ISDS 



Data on the condition of systems, reasons for failure, and the effects of malfunctioning 

 systems on groundwater, water supplies, and habitats is rudimentary. Although the ISDS 

 Section staff have a sophisticated working knowledge of problem area case histories, and 

 possess a detailed understanding of the program's strengths and needs, all recordkeeping is 

 done on paper, and is readily retrievable only when files have been closed and put on tape. 

 Repeated efforts have been made to obtain funding to install an on-line permit data 

 management system which would enable staff to track and cross-reference permit data 

 effectively. 



A key weakness of the enforcement program is the fact that enforcement 

 action can be taken only when a system has already failed, while a 

 definition of "failure" is not specified in the regulatory language. 



Special Jurisdictional Issues 



Currendy, responsibility for investigation of overflowing systems is shared between 

 DEM and DOH using an administrative mechanism which is unsatisfactory. The 

 arrangement was established by a memorandum of agreement between the two agencies 

 when DEM was initially created in 1977. 



The MOA specified that DOH was to retain responsibility for a) investigating 

 complaints involving ISDS; b) receiving change of use forms for transmittal to DEM; c) 

 licensing and regulating tank cleaners and installers. DEM would: a) enforce standards for 

 location, design, construction and operation of ISDS; b) certify land for installation of 

 ISDS; and c) eniforce regulations adopted by DOH for the disposal of septage. 



Although the MOA appeared to outiine the agencies' responsibilities clearly, the system 

 has not proven workable, primarily because the initial investigations of overflows are not 

 consistently made in a timely manner. DOH has asserted that it would not be responsible 

 for investigating complaints related to residences and business over which it does not 

 otherwise have jurisdiction. Because those categories constitute 90 percent of complaints, 

 DEM has asserted that manpower and resources for the enforcement program should then 

 be transferred to DEM, where the bulk of investigations would be undertaken. 



At present, when an ISDS overflow presents itself as a health hazard because of pooling 

 of effluent on the surface, a complaint may be made to DOH. DOH goes to the site to make 

 a determination, and if the health hazard remains, must notify DEM to enforce the violation 

 of DOH health requirements. Conversely, when DEM identifies a groundwater ISDS 

 violation, it is required to notify DOH and request a DOH determination of violation in 

 order to proceed against the violator. Delays of up to six months have been associated with 

 this process, which, among its other flaws, cannot address changed water level conditions 

 on the site and consequent overflow variations. Thus, if and when a case gets to court, the 

 overflow may no longer be present and the entire enforcement process must be re-initiated. 



Fundamental inconsistencies of viewpoint complicate the problem. DEM's jurisdiction 

 relates to general groundwater quality, while DOH is concerned with water quality within 

 the water supply source itself, and with disease hazards presented by surface sewage 

 outflows. 



DEM legal counsel asserts that adequate authority exists to enable DEM to require repair 

 of failed system. (Statement by Peter Janaros,Meeting Number Eight of the ISDS Task 



72 



