Performance audit, Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Water Quality

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Office of Water Quality
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
September 1993
93- 5
v .
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENER& L
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
September 30, 1993
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEPUTY lYDlTOR TENErnAL
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
Mr. Edward Z. Fox, Director
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Water Quality. This report is
in response to a September 2, 1992 resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight
Committee. This is the second in a series of four reports to be issued on the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ).
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality oversees a number of programs
which regulate and protect drinking water and ground and surface water. However, we
found that ADEQ's efforts have generally been weak and untimely. Problems in many
medium and small water companies have not been addressed, the Aquifer Protection
Permit Program is badly behind schedule, and other water quality efforts are lagging.
Although ADEQ's top management has initiated a number of changes, management
problems at the program level are retarding program effectiveness. In addition, to fulfill
its mission, ADEQ needs more resources and more experienced staff.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clanfy items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on October 1.
Sincerely,
DOUR. NSorto n
Auditor General
2 9 1 0 N O R T H 4 4 T H S T R E E T 1 SUITE 4 1 0 1 P H O E N I X , A R I Z O N A 8 5 0 1 8 l( 602) 553- 0333 1 F A X ( 602) 5 5 3 - 0 0 5 1
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ) - Office of Water Quality, pursuant to
a September 3, 1992 resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. Tlus
performance audit was conducted pursuant to A. R. S. # 41- 2951 through 41- 2957. Tlus
is the second in a series of four audits of ADEQ conducted by our Office.
ADEQ's Office of Water Quality ( OWQ) oversees a number of programs that regulate
and protect public health and the environment. ADEQ has primary responsibility for
administering and enforcing the Federal safe drinking water program, regulating
discharges that could contaminate Arizona's waters, and also monitoring the quality
of surface and ground water. The OWQ employs approximately 218 full- time
equivalent staff.
ADEQ Is Not Sufficiently Enforcing
Safe Drinking Water Requirements
( see pages 5 through 14)
ADEQ needs to strengthen its ability to address drinking water quality problems.
Although drinking water in Arizona's large urban areas met quality standards in 1992,
ADEQ reports that 74 systems serving approximately 138,000 people did not comply
with one or more of seven water quality standards. Failure to comply with water
quality standards can lead to immediate and serious health problems. Even systems
that complied with the standards experienced occasional problems: 185 systems serving
over 199,000 people experienced bacteriological contamination in one to three months
during the year.
ADEQ's efforts to address drinking water problems have been weak and untimely.
During 1992, the Department took only 14 formal enforcement actions against systems
with serious problems. In addition, ADEQ does not ensure that the public is properly
notified when a system has problems. Based on our review of 56 serious
contamination incidents during 1992 we estimate that proper notification occurred in
only 22 cases. Moreover, enforcement takes a long time. In a sample of active
enforcement cases, we found that they had been under investigation for an average
of 602 days. We also found that few water systems properly notify their customers
when contamination occurs. The primary causes of the program problems are an
excessive workload and poor management. The workload is expected to increase as
new Federal drinking water regulations take effect.
While the Department has begun to address some problems, more needs to be done.
ADEQ has developed an enforcement policy, increased public notice efforts and is
implementing a self- assessment exercise to identify improvements.
However, the Department still needs to resolve management problems, such as
fragmented responsibilities, inadequate policies and procedures, and lack of manage-ment
information, that hamper program efficiency and effectiveness. Once management
problems are addressed, the Department can determine what additional resources are
needed, and develop proposals to institute fees on drinking water systems similar to
those used in other states to provide sufficient program funding.
The Aquifer Protection Permit Program
Remains Critically Behind Schedule
( see pages 15 through 23)
Unless significant changes are made, ADEQ is unlikely to meet its year 2001 deadline
for processing aquifer protection permits ( APP's). The APP program was created by
the 1986 Environmental Quality Act to protect Arizona's ground water resources by
requiring facilities to use the best available technology to control pollutant discharge.
In the six years since the program began, however, ADEQ has only permitted 63
facilities; between 650 and 900 facilities remain. With eight years to go, ADEQ has
little chance of meeting its legislative mandate at current productivity rates. In fact,
our analysis found processing time has increased rather than decreased in recent years.
ADEQ's slow permit processing is the result of poor management, staffing problems,
and failure to adopt clear permit guidelines.
Although ADEQ has initiated efforts to address some problems with the APP
program, further actions are needed to meet the 2001 deadline. ADEQ needs to
develop adequate guidelines for assessing the best available technology and ensure
that staff have the technical backgrounds needed. In addition, ADEQ should develop
policies and procedures to guide APP staff and develop effective methods for tracking
permit development. The Department should also consider issuing general permits to
those facilities ( e. g., car washes, seasonal RV parks, and small wastewater treatment
plants) that pose limited harm to the environment and do not need individual permits.
Further, ADEQ should assess its resource needs to ensure sufficient resources are
available to meet the deadline.
ADEQ's Efforts To Protect Water
Quality Are Limited ( see pages 25 through 31)
APP's are an important element of Arizona's water pollution control program, but
other key elements needed for effective regulation are lacking. Although the program
is intended to ensure that facilities discharging pollutants comply with water quality
standards, only 538 of 2,328 facilities have active individual permits. Moreover, only
335 facilities are required to report water quality information to the Department and
two- thirds of all active facilities have never been inspected. In addition, very few of
the facilities that are actively regulated by the Department comply with applicable
requirements. However, ADEQ's response to noncompliance is typically slow and
weak -- some facilities remain out of compliance for years. As of March 1993, the 178
pending enforcement cases had been active an average of 887 days. ADEQ exercised
formal enforcement action only 7 times in 1992. The water pollution control program's
effectiveness suffers because ADEQ has not defined program goals and activities and
has not addressed management and data problems. However, ADEQ management is
taking steps to improve the water pollution control program. For example, the ADEQ
Director recently issued a compliance and enforcement policy outlining steps and
timeframes for taking enforcement action. In addition, an advisory team has been
formed to review the program and make suggestions for improvement.
ADEQ Needs To
Strengthen Its Program To Monitor
Pesticides In Ground Water ( see pages 33 through 36)
ADEQ needs to do more to address recommendations made in our 1990 audit of its
pesticide monitoring program. The pesticide program was enacted as part of the 1986
Environmental Quality Act in response to concern about pesticide contamination
resulting from agricultural activities. The previous audit made a series of recommen-dations
to strengthen pesticide monitoring, some of which have not been implemented.
ADEQ still needs to develop a detailed plan to guide monitoring to ensure that
limited resources are utilized most appropriately. We also found that ADEQ has yet
to fully assess drinking water systems' vulnerability to pesticide contamination.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING I: ADEQ IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ENFORCING
SAFE DRINKING WATER REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ADEQ Weak In Addressing
Serious Noncompliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Drinking Water Program
Poorly Managed And Overextended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Additional Resources And
Enforcement Authority Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING II: THE AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMIT PROGRAM
REMAINS CRITICALLY BEHIND SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APP Program Is The Cornerstone Of
Ground Water Protection Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Few Permits Issued To Facilities
That Could Contaminate Ground Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Slow APP Processing
Due To A Variety Of Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Additional Action Needed
To Meet Program Deadline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Concl'd)
Page
FINDING Ill: ADEQ's EFFORTS TO PROTECT
WATER QUALITY ARE LIMITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water Pollution
Control Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Most Facilities Are
Not Actively Regulated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Efforts To Address Noncompliance
Are Weak And Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ADEQ Needs To Evaluate
Resource Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING IV: ADEQ NEEDS
TO STRENGTHEN ITS PROGRAM TO
MONITOR PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
AGENCY RESPONSE
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES
Table 1: Water Quality Status For Ten Largest
Arizona Water Systems
Calendar Year 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 2: Ten Largest Arizona Water Systems
Out Of Compliance With
Water Quality Standards In 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 1 Status Of Water- Related Recommendations
Made In 1990 Auditor General Report On
ADEQ Pesticide Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ) - Office of Water Quality, pursuant to
a September 3, 1992 resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. Tlus
performance audit was conducted pursuant to A. R. S. # 41- 2951 through 41- 2957. Ths
is one of a series of four audits of ADEQ conducted by our Office.
The legislative intent for creating ADEQ in 1986 was
". . . to consolidate and focus responsibility fm environmental management and
administration of water quality, air quality, solid waste and hazardous waste
regulation with the goal of increasing efictiveness, eficiency and public
acceptance of environmental regulation."
ADEQ describes its mandate as preserving, protecting, and enhancing the environment
and public health, and developing public policy to maintain and improve the quality
of Arizona's air, land, and water resources. The Department is organized into four
Offices: Water Quality, Air Quality, Waste Management, and Administration.
ADEQ plays a critical role in ensuring that Arizona's surface and ground waters meet
Federal and State water quality standards. Ground water quality is a major concern
because it provides approximately 60 percent of Arizona's drinking water and is an
important component of river and wetland environments. The Department has primary
enforcement responsibility for the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, works with the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) to enforce Federal water pollution control
laws for surface waters, and enforces Arizona's ground water protection statutes.
Water Quality Programs
And Organization
ADEQ's Office of Water Quality ( OWQ) oversees a number of programs that regulate
and protect public health and the environment. Some examples of important program
responsibilities include the following:
SAFE DRINKINGW ATER- This program is responsible for ensuring that regulated
water systems provide safe drinking water free from bacteriological and other
contaminants that could cause immediate or long- term health problems. ADEQ
monitors drinking water quality by reviewing laboratory results of water samples
taken by water systems. When problems are found, ADEQ can take enforcement
action to resolve them. ADEQ also reviews construction plans, performs field
inspections of systems, and tracks operator certification.
WATERP OLLUTIONC ONTROL- This program is responsible for ensuring that
wastewater treatment plants, mines, industrial facilities, and other entities with the
potential to contaminate Arizona's waters comply with permit requirements or
water quality standards established by State and Federal law. Many water pollution
control activities, such as reviewing laboratory results of water samples, reviewing
construction plans, conducting field inspections, and monitoring compliance with
operator certification requirements, are similar to drinking water program activities.
AQUIFERP ROTECTIOPNE RMIT- S C alled the " cornerstone of Arizona's ground water
protection program," the APP program requires facilities discharging pollutants that
could contaminate ground water to utilize the best available technologies to reduce
or eliminate the discharge. Statutes require that ADEQ analyze and permit facilities
by the year 2001.
