UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WSG 133A
Date Signed: December 29, 1998
The Data Sharing Committee's
Recommendations for Lead and
Copper Rule Violation Reporting
FINAL
December 29, 1998
Prepared for the
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
by the
Data Sharing Committee
-------
WSG 133A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
I. INTRODUCTION 4
A. Background 4
B. Purpose and Goal 4
C. Protocol for Making Data Sharing Decisions 5
11. DATA SHARING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE LCR VIOLATION DATA 6
A. Discussion Highlights 6
B. Background 6
C. Recommendation 7
D. Cost of Including this Information 16
E. State and Regional Comments on Final Draft 16
III. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 15
A. Programmatic and Organizational Issues Associated With Implementation 17
B. Technical Issues 17
-------
WSG 133A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report represents the DSC's analysis of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) especially as it pertains to violation
reporting requirements for the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED). In preparing this report, the
goal of the DSC was to review and analyze the EPA data needs for the LCR, to work in collaboration with the LCR
Work Group on reporting issues related to regulatory changes, and to make recommendations regarding other
non-regulatory changes in reporting requirements to the Director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water.
Data Sharing Recommendation
The previously described protocol for making data sharing decisions (December, 1995) was followed to arrive at
these recommendations. The changes to requirements being recommended in this document were arrived at after
lengthy discussion about shortcomings and inconsistencies in the way data are currently reported and the-justified
need for these data. The committee focused on five major reporting issues, the first four of which were passed on
to the LCR Work Group for their consideration and incorporation into the Notice of Data Availability (NOD A) and
proposed rule changes. The fifth issue, violation reporting, did not require a change to the regulations and was
therefore not included in the NODA or proposed rule changes. This report therefore discusses only the DSC's
recommendations regarding LCR violation reporting.
The DSC is recommending that the following changes be made to the LCR violation reporting requirements:
That the number of individually reported violation types be reduced from the current 15 to 10 (i.e., that some of
the currently individually reported violations be consolidated for SDWIS/FED reporting). (See Page 3 for more
detail)
General Implementation Recommendation.
In order to implement any new reporting requirements, a sufficient amount of time must be provided to primacy
agencies for planning, budgeting, and implementing. The most time consuming and costly activity that must be
performed is the reprogramming of State data systems to manage and transfer the required data in SDWIS data
transfer file (DTP) format. In the past, 18 months were provided for this activity. The DSC recommends that States
begin reporting under the new requirements in the quarter after the SDWIS update software is modified, but no,
later than 18 months after the publishing and effective date for these recommendations, including the publishing of
technical documentation. In addition, since most of these recommended changes will actually be preferred by
many States, modification to SDWIS/FED should be made as soon as possible to allow for the new reporting so
that States are not required to report under the existing requirements for any longer than is necessary. Until the
time that these new requirements become effective as described above, the current reporting requirements will
remain in effect.
Through this report, the DSC is recommending to make changes to the current LCR reporting requirements which
will simplify the requirements and will not significantly change the reporting burden on States. The DSC believes
that on balance, the understanding of LCR violation reporting should be improved and therefore the data quality
improved since the requirements are being simplified. The burden associated with this reporting however will not
change significantly by this recommended change in reporting since the number of violations that must be
determined and reported does not necessarily change.
-------
WSG 133A
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
The LCR is undoubtedly the most complex drinking water regulation promulgated to date. With 11 milestones, 15
violation types, and 90th percentile data, its reporting requirements are also complex. The Data Sharing Committee
analyzed the current reporting requirements for the LCR following the protocol previously documented
(December, 1995 Protocol for Making Data Sharing Decisions). This report represents the DSC's recommendations
on LCR violation reporting. (The DSC continues to work with the LCR Workgroup on reporting requirements that
required changes to the regulation, such as milestone data.)
