United States

 Environmental Protection Office of Water EPA 816-P-01-001

 Agency 4606 February 2001

____________________________________________________________________________

Options for the Office of Ground

Water and Drinking Water

 Information Strategy

 (Working Draft)

 

Background Document for the

Information Strategy Stakeholders Meeting

March 8-9, 2001

Washington, DC
2

DISCLAIMER

The Options paper represents an effort by EPA staff to consolidate into a single working draft a

number of suggestions and ideas generated by the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water’s

Infrastructure Branch. This draft will be subject to extensive revision, development and

qualification as the Agency proceeds through both external public and internal EPA deliberative

processes. The information presented in this document is a discussion of possible options

available to the EPA and should not be interpreted as EPA policy.
3

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary 4

Part I: Overview 5

Part II: Vision, Mission, Scope and Principles 5

Part III: Revising OGWDW’s Information Strategy 6

A. Driving Forces for Change 6

1. Age and Cost of Maintaining Existing System

2. Changing Information Needs and Focus

3. Decisions Needed

Textbox: SDWIS/STATE Cost Comparison 8

B. Challenges to Modernization and OGWDW’ s Response 9

PART IV: Areas for Discussion 10

A. Defining Data Needs and Uses 10

B. Reporting 12

Textbox: Drinking Water Data Management Steering Committee 

Draft Work Plan 14

C. Improving System Performance 16

Textboxes: SDWIS/FED Challenges 17

SDWIS/ONE Recommendations 18

D. Improving Data Quality 19

Textbox: Possible Future Platform for OGWDW Data Systems 20

E. Data Access 21

Textbox: Benefits of Data Warehousing/OLAP 22

F. System Economics 23

PART V: ALTERNATE VISIONS OF FUTURE DATA MANAGEMENT 24

Table 1. Comparison of Visions for Drinking Water Data 26

PART VI. TIME LINE 27

VII. NEXT STEPS 27

VIII. APPENDICES 29

A. Draft Source Water Protection Measures of Progress

B. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requirements

C1. SDWIS/FED Attributes

C2. SDWIS/FED DTF Attributes Being Analyzed for Reporting Reduction

 D. Draft Guiding Principles on Information Requirements and Data Management

 E. The Need for Single, Unique Data Identifiers

 F. FY 2000 IB SDWIS/FED Factoids

 G. Questions and Answers About Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments

 H. Geospatial Data and Geographic Information System Technology

 I. U.S. EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Goals for 2005

 
4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Information is critical to the management of major national programs and shapes responses to rapidly

changing events in the public health arena. The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water must bring

its information management into strategic alignment with the needs of both its internal and external

stakeholders to maintain credibility in a data-driven environment. Information management in the private

sector provides examples of reduced costs and improved decision support systems using current

technology that can be applied in the public sector. This Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

(OGWDW) Information Strategy is a first step in revising its Information Strategic Plan (ISP) to focus on

essential data, reporting and analyses supporting decisions of the national ground water and drinking

water programs to protect public health. The objective of the OGWDW Information Strategy is to

identify a range of actions in the near term to modernize its information systems and to define achievable

direction in the intermediate and longer terms that recognize evolving information needs and technology,

and effective and efficient information management to support public health protection. 

“Driving forces” to revise the OGWDW ISP include: (1) Current infrastructure systems are old and

expensive to modify and maintain, with costs escalating; (2) Transaction costs for data entry and retrieval

are high; (3) Current systems are not responsive to program requirements driven by the 1996

Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, such as new regulations required by the Act; (4) Data are

incomplete from an Office of Water perspective, only focusing on Public Water Supply Supervision

program violations data without similar levels of coverage for Source Water Protection (e.g., essentially

no regulated contaminant parametric data), Underground Injection Control (UIC) and State Revolving

Fund programs; (5) Because information systems do not share common data elements, linkages to other

significant data sources within the Office of Water and outside EPA are difficult or nonexistent; and (6)

Office of Water information investment policy and Office of Environmental Information standards will

guide future OGWDW information management decisions.

A “paradigm shift” in information management and associated decisions are fundamental to allow

OGWDW to respond to internal and external data and analytical needs and to control costs. To address

this needed shift, OGWDW will consider options relating to:

 - Acquiring parametric data

 - Implementing a new information requirements assessment as part of the regulation development

process

 - Reaching agreement with states to simplify multiple reporting options and therefore reduce complexity

and cost

 - Streamlining SDWIS-FED and STATE to reduce costs in long term after near term investment 

 - Integrating NCOD, ICR, SDWARS and other sealed up systems to reduce costs

 - Web-enabling SDWIS-STATE to allow states to more easily report data (at initial cost to EPA, but a

long-term savings to both EPA and states)

 - Improving public access for ad hoc and PWS queries

 - Continuing to work with states to implement data reliability plan

 - Completing revision of Information Strategy Plan

 - Integrating systems based on function and business need

 - Implementing the EPA/OEI-ECOS data exchange network (SDWIS-FED data submission is very close

to this network model)
5

PART I: OVERVIEW

Information is critical to the management of national programs and shapes responses to rapidly

changing events in the public health arena. Sound science and the best available data are the

foundation of decisions that the EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW)

makes to protect public health and the environment. Information technology has improved, and

the process for developing drinking water standards has changed significantly since OGWDW

developed its most recent information strategy in 1992. EPA must implement a new strategy that

responds to evolving technology and regulatory needs, maximizes efficiency and minimizes cost

of data transactions, meets national water program needs, and links efficiently to relevant data

sources. The strategy must be business-driven, incorporating the needs of stakeholders both

inside and outside of EPA.

EPA encourages public input into questions that will allow OGWDW to make more informed

decisions regarding its Information Strategy. Once implemented, the strategy will help OGWDW

to better focus on essential business data, minimizing reporting burden for the necessary data,

obtain early involvement in information requirements for regulations, streamline the federal Safe

Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS-FED) to reduce reporting errors, continue to

support the state Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS-STATE), and provide an

information framework for source water protection. Questions for discussion involve issues of

data use and needs, reporting, system performance, data quality, data access and system

economics.

PART II: VISION, MISSION, SCOPE and PRINCIPLES

A. National Water Program Management Vision: 

The Information Management program supports the management and operations of the

National Water Program's mission to protect public health and water resources by delivering

useful information to decision makers and the public.

B. OGWDW Information Strategy Mission:

OGWDW’s information systems will effectively and efficiently support the overall

program needs to protect public health by providing support to the program designed to prevent

contamination of source waters and protect drinking water supplied to consumers, through: 

• Defining efficient and effective information requirements based on essential business

needs

• Synthesizing data for OGWDW decision-makers to manage programs, including

development of policies to prevent contamination of source waters

• Enabling scientists and analysts to better assess existing regulations as well as

determining the need for new regulations

• Managing and tracking the use of State Revolving Fund resources

• Utilizing enforcement resources to return non-compliant water systems to compliance

• Providing information to the public in readily-accessible form.
6

C. Scope:

OGWDW’s information systems will obtain drinking water and source water data

relevant to public health protection through appropriate means from the regulated community,

support measurement of program progress and decisions affecting compliance of the regulated

community and program management and direction, including standards development and

regulation review, and provide reliable information to the public, over the next five years.

D. Principles:

• Keep processes and systems simple

• Base systems development on essential business need

• Contain information system costs

• Minimize reporting burden for public water systems (PWS) and states who are key

stakeholders in this process

• Maintain support for core requirements, including SDWIS/STATE and new rules

• Use data standards to provide consistency of data reporting and data sharing

• Improve data quality through documented procedures

• Involve stakeholders and identify their roles in data use within their business processes

• Ensure easy access to the system for internal stakeholders and the public at all skill levels

• Ensure tracking and reporting of GPRA measures

• Modernize in components to reflect funding available

PART III: REVISING OGWDW’S INFORMATION STRATEGY

A. Driving Forces for Change

The evolving philosophy of information management focuses on improving data quality

and data sharing while utilizing new technology, minimizing costs associated with building onto

older, less efficient systems. In OGWDW, implementation of the drinking water program

changes on a continuing basis as new regulations are established. OGWDW’s traditional

response has been to make expensive, patchwork changes to an existing patch worked expensive

system -- driving development and maintenance costs ever higher. OGWDW must change its

approach, implementing a new strategy for meeting changing information needs and

philosophies, taking advantage of new technology and keeping costs under control.

The previous information systems focus was to make reporting data extremely flexible,

allowing for multiple reporting methods. This has resulted in overly complex and expensive

software and excessive documentation and training. It has also contributed to significant errors in

data submission and expensive maintenance costs to respond to errors, further complicating the

system.

1. Age and Cost of Maintaining Existing System

• Current systems are old and expensive; transaction costs for data entry and retrieval are

too high

• Patchwork fixes have neglected opportunities for comprehensive solutions, increasing 
7

systems’ costs in the long term and contributing to significant errors and reduced data quality.

• Opportunities for utilizing new, more efficient technologies exist to improve information

system effectiveness and efficiency and reduce costs, but constrained resources have not

allowed modernization.

2. Changing Information Needs and Focus

• Current information processes and systems are not responsive to program requirements

driven by the 1996 SDWA amendments, which require new rules, regular review of

regulations and standards, protecting source water, and an emphasis on the public’s right

to know about their drinking water. As a result, OGWDW cannot measure the success of

its programs, or of states and public water systems that are linked in its information

processes.

• Current data systems focus only on the Public Water System Supervision program, not

Underground Injection Control and Source Water Protection, or relationships with the

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund data.

• Emphasis is on compliance, with insufficient parametric (contaminant occurrence) data

for reviewing existing regulations and policy development for source water protection

• Basic questions on the quality of drinking water need attention, in particular as they relate

to complete reporting between states and EPA and credibility regarding the safety of the

nation’s drinking water.

3. Decisions Needed

Investing in new technology while maintaining the old technology temporarily will be

necessary to improve systems while not interrupting information flow. This transformation

requires management decisions at federal, regional and state levels, considering ground water and

drinking water program costs, to address old business steps that drive up the potential for

reporting error, data nonacceptance, and near-term and long-term federal database costs. These

decisions include:

a. A determination to minimize federal database costs only, or total federal and State

information system costs. This affects the alternate vision for information systems to be

followed.
8

SDWIS/STATE Cost Comparison

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

ADOPTS

SDWIS/STATE

DEVELOPS

NEW

SYSTEM

MAINTAINS

EXISTING

SYSTEM

Initial Development and

Implementation

$ 230,400 $1,885,400 $75,400

Operating Costs over next 5

Years (Annual Average)

$1,332,500

($266,500)

$1,732,500

($346,500)

$1,732,500

($346,500)

Other Costs over 5 Years 

(Including software

development to meet future

rule reporting)

$300,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000

Notes: 1) These figures are estimates and are not based on actual state experiences.

2) Costs for Option 1 include the costs for staff, all new computers, and all 

software, and would be substantially reduced by utilizing existing resources.

b. Clarification of EPA Headquarters, Regional and State roles and responsibilities for data use. 

These include: Who owns the data and determines compliance? What level of State and

Regional program tracking should exist? How to increase program tracking if it is currently

insufficient? What actions/tools should be available to EPA when reporting requirements are

not met? How should States and EPA partner in the reporting process? Should EPA provide

compliance information at the system level, and if so, how complete should these data be?

c. Whether to offer single response versus multiple options in reporting to EPA (e.g., reporting

compliance at either entry points or the system to EPA, but selecting only one way) and to

make facility identification numbers permanent (or easily traceable to previous numbers -

constantly changing facility numbers created by the information system or the state reduces

data quality and usability and increases transaction costs of determining the correct data).

d. Related to (a) and (b), determining whether parametric data should replace, or augment

violations data. Parametric data is essential to the 6-year review of regulations required under

SDWA and to useful analysis to guide source water protection policy.

e. Transferring enforcement tracking to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,

while continuing to supply that office with system compliance results.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. 2000. National

Environmental Information Exchange Network Blueprint. This Blueprint describes activities that would need to

occur to implement the arrangements being developed with the Environmental Council of the States for exchange of

environmental information between States and EPA.

9

B. Challenges to Modernization and OGWDW’ s Response

1. Challenge: Ensuring that decisions made today are not outdated when implemented, given

the rapid pace of change in information technology.

Response: OGWDW undertook a review of the direction of technology on its own and

participated in development an information strategy across the Office of Water. The OW strategy,

which addressed the direction of technology, is linked to the Agency’s “National Environmental

Information Exchange Network” Blueprint.1 These three technology reviews (across public and

private sectors, across OW program offices and within OGWDW for its business needs) provide

insight to potential technological directions and suggest how information systems might develop at the

program office level. The reviews also point to areas within a future OGWDW plan that the office can

address to reduce risk in its decision making for its information systems.

2. Challenge: General mistrust of change due to uncertainty of outcome.

Response: Although change can be difficult, especially for data users of information systems,

they can often be made transparent to users because of improved technology. Some changes will

hopefully be viewed by users as positive, enhancing use of the data. The driving forces above point to

advantages of making these changes at this time.

3. Challenge: Conflicting findings resulting from use of data for purposes not originally

intended.

Response: Some data suppliers are concerned that making data more accessible to the public

will result in the data being used for purposes not originally intended. Such “secondary use” of data is

commonplace -- anyone other than the data generator who uses the data is engaging in secondary use.

Actually, some states with data online, available for public access, have found that such use promotes

data quality. Users tend to point out problems in the data sets, thus encouraging the data generator to

be more careful. These states also found that making the data public for secondary use reduced burden

on state information system staff and resources because the public could find answers to many of its

questions online. Therefore, allowing broader secondary use of the drinking water data may better

inform the public and improve the data quality at the same time. This benefits PWS by promoting

improvements in water quality and increasing consumer confidence.

4. Challenge: Ensuring that funding implementation of a system modernization plan does not

constrain complete, comprehensive action.

Response: To address the concern about funding sufficiency, EPA will consider using a phased,

prioritized approach to systems development. This approach will allow OGWDW to identify discrete

aspects of the information system for improvement as funding allows the office to make the

appropriate investments reflecting the priority across its programs.
10

5. Challenge: The relation of rule development to the timing of implementation sometimes

results in phased reporting requirements for which further coordination could improve the

delivery of the benefits of the rulemaking process and database reengineering.

Response: OGWDW will examine the possibility of bundling rules for effective dates and

reporting dates to bring consistent and coordinated management of the rulemaking process. This action

may result in different implementation dates from those originally established. OGWDW believes that

such an approach may result in a more rational and cost-effective program, especially for information

management purposes, and protect public health at local and state levels. However, a more complete

evaluation of this matter and its tradeoffs is essential first.

PART IV. AREAS FOR DISCUSSION

A. DEFINING DATA USES AND NEEDS

• How will OGWDW ensure that it has the data it needs to implement its programs,

address data gaps and coordinate with other EPA programs?

OGWDW will conduct a comprehensive information requirements process in 2001. This

process will consider existing reporting requirements that may need to be changed because the conduct

of drinking water program business has changed since the early requirements were developed. It will

also address future program information needs, relative to new rules and business information gaps in

source water protection. The focus of this information requirements process will be on essential data

necessary for program implementation. In developing its strategy, OGWDW is working with other

entities, particularly the Office of Water, the Office of Environmental Information, and the

Environmental Council of the States (ECCS).

Currently, OGWDW information systems do not support the Source Water Protection Program.

To address this gap, the program has conducted its own information requirements process in the course

of preparing its strategy. OGWDW will build on this and refine these information requirements units

processes planned for 2001. A key objective and option is to build on data in existing information

systems that States and the US Geological Survey already have for ambient source water data, rather

than construct a new information reporting process. See Appendix A, “Draft Source Water Protection

Measures of Progress.”

• What essential data does the primary enforcement authority need to track?

