
0.007 mg/L
Copper
0.16 mg/L
Excluded Samples
• The tables below summarize the information for two samples that were included in the draft
summary results, but were subsequently crossed out by hand on the draft, and not submitted with
revised results:
Table 2-3. Excluded Sample -2xx Browning Ave
Sample Number
LLF54945
Sample collected
2/18/2015
7:15 AM
Date Received
2/19/2015
11:13 AM
Address:
2xx Browning Ave
Collector:
(private citizen)
Handwritten Note:
Has Whole house filter
Purpose:
Routine Monitoring
Lead
0.104 mg/L
Copper
ND
nple -6xx S. Grand Traverse
Sample Number
LF64284
Sample collected
5/18/2015
8:30 AM
Date Received
5/20/2015
11:24 AM
Address:
6xx S. Grand r
Yaverse, Flint
Collector:
(Private Citizen)
Handwritten Note:
Not Tier 1 Business Not for
compliance
Purpose:
Other
Lead
0.020 mg/L
Copper
0.14 mg/L
149
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Revised Summary Results
• 69 samples were taken from February 10 to June 30, 2015.
• Number of samples taken = 69.
• Number of required samples = 60.
• The PWS Population is 99,763.
• The documentation sent to the MDEQ indicated that all samples were not Tier 1 samples. Cover
sheet: "Are all sites Tier 1?" the Flint PWS answered "No."
• The revised sample results were the same as the draft sample results (minus the two excluded
samples described above).
• All samples used in the State's 90th percentile calculation were marked as routine monitoring.
Additional sample results for the two sites that were excluded
In addition, there were other lead and copper samples taken at the two excluded sites and lab slips were
provided, but they were not included in the draft or revised sample summary results that were submitted.
Table 2-5. Excluded sample number LF56229 from the 9ffh percentile calculation
Sample Number
LF56229
Sample collected
2/25/2015
10:26 AM
Date Received
3/6/2015
11:34 AM
Address:
2xx Browning Ave
Collector:
Flint PWS operator
Handwritten Note:
Purpose:
Water Quality Problem
Lead
ND
Copper
Not included. Lab report addresses a suite of inorganic
chemicals (IOCs) tested using method EPA 200.8, does
not include copper, and only a limited list of other IOCs.
Table 2-6. Excluded sample number LLF56224 from the 90th percentile calculation
Sample Number
LLF56224
Sample collected
3/3/2015
6:00 AM
Date Received
3/6/2015
11:33 AM
Address:
2xx Browning Ave
Collector:
private citizen
Handwritten Note:
Has Whole house filter
Purpose:
Other
Lead
0.397 mg/L
Copper
ND
150
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Table 2-7. Excluded sample number LF57729 from the 9(/h percentile calculation
Sample Number
LF57729
Sample collected
3/18/2015
11:10 AM
Date Received
3/24/2015
11:05 AM
Address:
2xx Browning Ave
Collector:
Flint PWS operator
Handwritten Note:
Not 1st draw, Whole house filter
Purpose:
Other
Lead
0.397 mg/L
Copper
ND
Table 2-8. Excluded sample number LLF59748 from the 90th percentile calculation
Sample Number
LLF59748
Sample collected
4/2/2015
8:00 AM
Date Received
4/14/2015
11:07 AM
Address:
2xx Browning Ave
Collector:
private citizen
Handwritten Note:
Basement Tap pre filter
Purpose:
Other
Lead
0.707 mg/L
Copper
0.11 mg/L
Table 2-9. Excluded sample number LF64282 from the 9ffhpercentile calculation
Sample Number
LF64282
Sample collected
5/15/2015
13:00
Date Received
5/20/2015
11:24 AM (note received
date and time is identical
to sample LF64284)
Address:
6xx S. Grand Traverse, Flint
Collector:
Flint PWS operator
Handwritten
Business Basement Not Tier 1
Note:
Purpose:
Other
Lead
0.017 mg/L
Copper
0.14 mg/L
151
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Appendix 2-8: History of Detroit Modified Consecutive System Approach
The Flint PWS is one of 115 consecutive PWSs served by the Detroit Water and Sewage District (Detroit
PWS). As permitted, with EPA concurrence, by the NPDWRs at 40 CFR § 141.29, MDEQ proposed a
reduced sampling schedule for the consecutive PWSs under what it termed a "Modified Consecutive
System" (MCS) approach. The MCS approach was first presented to Edward Watters, Chief of the Safe
Drinking Water Branch, EPA Region 5, by James Cleland, Chief of the Division of Water Supply for
MDEQ, in a letter dated September 17, 1991. The letter pointed to inequities in the number of samples for
the Detroit PWS and its 115 consecutive systems. If the Detroit PWS and its consecutive systems had to
take all the samples required by the LCR under the standard monitoring schedule for each system, there
would be over 5,000 samples for lead and copper representing approximately 4.2 million people. In
comparison, the City of New York would only be required to take 100 samples for approximately 7 million
people. Even if the Detroit PWS used the number of samples required for reduced monitoring, it would still
be collecting over 2,500 samples.
MDEQ explained that its proposed approach was reasonable because Detroit PWS' five water treatment
plants apply the same type of treatment and are supplied by three intakes on lower Lake Huron. So, water
quality and treatment would be similar. Corrosion control chemicals could be added at each of Detroit's five
water treatment plants (WTPs) and consistently applied. The Detroit PWS would take responsibility for
water quality parameter monitoring at the plants and in its distribution system. Under the MCS approach,
the Detroit PWS would take 100 samples and the consecutive PWSs would take approximately 700 samples
divided based upon their population. No system would take fewer than five samples. Compliance would be
judged on a per-system basis and would be determined based on each system's individual lead and copper
levels. According to the letter, the Flint PWS would be required to collect 33 samples.
MDEQ's letter proposed that the WQP sampling locations would be the same as those used for bacterial
sampling within most of the customer systems. The letter further stated, "Detroit will accept responsibility
for the water quality parameter monitoring carried out initially at the required frequencies from plant taps
and distribution system bacteriologic sampling points in most communities. "
After two six-month rounds of monitoring in 1992, any system exceeding the AL would increase sampling
to the standard number of samples for its population, and issue PE if it exceeded the action level for lead. If
after corrosion control was installed and any system still exceeded the lead AL, the individual system would
be responsible for LSL replacement. There were a number of systems that did exceed the AL during 1992
and did increase monitoring to the standard level. However, none of these systems were reviewed. The Flint
PWS had a 90th percentile value of 15.4 ppb lead and could be rounded down to 15 ppb in accordance with
EPA's procedures for rounding off analytical data (Water Supply Guidance 20). The Flint PWS did not
exceed the AL and, therefore, stayed at 33 samples.
In a letter dated October 29, 1991, Charlene Denys, Chief of the Drinking Water Section, EPA Region 5,
wrote to James Cleland that further explanation was needed. EPA Region 5 specifically asked whether each
community system, Detroit PWS, or MDEQ would be responsible for completing the materials evaluations
per 40 CFR § 141.86(a)(1), and whether a plan had been prepared to complete these materials evaluations
prior to the initiation of sampling beginning in January 1992. EPA's letter further requested additional
explanation for how the number of samples was calculated.
In a letter dated November 12, 1991, James Cleland wrote back to Charlene Denys explaining the
limitations to material surveys. Mr. Cleland stated: "Each of the 115 communities operating a public water
supply within the Detroit service area is responsible for selecting their sampling locations. The materials
152
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
evaluation mentioned in your letter need only be done, prior to initiation of sampling, to establish enough
sites to conduct the sampling program. A complete materials evaluation would only be necessary if lead
service line replacement is required following initial monitoring and installation of corrosion control
treatment... It is our belief that the materials evaluation used to select sampling sites should not have to be
approved prior to sampling, since the sites must be certified to the State by the public water supplies... The
State does not have sufficient knowledge of service line materials and plumbing materials to second guess
the sites certified by the public water supplies. As long as the certification is done correctly, including
explanations for the use of any Tier 2 or Tier 3 sampling sites, reporting at the conclusion of each
monitoring period would be satisfactory. This may seem like a small matter to U.S. EPA, but we will have
400public water supplies reporting. Combining the materials evaluation with the monitoring results would
save 4000 pieces ofpaper which would have to be received and tracked by the State. If the materials
evaluation is not done properly, the system would be in violation following the initial monitoring period. "
In a letter dated November 27, 1991, Edward Watters wrote to Robert Blanco explaining the MCS and
stating that EPA Region 5 believes this proposal is sound and an innovative approach to implementing the
LCR.
In a letter dated January 10, 1992, from Jeff Cohen, Chief of the Lead Task Force in the OGWDW, to
Branch Chiefs in EPA's ten regions, Headquarters requested that prior to allowing consecutive systems to
consolidate their sampling, each state must submit to its EPA regional office a written explanation of how
the LCR will be implemented and enforced. The letter also requested explanations for how WQP monitoring
will be modified to determine baseline values and to ensure that OCCT is properly installed and maintained.
This memo was responding to several consecutive system agreements across the country.
In a letter dated January 30, 1992, Edward Watters wrote to Robert Blanco providing additional information
clarifying the responsibilities of the Detroit PWS and its consecutive PWSs. The letter provided a list of
where the WQP samples would be taken in Detroit and its customer service area. Two hundred and four
samples would be taken twice each 6-month period. Twenty-five samples would be taken by the Detroit
PWS within the City of Detroit and analyzed by the Detroit PWS. Detroit would identify 140 locations from
the 70 communities where it collects coliform samples. One WQP sample would be taken at each location
and analyzed by the Detroit PWS. Southeast Oakland Water Authority (SEOWA) would identify 25 sample
locations in its 10 communities, Genesee County Water Authority (GCWA) would identify six sample
locations, and the Flint PWS would identify eight locations. The samples for SEOWA, GCWA, and the
Flint PWS would be analyzed by the respective systems, and the results of all analyses would be reported to
the MDEQ.
In a letter dated February 5, 1992, Edward Watters wrote to James Cleland to say that EPA Region 5 had
completed its review of MDEQ's MCS approach dated September 17, 1991, and granted its approval.
In 2007, MDEQ re-evaluated the MCS approach, and the Flint PWS's sample requirements were reduced to
23 samples due to a decrease in the City's population.
153
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Appendix 3-A: Summary of Enforcement Verification Recommendations
The EV review team recommends that MDEQ address the following:
1. EPA expects MDEQ to ensure that data systems are in place so that the State can report all
federally reportable violations to SDWIS/Fed. It is critical that Michigan allocate program
resources to effectively manage data and fully utilize SDWIS/State for all PWSs.
2. MDEQ should use EPA's 2009 Drinking Water Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) as a model
for developing its drinking water program compliance and enforcement strategy.
3. MDEQ should focus on timely reporting. MDEQ should have reported two TTHM MCL
violations for Flint, for the first and second quarters of 2015. Not reporting these violations
affected enforcement targeting tool (ETT) scoring, preventing Flint from becoming a priority
system sooner (on October 2015 ETT).
4. MDEQ should issue a violation notice for all violations, once they are determined, in order to
provide the PWS with public notice documentation and return to compliance information in a
timely manner. These notices should be kept in the PWS file and reported to SDWIS/State and
SDWIS/Fed as SIA enforcement actions.
5. MDEQ should ensure that all LHDs are tracking PWS compliance with total coliform routine
monitoring requirements by updating WaterTrack in a timely manner when LHDs instruct
systems to increase routine monitoring to quarterly, so that systems receive quarterly monitoring
reminders and are issued violations when they fail to monitor at the required frequency.
6. MDEQ should ensure that all LHDs contact systems that had a total coliform-positive routine
sample in a timely manner to remind them to collect repeat samples within the required 24-hours.
7. MDEQ should ensure that all LHDs instruct groundwater PWSs that do not provide at least 4-log
treatment of viruses to collect, within 24 hours of notification of the total coliform positive
sample, at least one groundwater source sample from each groundwater source in use at the time
the total coliform positive sample was collected.
8. MDEQ should follow up with systems that fail to conduct GWR-triggered source water
monitoring and report all triggered source water M/R violations at NCWSs after it is able to
generate and submit these violations to SDWIS/Fed.
9. MDEQ should initiate formal enforcement action at all PWSs that were previously on bottled
water agreements for exceeding the arsenic MCL when the MCL went from 50 ju.g/L to 10 ju.g/L
and have not yet returned to compliance. MDEQ should require these systems to monitor for
arsenic on a quarterly basis, provide alternative water, and provide public notice until an alternate
source is found or treatment is installed and the systems return to compliance.
10. Additional Recommendations for NCWSs:
o The EV review team found NTNCWSs with non-transient populations between 50 and 70
people served that had State lead and copper tap monitoring schedules requiring fewer than
five samples. Site visits are recommended to confirm that there are fewer than five taps used
for human consumption.
o MDEQ should ensure that LHDs only accept first-draw samples for lead and copper
compliance and that systems on reduced monitoring collect at least their required number of
compliance samples between June and September.
154
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
o MDEQ should ensure that all lead and copper action level exceedances (ALEs) are reported
to SDWIS/Fed and that LHDs and/or MDEQ follow up on them in a timely manner.
o LHDs/MDEQ need to escalate enforcement for lead ALEs when systems fail to follow LHD
recommendations for resolving the lead ALEs, including the possible use of the State's
emergency authority under MI SDWA Section 15 (Section 325.1003).
11. MDEQ should expand compliance and enforcement follow-up procedures to include procedures
for PN requirements as well as Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPR M/R and MCL violations.
12. All LHDs should adopt ODWMA policy and procedures for administrative fines for M/R
violations as well as violations of State Drinking Water Standards.
13. LHDs should maintain the use of standard compliance periods for quarterly total coliform
compliance monitoring rather than setting new due dates for monitoring.
14. LHDs should contact NCWSs that have a nitrate routine sample that exceeds 10 mg/L to remind
them to collect a confirmation sample within 24 hours of the system's receipt of the sample
results, and, if the system is unable to comply with the 24-hour sampling requirement, to instruct
it to immediately provide PN to persons served by the water system in accordance with Tier 1 PN
requirements.
15. MDEQ should require LHD staff to conduct an immediate field inspection following nitrate MCL
violations at childcare facilities serving infants to ensure that PN is posted and bottled water is
being used.
16. The LHD should have notified the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
(MDHHS), the licensing agency responsible for overseeing the system, about the nitrate MCL
violation as required by the 2014 Non-community Program Staff Reference Manual.
17. EPA recommends that the LHD place The Hop Childcare Center PWS back on quarterly nitrate
monitoring as long as it continues to use Well 001 because the infant/toddler program was moved
from the building served by Well 002 to the building served by Well 001 (per a March 10, 2015
fax from the system to the LHD) and Well 001 's history of periodic nitrate levels over or near the
MCL.
18. MDEQ should maintain complete State files with written documentation of exchanges with the
PW S and track the progress of the systems in returning to compliance including appropriate
follow-up after a lead ALE. There was little evidence in the file that appropriate follow-up was
conducted for the three lead ALEs that occurred during the review period.
19. An administrative fine for failure to submit a corrosion control proposal, and two administrative
fines for LCR M/R violations could have been issued per ODWMA's policy and procedures for
administrative fines (see Appendix 3-E).
20. NTNCWSs that serve 25-100 people should be required to collect five lead and copper samples
unless they have fewer than five drinking water taps that can be used for human consumption, in
which case, they should be required to sample all the taps that can be used for human
consumption. The EV review team found NTNCWSs with non-transient populations between 50
and 70 people served that had State lead and copper tap monitoring schedules requiring fewer
than five samples. Site visits are recommended to confirm that there are fewer than five taps used
for human consumption. Prior to these site visits, MDEQ should check the system's "Storage-
Distribution" and "Bacteriological Sample Siting Plan" screens and lead and copper sample
results in WaterTrack to identify any additional drinking water taps that can be used for human
consumption that should be added to the system's lead and copper Sample Siting Plan screen.
155
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
MDEQ should also consult with the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
(MDHHS) prior to these site visits to daycare centers and/or make joint site visits with MDHHS
to identify taps that are likely to be used for human consumption. (NOTE: After the EV, MDEQ
notified EPA that LHD staff visited two of these systems to verify the number of taps used for
human consumption.)
21. MDEQ should emphasize in certified operator and non-community program staff training that
lead and copper samples must be first draw after the water has stagnated for at least 6 hours, as
required by the LCR. LHDs and MDEQ should require systems that collect a non-first draw lead
and copper sample(s) to collect another lead and copper sample(s) that is first-draw.
22. While not required per the Federal LCR or MDEQ SOPs, the letters issued by LHDs for lead
ALEs to childcare centers and schools that serve children, especially those under six years of age,
should quickly address the ALE by having the system shut off the tap(s) with high levels, replace
the fixtures at those taps or provide bottled water until the lead ALE is resolved.
23. LHDs/MDEQ should escalate enforcement for LCR treatment technique violations following lead
ALEs, including consideration of using MDEQ's emergency order authority.
24. The LHDs and MDEQ should report all lead and copper ALEs to SDWIS/Fed in a timely manner.
25. LHDs/MDEQ need to escalate enforcement for lead ALEs when systems fail to follow LHD
recommendations for resolving the lead ALEs, including the possible use of the State's
emergency authority under MI SDWA Section 15 (Section 325.1003).
26. MDEQ should have included written documentation in the system file that MDEQ had notified
the Beaver Township PWS that it had TTHM MCL violations for CQ1 of 2015 and CQ3 of 2015
and required the system to provide PN for these violations.
27. MDEQ should have escalated the enforcement of Beaver Township as part of MDEQ's
commitment to EPA's 2009 ERP to address or return to compliance PWSs with ETT scores of 11
or more within six month of a system becoming a priority.
28. EPA urges that MDEQ maintain more complete records of PNs received and issue violations to
PWSs that fail to provide Tier 1 or Tier 2 PNs.
29. Chapter 6.8 Arsenic Monitoring of the 2014 Non-community Program Staff Reference Manual
should be corrected on page 6-28 to state that public notice for the MCL violation is required
within 30 days of the violation instead of within 60 days of the violation.
30. EPA urges MDEQ to develop an SOP for escalated enforcement action that highlights the need
for documentation of compliance assistance communications and PWS follow-up in State
enforcement files.
156
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Appendix 3-8: List of Resources Used during the 2016 MDEQ Enforcement
Verification
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version (S/F) Data as of the January 2016 Data
Freeze
o Pulled violations and enforcement actions that occurred between October 1, 2013, and
September 30, 2015, and were reported to EPA by December 31, 2015.
• SDWA Enforcement Targeting Tool (ETT) and ETT Scores Tracker for January 2016 (reflects state
data through September 30, 2015)
• Drinking Water Enforcement Response Policy, issued December 8, 2009
• Return to Compliance (RTC) Criteria Table for Federally Reportable Violations, issued on March 9,
2012
• EPA Region 5 Enforcement Verification Guidance (SOP-WD-GWDW-08, first revision issued
August 30, 2005)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
• Paper and Electronic Communication and Enforcement Files, when applicable, from MDEQ Field
Offices and Central Office accessed on-site April 4-8, 2016
• SDWIS/State and Water Track data accessed by EPA while on-site April 4-8, 2016
• MDEQ confirmed that during the EV review period its Community Water Supply Program was
using the following:
1) Monitoring and Reporting Violations Flowchart updated March 2002
2) Total Coliform-Positive Flowchart, dated 7/15/2010
3) Phase II/V Exceeds MCL Flowchart-Inorganics & Organics (other than Total Trihalomethanes),
updated April 1, 2002
4) Violation of State Drinking Water Standards Flowchart, updated April 1, 2002
5) Enforcement Flowchart, updated March 2002
6) Guidelines for Issuing Boil Water Advisories to Address Microbial Contamination of
Community Water Supplies (Policy and Procedure Number ODWMA-399-022) reformatted
1/24/2013
7) Significant Deficiencies (Policy and Procedure Number ODWMA-399-019) reformatted
12/28/2012
8) Lead and Copper Rule Implementation (Policy and Procedure Number ODWMA-399-027)
reformatted 1/17/2013
• Compliance and enforcement follow-up procedures and flow-charts in MDEQ's 2014 Non-
community Program Staff Reference Manual, Chapter 6, Water Quality Standard and Monitoring,
and associated Appendices, and Chapter 8, Compliance and Enforcement for the review of TCR
157
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
M/R and MCL violations, Nitrate M/R and MCL violations, Arsenic MCL violations, and
Lead/Copper M/R violations and Lead Action Level Exceedance follow-up.
