£
»e
-------
Report Contributors: Kathlene Butler
Kathryn Hess
Tiffine Johnson-Davis
Gerry Snyder
Danielle Tesch
Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OIG Office of Inspector General
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
Cover Images: In the foreground, clean and safe water supplied by a public water system
(EPA OIG photo). In the background, part of an EPA public notice template
for a situation where E. coli bacteria were found in a water supply.
Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, D.C. 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, D.C. 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions
-------
x-^tD SW
*. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 19-P-0318
& \ Dffirp nf ln«nprtnr ttpnpral September 25,2019
. u.o. CMViiuMiimiiidi nuiei/U
\ Office of Inspector General
% 5322 J
At a Glance
Why We Did This Project
The Office of Inspector
General (OIG) for the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) examined
whether the EPA adequately
ensures that public drinking
water systems notify their
consumers as required by
public notice regulations
authorized under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, such as
when the drinking water poses
a risk to public health (e.g.,
when there are unsafe levels of
contamination).
The EPA approved most
states, territories and the
Navajo Nation to operate their
own drinking water programs.
This is known as primacy. EPA
regions directly implement
drinking water programs in the
remainder of Indian country,
the District of Columbia and
Wyoming; in this report we call
this primacy, as well. The EPA
oversees the primacy agencies.
This report addresses the
following:
• Ensuring clean and safe
water.
• Compliance with the law.
Address inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or
OIG WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov.
List of OIG reports.
EPA Must Improve Oversight of Notice to the Public on
Drinking Water Risks to Better Protect Human Health
Without reliable
information about
drinking water,
consumers cannot
make informed health
decisions and the EPA
cannot provide
effective oversight.
What We Found
Primacy agencies have the responsibility to oversee
whether public water systems meet federal
requirements, including notifying consumers of certain
situations regarding their drinking water. We found
that some primacy agencies do not consistently fulfill
their responsibility to enforce drinking water public
notice requirements. Specifically, some primacy
agencies do not consistently record violations, nor do
they track the need for and issuance of public notices.
In addition, the EPA's protocol for assessing primacy agency oversight does not
fully cover all public notice requirements. As a result, not all primacy agencies
know whether public water systems under their supervision appropriately notify
consumers about drinking water problems, and the EPA and primacy agencies
do not hold all public water systems to the same compliance standards.
The EPA does not have complete and nationally consistent information about
public water systems' compliance with public notice requirements because
primacy agencies do not use consistent methods to identify problems with public
notice or record violations in the national drinking water database. As a result, the
EPA cannot fully monitor compliance and oversee the implementation of this
important part of the drinking water program.
Additionally, the EPA's public notice guidance documents to primacy agencies
and public water systems are inconsistent with regulations and out of date.
Consequently, primacy agencies lack accurate guidance on their oversight
responsibilities. Public water systems also lack guidance about current, relevant
tools to provide effective public notices and may miss opportunities to efficiently
inform consumers about drinking water problems.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We made nine recommendations, including that the EPA require primacy
agencies to comply with oversight requirements related to public notice and
to follow data reporting requirements. We also recommended that the agency
update public notice guidance, define the acceptable methods and conditions
under which notices can be delivered electronically, and improve public notice
violation information in the national drinking water database. The EPA provided
acceptable corrective actions and estimated completion dates for six
recommendations. Three recommendations are unresolved, with resolution
efforts in progress, because the action official for these recommendations, the
Deputy Administrator, did not respond to our draft report.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
September 25, 2019
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Must Improve Oversight of Notice to the Public on Drinking Water Risks
to Better Protect Human Health
Report No. 19-P-0318
FROM: Charles J. Sheehan, Deputy Inspector General
TO: Doug Benevento, Associate Deputy Administrator
David P. Ross, Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The project number for this audit was OPE-FY17-0020.
This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the
OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the
final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in
accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
Those responsible for this report are the EPA's Deputy Administrator, the Assistant Administrator for
the Office of Water and the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, acceptable corrective actions and milestone dates were provided
in response to Recommendations 3-7 and 9 in this report. These recommendations are considered
resolved and no final response is required. However, if you submit a response, it will be posted on the
OIG's 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.
Action Required
^£DSX
* A \
1®|
VPR0^°
The three recommendations in this report issued to the Deputy Administrator—Recommendations 1, 2
and 8—are unresolved. In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, the resolution process begins
-------
immediately with the issuance of this report. We are requesting a meeting within 30 days between the
Associate Deputy Administrator and the OIG's Assistant Inspector General for Audit and Evaluation. If
resolution is still not reached, the Associate Deputy Administrator is required to complete and submit a
dispute resolution request to the Chief Financial Officer.
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.
-------
EPA Must Improve Oversight of Notice
to the Public on Drinking Water Risks
to Better Protect Human Health
19-P-0318
Table of C
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Responsible Offices 7
Scope and Methodology 7
2 EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Public Notice Requirements 9
Primacy Agencies Do Not Always Enforce Public Notice
Regulations for Drinking Water Violations 9
Existing National Drinking Water Database Makes Tracking
Public Notice Compliance Difficult 12
EPA File Review Protocol Does Not Fully Address Public Notice 12
Deficiencies in EPA Guidance Hinder Effective
Public Notice Practices 13
Conclusion 18
Recommendations 19
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation 20
3 EPA Needs to Improve Public Notice Data in the
National Drinking Water Database 21
Regulations Establish Clear Requirements for Primacy Agencies
to Report Public Notice Violations 21
Inconsistent Data Provide a Misleading National Summary of
Adherence to Public Notice Requirements 21
Open Violations in SDWIS Obscure National Picture of
Compliance with Public Notice Requirements 22
Expected Upgrade to SDWIS Prime Does Not Include Actions
to Improve Public Notice Data 25
Conclusion 25
Recommendations 25
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation 26
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 27
- continued -
-------
EPA Must Improve Oversight of Notice
to the Public on Drinking Water Risks
to Better Protect Human Health
19-P-0318
Appendices
A Timeline of Public Notice-Related Regulations and Guidance
Following the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act 28
B Prior EPA OIG Reports 29
C Agency's Supplemental Response to Draft Report and OIG Response 30
D Agency's Initial Response to Draft Report and OIG Response 34
E Distribution 41
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) examined whether the EPA adequately ensures that public
drinking water systems notify the public as required by public notice regulations
authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), such as when water
systems identify unsafe levels of contamination.
Background
EPA data show that public water systems fail to issue notices to the public that
meet all requirements nearly 6,000 times per year on average.1 Public notice
serves as a vital step in protecting consumers by alerting them when drinking
water is not safe or when other problems occur with the management of their
drinking water. Congress enacted the SDWA in 1974 to protect drinking water
supplies and public health and included requirements to notify consumers of the
quality of their drinking water. These requirements apply to nearly 147,000 public
water systems in the United States. The nearly 50,000 community water
systems—a subset of public water systems—supply drinking water to
approximately 308 million consumers year-round.2
Drinking Water Program Authority
Under the SDWA, the EPA approved 49 states, five territories and the Navajo
Nation to each be a primary implementation authority for the federal drinking
water program, also known as primacy. With this approval came the
responsibility to oversee whether public water systems meet the federal
requirements to notify consumers of certain situations regarding their drinking
water. In this report, the term primacy agency includes any state, territory or tribe
that operates its own drinking water program. Also in this report, the term
primacy agency includes the EPA regions that directly implement the drinking
water program in Wyoming (Region 8); the District of Columbia (Region 3); and
Indian country, except the Navajo Nation (all regions). In these areas, the EPA
1 EPA data for 2001 through 2017 show that there were 101,361 public notice violations over this 17-year period for
water systems active as of January 30, 2018, when the OIG retrieved the data from the Safe Drinking Water
Information System.
2 There were nearlyl47,000 public water systems in the United States at the end of 2017. Nearly 50,000 public water
systems (34 percent) are considered community water systems that supply drinking water to the same population
year-round, such as in residential areas and schools. The other 97,000 public water systems covered by the SDWA
include transient and non-transient, non-community water systems. These systems, which are located in places such
as resorts and campgrounds, do not supply drinking water to the same populations year-round.
19-P-0318
1
-------
has the responsibilities of a primacy agency, as well as overall oversight and
enforcement responsibilities.
Public Notice Requirements
In the 1996 amendments to the SDWA, Congress reaffirmed its commitment to
public notice by stating that "consumers served by public water systems should be
provided with ... prompt notification of any violation of drinking water
regulations."3 The EPA issued new public notice regulations in 2000 to
implement the requirements of the 1996 amendments.4 The public notice
regulations mandate that public water systems notify their consumers when the
systems violate national primary drinking water regulations or identify situations
posing a risk to the public.
Since issuing the public notice regulations in 2000, the EPA has issued other
SDWA regulations, including additional public notice requirements. For example,
in 2013, the EPA issued the Revised Total Coliform Rule, a major drinking water
regulation that includes public notice requirements.5 The EPA also issued and
updated guidance documents specifically related to public notice. Appendix A
features a timeline of public notice-related developments.
The public notice regulations divide drinking water violations and other situations
requiring public notice into three tiers with specific requirements, delivery time
frames and delivery methods. Some of the attributes of the three tiers of public
notice are described below and in Table 1:
• Tier 1 notices inform consumers about violations and situations with
significant potential to have serious adverse human health effects due to
short-term exposure. Public water systems must notify the primacy agency
within 24 hours when a violation or situation requiring Tier 1 notice
occurs. EPA regulations require public water systems to issue Tier 1
notices to consumers when consumers need to take immediate action to
protect their health. Among other actions, Tier 1 notices advise consumers
not to drink the water, to boil water before using, or not to use the water,
depending on the threat posed by the situation. For example, drinking
water systems must issue Tier 1 notices when the level of nitrate exceeds
the maximum contaminant level, which is the maximum level allowed in
drinking water.
• Tier 2 notices inform consumers about all other violations and situations
with potential to have serious adverse health effects on human health
because of long-term exposure. EPA regulations treat Tier 2 violations and
situations as less urgent than Tier 1 violations and situations because of
3 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, Pub. L. 104-182, Sec. 3(10) (August 6, 1996).
4 40 CFR § 141 Subpart Q; 65 Fed. Reg. 26035 (May 4, 2000).