WATERA SSESSMEN- T T his program performs a variety of activities to monitor and
assess water quality. Statutes require ADEQ to monitor both surface water and
ground water quality throughout the State and to report every five years on the
level of pollutants in Arizona's aquifers and the effectiveness of various ground
water protection programs.
Although the above programs may appear distinct and separate, their activities are
interrelated in some key areas. The APP program was established as an integral part
of the water pollution control program. APP's will establish the conditions under
whch many polluting facilities will operate, such as required technology, operation
requirements, and discharge limits. Permits can serve as the basis for other com-ponents
of the water pollution control program, such as monitoring and enforcement
activities. However, ADEQ's regulatory oversight is not limited to permitted facilities
only: the Department is responsible for ensuring that any activity with the potential
to contaminate Arizona's waters complies with water quality standards.
The organization of OWQ also creates links between programs. The Office is divided
into six sections: Compliance, Field Services, Water Assessment, Ground Water
Hydrology, Plan Review and Permits, and Program Coordination and Certification.
Staff in several of these sections have responsibilities that include several programs.
For example, the Compliance Section's responsibilities include both drinking water and
water pollution control program activities. Field Services Section staff inspect drinking
water and pollution control facilities.
Staffing And Budget
The OWQ employs approximately 218 full- time equivalent ( FTE) staff in its six
sections. Most of the staff are located at ADEQ's main office in Phoenix. The Field
Services Section, however, has satellite offices in Tucson and Flagstaff.
The OWQ budget is allocated by the Department from its lump sum appropriation.
Fiscal year 1992- 93 expenditures for the OWQ were approximately $ 12 million from
all sources.
Audit Methodology And Scope
Due to time constraints, we were unable to review all OWQ programs. Our audit
report of ADEQ's OWQ focuses on three major water regulation programs: drinking
water, aquifer protection permits, and water pollution control. In addition, we
reviewed the Department's implementation of water- related recommendations made
in our 1990 audit of pesticide regulation programs. The findings in this report address
the extent to which:
The drinking water program ensures that water systems are providing safe water
ADEQ will meet its statutory mandate of providing APP's to over 1,000 facilities
by the year 2001
ADEQ's water pollution control program ensures that systems are complying with
water quality standards and requirements
ADEQ's pesticide program will adequately assess and protect ground water
The findings reflect similar problems. All programs suffer from lack of management
direction and oversight, including inadequate goals and objectives, few policies and
procedures, and insufficient data management systems. Staffing and workload issues
were also raised in all four program areas. Finally, we found enforcement efforts to
be slow and weak in the two program areas with compliance and enforcement
responsibilities.
We encountered several problems in using departmental information. Our review of
the water pollution control program identified limitations regarding information
maintained on the Water Quality Protection Database ( WQPD). Specifically, we
determined that the database is incomplete. In addition, a limited comparison of field
office information with WQPD information raised concerns about data reliability.
However, the database is the only readily available source of information about
ADEQ's water pollution control activities. As a result, we used information from this
database in conducting our analysis of water pollution control activities in Finding III.
Information about the APP program was also limited: we were unable to obtain
reliable information about the time needed to complete the permit process, or project
officer caseloads.
The audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Director and staff of the
ADEQ for their cooperation and assistance throughout the audit.
FINDING I
ADEQ IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ENFORCING
SAFE DRINKING WATER REQUIREMENTS
-- - --
In July 1992, a town of 4,500 people in Arizona experienced bacteriological
contamination in its water supply. Although required by law to notify the
public within 72 hours, this Arizona town chose not to comply. ADEQ took no
action to ensure that the public was properly notified because it does not
monitor compliance with tlus requirement. Bacteriological contamination
continued for at least four weeks during which townspeople consumed
contaminated water without knowledge of the risks they were taking.
Although this town's experience reflects an example of a more severe violation, many
Arizona drinking water systems did not comply with health standards in 1992. Our
review found that ADEQ's response to noncompliance has been weak. Poor program
management and a workload that exceeds available resources hamper ADEQ's
regulatory efforts. Although ADEQ must improve program management, legislative
action will also be needed to provide more resources and additional enforcement tools
to meet current and future regulatory demands.
ADEQ Weak In Addressing
Serious Noncompliance
ADEQ needs to improve its efforts to provide effective safe drinking water regulation.
In 1992, ADEQ reported many water systems out of compliance with health or
operation standards, some of which pose potentially serious health threats to the
populations served'. ADEQ's response to serious noncompliance has been limited.
System noncom~ liance in 1992 - Some systems' failure to meet drinking water
standards poses health risks to the populations they served. 2 Violations of water
quality standards are of the greatest concern because of the potential direct threat to
public health. In 1992, 74 systems serving almost 138,000 persons did not comply with
1. Drinking water contamination can cause illness and even death. Microbiological contamination of
the drinking water supply caused an estimated 12 deaths and 370,000 illnesses in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, in April 1993. - -
2. ADEQ monitors water system performance using water sample information and field inspections.
Water system operators sample their water, send it to a laboratory for analysis, and then provide
the information to ADEQ. ADEQ enters the information on its database and compares the results
against the health standards established by law and rule. In addition, ADEQ field officers inspect
systems to assess operation and maintenance and verify that operators are certified.
one or more water quality standards. One hundred eighty- five systems serving more
than 199,000 exceeded bacteriological limits in one to three months during the year. 1
Another important compliance parameter is whether a system takes the appropriate
number and type of water samples. In 1992, 579 systems serving a total population
of nearly 353,000 did not comply with water sampling requirements. Without sampling
information, ADEQ cannot determine the quality of water produced by a water
system. For example, a town in Arizona serving over 17,000 people violated
bacteriological standards five times in 1992. In addition, the system also failed to take
the appropriate number of bacteriological samples in 6 of the 12 months. In total, 153
systems failed to take the appropriate number of bacteriological samples for 6 or more
months in 1992.
Two other compliance parameters, proper system operation and maintenance and
retaining a certified system operator, are important and can contribute to the quality
of water produced. For 1992, 295 water systems serving over 77,000 persons did not
comply with operation and maintenance standards. Seven hundred and twenty
systems serving over 235,000 people either did not have a certified operator or the
operator's certification level was inadequate. However, systems could have problems
in either category but still be producing safe water.
Problems with water quality and sampling appear primarily in medium and smaller
water systems. As shown in Table 1, page 7, the 10 largest water systems in the State
serving almost 2.3 million people, or nearly two- thirds of the total State population,
fully or substantially complied with water quality standards. Table 2 ( see page 8), lists
the biggest systems that did not comply with water quality standards in 1992, several
of which serve substantial populations.
Weak enforcement in addressing serious ~ roblems - We found ADEQ1s
enforcement response to serious problems weak and untimely. In addition, ADEQ does
little to ensure that the public is properly notified when their drinking water supply
is contaminated. However, ADEQ has begun to address some of these problems.
ADEQ's enforcement process begins when a case is referred by the EPA or one of
ADEQ1s field offices. Following the referral, ADEQ issues a letter of warning to the
water system requiring corrective action within 30 days. If a system corrects the
1. Bacteriological contamination is one of seven categories of contamination a system may be required
to test for. To be rated in noncompliance with bacteriological standards, systems must exceed
bacteriological limits in four or more months during the year.
6
problem, the case is closed. If the system fails to correct problems, ADEQ can institute
formal enforcement procedures, such as an administrative order or a referral to the
Attorney General for prosecution.'
TABLE 1
Water Quality Status For Ten Largest
Arizona Water Systems
Calendar Year 1992
( a) ADEQ annually rates water system quality using three categories: Full Compliance, Substantial
Compliance, or Noncompliance. Full compliance equates to no water quality violations during the
year. Substantial compliance equates to one to three bacteriological violations, or one to two
turbidity violations during the year. Noncompliance equates to four or more bacteriological
violations, three or more turbidity violations or other specified violations, in any of the other five
sampling categories during the year.
Water Systemfa) Population Served 1992 Water Quality Status
City of Phoenix 907,900 Full Compliance
City of Tucson 478,600 Full Compliance
City of Mesa 220,000 Full Compliance
City of Tempe 145,000 Full Compliance
City of Glendale 131,000 Full Compliance
City of Scottsdale 140,000 Full Compliance
City of Chandler 104,000 Full Compliance
City of Yuma 58,000 Full Compliance
Sun City Water Co. 48,000 Full Compliance
City of Flagstaff 44,500 Full Compliance
Total 2,277,000
Source: ADEQ Drinking Water Database.
A
1. Because ADEQ limits drinking water enforcement only to cases referred by EPA and field offices,
other potentially serious cases in Arizona are not addressed. The U. S. General Accounting Office's
1990 analysis of EPA's drinking water program found that the EPA's case selection process excludes
additional serious cases because its selection criteria identified only the worst violators. In March
1993 an enforcement officer reviewed the ADEQ drinking water compliance database and found an
additional 105 systems with serious problems that had yet to be referred for enforcement action.
TABLE 2
Ten Largest Arizona Systems
Out Of Compliance With
Water Qualihr Standards In 1992
( a) These are ADEQ ratings for calendar year 1992 only, and may not reflect current status. Ratings
for 1993 will not be compiled until early 1994.
,
Source: ADEQ Drinking Water Database.
Water System Population Sewed 1992 Water Quality Statusta)
City of Peoria 39,000 Noncompliance
Az. Water Company -
Casa Grande 26,100 Noncompliance
City of Douglas 17,300 Noncompliance
Avondale 7,000 Noncompliance
USAF - Luke AFB 5,900 Noncompliance
Doney Park Water - 5,000 Noncompliance
( Flagstaff area)
City of St. Johns 3,600 Noncompliance
City of Florence 3,000 Noncompliance
Ray Water Co. -
( Tucson area) 2,900 Noncompliance
Buckeye 2,800 Noncompliance
Total 112.600
Formal and strong enforcement action appears limited. The Department had a total
of 251 continuing or new enforcement cases in 1992. Although the Department issued
80 letters of warning in 1992, formal action beyond that was limited. Only 14 systems
were issued an administrative order in 1992. EPA guidelines require states to institute
formal enforcement action within 8 to 14 months after the case is opened depending
upon the type of violation.' However, a review of the Department's database revealed
that formal action has been taken on less than one- half of the 118 cases over 14
months old.