Since all violations must be reported to EPA (CFR § 142.15), the DSC focused on the questions of how these
violations are defined, how they can be grouped together for reporting purposes, and how they can be reported to
SDWIS/FED. Recommendations on other activities such as data verifications and quarterly data submission
checking are also presented. It is the firm belief of the DSC that by simplifying the LCR reporting requirements,
the Regions and States will better understand what is to be reported which will in turn increase the likelihood that
complete and accurate data are reported to SDWIS/FE1D. The overall burden of reporting should also decrease
which in turn will increase the possibility of meeting the requirements of a reduced core data set. The ultimate
result should be improved quality of data that are the most focused and useful to EPA to support LCR
implementation oversight and to measure improvement at reducing lead exposure and improving the safety of
public water systems.
The LCR, which was promulgated on June 7, 1991, established treatment technique requirements when lead
and/or copper exceed certain levels referred to as action levels. An exceedance occurs when more than 10 percent
of the tap water samples collected are greater than the action level of 0. 0 15 parts per million (ppm) for lead or 1.
3 ppm for copper. Unlike other drinking water regulations, exceeding the lead and/or copper action level is not a
violation. Instead, this exceedance triggers one or more of the following treatment technique (TT) requirements:
public education, corrosion control treatment, source water treatment, and lead service line replacement.
Lead and copper results are expressed as 90th percentile levels. For a system collecting 10 samples, this would be
the 9th highest lead or copper sample result obtained during a monitoring, period. The LCR reporting requirements
are based primarily on reporting information about various milestones associated with the LCR and violations of
LCR requirements.
On April 12, 1996, the EPA proposed changes to the LCR (61 FR 16348, April 12, 1996 including changes to
State reporting requirements. The DSC considered these proposed changes and worked with the LCR Workgroup
during their deliberations on reporting requirements. Those data that were specifically mentioned in the regulations
(e.g., milestone data) and that require a change to the regulation to implement were deferred to the LCR
Workgroup. (This prevented any major duplication of effort since procedures were already in place via the rule
development process to ensure that stakeholder involvement was obtained.)
B. Purpose and Goal
This report is a somewhat scaled down version of the DSC's September 26, 1997 recommendation report on the
LCR and focuses exclusively on violation data. The original report served two purposes; one, to provide input to
-------
WSG 133A
the LCR Workgroup as they considered changes to the regulation, and two, to identify any other problems with the
LCR reporting requirements that could be corrected through the data sharing process and through the issuance of
guidance. In preparing this report, the goal of the DSC was to review and analyze the EPA data needs for LCR
violation data and to make recommendations on changes to the LCR reporting requirements to the Director of the
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
C. Protocol for Making Data Sharing Decisions.
The DSC is composed of EPA Headquarters and Regional representatives and State representatives (see text box).
The protocol that was followed for making data sharing decisions involved the DSC developing a recommended
set of data elements or changes to current reporting requirements or practices after comment and review
opportunities by stakeholders and other interested parties; review by the ASDWA/EPA Data Management Steering
Committee; review by all States; review by the SDWIS Executive Steering Committee; and, finally', transmittal to
the Director of the OGWDW for decision-making and distribution as official reporting requirements or data
sharing goals.
PWSS Data Sharing Committee Members as of February, 1998
Carol Amend, Region 3, Chair
Tom Poleck, Region 5
Harriet Colbert, OGWDW
Roger Anzzolin, OGWDW
Andy Hudock, OECA/ORE
Bill Davis, Region 6
Doug Mandy, Minnesota
Mary Alvey, Oregon
Evans Massie, Virginia
Cliff Bowen, California
Mark Rasso, Region 2
Andrew Bartlett, Region 4
Other Participants*
Jan Auerbach, OGWDW
Glen Kedzie, OECA
Betsy Devlin, OECA
Larry Weiner, OGWDW
Abe Siegel, OGWDW
Fran Haertel, Region 6
Judy Lebowich, OGWDW
Barry Greenawald, Pennsylvania
(former DSC member)
Vanessa Leiby/Max Kukoy, ASDWA
ASDW A/EPA Data Management
Steering Committee
-------
WSG 133A
*Other participants were involved during meetings, conference calls, or through written comments. Our apologies
to those that we may have omitted from this list.
