United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
&EPA Public Water System
I ln't + s*A O+i+^« ^
Historical Significant
Non-Compliers:
National Trends
Report
-------
Office of Water (4606 M)
EPA816-R-10-015
October 2010
water, epa.gov/drink/
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
What does this report summarize? 1
What is the goal of identifying HSNCs and this report? 1
How did EPA collect this information? 1
HSNC Trends by System Size & Type 2
HSNC Trends by Rule & Violation 7
Microbials and Disinfection Byproducts (M/DBP) Rules 7
Chem/Rad Rules and Lead and Copper Rule 9
Right-to-Know Rules 11
Types of Violations: M&Rvs TTvs MCL 12
Trends in Violations Linked to Technical, Managerial & Financial Issues 14
Conclusions 16
Appendix A- Changes to the PWSS Program Approach 18
Appendix B -Tables of Acronyms 20
Appendix C-HSNCs by State 22
-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Timeline of Rule Implementation 2
Exhibit 2: Total Number of Current Public Water Systems and HSNCs 3
Exhibit 3 :HSNCs by System Size, Over 4 HSNC Periods 4
Exhibit 4: Percentage of Systems that are HSNCs, 2006 - 2008 5
Exhibit 5: Percentage of HSNCs that are Small Systems, 2006 - 2008 6
Exhibit 6: HSNCs by M/DBP Rule, 2006-2008 7
Exhibit 7: HSNCs by M/DBP Rule, Over 4 HSNC Periods 8
Exhibit 8: HSNCs by Lead and Copper Rule and Chem/Rad Rules, Over 4 HSNC Periods 9
Exhibit 9: HSNCs by Lead and Copper Rule and Chem/Rad Rules, 2006-2008 10
Exhibit 10: HSNCs by Violation, Over 4 HSNC Periods 12
Exhibit 11: HSNCs by System Size and Violation, Over 4 HSNC Periods 13
Exhibit 12: HSNCs by Violation and Reason, 2006-2008 14
List of Tables
Table 1: Rules and Abbreviations 20
Table 2: Definitions and Abbreviations of Reported Violations 20
Table 3: Reason for History of Significant Non-Compliance' 21
Table 4: Number of HSNCs and Small System HSNCs by State 22
-------
Introduction
What does this report summarize?
Capacity Development provisions under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Section 1420(b)
(1), require that each state periodically submit to EPA a list of community water systems (CWSs)
and nontransient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs) with a history of significant non-
compliance. The states and EPA concurred that a public water system is a historical significant
non-complier (HSNC) when it has violations that meet the definition of a significant non complier
(SNC) as defined for a specific regulation for the duration of at least 3 quarters during a 3-year
period.1 This report summarizes over 10 years of HSNC trends nationwide in 4 time periods:
1997 - 1999, 2000 - 2002, 2003 - 2005 and 2006 - 2008.2
What is the goal of identifying HSNCs and this report?
The central purpose of generating HSNC lists is to help states identify the CWSs and NTNCWSs
that consistently struggling to comply with drinking water regulations. This lack of compliance
can often be linked to inadequate technical, managerial, or financial (TMF) capacity that can
impede long-term sustainability. States often use HSNC lists to prioritize technical assistance
and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) resources. This report not only summarizes
the characteristics of the HSNC lists but also attempts to identify challenges that might impede
system capacity, and presents examples of how some states have addressed these challenges.
EPA's goal is to work with states to develop the tools to identify systems without capacity,
prioritize capital improvements, and apply funds from the DWSRF in the most efficient matter.
How did EPA collect this information?
EPA generated the preliminary HSNC list from a Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS) query program developed by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
This HSNC list was shared with EPA Regions and states for their review and comment during the
summer of 2009. The updated data were then used to generate this report.
EPA faced some data limitations in analyzing the HSNC data. Specifically, the data analysis
presented in this report is limited due to the following:
• HSNCs are treated equally regardless of the severity of the violation, rule violated, or the
type of violation.
• Challenges in pinpointing the reason for a system's non-compliance.
• Lack of a standardized process used by states to achieve a system's return to compliance
for different types of violations.
• Inconsistent compliance data quality.
1 Heare, Stephen F. 2009. Memorandum to Drinking Water Program Managers, Regions 1-10, Drinking Water
Enforcement Coordinators, Regions 1-10, and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Managers, Regions 1-10, regarding the
2009 List of Systems with a History of Significant Non-Compliance. May 4, 2009. A SNC is a system whose serious, frequent,
or persistent non-compliance of drinking water regulations has met the SNC criteria as defined by the EPA for a specific rule.
The SNC designation is reserved for those systems that are considered to pose the most serious threats to public health.
2 All states submitted data (with some missing components) for 1997 - 1999, 2003 - 2005, and 2006 - 2008. The
following programs did not submit data for 2000 - 2002: ME, NJ, NM, NY, and Rl.
-------
EPA is aware of the limitations of the current HSNC structure and is transitioning toward a more
comprehensive enforcement approach. For more information on this new approach, please refer
to Appendix A: "Changes to PWSS Program Approach."
Exhibit 1 shows the implementation timeline for various drinking water rules discussed in this
report. As the HSNC data in this report indicate, the initial implementation of rules often coincides
with an increase in violations as systems adapt to the new requirements. For example, as the
Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR), Long Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), and Ground Water Rule (GWR) enter their initial
compliance phase during upcoming years, violations associated with these rules will likely
increase.
Exhibit 1: Timeline of Rule Implementation3
Please see Table 1 in Appendix B for a list of acronyms and their definitions.