The primary enforcement authority, either the states and tribes (if they are delegated primacy) or EPA

for non-primacy states and tribes, must be able to ascertain whether the maximum contaminant level or

treatment technique has been met to ensure protection of public health. Options include:

1. Public water systems only report non-attainment of maximum contaminant levels and

treatment techniques.

2. Public water systems report all parametric data to states, tribes or EPA to allow

determination as the regulation third party (i.e., not a water supplier or customer)

3. For treatment techniques, provide some related public water system operating data

when determined appropriate (e.g., indication of sanitary survey completion)
11

4. For treatment techniques, provide all decision-related data to the primary enforcement

agency. This option would have the highest cost at all levels of the reporting process.

Related questions are: What of this information should be sent to EPA by the state or tribal

primary enforcement authority to allow EPA to carry out its role in a national enforcement capacity?

Can criteria be established to determine this? How should the response to this question be addressed in

the regulation development process?

• What parametric and ancillary data should be reported to make them of greatest use?

Options may include:

1. Use only concentration data associated with the appropriate ancillary data

2. Use requirements for unregulated contaminant monitoring reporting as a template

3. Adopt a modified unregulated contaminant monitoring regulation approach, since for

regulated contaminants, the quality controls are incorporated in the methods which have

been extensively applied. See Appendix B, “Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Reporting Requirements.”

• How should EPA foster improved processes for identification and confirmation of data

requested by primacy agencies?

Option 1: Clarify of roles of EPA HQ (and its subdivisions), EPA regions (and their

subdivisions), the states and other stakeholders. It may be necessary to revisit, revise and confirm roles

and responsibilities of the various EPA headquarters offices responsible for SDWA, states and other

stakeholders. This would allow parties to reach agreement and provide direction for rule reporting that

is consistent from rule to rule, by establishing the kinds of data that EPA needs to fulfill its

responsibilities.

Option 2: An alternative could be to utilize the requirements that exist in the current

SDWIS/FED system. However, over time, several new regulations were enacted, each with different

data requirements. For example, reporting for the Lead and Copper Rule required states to report

milestone data so that EPA could evaluate rule implementation status from data other than violations. 

No other rule had reporting requirements this extensive. In addition, since that time it has been

concluded that this data collection effort never afforded EPA the ability to perform such evaluations,

as states did not report the complete set of information, as it was viewed as a large burden.

Option 3: EPA could conduct special surveys to determine occurrence of contaminants or

compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

• What data does EPA need to judge and evaluate the success of its programs?

Looking only at noncompliance and exception data does not tell us about how the quality of

source and treated water has improved or declined. Parametric data would allow EPA to track

progress, demonstrate the success of its efforts, and evaluate existing regulations. Reporting

requirements for UCMR parametric data are identified in Appendix B. OGWDW’s principal

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals are identified in Appendix H. Data should
12

provide a basis for measuring these goals.

Are there other priority data uses EPA should consider?

EPA would like to make a number of other uses of drinking water data. Currently, because of limits in

data requirements, EPA cannot do the following: 

1. National analyses tailored to conditions that PWSs face , regardless of location. If we can

associate PWSs to the range of watershed or aquifer features, for example, we can tailor rules to these

conditions, or at least recognize that these conditions exist on a consistent basis.

2. Consistent national analyses of populations with special needs, sensitive subpopulations, low

income, etc.

3. Associate nationally, intakes or well fields with land practices to do source water protection

analyses and develop national policy.

4. Respond to cross-program requests for national source intake or well field locations to relate

to other national programs' proposed actions and come to meaningful conclusions about whether these

proposals would protect drinking water sources.

5. Include drinking water data in EPA’s new geo-spatial initiatives, which would allow relation

of water uses, water pollution sources, stream characterization (including 303(d) impaired waters), to

natural, political, and economic parameters affecting drinking water. “Windows on the Environment”

and the National Hydography Dataset are two existing agency-wide initiatives to enhance the public’s

right to know environmental and health information, for which drinking water data are necessary.

6. Provide linkage of data from unregulated contaminant monitoring to potential contaminant

sources.

5. Link the source water assessments that EPA will receive from the states to the rest of the

environment. Complete and reliable latitude and longitude data would allow us to relate water supplies

to the resources managed and regulated by other national agencies.

B. REPORTING

• What changes are necessary to ensure we obtain correct data, while minimizing reporting

burden for existing and upcoming rules?

Existing Requirements: As OGWDW evaluates the results of the information requirements

process in 2001, it will determine whether any required reporting should be eliminated and propose

these steps be taken at that time. OGWDW has completed an initial review of existing required data

elements in SDWIS-FED to identify which are reported on and used. This review may result in the

proposal of several data elements for elimination. See Appendix C, “DTF Attributes to be Analyzed

for Reporting Reduction.”

Options include:

1. No changes in reporting systems

2. Remove reporting requirements where no longer useful – this would involve changing all

systems, but potentially making them more efficient.

Rules in the Pipeline (e.g., proposed or newly final rules with pending final reporting

requirements): OGWDW has reviewed regulations recently proposed to identify opportunities for

minimizing PWS and State reporting requirements. For example, this review has identified options,
13

such as certain data being kept by public water systems and made available to States during inspections

or sanitary surveys, and, likewise, some data could be held by States and provided during program

reviews or data verifications. Additionally, OGWDW is considering options for early involvement of

information and implementation staff in regulation development to identify information requirements

as soon as possible in rulemaking. This early involvement would potentially provide for a more

complete description of data requested and information processes employed to allow more complete

consideration in rule development by affected stakeholders.
14

Drinking Water Data Management Steering Committee Draft Work Plan

The following summarizes the draft 2001 Work Plan for the Data Management Steering

Committee (DMSC). The DMSC, a joint project of the United States Environmental Protection

Agency and the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, is an advisory group that

supports EPA and states in their cooperative efforts to enhance drinking water data management.

The DMSC has identified the following issues as high priority issues that need to be addressed. 

Once the DMSC has taken final action on an issue, the Committee will reassess the current status of

data management issues and revise this Work Plan to include additional issues as appropriate.

ISSUE #1: Develop a guideline for data management issues that EPA should consider when

drafting a policy, developing a new rule, or revising an existing rule.

Proposed action: The DMSC has formed a work group to develop a set of guiding principles on

information requirements and data management that EPA should consider when drafting a policy,

developing a new rule, or revising an existing rule. These guiding principles will be included in a

“white paper,” which, upon completion and approval by the full Committee, will be sent to the states

and EPA Regions for their review, and ultimately, formally submitted to the Director of the Office of

Ground Water and Drinking Water. The Committee anticipates that these guidelines will be

incorporated into the rule development process, and that all new rules include a detailed description

of data management requirements and how the requirements were determined. See Appendix D.

ISSUE #2: Determine how to ensure the data in SDWIS/FED is reliable, complete, and timely.

Proposed action: The DMSC has formed a work group to develop recommendations, with supporting

products where appropriate, to states, EPA Regions, and EPA Headquarters on ways to ensure that

the data in SDWIS/FED is reliable, complete, and timely. These recommendations will be included in

a “white paper,” which, upon completion and approval by the Committee, will be sent to the states

and EPA Regions for their review. Ultimately, it will be submitted formally to the Director of the Office

of Ground Water and Drinking Water, the EPA Regional Administrators, and the primacy agency

responsible for implementing the drinking water program in each state. As a result of these

recommendations, the Committee anticipates improvement in data verification statistics over time on

a state-by-state basis.
15

Future Rules (e.g., rules that come out of the Contaminant Candidate List and

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation): OGWDW is working with the Association of

State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)-EPA Data Management Steering Committee to

propose a set of criteria for information requirements steps and reporting requirements to guide future

regulation development. OGWDW is also considering the option of bundling effective dates and

reporting requirements. Using this approach, OGWDW would pick an initial date to implement a

regulation and a subsequent date for reporting to begin, allowing an appropriate readiness period for

states and systems. If a regulation were not ready by that date (i.e., a final rule had not been

promulgated), then it would not be effective until the next annual implementation date (e.g., Jan. 1 of

each year), with the appropriate readiness period already considered. OGWDW will be evaluating the

advantages and disadvantages of such an approach before making decisions about whether or not to

implement it.

• How should EPA obtain parametric drinking water data to address future information

requirements?

The information requirements process in 2001 will explore the business need to report

parametric data in the future to support OGWDW’s need to conduct the SDWA 6-year review of

regulations. Currently, OGWDW does not have the data it needs to conduct this review on a routine

basis. Options include: 

• Changing the regulations to require all parametric data to be reported

• Requiring only a statistically randomly selected set of PWSs to report parametric data

• Arranging with the drinking water industry to have a representative sample of PWSs

report voluntarily 

• Arranging with the states voluntarily to allow EPA to retrieve data on a representative

sample of PWSs from their information systems

• What improvements to SDWIS should EPA make to allow for easier data entry by states?

OGWDW proposes to bring the data models for SDWIS-FED and STATE into alignment and

implement the two systems as one project. This step should reduce data submission errors for States

using SDWIS-STATE software. OGWDW is also evaluating the option of making SDWIS-STATE

web-enabled which should improve data submission capability and reduce errors. Additionally,

OGWDW is considering the option of having the releases of SDWIS-FED and STATE coincide, to

eliminate quarterly changes in SDWIS-FED and make the releases annual. Finally, OGWDW is

evaluating the option that it set annual dates for all rules under development to aim at for

implementation of reporting requirements, rather than allowing each regulation workgroup to decide

independently when reporting requirements would be implemented. This step should smooth out the

need to respond to constantly changing reporting requirements and make them more predictable for

information systems planning and funding purposes for EPA and states.
16

C. IMPROVING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

• How can EPA improve the performance of its information systems, given that any

improvements would require states to make near-term adjustments to achieve long-term

reporting benefits?

Currently, SDWIS-FED reporting requirements provide states options for reporting certain

violation results. Providing for several reporting options in a database increases the complexity and

cost of building and maintaining an information system considerably. It also increases the probability

of modifications that will result in data rejection. Options for flexible reporting also encourage a range

of potential interpretations of regulatory specifications, resulting in inconsistent determination of

compliance and, thus, enforcement. To OGWDW, the simplest way to minimize this problem seems to

be allowing only one way to report each violation or other requirement.

EPA’s rationale for this approach: Today’s data reporting characteristics of SDWIS/FED were

derived from the 1980s. At that time, data management was much less automated, and primacy

agencies developed capabilities in concert with their own unique requirements, especially after EPA

withdrew support for the old Model States Information System. EPA created data reporting capabilities

that are flexible, allowing multiple ways for the primacy agencies to report data. For example, although

SDWIS/FED requires the use of unique record identification numbers in the database for virtually all

data types, some primacy agencies did not, in their data systems. To accommodate them, EPA created

the capability for SDWIS/FED to generate the record identification numbers. This very issue is

currently providing a daunting challenge to SDWIS/FED participation in EPA’s spatial data work,

UCMR and the OEI Facilities Registry System, since records cannot easily be related to the same

facility to look at the national level. 

Another area of flexibility is that EPA supports four different methods for linking enforcement

actions to their violations, and users have recently petitioned for a fifth. Such flexibility creates

substantial costs in the information system. Rather than designing these capabilities into the system,

OGWDW sees new data retrieval software technology (off-the-shelf) that could be set to allow such

analyses to be done independently of the system and allow the system to be simpler and less costly.

There are several areas where similar reporting flexibility exists. The greatest problem with this

flexibility, from EPA’s perspective, is the cost of its maintenance. For every data element that can be

reported in multiple ways, software has to exist to support its processing, in traditional and total replace

processing (another area of flexibility being considered for elimination). Further, reporting, user, and

training documentation all must address each of the methods for data entry. When changes are made to

the data system, its impacts on each of these capabilities must be properly managed, or errors will

occur.

EPA can certainly maintain reporting flexibility in the data system, but at a considerable

expense. OGWDW has a limited budget for information systems. Thus, our ability to reduce

escalation of costs is directly related to the amount of flexibility EPA allows in reporting. The greater

the flexibility, the greater the costs. A recent study performed to assess the costs of combining the
17

SDWIS/FED and SDWIS/STATE projects concluded that a significant investment would be required

for the conversion and software revision. However, a primary assumption associated with this

investment is that the multiple options would be simplified to a single response, as in SDWIS/STATE.

After such an investment, future system savings for the PWSS program reporting would be expected

annually with a breakeven point between one and two years, reporting requirements held constant. 

These funds could then be applied to other priority data needs, such as source water protection. See

Appendix E, “The Need for Single, Unique Data Identifiers.”

SDWIS/FED Challenges

C Database in DB2 is not well supported software in EPA, and is EPA’s more expensive

operations cost platform. EPA does not possess the full extent of DBMS tools or knowledge.

C Data entry is with proprietary data entry format, used only for SDWIS/FED reporting, is

antiquated, and has been found to be insufficient to process new UCMR data

C DTF Writer software, in use in many states and regions, is written in antiquated language;

therefore, it is difficult to find software maintenance staff

C Data entry error reports are difficult to use, requiring development of additional tools for their

users to ensure corrections are made (Error code database, Edit/Update Summary Reports) 

C Existing standard reports (3, 7, 17, 18, 19 ,20, 24, 32a, 32b, 32c, 35, LCR, list screens) are

inefficient in that they take long time to run, principally because they were converted from

FRDS-II system, a less expensive alternative, rather than re-written with the SDWIS/FED

data structure in mind

C Users must perform ad hoc retrievals from complicated data structure. This results in only

the most knowledgeable and technically proficient users being able to perform their own

queries

C There are 3 courses just for data retrievals, one for SNC/Exception Tracking System, one for

Data Entry Troubleshooting and a new one for data entry. The difficult ad hoc retrieval

system neccesitates 2 3-day training classes

C SDWIS/FED does not formally take advantage of newer communications/platform

capabilities (Web browser), software capabilities such as COTS (ACCESS, EXCEL), nor

report-writing tools (Cold Fusion, Crystal Reports)

C Current data dictionary design is based the upon incorrect assumption that all information

needed for inclusion would be contained in a Central Encyclopedia. As a result, it is difficult

and more expensive than necessary and awkward to maintain, and many data element

definitions need to be improved.

C Data submission allows flexibility for reporting, requiring complex software. As a result,

development, maintenance and enhancements are complex and expensive to perform,

document and train users.
18

SDWIS/ONE Recommendations: Three Independent Approaches 

1 - Organizational and management

C Include EPA and contractor IT professionals in rule and guidance development.

C Participate in the development of emerging EPA data standards.

C Merge the Federal and State components of SDWIS (SDWIS/FED and SDWIS/STATE) into a

single project.

- reduce administrative costs; assure better system consistency

C Streamline data entry software.

- simplify data entry - more prescriptive approach

- eliminate “total replace” function?

- eliminate or reduce multiple methods for reporting same data

- provide one set of permitted values

- simplify data entry logic (e.g., eliminate need for c413 - seller id)

C Modernize production control, system user support, and User Documentation.

- manual production control processes can be automated

- automated user documentation increased and - made available on website

C Reduce redundant documentation.

- have in a single media

2 - General system recommendations

C Move the edits, updates, and other processing that occurs when State data are posted to

SDWIS/FED from the mainframe computer at the National Computer Center (NCC) to a server at

a third party.

C Move the SDWIS/FED and SDWIS/STATE Central Encyclopedias (CE) from the mainframe at

NCC to a server at a third party.

C Synchronize releases of SDWIS/FED and SDWIS/STATE (to an annual release)

3 - Medium to long term system development options

C Option 1—Modify the SDWIS/FED Data Structure

- Remove extraneous tables and attributes from the SDWIS/FED data structure.

- Synchronize the SDWIS/FED and SDWIS/STATE models where appropriate.

C Option 2—Merge SDWIS/FED and SDWIS/STATE Logical and Physical Data Models.