I. The EPA defines formal enforcement action as the issuance of an administrative order and/ or
referring a system for prosecution.
In addition to few formal enforcement actions, ADEQ appears to take a long time to
work or process an enforcement case. We reviewed 26 case files and found 18
I enforcement cases were still open as of April 1993, and had been open an average of
602 days. Eight of these cases were opened prior to 1992 and had been open an
average of 1,032 days. Eight out of the 26 cases had been closed, averaging 508 days.
I Letters of warning were issued in 18 of the 26 cases, one- half of which required from
70 to 1,086 days to issue. Administrative orders were issued in only 2 of the 26 cases
and were issued an average of 480 @ rafter thekft. er of w a r n i i was sent. -- - - I _____ l_--- -- - ---- - ---
\
Our review also found many systems do not notify the public when bacteriological ,
contamination occurs. When this type of violation occurs, systems are required to I notify consumers by radio or television within 72 hours. ADEQ also has the authority
to notify the public if the system does not. Without proper and timely notification,
water system users are exposed to potentially serious health threats without the I knowledge or opportunity to seek alternate water sources. To test public notification
com -- - wed the 56 instances of confirmed fecal coliform violations in
Arizona in 1992. We selected this violation because it 6 ~ onsiileTed~"" acuStey'~ t he I EPA, with the potential for causing immediate and serious health problems.
- _ __ _ -_ --- ---- - - -
I We estimated that public notification occurred in only 22 of the 56 cases. Further,
some of the 22 cases that did provide notification either missed the 72 hour deadline
or used a posted notice, rather than the required electronic media. Our finding of
I problems with public notification was consistent with information received from
interviews with ADEQ officials. In addition, our survey of some other states' programs
and a recent report by the U. S. General Accounting Office found other states have
similar problems.
ADEQ has begun to address problems with enforcement and public notification. In
I May 1993, the Director issued a compliance and enforcement policy that outlines
procedures and timeframes for enforcement. Resource limitations will, however,
constrain full implementation of the policy. The Department has also streamlined the
I administrative order development process to reduce the time it takes to issue an order.
To address the problem of water systems failing to notify the public when
contamination occurs, the Department has indicated they will notify the media of these I types of problems. In addition, the Department's agency- wide Total Quality
Improvement effort is on- going in its safe drinking water program. The Department
hopes to identify measures it can implement to improve program efficiency and I effectiveness.
I Drinking Water Program
Poorly Managed And Overextended
----.. I Several factors impact ADEQ's drinking water regulatory performance. The program's
workload- -&-- . In addition, management problems prevent the
I ~ e p x e nfrto m using available resources efficiently and effectively.
Work load exceeds available resources - ADEQ's drinking water program has
more regulatory responsibilities than it has resources to address them.
Our review focused on the backlog in the program's enforcement unit and found that
the enforcement unit has many more cases assigned than it can investigate in a timely
or effective manner. The enforcement unit has only three staff members devoted
primarily to working enforcement cases. Enforcement officers stated that 50 cases at
any given time would be a maximum case load that could be worked effectively. One
staff member has over 130 cases assigned. Two staff members recently hired already
have 50 or more cases assigned. However, another 105 important cases have yet to be
assigned. Recently, the EPA delegated an additional 120 cases to the unit. Interviews
with enforcement officers found that, because of the large case volume they are unable
to address cases for months at a time.
ADEQ's current and future regulatory overload is well recognized. ADEQ management
and staff shared their concerns with us during the course of the audit. According to
ADEQ officials, the drinking water program is overloaded in the compliance and field
services areas also. The EPA expressed concern about the Agency's declining ability
to meet regulatory mandates in a 1991 review of ADEQ's drinking water program.
Increasing regulatory responsibilities arising from new EPA mandated rules will
further strain the program. 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require
that water systems test for an increasing number of contaminants ( at least 25 added
every three years) and follow other stricter requirements which ADEQ will be required
to monitor and enforce. Recognizing the financial burden states face in maintaining
viable drinking water programs, E; PA is iving states a five- year grace period ( 1993
to 1998) to implement and regu1ate'~ cugrr- en- td an - e? e_ Suirements.
Management ~ roblem- s A variety of management problems also affect the drinking
water program, which limit ADEQ's ability to effectively utilize the limited resources
currently allocated. Significant management problems include:
FRAGMENTEODR GANIZATION- Responsibility for drinking water regulation is divided
among several groups within the Office of Water Quality. Both our review and
ADEQ analysis found communication and coordination problems under the current
arrangement. A 1990 peer review of Arizona's program by officials from other
states found that " fragmentation of drinking water activities . . . presents problems in
communication, coordination and eficiency of operations. "
INADEQUATPEO LICIES AND PROCEDURE- PS olicies and procedures are needed to p d e
staff so that essential activities are performed consistently.
INEFFECTIVTER ACKINGM ECHANISM- S T he two teams within the drinking water
compliance unit cannot adequately track their activities. The compliance team could
not tell us the extent of their workload, beyond describing what activities they
perform. The enforcement team's case tracking log does not provide management
information on staff case loads, timeliness, and effectiveness.
DATA PROBLEMS - Not all regulatory requirements are programmed into the
compliance database. As a result, the Department does not track several key
requirements, including public notification. In addition, one field office maintains
its own separate database because they distrust the main database information. We
also found some instances where updated inspection information was not captured
on the compliance database.
Additional Resources And
Enforcement Authority Needed
Although ADEQ needs to strengthen management of the drinking water program,
additional funding and enforcement tools will also be needed to achieve a viable
program. Management deficiencies that limit effective utilization of existing resources
should be addressed before more resources are given. However, even with improved
management, the Department will need additional resources. In addition, providing
ADEQ with two critical enforcement tools could promote greater compliance with
water system regulations. Small water system compliance could remain tenuous,
however, because of the financial and regulatory challenges facing them.
Address management deficiencies - As noted in the previous section, the ADEQ
drinking water program suffers from management and other problems that limit the
Department's ability to effectively use its current resources. ADEQ needs to
immediately begin correcting organizational fragmentation, inadequate policies and
procedures, ineffective tracking and poor data. Strengthened management will enable
the Department to assess the adequacy of available resources compared to its program
responsibilities. In addition, the Department will be able to establish a performance
baseline that can be used for developing a strategic plan for meeting its growing
responsibilities in the drinking water program.
Additional funding - After addressing its management problems, ADEQ will need
additional funding to meet its regulatory duties. Our research shows that Arizona,
along with other states, lacks the resources needed to meet current or future drinking
water program requirements. During fiscal year 1992- 93, ADEQ estimated that $ 1.5
million and 36 full- time equivalent positions were devoted to the drinking water
program. A 1991 study estimated that an additional $ 2.6 million and 46 positions were
needed to meet current responsibilities and future EPA requirements. ADEQ needs to
update its estimates of program requirements to provide the Legislature with the
information justifying the need for additional resources. This information should be
developed as part of a strategic plan that establishes priorities among the various
regulatory activities and demonstrates that the Department is taking steps taken to
ensure that all program resources are effectively used.
Like many other states, Arizona could institute various alternatives to bolster the
drinking water budget. The EPA recommends that states seek additional resources to
meet drinking water program budget shortfalls. In response to funding shortages, 30
states have adopted some form of fee to supplement drinking water program budgets.
An additional 12 states are considering adding fees. Examples of types of fees
used by other states include service connection/ per household fees, water system
annual permit fees, water use fees, inspection fees, plan review and construction
permit fees, certified operator fees, and enforcement fees.
Significant amounts of revenue can be generated through fees. For example, several
states utilize a service connection fee ( an annual fee per household collected on the
water bill) ranging from less than $ 1.00 to up to $ 5.61 per household annually. As of
May 1993, ADEQ's database indicated that community water systems had a total of
1,037,400 service connections. A $ 1 to $ 2 annual fee would increase households'
monthly water bills between 9 and 18 cents.
To address drinking water program funding shortages, ADEQ is proposing fee related
alternatives similar to those practiced in other states. Currently, ADEQ collects fees
for water use, plan reviews and construction permits and for operator certification.
These fees, however, are not dedicated to defraying program costs but are deposited
in either the General Fund or the Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund ( WQARF).
ADEQ is proposing statutory changes to establish a safe drinking water fund and
directing the aforementioned fee monies into the fund to supplement the current
program budget. The Department estimates that these fees would generate
approximately $ 1,360,000 annually. The bulk of the money would come from the water
use fee currently deposited into WQARF. To replace lost WQARF funds the
Department is proposing redirecting $ 3 million annually from the Underground
Storage Tank fund to the WQARF.
We recommend that ADEQ be required to report on a regular basis to the Legislature
on the progress it is making addressing management deficiencies and the use of any
additional monies that the Legislature may provide. Efficient fund utilization requires
good management and tracking systems. Because ADEQ lacks many of the basic
management items needed, strict accountability is necessary until the Department can
demonstrate that systems are in place and progress is being made in addressing
program deficiencies.
Stronger enforcement tools - The Legislature should consider strengthening ADEQ's
enforcement authority. Providing ADEQ with citation and administrative penalty
authority would give ADEQ " more teeth" in its enforcement actions and could shorten
the now lengthy process. Citations could be given immediately by field personnel
when problems are spotted, providing the systems an immediate financial incentive
to regain compliance. Currently, if a system ignores an ADEQ inspection report that
identifies problems, the field staff are limited to trying to get the system to acheve
compliance voluntarily or referring the system to the enforcement unit.
Authority to impose administrative penalties during the enforcement process would
enable ADEQ to penalize systems that do not attempt to fix problems. Currently,
financial incentives to comply can only be applied through a very lengthy legal
process. Typically, if a system ignores ADEQ's enforcement efforts, ADEQ will refer
the system to the Attorney General for prosecution. The Attorney General must then
take the system to court and request a judgment against it. With administrative
penalties, water systems would be less likely to wait the process out. The concept of
administrative penalties appears to be well supported, and the National Conf- e- rence
of State Legislatures reports that 23 states have administrative penalty authority. The-
Association of State Drinking Water
program recommended their adoption.
