Water Violation At Upcountry Treatment Facility Unoticed

Water Violation At Upcountry Treatment Facility Unnoticed

Almost six weeks after a valve failure caused turbidity in the Upcountry water supply, questions are being raised as to whether DWS and DOH may have violated public right-to-know laws.

J.M. Buck

“The Department of Water Supply [DWS] recently violated a drinking water standard,” read the first line of the inconspicuous notice published Nov. 27 on the back page of the classified section in the Maui News.
Did they ever.
In fact, DWS and the State Department of Health (DOH) may have violated more than that.
On Oct. 14 at about 1 p.m., a pressure-reducing valve at the Kamaole Weir Treatment Facility (WTF), the facility that supplies public water to the Makawao/Pukalani area, failed.
The failure of this piece of equipment caused “abnormally high pressure” to build up in the facility’s service system, which yields an average daily production of 3.6 million gallons per day (MGD).
Subsequently, the extreme pressure caused a release of additional soda ash, which is used in the system to balance pH. The release of soda ash caused the water to become turbid in the Makawao/Pukalani public water supply.
“Turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses and parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches,” the notice continued.
What’s interesting to note is that the Department of Water Supply (DWS) did not release this public notice until six weeks after the valve failure occurred. Six weeks, and no mailers, no radio announcements, no press releases – nothing.
Not even the Board of Water Supply (BWS) was notified.
Six weeks later, a small, easy-to-miss notice in the back of the paper appeared. In fine print.
And here’s what it said at the bottom of that fine-print notice, right after the part that says that you don’t need to boil your water as DWS testing hasn’t revealed any disease-causing organisms in the water supply:
“People with severely compromised immune systems, infants and some elderly may want to seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers…” To view the notice, click here.
Maybe there are no disease-causing organisms in the water supply, but there are several bugs that will make you feel not quite up to snuff. And the blast of soda ash-induced turbidity isn’t going to help things. In fact, there may be reason for concern, in that it may have caused a “sloughing off” effect on the biofilm in the system’s pipes, carrying bacterial irritants into people’s hot water heating systems.

After the incident…

The DWS notified the Department of Health Safe Drinking Water Branch (DOH) of the incident on the day of the valve failure, October 14, 2005.
DOH determines the level of a violation, which is based on a 3-tier profile of severity. DOH classified the violation as a Tier 2.
DWS Public Information Officer Jacky Takakura said in a written statement that DWS received a Notice of Violation – Tier 2 letter from the DOH on November 10, 2005. The letter states, "The Maui Department of Water Supply is required to mail deliver and publish in a newspaper the public notice within 30 days of notification of the violation. The notice must be delivered and published by December 10, 2005.
All turbidity violations are classified as Tier 2. A Tier 2 violation is described in Sec. 141.201(b) of the May 4, 2000 Federal Register as being, “…all other violations or situations with potential to have serious adverse effects on human health.”

Photo: Maui Department of Water Supply

Kamaole Weir Treatment Facility supplies Upcountry with approximately 3.6 million gallons of water per day.

Turbidity itself is not a cause for alarm, as it is a surrogate indicator and generally has no ill health effects. However, existing bacteria in supply lines “cling’ to particles in turbid water.
An explanation of water turbidity on WaterTechnology.net reads, “Studies have shown that there is a clear correlation between turbidity and the number of bacteria in a water sample. The dangers posed by these germs are made even worse by the fact that they can cling to solid particles and thus survive disinfection with chlorine, chlorine dioxide, UV irradiation or ozone.” Click here to view.
Takakura says that the DWS Lab staff took bacti samples on October 17 in Haiku, Makawao, and Pukalani, and that the test results came back negative for bacteria. Though asked which tests were run, she did not respond to the question.
Takakura says that only affected area was along the Maunaolu line. Hydrants and standpipes were flushed on this line only.