- Combine the models into a single, comprehensive structure.

- Use the existing Migration to SDWIS/STATE application as the basis for Migration to

SDWIS/ONE, a comprehensive data validation and transfer program that updates both the

SDWIS/ONE central database and SDWIS/ONE STATE instances of the database.

- Replace the SDWIS/FED application Data Transfer Format Writer (DTF WRITER) with a

web-based application that moves data into a more flexible format accepted by the

SDWIS/ONE central database.

- Position SDWIS/ONE for compliance with the Central Data Exchange component of the

proposed National Environmental Information Exchange Network.

C Option 3—Comprehensive Redesign

- the complete redevelopment of the SDWIS applications using an OO methodology

4 - Development would take approximately 18 months, with 6 months of parallel processing
19

D. IMPROVING DATA QUALITY

• What steps should EPA take to improve data quality?

 OGWDW prepared a Data Reliability Analysis which included a plan for working with states to

improve the quality of data in SDWIS-FED. The greatest problem in data quality is the under reporting

of data to SDWIS-FED for violations and enforcement actions. OGWDW and the Association of State

Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) are working together to set priorities for implementing the

plan. Additionally, OGWDW has created a task group to obtain the complete set of latitude/longitude

data for intakes and well fields of public water systems. This will to allow more comprehensive use of

the drinking water data for national questions that have spatial considerations.

OGWDW’s Infrastructure Branch created a data analysis team to routinely evaluate the data and

ensure its use within the program. One recent related action was providing ad hoc query capabilities of

SDWIS-FED data directly through OGWDW’s web site. This allows drinking water data users to

formulate their own queries and examine the data for their purposes.

OGWDW is also participating in Agency processes to encourage use of data reporting standards

across information systems and programs through a common set of data elements. This action will

enable programs to share data across systems and improve the usefulness of existing and future data,

utilizing information systems funding more efficiently.

The following options are highly recommended and supported by earlier Stakeholder activities

and Agency initiatives. (1) Continue data reliability recommendations and actions summarized in a

report titled DATA Reliability Analysis of the EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal

Version (SDWIS/FED) (EPA 816-R-00-020), September 2000; (2) continue to work with EPA’s Office

of Environmental Information to review the extent of compliance with Agency data standards to

improve data quality and sharing. Specifically, continue to register data elements in the Data Registry

and revise the data verification protocol to address current inventory requirements and electronic

storage approaches; and (3) Reduce or eliminate flexibility in reporting options that contribute to

varying interpretations of regulatory requirements and lead to under reporting.
20

Possible future platform for OGWDW data systems

Currently EPA is predominately a NOVELL shop – most of our LANs run on Novell software. Last

September, Oracle Corporation issued a statement that it would start to phase out its support for

Novell. EPA does use some Microsoft NT servers for applications but not for file servers. If an

application needs to use a file server (i.e., when data is submitted to EPA and written directly to a file

server) and Oracle does not support Novell in future releases, how will this effect our system?

SDWIS/STATE’s network versions are NT and Novell. If SDWIS/FED adopts SDWIS/STATE as-is,

two options are using NT and Novell. EPA supports the mainframe platforms, Novell, Unix, and

some NT.

Option 1: Create a UNIX version of SDWIS/STATE. This would avert potential problems caused by

the instability of NT networks (compared to UNIX), and the lack of support for NT servers.

Developing a Unix system would also help many states that may also need to switch from Novell

networks to run their Oracle applications. 

Option 2: Encourage EPA central services to increase support for NT servers. Within the next 12

months, OGWDW will move from directly controlling it's LAN (i.e. servers) to the EPA shared

services. The EPA IT Road Map and the Network Blueprint still do not allow for easy use of NT file

servers. We would need to either push for NT file servers be included in the Network Blueprint (may

be security issues) or purchase these products on our own through working capital or other contract

vehicle.

Also, if SDWIS/FED adopts SDWIS/STATE it may chose one of three database platforms - Oracle,

SQL/SERVER, or DB2. SDWIS/FED is currently a DB2 database on the mainframe. Recently on

the SDWIS/STATE project we have learned many truths concerning migrating data between these

three database platforms. Most problems tend to occur when moving data to DB2.

Platform Use at EPA Security Strengths

Oracle Original SDWIS/STATE

platform. Long-term track

record in the database

industry

Strong security

features

Applications may be

ported to many

platforms.

SQL/Server No long-term track record at

EPA

Questionable

security; new

version is said to

have security

improvements 

Strong in the OLAP

world

DB2 SDWIS/STATE just created a

DB2 version.

Used primarily for

large amounts of data;

known as a

“transaction”

database.
21

E. DATA ACCESS

• How should EPA improve retrieval and dissemination of data contained in SDWIS/FED?

Option 1: Create a data warehouse as our primary means of the retrieval and dissemination of

SDWIS/FED data. Data warehouse technology is improving at a tremendous rate. Properly designed

data warehouses directly incorporate user needs in an iterative process to provide the users with the

tools they need to use the information easily, quickly and effectively. Thus, users will not be faced with

difficult data structures for ad hoc retrievals. New, more integrated structures would be developed in

the data warehouse, designed to meet specific retrieval needs. Further, warehouses could more easily

incorporate the newer data analysis tools of On Line Analytical Processing (OLAP). 

Option 2: Continue the current SDWIS/FED retrieval system. The current system is composed

of a set of canned reports, and an ad hoc reporting capability. The canned reports are expensive to

develop. The ad hoc reporting capabilities are terribly complex because their use requires detailed

knowledge of traversing highly normalized relational databases. In fact, there are 3 separate

SDWIS/FED training classes for use of these capabilities. Only a limited number of highly trained and

technical staff have the capability to effectively perform ad hoc retrievals on the existing system. By

staying with the this system, this condition will continue to exist. Appendix I provides summaries of

drinking water data warehousing results and processes.
22

Benefits of Data Warehousing

On-Line Analytical Processing (OLAP) tools are multidimensional databases (MDBs) that enable users to

quickly summarize, cross-tabulate, and analyze large amounts of data. Users can pivot, or rotate, rows

and columns to see different summaries of the source data, filter the data, and drill-down to the details in

the underlying source data.

Meeting current needs more easily and economically:

(Numbers are estimates – input is welcome.)

Activity Savings

• Yearly summary inventory, compliance and GPRA $30K/year*2

statistics can be updated in two days, with improved 

data quality, for free. Saves tens of thousands of dollars 

in working capital funds and hundreds of hours of 

personnel time. A report that used to take 8.5 months 

is printed in one week.

• Trends Report 80K

• Data pulls 20K/yr*2

• Statistical analysis for data quality report 100K

• continued verification of data verification findings 20K/yr

• Analysis of Surface Water Treatment Rule reporting 30K

• Decrease in Working Capital for EPA mainframe data retrievals 80K/yr*2

Enhanced capabilities

• Build a number of SDWIS/FED data retrieval products at no cost 150K

• NCOD front-end 200K

$840K

In addition to cost savings:

• OGWDW is able to conduct additional data quality analyses

• OGWDW is “closer to” the data and need not rely on contractors to retrieve it

• OGWGW website allows users to retrieve data themselves, without relying on an IT expert

• Higher data quality -- OGWDW is using data more than ever and able to identify and correct data

quality problems. Quality of summary statistics increased from roughly 70 to 100 percent. 

• Continual innovation and refining of products, adding new products to meet user needs. 

Future benefits

• Modernization allows OGWDW to do more work in-house and to improve direction of

contractors.

• Warehousing approach will help OGWDW unify data systems at the retrieval end.
23

• How should public access to drinking water data be improved?

As noted previously, OGWDW has provided on-line capability to conduct ad hoc queries of

SDWIS-FED data from the OGWDW web site. Similar capability will be provided for contaminant

occurrence data in the National Contaminant Occurrence Database. OGWDW will continue to consider

options for enhancing public access to its data, including capability to do online ad hoc queries.

• What does OGWDW need to do to ensure accessibility of electronic information and

computer systems for people with disabilities, in compliance with Section 508 of the

Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998?

The Access Board is an independent Federal agency devoted to accessibility for people with

disabilities. On December 21, 2000, the Board issued accessibility standards for electronic and

information technology under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended. The Board also

develops and maintains accessibility guidelines for the built environment, transit vehicles, and

telecommunications equipment under other laws and enforces design standards for federally funded

facilities. See Appendix F, “Questions and Answers About Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act

Amendments of 1998.”

F. SYSTEM ECONOMICS

• What steps should EPA take to make OGWDW information systems more economically

efficient?

OGWDW recently conducted two reviews of its information systems for compliance data. 

Controlling costs are important alone; however, OGWDW is concerned that it be able to respond to

gaps in data for major programs in source water protection and underground injection control, for which

no national information systems exist to conduct national policy analysis. One option is to reduce costs

in existing information systems to provide for resources to support the unmet needs. The reviews

indicated that: 

1. OGWDW can take near-term steps to reduce costs by integrating certain components of

SDWIS-FED and STATE

2. SDWIS-FED can be modernized at a near-term additional expense that provides a long-term

savings that can be applied to (a) gaps in data for source water protection and UIC; (b) the

analyses that OGWDW is now conducting and would need to do in the future for more effective

program management; and (c) providing links to other data sets in EPA and with the states for

national source water protection analyses and targeted special studies.

3. OGWDW will focus on linking to existing data sets for source water protection and UIC rather

than the alternative of new information reporting processes to the maximum extent possible.

4. SDWIS-FED may move from its current platform to a third-party site to reduce operation and

maintenance costs, depending on the direction of mainframe costs.

5. Using the same architecture for SDWIS-FED and STATE could also minimize future

development costs for new rules.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 2000. Information Strategy Plan Performance

Assessment.

3 Environmental Council of the States. 2000. E-commerce today - e-environmental protection tomorrow.

4

Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental Information. 2000. Blueprint for a National

Environmental Information Exchange Network.

24

PART V: ALTERNATE VISIONS OF FUTURE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Multiple visions of future information management in OGWDW are possible. (See attached

figures.) These visions are driven by the principles derived from the Office of Water ISP Performance

Assessment2:

A. Common functions should share information business systems.

B. Replicate storage of data should be minimized.

C. Common data element definitions will enhance data sharing.

D. Data should be stored in databases and retrieved and analyzed using separate state-of-the-art 

 analytical software.

E. Data should be easily accessible for analysis.

With these principles in mind, at least four visions of OGWDW’s information future can be

described. These visions are depicted in Table 1. The first is an extension of the Safe Drinking Water

Access and Retrieval System (SDWARS) for unregulated contaminants. In this vision, all users share a

common electronic space for drinking water data, with access through EPA’s Central Data Exchange. 

Such a vision potentially reduces transaction costs among senders and receivers of data, as well as

reduces capital expenditures for equipment, especially for pubic water systems and State drinking water

programs. Inventory data for public water systems could be updated directly by the PWS. Source water

protection and underground injection control data could also be maintained in this electronic space.

Data sharing agreements must be arranged between all levels of users to avoid conflicting actions being

taken by different levels, thereby using information and actions stemming from them inefficiently. In

this vision, all levels of users (e.g., local, state or federal governments) use the same basic data for all

decisions, only using the data needed at the appropriate level for decisions at that level. Thus, one

information system exists, rather than being replicated in every state or public water system. The

information system could even be maintained by a separate third party agreed to by all principal

participants in the system.

A second vision is the “post and exchange” or “come and get it” approach of the Environmental

Council of the states.3

 This approach is consistent with the EPA “Blueprint for a National

Environmental Information Exchange Network” (October 9, 2000).4

 In this vision, states place their

PWSS, source water and UIC data in an electronic space outside their firewall, which the state

maintains. EPA retrieves the data at the appropriate time. If all states used SDWIS/STATE or

SDWIS/STATE-like systems - or all states used the same format for reporting, OGWDW retrieval

could be reasonably smooth. A “UIC/STATE” software capability would need to be established. If

States used different formats, this could be much more complicated, with unsuccessful data acquisition

possible, and thus an increase in transaction costs. OGWDW could place the data in SDWIS/FED or in
25

an EPA data warehouse through its Central Data Exchange. Under this vision, data could be replicated

as many as five times, with transfers of data providing the potential for data errors. Two of these data

replications could be within state programs, since each state would maintain data behind its firewall and

outside its firewall in a separate electronic space within which the state and EPA would exchange

drinking water data. Development and maintenance of these five or more replicates of these data

suggest that collective resources for information management may not be efficient at a national level,

but if concerns about use of data by different levels of users creates transaction rationale for holding

data not to be used by other levels, the additional costs may be warranted. Trading partner agreements

will be necessary to ensure that the data needed at each level is readily available to minimize

transactions costs.

The third vision combines several features. In this vision, states would use SDWIS/STATE or

at least SDWIS/STATE-like reporting formats. SDWIS/STATE becomes web-enabled, providing

single entry of data to States directly from laboratories. A “UIC/STATE” software capability would also

be developed and web-enabled. States submit the data over the Internet to EPA, as currently happens. 

EPA accepts the data through its Central Data Exchange, including security clearance. The data is

stored in SDWIS-FED residing in the EPA data warehouse. Data users can query drinking water data

along with data from other databases that have used common data elements for reporting. This vision

minimizes burden for PWSs and States, especially in database capital investment, and makes a range of

data at the national level available for various analyses, similar to the first vision. 

A fourth vision is to continue the “status quo” and maintain the reporting process to

SDWIS/FED and not consider other information needs. Under this vision, costs to maintain the

database would continue to rise without any benefit of new technology. No effort would be taken to

establish links to other databases to set up a source water protection national data set. Transaction costs

are high at State and federal levels, since no changes would in the system that would improve its

operation and acceptance of transmitted data. Modification costs for each new rule or other change

would be high because of the high cost of making changes to old technology. SDWIS/FED could be

part of data warehouse, such as envisioned in EPA’s Network Blueprint, but would not be improved

with technological advances.

The visions described above relate to systems built for the purpose of obtaining and storing data. 

Each includes a “data warehouse” approach to facilitate the retrieval and analysis of these data. The

data warehouse is a separate system that periodically extracts data from OGWDW information systems

and other data sources; transforms the data, organizing them by subject matter; and provides

information in several forms including standards reports, On-Line Analytical Processing (OLAP)

results, and GIS outputs. Users can easily retrieve, organize, and analyze data with little training. A

warehousing approach also facilitates unifying data from several information sources, an interest of the

Source Water Protection Program.

OGWDW seeks input from stakeholders on these visions of a future drinking water information

system and the advantages and disadvantages of them and other system approaches.
26

Table 1. Comparison of Visions for Drinking Water Data

 

Vision Description Advantages Disadvantages

Single Shared 

Electronic Space 

- Labs report directly

electronically

- All users have access

to all data

- Users arrange data

sharing agreements to

specify each users role

- Lower overall costs

- All decision makers use

same data

- Data quality likely to

increase with more

attention on same data

- Lack of data

management at various

levels of implementation

Post and Exchange - EPA design to common

template

- States post data

outside firewall at statemaintained site

Current management of

data does not change

- Data duplication at

each reporting level. May

increase costs.

Specified SDWISSTATE Format

- All states use

SDWIS/STATE template

- States send data to

EPA site

- All states use the same

template

- Data quality improves

- Non-SDWIS/STATE

states would need to

modify systems.