5 78 Fed. Reg. 10269 (February 13, 2013); minor corrections issued in 79 Fed. Reg. 10665 (February 26, 2014).
19-P-0318
2
-------
reduced immediate risk to consumers. Tier 2 notices provide consumers
with information about the situation and advise consumers to consult their
doctor if they have specific health concerns. For example, public water
systems must issue Tier 2 notices when monitoring shows that a
contaminant, such as the volatile organic compound trichloroethylene,
exceeds the maximum contaminant level. Long-term consumption of this
water could harm consumers.
• Tier 3 notices inform consumers about other violations and situations,
including monitoring violations. Tier 3 notices provide consumers with
information about the violation or situation. For example, public water
systems must issue Tier 3 notices when they do not collect the required
samples for volatile organic compounds. Tier 3 notices provide consumers
information about the management of their public water systems and other
situations. For example, Tier 3 notices also are used to notify consumers
of the availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results.
In addition, primacy agencies can require that public water systems issue public
notice for situations not specified in federal regulations.
Table 1: Public notice delivery requirements for public water systems
Notice tier
Time frame
for delivery
Approved delivery methods
Tier 1
Immediate
human health
risk
Within 24 hours
All water systems
One or more of the following:
1. Appropriate broadcast media (such as radio and television);
2. Posting of the notice in conspicuous locations throughout the area
served by the water system;
3. Hand delivery of the notice to persons served by the water system; or
4. Another delivery method approved in writing by the primacy agency.
Tier 2
Potential human
health risk
AND
Tier 3
Other national
primary drinking
water regulation
violations and
situations
As soon as
practical, but
no later than
30 days
No later than
1 year
Community water systems
Unless directed otherwise by the primacy agency in writing, community
water systems must provide notice by:
1. Mail or other direct delivery to each customer receiving a bill and to
other service connections to which water is delivered by the public
water system; and
2. Any other method reasonably calculated to reach other persons
regularly served by the system, if they would not normally be reached
by the first method.
Non-community water systems
Unless directed otherwise by the primacy agency in writing, non-community
water systems must provide notice by:
1. Posting the notice in conspicuous locations throughout the distribution
system frequented by persons served by the system, or by mail or
direct delivery to each customer and service connection; and
2. Any other method reasonably calculated to reach other persons
served by the system, if they would not normally be reached by the
first method.
Source: OIG summary of 40 CFR §§ 141.201-204.
19-P-0318
3
-------
Figure 1: Situations resulting
in public notice violations
All criteria must be met:
1.) Notice delivered on time
2.) Notice included all required
elements
3.) Notice certified with
primacy agency
4.) Notice provided to persons
served by the water system
No public notice violation
Public notice violation
Source: OIG graphic of EPA information.
As shown in Table 1, public water systems are encouraged to
use a mix of delivery methods to reach all those served. By
notifying the public about drinking water violations and other
situations posing a risk to public health, public water systems
educate the public; protect public health; build trust with
consumers; and establish an ongoing, positive relationship
with the community.
A public water system can violate public notice regulations in
several ways, including if the public water system:
1. Fails to issue required notice (Figure 1).
2. Uses a delivery method that is not approved.
3. Does not issue the required notice within the
designated time frame for delivery (outlined
previously in Table 1).
4. Does not include all required elements in the notice
(Table 2).
5. Does not provide the primacy agency within 10 days
the notice and a statement certifying that all public
notice requirements have been met.
According to EPA guidance, a public notice violation remains open until the
public water system fulfills its public notice responsibilities, including notifying
its consumers about the issue and providing proof to the primacy agency of its
issuance of the public notice.
Table 2: Required elements of a public notice
1
A description of the violation or situation.
6
Actions consumers should take, including when
they should seek medical help, if known.
2
When the violation or situation occurred.
7
What the public water system is doing to correct
the violation or situation.
3
Any potential adverse health effects from the
violation or situation, using standard language
provided in regulations.
8
When the public water system expects to return
to compliance or resolve the situation.
4
The population at risk, including
subpopulations that are particularly vulnerable
if exposed to the contaminant in their drinking
water.
9
Name, address and telephone number of the
public water system representative serving as a
source for additional information concerning the
notice.
5
Whether alternate water supplies should be
used.
10
A statement encouraging notice recipients to
distribute the notice to others.
Source: 40 CFR § 141.205.
19-P-0318
-------
As shown in Table 2, public notice regulations require that public notices include,
among other elements, information regarding what the public water system is
doing to correct the violation or situation and when the system expects the
violation or situation to be corrected. Regulations also require repeated notices if
the violation or situation persists. Regulations do not require that public water
systems notify consumers when they have resolved the violation or situation that
prompted public notice. However, the EPA encourages systems to issue a
follow-up notice, particularly for Tier 1 violations or situations. Individual
primacy agencies may require these follow-up notices.
Oversight and Enforcement Responsibilities
The EPA's water and enforcement program offices and the primacy agencies have
specific oversight and enforcement responsibilities related to the drinking water
program, with several responsibilities specific to public notice. The EPA's and
primacy agencies' oversight and enforcement responsibilities are designed to
ensure that public water systems follow drinking water regulations; deliver safe
water; and notify their consumers when required, including when the drinking
water is unsafe. Figure 2 shows the relationships and responsibilities among the
EPA, the primacy agencies, the public water systems and the public they serve.
(Directional arrows show how the different entities interact with each other.)
Where an EPA region directly implements the drinking water program, the EPA
has overall responsibilities for oversight and enforcement and the responsibilities
of a primacy agency. Where an EPA region directly implements the drinking
program on tribal lands, the EPA must use compliance and technical assistance to
help tribal public water systems achieve compliance before turning to
enforcement actions.6
EPA water program offices oversee primacy agencies to verify that their drinking
water programs comply with the SDWA. The SDWA requires that the EPA act
when neither a public water system nor the primacy agency has addressed a
problem or notified consumers of the problem within the system.7 The SDWA
also requires that the EPA provide technical assistance to states and public water
systems to help bring a system back into compliance.8
6 EPA Memorandum. Transmittal of Final Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian
Policy, January 17, 2001, from Steve A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, to the Regional Administrators.
7 SDWA § 1414(a)(1)(B).
8 SDWA § 1414(a)(l)(A)(ii).
19-P-0318
5
-------
Figure 2: Drinking water program relationships and responsibilities
I7>
EPA
Water and
Enforcement
Program Offices
Primacy
Agency
Public
Water
System
Public
Consumer
General drinking water
responsibilities
Oversees and sets priorities for
national drinking water program.
Oversees implementation of
drinking water programs in
primacy agencies.
Intervenes at public water
systems when primacy agencies
do not.
Develops guidance for primacy
agencies and public water
systems on complying with
drinking water regulations.
Manages national drinking water
database.
Implements drinking water
program.
Issues notices of violations when
public water systems do not
meet established drinking water
regulations.
Reports violation and
enforcement data to the EPA's
national drinking water
database.
Follows federal and state drinking
water regulations.
Provides safe drinking water to
consumers.
Reports monitoring data to
primacy agency.
Specific public notice
responsibilities
Develops and issues guidance to primacy
agencies and public water systems on
complying with public notice requirements.
Tracks public water system compliance with
public notice requirements and reviews
adequacy of state implementation,
compliance monitoring and enforcement of
requirements.
Takes enforcement actions when neither a
public water system nor the primacy
agency has addressed a problem within the
system or notified consumers of the
problem.
Reviews primacy agency records.
Adopts primacy provisions specific to public
notice requirements.
Tracks whether public water systems issue
required public notices to their consumers.
Records violations when public water
systems do not meet established
requirements to issue public notices.
Takes enforcement action if public water
systems do not return to compliance.
Reports public notice violations and related
enforcement actions to the EPA's national
drinking water database.
Provides public notices on behalf of public
water systems, when needed (dashed line).
Notifies consumers when required,
including when drinking water is unsafe.
After notifying consumers, certifies to the
primacy agency that all public notice
requirements have been met.
Consumes drinking water
supplied by the public water
system.
Accesses government
information about the public
water system.
Receives public notices when water does
not meet federal or state drinking water
requirements.
TC
Source: OIG graphic from EPA information.
19-P-0318
6
-------
Among other requirements, primacy agencies must implement enforcement
programs.9 They must have authority to require public water systems to give
public notice.10 They also must report quarterly violation and enforcement
information to the EPA.11
Responsible Offices
Multiple EPA offices are responsible for the implementation and enforcement of
drinking water regulations, including those pertaining to public notice:
• Within the Office of the Administrator, the Deputy Administrator
supervises the Regional Administrators. The EPA has delegated many
SDWA responsibilities to the Regional Administrators, including
determining whether a state has primary enforcement responsibility for
public water systems, issuing public water system supervision grants,
commencing civil judicial actions, and issuing administrative orders
requiring compliance.
• Within the Office of Water, the Drinking Water Protection Division of the
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is responsible for
implementing the SDWA, in collaboration with EPA regions, primacy
agencies, tribes and water sector stakeholders, to ensure that Americans
have safe drinking water. It develops and provides guidance to EPA
regions, primacy agencies and public water systems on how to fulfill
public notice responsibilities and requirements. The division also
maintains the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), which
involves overseeing, and in some cases participating in, periodic reviews
of primacy agency records.
• Within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, the Water
Enforcement Division of the Office of Civil Enforcement, and the
Monitoring Assistance and Media Programs Division of the Office of
Compliance, are responsible for drinking water enforcement actions and
compliance assistance. These offices also work with the Office of Water to
improve the accuracy of compliance information in the SDWIS.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our work from September 2017 to May 2019. We conducted this
performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
9 40 CFR § 142.10(b).
10 40 CFR § 142.10(b)(6)(v).
11 40 CFR § 142.15.
19-P-0318
7
-------
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained
provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
We reviewed applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures and guidance. We
analyzed public notice violation data for 2001 through 2017, retrieved by the OIG
from the EPA's drinking water database—the SDWIS—on January 30, 2018. We
analyzed program documents, interviewed drinking water program and
enforcement staff at EPA headquarters, and surveyed and interviewed the 10 EPA
regional drinking water and enforcement programs for information about public
notice.
We interviewed drinking water program staff in two states—Colorado and
Pennsylvania—and gathered information from four public water systems.