TCR
LCR
CCR Rule
Stage
IES\
LT1ESWTR
DBPR
TR
P
Radionuclides Rule
PN Rule
LT2ESWTR
Rtane 9
LCR
Te
DBPR
Term
Revisions
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
HSNC Trends by System Size & Type
For the purpose of this report, system sizes are defined as small, medium and large. Small
systems serve 3,300 and fewer people, medium systems serve between 3,301 and 50,000
people, and large systems serve more than 50,000 people. Also for this report, a system type is
classified as either a CWS or a NTNCWS. A CWS is a public water system that supplies water
to the same population year-round. A NTNCWS is a public water system that is not a CWS and
regularly supplies water to at least 25 of the same people at least 6 months per year, but not
necessarily year-round. Some examples of NTNCWSs are schools, factories, office buildings,
and hospitals that have their own water systems.4 For additional definitions of terms used in this
report, see Appendix B.
In this report, we examine HSNC trends for all sizes of CWSs and NTNCWSs, by rule and
violation. As shown in Exhibit 2, although less than 10 percent of CWSs and NTNCWSs are
HSNCs, there are still a fairly significant number of small systems that are identified as HSNCs.
3 Stage 1 DBPR had compliance deadlines of January 2002 for medium and large systems, January 2004 for small
systems, and additional monitoring requirements in 2009. For Stage 2 DBPR, depending on system size and the extent of
needed construction, systems will begin the first year of compliance monitoring between 2012 and 2016 and must be in
compliance with the Stage 2 DBPR MCLs at the end of a full year of monitoring.
4 Public water system means a system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes
or, after August 5, 1998, other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly
serves an average of at least twenty-five individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. Source: EPA. 2009. Code of Federal
Regulations. Part 141-National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Section 141.2 Definitions.
-------
• Approximately 8 percent of the total universe of CWSs (or 4,209 out of 51,988 systems)
were HSNCs during the period 2006 - 2008 (see Exhibit 2). Compared to previous years,
this represents a slight decrease in the number of HSNCs for this group (9 percent, or
4,929 of the 52,349 CWSs, were HSNCs during the 2003 - 2005 period).5
• Approximately 5 percent of the total universe of NTNCWSs (or 955 out of 18,742 systems)
were HSNCs during the period of 2006 - 2008 (See Exhibit 2). The same percentage of
NTNCWSs were HSNCs during the 2003 - 2005 period.
Exhibit 2: Total Number of Current Public Water Systems and HSNCs6-7
Small Medium Large Total
CWSs
CWS HSNCs
NTNCWSs
NTNCWS HSNCs
43,018
3,627 (8%)
18,595
951 (5%)
8,031
538 (7%)
145
4 (3%)
939
44 (5%)
2
0 (0%)
51,988
4,209 (8%)
18,742
955 (5%)
• Approximately 3 percent, or 138 of the 5,142 HSNCs, have been HSNCs continuously
since 1997 (94 percent, or 129 of 138 water systems, are CWSs).7
• Approximately 7 percent, or 348 the 5,142 HSNCs, have been HSNCs continuously since
2000 (91 percent, or 317 of the 348 systems, are CWSs). Approximately 28 percent, or
1,452 of the 5,142 HSNCs, have been HSNCs continuously since the 2003 - 2005 time
period (88 percent, or 1,291 of the 1,452 systems, are CWSs).7
• The rules and violations affecting these systems can vary over the different time periods
and the CWSs and NTNCWSs are not always HSNCs over multiple time periods for the
same reason.
• The most common reason for a system to be an HSNC is lack of short-term technical,
managerial, or financial capacity, which is cited for approximately 50 percent of the
HSNCs.
• NTNCWSs are designated less frequently as HSNCs, when proportionally compared
to CWSs. This is not only true in the 2006 - 2008 data, but also in the previous three
time periods. One possible explanation is that NTNCWSs face fewer drinking water
requirements than CWSs. The HSNCs reported were widely dispersed across the country
and included both surface water and ground water systems. With the GWR coming
into effect in 2009, public water systems that use ground water sources could face an
increased number of violations, particularly those small systems that lack the technical,
5 In the period 2003 - 2005, there were 52,349 CWSs, of which 4,929 were CWS HSNCs. In the period 2006 - 2008,
there were 51,988 CWSs (a drop perhaps due to small system consolidation) and 4,209 CWS HSNCs.
6 Total number of current water systems based on EPA SDWIS FY08Q3 frozen inventory table; total number of HSNCs
based on HSNC survey data for 2006 - 2008.
7 Twenty-two water systems changed either their water system type or size category in the 2006 - 2008 reporting period,
and are therefore counted twice. Seven of these systems changed their size category, 14 systems changed system type, and
1 system changed size and type. These systems are not counted twice in Exhibit 4 because it is a state-by-state total and
does not include a size or type classification. Only 3 of the 22 systems were repeat HSNCs. These systems were HSNCs
continuously since the 2003 - 2005 time period. Of the 3 repeat HSNCs, 2 changed system type and 1 changed size. For the
purposes of this analysis, these systems were counted as CWSs.
-------
managerial, and financial capacity to fully comply with new rules. The GWR will require
quick turnaround compliance activities and public notifications that some small systems
may find challenging initially as they learn the rule requirements.
• The number of large system HSNCs has remained consistently low across all four time
periods (see Exhibit 3). This seems to indicate that large systems are able to adapt to rule
requirements at a faster rate than the smaller systems.