-------
WSG 133A
11. DATA SHARING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE LCR VIOLATION DATA
A. Discussion Highlights.
The initial efforts of the DSC focused on the current reporting requirements and what changes should be made to
improve the meaning of the data, the use of the data, the quality of the data, and the ease of reporting. Subsequent
discussions focused on the justification and cost of reporting/collecting the data, and the overall burden on States
to meet any new requirements. When deciding which SDWIS attributes to recommend for inclusion in the Core
Data Set, the Data Sharing Committee took the approach that no data should be reported unless EPA has a specific
use or need for the data that justifies the cost of States reporting the data. If data are not particularly useful, or if
they are very expensive to report compared to their usefulness, the committee would not recommend they be
included in the Core Data Set.
In addition, an overarching goal that also influenced the final recommendation, was the desire to obtain high-
quality data. Setting overly ambitious and burdensome reporting requirements on States was viewed as counter-
productive to this data quality goal.
The complexity of the current LCR reporting requirements has resulted in a decrease in data quality in
SDWIS/FED. As the committee has discussed in previous reports, there appears to be an inverse relationship
between how complex (and therefore the amount of data and difficulty to understand) reporting requirement are
with the quality of data that are reported (or possibly not reported if a State is not aware of what the reporting
requirements are). The following recommendations therefore have an inclination toward simplification, although
this cannot be at the expense of being able to understand and present the implementation and compliance status of
the LCR nationally.
Public access and inquiries from many groups to drinking water data are also increasing. There is an increasing
need for EPA to be able to answer at least the fundamental questions and present the basic status of the LCR
nationally. The fact that LCR data are now available through EPA's Envirofacts database on the World Wide Web
makes the data quality and interpretation concerns even more important to resolve.
The last issue discussed by the committee pertained to the complexity and number of violations that are currently
required to be reported. The committee felt that, like the milestone :reporting, the amount of data and the
variability of the significance of the data leads to confusion and inconsistent and inaccurate data in SDWIS/FED.
Changes to the way that violation data are reported to SDWIS/FED do not require a change to the regulations and
therefore can be implemented through guidance. The committee therefore is recommending that the violation
reporting be simplified to allow EPA to focus on the most significant violations and to ease the burden of reporting
this information to SDWIS/FED. In addition, the changes being proposed through the regulatory process for how
water quality parameter (WQP) violations are determined had an impact on the recommendation to consolidate the
WQP treatment technique violations (Types 59 and 60) into a single type.
B. Background
The reporting by States of violation information is already highly justified (i.e., it is required under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR), it supports the
-------
WSG 133A
primary enforcement functions of the EPA, and it is needed in lieu of milestone reporting). The existing
SDWIS/FED LCR violation types are summarized below:
SDWIS Violation
Type Code
51*
52
53
54
55
56
57
58*
59
60
61
62*
63
64
65*
Description
Initial Lead and Copper Tap MIR.
Follow-Up or Routine Lead/Copper Tap M/R
Initial Water Quality Parameter M/R
Follow-up or Routine Entry Point Water Quality Parameter M/R
Follow-up or Routine Tap Water Quality Parameter M/R
Initial, Follow-up or Routine Source Water M/R
Optimal Corrosion Control Study
Optimal Corrosion Control Installation
Water Quality Parameter Entry Point Noncompliance
Water Quality Parameter Tap Noncompliance
Source Water Treatment Recommendation
Source Water Treatment Installation
Maximum Permissible Level Noncompliance
Lead Service Line Replacement
Public Education
*Can currently lead to SNC status
Fifteen violation types are significantly more than must be reported for any other regulation. The number of
violations along with the significant other reporting under the LCR leads to a level of complexity that hampers
correct and complete reporting. During the DSC's discussions on this issue, several scenarios for how violation
reporting could be simplified were considered. The following is the DSC's recommendation and alternative options
that were also considered.
Four violation types, namely #51, 58, 62, and 65 currently can lead to a system being classified as a significant
noncomplier (SNC). When the initial reporting guidance was developed, these four violations were judged as the
most significant from an enforcement prioritization and targeting standpoint.