Additionally, we interviewed six nongovernmental organizations about public
notice: the American Water Works Association, the Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, the National Rural
Water Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
We identified and reviewed two prior EPA OIG reports relevant to this audit
(Appendix B).
19-P-0318
8
-------
Chapter 2
EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of
Public Notice Requirements
The EPA needs to improve its oversight of public notice regulatory requirements.
This need arises due to several factors in the EPA's oversight processes:
• Primacy agencies do not consistently enforce public notice regulations for
drinking water violations, which leads to the EPA's inability to enforce
public notice requirements.
• The EPA's national drinking water database lacks tools for tracking public
notice compliance, which limits its use.
• The EPA's protocol for reviewing primacy agency oversight does not
cover all key public notice requirements, which limits both information
and focus on public notice at primacy agencies.
• The EPA's guidance documents have deficiencies so that public water
systems and primacy agencies do not have needed information on how to
comply with requirements.
As a result, the EPA does not know whether all primacy agencies fulfill their
oversight responsibilities, and not all primacy agencies know whether public
water systems under their supervision meet requirements for notifying consumers
about drinking water problems.
Primacy Agencies Do Not Always Enforce Public Notice Regulations
for Drinking Water Violations
Not all primacy agencies consistently enforced public notice requirements. In
addition, some primacy agencies did not track Tier 3 notices. If primacy agencies
do not track public notice issuance, they cannot identify when there is a violation
of public notice regulations. If primacy agencies do not record violations, not all
public water systems are being held to the same public notice standards. If public
water systems do not issue public notices properly, consumers and regulators do
not know whether their drinking water complies with health-based standards.
Even Tier 3 notices, which typically do not directly address human health risks,
provide important information to consumers about public water system
management and performance.
19-P-0318
9
-------
Some Primacy Agencies Do Not Record Public Notice Violations
EPA Region 8 and at least four states do not record public notice violations when
public water systems do not provide required public notices. Region 8 directly
implements the drinking water programs in Wyoming and 27 tribes. Seven EPA
regions record public notice violations for all tiers of public notices; two regions
do not track and therefore do not record violations for Tier 3 public notices, as
detailed in the section below.
When EPA Region 8 issues orders to compel public water systems to return to
compliance with public health-related regulations, the region includes public
notice requirements as part of the order. However, contrary to public notice
regulations for state primacy agencies,12 the region does not record public notice
violations in the national drinking water database.
By not recording public notice violations,
EPA Region 8 and at least four states do not
meet the requirement that primacy agencies
maintain a comprehensive enforcement
program. Regional drinking water staff told
us that when resources are limited, primacy
agencies choose to focus on drinking water
regulations that they assume directly impact
human health, as opposed to public notice
regulations. Region 8 personnel told us that
for 20 years the region has not allocated resources for a public notice rule
manager. Over that time, the EPA's Office of Water allowed the region to operate
its drinking water program in a manner inconsistent with the EPA's regulations
and guidance.
Because of inconsistent oversight practices, the EPA did not hold all public water
systems to nationally consistent compliance standards for public notice.
Some Primacy Agencies Do Not Enforce Tier 3 Public Notice
Requirements
Primacy agencies varied in their oversight and enforcement of Tier 3 public notice
requirements. In addition, not all water systems provided Tier 3 public notices in
compliance with all regulatory requirements. Regulations allow public water
systems up to 1 year from an event triggering a Tier 3 notice to issue the notice.
Tier 3 notices provide important information to consumers about public water
system management and performance.
Promising Public Notice Practice:
Swift Consultation Between State and
Public Water System
Pennsylvania requires public water systems to
consult with the state within 1 hour of learning of
a situation that will require Tier 1 public notice;
federal regulations call for consultation within
24 hours. This early coordination between state
and local officials improves communication to
consumers on actions they need to take.
12 40 CFR § 142.15(a).
19-P-0318
10
-------
Some Primacy Agencies Do Not Track Tier 3 Public Notices
Our review found that at least 11 primacy agencies (EPA Regions 9 and
10 and at least nine states) that track Tiers 1 and 2 public notices do not
track Tier 3 public notices. If primacy agencies do not track Tier 3 public
notices, they cannot issue notices of violation for failure to provide Tier 3
public notices. Public water systems inform consumers through Tier 3
notices when they fail to conduct required monitoring; the SDWA
expressly mandates that public water systems provide notice for failure to
monitor.13 If a public water system has not conducted required monitoring,
it cannot show whether drinking water meets the standards designed to
minimize public health risks.
Because they do not track Tier 3 public notices, these primacy agencies
lack information on whether public water systems fulfilled their Tier 3
notice responsibilities. Without proper oversight, primacy agencies are
unable to record violations for not issuing public notices, compel
compliance, and hold all public water systems accountable for complying
with all public notice requirements.
Some Primacy Agencies Grant Additional Time for Tier 3
Public Notices
The EPA allows community water systems to use required annual
consumer confidence reports to deliver Tier 3 notices if the requirement to
deliver Tier 3 notices within 1 year is met. At least nine primacy agencies
(EPA Regions 6 and 9 and at least seven states) allow public water
systems to include all Tier 3 notices issued during the year in the
corresponding annual consumer confidence or other report.
However, this practice does not currently comply with the SDWA14
because public water systems employing this practice may issue consumer
confidence reports up through July 1 of the following year, which may be
beyond the 1-year time frame required for Tier 3 violations. For example,
a consumer would not be notified of a Tier 3 violation that occurred in
January until receiving the annual report 18 months later.
In 2018, Congress amended the SDWA to require community water
systems serving 10,000 or more persons to provide their consumer
confidence reports twice a year.15 When this change is implemented in
2020, delivery of all Tier 3 notices with the twice-a-year reports will allow
these systems to meet the 1-year delivery time frame. For smaller systems,
13 SDWA § 1414(c)(l)(A)(ii).
14 SDWA § 1414 (c)(2)(E)(i).
15 America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 § 2008 (P.L. 115-270).
19-P-0318
11
-------
the SDWA would need to be amended if the practice of delivering all
Tier 3 notices through an annual report is to continue.
Existing National Drinking Water Database Makes Tracking
Public Notice Compliance Difficult
Primacy agencies told us that the current SDWIS database is not user friendly and
lacks tools to assist primacy agencies with tracking compliance with public notice
requirements. As a result, not all primacy agencies that track public notices use
the SDWIS. For example, Pennsylvania uses its own data management system,
which automatically tracks compliance and notifies staff of violations. In addition,
none of the eight EPA regions that track public notices use the SDWIS for that
purpose. Instead, they use different methods to track the public notices, such as
spreadsheets, handwritten notes, electronic tracking systems or other alternatives.
These regions then upload violations data to the SDWIS.
The EPA told us it plans to replace the SDWIS in 2020 with "SDWIS Prime,"
which is expected to include improved public notice tracking tools. The Office of
Water anticipates that SDWIS Prime will help primacy agencies manage Tier 3
public notice violations through an automated procedure that will identify
potential violations when the triggering conditions exist. This could improve
reporting of Tier 3 public notice violations to the EPA. However, because the
EPA has not yet released SDWIS Prime, we could not evaluate whether SDWIS
Prime will improve tracking of public notice compliance, recording of violations,
and thus oversight.
EPA File Review Protocol Does Not Fully Address Public Notice
The EPA's protocol for reviewing primacy agency drinking water program files
does not include procedures for either reviewing Tier 3 public notices or citing
primacy agencies for failure to fulfill their regulatory requirement to retain public
notice records.16 Moreover, the additional document that the EPA provides to
reviewers summarizing the various drinking water rules does not summarize
public notice requirements.
The EPA conducts these reviews to verify the reliability of data in the SDWIS and
to identify opportunities for improving primacy agency drinking water programs.
By not including review of Tier 3 public notices, not citing agencies for failing to
retain required public notice records, and not providing a summary of public
notice requirements, the EPA diminishes the importance of public notice and
allows the inconsistencies that we identified in the oversight of public notice
requirements to continue.
16 40 CFR § 142.14(f).
19-P-0318
12
-------
We recognize that including reviews of Tier 3 public notices might provide
logistical challenges for those conducting file reviews because public water
systems have up to a year to issue required Tier 3 public notices. The EPA
suggested, and we agreed, that an acceptable alternative would be to include an
analysis of Tier 3 public notice in the protocol for reviewing the public water
system supervision program. Regulations require that the EPA conduct annually
these reviews of each primacy agency.17
Deficiencies in EPA Guidance Hinder Effective Public Notice Practices
We found six deficiencies in the EPA's primary guidance documents—the
2010 State Implementation Guidance18 and the 2010 Public Notification
Handbooks19—related to public notices. Because of these deficiencies, public
water systems do not have clear information about how to comply with
requirements and effectively and efficiently inform consumers about drinking
water problems. In addition, primacy agencies do not have clear guidance on their
oversight responsibilities.
1. Guidance on Delivery Methods Inconsistent with Regulations
The EPA's 2010 Guidance and one of the 2010 Handbooks provide information
on public notice delivery methods for community water systems that is
inconsistent with EPA regulations (Table 3). The guidance does not consistently
describe the range of options, omitting from a table that summarizes the
regulations the alternatives (in red bold text in Table 3) that provide public water
systems the flexibility to innovate and to use methods that would best reach their
consumers. By narrowly defining requirements in the documents, the EPA gives
the impression that public water systems cannot adopt other direct delivery
methods, such as telephone alerts and email, which may efficiently and
effectively reach consumers.
Table 3: EPA's guidance for public notice delivery method options for community
water systems is inconsistent with regulations
Applicable
notice tier
Delivery method options in
regulations
Delivery method options in
EPA guidance table a
Tier 1
Broadcast media, posting, hand delivery
or another delivery method approved
in writing by the primacy agency
(40 CFR § 141.202)
Broadcast media (radio or
television), posting or hand
delivery
Tiers 2
and 3
Mail or other direct delivery
(40 CFR § 141.203 and
40 CFR § 141.204)
Mail or hand delivery
Source: OIG summary of public notice regulations and EPA guidance. Emphasis added by OIG.
a 2010 State Implementation Guidance, Table 3-2 and 2010 Revised Public Notification
Handbook, Table 2.
17 40 CFR § 142.17.