Small water system com~ liance- Even with additional resources and enforcement
tools, the Department will probably continue to experience problems with small water
systems complying with regulatory requirements. Financial problems challenge small
system viability. According to Department officials and national literature, some small
systems do not have the economic base to properly maintain or refurbish their water
plants and distribution systems. Expanding Federal requirements will further strain
some small systems' inabilities to remain viable. To further exacerbate the problem,
in Arizona, water system improvements must be made before a system can seek a rate
increase from the corporation Commission. Many of the 1,792 water systems regulated
_/---
- ----
by ADRQ are classified as small systems. ...
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Legislature should require ADEQ to regularly report on progress it is making
in addressing management deficiencies. If the Legislature provides additional funds
for the drinking water program, ADEQ should also report on the utilization of
these monies.
2. ADEQ should ensure that systems are properly notifying the public when
contamination and other problems occur.
3. To improve drinking water program management, ADEQ should:
Develop a strategic plan for the drinking water program that prioritizes regulatory
activities to ensure that limited resources are utilized most effectively.
Develop policies and procedures to implement the regulatory activities identified
in the strategic plan.
Establish goals and objectives and productivity measures for each of the regulatory
activities identified.
Develop management information systems to monitor workload, cost, timeliness,
and effectiveness of each regulatory activity.
Review and amend the current Office of Water Quality organization structure to
address communication and coordination problems.
4. ADEQ should update its database to ensure that all regulatory standards are
included so that it can track water system compliance with all requirements.
5. ADEQ should develop and present to the Legislature proposals to fully fund the
drinking water program and increase its authority to enforce program rules and
regulations.
6. ADEQ needs to begin focusing on solutions to address the compliance problems
experienced by small water systems due to increased regulatory requirements.
FINDING II
THE AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMIT PROGRAM
REMAINS CRITICALLY BEHIND SCHEDULE
Unless significant program changes are made, ADEQ is not likely to meet its 2001
deadline for processing APP's. In the six years since the APP program's inception,
permits have been issued to only 63 of an estimated 1,000 facilities that could impact
ground water quality. The Department's poor performance in processing permits can
be attributed to its failure to clearly define permit requirements, resolve program
staffing problems, and adequately oversee the program. With only eight years
remaining, ADEQ must quickly address these productivity roadblocks and take other
steps to make the program more manageable.
APP Program Is The Cornerstone
Of Ground Water Protection Efforts
The 1986 Environmental Quality Act required ADEQ to establish an APP program to
regulate discharges to aquifers. The Act requires persons who discharge pollutants that
could contaminate ground water to obtain an APP from the Department. In order to
obtain an individual APP, applicants must design their facilities to incorporate the best
available demonstrated control technology ( commonly known as BADCT - pronounced
" bad cat") for the types of pollutants that will be discharged to ground water. By
requiring facilities to utilize the best available technologies, the APP program seeks
to reduce or eliminate contaminant discharge. This unique program is considered a
model for gr~~' niiwtttw- pf6te~ hbryd it he U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Few
states have adopted such an ambitious program to prevent ground water
contamination.'
The APP program is a key component of the State's ground water protection efforts.
APP's will serve as a basis for regulating facilities with pollutant discharges that could
impact ground water quality. Permits contain requirements for facility operation;
ADEQ staff review compliance with these requirements during inspections. In
addition, APP's typically require facilities to routinely submit monitoring data to the
Department that can be used to assess compliance with discharge limits and Aquifer
Water Quality Standards. Finally, APP's contribute to enforcement by specifying the
requirements facilities must meet and documenting that facility owners have agreed
1. Facilities regulated under this program include wastewater treatment plants, mines, solid waste
disposal facilities, and industrial facilities. Bothnew and exishrg- facifitW~~ arree quired to obtain a
permit. New facilities must obtain an APP before they can begin operating. Existing facilities can
continue to operate without a permit until ADEQ makes a permit decision.
to these requirements. ADEQ's compliance and enforcement activities are discussed in
Finding 111, ( see page 25).
Few Permits Issued To Facilities
That Could Contaminate Ground Water
Most facilities that could impact ground water quality have yet to be permitted.
ADEQ has issued very few APP's since the program began in 1987. Given the limited
progress to date, it appears unlikely that ADEQ will meet the statutory deadline for
permitting discharging facilities. Until permits are in place, the Department's ability
to regulate facilities that could pollute ground water is limited.
Few ~ e r m i t sis sued - The Department has made little headway in issuing APP's.
ADEQ issued only 63 individual permits between July 1987, and April 1993.'
Moreover, most of the permits issued are for newly constructed facilities. Only 11 of
the 1,067 existing facilities originally identified as needing a permit have received one.
Concern about the Department's limited progress led the Legislature to require that
ADEQ complete the issuance or denial of permits to all existing facilities by January
1, 200L2
Ability to meet the 2001 deadline is doubtful - Although ADEQ staff maintain
they will be able to meet the statutorily mandated 2001 deadline, progress to date
does not support their optimism. ADEQ staff believe they will be able to meet the
statutory deadline by decreasing the number of facilities requiring permits and
correcting identified management deficiencies ( see pages 19 through 20). An ADEQ
manager recently estimated that only 650 of the identified 1,067 existing facilities will
actually require an individual However, to process even 650 permits by 2001,
ADEQ would need to issue or deny an average of 80 permits each year, more than
three times the number issued in any given year to dateOI4n addition, the time taken
to issue APP's has increased by almost 50 percent since 1990, from 381 days in 1990
to 561 in 1993.
1. Two types of permits are issued under the APP program: individual permits and general permits.
Individual APP's are customized permits issued to facilities that pose a significant threat to the
environment or public health. General permits may be issued by rule to certain types of facilities
in which the cost of issuing individual permits is not justified by any environmental or health
concern.
2. The Legislature also established interim deadlines requiring ADEQ to process one- third of all
existing facilities by January 1, 1995, and two- thirds of all existing facilities by January 1, 1998.
3. ADEQ staff have identified 148 facilities from the original list of 1,067 that do not require an
individual APP because they were found to qualify for a general permit, were exempt from APP
requirements, or could be removed from the list for other reasons. The Plan Review and Permits
Section Manager expects further review of the list to identify another 250 to 300 facilities that do
not require an individual APP.
4. The Department has averaged 19 APP's per year since it issued the first permit in 1990.
Ability to regulate facilities is limited - Until permits are established, ADEQ
cannot ensure that facilities are using suitable technologies to control the discharge of
pollutants. For example, permits for landfills specify the type of liners and leachate
collection systems that must be used to prevent pollutants from seeping into
groundwater. However, currently operating landfills that have yet to obtain a permit
may be unlined or inadequately lined, allowing contaminants to leach into ground
water.
In addition, without permits in place ADEQ often lacks information needed to
determine if ground water is being contaminated. As previously noted, APP's
frequently require facilities to routinely monitor for pollutants in their discharges and
ground water, and report monitoring results to ADEQ. In contrast, unpermitted
facilities typically have no such monitoring and reporting requirements. As a result,
ADEQ often lacks the water quality monitoring data needed to determine whether
facilities are complying with Aquifer Water Quality Standards ( see Finding 111, page
25).
Slow APP Processing
Due To A Variety of Factors
ADEQ's poor performance in processing APP's has several causes. ADEQ's failure to
adequately define permit requirements slows permit processing. Lack of staff expertise,
vacant positions, and turnover also delay timely permit processing. Poor management
oversight and direction allow problems to continue.
Poorlv defined ~ e r m i t reauirements - ADEQ's failure to develop adequate
guidelines for determining BADCT has prolonged permit development efforts.'
Although the Department has identified optimum treatment technologies for each
major type of facility regulated under the APP program, it has not clearly specified
treatment technologies that would be acceptable when site conditions reduce the
likelihood of contaminants reaching ground water. Without adequate direction on what
technologies are acceptable under varying site conditions, project officers are left to
make BADCT determinations on their own. Representatives from the regulated
community noted that ADEQ staff are often reluctant to make BADCT determinations,
and typically require additional data from permit applicants prior to making a
decision. The additional data can require significant time and expense. For example,
one industry representative was asked to provide additional information concerning
the soil and geological characteristics of the site of a proposed landfill, which required
taking soil cores to a depth of 165 feet at a cost of approximately $ 25,000. Collection
1. To obtain an individual APP, applicants must demonstrate that facilities will utilize the best
available demonstrated control technology, operating procedures, or other processes to reduce
discharges to the greatest extent possible. Statutes require ADEQ to consider site- specific
hydrological and geological characteristics and other environmental factors when making BADCT
determinations.
of the soil cores, and analysis and interpretation of the data, took the applicant
approximately two and one- half months.
ADEQ also has not adequately informed permit applicants about requirements for
determining BADCT. While the Department has prepared BADCT guidance documents
for each of the major types of facilities regulated under the program, we found these
are insufficient.' For example:
Fifty- three percent of the permit holders and applicants we surveyed said ADEQ
does not clearly specify the information needed to meet BADCT requirements.'
BADCT guidance documents are aimed at new facilities, and do not provide
sufficient coverage of existing facilities.
BADCT guidance has not been finalized by the Department. According to industry
representatives, ADEQ staff sometimes disregard the guidance documents because
they are considered to be drafts.
Although BADCT was identified as the biggest problem, focus group participants from
the regulated community also noted that ADEQ has not adequately defined other
permit requirements3 Focus group members said APP application requirements are
generally unclear, which has led to a cumbersome process with multiple information
requests. They said it is typical to receive a number of requests for additional data
from DEQ during the permit process, each of which can lead to a two- month delay
in obtaining a permit. One participant indicated that he has received requests for
additional information from DEQ every four to six weeks4
Staffing ~ roblemsd elay permit issuance - Program staffing problems have also
hampered APP program implementation. APP program staff appear to lack the
1. ADEQ has developed BADCT guidance documents for wastewater treatment plants, landfills, mines,
and industrial wastes and wastestreams.
2. A telephone survey was conducted of 75 permit holders and applicants. Sixty- eight responses were
received, for a response rate of 91 percent.
3. Auditor General staff organized focus groups, consisting of three to six individuals, to discuss
problems with the APP program and recommendations for improvement. Separate focus group
meetings were held with permittees and applicants, environmentalists, and ADEQ staff.