C. Recommendation
-------
WSG 133A
The following option is recommended by the Data Sharing Committee:
Recommended Option;
Consolidate violations into fewer types
The DSC believes that a certain amount of violation consolidation is possible without hampering the primary EPA
uses of this information of compliance tracking and enforcement targeting. As an example, violation types 53, 54
and 55 could be combined into one " water quality parameter monitoring" violation type, although the reporting
format of differing monitoring periods would need to be solved. These technical reporting problems would be
solved during the development of the reporting guidance that would be provided as part of making these official
changes to the LCR reporting requirements.
The table below shows the specific violation type recommendations being made by the DSC.
Violation Type
Code:
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Description
Initial Lead and Copper
Tap M/R
Follow-Up or Routine
Lead/Copper Tap M/R
Initial Water Quality
Parameter M/R
Follow-up or Routine
Entry Point Water
Quality Parameter M/R
Follow-up or Routine
Tap Water Quality
Parameter M/R
Initial, Follow-up or
Routine Source Water
M/R
Optimal Corrosion
Control Study /
Recommendation
Data Sharing Committee Recommendation
Leave as is. Most systems have already done initial
monitoring. These violations will only be reported for
new system or systems in continued noncompliance.
To maintain consistency in the data base keep these as
is.
Leave as is.
Combine with 54 and 55 violations to have one Water
Quality Parameter Monitoring violation type. Most
systems already should have done initial monitoring but
very few violations are in the database. If we change
the code, changing them will not be much of a .burden.
Combine with 53 and 55 to have one Water Quality
Parameter Monitoring violation type.
Combine with 53 and 54 have one Water Quality
Parameter Monitoring violation type.
Leave as is.
Combine with 61 for one "Study/Recommendation"
type violation. There was no need expressed to report
these violations separately.
-------
WSG 133A
Violation Type
Code:
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Description
Optimal Corrosion
Control Installation
Demonstration
Water Quality
Parameter Entry Point
Noncompliance
Water Quality
Parameter Tap
Noncompliance
Source Water
Treatment
Recommendation
Source Water
Treatment Installation
Maximum Permissible
Level Noncompliance
Lead Service Line
Public Education
Data Sharing Committee Recommendation
Combine with 62 for one "Installation" type violation.
There was no need expressed to report these violations
separately.
Combine with 60 for one WQP TT violation type.
Combine with 59 for one WQP TT violation type.
Combine with 57 for one "study" type violation. There
was no need expressed to report these violations
separately.
Combine with 58 for one "Installation" type violation.
There was no need expressed to report these violations
separately.
Leave as is. There was some discussion of combining
this with 59 and. 60 violations but the longer
compliance period here would bury the more critical 59
violations.
Leave as is.
Leave as is.
The following table shows the results of the consolidation discussed above. The original 15
violation types are reduced to 10.
Current
Violation
Type Codes
51
52
53, 54, & 55
Description
Initial Lead and
Copper Tap M/R
Follow-up or Routine
Lead/Copper Tap M/R
Initial, Follow-up, or
Routine WQP M/R
Comments
No change.
No change.
Combination of violation types 53, 54, and 55.
10
-------
WSG 133A
Current
Violation
Type Codes
56
57&61
5S&62
59&60
63
64
Description
Initial, Follow-up, or
Routine Source Water
M/R
Study /
Recommendation
Violation
Installation
Demonstration
Violation
WQP Noncompliance
MPL Noncompliance
Lead Service Line
Replacement
Comments
No change.
For OCCT or SOWT.
For OCCT or SOWT.
Combination of violation types 59 & 60.
No change.
No change.
Pros
Some States have expressed a need or desire to report fewer violation codes. Consolidating
violation types may alleviate the burden for some states to maintain and. report the more
detailed violation types.
It would reduce the number of violation codes and in so doing, make queries pertaining to the
LCR violations less difficult to write and less complicated.
EPA has a responsibility to learn of violations from State primacy agencies and to assess the
appropriateness of State responses to all violations. Consolidating violations could still provide
the information the agency needs because all violations would still be reported only in a
consolidated format.
Consolidated violation reporting would be consistent with the reporting done under the Surface
Water Treatment Rule where all monitoring and treatment technique violations are consolidated
into single types.