18 EPA 816-R-09-012. Revised State Implementation Guidance for the Public Notification (PN) Rule, March 2010.
19 EPA 816-R-09-013. Revised Public Notification Handbook, March 2010; and EPA 816-R-09-009. Public
Notification Handbook for Transient Noncommunitv Water Systems, March 2010.
19-P-0318
13
-------
2. Guidance on Modern Methods for Notice Delivery Is Limited
The EPA's 2010 Guidance and 2010 Handbooks contain limited information on
using modern methods for delivery of public notices. They do not thoroughly
address methods and conditions by which public water systems could directly
deliver the required public notices electronically. In addition, they lack
information on the use of modern communication methods, such as social media
and automated alert systems, to provide public notice.
EPA regulations require that public community water systems deliver Tiers 2 and
3 public notices, as well as annual consumer confidence reports, by mail or other
direct delivery. The EPA allows public water systems to include Tier 3 public
notices as part of the annual report. In 2013, the EPA issued a policy
memorandum identifying options for electronic direct delivery of consumer
confidence reports.20 Under these criteria, a community water system that
electronically bills all customers could distribute its consumer confidence report
using the same system and meet the direct-delivery requirement. However, the
EPA's decision to allow electronic direct delivery of the consumer confidence
report led at least one primacy agency to conclude that Tier 3 notices could no
longer be included with these annual reports.
The EPA should encourage electronic direct delivery of public notices, such as
with the annual consumer confidence reports. Allowing electronic delivery of
Tiers 2 and 3 notices would reduce the cost of issuing these notices and has the
potential to more effectively reach consumers.
Regulations specify some delivery methods, such as broadcast media and mail,
but also allow delivery of Tier 1 notices by "another delivery method approved in
writing by the primacy agency" and of Tiers 2 and 3 notices by "other direct
delivery." Although the EPA's intent in releasing public notice regulations in
2000 was "to give greater latitude to [sjtates to develop alternative programs ...
to provide greater flexibility to public water systems to tailor distribution of the
notice to best reach persons served," the 2010 Guidance and 2010 Handbooks
provide limited information on what this flexibility might entail.
The case study on the following page illustrates how one public water system in
Georgia used Twitter and Facebook to quickly inform its customers of the need to
boil their water due to a water main break. This boil water notice is not required
by federal regulation but is a special type of advisory required by Georgia. We
include it here as an example of effective use of social media. Social media
outreach efforts, such as those described in the case study, could supplement
traditional delivery methods, such as issuing press releases to broadcast and print
media, to reach a broader audience quickly.
20 EPA Memorandum. Safe Drinking Water Act - Consumer Confidence Report Rule Delivery Options, January 3,
2013, from Peter Grevatt, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Office of Water, to Water Division
Directors, Regions I-X.
19-P-0318
14
-------
Case Study: Public Notice in DeKalb County, Georgia
During a public water emergency in March 2018, DeKalb County alerted customers about the need to
boil their drinking water through traditional press releases sent to broadcast media and through
posting to its website, Facebook page and Twitter account. The images below are samples of tweets
and Facebook posts by the Department of Watershed Management.
The department alerted
customers to boil their drinking
water due to a large diameter
water main break that caused
water pressure drops in parts
of the water system.
The department informed
customers that repair work
was initiated and customers
should continue to boil their
drinking water until officially
notified by DeKalb County.
\ Sma/
Facebook
at DeKalb Watershed
March 7 • ^
A large main water main break occurred In a 48-inch transmission main at
5718 Buford NE Hwy in Doraville. The main break is causing low water
pressure and affecting residents in the area. In an abundance of caution for
our citizens and to protect the public from any potential health hazards,
residents in the affected area are being asked to boil water for at least one
minute, or to a rolling boil, prior to drinking, cooking or preparing baby food.
Residents are also advised to conserve water. For more information, contact
the DeKalb County Watershed Department at 77Q-270-6243.#PreventFOG
T
Twitter
DeKalb Watershed
I @DeKalbWatershed
DeKalb Watershed
I @DeKalbWatershed
DEKALB RESIDENTS: BOIL WATER
DEKALB RESIDENTS- BOIL WATER
ADVISORY: A large diameter water
ADVISORY: When this occurs a
main break is causing water pressure
potential health hazard may exist in
in parts of the water system to drop to
these areas of zero pressure from
dangerously low levels. (1 of 2)
backflow and/or back-siphonage of
3/7/18, 09:14
water of unknown quality into the
6 Retweets 1 Like
water distribution system. (2 OF 2)
3/7/18, 09:14
9 Retweets 2 Likes
The department informed
customers that it completed
the water main repairs
ahead of schedule and
cancelled the countywide
boil water advisory.
I
0
Twitter
DeKalb Watershed
@DeKalbWatershed
DeKalb Watershed customers:
Countywide Boil Water Advisory
Lifted. The new water main installed
24 hours ahead of schedule, ow.ly/
BSKz30iRzQT
£
H 11
3/9/18,17:01
DeKalb Watershed
March 8 *
T
Facebook
DeKalb Watershed customers: Countywide Boil Water Advisory lifted The
new water main installed 24 hours ahead of schedule
http//owty/BSKz30iRzQT #FOG
[£> Like
Q Comment
Share
19-P-0318
15
-------
3. Handbooks Do Not Incorporate Latest Drinking Water Regulations
When the EPA issued the Revised Total Coliform Rule in 2013, it included public
notice requirements for violations of the total coliform regulations.21 In 2016, the
agency released public notice instructions and templates for the Revised Total
Coliform Rule. However, the EPA did not revise its 2010 Handbooks with
updated instructions and templates for public notices to reflect the revised
regulations. As a result, the 2010 Handbooks contain outdated information and
templates that do not comply with the revised regulations. Water systems that rely
on the 2010 Handbooks may issue a public notice that does not comply with the
revised regulations.
4. Handbooks Lack Procedures for Public Water Systems to
Achieve Compliance
The EPA's 2010 Handbooks were designed to help public water systems
understand public notice requirements and do not include information on the steps
that a public water system must take to return to compliance after it violates the
public notice requirements. A public notice violation occurs because a public
water system has not notified consumers about an issue with their drinking water
or has not carried out other public notice requirements.
However, once a system has violated public notice requirements, coming back
into compliance with these requirements may not be simple. For example, if the
water system does not notify consumers about the underlying drinking water issue
before resolving it, the public notice about the now-resolved issue may confuse
consumers. As such, public water systems need clear direction on how to return to
compliance after a public notice violation, and the EPA should provide public
water systems this information on achieving compliance in the handbooks.
5. Handbooks Reference Out-of-Date Tools
We identified in the EPA's 2010 Handbooks several inactive weblinks and
instances where the cited information no longer appears on the linked website.
For example, the EPA removed the PNiWriter tool from its website in 2014. This
web-based tool assisted public water systems with developing public notices.
Although the EPA notes on its compliance assistance website that this resource
was taken offline, the EPA has not updated the handbooks. The 2010 Handbooks
still direct public water systems to access the PNiWriter at a webpage that no
longer exists.
21 78 Fed. Reg. 10269 (February 13, 2013); minor corrections issued in 79 Fed Reg. 10665 (February 26, 2014).
The EPA considers total coliform levels a useful indicator of other pathogens in drinking water. Information on total
coliform helps public water systems determine the adequacy of water treatment and the integrity of the distribution
system.
19-P-0318
16
-------
As another example, the 2010 Handbooks
do not direct public water systems to an
important information source created after
the last update to the handbooks: the
Drinking Water Advisory Communication
Toolbox.22 The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, the EPA, and the American
Water Works Association published this
collaborative toolbox in 2011 and updated it
in 2016. It is designed to help public water
systems better communicate with partners,
stakeholders and the public during a drinking water advisory to protect public
health. The EPA misses a valuable opportunity to promote more effective
communication by not including a reference to the toolbox in its handbooks.
6. Handbooks Contain Limited Resources for Translation Services
Public notice regulations require that, for public water systems serving a large
proportion of non-English speaking consumers:
[NJotice must contain information in the appropriate language(s)
regarding the importance of the notice or contain a telephone
number or address where persons served may contact the water
system to obtain a translated copy of the notice or request
assistance in the appropriate language.23
In its 2010 Handbooks, the EPA outlines how public water systems can determine
whether translation is needed. The 2010 Handbooks also provide four important
and relevant phrases translated into over 20 languages by the state of
Washington's Department of Health, as well as two notice templates translated
into Spanish. However, the 2010 Handbooks contain limited resources to assist in
providing a full notice in languages other than English and Spanish. EPA regional
staff told us that public water systems need more assistance with providing
translated notices.
Promising Practice:
Online Tool for Generating
Public Notices
In Colorado, public water systems
can use an online tool to generate
notices that comply with public
notice regulations. Colorado also
created an online video that
assists public water systems in
using this tool.
22 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention the EPA, and the American Water Works Association 2016,
Drinking Water Advisory Communication Toolbox, CS224256.
23 40 CFR § 141.205(c)(2)(i).
19-P-0318
17
-------
Promising Practice: Translations for Public Notices
The state of Washington translated the following
four basic drinking water messages into
27 languages:
• This report contains important information
about your drinking water. Have someone
translate it for you or speak with someone
who understands it.
• Boil your water before using.
• Don't drink the water.
• Children under 12 months old should not
drink the water. Don't use the water to
make formula.
By offering these translated statements online, water systems in the state of Washington
and across the country can readily use them in their public notices, increasing the likelihood
that more of their consumers will receive important information on the quality of their
drinking water.
EPA Needs to Update Guidance
The EPA's State Implementation Guidance and Public Notification Handbooks
provide pertinent guidance to primacy agencies and public water systems on how
to implement their public notice responsibilities. However, in their current forms,
these documents provide some public notice guidance that is inconsistent with
regulations, is out of date or has other deficiencies. The EPA needs to update and
revise its public notice guidance to improve the ability of public water systems to
efficiently and effectively inform consumers about drinking water problems and
promote improved oversight by primacy agencies.
Conclusion
The EPA and primacy agencies need to improve oversight of public notice
requirements. Primacy agencies do not consistently track public notices to verify
that they occur when required by regulations, nor do primacy agencies
consistently record violations when public water systems did not fulfill their
public notice responsibilities. The lack of oversight of public notice requirements
leaves public water systems unaccountable for their responsibilities to (1) provide
public notice when regulations require it and (2) certify that notice was provided
to consumers.