MDEQ's Non-community Water Supply Program forwarded a copy of the 2015 version of the Staff
Reference Manual for Non-community Water Supply Program and advised that it became available
to LHDs in April 2015. EPA and MDEQ agreed that EPA should use the 2014 Non-community
Program Staff Reference Manual to evaluate LHD compliance/enforcement during the EV review
period.
Example Enforcement Notices and ACOs for community and non-community water supplies
Administrative Fines for Monitoring and Reporting Violations in Community and Non-community
Water Supplies (Policy and Procedure Number ODWMA 399-001) reformatted 1/11/2013 and
8/25/2014
Administrative Fines - Violations of State Drinking Water Standards (Policy and Procedure Number
ODWMA-399-012) reformatted on 1/24/2013.
158
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Appendix 3-C: Data Differences Among SDWIS/Fed and State Data Systems and State Paper Files
NOTE: Data for Violations that Occurred before October 1, 2015: SDWIS/Fed January 2016 Freeze Data
Community Water System Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
Differences Between SDWIS/Fed (S/F) and
SDWIS/State (S/S)
Differences Between Data Systems (S/F, S/S) and State
Correspondence
MI0000518
Beaver Township
Q3 2015 TTHM MCL violation had PN received date of
9/28/2015 that was not linked to it in S/F. The PN was
linked to the Q2 TTHM MCL violation instead.
There was no documentation of the PWS receiving notice of the Q1
2015 TTHM MCL violation. S/S only noted the date of a violation
notice. State indicated that field staff spoke to the operator over the
phone regarding this violation and that a letter did not need to be sent.
State file did not have documentation of this call; however, State did
produce a screen shot from S/S that did confirm the phone
conversation. Documentation should have been included in the paper
file in the absence of a written violation notice to the PWS;
Violation notice (SIA) for Q2 2015 TTHM MCL violation dated
7/27/2015 in S/F and S/S, however the violation notice letter in the
state file was dated 7/28/2015;
Q3 2015 TTHM MCL does not have violation notice reported to S/F
or S/S. MDEQ spoke to operator in person on 9/28/15 when the
operator delivered the PN. Violation notice letter (SIA) not needed per
MDEQ. Note made in S/S to document but not in state paper file;
Q3 2014 TTHM MCL violation notice dated 9/11/2014 m S/F and S/S
but state correspondence is dated 9/12/2014;
Q4 2014 TTHM MCL violation notice dated 12/12/2014 in S/F and
S/S but state correspondence is dated 12/15/2014.
159
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
Differences Between SDWIS/Fed (S/F) and
SDWIS/State (S/S)
Differences Between Data Systems (S/F, S/S) and State
Correspondence
MI0001018
Butterfield Woods
Subdivision
None
Violation notice in paper file had the subject of MCL for E. coli butE.
coli was not mentioned in the body of the letter —just that 2 of 10
routine samples were TC+. Violation Notice (SIA) says PN required
within 30 days of learning of violation which is true for T CR monthly
MCL but not acute. Boil water notice attached to the violation letter
does list that a follow-up sample was E. coli-positive. Concern that
violation notice was not sent until 12/9/2014 for an acute MCL
violation that occurred in October 2014. SIA dated the same as the
return to compliance date (12/9/2014). State confirmed that DEQ
communicated with water supply operator by phone. Boil water PN
was issued within 24 hours as required. The boil water PN was not
included with the violation notice because it had already been issued
by the time the violation notice was mailed (the violation notice refers
to the completed BW PN). DEQ confirms only the subject line of the
violation notice specifically mentioned E. coli. Both type 21 & 22
violations were reported in SDWIS as required.
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
Q1 2015 TTHM MCL not reported to S/F on time;
Q2 2015 TTHM MCL not reported to S/F on time;
Both the Q1 and Q2 2015 TTHM MCL violations only
have a return to compliance enforcement action linked
to them in S/S and it was entered (violation validated)
on 2/23/2016 when the violations were initially reported
to EPA, which is almost a year after they were issued to
the PWS.
State file had a copy of 3/5/2015 violation notice to PWS for Q1 2015
TTHM MCL violation but violation was not reported to S/F on time
and notice (SIA) was not reported to S/S;
State file had a copy of 4/13/2015 PN received from PWS for Q1 2015
TTHM MCL violation;
State file had a copy of 6/9/2015 violation notice to PWS for Q2 2015
TTHM MCL violation but violation was not reported to S/F on time
and notice (SIA) was not reported to S/S;
State file did not have a copy of PN received for Q2 2015 TTHM
MCL violation;
Q4 2014 + Q1 and Q2 2015 TTHM MCL violations have return to
compliance letter in file dated 9/2/2015 while date reported to S/S was
8/31/2015 for all 3 violations;
S/F and S/S had two PN received (SIF) enforcement actions linked to
the Q4 TTHM MCL violation. There was no copy of the 1/6/2015
notice in the file but there was a notice dated 1/13/2015. NOTE:
8/15/2014 violation notice (SIA) for August 2014 TCR Acute and
Monthly MCL violations was not found in the state correspondence;
however, after the review MDEQ provided a copy of an 8/15/2014
email outlining the violation so this discrepancy has been removed
from the final report.
160
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
Differences Between SDWIS/Fed (S/F) and
SDWIS/State (S/S)
Differences Between Data Systems (S/F, S/S) and State
Correspondence
MI0006232
Spring Lake Club
Condominiums
None
4 violations (7/2013 LCR Type 53 M/R violation + 11/2013 LCR
Type 66 M/R violation + 4/2014 LCR Type 56 M/R violation +
4/2014 LCR Type 57 TT violation) have a 5/28/2014 violation notice
(SIA) and PN requested (SIE) enforcement actions in S/S and S/F but
the state file did not contain an official copy of notice; however,
5/30/2014 was mentioned as the date of the violation letter in emails
between the PWS and MDEQ.
MI0040477
Washburn Lake Village
MHP - Escalated
Enforcement
None
Did not find any violation notice or PN requested (SIA/SIE) for July
2013 TCR Monthly MCL. MDEQ said they could not locate it either
but know that it was issued because they had a discussion with
customer about its contents. MDEQ continued to issue monthly TCR
MCL violations in the absence of data. Rejected a TCR monthly M/R
violation for the PWS failing to take a November TCR sample noting
the on-going issue and that a boil water was still present. An M/R
violation should have been issued.
10/30/2013 violation notice (SIA) linked to all TCR Monthly MCL
violations from July thru December 2013 which is well after the
July/Aug/Sept violations that required Tier 2 PN within 30 days of
violation and before the Nov/December violations occurred;
State could not locate a copy of the 7/25/2013 boil water notice (SFH);
Could not locate a copy of 1/22/2014 termination letter (SOX) in state
file. Per MDEQ SOP - Consent order is terminated by a written
termination notice issued by the DEQ.
Non-Community Water System Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
Differences Between SDWIS/Fed (S/F) and Water
Track
Differences Between Data Systems (S/F, WaterTrack) and State
Correspondence
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
None
Enf ID 142002306 SIF - Copy of PN in file from system with
3/3/2014 date stamp with owner's printed name (not signed) and
dated 2/21/2014;
Enf ID 142002367 SIF - Copy of PN in file from system with
owner's printed name (not signed) and dated 3/25/2014.
161
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
Differences Between SDWIS/Fed (S/F) and Water
Track
Differences Between Data Systems (S/F, WaterTrack) and State
Correspondence
MI1320157
Battle Creek Baptist
Temple
System's 2014 TCR annual M/R violation was not in
SDWIS/Fed as of the January 2016 data freeze. After
the EV, MDEQ advised this violation was generated
very late in WaterTrack on 12/30/2015 and was not
submitted to SDWIS until February 2016.
There is also a 12/3/2014 Monitoring Violation Notice
letter the LHD issued the system that includes failure to
collect any quarterly bacteriological samples during
2013, but the monitoring schedule in WaterTrack lists
annual for 1/1/1997-10/1/2015. However, after the EV,
in response to R5's question about system's TCR
monitoring frequency, MDEQ advised that the PWS was
placed on quarterly monitoring following a LHD
program review for FY15. The 12/3/2014 letter says
quarterly, but WaterTrack was not updated and the
system did not receive quarterly monitoring reminders
or violations.
MDEQ also, advised that following their LHD program
review of FY15, the LHD placed the system on
quarterly nitrate monitoring beginning 1/1/2016.
The LHD issued a 12/3/2014NOV very late to the system, almost a
year after the violation, following an MDEQ review of the LHD
program review for FY14. The LHD sent the system late reminder
letters on 1/14/2014 and 1/30/2014 to collect 4 repeat samples from
the original tap and three others in the distribution system within 24
hours of being notified of the 12/17/2013 routine positive sample.
Therefore, the SIA reported to S/F dated 1/30/2014 was a reminder
letter and not anNOV which was issued on 12/3/2014;
There is a LHD Monitoring ViolationNotice letter for a 2014 annual
TCR and a Nitrate M/R violation that references the system's
WSSN. However, it doesn't appear it was issued because it is
undated, and does not include the system's name or the name of a
LHD staff person as the other violation notices issued to the system
do;
The LHD issued numerous monitoring reminder letters that warn
that failure sample may result in further enforcement including civil
fines;
There is a 12/3/2014 "Water Quality Monitoring" PN in the file
apparently sent with the 12/3/2014 NOV for the system's failure to
collect coliform bacteria samples within 24 hours of notification of a
positive coliform result on 12/17/2013. There is no documentation
the system posted this PN;
LHD submitted a GWR violation reporting form to MDEQ
ODWMA on 12/19/2013 for GWR TSWM M/R violation which was
not in SDWIS or WaterTrack.
MI2520415
Michigan Community
Svcs. Inc.- Bilateral
Compliance Agreement
None
For Viol ID 1540192 - 3rd Quarter 2015 Arsenic MCL - Violation
notice was not in state file and neither was PN. After the EV, the
MDEQ advised: DEQ entered that violation into WaterTrack. The
LHD did not. Therefore, a violation notice was not sent.
MI2820036
Fife Lake Elementary
School
None
Enforcement ID 152001089 SIA is undated in the state file;
Enforcement ID 152001090 SIE - There is no documentation in file
that the system signed and returned the white copy of the PN as
requested in the NOV letter.
162
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
Differences Between SDWIS/Fed (S/F) and Water
Track
Differences Between Data Systems (S/F, WaterTrack) and State
Correspondence
MI3320169
Vlahakis Management
Company
The LHD did not enter State PN requested (SIE) and
State PN received (SIF) dates into SDWIS for the
1/1/2013 Type 51 LCRM/R violation ID 1310935.
LHD/MDEQ should have entered system's 6/1/2013 open ended PE
TT violation into SDWIS instead of linking the 3/18/2013 SFG
(State Notification Issued) to system's 1/1/2013 LCRM/R violation
for the July-December 2012 CP.
LHD should have entered an open-ended 2/18/2015 OCCT Study
Recommendation (Type 57) TT violation into SDWIS after system
failed to meet the extended 2/17/2015 deadline in MDEQ's
1/16/2015 letter to system.
On 3/21/2014 the LHD issued system a $400 contributory category
Civil/Administrative Penalty (SFM) for violation of State Drinking
Water Standards on 3/21/2014 for failure to distribute PE. This SFM
was not entered into SDWIS.
LHD/MDEQ should have entered the 7/30/2015 SFK as a 7/30/2015
SFL because it is a signed ACO.
MI6120441
The Hop Childcare Center
None
Enforcement ID 151000895 SOX - There is nothing in the state file
to indicate why PWS returned to compliance on this date.
Enforcement ID 142002261 SIC - Documentation of technical
assistance visit not found in state file.
Enforcement ID 142002260 SFG - Should be coded SIE because PN
was not posted by State.
MI6321444
Hour Kidz - Bilateral
Compliance Agreement
None
July 2014 TCR Monthly MCL Violation - SIA Enforcement ID
144000628 - NOV in state file is dated 7/31/2014 and S/F and
WaterTrack has 8/1/2014.
163
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
Differences Between SDWIS/Fed (S/F) and Water
Track
Differences Between Data Systems (S/F, WaterTrack) and State
Correspondence
MI6322569
KOA Bathhouse
None
The 7/16/2015 compliance conference (SIB) was not entered into
SDWIS.
The system and the LHD signed a Bilateral Compliance Agreement
on 7/17/2015 (SFK) whereby the system agreed to: A) appoint an
individual that is responsible for following all requirements as
described within Act 399; B) keep all Tier 1 PNs posted where the
public can view them until the MCL violation is resolved and the
LHD approves removal of the PNs; C) resolve the MCL violation by
continuing to investigate probable causes of contamination
beginning immediately and shall include quotes for abandonment
and new construction; D) While working to resolve the MCL
violation.
6/12/2015 SIA for its June 2015 TCR acute MCL violation: LHD
should have issued system a TCR minor repeat M/R (Type 26)
violation for only taking 2 of the 4 required repeat samples.
6/29/2016 SID (State Site Visit) for its June 2015 TCR acute MCL
violation: The LHD should have issued system a PN violation.
164
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
Differences Between SDWIS/Fed (S/F) and Water
Track
Differences Between Data Systems (S/F, WaterTrack) and State
Correspondence
MI7020186
Sandy Point Beach House
June 2014 TCR Repeat M/R Violation - Enforcement ID
144000105 - SOX documented by 6/17/2014 total
coliform bacteria sample result in WaterTrack. S/F has
SOX date of 7/10/2014.
2013 Nitrate M/R for Enforcement ID 142000280 - SFG - PN was
not posted by State so enforcement action should be coded as SIE
and not SFG. NOV letter instructs system to post the enclosed PN
and return a copy a signed copy to LHD.
2013 Nitrate M/R Violation for Enforcement ID 142000281 - SIA -
letter in state file dated 1/14/2014 and SIA dated 1/10/2014 in S/F
and WaterTrack.
2013 TCR M/R for Enforcement ID 142000380 - SFG - PN was not
posted by State so enforcement action should be coded as SIE and
not SFG. NOV letter instructs system to post the enclosed PN and
return a copy a signed copy to LHD. After the EV, MDEQ
confirmed LHD could not locate a copy of the PN it reported as
posted on 1/10/2014.
2013 TCR MR Violation for Enforcement ID 142000381 - SIA -
letter in state file dated 1/14/2014 and SIA dated 1/10/2014 in S/F
and WaterTrack.
Q4 2014 TCR M7R Violation - 2/5/2015 SFG - MDEQ confirmed
LHD could not locate a copy of the PN it reported as posted on
2/5/2015.
2/5/2015 SIA for its CQ4/2014 Type 23 violation: The LHD should
have also issued system TCR type 23 violations for CQ1 and CQ2 of
2015, and reported these violations to SDWIS because the system
was on quarterly bacteriological monitoring and did not collect any
bacteriological samples.
165
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
Differences Between SDWIS/Fed (S/F) and Water
Track
Differences Between Data Systems (S/F, WaterTrack) and State
Correspondence
MI7720376
Manistique Ice —
Escalated Enforcement
None
Q3 2013 Routine TCRM/R(Viol ID: 1340305) - Another NOV
dated 11/22/2013 was issued for system's failure to sample prior to
11/15/2013, which is the date the 10/22/2013 NOV instructed system
to "collect sample/submit result prior to "to avoid further fines and/or
other legal action."
CQ 3 2015 TCRM/R violation was not reported to SDWIS until the
April 2016 data freeze. The 3/24/2016 NOV for this violation and
"Annual 2016 nitrate requested collection date" violation with
enclosed PN for the Q3 3 2015 TCR M/R violation.
10/22/2013 SFG for Q3 2013 Routine TCR M/R should be an SIE
because PN was not posted by State, and NOV letter instructs system
to post the enclosed PN.
7/14/2014 document (Enf ID: 144000550) should not have been
entered into SDWIS with State Administrative Order with penalty
(SFO) enforcement code and should have entered into SDWIS with
State Administrative Penalty Assessed (SFM).
7/14/2014 SFG for Q2 2014 Routine TCR M/R (Enf ID: 144000551)
should be an SIE because PN was not posted by State, and NOV
letter instructs system to post the enclosed PN.
4/9/2015 SFG for Q1 2015 Routine TCRM/R (Enf ID: 153000058)
should be an SIE because PN was not posted by State, and NOV
letter instructs system to post the enclosed PN.
166
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Appendix 3-D: Summary of Discrepancies Identified by Rule
Rule
Compliance
Data Flow
Enforcement Verification
TOTAL
Determination (CD)
(DF)
(KV)
M/R
MCL/
TT
Other
M/R
MCL I
TT
Other
M/R
MCL I
TT
Other
Total Coliform Rule
1
11
4
16
Ground Water Rule
3
1
4
Nitrate and Nitrite
1
4
5
Arsenic
2
2
4
Lead and Copper Rule
2
3
1
3
1
3
13
Stage 2 DBP Rule
2
2
4
Public Notification (Tier 1)
0
Public Notification (Tier 2)
6
6
12
TOTAL
6
8
3
0
2
1
22
13
3
58
167
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Appendix 3-E: List of Compliance Determination, Data Flow, and Enforcement Verification Discrepancies by
Rule
Total Coliform Rule
ID#
PWSID
PWS Name
PWS
Type
Rule and
Violation Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
TCR Discrepancy Description
DlMTipilllO
ruinn cil in M.inli
2u|~ iMM'tl h||
|h||h\\ ii|i
(Ini'llliiilil.illuli
|ii-u\ itk-tl h\ i Ik-
Sl;ilt\
1 rim 1 . .
CD-I
MI6322569
KOA Bath House
TNCWS
T CR Minor
Repeat M/R
6/1/2015
The LHD should have issued the system a TCR minor repeat M/R
(Type 26) violation for only collecting 2 of the 4 required repeat
samples within the required 24-hour period.
EV-1
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
NTNCWS
TCR Monthly
MCL
7/1/2014
4/24/2015 trilateral compliance agreement does not include the
requirements of the 7/31/2014 NOV to have the well chlorinated
by a registered well drilling contractor after necessary repairs are
completed; chlorinate distribution system by turning on all taps
and observing chlorine smell; allow chlorine to sit in distribution
system undisturbed for at least 24 hours; and after sufficient
contact time, pump the well to waste until no trace of chlorine is
present as verified with the use of a chlorine test kit.
EV-2
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
NTNCWS
TCR Monthly
MCL
7/1/2014
The LHD could have issued Hour Kidz a $200 civil fine for failing
to collect the second of two consecutive (at least 24 hours apart)
satisfactory coliform bacteria water samples after making
necessary repairs to the distribution system as required by the
NOV.
EV-3
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
NTNCWS
TCR Monthly
MCL
7/1/2014
The LHD should have escalated enforcement sooner following
July 2014 MCL violation and December 9, 2014 total coliform
positive sample.
168
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
ID#
I'WS II)
PWS Name
PWS
Type
Rule and
Violation Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
TCR Discrepancy Description
EV-4
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
NTNCWS
TCR Monthly
MCL
7/1/2014
The LHD should have notified MDHHS, the licensing agency
responsible for overseeing Hour Kidz, about the MCL violation as
required by 2014 Non-community Program Staff Reference
Manual. Also, MDEQ may have been able to exercise its
emergency authority under Michigan SDWA Section 15 (Section
325.1003) to implement emergency public health measures if a
public water system posed "an imminent hazard to public health."
EV-5
MI320157
Battle Creek
Baptist T emple
TNCWS
TCR Major
Repeat M/R
12/1/2013
The LHD was late in contacting Battle Creek Baptist Temple
regarding TCR repeat sample monitoring requirements. Repeat
monitoring reminder letters were sent on January 14, 2014 and
January 30, 2014 to collect four repeat samples required within 24
hours of being notified of the December 17, 2013 routine positive
sample result.
EV-6
MI320157
Battle Creek
Baptist T emple
TNCWS
TCR Major
Repeat M/R
12/1/2013
The LHD issued Battle Creek Baptist Temple an NOV letter very
late, on December 3, 2014, almost a year after the violation,
following an MDEQ review of the LHD program for FY14. The
LHD issued the NOV for an (assumed) MCL violation based on
the system's continued failure to collect repeat samples following
the December 17, 2013 total coliform bacteria positive annual
routine sample.