Status Quo Using

SDWIS-FED

- Continue using old

software

- SDWIS/FED on

mainframe

- Data managers

understand current

process

- Costs continue to rise

- Data submission may

still be a challenge
27

July 6-7,

2000

Initial

Internal

Stakeholder

Meeting

Sept. - Oct.,

2000

Analysis of 

Modernization 

Options

Nov. 2000

Internal

Strategy

March 8-9,

2001

Stakeholder

Meeting

Pilot project

on info reqts

in reg process

July 2001

Information 

Requirements 

Complete

ASDWA/EPA 

recs on reg

 process

Aug. 2001

Information

Complete

Dec. 2004

Major 

Modernization 

Elements 

Complete

SDWIS/STATE

web-enabled

Create 

Information

Strategy

Assess

Information

Requirements

Modernize

Systems

Source Water/UIC

Measures Development

VI. TIME LINE

The time line of strategy development and implementation below begins with the OGWDW

Internal Stakeholder Meeting in July 2000 and progresses through SDWIS/STATE web

enablement completion. OGWDW seeks stakeholder input on the relationship and timing of the

activities on the time line.

VII. NEXT STEPS

The next steps outlined below describe major actions contemplated by OGWDW as one approach to its

information processes and systems modernization. OGWDW seeks stakeholder input on these steps and

options to them..

Near Term (6-18 months)

1 - Stakeholder Information Requirements

- Protection Branch / OECA for compliance/violations data

- Prevention Branch for parametric (ambient) data and other data (states, etc.)

- SRMD for parametric data

- Management for routine tracking and reporting “up the chain”

- SRMD for new rules

- Public through stakeholder meetings

2 - Program Modernization

- Implement new information requirements process as part of the regulation development

process

- Reach agreement with states to simplify multiple reporting options and therefore

reduce complexity and cost
28

- Move SDWIS-FED off mainframe to reduce costs

- Change regulations, if necessary, to provide for parametric data reporting

3 - Integration of Information Systems

- Streamline SDWIS-FED and STATE to reduce costs in long term after near term investment 

- Integrate NCOD, ICR, SDWARS and other national and regional sealed up systems to reduce

costs

- Participate with OW on data element harmonization for all major systems to allow data sharing

- Web-enable SDWIS-STATE to allow states to more easily report data (at initial cost to EPA,

but a long-term savings to both EPA and states)

4 - System User Support

- Maintain support for SDWIS-STATE and expand user support with more states

- Address early identification of specific PWS and state reporting requirements new rules

- Improve public access for ad hoc and PWS queries

- Update training for staff to allow in-house response to database changes in future

5 - Data Quality

- Continue to work with states to implement data reliability plan, including internal task

group for obtaining updated facility inventory data

- Register data elements in EPA’s Environmental Data Registry to facilitate data sharing

6 - Information Strategy Plan 

- Complete revision of Information Strategy Plan after information requirements process is

completed in Summer 2000

Intermediate Term (18mos. - 3 years)

- Obtain parametric data through new reporting or access process

- Link directly to other databases based on information requirements, especially for 

source water protection and UIC national program data needs

Long Term (3-5 years)

- Integrate systems based on function and business need

- Implement the EPA/OEI-ECOS data exchange network (SDWIS-FED data submission

is very close to this network model)

- Receive all data using the Central Data Exchange (CDX) to ensure secure transmission
29

Appendix A

DRAFT SOURCE WATER PROTECTION

MEASURES OF PROGRESS

FEBRUARY 2001

Ultimate Goal of Source Water Contamination Prevention: Decreased public health risk by keeping

contaminants out of the sources of drinking water.

Vision of the Source Water Program: For every public water supply, all interested stakeholders are

involved in identifying and establishing barriers that significantly lower the risk of contaminants of concern

entering drinking water resources.

Intended Outcome: Public Water Systems are at decreased risk from contamination due to management

actions taken.

Measuring Progress Towards this Outcome

The measures presented in the accompanying chart try to show a tiered approach to looking at the

progress of source water protection over time. For the first period of time, the highest level of expected

completeness would be on “the foundation” Tier 1 pieces: source water assessments, UIC inventorying and

ambient water quality standards. Tier 2 would be to focus on the relation of those foundation pieces to

reducing the risks to existing drinking water sources. Tier 3 provides the basis for addressing potential

threats to drinking water sources.

The intent is not to focus on any one tier at the exclusion of the others at a given moment in time. 

However, it is the expectation that the level of completeness would shift with time. For example in 2002, we

would expect that Tier 1 would show much progress, but there would be less completeness in Tiers 2 and 3

three. It is understood that management actions will be taken and UIC management will be ongoing at the

same time as necessary, but in the short term, these tiers would be less complete.

 Finally, in the longer term, the ultimate measure of progress would be the results of re-examining the

susceptibility of water systems and determining if management actions were having any impact on the degree

of risk posed to the system, as well as looking at the trends in ambient water quality. 

This Tier 4 would be further in the future. However, if the actions are not taking place as described in Tiers 2

and 3 two and three, then it will be difficult see changes in susceptibility and water quality as related to

preventative management actions. 
30

Source Water Contamination Prevention: Measures of Progress, February 2001 Draft

Tier One: Are the state and tribal source water assessments and UIC Inventories getting 

and what is their quality? Are the CWA Water Quality Standards in Place to Suppor

National LocationalData Layer of the source water protectionareas

# of State and Tribalsource waterassessments completed(delineations, inventories,susceptibility, madeavailable to public)

50-state and tribeAnalysis of source waterassessment quality

Locate Class IV wellsand gather lat/long forClass I-III

Increase # ofinventoried class VWells

Tier Two: What is the extent of risks to source waters?

% of source waters ofmost concern tostates and tribes 

Reporting of the mostprevalent potentialcontaminant sources ofconcern identified insource water protectionareas

Conduct analysis ofClass I-III wells inSWPAs and other highpriority areas

Conduct analysis ofclass V wells in SWPAsand other high priorityareas

Tier Three: How are Drinking Water Supplies being protected?

# of local managementactions taken to protectsource waters(including wellheadprotection plans/SWPplans implemented)

# of source water policiesadopted by other stateprograms (and # ofnational policies adoptedby federal programs)

Analysis of SSA MOUsand actions by federalagencies that have ledto wider GW protections

# of Class IV wellsclosed.Maintain low risk ofcontamination fromClass I-III wells (seedetailed chart)

Reduce risk frominventoried class Vwells through adequatemanagement (seedetailed chart)

Longest Term Tier Four: Are Source Water Contamination Prevention Actions 

Making a Difference to Public Health Protection?

# of water systems with lower susceptibility due to combinations ofmanagement actions (incl. Sub-set of UIC actions)

Trends in ambient source water quality
31

DRAFT SUMMARY CHARTSpecifics to the UIC “Maintaining Adequate Management”

Are Source Water Contamination Prevention Measures Making A Difference to Public H

1. Maintain low risk of contamination to USDWs fromClass I – III injection wells through adequatemanagement

2. Maintain low risk ofcontamination to USDWs fromClass IV wells

3. Reduce risk of cocurrently inventoried through adequate mnon-inventoried Clathem and then adeq

Tier Three 1.2 Percentage of Class I – III wells properly

permitted and/or ruled authorized1.3 Percentage of Class I hazardous waste wellswith approved no-migration petitions1.4 Percentage (# ?) of Class I – III wells thatpass MIT & is witnessed by regulatory authorities1.5 # of properly abandoned wells in the AOR ofClass I – III wells1.6 # of injection wells in hydrocarbon/mineralbearing aquifers[Enforcement and Compliance (???)]1.7 # Class I – III wells addressed byenforcement & returned to compliance (includesSNC data)1.8 # of civil & criminal actions against Class I –III wells1.9 # of administrative orders issued byStates/Tribes/DI Programs to Class I -- III wells o/o (includes SNC)1.10 # of contamination investigations linked toClass I -- III wells

2.2 Close all Class IV wells afterlocation

3.3 # of large capacity ces3.4 # of MVWDW wells clGWPAs & other sensitive 3.5 # of field inspections oother high-priority areas of [Enforcement and Comp3.6 # Class V wells addrereturned to compliance (in3.7 # of civil & criminal ac3.8 # of administrative ordStates/Tribes/DI Programs SNC)3.9 # of contamination invwells
32

Appendix B

PRELIMINARY - Do not cite or quote

Table 1

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requirements

Data Element Definition

1. Public Water System (PWS)

Identification Number

The code used to identify each PWS. The code begins with the standard

two-character postal State abbreviation; the remaining seven characters

are unique to each PWS.

2. Public Water System Facility

Identification Number - Sampling

Point Identification Number and

Sampling Point Type Identification

The Sampling point identification number and sampling point type

identification must either be static or traceable to previous numbers and

type identifications throughout the period of unregulated contaminant

monitoring. The Sampling point identification number is a three-part

alphanumeric designation, made up of:

a. The Public Water System Facility Identification Number is an

identification number established by the State, or at the State’s

discretion the PWS, that is unique to the PWS for an intake for each

source of water, a treatment plant, a distribution system, or any other

facility associated with water treatment or delivery and provides for the

relationship of facilities to each other to be maintained; 

b. The Sampling Point Identification Number is an identification

number established by the State, or at the State’s discretion the PWS,

that is unique to each PWS facility that identifies the specific sampling

point and allows the relationship of the sampling point to other facilities

to be maintained; and

c. Sampling Point Type Identification is one of following:

SR - Untreated water collected at the source of the water system facility.

EP - Entry point to the distribution system.

MD - midpoint in the distribution system where the chlorine residual

would be expected to be typical for the system such as the location for

sampling coliform indicator bacteria as described in 40 CFR 141.21.

MR - point of maximum retention is the point located the furthest from

the entry point to the distribution system which is approved by the State

for trihalomethane (THM) (disinfectant byproducts (DBP)) and/or total

coliform sampling.

LD - location in the distribution system where the disinfectant residual

is the lowest which is approved by the State for THM (DBP) and/or

total coliform sampling.

3. Sample Collection Date The date the sample is collected reported as 4-digit year, 2-digit month,

and 2-digit day.

4. Sample Identification Number An alphanumeric value of up to 15 characters assigned by the laboratory

to uniquely identify containers or groups of containers containing water

samples collected at the same time and sampling point.

5. Contaminant/Parameter The unregulated contaminant or water quality parameter for which the

sample is being analyzed.
33

6. Analytical Results - Sign An alphanumeric value indicating whether the sample analysis result

was: 

a. (<) “less than” means the contaminant was not detected or was

detected at a level “less than” the MRL.

b. (=) “equal to” means the contaminant was detected at a level “equal

to” the value reported in “Analytical Result - Value.” 

7. Analytical Result - Value The actual numeric value of the analysis for chemical and

microbiological results, or the minimum reporting level (MRL) if the

analytical result is less than the contaminant’s MRL

8. Analytical Result - Unit of Measure The unit of measurement for the analytical results reported. [e.g.,

micrograms per liter, (Fg/L); colony-forming units per milliliter,

(CFU/mL), etc.]

9. Analytical Method Number The identification number of the analytical method used.

10. Sample Analysis Type The type of sample collected. Permitted values include:

a. RFS - Raw field sample - untreated sample collected and submitted

for analysis under this rule.

b. RDS - Raw duplicate field sample - untreated field sample duplicate

collected at the same time and place as the raw field sample and

submitted for analysis under this rule.

c. TFS - Treated field sample - treated sample collected and submitted

for analysis under this rule.

d. TDS - Treated duplicate field sample - treated field sample duplicate

collected at the same time and place as the treated field sample and

submitted for analysis under this rule.

11. Sample Batch Identification

Number

The sample batch identification number consists of three parts:

a. Up to a 10-character laboratory identification code assigned by EPA;

b. Up to a 15-character code assigned by the laboratory to uniquely

identify each extraction or analysis batch. 

c. The date that the samples contained in each extraction batch extracted

or in an analysis batch were analyzed, reported as an 8-digit number in

the form 4-digit year, 2-digit month, and 2-digit day.

12. Minimum Reporting Level Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) refers to the lowest concentration of

an analyte that may be reported. Unregulated contaminant monitoring

(UCM) MRLs are established in §141.40 monitoring requirements for

unregulated contaminants.

13. Minimum Reporting Level Unit of

Measure

The unit of measure to express the concentration, count, or other value

of a contaminant level for the Minimum Reporting Level reported. 

(e.g., Fg/L, colony forming units/mL (CFU/mL), etc.).
34

14. Analytical Precision Precision is the degree of agreement between two repeated

measurements and is monitored through the use of duplicate spiked

samples. For purposes of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation (UCMR), Analytical Precision is defined as the relative

percent difference (RPD) between spiked matrix duplicates. The RPD

for the spiked matrix duplicates analyzed in the same batch of samples

as the analytical result being reported is to be entered in this field. 

Precision is calculated as Relative Percent Difference (RPD) of spiked

matrix duplicates from the mean using:

 RPD = absolute value of [(X1 - X2) /(X1 +X2)/2 ] x 100%

where:

X1 is the concentration observed in spiked field sample minus the

concentration observed in unspiked field sample

X2 is the concentration observed in duplicate spiked field sample minus

the concentration observed in unspiked field sample

15. Analytical Accuracy Accuracy describes how close a result is to the true value measured

through the use of spiked field samples. For purposes of unregulated

contaminant monitoring, accuracy is defined as the percent recovery of

the contaminant in the spiked matrix sample analyzed in the same

analytical batch as the sample result being reported and calculated

using:

% recovery = [(amt. found in spiked sample - amt. found in sample) /

amt. spiked] x 100% 

16. Spiking Concentration The concentration of method analytes added to a sample to be analyzed

for calculating analytical precision and accuracy where the value

reported use the same unit of measure reported for Analytical Results

17. Presence/Absence Reserved
35

Appendix C1

SDWIS/FED DTF Attributes 

DTF 

NUMBER ATTRIBUTE NAME DEFINITION

C101 PWS-ID A unique value used to identify a PWS

C105 PWS-TYPE Describes the type of water system, i.e., CWS, TNCWS, 

NTNCWS, NP

C107 PWS-ACTIVITY-FLAG A value that categorizes the activity of the water system

C1101 VIO-ID Code used to identify the violation incurred by a PWS

C1103 VIO-CONTAMINANT Contaminant for which a PWS incurred a violation

C1105 VIO-TYPE The type of violation, i.e. MCL, M/R, TT

C1107 VIO-COMP-PERIOD-BEGIN-DATE The beginning data of a monitoring period in which a PWS was in 

violation

C1109 VIO-COMP-PERIOD-END-DATE The end date of a monitoring period in which a PWS was in 

violation

C1111 VIO-COMP-PERIOD-MONTHS Duration of compliance period in Months

C1115 VIO-AWARE-DATE Date state became aware of a PWS violation

C1123 VIO-ANALYSIS-RESULT Analytical result(s) that caused the MCL violation

C1125 VIO-MCL-VIOLATED The maximum contaminant level which was exceeded that led to 

the issuance of an MCL violation

C1127 VIO-SAMPLES-REQUIRED The number of samples that were required to be collected, 

analyzed and reported by a PWS for a specific monitoring period

C1129 VIO-SAMPLES-TAKEN The number of samples that were actually collected, analyzed 

and reported by a PWS for a specific monitoring period

C113 PWS-DEACT-YYYYMM Year and month the system was deactivated

C1131 VIO-MAJOR-VIOLATION-FLAG A code that indicates the severity of an M&R violation, major or 

minor

C1143 VIO-SE-ID Source/entity ID at which the violation was incurred

C117 PWS-RETAIL-POP-SERVED The estimated average daily population count for a given type of 

population served

C1201 ENF-ID Code used to uniquely identify a specific enforcement action

C1203 ENF-ACTION-DATE Date on which enforcement action was taken

C1205 ENF-FOLLOW-UP-ACTION Code used to represent an enforcement action taken by the State,