Tracking public notice is the only way that primacy agencies—EPA regions and
states—know whether public water systems under the agencies' supervision
appropriately notify consumers. As a result, primacy agencies do not have the
information that they need to enforce the public notice provision of the SDWA,
and the EPA does not have reliable compliance information.
For example, the following
translations are provided for the
phrase Don't drink the water.
Japanese:
o
Russian:
He neiiTe Bojjy.
19-P-0318
18
-------
In its Fiscal Year 2018-2022 Strategic Plan, the EPA says, "One of EPA's
highest priorities must be to create consistency and certainty for the regulated
community. Consistency in how the laws and regulations are applied across the
country is part of that process." To align with this high priority, the EPA should
require that primacy agencies—states and EPA regions—fully meet oversight and
enforcement responsibilities related to public notice. The EPA also should
provide up-to-date guidance to primacy agencies and public water systems that
promotes effective and compliant public notice.
To address problems with oversight, the EPA needs to take actions to improve
regulatory oversight by the EPA's Office of Water, the EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, EPA regions, and state drinking water
programs. These actions should include verifying that public water systems
provide notices when required and issuing public notice violations to systems
when they do not distribute notices in accordance with regulations. By conducting
its own national review of the adequacy of primacy agency implementation,
compliance monitoring, and the reporting and enforcement of public notice
requirements, the EPA would improve its ability to manage and oversee a
nationally consistent public notice program.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Deputy Administrator:
1. Require EPA Regional Administrators to comply with public notice
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the public notice
regulations where the EPA directly implements the act.
2. Require EPA Regional Administrators to verify that primacy agencies
within each region fully implement oversight of public notice
responsibilities.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:
3. Define for primacy agencies and public water systems acceptable methods
and conditions under which the electronic delivery of Tiers 2 and 3 notices
meet the Safe Drinking Water Act's direct delivery requirement.
4. Update the EPA's drinking water program review protocols to include
steps for reviewing Tier 3 notices and for citing primacy agencies that do
not retain complete public notice documentation.
19-P-0318
19
-------
5. Update and revise the 2010 Revised State Implementation Guidance for
the Public Notification Rule to include:
a. Public notice delivery methods that are consistent with regulations.
b. Information on modern methods for delivery of public notice.
6. Update and revise the 2010 Public Notification Handbooks to include:
a. Public notice delivery methods that are consistent with regulations.
b. Information on modern methods for delivery of public notice.
c. Public notice requirements for the latest drinking water
regulations.
d. Procedures for public water systems to achieve compliance after
violating a public notice regulation.
e. Up-to-date references to compliance assistance tools.
f. Additional resources for providing public notice in languages other
than English.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water and the Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:
7. Conduct a national review of the adequacy of primacy agency
implementation, compliance monitoring, reporting and enforcement of
the Safe Drinking Water Act's public notice requirements.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
The EPA responded to the draft report on July 8, 2019, and August 12, 2019.
The Office of Water and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
provided acceptable corrective actions and estimated completion dates for
Recommendations 3-7. Recommendations 1 and 2 are unresolved, with resolution
efforts in progress, because the action official for the recommendations, the
Deputy Administrator, did not respond to our draft report.
The agency responses and the OIG's evaluation of those responses are in
Appendices C and D. The EPA also provided technical comments. Where
appropriate, the OIG revised the report to address those technical comments.
19-P-0318
20
-------
Chapter 3
EPA Needs to Improve Public Notice Data in the
National Drinking Water Database
The SDWIS—the EPA's national drinking water database—contains inconsistent
information about public water system compliance with public notice
requirements. Data entered into the database by states and EPA regions provide
the EPA and the public with information about public water system compliance
with public notice requirements. However, the EPA does not have complete and
nationally consistent public notice information in this database. Primacy agencies
do not use consistent methods to identify problems with public notice or report
public notice violations to the EPA, which affects the reliability of public notice
violation data. Without reliable data about public notice violations, the EPA
cannot fully monitor compliance, track public notice violations, or oversee the
implementation of this important part of the drinking water program.
Additionally, the public cannot access reliable information about public water
system compliance with these requirements.
Regulations Establish Clear Requirements for Primacy Agencies to
Report Public Notice Violations
Federal drinking water regulations establish when and how primacy agencies
should report data to the EPA, including violations of public notice
requirements.24 The EPA's 2010 Guidance reiterates the regulatory requirement
that primacy agencies report quarterly public notice and other drinking water
violations to the EPA. The 2010 Guidance emphasizes that reporting complete
violation information by primacy agencies is critical to the public notice process.
Inconsistent Data Provide a Misleading National Summary of
Adherence to Public Notice Requirements
The SDWIS contains inconsistent information about public water system
compliance with public notice requirements. According to the SDWIS, primacy
agencies issue nearly 6,000 public notice violations per year on average to public
water systems.25 However, the number of violations is likely underreported
because primacy agencies do not consistently track or record public notice
violations in the SDWIS, as discussed in Chapter 2. The EPA needs accurate data
to effectively manage and oversee the national drinking water program, including
requirements to notify the public of drinking water violations and other situations
posing a risk to public health.
24 40 CFR § 142.15(a).
25 The SDWIS data for 2001 through 2017 show 101,361 public notice violations over these 17 years for water
systems that were active as of January 30, 2018, when the OIG retrieved the data.
19-P-0318
21
-------
We found wide variability in the number of public notice violations that primacy
agencies recorded in the SDWIS from 2001 through 2017. For example, the
SDWIS shows 13 primacy agencies recorded zero public notice violations—either
ongoing or returned to compliance. In contrast, over those same 17 years, three
primacy agencies each issued over 17,000 public notice violations.
It is not always clear whether low violation numbers result from problems with
reporting or a lack of violations. Several different factors contribute to low or high
numbers of recorded public notice violations and impact the consistency of public
notice violation information in the SDWIS (Table 4 on next page). Factors that
contribute to low numbers of recorded public notice violations impact the
accuracy of information in the SDWIS more than factors that contribute to high
numbers of recorded violations.
Without consistent reporting of public notice information from all primacy
agencies, the EPA cannot effectively manage and oversee the SDWIS program
and the national drinking water program.
Open Violations in SDWIS Obscure National Picture of Compliance
with Public Notice Requirements
More than a quarter of public notice violations issued from 2001 through 2017
were marked as open in the SDWIS. Primacy agencies are to record in the
SDWIS when a public water system returns to compliance. Open public notice
violations in the SDWIS obscure the national picture of compliance with public
notice requirements and suggest that public water systems have not addressed
public notice violations and continue to not comply with requirements.
To reduce the number of open violations and clarify the national picture on public
notice, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum on February 22, 2011, providing
a method for resolving legacy public notice violations—older than 5 years—in the
SDWIS.26 From April 1 to September 30, 2011, 23 states took advantage of this
one-time opportunity and resolved approximately 5,200 public notice violations.
The state of Wisconsin, for example, resolved nearly 49 percent (2,520) of these
legacy public notice violations.
26 EPA Memorandum. Guidance for Safe Drinking Water Act Primacy Agencies on How to Enter Resolving Action
Codes into SD WIS for Past Public Notice Violations and Clarification on How to Address Public Notificati on
Violations in Certain Circumstances, February 22, 2011, from Mark Pollins, Director, Water Enforcement Division,
and Edward J. Messina, Acting Director, Monitoring Assistance and Media Programs Division, EPA Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, to Drinking Water Enforcement Managers, Regions 1-10.
19-P-0318
22
-------
Table 4: Factors contributing to wide variability in number of public notice violations in SDWIS
Factor
Specifics
Potential impact
Resulting in few violations in the SDWIS
No violations
A primacy agency does not need to issue
public notice violations because public water
systems do not violate drinking water
regulations or experience other specific
situations that trigger public notice
requirements.
The SDWIS would
accurately show no public
notice violations.
Small number of
public water systems
A primacy agency that oversees small
numbers of public water systems could have
lower potential for public notice violations.
The SDWIS could accurately
show no or few public notice
violations.
Provide public
notices to public
water system
A primacy agency that drafts or completes a
public notice for a public water system may
result in the system's compliance with public
notice requirements.
The SDWIS could accurately
show no or few public notice
violations.
Failure to track
violations
A primacy agency issues notices of violation
for not fulfilling public notice requirements
but does not record public notice violations.
The SDWIS would
inaccurately show no or few
public notice violations.
Focus on compliance
assistance
An EPA region that focuses on providing
compliance assistance to tribal water
systems instead of issuing notices of
violations would issue fewer formal
enforcement actions.
The SDWIS would
inaccurately show no or few
public notice violations.
Inconsistent
classification of
violations
A primacy agency that records public notice
violations in a manner inconsistent with
agency guidance.
The SDWIS would
inaccurately show no or few
public notice violations.
Resulting in many violations in the SDWIS
Large number of
public water systems
A primacy agency that oversees large
numbers of public water systems has
potential for higher number of public notice
violations.
The SDWIS could accurately
show high number of public
notice violations.
More stringent
reporting
requirements
A primacy agency that holds public water
systems to more stringent timelines for
public notice delivery has potential for higher
number of systems missing deadlines.
The SDWIS could accurately
show high number of public
notice violations.
Automated processes
A primacy agency that uses automated
compliance determination processes could
effectively identify situations that trigger
public notice requirements and public notice
violations.
The SDWIS could accurately
show high numbers of public
notice violations.
Dedicated
compliance staff
A primacy agency with a dedicated public
notice compliance staff could focus on
identifying and tracking public notice
violations.
The SDWIS could accurately
show high numbers of public
notice violations.
Decentralized
organization of
primacy agency
A primacy agency that has delegated
authority to local agencies could lead to
different interpretations of requirements.
The SDWIS could
inaccurately show high
numbers of public notice
violations.
Source: OIG summary and analysis.
19-P-0318
23
-------
After the EPA presented primacy agencies with the one-time opportunity to
resolve their legacy violations, open public notice violations continued to
accumulate in the SDWIS. Twenty-six percent (26,846) of public notice
violations issued to active public water systems between 2001 and 2017 remain
open in the SDWIS (Figure 3), even though the public water systems have likely
resolved the situation that prompted the need for public notice. SDWIS data also
show that 12 percent (more than 12,000) of open public notice violations are
legacy violations that occurred before 2013 (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Compliance status of public notice violations, 2001 through 2017
(N = 101,361)
Open Violation,
Legacy
12%^
Open Violation,
Recent
14%
Returned to
Compliance
74%
Source: OIG analysis of public notice violation data in the SDWIS, retrieved on January 30, 2018.
