#«'osx
f Q\
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Protecting America's Waters
EPA Is Taking Steps to
Improve State Drinking
Water Program Reviews
and Public Water Systems
Compliance Data
Report No. 17-P-0326
July 18, 2017

-------
Report Contributors:	Kathlene Butler
Allison Dutton
Fred Light
Tim Roach
Luke Stolz
Abbreviations
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GAO	U.S. Government Accountability Office
OIG	Office of Inspector General
OW	Office of Water
PWS	Public Water System
SDWA	Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS	Safe Drinking Water Information System
Cover photo: Georgia State Laboratory preparation of drinking water sample bottles to be
sent to public water systems. (EPA OIG photo)
Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, DC 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
Learn more about our OIG Hotline.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions

-------
x^fcD ST/if.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	17-P-0326
I AA \ Hffirp of Insnprtnr ^pnpral	July 18,2017
•	u.o. ti ivii ui iiiitri iidi riuicuu
\ Office of Inspector General
I vRf 1
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this review to
evaluate how the U.S
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) ensures that
Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) primacy states those
states and territories granted
primary responsibility for
enforcement and
implementation of SDWA—
monitor and report drinking
water sampling results from
public water systems (PWSs).
We also sought to determine
how the EPA can improve its
oversight of state drinking
water sampling programs.
SDWA and its regulations
require PWSs to routinely
monitor and report drinking
water quality. If a system does
not monitor the quality of its
water, consumers and primacy
agencies cannot know whether
the water meets health-based
standards.
This report addresses the
following EPA goals or
cross-agency strategies:
•	Protecting America's
waters.
•	Launching a new era of
state, tribal, local, and
international partnerships.
EPA Is Taking Steps to Improve
State Drinking Water Program Reviews and
Public Water Systems Compliance Data
What We Found
The EPA primarily uses two oversight tools to
determine whether PWSs are monitoring and
reporting drinking water quality in accordance
with SDWA:
• Program reviews of state drinking water
programs, which may specifically include the
assessment of monitoring and reporting
issues.
The EPA is taking action
to improve oversight tools
used to determine
whether public water
systems are monitoring
and reporting drinking
water quality in
accordance with the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
• Compliance data updated by primacy states in the federal version of the
Safe Drinking Water Information System.
We identified limitations to both tools. The program reviews did not exhibit the
level of comprehensiveness and region-to-region consistency shown in previous
data verifications. Also, there is the risk that states did not provide reliable
information to the EPA data system on monitoring and reporting violations.
The EPA is currently taking action to address these limitations. Therefore, we
make no recommendations. The agency confirmed the factual accuracy of our
report and stated that the EPA remains committed to providing tools to enhance
the nation's drinking water program. This report is closed upon issuance.
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oia.
Listing of OIG reports.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
July 18,2017
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Is Taking Steps to Improve State Drinking Water Program Reviews and
Public Water Systems Compliance Data
Report No. 17-P-0326
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
Lawrence Starfield, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The project number for this evaluation was
OPE-FY16-0032. This report contains findings that describe the issues the OIG has identified; however,
based on the EPA's ongoing actions to address these issues, this report contains no recommendations for
further action. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final
EPA position.
Because this report contains no recommendations, you are not required to respond to this report.
However, if you submit a response, it will be posted on the OIG's public website, along with our
memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file
that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public;
if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with
corresponding justification.
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.

-------
EPA Is Taking Steps to Improve
State Drinking Water Program Reviews and
Public Water Systems Compliance Data
17-P-0326
Table of C
Purpose		1
Background		1
Responsible Offices		2
Scope and Methodology		2
Results of Evaluation		4
Conclusion		6
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation		6
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report	 7
B Distribution	 9