 EPA Region, or EPA headquarters

Page 1 of 8
36

 DTF 

NUMBER ATTRIBUTE NAME DEFINITION

C121 PWS-PCT-SURFACE Annual percentage of water from non-purchased, permanently 

available surface water sources

C1215 ENF-COMMENT Description or attribute applicable to the associated enforcement 

action

C123 PWS-PCT-GROUND Annual percentage of water from non-purchased, permanently 

available ground water sources

C125 PWS-PCT-PUR-SURFACE Annual percentage of water from purchased, permanently 

available surface water sources

C127 PWS-PCT-PUR-GROUND Annual percentage of water obtained from purchased, 

permanently available ground water sources

C1281 ENF-LINK-VIO-ID ID that represents a specific violation that is related to unique 

enforcement action

C1283 ENF-LINK-RANGE-BEGIN Start period covered by violation(s) which are associated w/ 

enforcement action

C1285 ENF-LINK-RANGE-END End of monitoring period Covered by violation(s) which are 

associated w/ enforcement action

C1287 ENF-LINK-PERIOD-BEGIN Start of monitoring period in which a violation that is related to the 

enforcement action was incurred

C1289 ENF-LINK-VIO-TYPE Violation type that is related to the enforcement action

C1291 ENF-LINK-CONTAMINANT Contaminant ID for a violation that is related to the enforcement 

action

C131 PWS-SYSTEM-NAME The formal, legal, or common name used most generally referring 

to the PWS

C132 PWS-SYSTEM-RESPONSIBLE PARTY The name of a legal entity associated with a water system

- NAME

C133 PWS-SYSTEM-ADDR-LINE-1 The first line of an address applicable to a legal entity

C135 PWS-SYSTEM-ADDR-LINE-2 Address data for the primary facility location of the PWS

C137 PWS-SYSTEM-CITY City name of the primary facility location of the PWS

C139 PWS-SYSTEM-STATE State abbreviation of the primary facility location of the PWS

C141 PWS-SYSTEM-ZIP Zip Code +4 of the primary facility location of the PWS

C143 PWS-TEL-NUM Telephone number of the PWS

C147 PWS-SERVICE- CONNECTIONS Number of retail service connections for a PWS

C149 PWS-AVG-DAILY-PROD The average daily gallons of water produced by a PWS

Page 2 of 8
37

DTF 

NUMBER ATTRIBUTE NAME DEFINITION

C151 PWS-DESIGN-CAP The total gallons per day of water a PWS was designed and 

approved to produce

C153 PWS-EMERGENCY-PROD The gallons per day of water that can be produced by a PWS 

using emergency power generation under its control

C155 PWS-STORAGE-CAP Number of gallons of water that can be stored by a PWS

C159 PWS-NON-COMM-SE-BEGIN The month and day a NC or NTNC water system’s season of 

operation normally begins

C161 PWS-NON-COMM-SE-END The month and day a NC or NTNC water system’s season of 

operation normally ends

C163 PWS-OWNER-TYPE The type of owner of a PWS

C2101 SAMPLE-ID Code used to uniquely identify a specific sampling occurrence

C2103 SAMPLE-BEGIN-DATE The first day of the monitoring period in which sample data was 

acquired

C2105 SAMPLE-END-DATE The last day of the monitoring period in which sample data was 

acquired

C2107 SAMPLE-CONTAMINANT Code indicating the contaminant for which sample data has been 

reported

C2109 SAMPLE-RESULT-SIGN Code indicating whether a result was below the method detection

 limit or detected

C2111 SAMPLE-ANALYSIS- RESULT Value representing the results obtained from a samples analysis

C2112 SAMPLE-RESULT-UM Units of measurement for the analytical result

C2113 SAMPLE-ANALYSIS- METHOD EPA method used to analyze the sample

C2115 SAMPLE-SOURCE-TYPE The source type represented by the sample

C2119 SAMPLE-SE-ID Unique ID for each sampling point

C2125 SAMPLE-QTY-COMPOSITED Number of sampling sites included in composite sample

C2137 SAMPLE-TYPE The water type represented by the sample

C2139 SAMPLE-RECONCIL-ID Comment field for Primacy Agencies to store information that 

uniquely identifies a sample

C3001 VE-ID Code used to uniquely identify a specific variance, exemption, or 

other event related to a PWS

C3003 VE-CONTAMINANT Code used to denote the contaminant for which a variance, 

exemption, or other event has been granted

Page 3 of 8
38

DTF 

NUMBER ATTRIBUTE NAME DEFINITION

C3005 VE-RECORD-TYPE Code indicating whether the variance exemption data record is a 

variance, exemption, or other event

C3007 VE-EFFECTIVE-DATE Date on which variance, exemption, or other event has or will 

become effective

C3009 VE-EXPIRATION-DATE Date on which variance, exemption, or other event has or will 

expire

C301 PWS- AD-ID Unique code identifying an owner address, treatment facility 

address or other address related to the PWS

C3011 VE-STATUS-CODE Code used to denote current status of variance, exemption, or 

other event

C3013 VE-MODIFIED-MCL Value used to represent a modified MCL that has been approved 

as a condition of a variance or exemption

C3015 VE-TREAT-PROCESS Code representing the treatment process

C3017 VE-ALT-PROCESS Indicates whether an alternative treatment process has been 

approved as a condition of a V/E

C3019 VE-REASON-CODE Code representing the reason for which a variance, exemption, 

or other event is being granted to a PWS

C3027 VE-VULNER-FLAG Code indicating (Y)es or (N)o, the associated source-entity is 

vulnerable for contaminant specified

C3029 VE-ALT-MON-FREQUENCY Number of months representing an alternative monitoring 

frequency for the given contaminant

C303 PWS-AD-TYPE The type of addressee or facility of a PWS

C3031 VE-SE-ID Code uniquely identifying a specific source of water utilized by, 

or an entity associated with V/E or other related data

C305 PWS-AD-NAME The name of a legal entity associated with a PWS

C307 PWS-AD-ADDR-LINE-1 First line of an address applicable to a PWS adressee or facility

C309 PWS-AD-ADDR-LINE-2 Second line of an address applicable to a treatment plant

C3101 VE-SCHEDULE-ID Code uniquely identifying a specific V/E schedule related to the 

variance, exemption or other event

C3103 VE-ACTION Code representing an event or action to be taken by relating to a 

variance, exemption or other event

C3105 VE-SCHEDULE-DATE Calendar date on which a schedule event or action relating to V/E

 record is or was scheduled to occur

C3107 VE-ACCOM-DATE Calendar date on which a schedule event or action relating to a 

V/E record was accomplished, if completed

Page 4 of 8
39

DTF 

NUMBER ATTRIBUTE NAME DEFINITION

C311 PWS-AD-CITY The city in which a treatment plant is located

C313 PWS-AD-STATE The state abbreviation in which a treatment plant is located

C315 PWS-AD-ZIP The zip code in which a treatment plant is located

C355 PWS-SE-TREATMENT-AD-NAME The name of a treatment plant

C356 PWS-AD-ADDR-LINE-1 First line of an address applicable to a PWS adressee or facility

C357 PWS-AD-ADDR-LINE-2 Second line of an address applicable to a treatment plant

C358 PWS-AD-CITY The city in which a treatment plant is located

C359 PWS-AD-STATE The state abbreviation in which a treatment plant is located

C360 PWS-AD-ZIP The zip code in which a treatment plant is located

C401 PWS-SE-ID Code which uniquely identifies the water system facility or 

source of water

C403 PWS-SE-NAME Water system facility name or water source

C405 PWS-SE-RECORD-TYPE Code which categorizes the water facility or source

C407 PWS-SE-WATER-TYPE-CODE Code that represents the source of water or facility type

C409 PWS-SE-AVAILABILITY The circumstances under which a source of water or facility is 

utilized by a PWS

C411 PWS-SE-SELLER ID Seller’s PWS ID

C415 PWS-SE-LATITUDE (as degrees, Degrees, minutes and seconds of Latitude for the location of the 

minutes, and seconds) entity being reported

C417 PWS-SE-LONGITUDE (as degrees, Degrees, minutes and seconds of Longitude for the location of 

minutes, and seconds the entity being recorded

C418 PWS-SE-MERIDIAN-NAME The name of a North-South line used to locate a specific township

C419 PWS-SE-TOWNSHIP The location of a township in relationship to a known base line

C421 PWS-SE-RANGE A number representing a range in relationship to a known 

principle Meridian

C423 PWS-SE-SECTION Numerical value representing one of 36 sections of a township

C425 PWS-SE-QTR-SECTION A code representing a particular quadrant of a section

C426 PWS-QUARTER-QUA-SEC A code representing one of four quadrants of a particular 

quadrant section.

Page 5 of 8
40

DTF 

NUMBER ATTRIBUTE NAME DEFINITION

C427 PWS-RIVER-REACH The hydrologic unit code and the segment number for the location

 of the source or entity being reported

C429 PWS-ON-REACH Value representing whether a source of water is on or off a 

defined river reach

C431 PWS-REACH-MILES The distance of a surface intake in relationship to the 

downstream end of the river reach

C433 PWS-SOURCE-TRE-CODE Code specifying whether or not a source facility is being treated

C435 PWS-SE-SELLER-TREATED Code representing whether or not the seller of a purchased 

source is treating the source

C441 LATITUDE (as a decimal number) Latitude entered in decimal degrees for the location of the entity 

being reported

C443 LONGITUDE (as a decimal number) Longitude entered in decimal degrees for the location of the entity 

being reported

C445 METHOD OF COLLECTION The method used to determine the Lat/Long coordinates of the 

water system facility

C447 ACCURACY VALUE AND UNIT The amount of deviation from the value in a measurement for 

Lat/Long

C449 DESCRIPTION CATEGORY The feature referenced by the Lat/Long coordinates or the water 

system facility

C451 HORIZONTAL DATUM The horizontal control datum for the Lat/Long coordinates of the 

water system facility

C453 SOURCE SCALE The scale of map used to determine the Lat/Long of the water 

system facility

C455 POINT LINE AREA Code indicating whether the Lat/Long of the water system facility 

represent a point, multiple points or an area

C457 DATE OF COLLECTION Date when the Lat/Long coordinates of the water system facility 

were determined

C459 SOURCE Responsible party code for collecting, or providing the Lat/Long 

coordinates of the water system facility

C461 DESCRIPTION COMMENTS A text field relating to the location or vertical measure of the 

water system facility

C463 VERIFICATION Code indicating the process by which the Lat/Long coordinates of

 the water system facility have been verified

C465 VERTICAL MEASURE Vertical distance from the vertical datum to the land surface or 

other measuring point

C467 VERTICAL MEASURE METHOD OF The method used to determine the vertical measure of the water 

COLLECTION system facility

Page 6 of 8
41

DTF 

NUMBER ATTRIBUTE NAME DEFINITION

C469 VERTICAL MEASURE ACCURACY Quantitative measure of the amount of deviation from true value in

 the vertical measure (estimate of error)

C471 VERTICAL DATUM Code representing the vertical control datum for the vertical 

measure of the water system facility

C481 PWS-SE-TREATMENT-ID Unique value representing a treatment record for a source of 

C483 PWS-SE-TREATMENT-OBJECTIVE 5 Identifies specific objective to be obtain through treatment

C485 PWS-SE- TREATMENT-PROCESS Identifies the specific treatment process used at a source or plant

C487 PWS-SE-TREATMENT-INNOVATIVE-FL Code identifying whether a treatment objective and process is 

AG innovative

C489 PWS-INNOVATIVE-TREATMENT-DESC A text field describing an innovative treatment process

RIPTION

C501 PWS-GA-ID Code uniquely identifying a specific geographic area served

C503 PWS-ADMIN-REGION Code representing the state administrative region being served by

 a PWS

C505 PWS-ADMIN-DISTRICT Code representing the state administrative district being served 

by a PWS

C507 PWS-FED-CON-DISTRICT Code representing the federal congressional district being served

 by a PWS

C508 PWS-STATE-COUNTY A state county code representing the county being served by the 

PWS

C509 PWS-GA-FIPS-COUNTY-CODE FIPS county code, representing the county being served by the 

PWS

C513 PWS-GA-CITY-SERVED Name of the city, community or jurisdiction being served by the 

PWS

C515 PWS-INDIAN-RES Code representing the Indian reservation or Alaska remote village 

being served by a PWS

C601 PWS-SERV-ID A code uniquely identifying a specific service area

C603 PWS-SERV-CATEGORY Code characterizing the type of area serviced by the PWS

C605 PWS-SERV-PRIMARY-FLAG Primary, most prevalent type of area served by the PWS

C701 PWS-VISIT-ID A code used to uniquely identify a specific on-site visit made to a 

PWS

C703 PWS-VISIT-DATE Calendar date on which a visit was made to a PWS

C705 PWS-VISIT-REASON Code representing the reason a visit was made to a PWS

Page 7 of 8
42

DTF 

NUMBER ATTRIBUTE NAME DEFINITION

C801 PWS-MILESTONE-ID Code used to uniquely identify a specific milestone

C803 PWS-MILESTONE-DATE Date associated with the milestone occurrence

C805 PWS-MILESTONE-CODE Code that represents a specific milestone occurrence

C813 PWS-MILESTONE-COMMENT Commentary use/field uesd by State or EPA region

C815 PWS-MILESTONE-VALUE The Copper Level Exceedance or Lead Service Line 

Replacement rates

C817 PWS-MILESTONE-REASON Reason code for DEEM and DONE milestones

Page 8 of 8
43

Appendix C2

SDWIS/FED DTF Attributes 

Being Analyzed for Reporting Reduction

DTFNUM C105

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-TYPE

DEFINITION Describes the type of water system, i.e., CWS, TNCWS, NTNCWS, NP

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

D_PWS_ST_TYPE_CD TINWSYS

TYPE_CODE TINPOPSV

DTFNUM C107

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-ACTIVITY-FLAG

DEFINITION A value that categorizes the activity of the water system

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

ACTIVITY_STATUS_CD TINWSF

DTFNUM C117

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-RETAIL-POP-SERVED

DEFINITION The estimated average daily population count for a given type of 

population served

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

AVG_DAILY_CNT TINPOPSV

DTFNUM C121

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-PCT-SURFACE

DEFINITION Annual percentage of water from non-purchased, permanently 

available surface water sources

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

SURF_WTR_RATIO TINWSYS

DTFNUM C123

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-PCT-GROUND

DEFINITION Annual percentage of water from non-purchased, permanently 

available ground water sources

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName
44

GRND_WTR_RATIO TINWSYS

DTFNUM C125

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-PCT-PUR-SURFACE

DEFINITION Annual percentage of water from purchased, permanently available 

surface water sources

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

SURF_WTR_PUR_RATIO TINWSYS

DTFNUM C127

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-PCT-PUR-GROUND

DEFINITION Annual percentage of water obtained from purchased, permanently 

available ground water sources

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

GRND_WTR_PUR_RATIO TINWSYS

DTFNUM C149

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-AVG-DAILY-PROD

DEFINITION The average daily gallons of water produced by a PWS

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

AVG_DAILY_PROD_MSR TINWSYS

DTFNUM C151

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-DESIGN-CAP

DEFINITION The total gallons per day of water a PWS was designed and approved 

to produce

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

TOTAL_DSGN_CAP_MSR TINWSYS

DTFNUM C153

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-EMERGENCY-PROD

DEFINITION The gallons per day of water that can be produced by a PWS using 

emergency power generation under its control

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

TTL_EMERG_CAP_MSR TINWSYS
45

DTFNUM C155

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-STORAGE-CAP

DEFINITION Number of gallons of water that can be stored by a PWS

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

D_TTL_STOR_CAP_MSR TINWSYS

DTFNUM C3001

ATTRIBUTE NAME VE-ID

DEFINITION Code used to uniquely identify a specific variance, exemption, or other