4. Although ADEQ management acknowledges that information requests can lead to significant delays
in the permit process, they believe these requests are often appropriate and necessary. In addition,
they note that delays caused by information requests can be partially attributed to the applicants'
failure to respond in a timely manner. However, due to the poor shape of files and databases
within the APP program, we were unable to determine the extent to which delays were caused by
ADEQ or applicants.
techcal knowledge and experience needed to ensure timely and effective permit
processing. Forty- three percent of the permit holders and applicants we surveyed rated
the techcal capability of APP staff as fair or poor. Focus group participants from
both industry and environmental groups were also critical of the quality of staff in the
APP program. They noted that APP staff often:
Lack an adequate engineering background.
Have little practical knowledge of the types of facilities they regulate.
Lack sufficient expertise to make informed decisions, which leads to requests for
excessive amounts of information.
Participants in these focus groups felt the key to addressing staffing problems withn
the APP program was to obtain better qualified staff, rather than simply increasing
their number. In fact, they believe that fewer, more qualified staff could process
permits in a more timely manner than at present. Focus group members suggested
several alternatives for improving staff qualifications, including upgrading project
officer positions and insuring that project officers have adequate engineering support.
Turnover and staff vacancies within the APP program also affect ADEQ's permit
development efforts. As of April 30, more than 60 percent of all project officers had
been with the APP program for a year and a half or less. In addition, two of three
unit supervisors had been with the APP program for less than six months. Sixty- nine
percent of the permitees and applicants we surveyed indicated staff turnover withn
the APP program has caused delays in obtaining permits. Nearly 39 percent of those
surveyed said three or more different project officers had been assigned to work on
their permit. ADEQ project officers agree that turnover and staff vacancies seriously
affect their ability to write APP's in a timely manner.
Inadeauate Droaram management - ADEQ's failure to provide adequate direction
to, and oversight of, the APP program hampers timely permit processing. We found
fundamental program management tools needed to guide and direct program staff
have not been adequately developed. For example:
Policies and procedures are not in place to clarify the steps program staff are to
follow in the permit process.
No training program has been developed for program staff on how to process and
review APP's.
Management information systems are insufficient and fail to track basic
management information. We found ADEQ lacks accurate information regarding
1) the number of existing facilities requiring individual permits, 2) the current
status of permit development efforts and project officer case loads, and 3) the time
required to issue permits.
ADEQ is taking steps to address some of these management deficiencies. For example:
ADEQ's Deputy Director has been assigned responsibility for overseeing the APP
program until problems with the program have been adequately addressed. He
will: 1) assess the need for regulatory changes, 2) coordinate Business Process
Improvement efforts, and 3) oversee development of policies and procedures.
An automated permit generation system that can produce draft APP's using
boilerplate language has been partially developed.
Program staff are in the process of updating the list of facilities requiring APPs.
Facility files are being organized and updated, and a new facility database is being
developed to provide more accurate and up- to- date information about facilities
requiring permits.
A program advisory team, comprised of ADEQ staff and representatives from the
regulated community, will be established to review the APP process and identify
opportunities for program improvement.
While these ADEQ efforts are positive, these changes have yet to be fully
implemented, making it difficult to assess their impact on permit processing timeliness.
However, given the magnitude of the program's workload and other unaddressed
problems, it seems unlikely that these ADEQ initiatives alone will enable the
Department to meet the 2001 deadline for processing permits.
Additional Action Needed
To Meet Program Deadline
In addition to addressing the deficiencies in the APP program previously described,
other measures may be needed to meet the 2001 deadline. ADEQ needs to consider
using more general permits to reduce the workload. The Department also needs to
assess the adequacy of program funding and fees.
Reduce workload - ADEQ should consider expanding the use of general permits to
pare down the number of facilities that must obtain an individual APP. A. R. S. 549- 245
authorizes the Department to establish general permit requirements in its rules for
classes of facilities that meet certain criteria.' Obtaining a general permit involves
considerably less time and effort than obtaining an individual permit for both the
1. ADEQ has authority to develop general permit requirements for types of facilities that are large in
number, similar in nature, and in which the cost of issuing individual permits is not justified by
any environmental or public health concern.
applicant and ADEQ. Facilities that qualify for a general permit need not obtain an
individual permit as long as they comply with the regulatory provisions in the rules.
The owners of these facilities are not required to submit a permit application,
conduct hydrological studies, prepare an assessment of BADCT alternatives, or provide
demonstrations of financial and tecluucal capability.
Although general permit requirements have been established for several types of
facilities, the Department could make greater use of general ~ ermitting.' Establishment
of general permit requirements for other types of facilities would allow the
Department to reduce the number of facilities that must go through the lengthy
process of obtaining an APP. ADEQ's Assistant Director for the Office of Water
Quality suggested that general permit requirements could be established for facilities
that pose limited risk to the environment, allowing ADEQ staff to focus their efforts
on issuing individual permits to lugher priority facilities. ADEQ staff and focus group
participants identified several types of facilities for which general permit requirements
could be established.*
Assess resource needs - The Department needs to assess the resource requirements
for the APP program. Although ADEQ can improve its processing of APP's by
addressing program deficiencies and taking steps to make the program's workload
more manageable, additional resources may be needed to ensure the 2001 deadline is
met. ADEQ has recognized the need to identify the - p rog- ram's workload and resource
needs and plans to- contract for a study of APP program workload and funding
requirements. This study is expected to provide information on the program's staffing
needs, the amount of revenue that can be expected from permit fees, and the cost of
administrative and programmatic activities not covered by fees.
1. General permit requirements have been developed for on- site sewage disposal ( septic) systems with
flows less than 20,000 gallons per day, pilot recharge and underground storage and recovery
projects, the agricultural application of wastewater sludge, and other pollution sources such as
placer mining and hydrostatic tests of pipelines.
2. Facilities identified by ADEQ staff and focus group participants include small automotive facilities,
seasonal RV parks, truck/ car wash operations, small rural landfills, gas stations, and small
wastewater treatment plants. The actual number of facilities that could be covered by general permit
requirements is unknown because ADEQ does not categorize facilities in this manner in its
databases.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Department should consider the following steps to clarify BADCT
requirements.
Standardize BADCT by identifying specific control technologies that would be
acceptable at each type of facdity under varying site conditions.
Develop policies and procedures concerning BADCT determination that provide
clear direction to APP staff.
Further develop BADCT guidance for permit applicants by: - Developing better BADCT guidance for existing facilities.
- Establishing BADCT guidance documents as policy.
2. ADEQ should consider the following measures to address program staffing
problems.
Evaluate whether project officer positions need to be upgraded to improve the
technical knowledge and experience levels of staff in the APP program.
Reallocate or establish engineering support staff positions in the APP program to
assist with the technical review of permit applications.
3. ADEQ should continue and expand efforts to address management deficiencies in
the APP program. Specifically, ADEQ should:
Develop a policy and procedure manual that provides clear direction to APP staff.
Upgrade management information systems to ensure that the following information
is captured: - The number of existing facilities that require individual permits.
- The current status of permit development efforts.
- Project officer case loads. - The timeliness of permit issuance.
Develop a comprehensive training program for APP staff as called for in the 1991
APP Strategy.
4. The Department should explore opportunities to reduce the facilities requiring an
individual APP by expanding the use of general permits for lower priority
facilities.
I 5. The Department should follow through on its plans to contract for a study of APP
workload, fees, and funding requirements, and then present the findings to the
Legislature.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
FINDING Ill
ADEQ'S EFFORTS TO PROTECT
WATER QUALITY ARE LIMITED
Although the APP's discussed in the previous finding are important to protecting
water quality, they are only one element of the ADEQ water pollution control
program. However, the water pollution control program currently lacks essential
components to effectively protect Arizona's water quality. The program actively
regulates only a small proportion of facilities with the potential to pollute. In addition,
ADEQ is slow to enforce water pollution control laws and seldom takes formal action
against violators. To improve program operations, ADEQ needs to first address a
number of management deficiencies and then evaluate resource requirements needed
to run an effective program.
Water Pollution
Control Program
The APP program is only a part of ADEQ's program to control water pollution. ADEQ
estimates that from 650 to 1,000 facilities require APP's. However, ADEQ has
identified more than 2,300 facilities whch must be regulated to some extent to prevent
water pollution. In addition, for many facilities receiving an APP, the APP is the first
step of the regulatory process. Once a permit is issued ADEQ must conduct other
regulatory activities, such as collecting and reviewing water quality information,
inspecting facilities, and taking enforcement action against identified violators.' While
permits provide specific criteria for regulating facilities, any activity that has the
potential to contaminate Arizona's waters must comply with the water quality
standards established by ADEQ2, whether the facility is required to obtain a permit
or not.
1. Several statutes give ADEQ responsibility for promoting and protecting Arizona's water quality and
determining compliance with water quality standards. These statutes include A. R. S. 8849- 104,49- 202,
49- 203, 49- 221, 49- 225, 49- 241, 49- 361 and 49- 362.
2. Water pollution can result from a variety of activities and cause various environmental and health
problems. There are a number of potential sources of water pollution, including agricultural
activities, wastewater treatment plants, industries using hazardous materials, landfills, mining
operations, and urban runoff.
Most Facilities Are
Not Actively Regulated
ADEQ does not actively regulate most facilities that could contaminate Arizona's water
resources. Although ADEQ has identified and claims to regulate over 2,300 facilities
that have the potential to affect water quality, most of these facilities do not have
water quality permits, are not required to submit monitoring information to the
Department, and have never been inspected. The lack of clear program direction
appears to be the main cause of ADEQ's limited regulatory efforts.
Few facilities ~ ermittedo r monitored - ADEQ does little to ensure that facilities
comply with water quality laws. As of March 1993, only 538 of the 2,328 active
facilities on the water quality protection database ( WQPD) had active individual
permits.' Only 335 of the 538 permits direct the facility to submit monitoring
information to ADEQ.~ Facilities without permits are not typically required to submit
any water quality monitoring data. Thus, ADEQ's ability to evaluate these facilities'
impact on water quality is minimal.
In addition, ADEQ inspects only a small percentage of active facilities. ADEQ reports
1,565 ( 67 percent) of the 2,328 facilities on the database have never been inspected.
Another 850 on- site wastewater treatment facilities not included on the database are
not being inspected as mandated by law. 3 When ADEQ does conduct inspections,
major problems are frequently identified. For example, major violations such as
consistently failing to adequately chlorinate effluent or significant plant operation
problems were identified in 72 of the 184 facilities inspected in 1992. Without
conducting inspections, the Department cannot ensure ongoing compliance with water
quality laws, especially given the lack of reporting requirements discussed above.