• As shown in Exhibit 3, the number of medium system HSNCs remained relatively constant
during the first two time periods, but jumped after the 2000 - 2002 period. This increase
may be attributed to the multiple Microbials and Disinfection Byproducts (M/DBP) Rules
that were implemented during this time, as shown in Exhibit 1.
• All four time periods of data appear to support the fact that small systems are still more
likely to be on the HSNC list than medium or large systems. Between the 1997 - 1999 and
2003 - 2005 timeframes, the number of small system HSNCs increased approximately
10 to 15 percent per 3-year period. However, after the 2003 - 2005 period, the number
of small system HSNCs began to decrease (see Exhibit 3). The data indicate that small
systems continue to face challenges with regulatory compliance.
Exhibit 3: HSNCs by System Size, Over 4 HSNC Periods8
6.000
5.000
£ 4,000
tn
3)
o
M
I
3,000
2.000
1.000
1997-1999
2000-2002 2003-2005
Reporting Years
2006-2008
-< 3.300
-3.301-50.000
-> 50.000
• A 2006 report from EPA's Inspector General identified eight challenges small systems
face that may impede regulatory compliance.9 The eight challenges listed below are
possible reasons why the data indicate that small systems incur violations at a higher rate
than the medium and large systems.
1. Lack of financial resources.
2. Aging infrastructure.
3. Difficulties obtaining financial assistance.
8 The 8 water systems that changed size categories are double counted in this exhibit. See Footnote 7 for more details.
9 EPA Office of Inspector General. 2006. "Much Effort and Resources Needed to Help Small Drinking Water Systems
Overcome Challenges." May 30, 2006. Report No. 2006-P-00026.
-------
4. Cost of scale.
5. Management limitations.
6. Lack of long-term planning.
7. System operator issues.
8. Challenges with understanding and/or complying with regulations.
• These eight challenges can broadly be categorized as technical, managerial, and
financial capacity issues which affect the ability of small water systems to achieve and
maintain system sustainability to provide safe drinking water. It is important to note that
not all small systems lack capacity; however, the data show many of them struggle
with compliance.
• The data also indicate that the number of systems that are HSNCs due to lacking a
qualified operator has increased since 2004. A certified and experienced operator is
vital to the health of the public water system. Not having a certified or appropriately
trained operator can lead to compliance problems that can in turn contribue to financial
challenges.
• The data also indicate that states are aware that many of the HSNC systems lack
adequate capacity. According to recent EPA analyses of the use of DWSRF set-asides,
48 states are using set-aside funds to implement or manage a capacity development
strategy. States use DWSRF set-asides to fund a number of specific efforts tied to
capacity development, including on-site assistance, small system trainings, sanitary
surveys, data management, and upfront planning. The HSNC list may serve as a tool for
states to identify and target technical assistance to the systems most in need.
• Exhibit 4 displays the percentage of systems that were HSNCs in the 2006 - 2008 time
period, by state and territory. As shown, Arizona had the highest percentage of HSNC
systems, followed by Alaska and Puerto Rico.
Exhibit 4: Percentage of Systems that are HSNCs, 2006 - 2008
Please see Appendix C for the number of systems by state.
U? Puerto Rico 39%
16% '• Virgin Islands
17%
o
District of
Columbia
Total HSNCs from 2006-2008:
5,142 systems
-------
• Exhibit 5 shows that in a majority of the states, small systems comprised over 90 percent
of HSNCs in the 2006 - 2008 period. In Virginia and the Virgin Islands, 100 percent of
HSNCs were small systems.
Exhibit 5: Percentage of HSNCs that are Small Systems, 2006 - 2008
Please see Appendix C for the number of systems by state.
' Puerto Rico
! 100%'- Virgin Islands
0%
o
District of
Columbia
67%-
How the State of Georgia Uses the HSNC List to
Increase the Number of Sustainable Systems in
their Inventory
The State of Georgia has successfully utilized the SNC list
to target their assistance to systems in need. In Georgia,
very small systems (those serving fewer than 5 00 people)
represent 74 percent of all public water systems in the
state. However, these systems accounted for 88 percent
of the state's SNCs between July 1, 2007 and June 30,
2008. This disproportionate percentage of very small
systems that were designated as SNCs prompted the
Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) to
increase their assistance to small public water systems
in developing their technical, managerial, and financial
capacity. This effort has produced positive results,
as Georgia has seen a decline in the number of SNCs
(HSNCs in Georgia dropped by approximately 51 percent,
or 77 systems, from the period 2003 - 2005 to the period
2006-2008).
-------
HSNC Trends by Rule & Violation
To better understand HSNCs it is important to look at the regulations and violations that have
triggered systems onto the HSNC list, as well as the system's size and type. In this section we
explore the regulations and the violations that most often triggered systems onto the HSNC list
across the nation.
Microbials and Disinfection Byproducts (M/DBP) Rules
This section discusses the systems that achieved an HSNC listing due to the M/DBP Rules. This
group of rules includes the following:
S Total Coliform Rule (TCR)
S Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR)
S Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR)
S Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1/LT1ESWTR)
S Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR/Stage 1 DBPR)
S Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR)
S Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR)*
^ Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR)*
^ Ground Water Rule (GWR)*
* The compliance dates of these regulations occur after 2008.