Promising Practices:
Identifying the Need for Public Notice Through
Automatic Compliance Determinations
Pennsylvania uses its drinking water data management
system to track public notice. The system identifies the
need for public notice through automatic compliance
determinations.
Adapting SDWIS
North Carolina dedicated resources to develop add-ons
to the SDWIS that allow its small number of compliance
officers to manage and track public notices.
Regional drinking water staff said
resource constraints led states to
prioritize their public-notice work, with
more focus on fulfilling drinking water
requirements that directly affect public
health, especially health-based violations
that would require Tiers 1 and 2 public
notices. Some states lack the resources to
track or follow up on public notice
violations in the SDWIS, enter data and
close legacy public notice violations in
the database.
The presence of open legacy violations in the SDWIS may cause the EPA and
consumers to believe that public water systems do not resolve public notice
violations and continue to be out of compliance. Resolving these open legacy
public notice violations would improve the accuracy of SDWIS information on
compliance with these requirements and assist the EPA in overseeing public notice.
19-P-0318
24
-------
Expected Upgrade to SDWIS Prime Does Not Include Actions to
Improve Public Notice Data
The EPA's Fiscal Year 2018-2022 Strategic Plan commits the agency to
collaborating with primacy agencies to share more complete public water
monitoring data through the SDWIS. Additionally, the EPA's Office of Water,
Drinking Water Protection Division, commits to modernizing data systems,
including the SDWIS, and working with partners to improve data completeness
and quality for national decision-making and informing the public.
The Office of Water set goals for modernizing the SDWIS through the
development of SDWIS Prime to address longstanding data management
problems. These goals include improving data quality and adherence to drinking
water requirements, as well as devising new business procedures for compliance
determinations. However, these plans do not include correcting public notice
violation data quality problems like those associated with legacy violations.
Without taking this additional step, even after the implementation of SDWIS
Prime, the public notice violation data available to the EPA, primacy agencies and
consumers could remain incomplete and inconsistent.
Conclusion
Without reliable data on public notice violations in the SDWIS, the EPA cannot
consistently oversee (1) implementation of public notice requirements by public
water systems and primacy agencies and (2) the national drinking water program.
Additionally, the public does not have access to complete public notice violation
data through this national database, which limits consumers' access to
information needed to make informed decisions about protecting their health.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Deputy Administrator:
8. Direct EPA regions to require primacy agencies to adhere to requirements
for accurate quarterly entry of public notice violation data into the Safe
Drinking Water Information System.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water and the Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:
9. Implement a strategy and internal controls to improve the consistency of
public notice violation data available in the EPA's new national drinking
water database, including the review and update of open public notice
violations prior to migrating the data to the new database.
19-P-0318
25
-------
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
The EPA responded to the draft report on July 8, 2019, and August 12, 2019.
Recommendation 8 is unresolved, with resolution efforts in progress, because the
action official, the Deputy Administrator, did not respond to our draft report. The
Office of Water and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
provided acceptable corrective action and estimated completion date for
Recommendation 9.
The agency responses and the OIG's evaluation of those responses are presented
in Appendices C and D.
The EPA also provided technical comments. Where appropriate, the OIG revised
the report to address these technical comments.
19-P-0318
26
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Potential
Monetary
Benefits
(in $000s)
1
19
Require EPA Regional Administrators to comply with public notice
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the public notice
regulations where the EPA directly implements the act.
U
Deputy Administrator
2
19
Require EPA Regional Administrators to verify that primacy
agencies within each region fully implement oversight of public
notice responsibilities.
U
Deputy Administrator
3
19
Define for primacy agencies and public water systems
acceptable methods and conditions under which the electronic
delivery of Tiers 2 and 3 notices meet the Safe Drinking Water
Act's direct delivery requirement.
R
Assistant Administrator
for Water
9/30/20
4
19
Update the EPA's drinking water program review protocols to
include steps for reviewing Tier 3 notices and for citing primacy
agencies that do not retain complete public notice documentation.
R
Assistant Administrator
for Water
12/31/20
5
20
Update and revise the 2010 Revised State Implementation
Guidance for the Public Notification Rule to include:
a. Public notice delivery methods that are consistent with
regulations.
b. Information on modern methods for delivery of public notice.
R
Assistant Administrator
for Water
6/30/20
6
20
Update and revise the 2010 Public Notification Handbooks to
include:
a. Public notice delivery methods that are consistent with
regulations.
R
Assistant Administrator
for Water
9/30/20
b. Information on modern methods for delivery of public notice.
c. Public notice requirements for the latest drinking water
regulations.
d. Procedures for public water systems to achieve compliance
after violating a public notice regulation.
e. Up-to-date references to compliance assistance tools.
f. Additional resources for providing public notice in
languages other than English.
20 Conduct a national review of the adequacy of primacy agency
implementation, compliance monitoring, reporting and
enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act's public notice
requirements.
25 Direct EPA regions to require primacy agencies to adhere to
requirements for accurate quarterly entry of public notice
violation data into the Safe Drinking Water Information System.
25 Implement a strategy and internal controls to improve the
consistency of public notice violation data available in the EPA's
new national drinking water database, including the review and
update of open public notice violations prior to migrating the data
to the new database.
Assistant Administrator 12/31120
for Water and
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Deputy Administrator
Assistant Administrator 9/30/20
for Water and
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
1 C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
19-P-0318
27
-------
Appendix A
0?
o
c
¦§
3
CD
t5
c
m
w
c:
o
0
V*
$
1
OS
I
¦c
Q
.o
m
to
J5
a
O) Q)
Q> jK
4 *3
"? 5
Q>
J3
"HM
c
OS
T»
0)
o£
I?
to
CD
ft:
¦
Q)
O
"45
O
2>
o
"52
42
3
o,
0)
S
o
£
0)
*->
(D
g
JJ 00
5 2 °
o W (M
| 8 ID
« "S
a ° o
c — u u
< £ < O
E
CD
>_>
3
c
¦D
C
CD
"0
nj
(D
c
>
O
0
£
u
"aj
QJ
cd
£
O
ro
0)
rH
O
Q.
3
C
ro
13
0
a:
O
• IS!
3 2-2 =
<&
JJ c
P .2 ¦*
Q. J o
"O |B O
: ti >» 2
.2 <2 § •? E
; yc I
S o c | £
o m t >
Sst £"
5? 8»
z 5
.u Z
e S
IS
c
0
ro
0)
c
.o
O
O
c
.c
CM
0>
ro
£
j_
u
CD
_0J
0
—
X2
O
Q.
CD
O
£
u
C
ro
;c
Z
u
u
O
0
CL
en
1*1 ii
lis
; ill:
rra
¦JZ V.
W>
.E £S
¦E S E S
Q - 1 tS
« S i &
ra > | =
(/)><<
0 0>
0) ro
L> O
O
3
c
C
a.
GO
0
O
CD
u
u
cc
<
-------
Appendix B
Prior EPA OIG Reports
We identified two prior EPA OIG reports that were relevant to this audit:
• 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.
• Drinking Water: EPA Needs to Take Additional Steps to Ensure Small Community Water
Systems Designated as Serious Violators Achieve Compliance, Report No. 16-P-0108.
March 22, 2016.
In EPA Is Taking Steps to Improve State Drinking Water Program Reviews and Public Water
Systems Compliance Data, the OIG reported that the agency's program reviews did not exhibit
the level of comprehensiveness and region-to-region consistency shown in previous data
verifications. Most of the reviews examined by the OIG did not cover all eight drinking water
rules with monitoring and reporting requirements. The EPA has worked to address this lack of
consistency and comprehensiveness by establishing a national workgroup that developed
guidance for conducting program reviews, developing tools for regional staff to use during
on-site reviews, and holding training sessions on program review protocol. Based on the
agency's engagement to correct the identified issues in this report, the OIG made no
recommendations.
In Drinking Water: EPA Needs to Take Additional Steps to Ensure Small Community Water
Systems Designated as Serious Violators Achieve Compliance, the OIG reported that small
community water systems face challenges to providing safe, reliable and affordable drinking
water to customers, such as adapting to new regulatory standards, aging infrastructure, source
water availability and protection issues, and budgetary constraints. Related to public notice, the
OIG found that neither EPA Region 2 nor the Puerto Rico Department of Health knew whether
systems in Puerto Rico issued required public notices for drinking water violations. In response,
the OIG recommended that Region 2, among other steps, address deficiencies in the public
notice system in Puerto Rico. Region 2 agreed and, as of March 28, 2018, certified to the OIG
that it completed all agreed-to corrective actions.
19-P-0318
29
-------
Appendix C
Agency's Supplemental Response to
Draft Report and OIG Response
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
AUG 1 2 2019
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Supplemental Response to the Office of Inspector General Draft Project No. OPE-FY17-
0020, "Drinking Water: EPA Must Improve Public Notice Oversight to Better Protect
Human Health," dated May 22, 2019
FROM: David P. Ross, Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
TO: Kathlene Butler, Director of Water Issues
Office of Audit and Evaluation
Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional clarification to the EPA's intended
corrective actions to the Office of Inspector General's draft report "Drinking Water: EPA Must
Improve Public Notice Oversight to Better Protect Human Health." As a follow-up to the
Agency's response letter dated July 8, 2019, below are the EPA's intended corrective actions to
OIG's recommendations.
AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Agreements
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended Corrective
Action(s)
Estimated
Completion by
Quarter and FY
1
Require EPA regional
administrators to comply with public
notice requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act and the public
notice regulations where the EPA
directly implements the act.
1.1 The EPA will issue an
implementation memorandum to the
regional Water Division Directors as a
reminder of their roles and
responsibilities for implementation of
the PN Rule.
1st Quarter FY 2020
1.2 The EPA will provide training(s)
targeted for regional and primacy
agency staff. The goal of the training
will be to provide an overview of PN
requirements and share tools and
resources.
2nd Quarter FY 2020
*>. ,-o
n J
19-P-0318
30
-------
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended Corrective
Action(s)
Estimated
Completion by
Quarter and FY
2
Require EPA regional
administrators to verify that primacy
agencies within their region folly
implement their oversight of public
notice responsibilities.