Cons
Some States may have to modify their data reporting systems if we change the existing codes.
Differing monitoring periods could make SNC determinations more difficult, or at the least
11
-------
WSG 133A
may require a modification to the SNC definitions. Changing this reporting would cause a
problem with using and understanding historical data (i.e., data reported using the original
codes).
The following alternative options were also considered by the committe. They are being I
presented below for discussion purposes and to be considered during any review of this
document,
Alternative Option 1; Status Quo; leave the violation reporting as is.
This option would leave the 15 violations codes (from 51 through 65) intact as required
SDWIS/FED reporting requirements. The existing violation codes are shown in the background
material above.
Pros
Leaving the codes as they now are would keep the violation data in the database consistent..
Historical information could be analyzed along with new information without special efforts to
interpret the data.
More detailed analysis of compliance oversight could be conducted.
States would not have to modify their data systems if they had already done so to meet the
current requirements.
Cons
Some States have expressed a need or desire to report fewer violation codes. The existing 15
codes are more detailed than the reporting requirements for any other rule.
The existing number of violation codes is so large (15) that many queries pertaining to the LCR
violations will be difficult and complicated to write and understand.
Alternative Option 2; Similar to the recommended version but with one less consolidation.
This option is similar to the recommended option, but does not consolidate the WQP
noncompliance violations (Types 59& 60). The following table shows the results of this
consolidation. The original 15 violation types are reduced to 11.
Current
Violation Type
Codes
51
Description
nitial Lead and Copper
TapM/R
Comments
No change.
12
-------
WSG 133A
Current
Violation Type
Codes
52
53, 54, &5.5
56
57&61
5S&62
59
60
63
64
65
Description
Follow-up or Routine
Lead/Copper Tap M/R
nitial, Follow-up, or
Routine WQP M/R
nitial, Follow-up, or
Routine Source Water
M/R
Study /
Recommendation
Violation
nstallation
Demonstration
Violation
WQP Entry Point
^oncompliance
WQP Tap
^oncompliance
MPL Noncompliance
Lead Service Line
Replacement
Public Education
Comments
No change.
Combination of violation types 53, 54, and 55.
No change.
For OCCT or SOWT.
For OCCT or SOWT.
No change.
No change.
No change.
No change.
No change.
Pros
Basically the same as for the recommended option (see above).
Gaining some more detail, but since neither of these violation types lead to SNC status, not gaining
much from a SNC tracking perspective. Will gain a more detailed understanding of the WQP TT
violations that occur.
Cons
Basically the same as for the recommended option (see above).
Not as simplified. May make reporting slightly more burdensome.
13
-------
WSG 133A
Alternative Option 3;
Report fewer violation types
This option may not be viable since according to the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations, all violations are to be reported to EPA. Reporting fewer
violation types would mean identifying, particular violations under the LCR that the EPA would
require information about. As an example, under the LCR, public water systems are required to
submit a site sampling plan to primacy agency and have it approved. If the PWS does not submit a
plan, it is in violation. Under the 15 existing codes, this violation is to be reported as a Type 51
violation (Initial M/R) although some States may not consider the failure to submit a sampling plan a
51 violation. Some states do not accept initial LCR tap sampling results if the site sampling plan is not
in place so the PWS would eventually receive a 51 violation. A distinctive site sampling plan violation
is not currently reported. This same logic could be applied to other violations where only the most
significant ones would then be reported.
Having said that, it would be possible to reduce the number of reported violation types further, but still
account for all of the possible violations under the rule. As an example, the following table shows a
more extreme consolidation of violation types, focusing on a couple of different types of monitoring
violations and capturing all others with a generic treatment technique and M/R violation types.
Another slight variation of this approach would be to leave the Type 65 (Public Education) violation
as a separate violation due to its unique characteristics and the fact that it can currently
lead to SNC status.