What was done, what was not…

DWS is regulated by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Public Notification Rule.
In the Rule, it is clearly stated that though a classified public notice regarding a Tier 2 violation is legal, it is not desirous in the eyes of the EPA.
“EPA believes that a newspaper notice is beneficial as a supplemental method to mail or hand delivery, and it may be included in a water system's strategy to use media coverage to reach others not reached by mail or hand delivery. But newspaper notices are not as effective as mail or hand delivery in directly reaching persons served. Newspaper notices are typically placed in the legal notices section of the newspaper where they are not likely to be read. If newspapers are used as an additional method of delivery, EPA strongly recommends that systems purchase advertising space near the front of the newspaper, rather than placing a legal notice. EPA prefers that community water systems focus on methods that will get the notice in people's hands at their place of residence.
It also appears that DWS and DOH are following rules that were outdated in mid-2000.
Public notification guidelines in the Rule for a Tier 2 violation under Section 141.203(b) say that the notification deadline is 30 days, and “…unless primacy agency [DOH] directs otherwise, CWS (community water system) must use mail or direct delivery, and other methods reasonably calculated to reach persons served.”
A little further into the Rule on page 26,000 is a summary of the past rule (prior to June 5, 2000), and the amended final rule (after June 5, 2000 until the present) pertaining to Tier 2 Public Notice. “The final rule significantly changes the requirements for delivery of the Tier 2 notice in the current rule. For example, the current rule (for community water systems) first requires a newspaper notice, followed by a notice either mailed or directly delivered to customers. The final rule requires that community water systems, at a minimum, mail or otherwise directly deliver the notice to each customer receiving a bill and to other service connections to which water is delivered.”
It further states “…all public water systems must take steps reasonably calculated to reach other persons served by the system who would not normally be reached by the minimum regulatory method. Examples where persons served may not be reached by the minimum method include: community water systems that provide drinking water to persons who do not pay a water bill (e.g., students, renters, nursing home residents, prison inmates) and therefore would not routinely see a mailed notice; and non-community water systems with situations where persons who use the drinking water might not see the posted notice (e.g., seasonal residents in a resort). To view the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Public Notification Rule, click here.
Takakura says that letters of notification are currently being mailed out to customers on the Makawao system.
The Rule states that the “EPA strongly believes that consumers have a right-to-know in a timely manner when violations occur that may affect them.” The argument here is whether or not DWS and DOH have given the public notice of the violation in a timely manner.
The Rule further reads, “The final rule under Sec. 141.203(b)(1) requires the public water system to provide a Tier 2 public notice to persons served as soon as practical, but no later than 30 days after the system (in this case, DWS) learns of the violation.”
Between the time of the incident, Oct. 14, and the receipt of DWS’ violation notice from DOH on Nov. 10, twenty-seven days had elapsed.
Between the time DWS received the violation letter and when they published the public notice on Nov. 27, seventeen more days had passed.
The public nor the Board of Water Supply, which, by the way, Takakura says, “is not charged with the day-to-day operations of the Department,” knew anything had happened for 44 days.
But wait, there’s more.
According to the Rule, “Posted notices are required by the final rule to remain in place for as long as the violation or situation persists, but in no case for less than seven days, even if the violation or situation is resolved.”
Teri Komoda in the Maui News classified advertising department confirmed that DWS ran the small notice for one day only – Nov. 27.

How’d it get to this point?