• Based on the 2006 - 2008 data, the most common HSNCs under the M/DBP Rules
occurred under the Stage 1 DBPR (see Exhibit 6). However, Stage 1 DBPR violations
declined in comparison to the 2,555 violations from the 2003 - 2005 period. Stage 1
compliance deadlines passed in January 2002 for medium and large systems and in
January 2004 for small
systems.10
Although a drop in
violations between
timeframes occurred,
there still continues to
be a large number of
HSNCs during 2006-
2008 due to violations
of the Stage 1 DBPR,
both for M&R and MCL
violations.11 As noted
above, compliance
with Stage 1 DBPR
requirements for
systems serving fewer
than 10,000 persons
Exhibit 6: HSNCs by M/DBP Rule, 2906-2008
Please see Appendix B for an explanation of applicable rules.
3,000
2.500
2,000
£
IP
I
U)
u
<2 1.500
-------
started in January 2004. The large volume of violations could be due to systems serving
fewer than 10,000 persons still adapting to compliance requirements.
For TCR, the increase in M&R violations in the 2006 - 2008 period was more than twice
that of non-M&R violations, indicating that systems are still having difficulty meeting the
TCR monitoring and reporting requirements. TCR is the oldest drinking water regulation,
so lack of knowledge of the rule requirements cannot be the only reason for this lack of
compliance. The universe of systems that have the most violations under this rule serve
3,300 and fewer people. EPA hosted the Total Coliform Rule Distribution System Advisory
Committee (TCRDSAC) in 2008, where national experts representing states, water
industry, water systems, and other vested organizations discussed why small systems
have challenges complying with the TCR. The most common reason identified by the
group was the lack of apparent consequences for rule violations. For example, if a system
is on reduced monitoring and they receive a monitoring violation, the rule allows them to
remain on reduced monitoring.
The high turnover rate among water system managers and operators also contributes to
the lack of understanding of the TCR, despite the rule's age. This lack of experience, and
thus knowledge of drinking water regulations, can dramatically inhibit the technical and
managerial capacity of a system, leading to increased numbers of M&R violations.
As shown in Exhibit 7, there was an 85 percent increase in IESWTR/LT1 HSNCs (driven
primarily by small systems, which jumped from 45 HSNCs in 2003 - 2005 to 95 HSNCs
in 2006 - 2008). This coincides with the LT1 regulatory compliance date, which applies
to systems serving
fewer than 10,000
persons. Although
the rule was
promulgated in
2002, many of the
LT1 requirements
did not take effect
until 2005.
On the other
hand, there was a
moderate decline
in SWTR HSNCs
across all time
periods (Exhibit
7). This could be
due to the fact
that the newer
rule requirements
superseded the
SWTR.
Exhibit 7: HSNCs by M/DBP Rule, Over 4 HSNC Periods
Please see Appendix B for an explanation of applicable rules.
3,000
Applicable Rule
-------
Chem/Rad Rules and Lead and Copper Rule
This section discusses the systems that achieved an HSNC listing due to the following rules:
S Phase II/V Rule
•S Arsenic Rule
S Radionuclides Rule
S Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)
For the purposes of this report, the Radionuclides Rule, the Arsenic Rule, and the Phase II/V
Rule are grouped together as "Chem/Rad Rules."
• As shown in Exhibit 8, LCR HSNCs increased by approximately 10 percent (or 56
systems) from the 2003 - 2005 period to the 2006 - 2008 period. However, the largest
increase was in 2000 - 2002. Significant attention was paid to the LCR after high lead
levels were reported in the Washington, DC area in 2004.12 This heightened attention
caused EPA and states to conduct a national review of implementation of the LCR to
determine if there was a national problem related to elevated lead levels. The review
placed a focus on determining if the rule was being effectively implemented by states
and local communities and on identifying where additional guidance or changes to the
regulation were needed to improve implementation. Congress also held a number of
oversight hearings to further investigate implementation of the LCR in the District of
Columbia and the nation. This wide-ranging review of the LCR likely led to an increased
number of reported violations. Under this effort, EPA developed short term rule revisions
to help in the implementation of the regulation. However, as with all of the drinking water
rules, the LCR
violations data Exhibit 8: HSNCs by Lead and Copper Rule and Chem/Rad
likely has some Ru,e$> Qver 4 HSN<- perjods
reporting errors, Please see Appendix B for an explanation of applicable rules.
for instance, the 3,500
violations code
for initial tap
sampling is still
very prevalent
even though most
systems are not
new and in fact
conducted their
initial tap sampling
in the 1990s.
There are two
reasons why the
violation code for
initial tap sampling
is still prevalent
today. First, states
are incorrectly
assigning an initial
Applicable Rule
12 Source: 31 January 2004. Washington Post. Nakamura, David. "Water in D.C. Exceeds EPA Lead Limit." Pg.A-1.
-------
tap sampling violation code as an M&R violation and/or assigned the initial tap sampling
violation correctly, but did not properly close the violation. Second, states may have
assigned the initial tap sampling violation correctly, but the systems did not follow the
correct steps to return to compliance.
• States have indicated that particularly complex rules can cause water system compliance
problems. For instance, water systems often face challenges with the sampling protocol
and action level established under the LCR. EPA is currently undertaking an effort to
develop long-term rule revisions.
• The 2006 - 2008 data show that there was a significant number of HSNCs under the
Chem/Rad Rules (see Exhibit 9). In comparison to the 2003 - 2005 timeframe, the
number of HSNCs increased by approximately 125 percent (or 1,276 systems, see Exhibit
8).
• Some Chem/Rad HSNCs during the 2006-2008 period likely resulted from the
implementation of
Exhibit 9: HSNCs by Lead and Copper Rule and Chem/
Rad Rules, 2006-2008
Please see Appendix B for an explanation of applicable rules.