 event related to a PWS

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

D_GEN_ID_SRC_CD TFRDEVIA

FED_FISCAL_YR_NUM TFRDEVIA

ST_ASGN_IDENT_NUM TFRDEVIA

DTFNUM C3005

ATTRIBUTE NAME VE-RECORD-TYPE

DEFINITION Code indicating whether the variance exemption data record is a 

variance, exemption, or other event

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

TYPE_CODE TFRDEVIA

DTFNUM C3007

ATTRIBUTE NAME VE-EFFECTIVE-DATE

DEFINITION Date on which variance, exemption, or other event has or will become 

effective

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

EFFECTIVE_DATE TFRDEVIA

DTFNUM C3009

ATTRIBUTE NAME VE-EXPIRATION-DATE

DEFINITION Date on which variance, exemption, or other event has or will expire

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

EXPIRATION_DATE TFRDEVIA
46

DTFNUM C3011

ATTRIBUTE NAME VE-STATUS-CODE

DEFINITION Code used to denote current status of variance, exemption, or other 

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

STATUS_CODE TFRDEVIA

DTFNUM C3013

ATTRIBUTE NAME VE-MODIFIED-MCL

DEFINITION Value used to represent a modified MCL that has been approved as a 

condition of a variance or exemption

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

MODIFIED_MCL_MSR TFRDEVIA

DTFNUM C3019

ATTRIBUTE NAME VE-REASON-CODE

DEFINITION Code representing the reason for which a variance, exemption, or 

other event is being granted to a PWS

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

REASON_CODE TFRDEVIA

DTFNUM C3029

ATTRIBUTE NAME VE-ALT-MON-FREQUENCY

DEFINITION Number of months representing an alternative monitoring frequency 

for the given contaminant

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

ALT_MONITORING_RT TFRDEVIA

DTFNUM C3101

ATTRIBUTE NAME VE-SCHEDULE-ID

DEFINITION Code uniquely identifying a specific V/E schedule related to the 

variance, exemption or other event

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

ST_ASGN_IDENT_NUM TFRDSCHD

 DTFNUM C3103
47

ATTRIBUTE NAME VE-ACTION

DEFINITION Code representing an event or action to be taken by relating to a 

variance, exemption or other event

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

ACTION_CODE TFRDSCHD

DTFNUM C3105

ATTRIBUTE NAME VE-SCHEDULE-DATE

DEFINITION Calendar date on which a schedule event or action relating to V/E 

record is or was scheduled to occur

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

PLANNED_DATE TFRDSCHD

DTFNUM C3107

ATTRIBUTE NAME VE-ACCOM-DATE

DEFINITION Calendar date on which a schedule event or action relating to a V/E 

record was accomplished, if completed

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

ACTUAL_DATE TFRDSCHD

DTFNUM C409

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-SE-AVAILABILITY

DEFINITION The circumstances under which a source of water or facility is utilized

 by a PWS

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

AVAILABILITY_CODE TINWSF

DTFNUM C427

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-RIVER-REACH

DEFINITION The hydrologic unit code and the segment number for the location of 

the source or entity being reported

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

USGS_HYDRO_UNIT_CD TINWSF

DTFNUM C429

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-ON-REACH
48

DEFINITION Value representing whether a source of water is on or off a defined 

river reach

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

ON_RVR_RCH_IND_CD TINWSF

DTFNUM C431

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-REACH-MILES

DEFINITION The distance of a surface intake in relationship to the downstream end 

of the river reach

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

RVR_RCH_MILES_QTY TINWSF

DTFNUM C483

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-SE-TREATMENT-OBJECTIVE 5

DEFINITION Identifies specific objective to be obtain through treatment

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

TYPE_CODE TFRDEVIA

DTFNUM C485

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-SE- TREATMENT-PROCESS

DEFINITION Identifies the specific treatment process used at a source or plant

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

TYPE_CODE TFRDEVIA

DTFNUM C513

ATTRIBUTE NAME PWS-GA-CITY-SERVED

DEFINITION Name of the city, community or jurisdiction being served by the PWS

DATA ELEMENT NAME TableName

FIPS_CODE TINGEOAR
49

Appendix D

Proposed Draft Guiding Principles for

Information Requirements in the Rule Development Process

The ASDWA/EPA Data Management Steering Committee is developing a proposal for criteria that EPA

could consider in the development of information requirements for new rules. An early draft of these

principles includes the following concepts for these criteria:

1. Focus on essential data at local, State and Federal levels for public health protection;

2. Not all data needs to be reported at all levels;

3. Include data management representatives and consider information requirements early in the rule process;

4. Describe reporting burden in sufficient detail;

5. Have rule managers be accountable for making sure that reporting requirements and burden are adequately

considered and clearly defined;

6. Be consistent across rules to reduce overlap of reporting;

7. Keep an outcome-based focus during the rule development process.

8. Improve communication throughout the development process with states to better determine the impact

the changes will have on data management.

9. Standardize data elements and definitions, including Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) and Return to

Compliance (RTC)

10. Improve the process for determining the start date for monitoring and reporting for more effective and

efficient implementation, such as: consolidate all dates for monitoring and reporting to a single date each

year.

11. Incorporate reporting timetables into the standard monitoring framework of 3/6/9 years, where

applicable, to reduce “scattered” deadlines.

12. Evaluate or understand how other programs in the Agency may be using or gathering data that could be

used to meet drinking water data needs.

13. Recognize shifts in information technology that could benefit system development, maintenance and use.
50

Appendix E

The Need for Single, Unique Data Identifiers

EPA does not have a policy concerning the reporting of Facility Identification Numbers and associated data,

except that they be updated annually. Therefore, the agency cannot consistently and confidently identify

facilities over time. Therefore, users cannot reliably refer to “points of interest” within Public Water Systems

(PWSs) in SDWIS/FED, EPA’s drinking water compliance database of record.

EPA and its repository of PWS information, SDWIS\FED, has almost totally depended on primacy agencies

to provide information on the inventory of PWSs under their purview. The SDWA requires primacy agencies

to provide the EPA with updates to their inventory or PWSs on an annual basis. Most primacy agencies

comply with this requirement, some providing this information more frequently. A small percentage of states

update EPA less frequently. PWSs are uniquely identified by a 9 character PWS Identification Numbers

(PWS-IDs) assigned by primacy agencies. Generally, they have been assigned under a range of numbering

conventions and reqorting with varying frequencies. In cases where primacy agencies needed to re-number

one or more PWSs, the primacy agencies have typically provided EPA with a table identifying old PWS-IDs

and new PWS-IDs. While not perfect, this informal process has worked sufficiently well to preclude most

problems relating to PWS Identification. However, the process allows considerable variety and inconsistency

from state to state.

The PWS inventory information that states are required to report includes both general characteristics of

PWSs (e.g., Retail Population Served, PWS type, Active or Inactive) as well a significant amount of data

describing the points of interest within a PWS of concern to US EPA. These points of interest include all

sources of water for the PWS, all treatment plants associated with a PWS, all places where sampling occurs

in support of EPA studies. Points of interest are generally referred to as “PWS-Facilities” and generally can

be described as having some spatial characteristic and must be reported according to US EPA’s Locational

Data Policy. PWS-Facilities are uniquely identified within a PWS by a PWS Facility Identification Number. 

These numbers may be assigned by either the primacy agency or by EPA.

Since no EPA policy has existed concerning the reporting of Facility Identification Numbers EPA cannot

consistently and confidently identify facilities over time. Contributing to this problem are, at a minimum, the

following:

1. EPA will “generate” a PWS Facility Identification Number if the primacy agency instructs EPA to do so.

2. EPA will “generate” a Treatment Plant for a source of water and a PWS Facility Identification Number

for that treatment plant if the primacy agency instructs EPA to do so.

3. EPA’s maximum length for a PWS Facility Identification Number is 5 numbers, and this is frequently of

insufficient length (e.g., the primacy agency assigns a longer PWS Facility Identification Number because the

longer ID number meets primacy agency requirements, however, a shorter number, 5 digits, is assigned when

the data is reported to the US EPA).

4. Since no policy exists, primacy agencies may re-number their facilities at states’ discretion.

5. In its production database (SDWIS\FED) does not keep track of previously reported facilities.

6. Data related to PWS facilities, and gathered by organizations other than the primacy agency, cannot be

consistently and reliably associated with the facilities in SDWIS\FED.

What are options for long- and short-term solutions? Note that short-term options must be attainable in a

reasonably short time, enforceable, and consistently usable while minimizing burden and cost. Also, shortterm solutions may be constrained by limitations in SDWIS/FED design and/or current data transfer metheds,

but long-term solutions would not.
FY2000 IB SDWIS/FED Factoids

FY2000 Inventory data

Active, current systems, from SDWIS/FED 00Q4 frozen inventory table

System size

by population served Very Small Small Medium Large Very Large Total

500 or less 501-3,300 3,301-10,000 10,001-100,000 >100,000

# systems 31,688 14,149 4,458 3,416 353 54,064

Pop. served 5,148,696 19,931,399 25,854,061 96,709,145 116,282,810 263,926,111

% of systems 59% 26% 8% 6% 1% 100%

% of pop 2% 8% 10% 37% 44% 100%

# systems 17,598 2,839 96 23 3 20,559

Pop. served 2,440,352 2,795,510 480,243 620,719 579,937 6,916,761

% of systems 86% 14% 0% 0% 0% 100%

% of pop 35% 40% 7% 9% 8% 100%

# systems 90,391 2,632 130 54 3 93,210

Pop. served 7,521,276 2,617,526 731,889 1,329,043 735,001 12,934,735

% of systems 97% 3% 0% 0% 0% 100%

% of pop 58% 20% 6% 10% 6% 100%

Total # systems 139,677 19,620 4,684 3,493 359 167,833

CWS Community Water System

NTNCWS Non-Transient Non-Community Water System

TNCWS Transient Non-Community Water System

System source

 Type Ground Water Surface Water Totals 

# systems 42,661 11,403 54,064

Pop. served 85,868,456 178,057,655 263,926,111

% of systems 79% 21% 100%

% of pop 33% 67% 100%

# systems 19,738 821 20,559

Pop. served 5,984,416 932,345 6,916,761

% of systems 96% 4% 100%

% of pop 87% 13% 100%

# systems 91,298 1,912 93,210

Pop. served 12,017,370 917,365 12,934,735

% of systems 98% 2% 100%

% of pop 93% 7% 100%

Total # systems 153,697 14,136 167,833

 103,870,242 179,907,365

Ground water systems = ground water (GW), purchased ground water (GWP)

Surface water systems = surface water (SW), purchased surface water (SWP), 

ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GU),

purchased ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GUP).

SDWIS/FED 00Q4 tables are "frozen" in early January 2001

Additional drinking water data tables are available at the website listed below

NTNCWS

TNCWS

CWS

NTNCWS

TNCWS

CWS

1/25/01 12:38 PM

IB SDWIS/FED Factoids

www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html Lee Kyle 202/260-1154

Appendix F
FY2000 data--by State

Active, current systems, from SDWIS/FED 00Q4 frozen inventory table Key: # systems

Health-based (TT & MCL) violations, from 00Q4 frozen violations table Pop served

CWS NTNCWS TNCWS Total Ground Surface

 442 208 995 1,645 1,395 250 77 17%

 445,954 45,579 105,725 597,258 294,842 302,416 62,040 14%

 575 38 89 702 455 247 21 4%

 4,934,311 25,090 8,500 4,967,901 1,455,370 3,512,531 120,996 2%

 726 114 359 1,199 850 349 104 14%

 2,258,368 12,597 17,789 2,288,754 909,925 1,378,829 179,370 8%

 799 216 672 1,687 1,573 114 68 9%

 4,356,171 149,965 158,447 4,664,583 1,491,970 3,172,613 387,396 9%

 3,283 1,290 3,573 8,146 7,030 1,116 181 6%

 34,084,987 584,333 1,111,711 35,781,031 9,386,226 26,394,805 1,939,618 6%

 830 166 1,105 2,101 1,636 465 43 5%

 3,835,139 54,404 221,455 4,110,998 564,841 3,546,157 375,303 10%

 599 627 2,479 3,705 3,636 69 67 11%

 2,648,571 125,787 80,540 2,854,898 508,833 2,346,065 53,286 2%

 2 2 2 0%

 595,000 595,000 595,000 0%

 240 96 215 551 546 5 18 8%

 605,342 24,192 53,476 683,010 225,785 457,225 101,907 17%

 2,009 1,083 3,515 6,607 6,545 62 83 4%

 15,655,773 285,318 297,517 16,238,608 14,009,538 2,229,070 568,565 4%

 1,673 276 623 2,572 2,361 211 52 3%

 6,560,186 79,736 116,078 6,756,000 1,639,424 5,116,576 62,308 1%

 121 14 6 141 122 19 8 7%

 1,262,878 7,307 2,450 1,272,635 1,183,658 88,977 68,494 5%

 1,153 167 612 1,932 1,776 156 64 6%

 2,575,716 46,942 80,213 2,702,871 1,448,927 1,253,944 126,386 5%

 747 258 1,075 2,080 1,991 89 114 15%

 907,653 55,155 125,908 1,088,716 832,503 256,213 155,469 17%

 1,801 438 3,562 5,801 5,118 683 258 14%

 10,947,281 157,030 395,476 11,499,787 3,252,037 8,247,750 1,032,236 9%

 916 759 3,162 4,837 4,715 122 124 14%

 4,119,623 492,393 364,396 4,976,412 2,705,505 2,270,907 301,173 7%

 917 35 127 1,079 748 331 93 10%

 2,418,352 14,364 14,287 2,447,003 773,298 1,673,705 121,863 5%

 467 89 156 712 322 390 18 4%

 4,294,353 31,569 11,494 4,337,416 329,847 4,007,569 131,715 3%

 1,207 213 400 1,820 1,737 83 108 9%

 5,162,586 82,274 95,925 5,340,785 3,267,000 2,073,785 321,738 6%

 513 224 891 1,628 1,446 182 125 24%

 8,640,236 70,774 160,019 8,871,029 2,017,089 6,853,940 4,997,224 58%

 511 572 2,732 3,815 3,738 77 35 7%

 4,614,127 160,236 141,310 4,915,673 818,033 4,097,640 60,854 1%

 399 455 1,249 2,103 2,027 76 86 22%

 611,531 72,718 203,762 888,011 469,260 418,751 215,096 35%

 1,472 1,826 9,052 12,350 12,047 303 89 6%

 7,044,085 504,705 1,108,745 8,657,535 3,328,383 5,329,152 114,019 2%

 953 646 6,753 8,352 8,239 113 24 3%

 3,798,571 100,705 393,760 4,293,036 2,878,930 1,414,106 33,252 1%

 1,439 235 1,027 2,701 2,454 247 133 9%

 4,715,214 79,873 149,546 4,944,633 1,796,583 3,148,050 88,592 2%

 1,228 117 140 1,485 1,477 8 51 4%

 2,876,508 87,810 26,393 2,990,711 2,880,102 110,609 257,681 9%

AK

AL

AR

AZ

CA

CO

CT

MN

MO

MS

MA

MD

ME

MI

IN

KS

KY

LA

 CWSs w/ reported 

health-based violations 

DC

DE

FL

GA

HI

IA

ID

IL

1/25/01 12:38 PM

IB SDWIS/FED Factoids

www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html Lee Kyle 202/260-1154
FY2000 data--by State, cont.

