Escondido’s False Sewage Data Brings $20,000 Fine

The Regional Water Quality Control Board on Monday imposed a $20,000 fine on the City of Escondido, where a lab supervisor at the municipal sewage treatment plant altered key testing data provided to state and federal regulators.

The city also was threatened with an additional $51,000 in penalties if it failed to develop and implement a quality control program for its laboratory by February, according to David Barker, a senior engineer with the board.

“It is clear that city officials were submitting inaccurate and incomplete data in violation of their permit,” Barker said. “The goal of the quality assurance program is to ensure that those past mistakes are not repeated.”

Under the California Water Code, the regional board could have imposed $485,000 in penalties in connection with the data tampering, which made it appear that the quality of waste water leaving the plant was higher than it may actually have been.

Barker said that he and other staff members “took into account the extent and gravity of the violation in determining that the $71,000 figure was appropriate.”

Key to that decision, he said, was the fact that “we found no evidence that Escondido was trying to cover anything up. The records were all intact and there was no attempt at deception.”

City officials, who have admitted that the test data was altered, said they agreed to pay the fine rather than appeal their case at a public hearing because they are eager to put the episode behind them.

“I don’t think the city deserved to be fined, because (the data tampering) was an honest error in judgment,” said City Manager Vernon Hazen. “But why drag this thing on any longer? We’re anxious to get on with the show.”

In addition, Hazen noted that “$20,000 is certainly a lot better than $400,000” and speculated that appealing the penalty was unlikely to further reduce its amount.

Nonetheless, if a citizen challenges the complaint at the board’s next meeting, it could trigger a review by the panel, Barker said.

“It could be that someone out there will think we weren’t hard enough on the city,” he said. “If that’s the case, the board can choose to open a public hearing.”

Richard MacManus, founder of the Cardiff-based environmental group People for a Clean Ocean, praised the board for its action against the city.

“I think it’s proper that Escondido should be required to pay some penalty for what occurred,” said MacManus, whose group has fought efforts by sewage dischargers to obtain waivers from stringent treatment requirements.

MacManus added that Clean Ocean supporters will meet soon to determine whether to contest the relatively low amount of the fine. In the past, the group has cited the doctored reports as evidence that Escondido should be denied permission to cut treatment standards at the plant. The city has won approval of a treatment waiver, but opponents have appealed the decision.

The problems became public in June when a former lab employee provided The Times with monitoring reports that depicted the altered test data. According to the documents, lab supervisor Myung J. Kim was adjusting results of the so-called BOD test, which measures the level of oxygen consumed by microorganisms in the process of digesting waste.

The BOD screening is a key indicator of the purity of the 11 million gallons of treated waste water that Escondido’s plant discharges into the ocean off Cardiff each day. Test results are included on monthly monitoring reports and forwarded to the regional board.

Under Escondido’s operating permit, the plant must remain within certain standards set by the two agencies. Exceeding those limits can result in reprimands or fines.

In January, the BOD level at the plant began to rise, for reasons still unexplained. Kim has said he attempted to find the cause of the increase but could not unravel the mystery.

So, based on data from related tests that normally correlate with the BOD reading, Kim assumed the high numbers were in error. Using a variety of mathematical formulas, Kim calculated new numbers and entered those on his reports to regulators. The lab supervisor said he intended to inform the board of the high BOD readings later but never got around to it.

An investigation by the board’s staff revealed 90 separate incidences of “data manipulation” by Kim, some dating to October, 1985.

But city officials characterized Kim’s actions as a judgment error and have twice refused to accept his offer to resign. He remains supervisor of the plant laboratory.

Barker said the $71,000 penalty represents $1,000 per day for the 71 most serious reporting inaccuracies submitted by Kim. He said there were numerous other problems with the data--enough to merit the $485,000 fine--but called the 71 “the most worst-case” errors.

The city also must develop a quality assurance program to ensure that its testing and reporting methods are reliable and accurate--or face an additional $51,000 in fines. If the program is not developed by Jan. 2, $10,000 will be due and payable; the balance would be collected if the program is not actually in place by Feb. 1.

Hazen said the plant already has a quality assurance program and “will not have to make any major changes to comply with the board’s order. I imagine we will merely eliminate any ambiguity that may exist among certain employees as to the requirements of the regional board.”

News of the doctored monitoring reports triggered interest in the case by the FBI and the EPA’s criminal investigations branch in San Francisco. Results of those investigations are still pending.