3.000
2,500
en
2.000
290
u
1.500
595
the new Arsenic
requirements starting in
2006.13 Water systems
faced a number of
challenges complying
with the Arsenic Rule,
including treatment
modifications and finding
alternative sources of
water. The rule tends to
significantly affect small
systems in particular
areas of the country
where arsenic levels are
high due to the treatment
cost.
Moreover, many water
systems neglected to
report monitoring results
for at least one of the
required contaminants
under the Radionuclides Rule, particularly gross alpha particle. During the 2006 - 2008
period, approximately 230 systems violated Chem/Rad Rules because of gross alpha
particle.
There are 65 contaminants regulated under the Phase II/V Rules. These 65 contaminants
are split up into three groups: Inorganic Chemicals (lOCs), Synthetic Organic Chemicals
(SOCs), and Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs). The data show a spike in violations
every three years. This is likely a result of the 3-year monitoring cycle in the regulation. If
£ 1,000
500
Chem/Rad
LCR
Applicable Rule
13 EPA set the arsenic standard for drinking water at 0.010 parts per million (10 parts per billion) to protect consumers
served by public water systems from the effects of long-term, chronic exposure to arsenic. Water systems had to comply with
this standard by January 23, 2006.
-------
a system misses the sampling during the required period, violations are assigned for each
contaminant missed.
• Due to the recent number of M/DBP Rules promulgated, states shifted their immediate
attention and resources to early implementation of these regulations. Emphasis by states
on the LCR and Chem/Rad Rules may have
decreased as states' efforts were redirected to
Early Implementation, which in turn might have
led to an increased number of violations.
How the State of Pennsylvania
Increased Monitoring Efforts
During the 2006 - 2008 time frame,
Pennsylvania actively worked to improve
the timeliness of violations reporting.
In particular, the state employed a new
system to e-mail information on treatment
technique violations to state staff nightly,
to ensure that the staff promptly act on
the violation. This may have led to an
increase in violations tied to HSNCs over
the previous period.
Right-to-Know Rules
The rules known as "Right-to-Know Rules" include
the Public Notification (PN) Rule and the Consumer
Confidence Report (CCR) Rule. Implementation
of the CCR Rule began in October 1999. The PN
Rule applied to public water systems in states with
approved primacy programs in May 2002.
• According to the data, during recent periods
there has been a significant decrease in
HSNCs related to consumer confidence reports, record keeping, and public notification
violations.
• From 2006 - 2008, the CCR Rule continued to challenge many systems. However, CCR
HSNCs declined by nearly 52 percent (or 1,104 systems) between the 2003 - 2005 and
2006 - 2008 periods. Additionally, the data show that CCR HSNCs decreased from 576
systems in 2007 to 268 in 2008. This could be due to an increase in the knowledge of the
systems in terms of CCR compliance. In the 2003 - 2005 period, the number of HSNCs
due to the CCR Rule was high (up to 1,250 HSNCs in 2003). This further supports the
trend that there is an increase in violations following the start of implementation of a
rule. Although the CCR Rule was promulgated in 1998, the CCR SNC definition was not
established until 2003.
• As discussed earlier, implementation of the GWR could lead to increased violations (e.g.,
public notification) in upcoming years, particularly for small systems.
11
-------
Types of Violations: M&R vs TT vs MCL
The type of violation - monitoring & reporting (M&R), treatment technique (TT), or maximum
contaminant level (MCL) - is what identifies systems as HSNCs. Below are several findings
regarding the types of violations in the HSNC data.
Exhibit 10: HSNCs by Violation, Over 4 HSNC Periods
Please see Appendix B for an explanation of violation types.
4,500
• As shown in Exhibit 10,
failure to correctly monitor
and report was the most
common reason that
systems became HSNCs.
The data indicate that M&R
HSNCs slightly increased
(by approximately 5
percent) in the 2006 -
2008 period. During the
2006 - 2008 period, the
rules linked to the majority
of the M&R HSNCs were
Chem/Rad, Stage 1 DBPR,
LCR, and TCR.
• Exhibit 10 shows that
the number of HSNCs
due to M&R violations
peaked during the 2000 -
2002 period; there were
approximately 4,000 HSNCs caused by M&R violations in this period, an increase of
approximately 38 percent (or 1,121 systems) over the previous period. In 2003 - 2005,
the number of HSNCs caused by M&R violations dropped back down towards the 1997
- 1999 levels. HSNCs due to M&R violations slightly increased again in the 2006 - 2008
period. EPA suspects this increase could be due to the 3-year monitoring cycle required
under the Phase II/V rules as explained earlier in the document.
• For some states, a significant number of M&R violations might be tied to a data
management change implemented within the 2006 - 2008 period. For example, Oregon
moved from using individual data systems to SDWIS/State, which features automated
compliance tracking for some rules. This resulted in an increase in violations and HSNCs
in Oregon in late 2006.
• For other states, the increase in M&R violations could be due to an increase in the
knowledge of implementing these rules. As state staff become more familiar with the
drinking water regulations, they are better able to implement the rule requirements and
assign violations when appropriate.
• Another reason for this increase in M&R violations could be the decrease and/or high
turnover rate of certified operators at the public water systems. The data show that the
number of systems that were HSNCs because they did not have a qualified operator
has increased in recent years. The lack of technical knowledge at a significant number
of systems could be one reason why there is an increase in M&R violations. At least one
12
-------
state has reported that the number of certified operators in the state is far less than the
number of systems that require a certified operator to manage the system.