-------
Purpose
The purpose of this review was to evaluate how the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) ensures that Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) primacy
states monitor and report drinking water sampling results from public water
systems (PWSs), as well as to determine how the EPA can improve its oversight
of state drinking water sampling programs.
Background
SDWA and its regulations require PWSs to routinely monitor drinking water
quality and report the results to the state for evaluation.1 If a system does not
monitor the quality of its water, consumers cannot know whether the water
arriving at their taps meets health-based standards. For example, a lapse in
effective monitoring and reporting in Flint, Michigan, contributed to residents'
prolonged exposure to lead-contaminated drinking water.
A 2016 USA Today investigative
report found that some 4 million
Americans receive water from
small operators who skipped
required drinking water tests or
did not conduct the tests properly,
violating a cornerstone of federal
safe drinking water laws.3
In 2016, state drinking water agencies
reported monitoring and reporting
violations for about 19 percent of all PWSs
(29,157 out of 151,137 systems). Of the
29,157 PWSs with monitoring and
reporting violations, about 40 percent
(11,721 PWSs) violated at least one
monitoring and reporting requirement under
the Total Coliform Rule in 2016. Total
coliforms—a group of related bacteria—indicate the presence of other pathogens
in drinking water, and monitoring for total coliforms provides important
information about the adequacy of water treatment and integrity of the drinking
water distribution system. A lapse in monitoring for total coliforms could inhibit
identifying the risk of waterborne pathogens, such as bacteria and viruses, and
their associated illnesses.
States and territories largely serve as the drinking water program administrators,
where the EPA has granted them primary enforcement authority under SDWA.4
These states and territories are known as "primacy agencies." The EPA retains
1	Per the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, a PWS provides water for human consumption through
pipes or other constructed conveyances to at least 15 service connections or regularly serves an average of at least
25 people daily for at least 60 days a year.
2	The EPA's official timeframe for 2016 includes information submitted between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2016.
3	Ungar, Laura and Nichols, Mark, "4 million Americans could be drinking toxic water and would never know."
I XI Today, 13 December 2016.
4	Per SDWA, "primacy" is granted to states that adopt regulations at least as stringent as national requirements,
develop adequate procedures for enforcement (including conducting monitoring and inspections), adopt authority for
administrative penalties, and maintain records and make reports as the EPA may require.
17-P-0326
1

-------
overall responsibility for the national implementation of SDWA and oversees
state administration and enforcement.
States are required to enter monitoring and reporting violations into the Safe
Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) databases.5 The violations in
SDWIS represent the cases in which the EPA knows that PWSs did not collect
samples or did not report on time. EPA staff can monitor these systems, review
violations, and offer support to improve PWS performance. However, if states do
not consistently identify monitoring and reporting lapses or do not issue
monitoring and reporting violations, no lapses would be reported to the EPA via
SDWIS. In these cases, states and the EPA cannot use their existing data systems
to identify PWSs that require correction. This lack of information also masks risks
to human health.
State involvement varies for assisting PWSs with their monitoring and reporting
activities. Some state regulators maintain websites with sampling schedules, while
some use automated reminder phone calls to alert PWS staff that it is time to
collect a required monitoring sample. Other state regulators send drinking water
sampling bottles along with instructions to PWS staff to assist them with
collecting samples and returning them within the time permitted. In some states,
state staff or contractors collect water samples from PWSs.
The EPA engages in regular oversight of primacy agencies, both during annual
PWS supervision reviews and in-depth periodic program reviews. In these
program reviews, the EPA selects and reviews state files and identifies
discrepancies, including matters concerning compliance with regulatory
requirements, such as sampling schedules and quantities. Prior to 2013, the EPA
conducted program reviews in each state every 3 to 4 years using a contractor,
who evaluated the implementation of National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations. The EPA referred to these contractor-led reviews as data
verifications. According to EPA staff, these data verification reviews ended when
funding ceased, at which point EPA staff assumed the program review function.
Responsible Offices
The EPA's Office of Water (OW), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, and regional offices are responsible for the oversight of primacy
states' implementation of drinking water programs.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our review from September 2016 to May 2017. We conducted this
performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
5 Primacy states are required to provide to SDWIS timely, accurate and complete data on inventory, violations and
enforcement. The states may do this through the "SDWIS-State" software or through submission of files through the
State-EPA Exchange Network to "SDWIS-Fed," which the EPA uses to track violations.
17-P-0326
2

