EPA v. MONUMENT WATER ASSN.

Case summary

NATURE OF CASE: THIS CASE WAS REFERRED BY REGION III AS A FAST TRACK CASE ON 8/14/81. UNDER STNDRD FAST TRACK PROCEDURES COPIES OF LIT RPT WERE SENT SIMULTANEOUSLY TO DOJ, US ATTY FOR THE MID DIST OF PA & TO EPA HQ. DUE TO NEW REVIEW PROCEDURES INSTITUTED AT EPA HQ, ALL CONCERND W/ THIS CASE WERE ADVSD THAT IT WOULDN'T BE PROCESSED AS A FAST TRACK CASE. RATHER CASE WOULD BE PROCESSED AS A REG REFERRAL UNDER NEW REVIEW PROCEDURES. MONUMENT WTR ASSOC 15 A PUB WTR SYS W/APPROX 50 SERVICE CONNECT'NS SERVING APPROX 200 CONSUMERS. SYS USES A SURFCE WTR SRCE. CASE IS BASED ON FAILURES TO MONITOR DRINKING WTR & REPORT RESULTS TO EPA FOR TURBIDITY, RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINANTS, MICROBIO CONTAMINANTS & ORGANIC & INORGANIC CHEM. FINALLY, SYS HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ITS CUSTOMERS W/ NOTICE OF THESE VIOLAT'NS AS REQUIRD BY SEC 1414(C)(1)(B) OF SDWA. CAUSE OF ACTION: STARTING IN 1/77, PACKETS CONTAINING THE NAT'L INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WTR REG & OTHER RELATED INFO WERE MAILED TO ALL INVENTORIED PUB WTR SYS IN PA. ON 4/17/78, A CERTIFIED LETTER WAS SENT BY EPA TO RAY SHOPE, PRES OF MONUMENT, INFORMING HIM OF THE VIOLAT'NS & THE NEED FOR COMPLIANCE. ON 8/8/78, A TELEPHN CALL WS MADE BY EPA PERSONNEL TO SHOPE TO EXPLAIN THE MONITORING REQUIRMNTS OF THE SDWA. SHOPE RESPONDED THAT MONUMNT DIDN'T INTEND TO COMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS TOO SMALL & COULDN'T AFFORD COMPLIANCE. SEVERAL OTHER CERT LETTERS WERE SENT BY EPA TO MONUMENT BETWN 2/1/79-12/17/80. MONUMNT DIDN'T RESPOND. AN ON-SITE SANITARY SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON 5/17/79. COST OF COMPLIANCE FOR MONUMNT WOULD BE $479 PER YR PLUS $600 INITIAL COST FOR A TURBIDIMETER (TO MEASURE TURBIDITY). MONUMNT COLLECTS $3600 A YR TO MAINTAIN SYS. COST OF THE TURBIDIMETER COULD EITHER BE AMORTIZED OVER 5 YRS OR COULD BE SHARED W/ 2 OTHER WTR ASSOC IN THE AREA. IF COST OF THE TURBIDIMETER WERE SHARED W/ OTHER ASS'NS, ONLY $1 PER MONTH WOULD BE ADDED TO BILLS OF MONUMENT DIDN'T RESPOND TO EPA SUGGEST'NS ON FINANCING THE TURBIDIMETER. IN TOTO, AT LEAST 19 CONTRACTS W/ MONUMNT OVER A 3 YR PERIOD HAVE FAILED TO RESOLVE PROBLEM. EPA HAS INSTITUTED THIS CASE TO COMPEL THE DEFENDANTS TO BEGIN MONITORING, REPORTING & PUBLIC NOTIFICAT'N. PA DOESN'T HAVE PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY. PROPOSED REMEDY: EPA IS SEEKING AN ORDER FROM THE DIST CT REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO COMPLY W/ THE APPLICABLE REGULAT'NS. THE ORDER WOULD CONTAIN A COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE W/ REQUIREMNTS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NECESSARY MONITORING,REPORTING & PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. CASE RAISES THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT CIVIL PENALTIES SHOULD BE SOUGHT. ISSUES OF NATIONAL OR PRECEDENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE: NONE JUSTIFICATION: THIS ACTION SHOULD BE BROUGHT BECAUSE AFTER REPEATED CONTACTS OVER A 3 YR PERIOD THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO PERFORM REQUIRED MONITORING, REPORTING, & PUB NOTIFICATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH MONITORING, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO QUANTIFY OR QUALIFY THE POTENTIAL FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WATERBORNE DISEASES OR CONTAMINANTS TO THE CONSUMERS.

Defendants (1)

• MONUMENT WATER ASSOCIATIONNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• MONUMENT WATER ASSOC

  UNOBTAINABLE, MONUMENT, PA, 16822

  Registry ID: 110000969275

Statutes cited

• SDWA 1414 — Safe Drinking Water Act

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• MONUMENT WATER ASSOCIATIONentered 1983-12-09

  Primary law: SDWA

Timeline (8 milestones)

• 1981-08-14Referred To Headquarters
• 1982-06-16Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1982-07-29Referred TO U.S. Attorney
• 1983-02-03Complaint Filed With Court
• 1983-12-09Final Order Lodged
• 1983-12-09Final Order Entered
• 1983-12-09Concluded
• 1985-05-30Enforcement Action Closed