1. When asked, various management staff with the OWQ could not identify a) why only 538 facilities
have an active individual permit and b) how many of the 2,328 facilities on the WQPD are
projected to require a permit.
2. According to ADEQ staff, most facilities with Ground Water Protection Permits ( a predecessor to
APP's) are not required to submit water quality information to ADEQ because their impact on water
quality was deemed to be minimal. Those permitted facilities with reporting requirements must
submit discharge monitoring reports to ADEQ indicating the volume, amount, and type of regulated
substance( s) a facility is emitting. ADEQ enters this data onto the WQPD and compares it with
allowed discharge limits to determine compliance. Facilities may also be required to sample ground
water quality to assess compliance with Aquifer Water Quality Standards.
3. An on- site wastewater treatment facility is a system installed at a site to treat and dispose of
domestic wastewater generated at that site. These systems are typically associated with homeowners
and are utilized where construction of a conventional septic system is not possible due to site
characteristics, such as soil conditions or depth to ground water. Although A. R. S. 949- 362 has
required annual operation and maintenance inspections of these facilities since 1987, very few of
these systems have ever received these inspections.
Incomplete and inaccurate data further limit ADEQ's ability to regulate facilities and
ensure compliance with water quality laws. We found ADEQ cannot accurately
identify the number and type of facilities it is required to regulate and lacks key
information for many facilities. For example, although an ADEQ official believes most
of the 2,328 facilities on the WQPD will require permits and some regulatory
oversight, the Department does not know how many could be exempt or eliminated
from the database for other reasons. In addition, other facilities may be operating and
discharging pollutants without ADEQ's knowledge. Further, ADEQ lacks information
regarding facility type, disposal methods, discharge flow levels, and population served
for many of the discharging facilities. Finally, we found some data used by ADEQ to
determine a facility's compliance status may be inaccurate.'
Causes of regulatorv limitations - ADEQ's failure to adequately define and direct
program operations has created a fragmented water pollution control program of
narrow scope. The Department has yet to identify 1) the overall purpose of the water
pollution control program, 2) which types of facilities should be regulated, 3) what
regulation should entail, 4) how often monitoring activities should occur, 5) the
resources needed to conduct identified regulatory functions and 6) how to coordinate
responsibilities shared by multiple units. ADEQ may obtain valuable suggestions for
addressing these problems from a recently organized program advisory team. 2 The
team's mission is to review all aspects of the water pollution control program and
make recommendations to streamline processes and increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of the program.
Efforts To Address Noncompliance
Are Weak And Limited
Even when compliance problems are identified, ADEQ's response is untimely and
weak, allowing some facilities to remain out of compliance for years. Although many
facilities on the WQPD do not comply with established requirements, the Department
does not effectively follow up on identified noncompliers. In addition, we found
enforcement efforts take a long time and result in few formal actions. A variety of
factors contribute to ADEQ's slow and limited efforts.
High percentage of noncom~ liance among those facilities regulated -
Noncompliance is very high for the few facilities actively regulated by ADEQ. In 1992,
we found 89 percent of actively regulated facilities were out of compliance for one
1. A comparison of inspection data maintained on the central database with regional office inspection
data revealed differences in inspection dates or inspection compliance status in 82 of 251 cases
reviewed.
2. The team consists of representatives from ADEQ, the regulated community, Maricopa County, and
environmentalists.
reason or another.' A facility could be out of compliance for failing to submit
monitoring information, exceeding permit limits, failing to have a certified operator,
or failing an inspection.
Exceeding allowed permit limits is one of the more serious ~ iolationsI. n~ 1992, ADEQ
found about one out of every three facilities that reported monitoring information
exceeded allowed permit limits. For example, one facility exceeded its permit limits
for nitrogen every month in 1992. At one point in 1992, this facility was emitting
effluent containing more than 15 times its allowed nitrogen limit.
Inadeuuate follow UR efforts - Even when noncompliance is identified, we found
ADEQ does not consistently notify facilities of violations and fails to perform
necessary followup to ensure facilities return to compliance. ADEQ has developed a
series of standard violation letters to notify facilities of their violations and requests
documentation of compliance within 30 days. These notices are to be sent out
quarterly. However, ADEQ staff indicated they have not consistently sent out violation
notices. Furthermore, even when notices are sent out, ADEQ conducts no follow up
to determine whether problems have been corrected.
Enforcement efforts lengthy - When enforcement action is needed, ADEQ is slow
to resolve cases and seldom takes formal action. Our analysis of the 178 cases pending
as of March 1993 revealed these cases have been open an average of 887 days. In
addition, we found the 50 cases closed in 1992 remained open an average of 868 days.
A few cases remained open more than five years. ADEQ's failure to initiate timely
action contributes to the lengthy enforcement process. Some cases have received no
attention in over two years; a few of these facilities failed inspections over three years
ago, yet no enforcement action has been taken to bring them back into compliance.
Formal enforcement actions against noncompliant facilities are rare and untimely.
ADEQ took formal enforcement action, such as issuing an administrative order or
taking a facility to court, only seven times in 1992. These cases were pending an
average of 612 days prior to formal action being taken; none of the cases has been
closed. However, as the following example illustrates, even the taking of formal action
does not immediately negate the problem:
In April 1989, a major resort's inadequate septic system allegedly polluted its
drinking water source and caused over 100 guests to become ill. Although the
drinking water problem was immediately resolved, the wastewater system
remains a problem and continues to pollute ground water.
1. According to information obtained from the WQPD, 658 facilities had either a monitoring
requirement, a certified operator requirement, or were inspected during 1992. Of these 658 facilities,
588 were out of compliance with at least one requirement.
2. Facility permits may include limits on a variety of chemicals and other factors including nitrogen,
phosphorus, fecal coliform, pH, flow, and turbidity.
In September 1989, ADEQ negotiated a consent order requiring the resort to
redesign and reconstruct the existing system in order to meet permit discharge
limits. The resort made system modifications over the course of the next year;
however, the modifications did not correct the problem and the resort continued
to exceed its permit limits. In June 1991, a consent judgment was obtained whch
required the resort to either build a new wastewater treatment plant or connect to
the city wastewater treatment plant currently under construction and pay penalties
for exceeding discharge limits.' The resort is expected to comect to the city sewer
system in August 1993.
Enforcement limitations - Several factors hinder ADEQ's ability to take timely and
effective enforcement action. ADEQ's enforcement philosophy of working with facilities
to obtain voluntary compliance appears to contribute to their problems. We believe,
and the section manager agrees, that this philosophy can create excessive delays in
case resolution. To speed up case resolution and project a stronger enforcement image,
she recently instructed compliance officers to issue administrative orders where initial
voluntary compliance efforts fail. This directive has resulted in ADEQ issuing more
administrative orders in a recent two- month period than in all of 1992.
ADEQ's limited administrative penalty authority may also contribute to its lengthy
enforcement process. Currently, ADEQ has authority under A. R. S. 949- 362 to impose
limited administrative penalties for on- site wastewater facilities. However, to impose
a penalty on other types of facilities ADEQ must request the Attorney General to
pursue court action to recover the civil penalties, a lengthy and cumbersome process.
Administrative penalty authority is already used in several other states2 Officials in
these states believe the administrative penalty option strengthens their program and
helps to bring violators into compliance more quickly.
In addition, the Department lacks the resources needed to conduct some basic
enforcement activities. ADEQ currently takes limited action against facilities who fail
to submit required monitoring information or those who violate permit limits because
no State resources are dedicated to this activity. Further, compliance officers noted lack
of time and higher case priorities cause some enforcement cases to go unattended for
months.
Interviews with all five compliance officers and a review of the status of open cases
revealed several other factors that also contribute to lengthy case resolution.
1. Beginning at $ 2,000 a month, the fine escalates an additional $ 2,000 each month the resort violates
its permit limits, up to a maximum of $ 10,000 monthly. The fine is now $ 10,000 monthly.
2. California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and South Carolina all have administrative
penalty authority. In 1992, New Jersey collected almost $ 11 million in administrative fines.
Problems in coordinating and obtaining needed technical advice and assistance
from other units within the Department create delays in processing cases.
Hydrologists, field engineers, and permit staff are frequently needed to take water
samples, conduct inspections, and evaluate information submitted by facilities
regarding compliance efforts.
High turnover and redistributing cases among compliance officers creates delays
in processing cases since staff must familiarize themselves with the details of newly
acquired cases.
Formal enforcement actions require the approval of managers at several levels in
the organization, which delays enforcement efforts.
No criteria have been developed to evaluate the merits of cases referred for
enforcement action. Compliance officers identified several cases they felt should not
have been referred to them.
ADEQ Needs To Evaluate
Resource Requirements
Timely and effective enforcement action is a Departmentwide issue and one that
ADEQ is beginning to address. In May of 1993, the ADEQ Director issued a
compliance and enforcement policy that outlines steps and timeframes for taking
enforcement action and proposes mechanisms to ensure consistent and timely
treatment of cases. However, staffing and workload issues may limit program staff's
ability to comply with this new policy. Clearly, some activities are limited or not being
performed at all due to lack of staff. Given the lack of program definition it is difficult
to determine the extent to wluch resources are a problem. For example, ADEQ has not
yet defined the additional workload and regulatory responsibilities associated with
those facilities that obtain APP's. Once ADEQ clearly defines the water pollution
control program and clarifies responsibilities, management will have a basis for
evaluating the resources needed to perform required activities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. To improve the water pollution control program, ADEQ needs to first develop
program requirements. Specifically, ADEQ should:
8 Define the scope and responsibilities of the program, specifically identifying the
types of facilities to regulate, what regulation should entail, and how often
monitoring should occur.
Develop a comprehensive strategy to guide Department efforts, prioritizing
regulatory activities to ensure effective utilization of limited resources.
Clarify roles and activities of the various units involved with regulating water
pollution activities.
8 Identify and correct deficiencies on the Water Quality Protection Database.
Improve monitoring and followup activities for identified violators.
8 Utilize available information to target noncompliers for enforcement action.
2. Once program requirements are established, ADEQ needs to identify and compare
t' 3 resources available with the resources needed to carry out identified program
activities.