Active, current systems, from SDWIS/FED 00Q4 frozen inventory table Key: # systems

Health-based (TT & MCL) violations, from 00Q4 frozen violations table Pop served

CWS NTNCWS TNCWS Total Ground Surface

 645 225 1,153 2,023 1,801 222 45 7%

 2,716,262 44,769 165,756 2,926,787 2,064,878 861,909 103,982 4%

 2,374 658 4,479 7,511 6,955 556 166 7%

 5,794,107 193,761 412,002 6,399,870 1,942,355 4,457,515 188,836 3%

 321 29 200 550 469 81 31 10%

 555,123 3,958 17,152 576,233 222,900 353,333 22,058 4%

 619 178 532 1,329 1,300 29 197 32%

 1,392,476 43,190 66,639 1,502,305 946,096 556,209 267,605 19%

 674 446 1,036 2,156 2,102 54 125 19%

 766,072 88,587 207,906 1,062,565 567,170 495,395 59,799 8%

 602 940 2,737 4,279 4,182 97 41 7%

 7,678,147 279,033 351,179 8,308,359 3,028,425 5,279,934 1,172,024 15%

 616 155 503 1,274 1,222 52 85 14%

 1,489,113 34,508 208,412 1,732,033 1,523,385 208,648 96,959 7%

 292 100 283 675 614 61 17 6%

 1,579,690 40,380 59,527 1,679,597 271,798 1,407,799 19,579 1%

 2,868 761 7,001 10,630 9,554 1,076 63 2%

 17,690,198 358,726 856,655 18,905,579 5,488,212 13,417,367 2,076,220 12%

 1,429 1,106 3,404 5,939 5,595 344 33 2%

 10,142,141 275,606 543,094 10,960,841 4,128,314 6,832,527 83,733 1%

 1,171 123 438 1,732 1,016 716 44 4%

 3,434,926 18,645 43,495 3,497,066 714,820 2,782,246 195,553 6%

 884 331 1,430 2,645 2,361 284 177 20%

 3,095,044 69,529 220,176 3,384,749 905,085 2,479,664 186,658 6%

 2,200 1,266 6,923 10,389 9,825 564 105 5%

 10,518,120 509,453 864,529 11,892,102 2,870,279 9,021,823 417,400 4%

 83 71 325 479 454 25 6 7%

 950,151 24,566 53,135 1,027,852 203,572 824,280 60,118 6%

 692 221 614 1,527 1,282 245 81 12%

 3,303,073 75,407 55,421 3,433,901 785,769 2,648,132 751,300 23%

 474 30 214 718 584 134 45 9%

 631,186 3,924 36,049 671,159 288,745 382,414 15,012 2%

 633 60 480 1,173 719 454 29 5%

 5,082,640 30,592 54,130 5,167,362 1,388,694 3,778,668 142,167 3%

 4,574 862 1,429 6,865 5,700 1,165 182 4%

 20,920,423 339,537 288,783 21,548,743 7,253,194 14,295,549 439,618 2%

 430 64 459 953 847 106 41 10%

 2,471,221 47,314 82,361 2,600,896 960,145 1,640,751 148,073 6%

 1,326 623 1,827 3,776 3,416 360 188 14%

 6,496,739 285,368 944,111 7,726,218 1,616,680 6,109,538 122,363 2%

 438 215 694 1,347 1,214 133 56 13%

 502,741 39,473 716,196 1,258,410 747,583 510,827 35,640 7%

 2,300 316 1,595 4,211 3,923 288 272 12%

 5,060,995 263,654 301,376 5,626,025 2,708,630 2,917,395 1,240,497 25%

 1,140 1,020 9,564 11,724 11,679 45 96 8%

 3,645,732 210,193 725,062 4,580,987 2,919,649 1,661,338 551,949 15%

 583 196 635 1,414 1,036 378 37 6%

 1,810,721 101,298 42,424 1,954,443 340,038 1,614,405 103,956 6%

 272 86 378 736 621 115 15 6%

 410,396 16,240 75,279 501,915 182,251 319,664 13,317 3%

 52,662 20,244 92,902 165,808 152,455 13,353 4,221

 258,105,953 6,748,567 12,835,771 102,536,576 175,153,715 20,390,997

UT

VA

WY

WI

OK

NJ

NV

SD

TN

VT

WA

WV

TX

SC

OR

PA

NY

OH

RI

NM

NC

ND

NE

NH

MT

 CWSs w/ reported 

health-based violations 

1/25/01 12:38 PM

IB SDWIS/FED Factoids

www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html Lee Kyle 202/260-1154
FY2000 data--Tribal systems

Active, current systems, from SDWIS/FED 00Q4 frozen inventory table Key: # systems

Health-based (TT & MCL) violations, from 00Q4 frozen violations table Pop served

Region CWS NTNCWS TNCWS Total Ground Surface

 1 2 3 6 6 0%

 120 60 670 850 850 0%

 4 1 5 4 1 0%

 2,929 300 3,229 1,229 2,000 0%

 14 3 23 40 37 3 0%

 15,893 1,225 3,360 20,478 15,957 4,521 0%

 80 34 11 125 123 2 7 9%

 34,762 28,762 646 64,170 63,681 489 417 1%

 41 8 20 69 67 2 14 34%

 63,536 966 1,329 65,831 57,305 8,526 24,768 39%

 9 4 13 12 1 2 22%

 6,173 525 6,698 6,200 498 3,298 53%

 107 9 1 117 100 17 10 9%

 66,660 4,511 26 71,197 50,609 20,588 4,493 7%

 406 21 71 498 462 36 11 3%

 222,190 10,557 65,184 297,931 259,853 38,078 5,428 2%

 86 13 5 104 99 5 11 13%

 24,586 4,525 485 29,596 25,340 4,256 3,866 16%

 748 90 139 977 910 67 55

 436,849 50,606 72,525 481,024 78,956 42,270

FY2000 data--Commonwealths and Territories

Active, current systems, from SDWIS/FED 00Q4 frozen inventory table Key: # systems

Health-based (TT & MCL) violations, from 00Q4 frozen violations table Pop served

CWS NTNCWS TNCWS Total Ground Surface

 22 22 12 10 14 64%

 52,458 52,458 49,618 2,840 6,045 12%

 10 2 12 8 4 0%

 109,070 770 109,840 20,990 88,850 0%

 30 6 7 43 43 0%

 50,769 3,039 620 54,428 54,428 0%

 438 46 6 490 263 227 313 71%

 5,059,931 38,836 2,215 5,100,982 722,633 4,378,349 4,197,044 83%

 16 2 18 2 16 0%

 12,060 1,163 13,223 400 12,823 0%

 138 169 156 463 4 459 9 7%

 99,021 73,780 23,604 196,405 4,573 191,832 1,009 1%

 654 225 169 1,048 332 716 336

 5,383,309 117,588 26,439 852,642 4,674,694 4,204,098

Amer. 

Samoa

Virgin 

Islands

Guam

N. Marianas 

Islands

Puerto Rico

Palau

08

09

10

04

 CWSs w/ reported 

health-based violations 

 CWSs w/ reported 

health-based violations 

05

06

07

01

02

1/25/01 12:38 PM

IB SDWIS/FED Factoids

www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html Lee Kyle 202/260-1154
GPRA

% of population served by CWSs without any reported health-based violations

Nationally

2000 91%

1999 91%

1998 89%

1997 87%

1996 86%

1995 84%

1994 83%

1993 79%

By region

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

2000 62% 76% 97% 95% 95% 96% 95% 94% 94% 83%

1999 75% 61% 98% 95% 95% 95% 95% 94% 97% 94%

1998 64% 60% 97% 95% 95% 95% 94% 93% 95% 89%

1997 62% 55% 97% 93% 92% 93% 95% 91% 95% 74%

1996 60% 53% 92% 93% 92% 94% 95% 92% 91% 74%

1995 57% 52% 91% 92% 92% 89% 95% 90% 88% 75%

1994 57% 55% 87% 90% 88% 87% 94% 91% 90% 87%

1993 60% 56% 85% 90% 77% 92% 93% 92% 69% 85%

CT NJ DE AL IL AR IA CO AZ AK

ME NY DC FL IN LA KS MT CA ID

MA PR MD GA MI NM MO ND HI OR

NH VI PA KY MN OK NE SD NV WA

RI VA MS OH TX UT AS

VT WV NC WI WY GU

SC MP

TN PW

Health-based violations include Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and Treatment Technique (TT) violations.

Population data are based on active, current water systems

For FY2000, population and violation data are from SDWIS/FED 00Q4 frozen tables.

For FY1999, population and violation data are from SDWIS/FED 99Q4 frozen tables.

For FY1998, population and violation data are from SDWIS/FED 98Q4 frozen tables.

For FY1997 and earlier, population and violation data are from SDWIS/FED 98Q1 frozen tables.

1/25/01 12:38 PM

IB SDWIS/FED Factoids

www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html Lee Kyle 202/260-1154
CWS violations reported

by FY FY2000 data from SDWIS/FED 00Q4 frozen tables, except for Chem M/Rs which will be from 01Q1

FY1999 data from SDWIS/FED 99Q4 frozen tables, except for Chem M/Rs which are from 00Q1

FY1998 data from SDWIS/FED 98Q4 frozen tables, except for Chem M/Rs which are from 99Q1

FY1997 and earlier data from SDWIS 98Q1 frozen tables

Number of violations

FY MCL TT M/R Other* Total

2000 4,753 3,045 10,650

1999 5,528 2,246 58,384 1,038 67,196

1998 6,340 2,520 54,440 1,614 64,914

1997 5,804 2,743 64,385 1,471 74,403

1996 7,391 3,078 121,253 1,151 132,873

1995 7,147 3,766 139,072 1,983 151,968

Number of systems in violation

FY MCL TT M/R Other* Total **

2000 3,160 1,677 8,948

1999 3,321 1,057 9,447 627 12,151

1998 3,746 1,105 10,002 899 13,024

1997 3,721 1,109 10,949 860 14,016

1996 4,411 1,329 13,039 738 16,418

1995 4,652 1,795 14,584 959 18,230

Population affected

FY MCL TT M/R Other* Total **

2000 11,946,983 15,391,464 13,882,763

1999 11,079,343 15,854,722 19,868,126 2,529,718 38,161,938

1998 10,393,015 18,485,545 28,313,863 2,369,301 48,945,871

1997 13,848,094 22,059,698 27,224,547 3,879,160 58,086,370

1996 16,040,225 22,683,315 32,529,745 4,671,792 63,686,726

1995 23,547,689 26,409,050 40,672,345 8,707,791 73,201,326

by system size

Number of violations

MCL TT M/R Other Total

Very small 3,046 1,604 7,973

Small 1,122 850 1,996

Medium 318 249 447

Large 251 294 219

Very large 16 48 15

Number of systems in violation

MCL TT M/R Other Total **

Very small 2,001 944 6,592

Small 710 435 1,738

Medium 251 124 412

Large 186 152 193

Very large 12 22 13

Population affected

MCL TT M/R Other Total **

Very small 324,588 161,408 949,875

Small 999,776 600,020 2,309,815

Medium 1,574,032 740,753 2,350,790

Large 4,449,100 4,790,097 4,693,943

Very large 4,599,487 9,099,186 3,578,340

* Jump in FY2000 due to new violations for failing to issue, or issuing an insufficient, Consumer Confidence report

** Totals for the number of systems in violation, and for population affected, should be lower than the sum in each row.

This is because some systems will have incurred more than one type of violation.

1/25/01 12:38 PM

IB SDWIS/FED Factoids

www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html Lee Kyle 202/260-1154
NTNCWS violations reported

FY2000 data from SDWIS/FED 00Q4 frozen tables, except for Chem M/Rs, which will be from 01Q1

FY1999 data from SDWIS/FED 99Q4 frozen tables, except for Chem M/Rs which are from 00Q1

FY1998 data from SDWIS/FED 98Q4 frozen tables, except for Chem M/Rs which are from 99Q1

FY1997 and earlier data from SDWIS/FED 98Q1 frozen tables

Number of violations

FY MCL TT M/R Other Total

2000 1,245 837 201

1999 1,349 225 25,796 120 27,490

1998 1,322 165 26,043 255 27,785

1997 1,349 202 28,249 159 29,959

1996 1,792 405 53,345 189 55,731

1995 1,672 659 54,543 255 57,129

Number of systems in violation

FY MCL TT M/R Other Total *

2000 924 580 162

1999 958 178 3,629 88 4,398

1998 945 103 3,942 157 4,672

1997 985 98 4,623 105 5,355

1996 1,281 252 6,066 134 6,945

1995 1,244 416 6,275 166 7,272

Population affected

FY MCL TT M/R Other Total *

2000 276,448 217,596 36,519

1999 292,367 53,500 848,516 34,947 1,112,853

1998 232,755 23,963 994,786 47,772 1,187,783

1997 280,021 32,041 1,241,807 33,877 1,483,754

1996 380,187 93,138 1,435,181 30,201 1,736,465

1995 392,311 150,148 1,684,183 49,236 2,010,395

TNCWS violations reported

Number of violations

FY MCL TT M/R Other Total

2000 4,407 314 908

1999 4,956 226 36,266 752 42,200

1998 5,201 284 28,116 2,159 35,760

1997 5,408 379 32,581 1,794 40,162

1996 5,934 564 55,420 1,810 63,728

1995 4,879 492 48,843 2,082 56,296

Number of systems in violation

FY MCL TT M/R Other Total *

2000 3,634 182 652

1999 3,876 140 19,694 498 22,233

1998 3,799 90 15,997 1,115 18,771

1997 4,070 128 17,497 975 20,532

1996 4,539 150 25,614 1,064 28,520

1995 3,857 153 25,075 1,161 27,689

Population affected

FY MCL TT M/R Other Total *

2000 507,741 46,201 78,494

1999 646,469 42,582 2,217,212 63,264 2,706,984

1998 481,642 58,801 2,102,061 143,464 2,458,001

1997 539,292 62,557 2,230,009 128,471 2,651,801

1996 625,342 48,098 3,411,919 115,250 3,731,987

1995 671,739 65,295 3,219,663 128,290 3,622,946

* Totals for the number of systems in violation, and for population affected, should be lower than the sum in each row.

This is because some systems will have incurred more than one type of violation.

1/25/01 12:38 PM

IB SDWIS/FED Factoids

www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html Lee Kyle 202/260-1154
FY2000 MCL and TT violations reported

From SDWIS/FED 00Q4 frozen violations table Key: # violations

# systems

Pop. affected

Very small Small Medium Large Very Large

25-500 501-3,300 3,301-10,000 10,001-100,000 >100,000 Total

Applies to all water systems

 7,481 1,066 284 197 11 9,039

 5,824 766 234 155 9 6,988

 640,751 1,008,878 1,480,350 3,712,812 3,726,152 10,568,943

Organics: Applies to CWS and NTNCWS

 2 6 20 28

 2 3 10 15

 146 2,890 206,809 209,845

 47 8 4 5 2 66

 28 8 3 4 1 44

 3,632 16,647 23,579 94,325 535,335 673,518

 8 5 1 2 16

 5 4 1 1 11

 790 4,579 14,390 180,000 199,759

Inorganics: Applies to CWS and NTNCWS

 624 157 13 9 1 804

 377 67 7 5 1 457

 44,431 87,287 30,444 142,829 158,000 462,991

 67 15 8 2 92

 43 8 7 2 60

 8,615 10,549 35,924 42,058 97,146

Applies to CWS

 166 130 25 25 346

 89 72 18 16 195

 18,685 100,322 98,611 356,727 574,345

Applies to surface water systems

 1,236 588 180 197 33 2,234

 518 235 84 97 11 945

 91,012 328,257 508,909 3,163,152 6,729,982 10,821,312

Applies to CWS and NTNCWS

 1,381 390 76 100 15 1,962

 1,078 320 51 84 15 1,548

 158,200 388,147 285,072 2,666,466 4,577,567 8,075,452

TCR/T

SWTR

TTHM (VOC)

Other VOC

SOC

Lead & Copper

Radionuclides

Nitrates

Other IOC

1/25/01 12:38 PM

IB SDWIS/FED Factoids

www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html Lee Kyle 202/260-1154
FY2000 M/R violations reported

From SDWIS/FED 00Q4 frozen violations table (except for Chem M/Rs) Key: # violations

Chem M/R data will be from SDWIS/FED 01Q1 frozen violations table (April 2001) # systems

Pop. affected

Very small Small Medium Large Very Large

25-500 501-3,300 3,301-10,000 10,001-100,000 >100,000 Total

Applies to all water systems

 33,842 2,661 458 220 20 37,201

 19,739 1,723 324 172 10 21,968

 1,991,992 2,127,499 1,868,571 4,965,205 3,556,204 14,509,471

Organics: Applies to CWS and NTNCWS

Inorganics: Applies to CWS and NTNCWS

Applies to CWS

 33,842 2,661 458 220 20 37,201

 19,739 1,723 324 172 10 21,968

 1,991,992 2,127,499 1,868,571 4,965,205 3,556,204 14,509,471

Applies to surface water systems

 1,868 439 110 70 33 2,520

 445 144 50 40 11 690

 71,431 191,121 270,656 1,380,844 3,419,872 5,333,924

Applies to CWS and NTNCWS

 11,281 1,794 414 272 25 13,786

 8,424 1,396 326 209 20 10,375

 1,099,127 1,692,760 1,857,371 6,448,697 4,796,504 15,894,459

Lead & Copper

TCR/T

SWTR

Nitrates

Other IOC

Radionuclides

TTHM (VOC)

Other VOC

SOC

1/25/01 12:38 PM

IB SDWIS/FED Factoids

www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html Lee Kyle 202/260-1154
60

Appendix G

Questions & Answers about Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act

Amendments of 1998

Source: The Access Board web site, http://www.access-board.gov/news/508-final.htm

 1) What is Section 508?