Nniiil in
1 ill
l;ilK'X \I.|S .llsu lullllll (llll lim 1 111- I l< Ml |l is 1-Hllllli ll
iii < Ii;i|»Ut 1 u| l
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
ID#
I'WS II)
PWS Name
PWS
Type
Rule and
Violation Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
TCR Discrepancy Description
1 line
i'i'iiin\ id in M.iri li
Ii.imiI u||
|u||h\\ ii|)
(|h<-||||U||I,|I|H||
|i|-u\ iik il l>\ 1 Ik-
Si.Hi
1 Ills \l .is HlllMlll- III
1 lllli-l r.lllli- <»l 1 Ik- 1 ill' Xi'Ml'W
1 COM 1. .
1 lii'M' ilii'ii' < 1) \ ilu- Si.iu- in
M.iiiliMI-
EV-7
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
TNCWS
T CR Routine
M/R
1/1/2013
Per the ODWMA policy and procedures for administrative fines
for M/R violations, the LHD should have issued a written annual
total coliform reminder notice 30-90 days before the due date that
warns of a $200 civil fine if it fails to sample by the due date.
EV-8
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
TNCWS
T CR Routine
M/R
CQ4/2014
The February 5, 2015 NOV letter the LHD issued Sandy Point
Beach House for its CQ4 2014 TCR Major Routine M/R violation
could have included a $200 civil fine because it was the system's
second TCR M/R violation within 12 months. The NOV letter
warns that a $100 civil fine for each failure to sample and report
results, which is less stringent than ODWMA's administrative
fines policy for M/R violations which specifies a $200 fine
warning after the first violation of a sampling event, a $200 civil
fine for a second missed TCR sampling event within 12 months of
the previous violation, and a $400 civil fine for each additional
missed TCR sampling event within 12 months of the previous
violation.
EV-9
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
TNCWS
TCR Major
Repeat M/R
6/1/2014
The LHD should not have waived posting PN for the violation.
("The four repeat samples were taken on June 17, 2014, and as
such public postings are not necessary at this time.")
170
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
ID#
PWS II)
PWS Name
PWS
Type
Rule and
Violation Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
TCR Discrepancy Description
EV-10
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
TNCWS
TCR Major
Repeat M/R
6/1/2014
The LHD should have warned the system that it will be issued a
$200 civil fine if it has another TCR M/R violation in the next 12
months.
EV-11
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
TNCWS
TCR Major
Repeat M/R
12/1/2013
There was no documentation that the LHD provided timely written
or verbal reminders to Knollview Golf to collect four repeat
samples within 24 hours of notification of the positive December
2, 2013 routine sample result outlining sampling locations and
protocol, or that the system was directed to implement
precautionary measures until four non-detect repeat samples were
collected per the 2014 Non-community Program Staff Reference
Manual.
EV-12
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
TNCWS
TCR Major
Repeat M/R
12/1/2013
The January 30, 2014 NOV letter could have included a warning
that the system will be assessed a $200 fine if it has another TCR
M/R violation within 12 months of the previous violation.
EV-13
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
TNCWS
T CR Routine
M/R
2/1/2014
The March 20, 2014 Monitoring ViolationNotice should have
included a $200 civil fine for the system's February 2014 TCR
Major Routine M/R violation because it was the system's second
TCR M/R violation in 12-months.
EV-14
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TNCWS
TCR Major
Routine M/R
CQ2 2014
The July 2014 NOV letter should have warned that each additional
missed TCR sampling event within 12 months of the previous
violation results in a $400 fine.
EV-15
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TNCWS
TCR Major
Routine M/R
CQ3 2013
The LHD issued the second of the two NOV letters to Manistique
Ice for TCR Major Routine M/R violations for CQ3 2013 on a
November 22, 2013 for failing to sample prior to November 15,
2013 which is the date the October 22, 2013 NOV instructed the
system to "collect sample/submit result prior to "to avoid further
fines and/or other legal action." Both NOV letters violation
enclosed $200 civil fines. The November 22, 2013 NOV and $200
civil fine are not in SDWIS/Fed. Per ODWMA policy and
procedures for administrative fines for M/R violations:
NOVs for quarterly M/R violations should not set a new sample
due date, and should remind systems to sample by the end of the
current calendar quarter and warn of a $200 fine for a 2nd missed
quarterly sampling event in a 12-month period or $400 fine for
each additional missed sampling event within 12 months of the
previous violation.
171
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Ground Water Rule
ID#
PWSID
PWS Name
PWS Type
Rule and
Violation Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
GWR Discrepancy Description
DlMTipilllO
ruinn cil in
\l.irili:nr
u|| |u||h\\ |||)
(|hi'|||iuiiI;iI|h||
|)|-h\ Iili il l>\ 1 Ik-
Si.Ill
MK )04i)477
Washburn Village
PWS
|o 2() 2<) 13
l-PA could not find doaimonlalion of iho GWR I T and T( 'R
monthly MCL violations being Teturned to compliance on January
22. 2n| 4. liPA did nol find a wrillon lormination nolieo for
Ml )!¦:(/s A('() wilh iho sysiom in iho sialo file ovon ihongh a
written termination notice (TN) is required per paragraph 4.15 of
iho A('(). Prior lo iho TV iho ownor oporalor was roquirod lo
subm it a request consisting of a written certification that they
have fully complied with the consent order and paid all fines.
Thoro was no rocord lhal ihis oorlifioalion was rocoivod in oilhor
the state file or S/S.
1 I'D \ 1 I-
providod furlhor documonlalion. X'iolalions woro assignod rolurn
lo complianco dalos lhal woro iho samplo collodion dalos.
^Discrepancy removed due to follow-up documentation provided
by iho Sialo.
CD-2
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
TNCWS
GWRTSWM
12/4/2013
GWR-triggered source water samples were not taken within 24
hours in December 2013, and a violation was not issued on time.
WaterTrack has not been upgraded to allow the generation and
submittal of violations of the GWR. This was outside of
timeframe of the File Review.
CD-3
MI1320157
Battle Creek
Baptist Temple
TNCWS
GWRTSWM
12/19/2013
GWR-triggered source water samples were not taken within 24
hours in December 2013, and a violation was not issued on time.
WaterTrack has not been upgraded to allow the generation and
submittal of violations of the GWR. This was outside of
timeframe of the File Review.
EV-16
MI1320157
Battle Creek
Baptist Temple
TNCWS
GWRTSWM
12/19/2013
The January 14, 2014 and January 30, 2014 repeat reminder
letters the LHD sent Battle Creek Baptist Temple did not include
the requirement that one of the repeat samples be taken at the tap
closest to the well per the 2014 Non-community Program Staff
Reference Manual.
172
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
ID#
PWS II)
PWS Name
PWS Type
Rule and
Violation Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
GWR Discrepancy Description
CD-4
MI7020186
Sandy Point Beach
House
TNCWS
GWRTSWM
6/3/2014
GWR triggered source water samples were not taken within 24
hours in June 2014, and a violation was not issued on time.
WaterTrack has not been upgraded to allow the generation and
submittal of violations of the GWR. This was outside of
timeframe of the File Review. There was no "DEQ Reporting
Form Groundwater Rule Violations" in the file for Sandy Point
Beach House's failure to collect a GWR-triggered source water
sample within 24 hours of being notified of the June 2, 2014
routine total coliform-positive sample result. The LHD sent the
system a June 13, 2014 "Initial Positive Bacteria Response" letter.
Nitrate
ID#
PWS ID
PWS Name
PWS Type
Rule and
Violation Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
Nitrate Discrepancy Description
EV-17
MI6120441
The Hop
Childcare Center
NTNCWS
Nitrate MCL
Q1 2014
There is no documentation that the LHD followed-up with system
after it failed to provide PN within 24 hours following the 11.2 mg/1
routine nitrate sample on February 13, 2014; 12.4 mg/1 confirmation
sample onFebruary 17, 2014; and/or the 10.9 mg/1 sample collected
on February 18, 2014 until it made a March 6, 2014 site visit and
"observed alternate water (bottled) being used; informal postings at
kitchen sink and restroom; discussed new well" per comment the
LHD entered into WaterTrack for the site visit.
EV-18
MI6120441
The Hop
Childcare Center
NTNCWS
Nitrate MCL
Q1 2014
The LHD should have notified MDHHS, the licensing agency
responsible for overseeing the system, about the MCL violation as
required by 2014 Non-community Program Staff Reference Manual.
EV-19
MI6120441
The Hop
Childcare Center
NTNCWS
Nitrate MCL
Q1 2014
The July 8, 2015 LHD letter reducing system's nitrate monitoring
frequency for the Well 001 system from quarterly to annual should
have instructed system to sample during CQ1 of 2016 because this is
the quarter the system had its highest nitrate result when it sampled
for four calendar quarters after its February 20, 2010 sample was
greater than 50% of the MCL (9.3 mg/1). The system collected its
2012, 2013, and 2014 annual during CQ1, and exceeded the nitrate
MCL during CQ1 2014.
173
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
ID#
PWSID
PWS Name
PWS Type
Rule and
Violation Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
Nitrate Discrepancy Description
EV-20
MI6120441
The Hop
Childcare Center
NTNCWS
Nitrate MCL
Q1 2014
The LHD should have notified MDHHS, the licensing agency
responsible for overseeing the system, about the MCL violation as
required by 2014 Non-community Program Staff Reference Manual.
EV-21
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
TNCWS
Nitrate M/R
1/1/2013
Per the ODWMA policy and procedures for administrative fines for
M/R violations, the LHD should have issued system a written annual
nitrate reminder notice 30-90 days before the due date that warn
system of a $200 civil fine if fails to sample by the due date. There
was also no documentation of any nitrate sampling reminder phone
calls to the system.
Nniiil in
1 ill
luii
Arsenic
ID#
PWSID
PWS Name
PWS Type
Rule and
Violation Type
(S/F Codes)
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
Arsenic Discrepancy Description
CD-5 and
EV-22
MI2520415
Michigan
Community
Services, Inc.
NTNCWS
Arsenic MCL
1/1/2008-
9/30/2014
All PWSs that were previously on BWAs and are not yet returned to
compliance should be escalated to formal enforcement until an
alternate source is found or treatment is installed in order to ensure
that the system monitors for arsenic on a quarterly basis, provides
alternate water, and provides public notice. No quarterly Arsenic
MCL violations were reported to SDWIS/Fed.
CD-6 and
EV-23
MI2520415
Michigan
Community
Services, Inc.
NTNCWS
Arsenic MCL
Q3 2015
All PWSs that were previously on BWAs and are not yet returned to
compliance should be escalated to formal enforcement until an
alternate source is found or treatment is installed in order to ensure
that the system monitors for arsenic on a quarterly basis, provides
alternate water, and provides public notice. No quarterly Arsenic
MCL violations were reported to SDWIS Fed.
174
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Lead and Copper Rule
ID#
PWSID
PWS Name
PWS Type
Rule and
Violation
Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
LCR Discrepancy Description
EV-24
MI0006232
Spring Lake Club
Condominiums
cws
LCRTT
7/1/13-4/1/2014
MDEQ could have issued Spring Lake Club a contributory category
administrative fine of $400 for failure to submit a corrosion control
proposal by 4/1/2014 per ODWMA Policy and Procedure 399-012 for
Administrative Fines-Violation of State Drinking Water Standards,
(Reformatted Date: 1/24/2013).
EV-25
MI0006232
Spring Lake Club
Condominiums
cws
LCRM/R
7/1/13-4/1/2014
MDEQ could have issued Spring Lake Club a $200 administrative
fine for its LCR initial water quality parameter M/R violation and/or
$200 administrative fine for its LCR initial source water M/R
violation because they were an additional LCR M/R violation within
12 months per ODWMA policy and procedures for administrative
fines for M/R violations.
CD-7
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
NTNCWS
LCRM/R
1/1/2013
The PWS should have been required to collect 5 lead and copper
samples if the system had at least 5 taps used for human consumption.
EV-26
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
NTNCWS
LCRM/R
1/1/2013
The January 15, 2013 NOV letter should have warned the system will
be issued a $200 civil fine if it has another LCR M/R violation in the
next 12 months per ODWMA policy and procedures for
administrative fines for M/R violations.
EV-27
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
NTNCWS
LCRM/R
1/1/2013
The LHD's NOV letter should have required the system to date the
white copy of the PN and post the PN for at least 7 days, and until the
system receives satisfactory results. A signed and dated PN from the
system was not in file.
EV-28
MI3320169
Vlahakis
NTNCWS
ALE follow-
January-June
The LHD/MDEQ should have issued the January 21, 2014 NOV letter
Management
up
2013
for the PE TT violation the letter says began June 1, 2013 much
Company
requirements
sooner.
CD-I 8
MI3320169
Vlahakis
NTNCWS
LCR Source
January-June
The LHD's March 18, 2013 Pb ALE letter should have also required
Management
Company
Water MZR
2013
system to collect a source water lead and copper sample by December
31, 2013. This was outside of timeframe of the File Review.
CD-9
MI3320169
Vlahakis
NTNCWS
ALE follow-
January-June
The LHD should have entered an open-ended 2/18/2015 LCR OCCT
Management
Company
up
requirements
2013
Study Recommendation (Type 57) TT violation into SDWIS/Fed after
system failed to meet the extended February 17, 2015 deadline in
MDEQ's January 16, 2015 letter to system. This was outside of
timeframe of the File Review.
175
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
ID#
PWS II)
PWS Name
PWS Type
Rule and
Violation
Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
LCR Discrepancy Description
CD-10
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
NTNCWS
ALE follow-
up
requirements
after
Unreported
Lead and
Copper ALEs
January - June,
2012
The LHD did not follow-up with the system regarding the unreported
June 12, 2012 Pb and Cu ALEs until over eight months later when the
LHD and MDEQ met with the system's certified operator on February
26, 2013 "to discuss recent lead exceedance and further action
needed." after 3 lead and copper samples collected onFebruary 21,
2013 exceeded the Pb and Cu ALs at the "pressure tank hard water"
(83 jug/L Pb and 1.87 mg/1 Cu) and Pb AL at the daycare bathroom
sink (56 jug/L). The LHD/MDEQ noted that the system's certified
operator did not properly allow for system to sit 6-8 hours prior to
collection, did not sample at appropriate taps, and used improper
collection techniques.
LHD/MDEQ explained that there were elevated levels in previous
monitoring that were never addressed and with the recent results
LHD/MDEQ were going to issue this as an exceedance. LHD/MDEQ
explained they would expect another set of samples collected at
designated taps, using appropriate measures, and in addition a new
sample at the pressure tank. The LHD did not issue system a Pb ALE
letter until March 18, 2013 after the system collected another set of
samples from the distribution system and the pressure tank on March
2, 2013 which exceeded the Pb AL at the daycare drinking fountain
with a 32 jug/L Pb result. LHD's October 10, 2013 letter to the system
certified operator acknowledging receipt of additional satisfactory
lead and copper samples, and the letter the daycare center sent parents
notifying them of the Pb ALE. The LHD's letter notes the four lead
and copper samples collected on August 15, 2013 all appear to be
taken at the appropriate sampling locations, and are all below the
action levels for lead/copper. This was outside of timeframe of the
File Review.
176
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
ID#
PWSID
PWS Name
PWS Type
Rule and
Violation
Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
LCR Discrepancy Description
DF-1 and
EV-29
MI2820036
Fife Lake
Elementary School
NTNCWS
ALE follow-
up
requirements
after
Unreported
Lead ALE
2006-2008
The LHD should have escalated enforcement immediately after the
system failed to collect the lead and copper samples requested in its
March 6, 2009 letter to the system after it had a Pb ALE for the 2006-
2008 compliance period (19 jug/L) based on one of the five samples it
collected on February 4, 2008, (26 jug/L Pb at kitchen sink), and a
repeat sample collected from the kitchen sink on February 26, 2008
(15 jag/L Pb). This Pb ALE was not reported to SDWIS/Fed so it is
also counted as a data flow discrepancy. It appeared from the file that
the LHD identified this as a Pb ALE and required system follow-up
that the PWS failed to complete in a timely manner.
UPDATE: These discrepancies were added to the EV in March 2017
since it is cited in the body of the final report and had been noted in
earlier drafts of the report. This was outside of timeframe of the File
Review.
|)| .iikI 1- \
l'i-|||H\ i-ll III
M.inli 2iH"
MIIIT
(lii|)lii;iin i- "I
(llMMNNinll
Ih-Ihw
Illll'i pHl lill
lliisujs
uiiisiiK- n| iiiiii lr.iiiu- n| iIk- 1 ill- l
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
ID#
PWS II)
PWS Name
PWS Type
Rule and
Violation
Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
LCR Discrepancy Description
CD-I 1 andEV-
30
MI2820036
Fife Lake
Elementary School
NTNCWS
ALE follow-
up
requirements
after
Unreported
Lead ALE
2009-2011
LHDs/MDEQ need to escalate enforcement when systems fail to
follow LHD recommendations for resolving Pb ALEs, including the
possible use of the State's emergency authority under MI SDWA
Section 15 (Section325.1003).
UPDATE: After the EV. MDEO provided the lead samDlina results.
EPA found that the LHD did not count all samples collected during
reduced LCR compliance monitoring periods in order to calculate
the system's 90th percentile. Taking re-samples at the high tap into
account, made the 90th percentile value exceed the Pb AL in two
compliance periods - 2006-2008 and 2009-2011. The system also had
a Pb ALE for the 2009-2011 CP (24 jug/L) based on one of the ten
samples it collected on June 11, 2010, (26 jug/L Pb at kitchen sink
tap), and a repeat sample collected from the kitchen sink tap on
December 6, 2010 (29 jug/L Pb). Another follow-up sample at the
high kitchen tap was collected on February 21, 2011 (8 jug/L Pb). All
12 samples collected during this reduced LCR compliance monitoring
period should have been used to calculate the system's 90th percentile
value. It appeared from the file that the LHD did not use all of the
sample results to calculate the 90th percentile and therefore missed this
Pb ALE. This is being counted as a compliance determination
discrepancy. This was outside of timeframe of the File Review.
178
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rules (DBPR)
ID#
I'WS II)
PWS Name
PWS Type
Rule and
Violation Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
DBPR Discrepancy Description
EV-31
MI0000518
Beaver Township
PWS
cws
Stage 2 DBP
MCL
Q1 2015
Violation did not have documentation in the state paper file. MDEQ
staff indicated that there was no written violation notice since the
violation was discussed with the PWS over the phone. DEQ SOP 04-
003 "Compliance and Enforcement" requires compliance
communications be documented in writing in state files and signed
and dated by the DEQ staff member who provided the
communication.
EV-32
MI0000518
Beaver Township
PWS
cws
Stage 2 DBP
MCL
Q3 2015
Violation did not have documentation in the state paper file. MDEQ
staff indicated that there was no written violation notice since the
violation was discussed with the operator in person. DEQ SOP 04-003
"Compliance and Enforcement" requires compliance communications
be documented in writing in state files and signed and dated by the
DEQ staff member who provided the communication.
DF-2
MI0002310
Flint, City of
cws
Stage 2 DBP
MCL
Q1 2015
MDEQ should have reported two TTHM MCL violations for Flint on
time, for the first and second quarters of 2015. Not reporting these
violations on time affected ETT scoring, preventing Flint from
becoming a priority system sooner (on October 2015 ETT). This was
outside of timeframe of the File Review.
DF-3
MI0002310
Flint, City of
cws
Stage 2 DBP
MCL
Q2 2015
MDEQ should have reported two TTHM MCL violations for Flint,
for the first and second quarters of 2015. Not reporting these
violations affected ETT scoring, preventing Flint from becoming a
priority system sooner (on October 2015 ETT). This was outside of
timeframe of the File Review.
179
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Public Notification
ID#
PWSID
PWS Name
PWS Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
PN Discrepancy Description
(Due within 30 days of receiving notice of violation)
Note: Per MDEQ's 2014 Non-community Program Staff Reference Manual,
MDEQ has determined that a Tier 2 rather than a Tier 3 PN is required for a
NCJVS's failure to collect water samples at an established or assigned frequency.
Nniiil in
1 ili
ki-\ uw
•Iiiik- 2"I5
l< l< Wiiu-
\l< 1
1 Ills (llMTi'pilllO \I.|S
.dsn IhiiimI (liiniii! I Ik- 1 l< so ii is i-HiiiiUil iii < li.ipiii' 1 u| Ki-puri
V11 i )i )i )(0 > ^
1 ^ 11 ) 1 }
Condominiums
LCRTT (Type
65)
up after the review to share that no violation was issued for failure to PN the type 65
violation because the supply provided certification to DEQ that PE was distributed
to residents on time as required. Due to resource limitations, DEQ must prioritize
activities. Lower priority is placed on enforcement of late reporting when proper
actions were taken by the water supply. Because the supply did issue PE to residents
on time, no further action was taken for late reporting. This was outside of the FR
period. This was outside of timeframe of the File Review.