3. The Legislature should consider giving ADEQ statutory authority to impose
administrative penalties for all types of water quality violations.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
FINDING IV
ADEQ NEEDS TO
STRENGTHEN ITS PROGRAM
TO MONITOR PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ) needs to do more to
implement recommendations made by the Auditor General in his report on the
Department's pesticide monitoring programs ( Report 90- 8). Although recent legislation
gives the Department greater flexibility in monitoring pesticides, ADEQ has not
developed the detailed plans to direct its monitoring programs and to identify needed
funding as recommended in the previous audit.
The 1986 Environmental Quality Act directed the Department to establish a Pesticide
Contamination Prevention Program to monitor ground water in Arizona's agricultural
areas. An important component of the program was the identification of active
pesticide ingredients that could contaminate Arizona ground water. At the time of our
1990 audit, ADEQ had identified 133 ingredients that met the statutory definition for
inclusion on the Ground Water Protection List ( GWPL). However, a team of experts
noted that such an extensive monitoring program was both unnecessary and
prohibitively expensive. We recommended that the Legislature amend the pesticide
statutes to allow the Department to focus its efforts on pesticides most likely to
pollute ground water. The Legislature did not pass the recommended legislation until
1993. In the meantime, ADEQ promulgated the final GWPL, containing 152
ingredients, in September 1992.
Some progress toward implementing 1990 Auditor General recommendations has been
made, as shown in Figure 1 ( page 34). The 1993 Legislature gave the ADEQ Director
authority to focus the Department's monitoring on pesticides that pose the greatest
threat to ground water. However, the Department has only partially implemented
some of the 1990 recommendations and not implemented others at all. ADEQ has not
defined what constitutes adequate monitoring for the pesticide contamination
prevention program and the cost of such a program. In addition, the Department has
done little to assess the vulnerability of drinking water systems to pesticide
contamination.
According to ADEQ staff and managers, budgetary constraints limit the Department's
action in these areas. Staff also question the need for comprehensive monitoring plans,
given the limited budgets available and the lack of any evidence of widespread
pesticide contamination identified by monitoring to date. However, the 1990 audit
noted that the costs of meeting the various statutory mandates are likely to be lugh.
In order to fully inform the Legislature about monitoring costs and to guide its own
decision making, the Department needs to develop detailed plans and cost estimates
for carrying out its pesticide monitoring responsibilities.
Figure 1
Status of Water Related Recommendations Made in
Recommendation
1990 Auditor General Report on ADEQ Pesticide Reaulation
1. The Legislature should consider revising the
Pesticide Contamination statutes in A. R. S. § 49- 301
et. seq. to provide ADEQ with more flexibility in
determining which pesticides are placed on the
ground water protection list.
W
cP
2. The Legislature should consider establishing a
scientific advisory committee to provide technical
assistance to ADEQ in determining which
pesticides should be included on the ground water
protection list.
3. ADEQ should prepare detailed plans to direct all
major monitoring programs. These plans should
specify the resources needed to implement
programs, and should also establish procedures for
prioritizing monitoring efforts.
Action Taken
1993 Legislature passed SB1330 giving the
ADEQ director flexibility to identify and monitor
only pesticides that have a reasonable likelihood
to leach into ground water.
~ ~ 1 3d3id0 n ot establish a scientific advisory
committee. The bill requires the ADEQ director
to consult with the Department( s) of Health
Services, Water Resources and Agriculture in
modifying the ground water protection list. In
addition, changes must be made through the
rule- making process which requires public input.
ADEQ has developed a series of plans for its
pesticide contamination prevention program that
identify areas to be sampled and numbers of
samples to be collected. ADEQ has also prepared
a plan for establishing a ground water
monitoring program.
Comment
Recommendation implemented
Recommendation substantively
implemented
Recommendation not implemented for
pesticide contamination prevention
program. Annual plans developed to date
focus largely on utilizing funds appropriated
by the Legislature. Plans do not identify
resources needed to implement the program
or establish priorities for monitoring.
Recommendation implemented for ground
water monitoring program.
Figure 1
Status of Water Related Recommendations Made in
1990 Auditor General Report on ADEQ Pesticide Reclulation ( con't)
Recommendation
4. ADEQ should determine the amount of additional
funding needed for sample collection and analysis
to carry out the monitoring requirements of the
pesticide contamination prevention program.
0
c? l
5. ADEQ should also determine the amount of
additional funding that will be necessary to
implement a Statewide, ground water quality
monitoring program.
6. ADEQ should develop plans for conducting
vulnerability assessments of public drinking water
systems, and determine the amount of additional
funding needed to conduct these assessments.
Action Taken
Although the pesticide unit has developed
annual plans, these plans simply allocate
available resources and do not provide an
estimate of full implementation costs.
Comment
Recommendation not implemented
Ground water monitoring plan was published in Recommendation partially implemented.
1991. Cost to implement monitoring specified in ADEQ has not requested funds needed to
plan was estimated to be $ 1.8 million annually. implement the plan.
ADEQ has not conducted any vulnerability Recommendation partially implemented
assessments of drinking water systems. The
Department has identified areas where aquifers
are vulnerable to pesticide contamination and
plans to target drinking water system
vulnerability assessments in those areas.
Department staff are seeking funding to develop
plans for assessing the vulnerability of drinking
water systems to pesticide contamination.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ADEQ should use the authority granted by SB 1330 to identify pesticides that are
most likely to contaminate Arizona waters. Pesticides identified during this review
should be included in the ground water protection list. Pesticides less likely to
cause contamination problems should be deleted from the list.
2. ADEQ should use the results of the review recommended above to develop a
comprehensive plan to direct sampling activities under the pesticide contamination
prevention program. The plan should determine the appropriate number of samples
to be collected in the various areas of the State and the funding needed to
accomplish that level of sampling.
3. ADEQ should continue to seek or allocate resources needed to develop plans for
conducting vulnerability assessments of public drinking water systems and
determine the amount of additional funding needed to conduct these assessments.
I
I
I
I
I
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
B
I
ARIZONAD EPARTMENOTF ENVIRONMENTQAULA LITY
Fife Svmington, Governor Ecl~ vnrJZ . Fox, Director
September 28, 1993
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
State of Arizona
2910 North 44th Street
Suite 410
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Dear Mr. Norton:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality ( ADEQ) Off ice of Water Quality audit ( the Report). As with
the Management Audit Report, this Report identified several areas that have been
a concern to this adminiatration and have identified some new problem areas. The
analysis will help us focus our efforts. We feel, however, that the Report
should:
l Identify many of the problems as historical;
a Emphasize that many of the problems identified by the auditors and
ADEQ require legielative eolutione;
l Recognize the significant efforts underway to addrees those
probleme; and,
a Address the significant resource ( staffing and financial)
limitations on the Water Quality programs. For example, the report:
. a Criticizes ADEQ for not correcting historic management
problems and for not increasing programmatic outputs
( inepections/ enforcement actions). With limited marginal
dollars and staffing, ADEQ can only: 1) focus on a few
problems at any one time thus taking years before ADEQ'e
management can address all the problems or 2) divert resourcee
from other programs and, in the short term, fall further
behind in its programmatic responsibilities; and,
a* Fails to acknowledge that major databases that contain
inaccurate information ( created by previous adminietratione)
cannot be fixed without eignificant resourcee for ADEQ's
Information Resources program.
Specifice regarding the above statements will be diecuesed in greater detail in
our comment8 to each finding.
A recurring theme in the report is the need for better management of programs.
We agree. Am the Auditore that worked here know, many of theee programs were
developed and implemented without having basic busineea support systems ( i. e.
records management, activity tracking, policies and procedures, etc.). This is
primarily due to the demanding nature of the legislative time frames for
implementing programs and the lack of pereonnel who are trained in management
eyetems. ADEQ management io aware of this predicament and has been working
through a TotalQuality Involvement/ Business Proceos Improvement ( TQI/ BPI) effort
to identify eyetems that are needed or must be fixed.
3033 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, ( 602) 207- 2300
Douglam R. Norton
September 28, 1993
Page 2
The TQI/ BPI effort is wideepread in the agency and will effect every program and
nearly every individual. The effort has been muccessful in introducing
improvements in one caae that im particularly noteworthy. In the Program
Advimory Team ( PAT) for water facility planm it warn recognized that much of the
delay in processing approvals for wastewater and drinking water mysteme is
related to the order in which projects are selected for review ( i. e. firmt come
first eerved). After performing a " cueing analysimn, the PAT determined that
overall processing time ( actually, waiting time) can be reduced as much as 509
by simply varying the order in which project. are selected for review. We are
now implementing the PAT'. recoamendationm.
Ae I previously stated, ADEQ takes no exception to the four problems demcribed
on page three of the Report. We identified theme problemm early in this
administration and continue to work to address them am indicated in our epecific
comments to the findings which follow:
FINDING 1: ADEQ IS NOT SUP FICI ENTLY BNFORCINO SAFE DRmING WATER REQUIRFXENTS
We concur with your findings and recommendations. However, many of the probleme
identified are historical in nature and are already being addreeeed by this
adminietration. For example, through the creation and comparison of " am im"
flowcharts. We were able to analyze how the program personnel procemm data on
not if icat ions. It wam determined that soma mymtemm are advimed of
bacteriological problems am much as five timem per incident. Thim led us to
change the reporting mechanism and to eliminate the redundancy. Under the new
procems, a system will be advimed only once before referral to enforcement.
The development of the compliance/ enforcement policy wam a year- long effort led
by enforcement staff to identify and devise a consimtent department- wide proceem.
The year- long effort was required to ensure that it would apply to all programs
because, as you know, each program hae different mandates. In addition to
implementing the policy, ADEQ has made the following improvements in the Drinking
Water program:
Developed " boilerplate Administrative Orderm" with the Attorney
General ( AG).
Iemued, from January to July 1993, as many order. am were issued in
all of 1992.
Selected a new Section Manager to oversee this program;
Developed a policy book which centralize6 program policiem and
identifiem new policy requirementm;
Developed a list of all eyetems that failed MCL'm for nitrates,
identified the eyetems from the list that are not in compliance and
ammigned them as enforcement camem.
a Increased the number of mymtemm in full or mubmtantial compliance to
625 merving 2,916,668 ( 80%) in 1993 from 386 symtmnm merving
2,219,834 individual. compliance ( 61%) in 1991.