Violation Type
Code
51
52
53
54
Description
nitial Lead and Copper
Tap M/R
Follow-Up or Routine
Lead/Copper Tap M/R
nitial Water Quality
Parameter M/R
Follow-up or Routine
Entry Point Water
Quality Parameter M/R
Data Sharing Committee Recommendation
Leave as is. Most systems have already done
initial monitoring. These violations will only be
reported for new system or systems in continued
noncompliance. To maintain consistency in the
data base keep these as is.
Leave as is.
Combine with 54 and 55 violations to have one
Water Quality Parameter Monitoring violation
type. Most systems already should have done
initial monitoring but very few violations are in
the database. If we change the code, changing
them will not be much of a burden.
Combine with 53 and 55 to have one Water
Quality Parameter Monitoring violation type.
14
-------
WSG 133A
Violation Type
Code
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Description
Follow-up or Routine
Tap Water Quality
Parameter M/R
nitial, Follow-up or
Routine Source Water
M/R
Optimal Corrosion
Control Study /
Recommendation
Optimal Corrosion
Control Installation
Demonstration
Water Quality
Parameter Entry Point
^oncompliance
Water Quality
Parameter Tap
^oncompliance
Source Water
Treatment
Recommendation
Source Water
Treatment Installation
Maximum Permissible
Level Noncompliance
Lead Service Line
Replacement
Public Education
Data Sharing Committee Recommendation
Combine with 53 and 54 have one Water
Quality Parameter Monitoring violation type.
Leave as is.
Combine into one
type-
Combine into one
type-
Combine into one
type.
Combine into one
type.
Combine into one
type.
Combine into one
type.
Combine into one
type.
Combine into one
type.
Combine into one
type.
generic LCR TT violation
generic LCR TT violation
generic LCR TT violation
generic LCR TT violation
generic LCR TT violation
generic LCR TT violation
generic LCR TT violation
generic LCR TT violation
generic LCR TT violation
The following table shows the results of the consolidation discussed above. The original 15
violation types are reduced to 5.
15
-------
WSG 133A
Current
Violation Type
Codes
51
52
53, 54, & 55
56
57 through 65
Description
Initial Lead and Copper
Tap M/R
Follow-up or Routine
Lead/Copper Tap M/R
Initial, Follow-up, or
Routine WQP M/R
Initial, Follow-up, or
Routine Source Water
M/R
Lead and Copper Rule
TT Violation
Comments
No change.
No change.
Combination of violation types 53, 54, and 55.
No change.
Combination of violation types 57 through 65.
Pros
The rule is complex and some violations are more important than others.
Reporting fewer violation types would help to focus on the most significant violations.
Fewer violation types to report would presumably save State resources in some instances.
Fewer violation types could be more meaningful since several related requirements are not grouped
together as a single violation type (e.g., failure to conduct initial monitoring would mean just that
instead of perhaps failure to submit a sampling plan).
Training staff on less complicated reporting requirements would be easier; the more violation types,
the more complicated the training.
May lead to improved data quality since the reporting would be less complex and moire
understandable.
Cons
EPA has a responsibility to learn of violations from State primacy agencies and to assess the
appropriateness of State responses to all Violations. The agency tries to define the most significant
violations, which require formal enforcement responses due to continued noncompliance or due to a
large single event deviation from the requirement.. Even a less important violation like that described
above would become important if it continued long enough. Without every type of violation being
16
-------
WSG 133A
reported either by itself or consolidated with others, the agency may not become aware of some
significant situations and would not be meeting the requirements of the SDWA.
The reconciliation of historically reported violations according to the original guidance with this more
condensed format may not be possible or at a minimum may be confusing.
Some States may have to modify their data reporting systems if we change the existing structures.
By consolidating in this extreme manner, specificity is lost and it becomes more difficult to get a
picture of what problems the water systems are having. The addition of the major/minor flag as a
reporting requirement for these consolidated TT violation types could help distinguish between the
truly serious violations and the minor ones.
Alternative Option 4: Report more violation types
Although the current reporting requirements require more violation types under the LCR than under
any other rule (15), the rule is complex and could easily be broken into more types. To use a prior
example, the requirement to submit a site sampling plan could be reported as a specific violation type.