Approximately 90 percent of the HSNCs due to M&R violations continue to be small
systems. This trend is evident in Exhibit 11.
M&R presents a significant barrier in protecting public health since a missed sample does
not allow the state to know the quality of the water being produced.
Exhibit 11: HSNCs by System Size and Violation, Over 4 HSNC Periods14
Please see Appendix B for an explanation of violation types.
MRDL
Violation Type, Systems Size
01997-1999
• 2003-2005
12000-2002
I 2006-2008
• HSNCs due to MCL violations were highest in the 2006 - 2008 period. HSNCs due to
MCL violations in the 2006 - 2008 period increased by approximately 35 percent (or 378
systems) over the previous period. Additionally, the number of HSNCs in the 2006 - 2008
period was more than double that of the 2000 - 2002 period (see Exhibit 10). The majority
of HSNCs due to MCL violations are small systems, as shown in Exhibit 11. In each
reporting period, small systems comprised over 80 percent of all MCL HSNCs.
• As shown in Exhibit 10, HSNCs due to TT violations have decreased by approximately
30 percent, or 123 systems, between the 2003 - 2005 and 2006 - 2008 periods. HSNCs
due to TT violations were highest in the 1997 - 1999 period. As shown in Exhibit 11, small
systems have the highest number of TT HSNCs.
• Regulations that contain TT requirements are the suite of SWTRs, LCR, and, in the future,
GWR.
• As evident in Exhibit 11, MRDL violations are not a major source of HSNCs.
14 The 8 systems that changed size categories are double counted in this exhibit. See Footnote 7 for more details.
-------
Trends in Violations Linked to Technical, Managerial &
Financial Issues
As part of enforcement data collection efforts, states were asked to identify if the reason the
system was an HSNC was due to the lack of technical, managerial, or financial capacity. Based
on the information provided by some states, these were some of the findings the data reflected:
• When states were asked by EPA to identify the reasons for prevalence of HSNCs,
they frequently noted the lack of short-term technical, managerial, or financial capacity
(see Exhibit 12).15 Short-term technical, managerial, or financial problems have been
particularly common since 2004, with an increase of 45 percent from the time period 2003
- 2005 to the period 2006 - 2008. Although this increase correlates with the timing of the
implementation of Stage 1 DBPR requirements for systems serving fewer than 10,000
persons, the data do not provide enough information to make a strong correlation.
Exhibit 12: HSNCs by Violation and Reason, 2006 - 2008
Please see Appendix B for an explanation of violation types and reasons for History of Significant Non-
Compliance.
HSNCs with MCLor
MRDL Violations
HSNCs with M&R
Violations
33%
HSNCs with TT
Violations
15 Ohio identified long-term technical, managerial, or financial capacity as a reason code for HSNC prevalence, but did
not specify the exact reason associated with technical, managerial, or financial capacity.
-------
• Other commonly cited reasons for violations include long-term technical, managerial,
or financial capacity and long-term compliance schedule (particularly for MCL and TT
violations). Long-term compliance schedule was noted for systems that are developing
adequate technical, managerial, and financial capacity to achieve compliance and are
adhering to an approved compliance schedule. Other states noted problems such as:
•S Unresolvable disinfection byproduct exceedances.
•S Consecutive system compliance issues.
S Poor source water quality.
•S Inexperienced system operators and management.
•S Chronic failure to file CCRs.
How the State of South Carolina uses Capacity Development
to Return Systems to Compliance
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) Capacity
Development team has been actively working to support return to compliance efforts for water
systems in need. Several Capacity Development success stories are noted below:
• One system was detecting total coliform during regular sampling intervals. The system's
service area is a high-growth area with significant construction, and the state's Capacity
Development team determined that the system 's operator was not assisting local construction
crews with locating water lines, and was not operating the system's chlorination system.
With the help of the South Carolina DHEC Regional staff, the team learned that line breaks
occurred routinely in the system, but that repairs were made without notifying the system and
subsequently, disinfection was not performed. The Capacity Development team educated the
system operator on the appropriate procedures to return the system to compliance.
• One system continuously exceeded the MCL for the disinfection byproduct Total
Trihalomethane (TTHM). The system and a team from the DHEC participated in a 2.5 year
EPA pilot program with the technical support center in Cincinnati, Ohio. The study confirmed
the operator's belief that the problem was not in the plant, but in the distribution system.
Following the study, the operator was able to convince the system's board of the importance
of a comprehensive flushing program and the need to improve the tank turnover time to stay
under the MCL.
• Coliform bacteria were identified through monitoring at one system. The bacterial hits
were found both inside the water facility and at the wellhead. In response, the Capacity
Development team participated in the system's sanitary surveys and visited the owner to
negotiate the connection of the system to a nearby system. The connection was finalized and
the contaminated well was taken out of service.
-------
Conclusions
Even though the number of small systems classified as HSNCs has decreased in recent years,
systems serving 3,300 and fewer people still represent the majority of the HSNCs identified
across the nation. It is important to note, however, that small systems also comprise more than
90 percent of all water systems in the United States. Almost 1,500 water systems have been
repeat HSNCs since 2003, with over 90 percent (or 1,314 out of 1,452 systems) serving 3,300
and fewer people. As such, these small systems clearly require additional technical, managerial,
and financial assistance to prevent violations.