CD-13
MI0006232
Spring Lake Club
Condominiums
cws
4/1/2014 LCR
TT (Type 57)
PN not found in state file and no violation was reported to SDWIS. MDEQ followed
up after the review to share that no violation was issued for failure to PN the type 65
violation because the supply provided certification to DEQ that PE was distributed
to residents on time as required. Due to resource limitations, DEQ must prioritize
activities. Lower priority is placed on enforcement of late reporting when proper
actions were taken by the water supply. Because the supply did issue PE to residents
on time, no further action was taken for late reporting. This was outside of
timeframe of the File Review.
CD-14
MI0040477
Washburn Lake Village
MHP
cws
Aug 2013 TCR
Monthly MCL
PN received on 11/26/2013 which was more than three months after the violation.
This was outside of timeframe of the File Review.
CD-15
MI0040477
Washburn Lake Village
MHP
cws
Sept 2013
TCR Monthly
MCL
PN received on 11/26/2013 which was more than two months after the violation.
This was outside of timeframe of the File Review.
CD-16
MI0040477
Washburn Lake Village
MHP
cws
Dec 2013 TCR
Monthly MCL
PN was not found in the state file. SDWIS/Fed indicates PN received 11/26/2013,
which is prior to the violation. This was outside of timeframe of the File Review.
CD-17
MI2520415
Michigan Community
Svcs. Inc.
NTNCWS
Q3 2015
Arsenic MCL
PN was not found in the state file and not reported to SDWIS. This was outside of
timeframe of the File Review.
EV-33
MI7020186
Sandy Point Beach House
TNCWS
June/2014
TCR Major
Repeat M/R
The LHD should not have waived posting PN for the violation. ("The four repeat
samples were taken on June 17, 2014, and as such public postings are not necessary
at this time.")
180
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
ID#
PWSID
PWS Name
PWS Type
Violation or
Compliance
Begin Date(s)
PN Discrepancy Description
(Due within 30 days of receiving notice of violation)
Note: Per MDEQ's 2014 Non-community Program Staff Reference Manual,
MDEQ has determined that a Tier 2 rather than a Tier 3 PN is required for a
NCJVS's failure to collect water samples at an established or assigned frequency.
EV-34
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TNCWS
CQ2 2014
TCR Major
Routine M/R
The NOV letter does not instruct the system to send back a signed copy of the PN it
posted.
EV-35
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TNCWS
CQ1 2015
TCR Major
Routine M/R
The NOV letter does not instruct the system to send back a signed copy of the PN it
posted.
EV-36
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TNCWS
CQ3 2015
TCR Major
Routine M/R
The NOV letter does not instruct the system to send back a signed copy of the PN it
posted.
EV-37
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TNCWS
CQ3 2013
TCR Major
Routine M/R
The NOV letter does not instruct the system to send back a signed copy of the PN it
posted.
EV-38
MI2820036
Fife Lake Elementary
School
NTNCWS
2012-2014
LCRM/R
The PN the LHD sent with the NOV it issued the system for its failure to sample for
Lead/Copper during the 2012-2014 compliance period incorrectly states that
previous sampling has demonstrated that water quality met State and Federal
drinking water standards, the water is safe for drinking, and there is no need to seek
an alternative water source. The above PN language should not have been used
because the system had an ongoing unresolved and unreported Pb ALE.
181
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Community Water Systems
PWSID
PWS Name
District Office
PWS Type
U.S. EPA Questions/Comments
State Responses
MI0000518
Beaver
T ownship
Saginaw Bay
(Bay City)
cws
(1) There was no SIE (or SIA) in the hard copy file
for a Q1 2015 DBP MCL violation PN posted on
4/8/2015 that was received 4/9/2015 by DEQ.
Compliance period end date was 3/31/2015 (Viol ID
3). Does this mean the PWS acted without being
prompted? Could we have a copy of the 4/28/2015
violation notice?
(2) Similarly, there was no SIE (or violation notice
SIA) for a Q3 2015 DBP MCL violation PN posted
and received by DEQ on 9/28/2015, two days before
the compliance period end date of 9/30/2015 (Viol
ID 6). Again, does this indicate that the PWS acted
without being prompted? Could we have a copy of
the violation notice?
(3) Who initiated the phone calls/conversations that
replaced the PN request letter - the PWS or DEQ?
(1) Yes, the water supply understood expectations
and acted proactively. SIA was done via phone (see
provided screen-shot titled
"MI0000518_BeaverTwp_SDWIS_ScreenShots"), so
no violation notice was necessary. No SIE was
necessary because supply proactively completed the
PN on 4/8/15 without being asked.
(2) Yes, the water supply again acted proactively. No
SIE was necessary because supply issued the PN as
required without prompting. The SIA was done in
person on 9/28 when OIC hand-delivered PN to DEQ
(see provided screen-shot titled
"MI0000518_BeaverTwp_SDWIS_ScreenShots), so
a written violation notice was not necessary.
(3) Cannot confirm who initiated phone call for the
Q1 violation. Supply initiated the Q3 face-to-face
meeting.
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
Grand Rapids
cws
Why did the violation notice omit mention of the
positive E. coli repeat and indicate that the public
must be notified of the two total coliform violations
within 30 days? Violation Notice subject was MCL
for E. coli but E. coli was not mentioned in the body
of the letter—just that 2 of 10 routine samples that
were TC+. SIA says PN required within 30 days of
learning of violation which is true for TCR monthly
MCL but not acute. Boil water notice does list a
follow-up sample was EC+. Was the boil water PN
enclosed with MDEQ's violation notice letter or was
there a separate communication regarding the boil
water PN and the need to provide to public within 24
hours of learning of the violation?
DEQ communicated with water supply operator by
phone. Boil water PN was issued within 24 hours as
required. The boil water PN was not included with
the violation notice because it had already been
issued by the time the violation notice was mailed
(the violation notice refers to the completed BW PN).
DEQ confirms only the subject line of the violation
notice specifically mentioned E. coli. Both type 21 &
22 violations were reported in SDWIS as required.
182
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSID
PWS Name
District Office
PWS Type
U.S. EPA Questions/Comments
State Responses
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
Lansing
cws
I could not locate the following enforcement action
files in the hard copy City of Flint PWS File:
(1) 8/15/2014 Violation Notice for August 2014 TCR
Acute MCL and Monthly MCL Violations (Viol IDs
206 and 207);
(2) Copy of PN distributed and certification for Q2
2015 TTHM MCL violation (Viol not m SDWIS/Fed
as of Jan 2016 Freeze); and
(3) Copy of PN distributed and certification for Q4
2014 TTHM MCL violation (Viol ID 210).
(4) Also, there was a return to compliance letter for
the TTHM MCL violations, did MDEQ send a return
to compliance letter for the bacti violations
reviewed? (Viol IDs 206, 207, and 209)?
(5) State file also contains a TCRPN posted and
certified on 9/6/14 — boil water notice. Was there a
violation notice sent to the PWS by MDEQ for this
violation? We could not locate one in the physical
file.
(1) Must perform further file review to locate copy of
violation notice. Copy of PN provided (titled
"MI0002310_Flint_Aug 2014 TCRPN").
(2) Must perform further file review to locate copy of
PN.
(3) Q4 2014 TTHM MCL PN provided (see doc
titled "MI0002310_Flint_Q4 2014 TTHMPN").
(4) DEQ does not typically send RTC letters for
violations of the TCR.
(5) violation notice was issued with a request for
additional PN beyond the initial PN issued on 9/6
(see doc titled "MI0002310 Flint Sep 2014 TCR
VN").
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiu
ms
Cadillac
cws
Please provide us with the violation notices (PN
requests) and copies of the PN and certifications for
the following two Tier 2 violations at Spring Lake
Club Condominiums -- Viol ID 4000217 (LCR TT
Type 65) and Viol ID 4000219 (LCR TT Type 57
violation).
No violation was issued for failure to PN the type 65
violation because the supply provided certification to
DEQ that PE was distributed to residents on time as
required. Due to resource limitations, DEQ must
prioritize activities. Lower priority is placed on
enforcement of late reporting when proper actions
were taken by the water supply. Because the supply
did issue PE to residents on time, no further action
was taken for late reporting.
DEQ confirms no PN violation is in the file for the
type 57 violation. Please note that SDWIS/State lists
type 57 as a tier 3 reporting violation, which could
lead users to not recognize this as a tier 2 TT
violation.
183
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSID
PWS Name
District Office
PWS Type
U.S. EPA Questions/Comments
State Responses
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP ~
Escalated
Enforcement
Kalamazoo
cws
Did not find a violation notice in hard copy file for
July 2013 TCR Monthly MCL (Viol ID 4003511).
Violation notice (SIA enforcement action) dated
10/30/2013 in SDWIS/Fed but no notice in hard copy
file with the exception of the GWR TT failure to
address significant deficiency violation which
references the bacti violations. No PN requests (SIE
enforcement actions) reported to SDWIS/Fed as of
January 2016 data freeze for the 6 TCR monthly
MCL violations (Viol IDs 4003511, 4003513,
4003514, 4003515, 4003518, and 4003519). Was
there ever any separate notification outside the GWR
Sig Def letter dated 10/30/2013?
While individual violation notices were not generated
each month, there was extensive compliance
communication between DEQ and water supply
throughout the event. Compliance communication
was in person, by phone, and by email. The water
supply indicated by phone that the boil water PN was
issued in July after first MCL occurred. DEQ
received a call from a resident in response to the PN,
further confirming the PN was issued as required.
The MCL event continued over several months and
the boil water remained in effect throughout,
violation notices were not generated each month due
to the ongoing nature of the event and the continuous
compliance communications throughout, as noted
above. The October 2013 violation notice
documented the ongoing MCLs and the type 45
violation generated by failing to address the
underlying significant deficiency. The violation
notice included SIE & PNs for both the 22 and 45.
The 22 PN included " continue to BW" language in
addition to regular type 22 language.
Non-Community Water Systems
PWSID
PWS Name
District
Office
PWS Type
U.S. EPA Questions/Comments
State Responses
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
Grand Rapids
TNCWS
(1) Does the State have copies of the PNs that it
reported as posted on 1/10/2014 (2013 TCR
Routine M/R) and 2/5/2015 (Q4 2014 TCR
Routine M/R). They were not in the file.
(2) Were TCR Routine M/R violations assigned
as a result of the PWS failing to provide
quarterly reports at the end of December 2014
and March 2015?
(3) Has the PWS been notified that its
appropriate monitoring frequency is quarterly,
not annually as it was informed on 1/5/2016?
(1) The LHD could not locate in the file.
(2) There was one assigned by the LHD for
December 2014. However, the notification for
December 2014 was not sent until 2/5/2015.
There was not an M&R violation assigned for
March 2015.
(3) The LHD sent them a letter on December 8,
2015 outlining the requirements in anticipation
for RTCR starting April 1, 2016. In this letter
they were notified that they would be moved to
quarterly sampling on April 1, 2016.
184
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
District
Office
PWS Type
U.S. EPA Questions/Comments
State Responses
MI2820036
Fife Lake
Elementary
School
Gaylord
NTNCWS
Could not locate the violation notice dated
1/15/2015 for the LCRM/R violation starting
1/1/2015 for failure to sample between 2012
and 2014. See a general memo from Eric Burt
to PWSs with a tailored PN for Fife Lake
Elementary for the violation. Is there another
letter in the file or is the memo the reported
1/15/2015 violation notice?
The Public Notice located in the file material is
the Public Notice for the violation that occurred
for the monitoring period January 1 2012-
December 31, 2014. There is no other letter
documenting this monitoring violation.
MI2520415
Michigan
Community Svcs.
Inc.- Bilateral
Compliance
Agreement
Lansing
NTNCWS
(1) There was inconsistency in the name of the
PWS as recorded in the files. Also, the WSSN
used to identify the system was frequently
corrected from 17543 to 20415-25. Does this
reflect operational changes at the PWS? Is there
documentation for name and/or WSSN change?
(2) What is the basis for the Q3 2015 arsenic
MCL violation (Viol ID 1540192)? Violation
notice was not in state file neither was PN.
(3) 1/29/2008 bottled water agreement requires
that PWS still conduct arsenic monitoring as
required — what monitoring requirements were
there? See arsenic sample results for 1/1/2008,
11/8/2010, 10/22/2013 in WaterTrack. Were
they on triennial monitoring? Why not
quarterly due to MCL exceedance per the
arsenic rule.
(4) Bottled Water Agreement expired 3 years
after issuance in 2008. Why hasn't escalated
enforcement been initiated to place PWS on an
enforceable schedule? What assurances are
there that public health is being protected per
the agreement requirements?
EPA Lead/Copper Sampling Comment: On
3/17/2016 WaterTrack showed the system was
on triennial lead and copper monitoring starting
1/1/2002 with only 3 sample required. The
PWS has a non-transient population of 70. It
appears that additional taps should be added to
From MDEQ:
(1) The official name for the PWS has been
MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SVCS. INC. since
at least 2007 and so has the WSSN 20415-25.
This has not changed.
The building is also commonly known as:
(historically 1989)-WolcottElementary School
Mid 1990s- MI Community Services and MCS
the Cornerstone
1994- Cornerstone Day Activity Center and MI
Community Services, Cornerstone Wolcott
—17543 is the certified operator's unique ID
number that he/she put on some bottled water
reports for WSSN 20415-25. The LHD added
the WSSN to these reports.
(2) DEQ entered that violation into WaterTrack.
The LHD did not. Therefore, a violation notice
was not sent.
(3) All of DEQ's BW facilities were on 3 year
monitoring until 2015 when DEQ agreed with
EPA to put them on quarterly. They were
switched to quarterly on 7/1/2015.
(4) All of the BWAs expired and we chose not to
renew them. We chose not to renew those
agreements because we agreed with EPA to
move them all towards treatment if an alternate
source was still not an option. Public health is
protected because bottled water from an
approved source is still being provided to the
185
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
District
Office
PWS Type
U.S. EPA Questions/Comments
State Responses
the system's lead and copper Sample Siting
Plan in WaterTrack which only lists the
bathroom sink in the office bathroom, the sink
in kitchen, and the 3 compartment sink in
kitchen. The bathroom sink should be removed
from the lead and copper Sample Siting Plan
(unless it can be used for human consumption),
and the Room 10 sink, and Room 4A classroom
taps for which there are lead and copper sample
results in WaterTrack and/or any taps in other
classroom should be added to the lead and
copper Sample Siting Plan.
public, as required in the agreements. DEQ is
contacting and addressing those facilities onBW
for Arsenic to get them on treatment.
MI7720376
Manistique Ice —
Escalated
Enforcement
Upper
Peninsula
TNCWS
All three TCR Routine M/R violations were
handled via violation notice with PN requested
and $200 fine assigned.
(1) Two of the violations had the violation
notices coded as SIA/SFM/SFG; however, the
PN was requested in the notice and there is no
evidence in the file of the state providing the
PN which is SDWIS code SFG. Should the
enforcement actions be coded as SIA/SIE/SFM
with PN requested by PWS rather than posted
by the state?
(2) The 7/14/2014 notice was coded as
SIA/SFO/SFG; however, the letter in the file is
not an administrative order with penalty but
rather a fine like the other two letters. Is there
an administrative order with penalty missing in
the file?
(3) Why was the $200 fine issued for the Q3
2013 TCR Routine M/R twice with notices sent
on both 10/22/2013 and 11/22/2013?
(1) Voluntary posting, the SFG code should have
been used. SIA/SFM/SIE is correct.
(2) There is no administrative action for this
facility. SIA/SFM/SIE is the correct coding for
7/14/14.
(3) The $200 fine issued 10/22/13 was for the
EPA reportable violation (Q3 2013). The
10/22/2013 cover letter directed the facility to
collect the next routine sample "prior to
11/15/13 to avoid further fines" (state
requirement). The $200 fine issued on 11/22/13
was for failure to collect the next routine sample
by the requested sample date. However, the
11/22/13 PN/fine did not include the missed
sample event within the text, only referencing
the original Q3 2013 missed sample. The
11/22/13 cover letter directed the next routine
sample be collected "prior to 12/15/13 to avoid
further fines", but no M/R violation was
generated when sample was collected on
12/18/13. The 11/22/13 SFMwasnot entered
into WaterTrack. A comment for the 10/22/13
SFM (not entered) could have helped clarify this
issue by specifying the escalated sample date
and possible consequences as specified in the
10/22/13 cover letter.
186
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
District
Office
PWS Type
U.S. EPA Questions/Comments
State Responses
MI1320157
Battle Creek
Baptist Temple
Kalamazoo
TNCWS
(1) There is a December 3, 2014 violation
notice letter in the attached file that has the 4
crossed out in the year and replaced with a 3
(Page 8 of 18 in the pdf). Could you confirm
the date? I think it must be 12/3/2014 since it
references the 12/17/2013 TC+ routine sample.
(2) If 12/3/2014 is the date of the letter why did
it take almost a year to follow the failure to
collect repeat samples SOP in the NCWS
manual?
(3) When was the PWS placed on quarterly
monitoring for bacti? The 12/3/2014 letter lists
quarterly bacti monitoring required for 2013
but the monitoring schedule in WaterTrack lists
annual for 1/1/1997 thru 9/30/2015 with
quarterly beginning 10/1/2015.
(4) The state file contains a GWR violation
reporting form for a SDWIS Type 34 MXR
violation for failure to collect triggered source
water samples after TC+ routine on
12/17/2013. Why isn't that violation in Water
Track or SDWIS/Fed?
(5) The 1/30/14 letter coded as an SIA notice of
noncompliance does not mention the PN notice
but there is a copy of a blank notice covering
do not drink due to a TC+ sample after the
letter in the scanned file. Was the PN enclosed
with the letter?
(6) The nitrate and TCR M/R violations from
2014 are not in SDWIS/Fed as of the January
2016 data freeze. Any idea as to why the data
did not get into SDWIS?
(1) The letter was generated following a LHD
program review of FY14 on December 3, 2014.
(2) During the FY14 LHD program review, the
lack of follow up was noted.
(3) The PWS was placed on quarterly following
a LHD program review of FY15. The 12/3/2014
letter says quarterly, but WaterTrack was not
updated and the system did not receive quarterly
monitoring reminders or violations.
(4) Tracking and reporting Type 34 violations is
not possible using WaterTrack. Email from DEQ
that the form was received on January 15, 2014.
(5) LHD delivered the PN in person and left at
the church door.
(6) These violations were generated very late in
WaterTrack on 1/2/2016 and 12/30/2015,
respectively. They weren't submitted to SDWIS
until February 2016.
187
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
District
Office
PWS Type
U.S. EPA Questions/Comments
State Responses
MI6322569
KOA Bathhouse
Jackson
TNCWS
(1) The 7/24/2015 Order to Abandon Well
refers to a 6/17/2015 inspection. The state file
does not contain documentation of this
inspection. Can the state give us the
inspection report?
(2) A 6/30/2015 e-mail from LHD to MDEQ,
summarizes the 6/29/2015 site visit and
indicates that PN requirements were not being
met by PWS. I do not see a PN violation in the
state file. Was a PN violation found as a
result of that site visit?
(3) There are references in the state file to LHD
being on site almost daily during mid to late
July 2015, as well as to a planned 7/16/2015
compliance conference, and there are records of
samples she collected on 7/13/2015, but no
confirming documentation was found in the file
for a 7/14/205 technical assistance visit that
was reported to SDWIS/Fed. Can the state
provide documentation for a technical
assistance visit that occurred on that date?
(4) The state file contains a Bilateral
Compliance Order signed on 7/17/2015 by both
LHD and KOA. This enforcement action does
not appear in SDWIS/Fed. What is the state's
practice with respect to reporting Bilateral
Compliance Orders?
(5) The state file contains several sample
results that do not appear in Water Track. Does
the state report all sample test results to
WaterTrack?
(6) Has MDEQ received any information from
the LHD about what the resample means on the
bacterial forms for the KOA Bathhouse. Does it
(1) This date should be July 17, 2015. The Order
to abandon references the inspection which was
the downhole camera investigation on that date.
The Bilateral Consent Agreement was created
and delivered after the site visit on the dame day.
(Comments provided by LHD).
(2) The site had the correct public notice in their
possession, but made signs and posted them at
drinking water locations which did not contain
the correct language. The LHD had the facility
copy the original PN and post copies of it at all
appropriate locations. They also had 2 RV units
still connected to the EC MCL well. We had
them disconnect the RV units, bag the outside
spigots and post the PN. We did not issue a PN
violation, so LHD made the continued site visits
to confirm that signs were not removed or
replaced and the RVs were not connected to the
well with the EC MCL. (Comments from LHD)
(3) LHD provided the field sanitarian's
Workload Management Tool (WLMT) record
for that date. WLMT is LHD's internal activity
reporting program. Sanitarian performed 2 site
visits at the KOA on that date. The purpose of
her continued site visits was to verify that PNs
were posted where needed, cabins served by this
well were not rented or occupied and RVs were
not connected to the outside spigots on this well.