Pros
EPA has a responsibility to learn of violations from State primacy agencies and to assess the
appropriateness of State responses to all violations. Violation information could more completely be
assessed by the Agency if more violation types were reported.
Eliminates any redundancy or ambiguity in the way violations are reported since separate types are
identified for every possible violation.
Cons
Some States have expressed a need to report fewer violation codes. The existing
15 codes are more detailed than the reporting requirements for any other rule.
Adding more codes only makes this worse.
The existing number of violation codes is so large (15) that many queries pertaining to the LCR
violations will be difficult to write and complicated. Defining more violation codes would make the
problem worse.
States have problems with training staff on these requirements. The more violation types, the more
complicated the training
D. Cost of Including this Information
The recommended changes fall within the current format and reporting to SDWIS/FED. The
consolidation of violation codes would require minor changes to the SDWIS/FED edit/update
17
-------
WSG 133A
processing software. It is not expected that the recommended change would cause a significant
increase in reporting burden.
E. State and Regional Comments on Final Draft
The Final Draft (dated October 29, 1998) of this recommendation report was sent out to the
ASDWA membership and to the Regions for comment. Five states commented on the proposed
recommendations; Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Maryland and West Virginia. Three states, Texas,
Missouri, and West Virginia agree with the DSC recommended consolidation of violation reporting.
Maryland and Wisconsin both prefer Alternative Option 2 which is, different from the DSC
recommendation in that it does not consolidate violation types 59 and 60. Maryland's comment is:
"Maryland does not agree with combining violation types 59 and 60 since point-of-entry WQP testing
and distribution/tap WQP testing follow two different schedules. It would be easier for States to
track these violations separately, and will help avoid confusion."
DSC Response: As with several of the other situations where violation types were consolidated for
purposes of reporting to EPA, the States will need to track the individual violation types as per the
LCR. This recommendation is not suggesting that States necessarily change the way they are
currently tracking compliance with the LCR, but only in the way the information is forwarded to
EPA. In addition, changes being made through the technical rule fixes will make the tracking and
reporting of all water quality parameter violations more consistent with the DSC's recommended
option. The DSC therefore prefers the recommended option and is hopeful that the details behind the
actual reporting of these violations will be satisfactorily described in the revised reporting guidance
that will follow.
III. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
There are several programmatic and technical issues that were considered during the data sharing
decision making process and that influenced the final recommendation. The more significant issues
are summarized below.
A. Programmatic and Organizational Issues Associated With Implementation
One issue that influenced the recommendations made in this report was the need to track systems in
significant non-compliance. Most of the data reported under the LCR is compliance related and used
by EPA to track the compliance status and to prioritize and target enforcement/compliance
assurance activities.
The EPA initiatives to reduce the reporting burden on States and to reduce reporting frequency by
50% also played a role in the recommendations made in this report. This issue was reinforced by the
SDWIS ESC in their directive to the DSC to analyze the cost to the States of any new reporting
requirements. Although cost was considered in developing the recommendations in this report,
justification of the data need and benefits of reporting and the fact that violation reporting is required
under the SDWA was an equal, if not greater, determining factor. In addition, it was agreed that
18
-------
WSG 133A
improving the quality and meaningfulness of the data would increase the positive aspects of reporting
and decrease the negative aspects. Some of the cost associated with these recommended changes
can be thought of as offset by the improvements in data quality that will be realized.
B. Technical Issues
The changing of any reporting requirements cannot be made without considering several technical
issues. The following list contains some of the technical tasks that must be completed before any
new reporting requirement can become effective.
1. The SDWIS architecture must be able to accommodate the needed attributes.
2. OGWDW must reprogram the SDWIS edit/update programs to allow for the data to be entered
correctly into SDWIS/FED.
3. The State must collect and maintain the data (preferably in an information management system) in
a manner to ensure quality.
4. The State must reprogram their data conversion and transfer programs so that the data can be
submitted in the acceptable DTP format, or could use the FRDS Data Entry (FRDS_DE) program
and enter the data manually. This step will not be necessary for SDWIS/STATE States assuming
that SDWIS/STATE is modified to meet all of the LCR reporting requirements.
19
------- |