States have identified "short-term technical, managerial and financial issues" as the number
one reason systems were classified as HSNCs. Short-term technical, managerial, or financial
capacity problems usually address operation and maintenance activities such as inexperienced
operators, high turnover in management and operators, funding shortfalls or unexpected
expenses, inadequate sampling plans, and incomplete or lack of Consumer Confidence Reports,
among other issues.
The fact that states identified short-term technical, managerial, or financial capacity as the
primary reason for non-compliance highlights the importance of the state Capacity Development
programs to help public water systems achieve sustainability. Currently, there are many tools
and approaches to help systems attain and maintain short- and long-term capacity. Below are
some programs and tools that states employ to help systems achieve compliance and become
sustainable. The extent of the use of particular programs, tools, and concepts varies by state.
Some of the programs and tactics that states utilize are listed below; check EPA's Web site for
additional information: water.epa.gov/type/drink/pws/smallsystems/.
• State Capacity Development Programs - The focus of these programs is to assist systems
to develop and maintain the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to ensure public
health protection. State Capacity Development programs have been critical in addressing
the small system challenges across the nation. States evaluate the capacity of new water
systems to ensure non-viable systems are not added to the inventory, and continuously
assess existing systems to ensure they maintain their capacity or provide the assistance
needed to attain capacity.
• Drinking Water State Revolving Fund - Under this program, states use funds to provide
loan assistance to public water systems for infrastructure improvements to ensure safe
drinking water. The set-aside funds can provide targeted assistance to small water
systems.
• Water Efficiency & Availability for Water Suppliers - Only so much freshwater is available
for consumption. As a result of population growth, greater competition of resources, and
early signs of climate change, drinking water suppliers will increasingly need to adopt best
industry practices for water efficiency as well as new strategies that adjust for variable
water quantity and quality. For more information visit water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/
main_wp.cfm.
• Asset Management & CUPSS - Managing assets (e.g., buildings, equipment, pipes, and
operators) ensures that a system gets the most value from each of its assets, has the
financial resources to rehabilitate and replace them when necessary, and can reduce
-------
costs while increasing the efficiency and the reliability of a system. One EPA tool for asset
management at small drinking water and wastewater utilities is the Check Up Program
for Small Systems (CUPSS). CUPSS provides a simple, comprehensive approach
based on EPA's highly successful Simple Tools for Effective Performance (STEP) Guide
series. Effective asset management can address system challenges such as increasingly
stringent regulatory requirements, setting appropriate rate structures, and potential
system failures. Systems can use CUPSS to help develop records of assets, a schedule
of required tasks, an understanding of a system's financial situation and a tailored asset
management plan. For more information, visitwater.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/
pws/cupss/index.cfm.
• Operator Certification Program - Recruiting, training and certifying water system operators
is vital to the capacity and long-term sustainability of a water system. EPA has developed
various materials on improving water system operation and developing experienced
operators. For example, see Water System Operator Roles and Responsibilities: a Best
Practices Guide. www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsystems/pdfs/guide_smallsystems_
operator_08-25-06. pdf
• Restructuring of Systems - Water systems facing continuous compliance problems
should consider restructuring, which involves changes to the operational, managerial, or
institutional structure of a water system. Restructuring options can range from relatively
minor changes in a system's procurement processes to transferring ownership of a
system through consolidation or regionalization. EPA has developed case studies on
restructuring, such as: Restructuring and Consolidation of Small Water Systems, www.
epa.gov/ogwdwOOO/smallsystems/pdfs/compendium_smallsystems_restruct.pdf
• Technical Assistance - In addition to states, many organizations across the country
provide technical assistance to small systems. States can help identify a technical
assistance provider. For help in this selection, see the EPA Partner Web site at water.epa.
gov/type/drink/pws/smallsystems/partners.cfm#partners.
-------
Appendix A - Changes to the PWSS Program Approach
EPA is implementing a new, more comprehensive approach for enforcement of the Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS) Program under the SDWA. As part of this effort, a new Enforcement
Response Policy (ERP) and Enforcement Targeting Tool (ETT) will be used. This system-based
approach uses a tool that enables the prioritization of public water systems by assigning each
violation a "weight" or number of points based on the assigned threat to public health. One goal
of the ERP is for states and EPA to help water systems return to compliance.
The revised ERP and new ETT will allow EPA to maintain the consistency and reliability of the
enforcement program, while increasing its effectiveness at protecting public health. The ETT will
rank systems with health-based violations, while revisions to the ERP will help ensure that these
systems return to compliance.
Currently, EPA uses the SNC status to target enforcement efforts. SNC status reflects a system's
failure to comply with individual drinking water rules. Under the existing system, all SNCs are
treated equally, without regard to the gravity of the violation and without considering other
violations a system may have that are not identified as SNC.
The ETT will evaluate and rank public water systems' non-compliance across all drinking
water rules. The ETT consists of a formula to rank water systems based on the severity of the
violations and the number of years since the first unaddressed violation. Each violation will be
assigned a value based on the threat it poses to public health. The formula will incorporate all
open-ended violations and any other violations that have occurred in the past 5 years. It will not,
however, include violations that have returned to compliance or that are covered under a formal
enforcement action and are deemed on the "path to compliance." A formal enforcement action is
defined as one which requires specific actions necessary for the violator to return to compliance,
is based on a specific violation, and is independently enforceable without having to prove the
original violation. The enforcement targeting formula is shown below, where S is equal to the
violation severity factor, and n is the number of years for which the system's oldest violation
remains unaddressed.