This document will be placed in the ftp file.
(Comments from LHD)
(4) The LHD used a Bilateral Consent
Agreement (not a Compliance Order) We are
looking to determine the proper code for this.
(5) There were many "investigation samples"
not used for compliance when the system was
denying there was E. coli in the well. Those are
188
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
District
Office
PWS Type
U.S. EPA Questions/Comments
State Responses
always mean repeat or may it have dual
meanings?
most likely the extra samples in the facility file.
The LHD collected some and ran them through
the County lab, the supply collected some and
ran them through a private lab. The State Lab
results would be available in WaterTrack, but
these samples were not taken to the State Lab.
(6) MDEQ spoke with the health department late
last night and they also explained that the sample
results that are not in WaterTrack were
"investigatory" in nature. The LHD recalls them
being taken by both the LHD and the supply and
others working for the supply to try to narrow
down where the breach in the system was
located.
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
Lansing
TNCWS
(1) Why don't the 4 TCR 1/14/2014 repeat
samples have the same sample #s in the file and
the WaterTrack Water Chem Results screen?
(2) The second page of the 1/30/2014NOV for
TCR Type 25 violation, any subsequent pages,
including the signature page are missing from
the electronic file.
(3) There is no NOV letter for 2/2014 TCR
Type 23 violation, only a monitoring violation
form.
(4) There is no documentation LHD provided a
written or verbal reminder to system to collect
4 repeat samples within 24 hours of being
notified of the positive result outlining
sampling locations and protocol or placed
system on precautionary measures until 4 non-
detect repeat samples were collected per DEQ
Non-community Supply Program Manual.
(1) The samples were hand entered into
WaterTrack and in the process the LHD had
WaterTrack generate the sample number.
(2) Signature is found on page 12, see attached.
Second page of 1/30/14 NOV letter obtained and
attached.
(3) Do not believe LHDs send a cover letter and
we do not have a template for routine M/R
violations, i.e., monthly, quarterly, or annual.
However, we have provided a template for
LHDs to use for failure to collect repeats after a
positive.
(4) MDEQ has provided further information for
EPA to review and determine if further
information is needed.
189
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
District
Office
PWS Type
U.S. EPA Questions/Comments
State Responses
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
Lansing
NTNCWS
(1) Please provide any documentation that the
LHD checked if the drinking fountain at the
daycare center was covered and/or posted with
PE information and of what the LHD found.
(1) Comments in WaterTrack, Violations
Maintenance, under 5/23/13 SID code reflect site
visit and verification of drinking fountain being
covered up. Comments under 9/29/15 SIC code
indicate that the drinking fountain was removed.
MI6120441
The Hop
Childcare Center
Grand Rapids
NTNCWS
(1) Could not find documentation in the file for
the 3/6/2014 State technical assistance visit
(SIC) linked to system's CQ1 2014 Nitrate
MCL violation. Did I miss something?
(2) Could not find documentation in file
if/when system was allowed to continue using
the well for all consumptive purposes,
discontinue posting the PN sent with the
3/10/2014 NOV letter and providing a supply
of bottled water for all consumptive uses.
(3) Could not find documentation of system's
past nitrate monitoring schedules for the Well
001 and Well 002 buildings in the file or
WaterTrack.
(4) Is The Hop Childcare Center required to
have a food license from Muskegon LHD, and,
if so, why didn't LHD work with food
sanitarian to help gain compliance?
EPA Lead/Copper Sampling Comment: On
3/17/2016 WaterTrack showed the system was
on triennial lead and copper monitoring starting
1/1/2006 with only 1 sample required for the
building served by well 001, and annual lead
and copper monitoring starting 1/1/2008 with 1
sample required for the building served by well
002. The PWS has a non-transient population
of 60. Per WaterTrack system is currently on
triennial lead and copper monitoring with only
1 sample required for the building served by
well 001. The building that was served by well
002 has closed. It appears that additional taps
should be added to the system's lead and copper
(1) The comment in WaterTrack associated with
the 3/6/2014 Tech Assist Visit states: "site visit -
observed alternate water (bottled) being used;
informal postings at kitchen sink and restroom;
discussed new well." Also, the attached Time
and Program report from the county sanitarian is
meant to document that the site visit took place.
(2) The attached letter is from the LHD to the
owner regarding reduction in nitrate monitoring
frequency marking the end of the MCL
violation.
(3) Past Sanitary Survey letters are where
monitoring schedules are documented for the
owner to use. The most recent survey was done
on 2/15/2012. A copy of the regenerated survey
is attached, but shows only a current nitrate
frequency schedule.
(4) The Hop does not carry a food license.
190
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
District
Office
PWS Type
U.S. EPA Questions/Comments
State Responses
Sample Siting Plan in WaterTrack which only
lists the kitchen sink. Per MI Department of
Health and Human Services (MI DHHS)
licensing study reports for the Hop Childcare
available at ChildcareCenter.us, in addition to
the kitchen sink there is a sink in the infant
room which is used for minor food preparation,
and another hand sink in the preschool child
care use area. There are also sample results in
WaterTrack for lead and copper samples from
"hall sink."
MI6321444
Hour Kidz -
Bilateral
Compliance
Agreement
Jackson
NTNCWS
(1) Didn't see any documentation that the well
and distribution system were chlorinated after
Hour Kidz replaced the pressure tank, and fixed
leaks from hot water tank and pipes.
EPA Lead/Copper Sampling Comment:
Hour Kidz serves a daycare center and other
businesses. The PWS has a non-transient
population of 50. On 3/17/2016 WaterTrack
showed the system was on triennial lead and
copper monitoring starting 1/1/2002 with only
1 sample required. On 9/14/2016 WaterTrack
showed the system was on triennial lead and
copper monitoring since 1/1/2014 with 3
samples required and no previous lead and
copper monitoring frequencies. It appears that
additional taps at Hour Kidz and Advance
Urgent Care Clinic should be added to the
system's lead and copper Sample Siting Plan in
WaterTrack which only lists the Hour Kidz
kitchen sink. However, WaterTrack also lists a
drinking fountain on the Storage-Distribution
screen, and nursery sink and a break room sink
in the Urgent Care Clinic on the Bacteriologic
Sample Siting Plan screen. Also, per MI
Department of Human Services (MI DHS)
7/3/2013 original licensing study at Hour Kidz
available at ChildcareCenter.us, in addition to
the kitchen sink there are two sinks in the infant
(1) MDEQ doesn't see any documentation of
chlorination, either. The water supply was
required to collect two safe samples 24 hours
apart (see Trilateral Consent Agreement, April
24, 2015; Email from LHD to Hour Kidz, May
1,2015; RT C letter to Hour Kidz, June 11,
2015).
191
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
District
Office
PWS Type
U.S. EPA Questions/Comments
State Responses
room, and one sink each in the toddler room,
sleep room, preschool-kindergarten room, and
the classroom. These are in addition to sinks in
three bathrooms.
192
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Appendix 3-G; Michigan Enforcement Verification Analysis Excel Workbook
Tab Name
T ab Description
la - Final 13 CWSs for Review
Basic information on CWSs to be reviewed
lb - Final 12 NCWSs for Review
Basic information on NCWSs to be reviewed
2a - Jan2016 CWS Viols for Review
Violation Data for CWSs to be reviewed from January 2016 SDWIS/Fed Data Freeze
2b - Jan2016 NCWS Viols for Review
Violation Data for NCWSs to be reviewed from January 2016 SDWIS/Fed Data Freeze
3a - Janl6 CWSFedViols mid EnfAct
Violation and Enforcement Action Data for CWSs to be reviewed from January 2016 SDWIS/Fed Data
Freeze
3b - Jan2016 NCWS Viols for Review
Violation and Enforcement Action Data for NCWSs to be reviewed from January 2016 SDWIS/Fed
Data Freeze
4a - Tier 1 and 2 PN Summary CWS
Tier 1 and Tier 2 Public Notification Summary for CWSs Reviewed
4b - Tier 1 and 2 PN Summary NCWS
Tier 1 and Tier 2 Public Notification Summary for NCWSs Reviewed
5 - JAN 2016 ETT Violations
All Violations at the 16 PWSs Reviewed during the EV (SOURCE: January 2016 ETT, which reflects
data reported to SDWIS/Fed through 9/30/2015)
6 - JAN 2016 ETT Scores Tracker
Quarterly ETT Scores from the January 2016 ETT Scores Tracker reflecting data reported to
SDWIS/Fed through 9/30/2015
7 - SDWIS Fed Codes
Federally-reportable Violation Code Reference Sheet (last updated 10/2014) and Enforcement Action
Codes and Descriptions
193
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
la - Final 13 CVVSs for Review
PWSID
PWS Name
County
Served
cws
District
Number
CWS
District
Office
Population
Served
PWS
Type
Primary
Source
School/
Daycare
#Viols to
Review
Viol open between
October 1, 2013
and September 30,
2015?
Why Selected?
Enfof
Interest?
Potential
Lead
Service
Line?
Jan 2016
ETT
Score
MI0000470
Bay City, City
Of
Bay
21
Saginaw
Bay (Bay
City)
34,932
CWS
SWP
N
0
None
Purchased
surface water
source, Recent
Source Change,
Potential LSL
Y
0
MI0000510
Bear Lake,
Village Of
Manistee
71
Cadillac
318
cws
GW
N
2
2 violations; 2013
CCR Due 7/1/2014
and Q3 2015 DBP
Type 27 M&R
Lead levels
around 15 ppb,
DBP M&R,
CCR violation
0
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
Bay
21
Saginaw
Bay (Bay
City)
1,109
CWS
SWP
N
5
5 violations; Q3
2014 thru Q3 2015
TTHM MCL
3 quarters ETT
Priority
System,
Purchased
surface water
source, DBP
MCL
26
MI0000710
Big Rapids
Mecosta
61
Grand
Rapids
10,894
CWS
GW
N
0
None
No violations,
Potential LSL
Y
0
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
Muskegon
61
Grand
Rapids
65
CWS
GW
N
2
2 violations;
10/2014 TCR Acute
MCL and TCR
Monthly MCL
TCR MCL
0
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
Genesee
11
Lansing
99,763
CWS
SW
N
4
4 violations; 8/2014
TCR Acute MCL
and Monthly MCL,
9/2014 TCR
Monthly MCL, and
Q4 2014 TTHM
MCL
Flint, TCR
MCL and DBP
MCL, Potential
LSL
Y
0
MI0003420
Ironwood
Gogebic
81
Upper
Peninsula
(Marquette)
6,525
CWS
GW
N
0
None
No violations,
Potential LSL,
District Office
Y
0
MI0005290
Petersburg
Monroe
31
Jackson
1,278
CWS
SWP
N
0
None
No violations,
District Office,
Purchased
surface water
source
0
194
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSID
FWS Name
County
Served
cws
District
Number
CWS
District
Office
Population
Served
FWS
Type
Primary
Source
School/
Daycare
#Viols to
Review
Viol open between
October 1, 2013
and September 30,
2015?
Why Selected?
Enfof
Interest?
Potential
Lead
Service
Line?
Jan 2016
ETT
Score
MI0005400
Plymouth
Wayne
41
Southeast
Michigan
(Warren)
9,132
CWS
SWP
N
0
None
No violations,
Purchased
surface water
source,
Potential LSL
Y
0
MI0005850
Saginaw, City
Of
Saginaw
21
Saginaw
Bay (Bay
City)
51,508
cws
SWP
N
0
None
Size, Purchased
surface water
source,
Potential LSL
Y
0
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
Emmet
72
Cadillac
87
CWS
GW
N
6
6 violations; 7/2013
LCR Type 53 M&R,
11/2013 LCR Type
66 M&R, 12/2013
LCR Type 65 TT,
3/2014 TCR Routine
M&R, 4/2014 LCR
Type 56 M&R and
LCR Type 57 TT
Lead action
level
exceedances in
both 2014 6-
month
monitoring
periods in
SDWIS/Fed,
LCR M&R and
TT violations
No Info
0
MI0006640
Traverse City,
City Of
Grand
Traverse
72/73
Cadillac
14,674
CWS
SW
N
0
None
No violations,
Potential LSL,
System Size
Y
0
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
St. Joseph
54
Kalamazoo
108
CWS
GW
N
4
7 violations;
10/2013 TCR
Monthly MCL,
10/29/2013 GWR
Type 45 TT,
11/2013 TCR
Monthly MCL and
12/2013 TCR
Monthly MCL
CWS with
Escalated
Enforcement, 2
quarters ETT
Priority
System, GWR
TT, TCR MCL
Y
0
195
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
lb - Final 12 NCWSs for Review
PWSII)
MDEQ
WSSN
(Non-
Comm
Only)
PWS Name
County
Served
NCWS
Office
Population
Served
PWS
Type
Primary
Source
School/
Daycare
#Viols
to
Review
Viol open
between October
1, 2013 and
September 30,
2015?
Why
Selected?
Enfof
Interest?
Potential
Lead
Service
Line?
Jan 2016
ETT
Score
MI0620435
MI2043506
Knollview
Golf
Arenac
Lansing
25
TNCWS
GW
N
2
2 violations;
12/2013 TCR
M&R Type 25 and
2/2014 TCR
Routine M&R
TCR M&R
violations at
GW PWS
0
MI1320157
MI2015713
Battle Creek
Baptist
Temple
Calhoun
Kalamazoo
100
TNCWS
GW
N
1
1 viol; 12/2013
TCR Type 25
M&R
District and
TCR
violations at
GW PWS
0
MI2120212
MI2021221
Hyde
Properties
Delta
Upper
Peninsula
100
NTNCWS
GW
Y
0
None
No
violations,
School or
Daycare
0
MI2520415
MI2041525
Michigan
Community
Svcs. Inc.
Genesee
Lansing
70
NTNCWS
GW
Y
2
2 violations;
arsenic MCL 2008
-2015
As MCL and
School or
Daycare,
BCA
Y
5
MI2820036
MI2003628
Fife Lake
Elementary
School
Grand
Traverse
Gaylord
166
NTNCWS
GW
Y
1
1 viol; 1/1/2015
LCRType 52
M&R
School or
Daycare,
LCRM&R
2
MI3320169
MI2016933
Vlahakis
Management
Company
Ingham
Lansing
100
NTNCWS
GW
Y
1
1 viol; 1/1/2013
LCRType 51
M&R notRTCd
yet
BCA, LCR
violations,
School or
Daycare; on
state Pb ALE
list
Y
4
MI3520208
MI2020835
Tawas
Headstart
Iosco
Gaylord
40
TNCWS
GW
Y
0
None
School or
Daycare,
District,
TNCWS
with no
violations
0
196
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
MDEQ
WSSN
(Non-
Comm
Only)
PWS Name
County
Served
NCWS
Office
Population
Served
PWS
Type
Primary
Source
School/
Daycare
#Viols
to
Review
Viol open
between October
1, 2013 and
September 30,
2015?
Why
Selected?
Enfof
Interest?
Potential
Lead
Service
Line?
Jan 2016
ETT
Score
MI6120441
MI2044161
The Hop
Childcare
Center
Muskegon
Grand
Rapids
60
NTNCWS
GW
Y
1
1 viol; Q1 2014
Nitrate MCL
Nitrate MCL
and School
or Daycare
0
MI6321444
MI2144463
Hour Kidz
Oakland
Jackson
100
NTNCWS
GW
Y
1
1 viol; 7/2014
TCR Monthly
MCL
BCA, School
or Daycare,
TCR MCL
Y
0
MI6322569
MI2256963
KOA
Bathhouse
Oakland
Jackson
100
TNCWS
GW
N
2
2 violations;
6/2015 and 7/2015
TCR Acute MCLs
Acute MCLs
10
MI7020186
MI2018670
Sandy Point
Beach
House
Ottawa
Grand
Rapids
200
TNCWS
GW
N
4
4 violations; 2013
Nitrate M&R,
2013 TCR
Routine M&R,
6/2014 TCR
Repeat M&R (25);
Q4 2014 TCR
Routine M&R
Nitrate and
TCR M&R
0
MI7720376
MI2037677
Manistique
Ice
Schoolcraft
Upper
Peninsula
25
TNCWS
GW
N
2
2 violations; Q2
2014 and Q1 2015
TCR Routine
M&R
Escalated
Enforcement-
Penalty and
Order at
NCWS
Y
0
197
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
Population
Served
Primary
Source
Contaminant
Name
Violation
Category
Code
Violation
Code
Violation
Id
Compliance
Period
Begin Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
RTC Date
Viol open between
October 1, 2013
and September 30,
2015?
MI0000510
Bear Lake,
Village Of
318
GW
Consumer
Confidence
Rule
Other
71
4000309
7/1/2014
6/25/2015
Y
MI0000510
Bear Lake,
Village Of
318
GW
Chlorine
MR
27
4000311
7/1/2015
9/30/2015
8/25/2015
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
1,109
SWP
TTHM
MCL
02
1
7/1/2014
9/30/2014
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
1,109
SWP
TTHM
MCL
02
2
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
1,109
SWP
TTHM
MCL
02
3
1/1/2015
3/31/2015
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
1,109
SWP
TTHM
MCL
02
5
4/1/2015
6/30/2015
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
1,109
SWP
TTHM
MCL
02
6
7/1/2015
9/30/2015
Y
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
65
GW
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
3
10/1/2014
10/31/2014
12/9/2014
Y
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
65
GW
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4
10/1/2014
10/31/2014
12/9/2014
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
99,763
SW
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
206
8/1/2014
8/31/2014
9/30/2014
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
99,763
SW
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
207
8/1/2014
8/31/2014
9/30/2014
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
99,763
SW
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
209
9/1/2014
9/30/2014
10/31/2014
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
99,763
SW
TTHM
MCL
02
210
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
8/31/2015
Y
198
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
Population
Served
Primary
Source
Contaminant
Name
Violation
Category
Code
Violation
Code
Violation
Id
Compliance
Period
Begin Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
RTC Date
Viol open between
October 1, 2013
and September 30,
2015?
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
87
GW
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
53
4000220
7/1/2013
12/31/2013
6/30/2014
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
87
GW
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
66
4000218
11/1/2013
3/20/2014
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
87
GW
Lead and
Copper Rule
TT
65
4000217
12/11/2013
3/20/2014
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
87
GW
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
4000210
3/1/2014
3/31/2014
4/30/2014
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
87
GW
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
56
4000216
4/1/2014
6/5/2014
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
87
GW
Lead and
Copper Rule
TT
57
4000219
4/1/2014
12/14/2014
Y
MI0040477
Washburn Lake
Village MHP
108
GW
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003515
10/1/2013
10/31/2013
12/3/2013
Y
MI0040477
Washburn Lake
Village MHP
108
GW
Groundwater
Rule
TT
45
4003516
10/29/2013
1/22/2014
Y
MI0040477
Washburn Lake
Village MHP
108
GW
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003518
11/1/2013
11/30/2013
12/3/2013
Y
MI0040477
Washburn Lake
Village MHP
108
GW
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003519
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
12/3/2013
Y
199
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
2b-Jan2016 NCWS Viols
or Review
PWSII)
PWS Name
Population
Served
PWS
Type
Primary
Source
Is
School
Or
Daycare
Contaminant
Name
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period
Begin Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
RTC Date
Viol open between
October 1,2013
and September
30,2015?
MI0620435
Knollview
Golf
25
TNCWS
GW
N
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
25
1411432
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
1/14/2014
Y
MI0620435
Knollview
Golf
25
TNCWS
GW
N
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1420024
2/1/2014
2/28/2014
3/25/2014
Y
MI1320157
Battle Creek
Baptist
Temple
100
TNCWS
GW
N
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
25
1410549
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
Y
MI2520415
Michigan
Community
Svcs. Inc.
70
NTNCWS
GW
Y
Arsenic
MCL
02
0820196
1/1/2008
9/30/2014
Y
MI2520415
Michigan
Community
Svcs. Inc.