The Makawao/Pukalani water system is supplied by surface water from the Wailoa Ditch system that is treated at WTF, along with groundwater drawn from the Hamakuapoko, Kaupakalua, and Haiku Wells.
The groundwater (well water) is a fairly new addition to the system, which up until recently was fed almost exclusively by surface water.
In June of 2001, DWS realized that they had to take action to reduce elevated levels of lead that were present in both the Makawao and Lower Kula water systems. The presence of the lead in the drinking water was caused by lead leaching from water supply lines as a result of naturally occurring high levels of alkalinity in the surface water.
After trying pH-adjusting remedies such as soda ash (which they are using now), lime, silicates and caustic soda to no avail, DWS initiated the addition of Calgon-9 (zinc orthophosphate), also called C-9, to the Upcountry water system.
Shortly thereafter, Upcountry residents started flocking in droves to their doctors with a mysterious, itchy rash, now known as the “Upcountry rash.”
C-9 had little effect on controlling lead leaching. In April of 2003 DWS switched strategies and began injecting phosphoric acid into the extensive Upcountry system.
Soon the maddening rash was accompanied by ailments such as respiratory distress and unusual occurrences of internal staph infections that would affect, in particular, digestive and excretory functions.
Residents placed the blame for their discomfort on the phosphate additives in the water. And they were correct – in a way.
The additives to the public water supply caused a “bloom” of noxious bacterium throughout the Upcountry system. And the lead levels in the water coming out of residents’ faucets were still elevated in certain areas above the EPA-mandated “action level” of 15 parts per billion (ppb). In some areas they were higher than they were before the phosphates were introduced.
Marc Edwards, a researcher at Virginia Tech, was called in to assist with finding a solution for Upcountry’s water woes. Edwards discovered the presence of several types of bacteria – and a real threat for more dangerous ones to form.
Slime forming bacteria (SLYM) was detected in two-thirds of the homes Edwards tested, and these test samples also revealed the presence of heterotrophic aerobic bacteria (HAB). According to the Edwards report, both kinds of bacteria “are known to cause several problems in water including slime formations, turbidity, taste and odor, corrosion, health and hygiene risks.”
To view this report, click here (PDF).
“It is very possible that lack of phosphate nutrient was somewhat limiting to bacterial growth in the Maui system, and that addition of phosphate caused increased growth of bacteria,” the report said.
The release of turbid water into the system that occurred on Oct. 14 is believed to have helped “feed” the biofilm caused by the bacteria bloom.
“Turbidity alone wouldn't be cause for alarm,” said Ginny Parsons, a member of the Board of Water Supply, in a written statement. “But given the fact that there is an existing problem Upcountry, the release of this turbidity is certainly more than just a worrisome problem.”
On Nov. 12, 2004, the results of a study called “Maui Showerhead, Water, and Swab Samples, Final Report by J. O. Falkinham” were released. This study added insult to injury for water customers in the Upcountry region.
“Showerhead biofilms and sediments have proven to be rich sources of bacteria, including mycobacteria,” the report reads.
“Recently, the Virginia Tech laboratory showed that the DNA fingerprint of Mycobacterium avium isolates from shower sediment and biofilm was identical to that of the M. avium isolate infecting a patient who used the shower… Confirmation that P. aeruginosa was present in high numbers in Filter 1 (i.e., > 10,000 CFU/ml of suspension from the filter) is alarming because it is an opportunistic pathogen and associated with outbreaks of skin infections and irritation in hot tubs and spas.” To view report, click here (PDF).
What now?
Parsons says that the after-effects on the water supply caused by the elevated turbidity is more serious than the notice indicates, especially for those immune compromised systems, cancer, diabetes, HIV, and respiratory problems.
The Rule says so too. “Violation of the maximum allowable turbidity limit, when combined with other site-specific information, is an indication that pathogens may have passed through to the finished water,” it states.
Turbidity exceeding the 1.00 unit maximum was present at the Kamaole Weir Treatment Facility for a total of 31 minutes.
Takakura said in her response to The Maui Examiner “…the high lift pumps which distribute the water throughout the Makawao system (Makawao, Pukalani, Hali‘imaile, parts of Ha‘iku) were shut off. This was before the turbidity exceeded the violation limit of 1.00 unit. The water never went to Makawao.”
If this is so, then why are letters of notice being sent out to customers on the Makawao system?
Takakura feels that the situation was handled accordingly and by-the-book. “It should be noted that the notice was published two weeks ahead of the legal deadline of December 10, 2005,” she wrote. “I have not received any calls from the public.”
That’s not surprising. Most people had no idea there even was a notice.
“The mishap happened over 6 weeks ago and notification is just happening,” wrote Parsons. “I am appalled that this Public Notice was not handled sooner, better, in detail and door-to-door, as well as more accurate. This should have been a front-page story – not just a back page, small print Public Notice.”