PWS Score of Non-compliance = Sum(S1 + S2 + S3+ ...)+ n
The formula assigns a higher weight for acute health-based violations, where S is equal to ten
points. For each other health-based and TCR repeat monitoring violation, or for each Nitrate
M&R violation, S is equal to five points. Additionally, S is equal to one point for each other M&R
violation, or any other violation.
By assigning each water system a score using the (IS) + n formula, all water systems will be
ranked nationally. During the initial trial period for the ERP and ETT, any water system with
a score of 11 or higher will be recognized as a priority system. The EPA and states will use
concepts of escalating enforcement and timely and appropriate response to achieve a return
to compliance. Under the escalating enforcement concept, the state and EPA are expected
to escalate the responses to violations as they recur or increase in severity. Under the timely
and appropriate response concept, states and EPA have two quarters to return a system to
compliance after it is identified as a priority. If states and EPA are unable to return a system
to compliance within two quarters, the ERP expects to prioritize the system under a formal
enforcement action (e.g., administrative orders with or without penalties, state or federal civil
case, etc) and place it "on a path to compliance." States and EPA should track the systems on
-------
a path to compliance so that they ultimately return to compliance according to the enforceable
schedule in the formal enforcement action. The new policy will ensure that timely action is
taken by states to resolve violations and to achieve EPA's ultimate goal - to return systems to
compliance.
Appendix A contains the information that EPA had available for when this report was written. For
the most up-to-date information on this policy, see EPA's Web site at: www.epa.gov/compliance/
civil/sdwa/.
-------
Appendix B - Tables of Acronyms
The HSNC data submitted and analyzed for this report includes information on CWSs and
NTNCWSs; it documents the trends of HSNCs by system size, system type, rule, violation, and
reason. In particular, the following variables are included in the HSNC dataset:
Table 1: Rules and Abbreviations
Rules Abbreviation
Total Coliform Rule
Surface Water Treatment Rule
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and Long Term 1
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule*
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule*
Ground Water Rule*
Phase II/V Rule - Inorganic Chemicals (lOCs), Synthetic Organic Chemicals
(SOCs), and Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) - and Radionuclides Rule
Lead and Copper Rule
Consumer Confidence Report Rule
Public Notification Rule
TCR
SWTR
LT1/LT1IESWTR
DBPR/Stage 1
DBPR
FBRR
Stage 2 DBPR*
LT2ESWTR*
GWR*
Chem/Rad
LCR
CCR
PN
* Due to the compliance dates of these regulations, violations for these rules are not present in
the data.
Table 2: Definitions and Abbreviations of Reported Violations16
Violation Definition Abbreviation
Monitoring and
Reporting
Maximum
Contaminant Level
Maximum
Residual
Disinfectant Level
Treatment
Technique
Other
A water system's failure to monitor for, or report to the
state, the level of a contaminant on the required schedule
The maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water
which is delivered to any user of a public water system
Level of a disinfectant added for water treatment that
may not be exceeded at the consumer's tap without an
unacceptable possibility of adverse health effects. MRDLs
are enforceable in the same manner as MCLs under
Section 1412 of the SDWA
A required process intended to reduce the level of a
contaminant in drinking water
CCR, PN, record keeping, and notification violations
M&R
MCL
MRDL
TT
Other
16 The 1997 - 2002 HSNC dataset included older violation codes, which were adjusted to match up with the newer
violation codes in the 2003 - 2008 HSNC data.
-------
Table 3: Reason for History of Significant Non-Compliance17'
18
Reason
Short-term technical, managerial, or
financial (IMF) problem
Definition
The system was out of compliance because of a short-
term problem such as an inexperienced operator,
or a short-term funding shortfall due to unexpected
expenses. The system has already addressed or is
expected to address the problem shortly and it returned
to compliance or is expected to return to compliance
soon.
Long-term technical, managerial, or
financial problem
The system lacked the fundamental technical,
managerial, and/or financial capacity to achieve
compliance. Short-term assistance for the system would
not resolve the long-term compliance problem.
System was on a long-term
compliance schedule to correct the
problem
The system was developing adequate technical,
managerial, and financial capacity to achieve
compliance and was adhering to an approved
compliance schedule.
Recalcitrance
System showed no interest in attempting to resolve the
compliance problem.
Unknown
The reasons for the system's non-compliance are not
known.
17 The following states did not submit reason codes for 2003-2005 data: AK.AZ, ID, IL, KY, Ml, OH, OR, PA, UT, WA,
andWI.
18 An additional reason code "Data Error" could be used by states. Data Error are systems that were not actually a SNC
for 3 or more quarters during the period. These systems are not included in the analysis for this report.
21
-------
Appendix C - HSNCs by State
The following table lists the number of HSNCs and small system HSNCs that were used to
develop Exhibits 4 and 5.
Table 4: Number of HSNCs and Small System HSNCs by State
State
Number of
HSNCs
Number of
HSNCs that are
Small Systems
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Washington D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
265
53
66
591
68
167
64
1
26
306
61
6
46
87
55
31
33
74
202
21
50
74
67
27
74
53
88
324
7
7
54
65
82
258
37
53
506
61
150
56
0
26
271
59
4
44
80
52
26
30
38
175
12
48
71
64
25
69
49
87
290
6
7
52
49
78
22
-------
State
Number of
HSNCs
Number of
HSNCs that are
Small Systems
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
68
172
60
190
201
341
191
16
18
31
28
55
41
76
35
95
211
33
70
15
61
154
54
151
182
316
161
14
17
29
15
47
33
76
35
91
196
27
58
14
23
-------
24
------- |