2.1 The EPA will issue an
implementation memorandum to the
regional Water Division Directors as a
reminder of their roles and
responsibilities for implementation of
the PN Rule.
This memorandum will clarify the
regions' oversight role of primacy
agencies for implementing the PN Rule.
1st Quarter FY 2020
2.2 The EPA will provide training(s)
targeted for regional and primacy
agency staff. The goal of the training
will be to provide an overview of PN
requirements and share tools and
resources.
2nd Quarter FY 2020
3
Define for primacy agencies and
public water systems acceptable
methods and conditions under which
the electronic delivery of Tier 2 and
3 notices meet the Safe Drinking
Water Act's direct delivery
requirement.
3.1 The EPA will issue a memorandum
that discusses and clarifies the
appropriate electronic delivery methods
for Tier 2 and Tier 3.
3rd Quarter FY 2020
3.2 Following the issuance of the
memorandum, the EPA will host a
training session for primacy agencies,
public water systems and other water
sector stakeholders to understand the
appropriate mechanisms to utilize for
electronic delivery of public
notifications.
4th Quarter FY 2020
4
Update the EPA's drinking water
program review protocol to include
steps for reviewing Tier 3 notices
and for citing primacy agencies that
do not retain complete public notice
documentation.
4.1 The EPA will update the review
protocol to address PN record keeping
requirements in the summary report.
2nd Quarter FY 2020
4.2 The Agency recommends using the
SDWA PWSS Annual Program Review
as the most effective tool for reviewing
Tier 3 PN implementation. After
discussion between the OIG and the
EPA, the OIG agreed with the EPA
recommendation, and intends to update
the report to reflect this. The EPA will
update the PWSS program review
protocol to include review for Tier 3 PN
for the next two consecutive fiscal
years.
1st Quarter FY 2021
5
Update and revise the 2010 Revised
State Implementation Guidance for
the Public Notification Rule to
include:
a. Public notice delivery methods
that are consistent with
regulations.
b. Information on modern methods
for delivery of public notice.
5.1 The EPA will revise the State
Implementation Guidance per OIG's
recommendation.
3rd Quarter FY 2020
19-P-0318
31
-------
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended Corrective
Action(s)
Estimated
Completion by
Quarter and FY
6
Update and revise the 2010 Public
Notification Handbooks to
include:
a. Public notice delivery methods
that are consistent with
regulations.
b. Information on modern methods
for delivery of public notice.
c. Public notice requirements for
the latest drinking water
regulations.
d. Procedures for public water
systems to achieve compliance
after violating a public notice
regulation.
e. Up-to-date references to
compliance assistance tools.
f. Additional resources for
providing public notice in
languages other than English.
6.1 The EPA will revise the Public
Notification Handbook per OIG's
recommendation.
4th Quarter FY 2020
7
Conduct a national review of the
adequacy of primacy agency
implementation, compliance
monitoring, reporting and
enforcement of the Safe Drinking
Water Act's public notice
requirements.
7.1 The EPA's OECA and OW will
conduct a national review of the
adequacy of primacy agency
implementation, compliance
monitoring, reporting, and enforcement
of the SDWA PN requirements.
4th Quarter FY 2020
7.2 OECA will pilot test a new
framework for regional review of
primacy agency response to violations,
including whether public notice
requirements are met. Upon completion
of the pilot, OECA will review the
results and, if the approach is effective,
will finalize the framework and
implement a national program for
periodic regional reviews of primacy
agencies.
1st Quarter FY 2021
8
Direct EPA regions to require
primacy agencies to adhere to
requirements for the accurate
quarterly entry of public notice
violation data into the Safe Drinking
Water Information System.
8.1 The EPA will include PN data entry
requirements for SDWIS in the
memorandum identified in Corrective
Action 1.1 and 2.1.
1st Quarter FY 2020
8.2 Following the memo, the EPA will
provide training(s) targeted for regional
and primacy agency staff.
3rd Quarter FY 2020
19-P-0318
32
-------
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended Corrective
Action(s)
Estimated
Completion by
Quarter and FY
9
Implement a strategy and internal
controls to improve the consistency
of public notice violation data
available in the EPA's new national
drinking water database, including
the review and update of open
public notice violations prior to
migrating the data to the new
database.
9.1 The EPA will identify appropriate
methods for primacy agencies to resolve
outstanding PN violations. OECA and
OW will jointly issue a new memo
similar to the 2011 memo "Guidance
for SDWA Primacy Agencies on How to
Enter Resolving Action Codes into
SDWIS for Past Public Notice
Violations and Clarification on How to
Address Public Notification Violations
in Certain Circumstances."
3rd Quarter FY 2020
9.2 Following the issuance of the
memorandum, the OECA and OW will
provide training for regional and
primacy agency staff.
4th Quarter FY 2020
We appreciate the engagement of the OIG on this draft report. Please let us know or our staff,
Steven Moore for OW (Moore.Steven@epa.gov, 202-564-0992) and Gwendolyn Spriggs for
OECA (Spriggs.Gwendolyn@epa.gov, 202-564-2439), if you have any questions related to this
letter and the EPA's intended corrective actions.
OIG Response: In its supplemental August 12, 2019, memorandum, the Assistant
Administrator for Water and the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance provided acceptable corrective actions and estimated completion dates for
Recommendations 3-7. These recommendations are resolved with corrective actions pending.
In follow-up email communications, the Office of Water and the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance confirmed that through the corrective actions proposed in
response to Recommendation 9, the EPA will implement a strategy and internal controls to
improve the consistency of public notice violation data available in the SDWIS, including
the review and update of open public notice violations. The strategy will include
identifying appropriate methods for primacy agencies to resolve outstanding public notice
violation data in the SDWIS and issuing a memorandum authorizing the use of these
violation data resolution methods. The internal controls will include training EPA regional
and primacy agency staff on these resolution methods. Given these clarifications, the
corrective actions and estimated completion dates for Recommendation 9 are acceptable.
Recommendation 9 is resolved with corrective actions pending.
Recommendations 1, 2 and 8 are unresolved, with resolution efforts in progress, because the
action official for the recommendations, the Deputy Administrator, did not respond to our
draft report.
19-P-0318
33
-------
Appendix D
Agency's Initial Response to
Draft Report and OIG Response
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUL 8 2019
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Response to the Office of Inspector General Draft Project No. OPE-FY17-0020,
¦Drinking Water: EPA Must Improve Public Notice Oversight to Better Protect Human
Health." dated May 22, 2019
rV>
David P. Ross, Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator ^
Office ol Enforcement and Compliance Assurarice
Khadija Walker, Acting Director of Water Issues
Office of Audit and Evaluation
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject audit report. The EPA has worked closely
with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to provide detailed information regarding the
implementation of the drinking water program via a series of conference calls, and with this
response, the Agency is transmitting a document that provides several technical comments and
clarifications on the draft version of the report.
THE EPA'S OVERALL POSITION
The EPA strongly supports public health protection through implementation of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and works collaboratively with states, tribes, and territories to provide oversight and
assistance in the implementation of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NPDWR). NPDWRs address over 90 contaminants for approximately 147,000 public water
systems nationwide. The EPA supports the implementation of NPDWRs through the Public
Water System Supervision program, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loans and set-
asides, and the Agency's 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 development of the updated Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS
19-P-0318
34
-------
Prime). The EPA also strongly supports the consumer's right to know about the quality of their
drinking water through Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR), public education, and public
notice (PN) requirements. The EPA will also continue to enhance our oversight tools, such as the
annual Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program review, to ensure we are able to
identify successes and challenges in implementation of drinking water regulations, as well as
training and technical assistance needs for states and drinking water systems.
THE EPA'S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
The EPA welcomes the OIG's recommendations on potential improvements to the
implementation and enforcement of the PN requirements. However, the EPA found that the draft
report inaccurately describes both the PN requirements and implementation of the program, as
well as statements made by the EPA Regions. The EPA is transmitting with this response an
electronic version of the OIG's draft report that contains clarifications, edits and technical
recommendations. The EPA will be available to discuss these comments with the OIG to address
any questions or provide alternative language or examples.
Recommendations #1 & #2:
The EPA will be able to implement Recommendations #1 and #2 as drafted in the report, which
state that the Deputy Administrator shall require the EPA regional administrators to comply with
PN requirements and verify that their region fully implements oversight of the PN requirements.
The EPA continues to implement PN requirements and works collaboratively with the primacy
agencies and the public water systems to provide training and technical assistance and address
interpretation challenges. The draft report notes that primacy agencies do not consistently track
public notice or enforce public notice requirements and has inaccurately characterized
implementation practices by some of the EPA Regions. On page 10, the report incorrectly states
that Region 8 personnel told us that the region has not allocated resources to track public notice
for 20 years. The EPA Region 8 program provided the following response to this statement:
When a Tier 1 violation occurs, Region 8 immediately notifies the water system operator of the
violation and PN requirements and provides a template for PN. Region 8 routinely issues formal
enforcement actions for Tier 1 violations, which always require the issuance ofPN. Region 8
ensures that appropriate PN is conducted to notify the public of these acute health-based
violations. There have been no Tier 1 PN violations in Region 8 because of this practice. Region
8 also implements, tracks, and enforces many aspects of Tier 2 and Tier 3 PN violations,
including: notifying water system operators of the violation and PN requirements, providing a
template for PN, ensuring the appropriate PN is distributed when the underlying violations are
included in formal enforcement orders, and reviewing every CCR to ensure it accurately
includes Tier 1, 2, and 3 violations from the reporting year. Region 8 utilizes the CCR review to
enhance PN implementation in Region 8.
19-P-0318
35
-------
OIG Response: Region 8 personnel told us that for 20 years the region has not allocated
resources for a public notice rule manager. We discussed the implications of not having
someone dedicated to the public notice rule. As Region 8's response above states, "Region 8
also implements, tracks, and enforces many aspects of Tier 2 and Tier 3 [public notice]
violations" (emphasis added). Through Recommendation 1, we ask that Region 8 comply
with all public notice requirements where it directly implements the SDWA.