70
NTNCWS
GW
Y
Arsenic
MCL
02
1540192
7/1/2015
9/30/2015
Y
MI2820036
Fife Lake
Elementary
School
166
NTNCWS
GW
Y
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
52
1510680
1/1/2015
Y
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
100
NTNCWS
GW
Y
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
51
1310935
1/1/2013
Y
MI6120441
The Hop
Childcare
Center
60
NTNCWS
GW
Y
Nitrate
MCL
02
1420020
1/1/2014
3/31/2014
12/5/2014
Y
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach
House
200
TNCWS
GW
N
Nitrate
MR
03
1410244
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
2/21/2014
Y
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach
House
200
TNCWS
GW
N
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1410230
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
2/21/2014
Y
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach
House
200
TNCWS
GW
N
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
25
1430109
6/1/2014
6/30/2014
7/10/2014
Y
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach
House
200
TNCWS
GW
N
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1510907
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
8/5/2015
Y
200
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSII)
PWS Name
Population
Served
PWS
Type
Primary
Source
Is
School
Or
Daycare
Contaminant
Name
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period
Begin Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
RTC Date
Viol open between
October 1,2013
and September
30,2015?
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
100
NTNCWS
GW
Y
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1440036
7/1/2014
7/31/2014
6/10/2015
Y
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
100
TNCWS
GW
N
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
1530031
6/1/2015
6/30/2015
7/7/2015
Y
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
100
TNCWS
GW
N
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
1540013
7/1/2015
7/31/2015
Y
MI7720376
Manistique
Ice
25
TNCWS
GW
N
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1430134
4/1/2014
6/30/2014
7/23/2014
Y
MI7720376
Manistique
Ice
25
TNCWS
GW
N
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1520057
1/1/2015
3/31/2015
4/21/2015
Y
201
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
3a - Janl6 CWSFedViois and EnfAct
PWSED
PWS Name
POP
CAT 5
Description
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Contaminant
Name
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
Measure
Unit of
Measure
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period
Begin Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
RTC Date
Enforcement
ID
Enforcement
Date
Enforcement
Action
Type Code
Viol open between
October 1, 2013 and
September 30, 2015?
MI0000510
Bear Lake,
Village Of
<=500
CCR
7000
Consumer
Confidence
Rule
Other
71
4000309
7/1/2014
6/25/2015
4000407
1/16/2015
SIA
Y
MI0000510
Bear Lake,
Village Of
<=500
CCR
7000
Consumer
Confidence
Rule
Other
71
4000309
7/1/2014
6/25/2015
4000408
6/25/2015
SOX
Y
MI0000510
Bear Lake,
Village Of
<=500
Stage 1
DBPR
0999
Chlorine
MR
27
4000311
7/1/2015
9/30/2015
8/25/2015
4000409
9/16/2015
SIA
Y
MI0000510
Bear Lake,
Village Of
<=500
Stage 1
DBPR
0999
Chlorine
MR
27
4000311
7/1/2015
9/30/2015
8/25/2015
4000410
9/16/2015
SIE
Y
MI0000510
Bear Lake,
Village Of
<=500
Stage 1
DBPR
0999
Chlorine
MR
27
4000311
7/1/2015
9/30/2015
8/25/2015
4000411
8/25/2015
SOX
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
501-3,300
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
ITHM
MCL
02
0.088
MG/L
1
7/1/2014
9/30/2014
1
9/11/2014
SIA
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
501-3,300
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
ITHM
MCL
02
0.088
MG/L
1
7/1/2014
9/30/2014
2
9/11/2014
SIE
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
501-3,300
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
ITHM
MCL
02
0.088
MG/L
1
7/1/2014
9/30/2014
3
10/10/2014
SIF
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
501-3,300
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
ITHM
MCL
02
0.082
MG/L
2
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
5
12/12/2014
SIA
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
501-3,300
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
ITHM
MCL
02
0.082
MG/L
2
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
6
12/12/2014
SIE
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
501-3,300
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
ITHM
MCL
02
0.082
MG/L
2
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
7
1/15/2015
SIF
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
501-3,300
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
ITHM
MCL
02
0.085
MG/L
3
1/1/2015
3/31/2015
11
4/9/2015
SIF
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
501-3,300
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
ITHM
MCL
02
0.085
MG/L
3
1/1/2015
3/31/2015
9
4/28/2015
SIA
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
501-3,300
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
ITHM
MCL
02
0.081
MG/L
5
4/1/2015
6/30/2015
13
7/27/2015
SIA
Y
202
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSED
PWS Name
POP
CAT 5
Description
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Contaminant
Name
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
Measure
Unit of
Measure
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period
Begin Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
RTC Date
Enforcement
ID
Enforcement
Date
Enforcement
Action
Type Code
Viol open between
October 1, 2013 and
September 30, 2015?
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
501-3,300
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
ITHM
MCL
02
0.081
MG/L
5
4/1/2015
6/30/2015
15
7/16/2015
SIF
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
501-3,300
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
ITHM
MCL
02
0.081
MG/L
5
4/1/2015
6/30/2015
17
9/28/2015
SIF
Y
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
501-3,300
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
ITHM
MCL
02
0.082
MG/L
6
7/1/2015
9/30/2015
Y
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
3
10/1/2014
10/31/2014
12/9/2014
10
10/31/2014
SIF
Y
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
3
10/1/2014
10/31/2014
12/9/2014
11
12/9/2014
SOX
Y
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
3
10/1/2014
10/31/2014
12/9/2014
8
12/9/2014
SIA
Y
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
3
10/1/2014
10/31/2014
12/9/2014
9
10/24/2014
SIE
Y
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4
10/1/2014
10/31/2014
12/9/2014
10
10/31/2014
SIF
Y
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4
10/1/2014
10/31/2014
12/9/2014
11
12/9/2014
SOX
Y
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4
10/1/2014
10/31/2014
12/9/2014
8
12/9/2014
SIA
Y
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4
10/1/2014
10/31/2014
12/9/2014
9
10/24/2014
SIE
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
206
8/1/2014
8/31/2014
9/30/2014
711
8/15/2014
SIA
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
206
8/1/2014
8/31/2014
9/30/2014
712
8/15/2014
SIE
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
206
8/1/2014
8/31/2014
9/30/2014
713
8/25/2014
SIF
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
206
8/1/2014
8/31/2014
9/30/2014
714
9/30/2014
SOX
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
207
8/1/2014
8/31/2014
9/30/2014
707
8/15/2014
SIA
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
207
8/1/2014
8/31/2014
9/30/2014
708
8/15/2014
SIE
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
207
8/1/2014
8/31/2014
9/30/2014
709
8/15/2014
SIF
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
207
8/1/2014
8/31/2014
9/30/2014
710
9/30/2014
SOX
Y
203
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSED
PWS Name
POP
CAT 5
Description
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Contaminant
Name
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
Measure
Unit of
Measure
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period
Begin Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
RTC Date
Enforcement
ID
Enforcement
Date
Enforcement
Action
Type Code
Viol open between
October 1, 2013 and
September 30, 2015?
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
209
9/1/2014
9/30/2014
10/31/2014
715
10/7/2014
SIA
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
209
9/1/2014
9/30/2014
10/31/2014
716
10/7/2014
SIE
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
209
9/1/2014
9/30/2014
10/31/2014
717
11/3/2014
SIF
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
209
9/1/2014
9/30/2014
10/31/2014
718
10/31/2014
SOX
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
TTHM
MCL
02
0.099
MG/L
210
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
8/31/2015
719
12/12/2014
SIA
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
TTHM
MCL
02
0.099
MG/L
210
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
8/31/2015
720
12/12/2014
SIE
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
TTHM
MCL
02
0.099
MG/L
210
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
8/31/2015
721
1/6/2015
SIF
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
TTHM
MCL
02
0.099
MG/L
210
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
8/31/2015
722
8/31/2015
SOX
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
TTHM
MCL
02
0.099
MG/L
210
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
8/31/2015
723
1/13/2015
SIF
Y
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
10,001-
100,000
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
TTHM
MCL
02
0.099
MG/L
210
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
8/31/2015
724
4/13/2015
SIF
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
53
4000220
7/1/2013
12/31/2013
6/30/2014
4000602
5/28/2014
SIA
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
53
4000220
7/1/2013
12/31/2013
6/30/2014
4000603
5/28/2014
SIE
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
53
4000220
7/1/2013
12/31/2013
6/30/2014
4000608
6/30/2014
SOX
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
66
4000218
11/1/2013
3/20/2014
4000602
5/28/2014
SIA
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
66
4000218
11/1/2013
3/20/2014
4000603
5/28/2014
SIE
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
66
4000218
11/1/2013
3/20/2014
4000606
3/20/2014
SOX
Y
204
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSED
PWS Name
POP
CAT 5
Description
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Contaminant
Name
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
Measure
Unit of
Measure
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period
Begin Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
RTC Date
Enforcement
ID
Enforcement
Date
Enforcement
Action
Type Code
Viol open between
October 1, 2013 and
September 30, 2015?
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
Tr
65
4000217
12/11/2013
3/20/2014
4000602
5/28/2014
SIA
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
Tr
65
4000217
12/11/2013
3/20/2014
4000603
5/28/2014
SIE
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
Tr
65
4000217
12/11/2013
3/20/2014
4000606
3/20/2014
SOX
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
4000210
3/1/2014
3/31/2014
4/30/2014
4000599
4/15/2014
SIA
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
4000210
3/1/2014
3/31/2014
4/30/2014
4000600
4/14/2014
SIE
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
4000210
3/1/2014
3/31/2014
4/30/2014
4000601
4/30/2014
SOX
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
56
4000216
4/1/2014
6/5/2014
4000602
5/28/2014
SIA
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
56
4000216
4/1/2014
6/5/2014
4000603
5/28/2014
SIE
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
56
4000216
4/1/2014
6/5/2014
4000607
6/5/2014
SOX
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
Tr
57
4000219
4/1/2014
12/14/2014
4000602
5/28/2014
SIA
Y
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
<=500
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
Tr
57
4000219
4/1/2014
12/14/2014
4000613
12/14/2014
SOX
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003511
7/1/2013
7/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000812
10/30/2013
SIA
N
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003511
7/1/2013
7/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000813
7/25/2013
SFH
N
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003511
7/1/2013
7/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000816
1/22/2014
SFL
N
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003511
7/1/2013
7/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000818
11/26/2013
SIF
N
205
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSED
PWS Name
POP
CAT 5
Description
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Contaminant
Name
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
Measure
Unit of
Measure
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period
Begin Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
RTC Date
Enforcement
ID
Enforcement
Date
Enforcement
Action
Type Code
Viol open between
October 1, 2013 and
September 30, 2015?
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003511
7/1/2013
7/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000819
12/3/2013
SOX
N
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003513
8/1/2013
8/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000812
10/30/2013
SIA
N
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003513
8/1/2013
8/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000813
7/25/2013
SFH
N
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003513
8/1/2013
8/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000816
1/22/2014
SFL
N
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003513
8/1/2013
8/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000818
11/26/2013
SIF
N
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003513
8/1/2013
8/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000819
12/3/2013
SOX
N
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003514
9/1/2013
9/30/2013
12/3/2013
4000812
10/30/2013
SIA
N
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003514
9/1/2013
9/30/2013
12/3/2013
4000813
7/25/2013
SFH
N
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003514
9/1/2013
9/30/2013
12/3/2013
4000816
1/22/2014
SFL
N
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003514
9/1/2013
9/30/2013
12/3/2013
4000818
11/26/2013
SIF
N
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003514
9/1/2013
9/30/2013
12/3/2013
4000819
12/3/2013
SOX
N
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003515
10/1/2013
10/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000812
10/30/2013
SIA
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003515
10/1/2013
10/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000814
10/30/2013
SFH
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003515
10/1/2013
10/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000816
1/22/2014
SFL
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003515
10/1/2013
10/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000818
11/26/2013
SIF
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003515
10/1/2013
10/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000819
12/3/2013
SOX
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
GWR
0700
Ground
Water Rule
Tr
45
4003516
10/29/2013
1/22/2014
4000812
10/30/2013
SIA
Y
206
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSED
PWS Name
POP
CAT 5
Description
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Contaminant
Name
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
Measure
Unit of
Measure
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period
Begin Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
RTC Date
Enforcement
ID
Enforcement
Date
Enforcement
Action
Type Code
Viol open between
October 1, 2013 and
September 30, 2015?
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
GWR
0700
Ground
Water Rule
Tr
45
4003516
10/29/2013
1/22/2014
4000815
11/20/2013
SIC
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
GWR
0700
Ground
Water Rule
Tr
45
4003516
10/29/2013
1/22/2014
4000816
1/22/2014
SFL
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
GWR
0700
Ground
Water Rule
Tr
45
4003516
10/29/2013
1/22/2014
4000817
1/22/2014
SOX
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
GWR
0700
Ground
Water Rule
Tr
45
4003516
10/29/2013
1/22/2014
4000818
11/26/2013
SIF
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003518
11/1/2013
11/30/2013
12/3/2013
4000812
10/30/2013
SIA
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003518
11/1/2013
11/30/2013
12/3/2013
4000816
1/22/2014
SFL
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003518
11/1/2013
11/30/2013
12/3/2013
4000818
11/26/2013
SIF
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003518
11/1/2013
11/30/2013
12/3/2013
4000819
12/3/2013
SOX
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003519
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000812
10/30/2013
SIA
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003519
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000816
1/22/2014
SFL
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003519
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000818
11/26/2013
SIF
Y
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake Village
MHP
<=500
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
4003519
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
12/3/2013
4000819
12/3/2013
SOX
Y
207
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
3b - Jan2016 NCWS Viols for Review
PWSID
PWS Name
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Contaminant
Name
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
Measure
Unit of
Measure
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period
Begin Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
RTC Date
Enforcement
ID
Enforcement
Date
Enforcement
Action
Type Code
Viol open between
October 1, 2013 and
September 30, 2015?
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
25
1411432
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
1/14/2014
142001575
1/30/2014
SIA
Y
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
25
1411432
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
1/14/2014
142002177
3/3/2014
SIF
Y
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
25
1411432
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
1/14/2014
142002306
1/14/2014
SOX
Y
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1420024
2/1/2014
2/28/2014
3/25/2014
142002346
3/20/2014
SIA
Y
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1420024
2/1/2014
2/28/2014
3/25/2014
142002367
3/25/2014
SIF
Y
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1420024
2/1/2014
2/28/2014
3/25/2014
142002374
3/25/2014
SOX
Y
MI1320157
Battle Creek
Baptist Temple
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
25
1410549
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
142001608
1/30/2014
SIA
Y
MI1320157
Battle Creek
Baptist Temple
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
25
1410549
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
142001609
1/30/2014
SIE
Y
MI2520415
Michigan
Community
Svcs. Inc.
Arsenic
1005
Arsenic
MCL
02
0.0305
MG/L
0820196
1/1/2008
9/30/2014
082002966
1/29/2008
SFK
Y
MI2520415
Michigan
Community
Svcs. Inc.
Arsenic
1005
Arsenic
MCL
02
0.0305
MG/L
0820196
1/1/2008
9/30/2014
082002967
1/29/2008
SIF
Y
MI2520415
Michigan
Community
Svcs. Inc.
Arsenic
1005
Arsenic
MCL
02
0.0305
MG/L
0820196
1/1/2008
9/30/2014
082003338
1/29/2008
SIA
Y
MI2520415
Michigan
Community
Svcs. Inc.
Arsenic
1005
Arsenic
MCL
02
0.0305
MG/L
0820196
1/1/2008
9/30/2014
151000809
11/24/2014
S07
Y
MI2520415
Michigan
Community
Svcs. Inc.
Arsenic
1005
Arsenic
MCL
02
0.0305
MG/L
0820196
1/1/2008
9/30/2014
152001982
2/18/2015
S07
Y
MI2520415
Michigan
Community
Svcs. Inc.
Arsenic
1005
Arsenic
MCL
02
0.021
MG/L
1540192
7/1/2015
9/30/2015
Y
MI2820036
Fife Lake
Elementary
School
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
52
1510680
1/1/2015
152001089
1/15/2015
SIA
Y
MI2820036
Fife Lake
Elementary
School
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
52
1510680
1/1/2015
152001090
1/15/2015
SIE
Y
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1130231
4/1/2011
6/30/2011
9/30/2011
114000248
7/15/2011
SIA
N
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1130231
4/1/2011
6/30/2011
9/30/2011
114001211
9/30/2011
SOX
N
208
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSID
PWS Name
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Contaminant
Name
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
Measure
Unit of
Measure
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period
Begin Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
RTC Date
Enforcement
ID
Enforcement
Date
Enforcement
Action
Type Code
Viol open between
October 1, 2013 and
September 30, 2015?
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
Nitrates
1040
Nitrate
MR
03
1310931
1/1/2012
12/31/2012
3/4/2013
132001228
1/15/2013
SIA
N
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
Nitrates
1040
Nitrate
MR
03
1310931
1/1/2012
12/31/2012
3/4/2013
132001888
3/4/2013
SOX
N
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
51
1310935
1/1/2013
132001227
1/15/2013
SIA
Y
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
51
1310935
1/1/2013
132002053
3/18/2013
SFG
Y
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
51
1310935
1/1/2013
142002650
1/21/2014
SFJ
Y
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
LCR
5000
Lead and
Copper Rule
MR
51
1310935
1/1/2013
154001142
7/30/2015
SFK
Y
MI6120441
The Hop
Childcare
Center
Nitrates
1040
Nitrate
MCL
02
11.5
MG/L
1420020
1/1/2014
3/31/2014
12/5/2014
142002259
3/10/2014
SIA
Y
MI6120441
The Hop
Childcare
Center
Nitrates
1040
Nitrate
MCL
02
11.5
MG/L
1420020
1/1/2014
3/31/2014
12/5/2014
142002260
3/10/2014
SFG
Y
MI6120441
The Hop
Childcare
Center
Nitrates
1040
Nitrate
MCL
02
11.5
MG/L
1420020
1/1/2014
3/31/2014
12/5/2014
142002261
3/6/2014
SIC
Y
MI6120441
The Hop
Childcare
Center
Nitrates
1040
Nitrate
MCL
02
11.5
MG/L
1420020
1/1/2014
3/31/2014
12/5/2014
142002536
3/12/2014
SIF
Y
MI6120441
The Hop
Childcare
Center
Nitrates
1040
Nitrate
MCL
02
11.5
MG/L
1420020
1/1/2014
3/31/2014
12/5/2014
151000895
12/5/2014
SOX
Y
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1440036
7/1/2014
7/31/2014
6/10/2015
144000625
8/1/2014
SIF
Y
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1440036
7/1/2014
7/31/2014
6/10/2015
144000626
8/1/2014
SIE
Y
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1440036
7/1/2014
7/31/2014
6/10/2015
144000627
8/1/2014
SIC
Y
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1440036
7/1/2014
7/31/2014
6/10/2015
144000628
8/1/2014
SIA
Y
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1440036
7/1/2014
7/31/2014
6/10/2015
144001304
9/26/2014
S07
Y
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1440036
7/1/2014
7/31/2014
6/10/2015
152002304
3/31/2015
SIC
Y
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1440036
7/1/2014
7/31/2014
6/10/2015
153000278
4/24/2015
SIB
Y
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1440036
7/1/2014
7/31/2014
6/10/2015
153000279
4/24/2015
SFK
Y
209
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSID
PWS Name
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Contaminant
Name
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
Measure
Unit of
Measure
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period
Begin Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
RTC Date
Enforcement
ID
Enforcement
Date
Enforcement
Action
Type Code
Viol open between
October 1, 2013 and
September 30, 2015?