In addition to the actions listed above, in response to preliminary concerns
raised during your audit, ADEQ has inetituted the following:
Adopted a policy to mend proem releasem to media eourcem when
mymtemm violate bacterial mtandardm.
Aesigned to enforcement officer., or otherwire reeolved, the 105
cases referred to in the footnote on page 7.
Douglas R. Norton
September 28, 1993
Page 3
The Report rocognizee the burden imposed on tho program by increasing federal
mandates, but does not discuss the impact on oaull water system.. Becauee of the
prescriptive nature of the Safe Drinking Water Act, monitoring roquiremonts for
all water eystms have been increasing annually. Due to oconomios of scalo, the
greatest impact of these requirements will fall on tho medium to small water
systeme. Thi8 predicament hae been captured very well in an Auguat 6, 1993
document iesued by the Aseociation of State Drinking Water Administratore.
" While otatee acknowledge that enforcement can be a very effective
compliance " weapon," the reality ie that enforcement in tho drinking water
program is slow, time- consuming, and very rosourco and manpower intensive.
Many cases take yeare to resolve and if they ever came to court, many
judges are reluctant to award large penalties becauso the rmality ie that
a small mobile home park of 50 retired reoidente, living on a fixed
income, ham no money or real collateral from which to extract payment.
Since water is usually not shut- off except in caees of acute
contamination, the state has little leverago. An additional problem ia
that many AG'e are not enthusiaetic about taking drinking water cases
because they are not " glamorous," nor will they typically result in large
monetary settlements, and the publicity of the etate coming in to harase
and threaten a ' poor little mobile home park' is not the kind of publicity
they want."
Based on these facts, the oituation will likely get worse before it gets better.
Additionally, it is important to note that with regard to the overall concept of
safe drinking water, enforcement is not the only viable tool. Tho Association
of State Drinking Water Administratore in the same publication noted above
indicates:
" This ie not to say that enforcement is not a vital tool to be used by
states. It is only to say that it ie not a panacea, nor does it always
result in compliance even after a long protracted legal battle. And, from
the state's perapectivo, complianco is tho ultimate goal, & the number
of enforcement cases taken. In fact, most states coneider enforcement
actions as a sign of failure becauso they were unable to achieve
compliance in a lees costly, more effective manner. The state's goale are
to reduce the number of enforcement actions, increase them."
We support the legislative proposals in the Report. We do, however, support an
additional proposal to modify current legislation, which authorizee ADEQ to
charge foes for inspectionm, plan reviowe and operator certification, to provide
for reinvestment of theso form in water quality programs vmreus deporrit into the
general fund .
8F N D N I: - Wo disagrea with tho report characterization that tho program is critically
behind schodulm. Wo now mticipato that wo will bo able to meet tho statutory
deadlino duo tor 1) tho anticipatmd roduction of tho number of facilities
requiring individual permits by issuing general permits and 2) implementation of
management changes ouch as tho80 listed blow.
Project officers provide management with e8timatms of completion
dateo for facility permit.;
Section management rote monthly targetr for iasuance of new and
oximting facility permit. thus holping to addr. 8. tho issuo of
timelineas;
Project officerr are required to track progrerr on individual
permit. and eubmit to managere weekly thu8 helping to addreer the
iseuo of project officer case load; and,
Douglam R. Norton
September 28, 1993
Page 4
Solid waste f acilities requiring APPr s are being transferred by rule
to the Solid Waste Program to reduce duplication of effort and
improve customer eervice.
Theee change. have reeulted in ieeuance of 17 permitm from July 1, 1993 through
September 30, 1993 compared to the 27 permits iseued during the entire preceding
fiecal year.
The time involved with reviewing applicationm and immuing APP permit. is not
unueual compared to other very controvermial and complex permitting programm.
For example, the Air Quality, Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( PSD)
permitm, under the Federal Clean Air Act, require a Bemt Available Technology
determination mimilar to BADCT. It ie not unconraon for theme permitm to take 9
to 18 months to proceee even though EPA keepe a national databaee on acceptable
technologies for induetrial facilitiee.
We acknowledge that the guidance documente for the program need reviaion. The
department, through the TQI/ BPI proceeo, will be refining the guidance documents
and BADCT and developing a procedure for updating them. This will start in
October 1993.
The work deecribed at the bottom of page 17 may be totally appropriate if the
applicant is relying on mite specific conditions to demonetrate BADCT. BADCT in
the exieting guidance documents is defined abeent any conmideration for site
epecific criteria. Site specific criteria are allowed to be conmidered, but it
is the mtatutory reeponeibility of the applicant to demonstrate how BADCT will
be achieved.
There are many reaeone for etaff to aek for additional data ( page 19). In many
caeee the relevant data an applicant provides givee riee to other legitimate
issues which only become apparent through an analysis of the " newn data.
Admittedly, there are instances where information may be requested that is not
critical to the review, and the program is working to control this. However, it
needs to be clear that the applicantrm frumtration with the procema could be due
to any combination of theee eftuatione, some of which may be due to a lack of co-operation.
On page 19 it is euggeeted that permit reviewers be upgraded to attract better
qualified individual.. We support thim process and in early 1993 requeeted that
the Department of Administration develop senior technical positions for
engineerm, hydrologistm and environmental scientimtm.
We almo agree that more training im needed for staff and that policiem and
procedures and management information systems need to be developed or improved.
We appreciate the auditor. support for our plan to contract for a etudy of APP
workload, f- 8, and funding requirement.. The requeet for propoeals ( WP) was
issued in September. ADEQ anticipates awarding the contract by October with a
targeted completion date of mid January, 1994.
One area regarding funding which im overlooked in the report im fee caps. we
feel that the report needm to addreem the concern over fee cape and the equity
of the fees which tend to weigh heavier proportionately on the emaller
diechargere.
? INDING 111: ADEQ'S EFFORTS TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY ARE LIX-We
agree with the recomnendationm in this finding and anticipate that many of
them will be implemented am part of our BPI procemo by the end of the year. We
appreciate the recognition given for the effort the department im devotingtoward
addressing the iesuem. There are, however, eome additional advancer that have
been made:
Douglam R. Norton
September 28, 1993
Page 5
The facility database will be updated through effort. in the APP
program;
Hardware and software have been provided to the regional offices to
allow them accemm to the central databaa01
Quarterly compliance letterm were immued to facilitiem mtarting with
the second quarter of calendar year 1993. Out of 156 letters of
warning, we received 144 responsem and all but 43 camem are
remolved.
There is no question that the water pollution program needm to refocum. Much of
the current problem im related to the tranmition of the agency from a manitary
facility orientation to a more holistic ( industrial mourcem, non- point mourcem)
orientation. Program8 have aleo developed in response to federal mandate. and
mirror federal programs which are aleo very fragmented. Recent effortm by the
federal government and states toward comprehensive groundwater protection
programm and integrated watershed approaches to pollution control are helping to
refocua water programa. Arizona im very active in theee aream, a fact which ie
overlooked by this report.
Arizona im a pilot state for a major EPA initiative that lookm at groundwater
pollution from a compreheneive standpoint. The intent im to prioritize mources
responsible for contamination ( or for potential contamination) of mpecific
aquiferm and addreee controls or remedial effortm on a prioritized bamim. This
process could aleo lead to more flexible funding to allow the oourcem to be
addressed more realistically.
The Arizona non- point source program is also a leading program in addremsing
surface water and groundwater pollution mourcem within the concept of watersheds
( management zones). This approach im also being conmidered by Congreas for
promulgation through amendments to the Clean Water Act to better coordinate
programm in addressing water pollution more comprehenmively. Both the
groundwater and non point mource approachem are intended to focus programm and
to overcome the problems ammociated with the traditional fragmented programm.
AIIEQ ham made considerable progreem in itm program to monitor pesticides in
groundwater. The result. show that peeticides i n groundwater may not be of major
concern in Arizona.
Our accomplimhmmntm include:
Active mupport of the 1992 logimlation that atreamlined the program
and focured the groundwater protection list ( reconmendation # I),
Implementation of a requirement for ADEQ to consult with Health
Servicem, Water Resourcem and Agriculture ( Recommendation # 2),
Dovelopent of a ground water monitoring strategy which coverm all
programs ( Reconmendation # 3),
Development of a vulnerability analymim through DRASTIC ( see
dimcumaion below). Thir effort ha8 involved coordinated effort
between the drinking water and pesticide progrm8.
We disagree with the mtatement that there im no pemticide monitoring strategy.
The program doem in fact have a strategy. It wam developed in 1987, and focused
on baminm of intensive irrigated agriculture. Samplem have been taken, and are
continuing to ba taken, to determine whether the pemticidem used in the areas are
Douglas R. Norton
September 28, 1993
Pagm 6
impacting groundwater resources. Annual strategies are also dmveloped to define
monitoring goals for the next year. This is consistent with the statute.
Additionally, the department is in the process of devmloping generic and chmmical
specific pesticide management planm with EPA and multiplm state agencies. This
will result in an integrated approach to thm monitoring and management of
peaticides in Arizona relative to groundwater contamination.
We question the need and validity of the Auditor General recommendation to
project the lifetime costs for implementing the program. The pesticides program
is focusing on areas of highest potential risk and results to date show little
contamination by pesticides on the list. Additional effort beyond the current
cormnitment is not warranted at this the.
With regard to the vulnerability assessment, considerable resources were devoted
to modeling agricultural areas of the state vulnerable to pesticide groundwater
contamination. Ueing the DRASTIC system, ADEQ considered pesticide umage, depth
to groundwater, soil types, local recharge patterns, topography, infiltration
rates and climate to determine vulnerability. At this time pesticide DRASTIC
maps are available for La Paz, Yuma, Maricopa, Pinal and Pim8 Countiem. The work
on Graham County is in progress.
I believe that our new paradigm on how agencies and the Auditor General work
together continues to benefit the citizens of Arizona. Your trained management
analysts have provided needed insight to ADEQ management and I look forward to
your continued assistance in providing greater protection to public health and
the environment through more efficient and effective implementation of ADEQ
programs .
Director
cz Bill Wilmy, Deputy Director, ADEQ
Brian Munson, Assistant Director, Office of Water Quality,
ADEQ
Bill Thomson, Director, Performance Audit Division, Auditor
Coneral's Office