-------
standards. Those standards require that we obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
objectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our objectives.
We reviewed SDWA, various rules under the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, and EPA guidance on conducting program reviews. We sought
information through an Office of Inspector General (OIG) questionnaire sent to
all 10 EPA regions to determine their key oversight tools to monitor state drinking
water programs. We reviewed six state data verifications (Arkansas, Georgia,
Minnesota, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island) completed in 2012, as
that was the last year that the EPA had funds available for the contractor. All six
data verifications contained assessments of the states' implementation of the eight
rules with monitoring and reporting requirements (Table 1).
Table 1: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations included in the 2012 data
verifications
1.	Total Coliform Rule
2.	Phase IIA/ (including Nitrate) Rule
3.	Lead and Copper Rule
4.	Ground Water Rule
5.	Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
6.	Radionuclides Rule
7.	Surface Water Treatment Rules (including Interim and Long Term 1 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment)
8.	Public Notice Rule
Source: OIG analysis.
We obtained 12 program reviews conducted by EPA staff between 2012 and 2016
from the EPA regions we interviewed (Regions 3, 4, 5 and 6), a program review
we had access to from a prior evaluation (Kansas), and a program review from
Region 9 for national comparison purposes. We evaluated program reviews from
Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas. To evaluate the
comprehensiveness of the reviews, we compared whether the eight rules included
in the data verifications were also assessed in the program reviews.
We interviewed EPA OW and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
staff. Additionally, we interviewed drinking water staff in EPA Regions 3, 4, 5 and
6. We interviewed Georgia's drinking water program and state laboratory staff to
understand their policies and procedures. We also interviewed various non-
governmental organizations to gain their perspective on state drinking water
programs and PWSs.
17-P-0326
3

-------
Results of Evaluation
The EPA primarily uses two oversight tools to determine whether PWSs are
monitoring and reporting drinking water quality in accordance with SDWA:
•	Program reviews of the state drinking water programs. These reviews may
specifically include the assessment of monitoring and reporting issues.
•	Compliance data updated by primacy states in SDWIS-Fed.
We identified limitations to both tools. The program reviews did not exhibit the
level of comprehensiveness and region-to-region consistency shown in previous
data verifications. Also, there is the risk that states did not provide reliable
information to the EPA data system on monitoring and reporting violations.
Without reliable, consistent information about drinking water monitoring and
reporting violations, the EPA may not have the information it needs to manage a
nationally consistent drinking water oversight program. During our evaluation,
the EPA identified steps underway to improve the limitations we observed for
both oversight tools.
EPA Is Working to Improve Program Reviews
The EPA engages in regular oversight of primacy agencies, both during annual
PWS supervision reviews and in-depth program reviews. Our review showed that
the program reviews lacked the national comprehensiveness once provided by
data verifications.
We found that program reviews vary by region. We reviewed 12 program reviews
and found that most of the reviews did not cover all of the eight rules with
monitoring and reporting requirements. We found that seven of the 12 program
reviews included fewer than half of the rules (Alabama, California, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland and North Carolina). For example, Region 3
evaluated only one drinking water rule—the Lead and Copper Rule—during its
review of Maryland's program. Two program reviews for Ohio and South
Carolina addressed at least half—but not all—of the eight rules. Only Regions 6
and 7 evaluated all eight rules during their program reviews of Kansas, Louisiana
and Texas.
To address the lack of consistency and comprehensiveness of program reviews,
OW is taking a number of steps. According to EPA staff, since OW lost funding
for data verifications, program reviews are conducted with limited regional
resources and expertise. In 2013, OW established a national workgroup that
developed and disseminated guidance for conducting program reviews to regional
staff. In 2015, OW developed a document outlining "quickly accessible rule
references" for regional staff to use during on-site reviews. OW updated this
document in 2016. Since 2014, OW has held at least 13 training sessions or
17-P-0326
4

-------
lessons-learned meetings on program review protocol, and OW staff stated they
plan to continue with a quarterly national training plan for regional personnel.
EPA Is Working to Improve the Accuracy and Reliability of Data
Primacy states are required to report drinking water data periodically. The data are
maintained in SDWIS-Fed. OW's fiscal year 2016-2017 National Water Program
Guidance describes how OW will work with states, territories and tribal
governments to assure high quality and accessible water information:
Accurate, complete, and transparent system performance data is
essential in understanding how the nation's PWSs are faring in
meeting the expectation of delivering high quality safe drinking
water to consumers.6
Based on conversations with EPA regional and headquarters staff, there is a risk
that some primacy states are not entering monitoring and reporting violations data
into SDWIS-Fed as required. A 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report7 supports this. The GAO report found that SDWIS data from states
did not reliably reflect the frequency of monitoring violations at community water
systems.8 In its fiscal year 2016 Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
Assurance Letter, OW assessed the risk associated with states not having enough
resources to maintain reporting requirements and determined that it posed a low-
level risk to information in SDWIS-Fed.
The EPA is taking steps to improve data quality. The EPA has begun updating
SDWIS through its development of SDWIS Prime, which OW senior leaders say
will allow electronic verification of data and incorporate data quality functions.
The EPA anticipates launching SDWIS Prime in 2018.
In addition, OW released the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal in
September 2016. OW managers said the portal will enable PWSs and laboratories
to report drinking water data electronically to primacy agencies. The first state to
use the portal was Utah, in March 2017, and EPA staff anticipate that five
additional states will begin using the portal by the end of 2017. They anticipate
this system will lead to fewer reporting errors, improved data quality, and reduced
time needed to report state data to the EPA.
OW personnel said that primacy agencies' adoption of both the Compliance
Monitoring Data Portal and SDWIS Prime will be voluntary. The EPA anticipates
6	EPA OW, FY 2016-2017 National Water Program Guidance, EPA 420-R-15-008. April 2015.
7	GAO, Drinking Water: Unreliable State Data Limit EPA 's Ability to Target Enforcement Priorities and
Communicate Water Systems' Performance, GAO-11-381. June 2011.
8	The GAO report defined monitoring violations to include a variety of situations, ranging from instances in which a
water system did not do required monitoring, did not report the results to the state on time, or did not issue public
notices of a health-based violation in a timely fashion.
17-P-0326
5