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1440036
7/1/2014
7/31/2014
6/10/2015
153000426
6/10/2015
SOX
Y
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
1530031
6/1/2015
6/30/2015
7/7/2015
153000441
6/12/2015
SIE
Y
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
1530031
6/1/2015
6/30/2015
7/7/2015
153000442
6/12/2015
SIC
Y
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
1530031
6/1/2015
6/30/2015
7/7/2015
153000443
6/12/2015
SIF
Y
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
1530031
6/1/2015
6/30/2015
7/7/2015
153000444
6/12/2015
SIA
Y
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
1530031
6/1/2015
6/30/2015
7/7/2015
153000561
6/29/2015
SID
Y
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
1530031
6/1/2015
6/30/2015
7/7/2015
154000050
7/7/2015
SOX
Y
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
1540013
7/1/2015
7/31/2015
154000235
7/14/2015
SIF
Y
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
1540013
7/1/2015
7/31/2015
154000236
7/14/2015
SIC
Y
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
1540013
7/1/2015
7/31/2015
154000237
7/14/2015
SIE
Y
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
21
1540013
7/1/2015
7/31/2015
154000238
7/14/2015
SIA
Y
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1340041
7/1/2013
7/31/2013
8/27/2013
134000565
8/1/2013
SIA
N
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1340041
7/1/2013
7/31/2013
8/27/2013
134000566
8/1/2013
SIE
N
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1340041
7/1/2013
7/31/2013
8/27/2013
134000567
8/1/2013
SIC
N
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1340041
7/1/2013
7/31/2013
8/27/2013
134000568
8/1/2013
SIF
N
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MCL
22
1340041
7/1/2013
7/31/2013
8/27/2013
134000788
8/27/2013
SOX
N
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
Nitrates
1040
Nitrate
MR
03
1410244
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
2/21/2014
142000280
1/10/2014
SFG
Y
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
Nitrates
1040
Nitrate
MR
03
1410244
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
2/21/2014
142000281
1/10/2014
SIA
Y
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
Nitrates
1040
Nitrate
MR
03
1410244
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
2/21/2014
142002016
2/21/2014
SOX
Y
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1410230
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
2/21/2014
142000380
1/10/2014
SFG
Y
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1410230
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
2/21/2014
142000381
1/10/2014
SIA
Y
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1410230
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
2/21/2014
142002015
2/21/2014
SOX
Y
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
25
1430109
6/1/2014
6/30/2014
7/10/2014
144000104
7/10/2014
SIA
Y
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
25
1430109
6/1/2014
6/30/2014
7/10/2014
144000105
7/10/2014
SOX
Y
210
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSID
PWS Name
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Contaminant
Name
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
Measure
Unit of
Measure
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period
Begin Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
RTC Date
Enforcement
ID
Enforcement
Date
Enforcement
Action
Type Code
Viol open between
October 1, 2013 and
September 30, 2015?
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1510907
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
8/5/2015
152001688
2/5/2015
SIA
Y
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1510907
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
8/5/2015
152001689
2/5/2015
SFG
Y
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1510907
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
8/5/2015
154000883
8/5/2015
SOX
Y
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1340305
7/1/2013
9/30/2013
12/18/2013
141000363
10/22/2013
SIA
N
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1340305
7/1/2013
9/30/2013
12/18/2013
141000364
10/22/2013
SFM
N
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1340305
7/1/2013
9/30/2013
12/18/2013
141000365
10/22/2013
SFG
N
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1340305
7/1/2013
9/30/2013
12/18/2013
141000760
12/18/2013
SOX
N
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1430134
4/1/2014
6/30/2014
7/23/2014
144000549
7/14/2014
SIA
Y
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1430134
4/1/2014
6/30/2014
7/23/2014
144000550
7/14/2014
SFO
Y
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1430134
4/1/2014
6/30/2014
7/23/2014
144000551
7/14/2014
SFG
Y
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1430134
4/1/2014
6/30/2014
7/23/2014
144000552
7/23/2014
SOX
Y
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1520057
1/1/2015
3/31/2015
4/21/2015
153000057
4/9/2015
SIA
Y
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1520057
1/1/2015
3/31/2015
4/21/2015
153000058
4/9/2015
SFG
Y
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1520057
1/1/2015
3/31/2015
4/21/2015
153000060
4/9/2015
SFM
Y
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TCR
3100
Coliform
(TCR)
MR
23
1520057
1/1/2015
3/31/2015
4/21/2015
153000252
4/21/2015
SOX
Y
211
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
4a - Tier 1 and 2 PN Summary CWS
Total Number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 Violations Reviewed During EV = 28 --> 5 Tier 1 and 23 Tier 2
PWSID
PWS Name
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period Begin
Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
Date PN
Requested
(SIE)
Date PN
Posted or
Mailed (per
copy of PN
cert)
Date PN
Certified/
Signed (per
copy of PN
cert)
Date PN
Received by
State (SIF)
#Days
between
PN
Request
and PN
Posted/
Delivered
PN
Tier
Timely
PN? (Tier
1 posted
within 24
hours and
Tier 2
within 30
days)
PN Details Captured by
Reviewer
EV Reviewer
Comments
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
MCL
02
1
7/1/2014
9/30/2014
9/12/2014
10/10/2014
10/10/2014
10/11/2014
28
2
yes
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
MCL
02
2
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
12/15/2014
1/13/2015
1/13/2015
1/15/2015
29
2
yes
December 15, 2014
Violation Notice
requested PN by 1/2/2015.
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
MCL
02
3
1/1/2015
3/31/2015
Telephone
contact with
operator.
Date not
recorded
4/8/2015
4/8/2015
4/9/2015
PN request
not in file.
2
yes
April 8 PN was 8 days
after the CPED, following
telephone contact with
operator. Request was not
made by letter.
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
MCL
02
5
4/1/2015
6/30/2015
7/28/2015
7/14/2015
7/14/2015
7/16/2015
PN
preceded
the request.
2
yes
PN posted and certified
before the request.
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
MCL
02
6
7/1/2015
9/30/2015
Telephone
contact with
operator on
9/28/2015.
9/28/2015
9/28/2015
9/28/2015
PN request
not in file.
2
yes
PN posted and certified
before the CPED,
following a 2/28
telephone call with DEQ.
Request was not made by
letter.
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
TCR
3100
MCL
21
3
10/1/2014
10/31/2014
12/9/2014
10/24/2014
10/24/2014
10/31/2014
Notice
preceded
request.
1
yes
The 12/9/2014 Violation
Notice does not refer to
the positive repeat sample.
It mentions only two
samples that were positive
for total coliform.
Violation notice says
public notice must be
provided within 30 days.
Violation notice indicates
that MDEQ was aware of
the timely boil water
notice, but file does not
confirm when state
received PN certification.
SDWIS/Fed
indicates PN
request was
made
10/24/2014.
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
TCR
3100
MCL
22
4
10/1/2014
10/31/2014
12/9/2014
10/24/2014
10/24/2014
10/31/2014
Notice
preceded
request.
2
yes
The 12/9/2014 Violation
Notice indicates that
MDEQ was aware of the
timely boil water notice,
but file does not confirm
when state received PN
certification.
SDWIS/Fed
indicates that PN
request was
made on
10/31/2014.
212
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSID
PWS Name
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period Begin
Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
DatePN
Requested
(SIE)
DatePN
Posted or
Mailed (per
copy of PN
cert)
DatePN
Certified/
Signed (per
copy of PN
cert)
DatePN
Received by
State (SIF)
#Days
between
PN
Request
and PN
Posted/
Delivered
PN
Tier
Timely
PN? (Tier
1 posted
within 24
hours and
Tier 2
within 30
days)
PN Details Captured by
Reviewer
EV Reviewer
Comments
MI0002310
Flint, City
Of
TCR
3100
MCL
22
206
8/1/2014
8/31/2014
Not in file.
8/15/2014
8/15/2014
8/25/2014
Request not
in file.
2
yes
After the review MDEQ
provided a copy of an
8/15/2014 email outlining
the violation and stating
that MDEQ was issuing a
boil water notice and also
the City needed to issue
one as well.
SDWIS/Fed
indicates request
made on
8/15/2014, but
letter not found
in state file.
MI0002310
Flint, City
Of
TCR
3100
MCL
21
207
8/1/2014
8/31/2014
8/15/2014
8/15/2014
8/15/2014
8/25/2014
Request not
found in
file.
1
Yes
After the review MDEQ
provided a copy of an
8/15/2014 email outlining
the violation and stating
that MDEQ was issuing a
boil water notice and also
the City needed to issue
one as well.
SDWIS/Fed
indicates request
for PN made on
8/15/2014, but
letter not found
in state file.
State produced
email after
review.
MI0002310
Flint, City
Of
TCR
3100
MCL
22
209
9/1/2014
9/30/2014
10/7/2014
10/23/2014
10/23/2014
11/3/2014
13
2
yes
State file also
contains a TCR
PN posted and
certified on
9/6/14. No
related request
for PN or receipt
of PN was found
in state file.
MI0002310
Flint, City
Of
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
MCL
02
210
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
12/12/2014
1/2/2015
1/2/2015
1/13/2015
21
2
yes
Copy of PN
received
provided by
MDEQ after
review.
MI0002310
Flint, City
Of
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
MCL
02
1/1/2015
3/31/2015
3/5/2015
4/1/2015
4/1/2015
4/10/2015
27
2
yes
Violation notice dated
3/5/2015 in state file.
Viol not in S/F.
There were two
copies of the PN
certification in
the state file.
One was marked
received
4/10/2015. The
other was
marked received
4/13/2015.
MI0002310
Flint, City
Of
Stage 2
DBPR
2950
MCL
02
4/1/2015
6/30/2015
6/9/2015
Not found in
state file.
State
produced it to
EPA after
review. PN
posted on
7/1/15
7/1/2015
Record of
date received
not found in
state file.
22
2
yes
Violation notice dated
6/9/2015 in state file. PN
not found in state file but
emailed to EPA after the
review. PN certified on
7/1/2015 but no record of
when PN was received by
the state.
Viol not in S/F
213
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSID
PWS Name
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
m
Compliance
Period Begin
Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
DatePN
Requested
(SIE)
DatePN
Posted or
Mailed (per
copy of PN
cert)
DatePN
Certified/
Signed (per
copy of PN
cert)
DatePN
Received by
State (SIF)
#Days
between
PN
Request
and PN
Posted/
Delivered
PN
Tier
Timely
PN? (Tier
1 posted
within 24
hours and
Tier 2
within 30
days)
PN Details Captured by
Reviewer
EV Reviewer
Comments
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condomini
ums
LCR
5000
TT
65
4000217
12/11/2013
5/28/2014
2
PN not
found
in state
file.
MDEQ followed up after
the review to share that no
violation was issued for
failure to PN the type 65
violation because the
supply provided
certification to DEQ that
PE was distributed to
residents on time as
required. Due to resource
limitations, DEQ must
prioritize activities. Lower
priority is placed on
enforcement of late
reporting when proper
actions were taken by the
water supply. Because the
supply did issue PE to
residents on time, no
further action was taken
for late reporting.
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condomini
ums
LCR
5000
TT
57
4000219
4/1/2014
5/28/2014
2
PN not
found
in state
file.
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake
Village
MHP
TCR
3100
MCL
22
4003511
7/1/2013
7/31/2013
Phone call.
7/25/2013
State issued.
No
certification
found.
11/26/2013
2
yes
Boil Water Order issued
by State on 7/25/2013.
MDEQ could not locate a
copy of the notice. Date
PN received was not noted
in the hard copy file but
entered into S/S.
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake
Village
MHP
TCR
3100
MCL
22
4003513
8/1/2013
8/31/2013
11/22/2013
11/22/2013
11/26/2013
2
No
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake
Village
MHP
TCR
3100
MCL
22
4003514
9/1/2013
9/30/2013
11/22/2013
11/22/2013
11/26/2013
2
No
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake
Village
MHP
TCR
3100
MCL
22
4003515
10/1/2013
10/31/2013
Not found in
state file.
11/22/2013
11/22/2013
Not found in
state file.
Not found
in state file.
2
yes
PN faxed to DEQ on
11/26/2013 is signed, but
does not contain
certification language.
SDWIS/Fed
indicates PN
received
11/26/2013.
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake
Village
MHP
GWR
0700
TT
45
4003516
10/29/2013
Not found in
state file
11/22/2013
11/22/2013
11/26/2013
Not found
in state File
2
yes
PN faxed to DEQ on
11/26/2013 is signed, but
does not contain
certification language.
214
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSID
PWS Name
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period Begin
Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
Date PN
Requested
(SIE)
Date PN
Posted or
Mailed (per
copy of PN
cert)
Date PN
Certified/
Signed (per
copy of PN
cert)
Date PN
Received by
State (SIF)
#Days
between
PN
Request
and PN
Posted/
Delivered
PN
Tier
Timely
PN? (Tier
1 posted
within 24
hours and
Tier 2
within 30
days)
PN Details Captured by
Reviewer
EV Reviewer
Comments
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake
Village
MHP
TCR
3100
MCL
22
4003518
11/1/2013
11/30/2013
Not found in
state file
11/22/2013
11/22/2013
11/26/2013
Request not
in file.
2
yes
DEQ notes from
7/25/2013 indicate Boil
Water Notice was issued
at Washburn. Facility
Surveillance Report
indicates that DEQ was
onsite 11/20/13. PN
continuing BWN was
postedll/22/2013, and
faxed to DEQ 11/26/2013.
MI0040477
Washburn
Lake
Village
MHP
TCR
3100
MCL
22
4003519
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
Not found in
state file.
Not in file.
Not found in
state file.
Not found in
state file.
Request not
in file.
2
PN
request
not found
in state
file.
File Contains a 12/4/2013
lab report indicating that
bacti results were
negative, and a 12/1/2013
PN from the owner
indicating that it was no
longer necessary to boil
the water.
SDWIS/Fed
indicates PN
received
11/26/2013.
215
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
4b - Tier 1 and 2 PN Summary NCWS
Total Number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 Violations Reviewed During EV = 28 --> 5 Tier 1 and 23 Tier 2
PWSID
PWS Name
Rule
Name
Contaminant
Code
Violation
Category
Violation
Code
Violation
ID
Compliance
Period Begin
Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
Date PN
Requested
(SIE)
Date PN
Posted or
Mailed (per
copy of PN
cert)
Date PN
Certified/
Signed (per
copy of PN
cert)
Date PN
Received by
State (SIF)
#Days
between
PN
Request
and PN
Posted/
Delivered
PN
Tier
Timely
PN? (Tier
1 posted
within 24
hours and
Tier 2
within 30
days)
PN Details Captured by
Reviewer
EV Reviewer
Comments
MI2520415
Michigan
Community
Svcs. Inc.
Arsenic
1005
MCL
02
0820196
1/1/2008
9/30/2014
1/25/2008
1/25/2008
1/25/2008
1/29/2008
0
2
yes
This is a continuation of PN
initiated 3/4/2005.
Inconsistency
in how PWS
name appears
on documents.
WSSN
frequently
corrected from
17543.
MI2520415
Michigan
Community
Svcs. Inc.
Arsenic
1005
MCL
02
1540192
7/1/2015
9/30/2
/Not-^oimciiri
§tate.fil.e,"...
Not found in ....
staje file- ".
'Sot.ipiiiicjin! ••
stgte.ille.
Nqf-found ill.
stat^ file. • ••
2
Only 1/29/2008 violation is
listed on Tab 5.
Where did this
violation come
from?
MI6120441
The Hop
Childcare
Center
Nitrates
1040
MCL
02
1420020
1/1/2014
3/31/2014
3/10/2014
3/10/2014
3/10/2014
3/14/2014
0
1
yes
SDWIS/Fed
indicates PN
received
3/12/2014.
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
TCR
3100
MCL
22
1440036
7/1/2014
7/31/2014
7/31/2014
8/1/2014
8/1/2014
8/1/2014
1
2
yes
File does not confirm when
state received PN
certification.
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
MCL
21
1530031
6/1/2015
6/30/2015
6/12/2015
6/12/2015
6/12/2015
6/12/2015
0
1
yes
File does not confirm when
state received PN
certification.
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
TCR
3100
MCL
21
1540013
7/1/2015
7/31/2015
7/14/2015
7/14/2015
7/14/2015
7/14/2015
0
1
yes
File does not confirm when
state received PN
certification.
216
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
5 -JAN 2016 Err Violations
PWSID
PWS Name
Jan 2016
ETT
Score
Violation
Code
Violation
Type
Rule
Name
Compliance
Period Begin
Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
Severity
Points
RTCd
Points
Formal
Action
Points
First Formal
Action Date
Informal
Action
Points
n
Violation
IDs
Contaminant
Codes
MI1320157
Battle Creek
Baptist Temple
0
25
MR
TCR
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
5
5
5
1410549
3100
MI0000510
Bear Lake,
Village Of
0
71
Other
CCR
7/1/2014
1
1
1
4000309
7000
MI0000510
Bear Lake,
Village Of
0
27
MR
Stage 1
DBPR
7/1/2015
9/30/2015
1
1
1
4000311
0999
MI0000510
Bear Lake,
Village Of
0
22
MCL
TCR
10/1/2011
10/31/2011
5
5
5
4000308
3100
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
26
02
MCL
Stage 2
DBPR
7/1/2015
9/30/2015
5
0
6
2950
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
26
02
MCL
Stage 2
DBPR
4/1/2015
6/30/2015
5
5
0
5
2950
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
26
02
MCL
Stage 2
DBPR
1/1/2015
3/31/2015
5
5
0
3
2950
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
26
02
MCL
Stage 2
DBPR
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
5
5
1
2
2950
MI0000518
Beaver
Township
26
02
MCL
Stage 2
DBPR
7/1/2014
9/30/2014
5
5
1
1
2950
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
0
71
Other
CCR
7/1/2012
1
1
1
2
7000
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
0
22
MCL
TCR
10/1/2014
10/31/2014
5
5
5
4
3100
MI0001018
Butterfield
Woods
Subdivision
0
21
MCL
TCR
10/1/2014
10/31/2014
10
10
10
3
3100
MI2820036
Fife Lake
Elementary
School
2
52
MR
LCR
1/1/2015
1
1
1
1510680
5000
MI2820036
Fife Lake
Elementary
School
2
03
MR
Nitrates
1/1/2011
12/31/2011
5
5
5
1210977
1040
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
0
02
MCL
Stage 2
DBPR
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
5
5
5
210
2950
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
0
22
MCL
TCR
9/1/2014
9/30/2014
5
5
5
209
3100
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
0
22
MCL
TCR
8/1/2014
8/31/2014
5
5
5
206
3100
MI0002310
Flint, City Of
0
21
MCL
TCR
8/1/2014
8/31/2014
10
10
10
207
3100
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
0
22
MCL
TCR
7/1/2014
7/31/2014
5
5
5
1440036
3100
217
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSID
PWS Name
Jan 2016
ETT
Score
Violation
Code
Violation
Type
Rule
Name
Compliance
Period Begin
Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
Severity
Points
RTCd
Points
Formal
Action
Points
First Formal
Action Date
Informal
Action
Points
n
Violation
IDs
Contaminant
Codes
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
0
23
MR
TCR
2/1/2014
2/28/2014
1
1
1
1420024
3100
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
0
25
MR
TCR
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
5
5
5
1411432
3100
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
10
22
MCL
TCR
7/1/2013
7/31/2013
5
5
5
1340041
3100
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
10
21
MCL
TCR
7/1/2015
7/31/2015
10
10
0
1540013
3100
MI6322569
KOA
Bathhouse
10
21
MCL
TCR
6/1/2015
6/30/2015
10
10
10
1530031
3100
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
0
23
MR
TCR
1/1/2015
3/31/2015
1
1
1
09-APR-15
1
1520057
3100
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
0
23
MR
TCR
4/1/2014
6/30/2014
1
1
1
14-JUL-14
1
1430134
3100
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
0
23
MR
TCR
7/1/2013
9/30/2013
1
1
1
22-OCT-13
1
1340305
3100
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
0
23
MR
TCR
4/1/2011
6/30/2011
1
1
1
15-JUL-l 1
1
1130192
3100
MI2520415
Michigan
Community
Svcs. Inc.
5
02
MCL
Arsenic
7/1/2015
9/30/2015
5
0
1540192
1005
MI2520415
Michigan
Community
Svcs. Inc.