The draft report inaccurately states that Region 6 is not complying with the Tier 3 PN timing
requirements when delivering the PN in the CCRs. Region 6 does not allow Tier 3 notices to be
issued outside of the 1-year window. Region 6 confirmed that they allow the use of the CCR as
long as the 1-year requirement is met. Any violations that occur outside of the 1-year period
must be issued separately to meet the 1-year time period.
OIG Response: On March 20, 2018, Region 6 responded in writing to our questions,
contradicting the statement made above. Region 6 wrote, "We have allowed water systems to
address Tier 3 [public notices] in the following year's [consumer confidence report] even if
the violation occurred in the early part of the previous year (the [consumer confidence report],
and the [public notice], would be delivered more than 365 [days] after the violations
occurred)."
The draft report incorrectly states on page 11 that Region 9 does not track Tier 3 PNs. Region 9
does track Tier 3 PNs through the generation and distribution of CCRs for community water
systems. Region 9 produces draft CCRs for each public water system that includes all Tier 3
violations from the previous calendar year. The region reviews all final CCRs to ensure that Tier
3 notices are included and track the delivery and certification of those reports to the water system
customers. Region 9 issues violations for failure to issue a CCR by July 1st or failure to include
all required tier 3 PNs. Region 9 acknowledges that they did allow Tier 3 PNs to be issued
outside of the 1-year window through CCRs for violations that might have occurred in the 1st and
2nd quarters of the calendar year and will work to implement corrections to address this issue.
OIG Response: On October 27, 2017, Region 9 responded in writing to our questions,
contradicting the agency response above. Region 9 wrote, "[T]he Region is not tracking
Tier 3 [public notice] or meeting all the proper [public notice] protocols when using the
[consumer confidence report] for [public notice] requirements."
Recommendation #3
The EPA will be able to implement Recommendation #3, which states that the EPA will define
for primacy agencies and public water systems acceptable methods and conditions under which
electronic delivery of Tier 2 and Tier 3 notices meet SDWA's direct delivery requirement.
The draft report states that the EPA suppresses adopting innovative methods, such as telephone
alerts, email and social media, which would efficiently and effectively reach consumers. The
EPA discussed extensively with the OIG throughout the process of the audit that the PN
regulations specifically allow systems to work with the primacy agency to use appropriate
19-P-0318
36
-------
delivery methods best suited to their community. The goal for PN delivery is to reach all persons
served by the system. The EPA acknowledges that communities may favor specific
communication methods, for example, local newsletters or radio, and therefore the Agency
allows systems and primacy agencies the flexibility within the PN regulation to identify the most
effective delivery methods.
The draft report recommendations for innovative delivery methods are inconsistent with existing
policies in the 2013 Safe Drinking Water Act - Consumer Confidence Rule Delivery Options
memorandum (CCR Options memo) developed following a retrospective review. In the CCR
Options memo, the EPA specifically identified that social media platforms would not meet direct
delivery requirements because they are membership-based and require the customer to join that
platform, and the EPA also explained that automated phone calls are not considered direct
delivery because the entire content of a notification that meets the requirements of the federal
law could not be provided in a phone call.
OIG Response: We modified the report to clarify that public notice delivery through social
media would be a method that would supplement other direct delivery methods. The
determination that automated phone calls are not considered direct delivery for the purpose of
delivering the consumer confidence report may not apply to delivery of public notices, as the
required elements for public notices are different from the report. In our opinion, using
automated phone messages may be more effective than relying on broadcast media, as the
public water system would have complete control over the message sent.
To illustrate the OIG's recommendation of alternative electronic delivery methods, the report
includes a case study on page 15 titled Case Study: Public Notice in DeKalb County, Georgia.
This example shows the use of Facebook and Twitter to provide notice, which is inconsistent
with the CCR Options memo and does not meet the federal PN content requirements. The EPA
supports the use of various supplemental delivery methods like these, in addition to the minimum
delivery methods, in order to ensure all customers, including non-bill paying customers, are
notified. However, the EPA strongly urges that this case study be removed as it does not meet
the PN requirements and could create confusion in the regulated community. An alternate option
is for the OIG to add a paragraph that clearly states that this case study does not meet the PN
requirements and was included as an example of supplemental notification via social media.
OIG Response: The case study stated that the water system also alerted consumers through
traditional press releases sent to broadcast media. We modified the final report to further
clarify the nature of the notice.
19-P-0318
37
-------
The EPA has clearly outlined the requirements for electronic delivery of CCR in the CCR
Options memo. Tier 3 PN notifications, if eligible to be reported in the CCR report for that year,
may be shared electronically with distribution of the CCR report.
OIG Response: The EPA needs to clearly inform public water systems and primacy agencies
that electronic delivery of Tier 3 public notices through inclusion in the consumer confidence
report meets the requirement for direct delivery.
The report states that electronic delivery of Tier 2 PN would more effectively reach consumers,
but existing information does not support that statement. Information provided to the EPA by the
members of the regulated community that have implemented electronic CCR delivery, indicates
that water systems do not have a comprehensive list of customer emails, and are simply
including a URL link with the bill or postcard that is mailed to the customer. In addition, the
primacy agencies have indicated that, on average, less than 20% of the systems are using
electronic delivery of CCR. For this reason, responsible implementation of Tier 2 PN relies on
the primacy agency working with their public water systems to determine the most effective way
to deliver this critical public health information.
OIG Response: The draft report stated that "[a] 11 owing electronic delivery of Tier 2 and 3
notices ... has the potential to more effectively reach consumers" (emphasis added). Unless
the EPA clearly informs public water systems and primacy agencies that electronic delivery
may be used to deliver Tiers 2 and 3 public notices, as has been allowed since 2013 with
consumer confidence reports, the primacy agencies and public water systems will not include
electronic delivery as an option when they determine effective ways to deliver the notices.
Recommendations #5 & #6
The OIG recommends that the EPA update the 2010 Guidance and the 2010 Handbook because
these documents are inconsistent with regulations, out of date, and have other deficiencies. Upon
further clarification from the OIG, the EPA learned that this statement was made because the
EPA did not include the term another delivery method in Table 3 of the 2010 Guidance and 2010
Handbook, has not deleted the PN iWriter as a resource tool, and published the Revised Total
Coliform Rule (RTCR) PN requirements in a stand-alone document. The EPA agrees that the
2010 Guidance and 2010 handbook would benefit from the deletion of the reference to the PN
iWriter and the addition of the already published RTCR PN requirements. However, the EPA
does not believe that the nature of these updates impeded the primacy agencies' ability to
implement the regulation or that the manuals are inconsistent with the regulations. The EPA also
disagrees with characterization that the guidance documents narrowly define delivery method
requirements. The regulations and guidance documents identify minimum delivery requirements
and allow public water systems to work with their primacy agency to use appropriate delivery
methods best suited to their community, which is reflected in the guidance materials.
19-P-0318
38
-------
The draft report also recommends that the EPA provide additional resources for providing PN in
languages other than English. The EPA recognizes that translating technical information and
notices are a challenge. Literal translation may not adequately portray the message due to
differences in sentence structures and word choices used across languages, in addition to unique
cultural styles within a language. The EPA provides translated sentences in 27 languages to
convey that the notice includes important information regarding their drinking water and to
please speak with someone who can explain the information provided. The EPA took this
approach after learning that earlier translations were not accurate and were confusing to the
public. It is important for the public water system to have the flexibility to invest in their
translations and tailor them based on the unique characteristics of their community.
Recommendation #7:
The OIG recommends that the EPA's Office of Water and Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance conduct a national review of the adequacy of primacy agency
implementation, compliance monitoring, reporting, and enforcement of the SDWA PN
requirements. The EPA will be able to implement this recommendation. However, the EPA
stresses that this review must be done in the context of the SDWA PWSS Annual Review, not
file reviews as implied by the draft report. The draft report states that the EPA's protocol for
reviewing primacy agency oversight (file review protocol) does not cover all key PN
requirements, which thus limits both information and focus on PN at primacy agencies. The file
review protocol states that only PN associated with violations confirmed by the audit team
should be reviewed. The PN for Tier 3 violations can be included in CCRs and may not appear
until after the file review period. For this reason, only PN for Tier 1 and 2 violations are typically
reviewed. The file review protocol includes information about PN throughout the document,
linked to the rule specific cases that require PN. The file review protocol is not the appropriate
tool to use to analyze Tier 3 PN implementation.
OIG Response: We agree that the annual Public Water System Supervision review would be
an appropriate vehicle for reviewing Tier 3 public notice and added text to the report
acknowledging this alternative.
Recommendation #8:
The OIG recommends that the EPA regions adhere to accurately entering violations into SDWIS
on a quarterly basis. Part of accurately implementing the PN program is to report violations on a
quarterly basis. The EPA intends to implement this recommendation in conjunction with
Recommendation #1 and #2 in order to improve implementation consistency of the PN
requirements across the EPA regions. The EPA recommends that the OIG consider including
Recommendation #8 as part of Recommendation #1 and 2.
OIG Response: We agree that the actions to address Recommendation 8 may be taken in
conjunction with actions to address Recommendations 1 and 2.
19-P-0318
39
-------
Recommendation #9:
The OIG recommends that the EPA implement a strategy and internal controls to improve the
consistency of PN violation data in the EPA's national drinking water database, including the
review and update of old PN violations prior to migrating the data to the new database. The EPA
will be able to implement this recommendation. The EPA is currently working on SDWIS Prime
development and will be taking these recommendations into account as development of the
database continues.
We appreciate the engagement of the OIG on this draft report and look forward to working
together to address these comments. We strongly recommend that the OIG update the sections
highlighted in this letter, as well as consider the additional comments provided by the EPA via
track changes on the draft report. It is critical that the regulated community is not misinformed
regarding the law as applied to PN. As written, the report seems to imply that the EPA is
providing inconsistent guidance and resources to the regulated community and is limiting their
ability to seek alternative methods that best fit their communities.
Please let us know if you have any questions related to this letter. The EPA looks forward to
meeting with the OIG again regarding this report to address questions, edits, and other comments
to ensure the accuracy of this report and enhance implementation of the PN regulation.
19-P-0318
40
-------
Appendix E
Distribution
The Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Associate Deputy Administrator
Chief of Staff
Deputy Chief of Staff
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
Assistant Administrator for Water
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Administrator
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Office of Water
Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Civil Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
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
19-P-0318
41
------- |