-------
that both new data systems will improve the accuracy and reliability of drinking
water data reported to the EPA. Because OW and states have not fully
implemented these two tools, the OIG could not review the adequacy of their
oversight capabilities.
Conclusion
Our review identified limitations to the EPA's oversight tools that impede the
agency's ability to conduct consistent oversight of the national drinking water
program and reduce the reliability of EPA monitoring and reporting data.
However, the EPA is engaged in ongoing activities to address these limitations.
Although we cannot yet determine the outcomes for these ongoing agency
actions, based on the agency's engagement to correct the issues we identified,
we make no recommendations.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
On June 23, 2017, OW provided its response to our draft report. OW confirmed
the factual accuracy of our report and stated that it remains committed to
providing tools to enhance the nation's drinking water program. Appendix A
contains OW's response to our draft report.
17-P-0326
6

-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report
(Received June 23, 2017)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to the Office of Inspector General Draft Project No. OPE-FY16-0032,
"EPA is Taking Steps to Improve Consistency of State Drinking Water Program
Reviews and Public Water System' Compliance Data," dated May 24, 2017
FROM: Michael H. Shapiro /s/
Acting Assistant Administrator
TO:	Carolyn Copper
Assistant Inspector General
Office of Program Evaluation
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject audit report. The Environmental Protection
Agency has worked closely with the EPA's Office of Inspector General to provide detailed
information regarding the implementation of the drinking water program via a series of
conference calls, and the Agency provided several technical comments and clarifications on
previous draft versions of the report. The IG has taken into consideration our recommendations
and these are reflected in the most recent draft version of the report the IG shared with the EPA.
AGENCY'S OVERALL POSITION
The EPA works collaboratively with primacy agencies to provide oversight and assistance in the
implementation of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Primacy Agencies are
facing resource and technical challenges associated with implementing regulations that address
over 90 contaminants for approximately 153,000 public water systems nationwide. In addition,
the water sector is facing increasing challenges associated with unregulated contaminants, aging
infrastructure, and extreme weather events, as well as flat or diminishing resources. The EPA
continues to provide important support for the implementation of primacy agency drinking water
programs through both the Public Water System Supervision program, the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund set-asides and via our training, technical assistance and oversight efforts. The
EPA is committed to continuing to provide tools that will modernize management of drinking
water data, such as the recent release of the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal to support
electronic reporting, and the updated Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS Prime)
in 2018. The EPA will also continue to enhance our oversight tools such as primacy program file
reviews, to ensure we are able to identify the state's training and technical assistance needs.
17-P-0326
7

-------
AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
The EPA welcomes the IG's recommendations on potential improvements to this program in an
effort to enhance the nation's drinking water program, and we confirm the factual accuracy of all
aspects of the draft report.
cc: Peter Grevatt
Anita M. Thompkins
Maria A. Lopez Carbo
17-P-0326
8

-------
Appendix B
Distribution
The Administrator
Chief of Staff
Assistant Administrator for Water
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Regional Administrator, Region 3
Regional Administrator, Region 4
Regional Administrator, Region 5
Regional Administrator, Region 6
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 3
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 4
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Water
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-Up Coordinators, Regions 1-10
17-P-0326
9

-------