5
02
MCL
Arsenic
1/1/2008
9/30/2014
5
5
29-JAN-08
5
0820196
1005
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
0
23
MR
TCR
10/1/2014
12/31/2014
1
1
1
1510907
3100
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
0
23
MR
TCR
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
1
1
1
1410230
3100
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
0
03
MR
Nitrates
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
5
5
5
1410244
1040
MI7020186
Sandy Point
Beach House
0
25
MR
TCR
6/1/2014
6/30/2014
5
5
5
1430109
3100
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
0
56
MR
LCR
4/1/2014
1
1
1
4000216
5000
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
0
66
MR
LCR
11/1/2013
1
1
1
4000218
5000
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
0
53
MR
LCR
7/1/2013
12/31/2013
1
1
1
4000220
5000
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
0
52
MR
LCR
10/1/2012
1
1
1
4000209
5000
218
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
PWSID
FWS Name
Jan 2016
ETT
Score
Violation
Code
Violation
Type
Rule
Name
Compliance
Period Begin
Date
Compliance
Period End
Date
Severity
Points
RTCd
Points
Formal
Action
Points
First Formal
Action Date
Informal
Action
Points
n
Violation
IDs
Contaminant
Codes
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
0
23
MR
TCR
3/1/2014
3/31/2014
1
1
1
4000210
3100
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
0
57
TT
LCR
4/1/2014
5
5
5
4000219
5000
MI0006232
Spring Lake
Club
Condominiums
0
65
TT
LCR
12/11/2013
5
5
5
4000217
5000
MI6120441
The Hop
Childcare
Center
0
02
MCL
Nitrates
1/1/2014
3/31/2014
10
10
10
1420020
1040
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
4
51
MR
LCR
1/1/2013
1
1
3
1310935
5000
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
4
23
MR
TCR
4/1/2011
6/30/2011
1
1
1
1130231
3100
MI3320169
Vlahakis
Management
Company
4
03
MR
Nitrates
1/1/2012
12/31/2012
5
5
5
1310931
1040
MI0040477
Washburn Lake
Village MHP
0
45
TT
GWR
10/29/2013
5
5
5
22-JAN-14
5
4003516
0700
MI0040477
Washburn Lake
Village MHP
0
22
MCL
TCR
12/1/2013
12/31/2013
5
5
5
22-JAN-14
5
4003519
3100
MI0040477
Washburn Lake
Village MHP
0
22
MCL
TCR
11/1/2013
11/30/2013
5
5
5
22-JAN-14
5
4003518
3100
MI0040477
Washburn Lake
Village MHP
0
22
MCL
TCR
10/1/2013
10/31/2013
5
5
5
22-JAN-14
5
4003515
3100
MI0040477
Washburn Lake
Village MHP
0
22
MCL
TCR
9/1/2013
9/30/2013
5
5
5
22-JAN-14
5
4003514
3100
MI0040477
Washburn Lake
Village MHP
0
22
MCL
TCR
8/1/2013
8/31/2013
5
5
5
22-JAN-14
5
4003513
3100
MI0040477
Washburn Lake
Village MHP
0
22
MCL
TCR
7/1/2013
7/31/2013
5
5
5
22-JAN-14
5
4003511
3100
219
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
6 - JAN 2016 ETT Scores Tracker
Color-coding Key:
• Systems with orange shading in PWSID and PWS Name column were priority systems with ETT scores of 11 or more during the EV
Review Period (At sometime between Q4 2013 and Q3 2015)
• Systems with green shading in the ETT quarterly score columns have ETT scores of 0; those with yellow shading have ETT scores
between 1 and 10; and those with orange shading have ETT scores of 11 or more (priority systems).
• Quarters shaded in blue are within the EV review period: April 2012 through March 2014 (quarter data lag so July-July)
Quarterly ETT Scores from the January 2015 ETT Scores Tracker reflecting data
reported to SDWIS/Fed through 9/30/2015
PWSID
PWS Name
PWS
Type
Primary
Source
Pop Served
First Reported Date to
SDWIS
School or Childcare
Total Quarters Priority
Sys (of 19)
Jan 2016
Oct 2015
Jul 2015
Apr 2015
Jan 2015
Oct 2014
Jul 2014
Apr 2014
Jan 2014
Oct 2013
Jul 2013
Apr 2013
Jan 2013
Oct 2012
Jul 2012
Apr 2012
Jan 2012
Oct 2011
Jul 2011
Apr 2011
MI0000470
Bay City, City Of
cws
SWP
34,932
1/30/81
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MI0000510
Bear Lake, Village Of
cws
GW
318
1/30/81
N
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MI0000518
Beaver Township
cws
SWP
1109
8/22/91
N
3
26
21
15
10
5
0
0
0
MI0000710
Big Rapids
cws
GW
10,894
1/30/81
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MI0001018
Butterfield Woods Subdivision
cws
GW
65
1/18/83
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MI0002310
Flint City Of
cws
sw
99,763
1/30/81
N
0
0
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
MI0003420
Ironwood
cws
GW
6,525
12/4/87
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
MI0005290
Petersburg
cws
SWP
1,278
1/30/81
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MI0005400
Plymouth
cws
SWP
9,132
5/30/99
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MI0005850
Saginaw, City Of
cws
SWP
51,508
1/30/81
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MI0006232
Spring Lake Club
Condominiums
cws
GW
87
1/30/81
N
0
0
0
5
0
6
7
2
0
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MI0006640
Traverse City, City Of
cws
sw
14,674
5/28/05
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
MI0040477
Washburn Lake Village MHP
cws
GW
108
2/15/11
N
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MI0620435
Knollview Golf
TNCWS
GW
25
12/3/96
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
MI1320157
Battle Creek Baptist Temple
TNCWS
GW
100
11/23/09
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
0
220
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Quarterly ETT Scores from the January 2015 ETT Scores Tracker reflecting data
reported to SDWIS/Fed through 9/30/2015
FWSID
PWS Name
PWS
Type
Primary
Source
Pop Served
First Reported Date to
SDWIS
School or Childcare
Total Quarters Priority
Sys (of 19)
Jan 2016
Oct 2015
Jul 2015
Apr 2015
Jan 2015
Oct 2014
Jul 2014
Apr 2014
Jan 2014
Oct 2013
Jul 2013
Apr 2013
Jan 2013
Oct 2012
Jul 2012
Apr 2012
Jan 2012
Oct 2011
Jul 2011
Apr 2011
MI2120212
Hyde Properties
NTNCWS
GW
100
1/30/81
Y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
MI2520415
Michigan Community Svcs. Inc.
NTNCWS
GW
70
1/30/81
Y
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MI2820036
Fife Lake Elementary School
NTNCWS
GW
166
1/30/81
Y
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
10
10
10
7
7
7
7
MI3320169
VlahaMs Management
Company
NTNCWS
GW
100
1/30/81
Y
0
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
MI3520208
Tawas Headstart
TNCWS
GW
40
5/30/98
Y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MI6120441
The Hop Childcare Center
NTNCWS
GW
60
1/30/81
Y
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
10
0
MI6321444
Hour Kidz
NTNCWS
GW
100
1/30/81
Y
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
MI6322569
KOA Bathhouse
TNCWS
GW
100
11/22/93
N
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MI7020186
Sandy Point Beach House
TNCWS
GW
200
1/30/81
N
0
0
1
1
1
0
5
0
6
9
0
0
MI7720376
Manistique Ice
TNCWS
GW
25
1/30/81
N
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
221
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
7-SDWIS Fed Codes
VCode Violation Name
Vtype
Applicable rules and contaminant codes (CCodes)
1
MCL, Single Sample
MCL
1
2
MCL, Average
MCL
| DBP Stage 2 2456, 2950
IdBP Stage 1 1009, 1011,
3
Monitoring, Regular
MR
12456,2950 1
4
Mo nito ring, Check/Repeat/Co nf irmation
MR
5
Notification, State
Other
|gW Rule 0700 |
6
Notification, Public
Other
7
Treatment Techniques
TT
|sOC 2257,2265 |
8
Va ria nce/Exemptio n/Other Co mpli ance
Other
9
Record Keeping
Other
FBR 0500
||ESWTR/LT10300 |
10
Operations Report
Other
Various
11
Non-Acute MRDL
MRDL
DBP Stage 1 0999, 1006/08
12
Treatment Technique No Certif. Operator
TT
DBP Stage 1 0400
13
Acute MRDL
MRDL
DBP Stage 11008
19
Monitoring, GWR Assessment Source Water
MR
GW Rule 3002, 3014,3028
20
Failure to Respond/Consult with State
Other
GW Rule 0700
21
MCL, Acute (TCR)
MCL
22
MCL, Monthly (TCR)
MCL
23
Mo nito ring, Ro uti ne M aj o r (TCR)
MR
TCR 3100
24
Monitoring, Routine Minor (TCR)
MR
25
Monitoring, Repeat Major (TCR)
MR
26
Monitoring, Repeat Minor (TCR)
MR
27
Monitoring and Reporting Stage 1
MR
DBP Stage 1 0400, 0999, 1006/ 08/ 09/ 11, 2456, 2920, 2950
28
Sanitary Survey (TCR)
Other
TCR - No Code
|GW Rule 0700 |
29
M&R Filter Profile/CPE Failure
MR
IESWTC/LT1 0300
30
Failure to submit monitoring plan or collect monitoring data
(DBP2)
MR
l
DBP Stage 2 0600, 2456, 2950
¦l
Rads 4000/06/
Nitrates 1038,
10,4100*/
1040, 1041
01/02*/ 74*,
Nitrates 1038,
4264*
1040, 1041
IGW Rule 0700
I
IOCS 1005/ 10/ 15/
20/ 24/ 25/ 35/
36'/45/ 74/ 75/
85/94
IDBP Stage 2
2456, 2950
VOCs 2378/ 80,
2955/ 64/ 68/
69/ 76/ 77/ 79/
90/ 91/ 92/ 96
1
DBP Stage 2
2456, 2950
SOCs 2005/ 10/
15/20/31/32/
33/ 34/ 35/ 36/
37/39/40/41/
42/46/50/51/
63/65/67,2105/
10,2274/98,
2306/ 26/ 83/ 88/
90/ 92/ 94/ 96/
98, 2400, 2931/
46/59
Specific rule and contaminant
codes shown here are for general
reference. For full information on
federally reportable violations
please see official reporting
guidance.
' codes in red are required for monitoring only
Violations will add to a PWS's ETT score if they are: (1)
not RTCd; (2) not addressed through formal
enforcement; and (3) either have a compliance period
end date within the last five years or no compliance
period end date
10 points* - Acute violations are highlighted in Purple
(including Nitrates MCLs)
5 points* — Other health-based violations (Vtype = MCL,
MRDL, TT), plusTCR MR Repeats, are in Yellow. Nitrates
MRsare also 5 points
1 point* — violations include all MR and Other Vtypes
222
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
VCode Violation Name
Vtype
Applicable rules and contaminant codes (CCodes)
31
Monitoring (UNFILTERED), Routine/Repeat (SWTR-Unfilt and
GWR-U nfi Itered) - M aj o r & M ino r
MR
SWTR 0200
GW Rule 0700
32
Failure to submit source water monitoring plan (LT2/GWR)
and Failureto conduct source water monitoring
MR 1
IlT2ESWTR0100, 0800, 3014, 3015
33
Failure to submit Bin Determination Report
11 1
J LT2ESWTR 0800
34
Source Monitoring, M&R (GWR)
MR 1
IgW Rule 0700, 3002, 3014, 3028
35
Failureto Submit Stage 2 DBPR Report (DPB2)
MR |
|dBP Stage 2 0600, 2456,2950
36
Monitoring, Routine/Repeat (SWTR) - Major & Minor;
Residual Disinfectant (all) & Filter Turbidity Reporting (slow
sand and diatomaceous earth only)
MR
SWTR 0200
LT2ESWTR 0800
37
Treatment Technique State Prior Approval
TT, (MR for 1
0800)
lllESWTR/LTl 0300
DBP Stage 1 0400
LT2ESWTR 0800
38
M&R Filter Turbidity Reporting
MR |
llESWTR/LTl 0300
39
M&R (FBRR)
MR |
IfBR 0500
40
Treatment Technique (FBRR)
1
41
Failure to Maintain Microbial Treatment
TT
LT2ESWTR 0800
GW Rule 0700
42
Failureto Filter (SWTR)/ Failure to Provide Treatment (LT2)
TT
SWTR 0200
LT2ESWTR 0800
GW Rule 0700
43
Treatment Technique Exceeds Turb 1 NTU
TT
IESWTR/LT1 0300
44
Treatment Technique Exceeds Turb 0.3 NTU
TT
45
Failureto Address Deficiency
TT
IESWTR/LT1 0300
|LT2ESWTR 0800
GW Rule 0700 |
46
Treatment Technique Precursor Removal
TT
DBP Stage 1 2920
47
Treatment Technique Uncovered Reservoir
TT
IESWTR/LT1 0300
|LT2ESWTR 0800
48
Failureto Address Contamination (GWR)
TT
GW Rule 0700
51
Initial Tap Sampling for Pb and Cu
MR
52
Follow-up and Routine Tap Sampling
MR
53
Initial Water Quality Parameter WQP M&R
MR
56
Initial, Follow-up, or Routine SOWT M&R
MR
LCR 5000
57
OCCT Study Recommendation
TT
58
OCCT1 nstal lati o n/D emo nstratio n
TT
59
WQP Entry Point Non-Compliance
TT
63
MPL Non-Compliance
TT
LCR 1022,1030
64
Lead Service Line Replacement (LSLR)
TT
LCR 5000
65
Public Education
TT
66
Lead Consumer Notification
MR
LCR-STR 5000
71
CCR Complete Failureto Report
Other
CCR 7000
72
CCR INADEQUATE REPORTING
Other
73
Failure to Notify Other PWS (GWR)
Other ¦ GW Rule 0700
75
PN Violation for NPDWR Violation
Other
PN 7500
76
Other Non-NPDWR Potential Health Risks
Other
* Note that for purpo se s of a ssigni ng" ETT Points", the
Enforcement Targeting Tool, groups violations at a PWS
under the same rule, with the same compliance period
besin date and end date and violation code. For
example, if a system fails to monitor for the entire group
of 21 Volatile Organic Contaminants, 1 point is assigned
for the entire VOC group, instead of a point for each
contaminant. Otherexamplesofcontaminantsthat
could be grouped include: Stage 1TTHM and HAA5
M/R; Radium Gross Alpha and Combined Radium MCL,
IOC M/R, SOC M/R, etc. Note that this methodology will
also "group" like violations that occur at multple entry
points
223
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Enforcement Action Codes end Descriptions
Code
Short Description
Long Description
SIA
ST VIOLATION/REMINDER
NOTICE
Informal written or oral notification to PWS from state that a violation has occurred, explaining what the violation was. It
may specify that PN should occur and what actions may occur if the system does not return to compliance. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SIB
ST COMPLIANCE MEETING
CONDUCTED
Meeting between state officials and representatives of the PWS to discuss violations) and to explain the requirements for
compliance. This is an informal meeting as opposed to an enforcement meeting. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SIC
ST TECH ASSISTANCE VISIT
Meeting between state and PWS to discuss the PWS's status, the requirements for M/R and operational problems. The state
usually provides assistance of a technical nature to return the PWS to compliance. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SID
ST SITE VISIT (ENFORCEMENT)
Site visit for enforcement purposes. A visit to the PWS to attempt to confirm or discover additional regulatory violations. A
site visit can be considered a preliminary step for a formal enforcement action. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SIE
ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED
Request by the state for a PWS to give public notification that a violation of the regulations has occurred. This request can be
oral or written and would generally follow the violation notice. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SIF
ST PUBLIC NOTIF RECEIVED
Public Notification received from PWS. State receipt of public notification issued by the PWS in response to a violation.
(FRDS-DED 1/93)
SII
STATE CCR FOLLOW-UP
NOTICE
Notice of Violation for PWS's failure to prepare or deliver a CCR to its consumers
SF%
ST CIVIL CASE CONCLUDED
State Civil Case concluded. State civil case resolved through verdict, pleas, injunction, etc. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SF&
ST CRIM CASE REFERRED TO
AG
State Criminal Case referred to the state Attorney General. The sending of required litigation report and other documents to
the state Attorney General for the filing of a criminal case in state court. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SF3
ST CASE APPEALED
The PWS has filed an appeal relating to the decision in or outcome of a previous state administrative, civil or criminal action.
(FRDS-DED 1/93)
SF4
ST CASE DROPPED
Civil or criminal action against the PWS has been discontinued by the primacy agency. This code should only be used where
actions concerning civil or criminal cases have been reported. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SF5
ST HOOK-UP/EXTENSION BAN
An order by the state, county, or local health agency that bans further connections to the water system, extensions of water
system to serve new customers, or bans issuance of septic tank/building permit/occupancy permits. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SF9
ST CIVIL CASE REFERRED TO
AG
State Civil Case referred to state Attorney General. The sending of the required litigation report and other documents to the
state Attorney General for the filing of a civil case in state court. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SFG
ST PUBLIC NOTIF ISSUED
Public notification issued by the primacy agency. It may be issued in response to violations about which the supplier did not
notify the public or where the state feels there is a risk to health. May be issued with a Boil Water Order. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SFH
ST BOIL WATER ORDER
State issued Boil Water Order. Order which notifies the system's customers of a deficiency that could result in an acute risk to
health, and that they should boil the water before using it (for drinking, cooking, possibly bodily contact). (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SFJ
ST FORMAL NOV ISSUED
State issued Formal Notice of Violation. A formal notification to a PWS that it is in violation of a drinking water regulation,
that it must take some action to rectify its problem and that formal legal action may follow if they don't. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SFK
ST BCA SIGNED
State Bilateral Compliance Agreement signed. An agreement signed by both the state and the PWS that contains a schedule to
return the system to compliance. The agreement should comport with OGWDW guidance on the use of BCAs. (FRDS-DED
1/93)
224
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Code
Short Description
Long Description
SFL
ST AO (W/O PENALTY) ISSUED
State Administrative Order/Compliance Order issued without penalty. An order issued by the Executive branch of the state
government that orders the PWS to come into compliance or to undertake remedial actions. No penalty is assessed. (FRDS-
DED 1/93)
SFM
ST ADMIN PENALTY ASSESSED
State Administrative Penalty assessed. A penalty assessed by a non-judicial body in response to a violation of the regulations
or failure to take actions ordered by the primacy agency to achieve compliance. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SFN
ST SHOW-CAUSE HEARING
A hearing held to provide opportunity for the violator to present information to the state and the public on its reasons for not
complying with the state SDWA. Such hearings often result in compliance agreements or other formal actions. (FRDS-DED
1/93)
SFO
ST AO (W/PENALTY) ISSUED
State Administrative Order/Compliance Order issued with Penalty. An order issued by the Executive branch of the state
government that orders the PWS to come into compliance or to undertake remedial actions. A penalty is assessed. (FRDS-
DED 1/93)
SFP
ST CIVIL CASE UNDER
DEVELOPMENT
State Civil Case under development. Technical/legal staff are preparing documents to refer a civil case to the state Attorney
General. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SFQ
ST CIVIL CASE FILED
State Civil Case filed in state court. The action by the state Attorney General to place the civil case on the docket on the
appropriate state court. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SFR
ST CONSENT
DECREE/JUDGEMENT
State Consent Decree or Consent Judgment. A formal agreement filed in a state court between the PWS and the primacy
agency that settles a civil case and that specifies the actions that must be taken by the PWS to achieve compliance. (FRDS-
DED 1/93)
SFS
ST DEFAULT JUDGEMENT
State Default Judgment. A state court judgment that is rendered, in accordance with state civil procedure, generally as a
consequence of the non-appearance of the system owner/operator. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SFT
ST INJUNCTION
State Injunction. A final order issued by the state court that directs the PWS to take certain actions (or forbids the PWS to
take certain actions). An injunction usually contains penalties for violations of its terms. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SFU
ST TEMP RESTRAIN
ORDER/PRELIM INJUNC
State Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction. An immediate, non-final order issued by the state court that
forbids the PWS to take certain actions, or orders the PWS to take certain actions. Often used in emergency situations.
(FRDS-DED 1/93)
SFV
ST CRIM CASE FILED
State Criminal Case filed in state court. The action by the state Attorney General to place a criminal case on the docket of the
appropriate state court. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SFW
ST CRIM CASE CONCLUDED
State Criminal Case concluded, state criminal case resolved through verdict, pleas, injunction, etc. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SO+
ST NO ADDTL FORMAL ACTION
NEEDED
Additional Formal Action unnecessary. The state has determined that no additional formal state action will be needed to bring
a PWS back into compliance. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SOO
ST NO LONGER SUBJECT TO
RULE
S06
ST INTENTIONAL NO-ACTION
The state has reviewed the PWS's compliance history and has decided to take no enforcement action in response to this
specific violation. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
225
-------
2016 Review of the MDEQ Drinking Water Program
Code
Short Description
Long Description
S07
ST UNRESOLVED
No action has been taken by the state in response to this violation. There has been no general review of the PWS's compliance
history, and no decision not to proceed. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
S08
ST OTHER
An action has been taken by the state that cannot be placed into one of the other categories. This code should rarely be used.
(FRDS-DED 1/93)
SOX
ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED
For M/R violations, SOX indicates that the state has determined that the system is monitoring & reporting properly. For MCL
violations, SOX means that the system is now operating below the MCL. Only required for Chem/Rad violations. (FRDS-
DED 1/93)
SOY
ST VARIANCE/EXEMPTION
ISSUED
State Variance or Exemption issued. The issuance to a PWS by a state of a variance or an exemption as allowed by the federal
SDWA. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
SOZ
ST TURBIDITY WAIVER ISSUED
The issuance to the PWS by a state of a waiver that increases the allowable turbidity limit for the system, as allowed by 40
CFR § 141.13. (FRDS-DED 1/93)
226
------- |