Section 508 is a part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which requires that electronic and information

technology developed, procured, maintained, or used by the Federal government be accessible to people with

disabilities. On August 7, 1998, the President signed into law the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, which

includes the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. Section 508 was originally added to the Rehabilitation

Act in 1986; the 1998 amendments significantly expand and strengthen the technology access requirements in

Section 508.

2) How do these changes to Section 508 improve upon the earlier version?

The 1986 version of Section 508 established non-binding guidelines for technology accessibility, while the

1998 version creates binding, enforceable standards and will incorporate these standards into Federal

procurement regulations. Federal agencies will use these standards in all their electronic and information

technology acquisitions. Consistent government-wide standards will make it easier for Federal agencies to

meet their existing obligations to make their technology systems accessible to people with disabilities, and

will promote competition in the technology industry by clarifying the Federal market's requirement for

accessibility in products intended for general use. The new version of Section 508 also establishes a

complaint procedure and reporting requirements, which further strengthen the law.

3) To whom does Section 508 apply?

Section 508 applies to Federal departments and agencies. 

4) Does Section 508 apply to the private sector?

No, it does not regulate the private sector and does not apply to recipients of Federal funds. 

5) What does Section 508 require of Federal agencies and departments?

Section 508 requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and

information technology, they must ensure that it is accessible to people with disabilities, unless it would pose

an undue burden to do so. Federal employees and members of the public who have disabilities must have

access to and use of information and services that is comparable to the access and use available to

non-disabled Federal employees and members of the public.

6) How will Federal agencies and departments know whether the electronic and information

technology is accessible?

New standards have been established to help Federal agencies determine whether or not a technology product

or system is accessible. Federal agencies must comply with these technology accessibility standards for all

electronic and information technology acquired on or after six months from the date the Access Board issued
61

its final standards (December 21, 2000). Technology developed or acquired for a Federal agency by a

contractor must also comply with the standards. If a Federal agency determines that it would pose an undue

burden to comply with the standards, it must still provide information and data to individuals with disabilities

through an alternative means of access that can be used by the individuals.

7) How will these technology accessibility standards be developed?

The Board was required to issue standards that define which electronic and information technology is

covered by Section 508, and describe what is meant by `accessible technology' by setting forth the technical

and functional performance criteria necessary to implement the accessibility requirements. The Board was

required to consult with the Departments of Education, Commerce, and Defense, the General Services

Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, the electronic and information technology

industry, and disability organizations in developing its standards. The Access Board created an Electronic and

Information Technology Access Advisory Committee (EITAAC) to advise it on the standards. The

Committee's final report was delivered to the Board on May 11, 1999. On March 31, 2000, the Board

published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking based on the Committee's recommendations.

8) How will the standards be applied to federal procurement?

Six months after the Access Board published the final standards, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council

is required to revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation and each Federal department or agency shall revise

the Federal procurement policies and directives under their control to incorporate the standards. The Access

Board will periodically review and update the standards as necessary.

9) What are Federal agencies required to do in the short term to comply with Section 508?

Agencies must evaluate their current electronic and information technology systems for accessibility to

individuals with disabilities, and submit a report to the Attorney General containing the results of the

evaluation. 

10) What reporting requirements does Section 508 create?

The Attorney General must submit a report to the President on the extent to which the electronic and

information technology of the Federal Government is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The

Department of Justice issued its report April 19, 2000. In addition, every two years thereafter the Attorney

General must report to the President and the Congress on Federal agency compliance with the requirements

of the law, and on any actions on individual complaints.

11) Where can Federal agencies go for technical assistance?

The General Services Administration and the Access Board will provide technical assistance on the

requirements of Section 508. Agencies and individuals may also seek information from the many public,

non-profit, educational, or private institutions and organizations that specialize in making technology

accessible to people with disabilities. These organizations, along with companies in the electronic and

information technology industry, can assist agencies in identifying innovative technology or in developing

accessible technology solutions.

12) Are there any exemptions to the technology accessibility standards?
62

A Federal agency does not have to comply with the technology accessibility standards if it would impose an

undue burden to do so. This is consistent with language used in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

and other civil rights legislation, where the term `undue burden' has been defined as "significant difficulty or

expense." However, the agency must explain why meeting the standards would pose an undue burden for a

given procurement action, and must still provide people with disabilities access to the information or data

that is affected.

Section 508 contains a limited exemption for national security systems as defined by the Clinger-Cohen Act

of 1996. These are systems used for military command, weaponry, intelligence, and cryptologic activities.

The exemption does not apply to routine business and administrative systems used for other defense-related

purposes or by defense agencies or personnel.

13) How will Section 508 be enforced?

Because the Section 508 standards will be incorporated into the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR),

agencies' procurement of accessible technology will be subject to the same stringent compliance and

enforcement mechanisms as other parts of the FAR.

There is an administrative complaint process which becomes effective six months after the Board issued its

final standards. It enables any individual with a disability to file a complaint alleging that a Federal

department or agency has not complied with the accessible technology standards in a procurement made after

that date. The complaint process is the same as that used for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, for

complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in Federally-conducted programs or activities. It

provides injunctive relief and attorney's fees to the prevailing party, but does not include compensatory or

punitive damages. 

Individuals may also file a civil action against an agency.

14) What is meant by "electronic and information technology"?

The Access Board defined "electronic and information technology" consistent with the Clinger-Cohen Act of

1996. That Act defines "information technology" to include "any equipment or interconnected system or

subsystem of equipment, that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management,

movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information." It

includes computer hardware, software, networks, and peripherals as well as many electronic and

communications devices commonly used in offices.

15) Does Section 508 apply to Web sites of federal agencies?

Yes. Federal agencies which provide information to the public or to their employees through Web sites must

ensure that such sites are available to all persons with Internet or Intranet access, including persons with

disabilities. 

16) Does this requirement also apply to commercial or private sector Web sites?

No. Section 508 does not apply to a private sector Web site unless such site is provided under contract to a

covered entity. For example, a Federal agency might contract with a consulting firm to collect and analyze

some demographic data and make that information available to the public on a Web site. In that case, the

Web site or portion devoted to fulfilling the contractual obligation would be subject to Section 508. The
63

firm's general Web site, or the portion not devoted to the contracted study, would not be subject to Section

508. 

17) Does this mean Web sites can't have graphics?

Not at all. Actually, designing an accessible Web site is not as difficult as most people believe. Often it is a

matter of identifying graphics, elements, frames, etc. For example, HTML code already provides the

"AltText" tag for graphics which some designers simply forget or ignore. 

18) Won't accessible Web sites be less appealing?

On the contrary, accessible sites have several advantages. For one thing, some people turn off graphics so

sites will load faster. Without "alt" tags, graphics-intense sites may be unusable. Also, with the growth of

PDAs, and even Web site content delivered to cell phones, having text-based content is becoming more

important. Because the screens on such devices are so small, graphics will probably never be a viable option.

So the busy executive, waiting in an airport, who wants to check her stock portfolio on her cell phone isn't

going to turn to the graphics-only site. Furthermore, with the growth of voice technology the harried

commuter can have the headlines from his favorite news site read to him, but only if there is a text-based

content. Finally, if a digitized video has synchronized captions, the text can be searched. 

19) What does the law mean by "accessible'?

The standards developed by the Access Board explain the detailed technical and functional performance

criteria that will determine whether a technology product or system is `accessible.'

In general, an information technology system is accessible to people with disabilities if it can be used in a

variety of ways that do not depend on a single sense or ability. For example, a system that provides output

only in audio format would not be accessible to people with hearing impairments, and a system that requires

mouse actions to navigate would not be accessible to people who cannot use a mouse because of a dexterity

or visual impairment. Section 508 focuses on the overall accessibility of electronic and information 

technology systems, not on providing accommodations at individual work sites. Section 501 of the

Rehabilitation Act requires Federal agencies to provide reasonable accommodations for individuals with

disabilities; it generally covers individual work sites but not overall technology systems. Even with an

accessible system, individuals with disabilities may still need specific accessibility-related software or

peripheral devices as an accommodation to be able to use it. For example, in order to use an accessible

word-processing program, a person who is blind may need add-on software that reads text aloud; if the

word-processing program could not be made compatible with a screen-reading program, it might not be

accessible.

20) How does Section 508 apply to other Federal laws?

Section 508 in no way replaces or otherwise limits the rights or remedies available under any other existing

Federal law that protects the rights of people with disabilities. As part of the Rehabilitation Act, it clarifies

and strengthens the Federal government's existing obligation to ensure that technology is accessible to people

with disabilities.
64

Appendix H

Geospatial Data and Geographic Information System Technology

1. National GIS Program

EPA’s use of GIS technology first started in the mid-1980's in the development of a

GIS application to assist state permit writers to effectively evaluate landfill permits submitted

to EPA. This project with its innovative and unanticipated uses for spatially-referenced data

led to the development of an Agency-wide GIS management structure that was established in

1987 (OAGL0489). During that time the Agency funded support for regional GIS support

teams and promoted standardization for acquiring GIS software, hardware and supporting

relational databases. Further developments in GIS fell to individual program offices

subsequent to Agency office reorganizations. 

The Office of Environmental Information (OEI), formed in 1999, is beginning to frame

a blueprint for an Agency Geospatial Program from an enterprise (as opposed to program)

perspective and link other major activities (such as Central Data Exchange, Facility Registry

System and others) to this initiative. This document is also intended as the foundation for

setting the Agency’s involvement in interagency geospatial efforts. The blueprint will present

EPA’s “vision” for an Agency-wide geospatial program. The blueprint will lay out program

needs and the direction and priorities for the Agency Geospatial Program over the next five

years in the data, technology infrastructure, applications/tools, access, and partnerships

arenas. This includes, but is not limited to GIS, remote sensing, visualization and

georeferencing activities. This blueprint effort will build on the Baseline Report on Agency

Geospatial Activities to be completed in Fall 2000. The purpose of the Baseline Report on

Agency Geospatial Activities is to document key geospatial activities and associated resources

across EPA. OEI has conducted a series of structured interviews with headquarters, regional,

and laboratory programs as well as geospatially oriented initiatives. OEI will also review the

results of the baseline assessment and, to the extent possible, identify needs requirements and

convene a series of users requirements meetings. Once completed, the Baseline Report will

be provided to key EPA offices and officials, and OEI’s external stakeholders. 

In addition, the Office of Water (OW) is currently developing a (separate) information

strategic plan (ISP) that will likely incorporate a coordinated geospatial effort across OW. 

The OW plan will describe future business needs, document the current inventory of

geospatial activities and technologies, and provide plans for spatial integration across the

office. 

2. Agency Locational Data Policy

The basis for all locational data in EPA is the Locational Data Policy (LDP) issued in

1991. The Agency LDP applies a standard to all programs which record locational

information. This standard issued in April 1991 (LDP, 1991) lists five mandatory and nine

optional data elements in addition to the required latitude and longitude coordinates. The

business rules for the data standard was issued on February 1, 2000 (EPA, 2000). It provides

the roles and responsibilities for implementing the standard. It is noted that the LDP applies

to (single) point locations and that the documentation requirements for linear or polygonal
65

locations are established by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). OGWDW

provided guidance on the locational data requirements for SDWIS in August 1998 (OGWDW,

1998) which specifically addresses public water supplies (PWS) that require locational

coordinates and sets the information coding standards and collection schedule for obtaining

this data. 

Fortunately, EPA has established GIS software and telecommunications standards to

track the guiding principles outlined in the 1991 policy. These standards allow for an “open

system architecture” that promotes the sharing of information both within and outside EPA. 

The Agency has adopted the Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. (ESRI)

architecture as the standard geographic information system (EPA, 1993). ARCINFO® and

ArcView® are the primary ESRI GIS applications. 

ARCINFO®, which runs primarily on Intel-based workstations and servers, provides

GIS staff with a large array of tools for developing GIS applications and managing large

databases. ArcView® in contrast is an easier to use application with fewer “whistles and

bells.” However, the needs of users have driven the technology so rapidly that many more

advanced application tools are being added to “simpler” software packages making

distinctions quite minimal for the average user. 

GIS tools allow for map automation, data conversion, map overlay, and spatial

analysis. The database defines map elements and their relationship to other elements, and it

binds data to each element. The application includes: command line interface, application

programming language, relational database analysis, and extensive peripheral support. 

3. OGWDW Locational Data Review 

The importance of conducting a user needs assessment or requirements analysis of

OGWDW programs should be part of the ISP. A user needs assessment refers to the

identification, evaluation, prioritization and communication of mapping, surveying,

geographic and related spatial data requirements to fulfill the mission of the Agency (SDMP,

1992). It is indeed necessary for the user and management to develop its own specific

guidance and models on how GIS will be used in the office before any decisions are made on

the selection of the technology. In addition, up-to-date comparisons of available technologies

are required to assess these needs. A GIS capability must be built around the needs of EPA,

and specifically, OGWDW programs. The needs of the programs need to be identified from

the beginning as these lay the basis and priorities for implementing a GIS. GIS is a tool that

will be used to assist the program managers in the mission of the office.
66

Appendix I

US EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Goals for 2005

As required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, US EPA has,

in conjunction with states, tribes , and other stakeholders, established performance-based goals

for 2005 which are objective, quantifiable, and measurable.

OVERALL GOAL: By 2005, protect human health so that 95% of population served by

community water systems will receive water that meets health-based

drinking water standards ... for

Watersheds

By 2005, 50% of the population served by community water systems will receive their water

from systems with source water protection programs in place.

By 2005, increase protection of ground water resources by managing all Class I, II and III

injection wells and by managing identified, high-risk Class V wells in 100% of high priority

protection areas (e.g., wellhead , source water, sole source aquifer, etc.).

By 2005, protect drinking water sources by increasing by 50% the waters that meet the

drinking water use that States designate under the Clean Water Act.

Treatment

By 2003, provide a stronger scientific basis for future implementation of Safe Drinking Water

Act.

By 2005, standards that establish protective levels for an additional 10 high-risk contaminants

(disinfection byproducts, arsenic, radon) will be issued.

Users

By 2001, every customer served by a community water system will have access to a consumer

confidence report that contains information about the systems’s source water and the quality

of the drinking water.

By 2005,

• the population served by community water systems providing drinking water that

meets all 1994 health-based standards will increase to 95% from a baseline of 83% in

1994.

• 95% compliance will be achieved for any new standards within 5 years after the

effective date of each rule.